Your analysis points in the right direction, but doesn’t go far enough. The anti establishment “make love not war” radicals of the 60s have morphed into the pro-war establishment. Along the way their neo Marxist, post modern collectivist philosophy worshipping Big Brother as their jihadi savior leading the war against poverty, war on crime, war against drugs, war against terror, and war against disease.
I might have more to say after I read the comments, which are also so informed and intelligent.
First, thanks for making me laugh with these spot-on descriptions- doesn't matter where you are in the country, this is their song. 4
I had a talk with someone who disappeared for the past two years, prides herself on being very loving(TM) and caring(TM) but during the conversation admitted that in her imagination she is a bit of an authoritatian and if we could just take the guns away from boys and give them to little girls (pink toy ones) so that when they got to be teenagers they could understand it was THEIR job to defend society and they wouldn't be powerless and they'd do a much better job than the men... and I realized that some wires must've gotten crossed, for her and for everyone else who is singing the Loving Fascists Song. Somehow their personal bugaboo, whatever it is, has gotten pulled into the covid saga and made it okay to hate "Them." When I asked her if she thought it was okay to force a medical procedure on someone, the answer was no but is WAS okay to make their life impossible if they didn't "agree to it." Because it's for Their Own Good (TM)!
You might enjoy the work of Josh Slocum at Disaffected Podcast. He's been pointing out Mommy Munchies and the Cluster B personality types that have taken hold of nearly every establishment. Quite on point and also hilariously funny at times. Josh is also a huge defender of children-- he was abused, and knows how helpless they are.
I wonder if anything will change even if the Dems lose power in upcoming elections. Frankly, it seems like full-on psychosis has taken over. Critical thinking is now scoffed at! To me, the scariest thing is how quick people are to defend subservience to “authorities “: if you so much as QUESTION pharma, you are attacked with “are you a doctor??? No? Well then you have no right to an opinion!” This is said earnestly. Remember at Halloween people had gravestone decorations that said “I did my own research”?! It’s shocking how huge amounts of people think it is somehow smart (and virtuous!) to blindly follow authority. And yeah, all of the rest of the woke nonsense.
I think you’re correct, and probably not taking your observations far enough toward their logical conclusions.
The situation reminds me of Flannery O’Connor’s observation: “tenderness leads to the gas chamber.”
The last couple of years, one of the things I’ve been trying to figure out is how the legal system is engaged in the whole thing, because I’ve been so confused by the failure of human and Constitutional-rights based claims to make it to the discovery and trial phase, and by the failure of judges to simply rule on the pleadings that the executive overreach is unconstitutional and therefore void. (Among other work over the last 20 years, I’ve worked as a paralegal helping trial lawyers with civil rights cases).
In late January, I listened to a podcast with Todd Callender, an attorney who has pieced together a lot of it,
After listening to Callender’s interview twice, I spent three weeks tracking down the legal citations and Federal Register entries about the legal structures he described, so that I could write it up for people who prefer to read to get information.
I’m working on a shorter summary tl;dr version (that one is a long-read.)
And will continue to go down that research and writing rabbit hole, because there’s much more to find, particularly in terms of Heath and Human Services regulatory changes that they’ve made since 2017, without any Congressional oversight.
And HHS moves matter, because under the International Health Regulations of 2005 and the “public health emergency of international concern” declared by WHO on Jan. 30, 2020 and still in effect, the health department of each jurisdiction (federal, state, local) supersedes the governing authority of the elected representatives and the constitutions and charters of the respective nation-states.
So I guess if our laws become null and void once a “public health emergency “ is declared, we can expect non-stop public health emergencies here on out. I wonder what the next malady du jour will be.
“What is more likely, in my view, is a massive cyber-attack that targets the functionality of the internet itself, and it would have to happen relatively soon.
The amount of economic and business operations tied to the web is staggering. Even if the internet was to go down for a mere two weeks, the repercussions to our markets and to our supply chain would be devastating.
By extension, the benefits to the globalists would be immense.
They could implement filters and firewalls on any part of the web they don’t like (including the alternative media) and claim that this is to protect the internet from possible sources of viral spread. They could whittle the web down to only a handful of approved corporate and government sites all in the name of protecting the integrity of the net.
Furthermore, such an attack would be a perfect scapegoat for the already crashing economy and rising inflation. At that point, the central banks that are truly responsible for our financial instability could simply say that everything was “about to go back to normal” until (Russia or China) spread the cyber-virus. And, maybe Russia will be involved, but it will not be Putin that gives the order, it will be his globalist partners behind the curtain…”
The progressive values of the 1960s are the values of those in power who now have the power to try and force those values on the country and have been corrupted by that power.
Socialism would work on a national scale if we just had the right people in place doing it, right?
You've got it right. But I feel like I've been hearing it for more than two years. I was always a democrat. I thought I might have even been a liberal. Then I had kids and started looking at the vaccine schedule... Now my friends say behind my back, "She's a conservative, she just doesn't know it yet..." Your explanation - I have definitely been hearing parts of it for much longer than two years. Before I knew any republicans I thought those things because I was hearing those things all the time from a media I thought was middle of the road. I always knew there was another side to it all. Thank god I found it.
"Okay so let’s chat. Have I got this wrong? Or is this the gist of the narrative that we’ve been fed for two years — and it’s so horrible that we often look away and make excuses to cover up the fact that we are living in a fascist country?"
Toby, you're right. That's the narrative. And what I hate most about that narrative is that it's so plainly intellectually bankrupt. When you actually state it, as you did, it's obviously so completely bogus that it shouldn't be given another thought. And yet, it's the dominant narrative from the governing elites.
It’s hard to see it all spelled out like that. But it’s all pretty accurate messaging from the left. Do they really think though, that WE are trying to “tear down society”? How preposterous. That’s what they’re doing, clearly. To rebuild a “better” one…
I think they want to silence us because we show how ridiculous they are, but their messaging on why we should be censored seems to be because we’re “dangerous” lol. Dangerous to their plans and destructiveness. This is not a society that anyone would want to live in save the elites. But mass formation psychosis is keeping people from seeing it. We must take the legislature in November.
People gladly sacrifice freedom for comfort. They also are willing to turn on those who the purveyors of comfort tell them are the impediments to that comfort.
Precisely: “It’s like the progressive values of the 1960s got hijacked, hollowed out, inverted, weaponized, and reinjected into society to serve the interests of capital.”
You are spot on...thank you! For the past 7 years, especially the past 2, I have felt like I was living in the Twilight Zone of 1984 that in 2021 had The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In the past year the Dems definitely had their bodies snatched & became Zombies dedicated to eradicating anti-vaxxers, censoring highly qualified medical doctors & researchers and making fascism their ideal! They are definitely Big Pharma's druggies...The War on Drugs did not work!!!
Autism is not easy for those who have a child who suddenly begins to display erratic behavior after one too many vaccines. My now 34yo grandson was doing just fine at home and in school, Then when he was 8 and in the 4th grade, things began to fall apart. He started displaying Tourette's syndrome (not accepted in school), chewing on his clothes at the neck, going into raging fits, smashing things and definitely was anti-social. Where he had been a good student, he no longer could focus. In high school, he was placed in Job Corps to train for a job but could not ever maintain a job for more than 12 hours. When he was 28, he finally was tested properly and diagnosed as in the "autism spectrum". He is on disability, has counseling, and like many with autism is very musically oriented. He composes music and takes music courses at our local community college. But he is not able to be independent.
With regard to drugs, Big Pharma by buying doctors and HMOs has created a drug addicted society where it appears most people go to their doctor to get a prescription for almost anything. It began like a tsunami after Congress allowed Big Pharma to advertise (worst decision ever!!!). I remember watching TV & seeing the ads come on for you name it and go check with your doctor if you have these symptoms! The ad always concluded with the list of side effects...including death! I thought "why would anyone in their right mind take this drug?" Well a few years later I learned that a close aunt of mine, with whom I spoke regularly, was having some serious dizziness issues & other health upsets. For the most part up to this point, my aunt (in her late 70s early 80s) thought nothing about getting in her travel van & doing road trips. Since I lived 400 miles away from her but have a nurse cousin who lived near by, I asked my cousin to go check on her. My cousin found that our aunt had been consuming a toxic cocktail of drugs that her various physicians had not paid any attention to when they prescribed a medication for some ailment or another. Once the drug package was identified and removed, she got better. My aunt, who was born in 1921, was in the generation that idolized modern medicine and felt her doctors & Big Pharma knew best. I'm not in that mentality and feel Big Pharma is killing people with a big smile!
Yes, to everything you said. The business of illness would go bankrupt if they healed us. Big Pharma is a mafia, and the CDC a jab factory. I hope to be alive to see these institutions fall like Rome did.
You’re definitely right about 99% of this. The only thing I’d disagree with is the implication that trans women shouldn’t be thought of as women. A trans woman is not a biological female, but if she identifies as a woman, we should respect that. It’s the difference between “female” (biological sex) and “woman” (societal gender). A lot of people seem to think that trans women claim to be female. They do not. They’re women trapped in male bodies.
I think it's a longer, more complicated, and much more painful conversation (than can fit in a comment section). But a question for future discussion: how come the emphasis is not on, "Trans men are men"? And that's because no one fears trans men. The "trans women are women" line is used to force homeless shelters, restrooms, locker rooms, and prisons to accept biological males (who identify as female) into formerly safe spaces for women. And so one reason that it is so polarizing and such a flashpoint in society is that there have been transgressions of those safe spaces by biological men under the guise of being trans. So yes we absolute must respect difference. But when there are no safe spaces for biological women anymore, in a society that is already incredibly violent towards women, something important has been lost.
I completely agree that it's important, wherever possible, to protect women and females from males who might be predators masquerading as trans women. But how are you going to enforce that? When someone shows up at a shelter looking like a woman, are you going to make them lift their skirt? In any case, while the specific concerns you mentioned are valid, there was only one statement in your article that I took issue with, and that was when you included "trans women are women" in your list of claims made by liberals, with the implication that they shouldn't claim such a thing.
It’s a bridge too far. I can identify as anything I want but forcing people to “accept” that is wrong for the sole reason that it is simply false. I’m not judging its goodness or badness. Just that it’s only in the mind of the person saying or feeling it. It is not objectively real. I can identify as a cat but that does not mean that I am one. Forcing society to see me as a cat does no service to anyone and is just manipulative.
Instead, that person needs to accept the responsibility of his/her own feelings and the discomfort that comes with that perception. It’s his burden, not society’s.
Again, it sounds like you're confusing sex with gender. If you thought you were a cat, that would be a physical thing. Transgender people do not think they are a different sex. They simply identify as a different gender. And since gender, unlike sex, is not a physical or biological reality, but a social construct, that's perfectly legitimate, and we should use the pronoun they identify with. They are not confused; they are not schizophrenic; they're not wrong; they should not be compared to someone who thinks they are a cat. A male identifying as a woman is just as valid as a female identifying as a woman.
I feel like you’re splitting hairs and making any argument to justify your conclusion. But even if I accept your definitions, why doesn’t it simply stop there, I.e. acknowledgment of a pronoun. Do I also have to accept all of the things she now wants because she identifies as something different that her biological state? Why does “identifying” as anything give that person the right to affect others negatively, in this case for example, obliterating fair competition in sports? It negatively impacts women who are biologically of the female sex. I can accept her “identity” but I can’t accept her insistence that she now displace an entire group of people because of it.
I'm not splitting hairs. My conclusion follows logically from the facts. I am not saying that you have to accept that trans women should be allowed to do everything that females are allowed to do. All I'm saying is that you should pay them the respect of acknowledging them as the gender that they identify as, just as you are acknowledged as the gender that you identify as. You would be annoyed if someone insisted that you were the opposite gender, or didn't use your preferred pronouns. And any time you do claim that they shouldn't be allowed to do something that females can do, just make sure there's a really good reason for it, and that you're not just being prejudiced.
Facts? I think you mean perceptions. Perceptions are not facts. Genitalia and sex (and I would argue, gender) are facts. What we are doing now is simply saying they are other things now than they were yesterday. I do not identify as female--I AM female. I was born this way. I would be annoyed only if someone insisted that I was male simply because I am not. That's different isn't it? Again, I have no argument with people calling themselves, seeing themselves, identifying themselves in any way that they want, but I don't think all of society should be forced to change the "rules" for them. Nor do I think hateful speech or conduct should be allowed or tolerated. But if they insist on sharing a locker room, a jail cell or spot on a women's team (as examples) and the biological sex of that person is used against the other in the name of "gender," I have a problem with it. I think those are "really good reasons" to stop taking the idea and turning it into a global scheme of things. In the end we're talking about 1% or less of the population to boot.
Your comments make it clear that you are still unclear on the distinction between sex and gender. The word female refers to physical sex. Words like woman and girl refer to gender, which is a societal construct existing in people's minds. So you are correct that the fact that you are female (physical sex), is not a matter of how you identify. The gender that you identify as is "woman." When I talked about the hypothetical situation of someone misgendering you, I wasn't referring to someone trying to claim that you are physically male. I was saying that if someone told you that you aren't a woman, that would be just as disrespectful as you saying that a trans woman isn't a woman. It's accurate for you to say that she's male. But you shouldn't say that she's a man. This is not a change from the past. "Gender" has referred to a societal phenomenon for a long time, as distinct from sex (male/female), which is physical. Again, I have not been making any sort of argument regarding males in jail cells or on sports teams. The only thing I have been saying is that we should respect the gender that people identify as and use their preferred pronouns. A trans woman is a woman, she just isn't a female.
You are right on Toby. But the problem is fixing this mess is a marathon not a sprint. They (Dems and Republicans alike) have been tearing down the boundaries, built in by our founders, that protect people by limiting power. Many of those have been removed using powerful influence by well funded ideologues through associations like the Bar Assoc, National Governors Assoc, Municipal League of Cities, etc. on politicians. They are eroding our Federalist System Layer Cake for a Marble Cake Cooperative Federalism with centralized power and few boundaries. This is why almost all states reacted the same way to COVID regardless of being Red or Blue. We have to engage in a high level chess game to restore the boundaries and diffuse power. We need to know our government system, look at it as a system. Depersonalize government to an "it" not a "they". We have to fix the problems not the symptoms. We need to educate ourselves, organize and start working the crowd, old school, face to face. Talk to neighbors, friends, co workers. Through connecting and conversations we can get back to our roots. The Patriot Academy I hear has great training. I went to some classes this weekend though https://www.centerforselfgovernance.com/
I love this country and I want my children and grandchildren to enjoy it as I have, at least until 2020. No more staring at our phones for long periods of time. We have to get up and get active.
I can't imagine that the people who write this totally incomprehensible trash actually know what they are writing about. Clearly from an intelligently balanced, reasonably-human, vantage point, this is 1. a waste of time to discern; 2. completely laughable; and 3. requires one to spend a portion of their day building an orgasm of pity for the very sick, captured, and disappointing, poor-example-of humanity who live, breathe and bend as they are designed: techno-robots. That is what they sound like to me!
A big problem: it seems that once a principled, activist Republican gets elected to office, their principles and enthusiasm in promoting them takes a backseat to getting along with the opposition, avoiding media criticism, and retaining elective office. Few Cincinnatuses or Washingtons.
Your analysis points in the right direction, but doesn’t go far enough. The anti establishment “make love not war” radicals of the 60s have morphed into the pro-war establishment. Along the way their neo Marxist, post modern collectivist philosophy worshipping Big Brother as their jihadi savior leading the war against poverty, war on crime, war against drugs, war against terror, and war against disease.
I might have more to say after I read the comments, which are also so informed and intelligent.
First, thanks for making me laugh with these spot-on descriptions- doesn't matter where you are in the country, this is their song. 4
I had a talk with someone who disappeared for the past two years, prides herself on being very loving(TM) and caring(TM) but during the conversation admitted that in her imagination she is a bit of an authoritatian and if we could just take the guns away from boys and give them to little girls (pink toy ones) so that when they got to be teenagers they could understand it was THEIR job to defend society and they wouldn't be powerless and they'd do a much better job than the men... and I realized that some wires must've gotten crossed, for her and for everyone else who is singing the Loving Fascists Song. Somehow their personal bugaboo, whatever it is, has gotten pulled into the covid saga and made it okay to hate "Them." When I asked her if she thought it was okay to force a medical procedure on someone, the answer was no but is WAS okay to make their life impossible if they didn't "agree to it." Because it's for Their Own Good (TM)!
Yes, it can get this bad, Caring Corrupted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz8ge4aw8Ws
You might enjoy the work of Josh Slocum at Disaffected Podcast. He's been pointing out Mommy Munchies and the Cluster B personality types that have taken hold of nearly every establishment. Quite on point and also hilariously funny at times. Josh is also a huge defender of children-- he was abused, and knows how helpless they are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVyMJA77W_c&t=12s
I wonder if anything will change even if the Dems lose power in upcoming elections. Frankly, it seems like full-on psychosis has taken over. Critical thinking is now scoffed at! To me, the scariest thing is how quick people are to defend subservience to “authorities “: if you so much as QUESTION pharma, you are attacked with “are you a doctor??? No? Well then you have no right to an opinion!” This is said earnestly. Remember at Halloween people had gravestone decorations that said “I did my own research”?! It’s shocking how huge amounts of people think it is somehow smart (and virtuous!) to blindly follow authority. And yeah, all of the rest of the woke nonsense.
I think you’re correct, and probably not taking your observations far enough toward their logical conclusions.
The situation reminds me of Flannery O’Connor’s observation: “tenderness leads to the gas chamber.”
The last couple of years, one of the things I’ve been trying to figure out is how the legal system is engaged in the whole thing, because I’ve been so confused by the failure of human and Constitutional-rights based claims to make it to the discovery and trial phase, and by the failure of judges to simply rule on the pleadings that the executive overreach is unconstitutional and therefore void. (Among other work over the last 20 years, I’ve worked as a paralegal helping trial lawyers with civil rights cases).
In late January, I listened to a podcast with Todd Callender, an attorney who has pieced together a lot of it,
https://www.americaoutloud.com/compulsory-vaccination-and-forced-quarantine-camps-in-arizona/
which is related to research the Breggins did for their book — Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey.
https://www.wearetheprey.com/
After listening to Callender’s interview twice, I spent three weeks tracking down the legal citations and Federal Register entries about the legal structures he described, so that I could write it up for people who prefer to read to get information.
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/legal-walls-of-the-covid-19-kill?s=w
I’m working on a shorter summary tl;dr version (that one is a long-read.)
And will continue to go down that research and writing rabbit hole, because there’s much more to find, particularly in terms of Heath and Human Services regulatory changes that they’ve made since 2017, without any Congressional oversight.
And HHS moves matter, because under the International Health Regulations of 2005 and the “public health emergency of international concern” declared by WHO on Jan. 30, 2020 and still in effect, the health department of each jurisdiction (federal, state, local) supersedes the governing authority of the elected representatives and the constitutions and charters of the respective nation-states.
Blessings to you and all your readers.
So I guess if our laws become null and void once a “public health emergency “ is declared, we can expect non-stop public health emergencies here on out. I wonder what the next malady du jour will be.
https://alt-market.us/a-large-scale-false-flag-cyber-attack-is-now-imminent/
“What is more likely, in my view, is a massive cyber-attack that targets the functionality of the internet itself, and it would have to happen relatively soon.
The amount of economic and business operations tied to the web is staggering. Even if the internet was to go down for a mere two weeks, the repercussions to our markets and to our supply chain would be devastating.
By extension, the benefits to the globalists would be immense.
They could implement filters and firewalls on any part of the web they don’t like (including the alternative media) and claim that this is to protect the internet from possible sources of viral spread. They could whittle the web down to only a handful of approved corporate and government sites all in the name of protecting the integrity of the net.
Furthermore, such an attack would be a perfect scapegoat for the already crashing economy and rising inflation. At that point, the central banks that are truly responsible for our financial instability could simply say that everything was “about to go back to normal” until (Russia or China) spread the cyber-virus. And, maybe Russia will be involved, but it will not be Putin that gives the order, it will be his globalist partners behind the curtain…”
This is truly terrifying
The progressive values of the 1960s are the values of those in power who now have the power to try and force those values on the country and have been corrupted by that power.
Socialism would work on a national scale if we just had the right people in place doing it, right?
You've got it right. But I feel like I've been hearing it for more than two years. I was always a democrat. I thought I might have even been a liberal. Then I had kids and started looking at the vaccine schedule... Now my friends say behind my back, "She's a conservative, she just doesn't know it yet..." Your explanation - I have definitely been hearing parts of it for much longer than two years. Before I knew any republicans I thought those things because I was hearing those things all the time from a media I thought was middle of the road. I always knew there was another side to it all. Thank god I found it.
Accurate. This makes me want to stand up and cheer while simultaneously curling up in a corner to cry. 🙌😭
"Okay so let’s chat. Have I got this wrong? Or is this the gist of the narrative that we’ve been fed for two years — and it’s so horrible that we often look away and make excuses to cover up the fact that we are living in a fascist country?"
Toby, you're right. That's the narrative. And what I hate most about that narrative is that it's so plainly intellectually bankrupt. When you actually state it, as you did, it's obviously so completely bogus that it shouldn't be given another thought. And yet, it's the dominant narrative from the governing elites.
It’s hard to see it all spelled out like that. But it’s all pretty accurate messaging from the left. Do they really think though, that WE are trying to “tear down society”? How preposterous. That’s what they’re doing, clearly. To rebuild a “better” one…
I think they want to silence us because we show how ridiculous they are, but their messaging on why we should be censored seems to be because we’re “dangerous” lol. Dangerous to their plans and destructiveness. This is not a society that anyone would want to live in save the elites. But mass formation psychosis is keeping people from seeing it. We must take the legislature in November.
People gladly sacrifice freedom for comfort. They also are willing to turn on those who the purveyors of comfort tell them are the impediments to that comfort.
Precisely: “It’s like the progressive values of the 1960s got hijacked, hollowed out, inverted, weaponized, and reinjected into society to serve the interests of capital.”
You are spot on...thank you! For the past 7 years, especially the past 2, I have felt like I was living in the Twilight Zone of 1984 that in 2021 had The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In the past year the Dems definitely had their bodies snatched & became Zombies dedicated to eradicating anti-vaxxers, censoring highly qualified medical doctors & researchers and making fascism their ideal! They are definitely Big Pharma's druggies...The War on Drugs did not work!!!
Autism is not easy for those who have a child who suddenly begins to display erratic behavior after one too many vaccines. My now 34yo grandson was doing just fine at home and in school, Then when he was 8 and in the 4th grade, things began to fall apart. He started displaying Tourette's syndrome (not accepted in school), chewing on his clothes at the neck, going into raging fits, smashing things and definitely was anti-social. Where he had been a good student, he no longer could focus. In high school, he was placed in Job Corps to train for a job but could not ever maintain a job for more than 12 hours. When he was 28, he finally was tested properly and diagnosed as in the "autism spectrum". He is on disability, has counseling, and like many with autism is very musically oriented. He composes music and takes music courses at our local community college. But he is not able to be independent.
With regard to drugs, Big Pharma by buying doctors and HMOs has created a drug addicted society where it appears most people go to their doctor to get a prescription for almost anything. It began like a tsunami after Congress allowed Big Pharma to advertise (worst decision ever!!!). I remember watching TV & seeing the ads come on for you name it and go check with your doctor if you have these symptoms! The ad always concluded with the list of side effects...including death! I thought "why would anyone in their right mind take this drug?" Well a few years later I learned that a close aunt of mine, with whom I spoke regularly, was having some serious dizziness issues & other health upsets. For the most part up to this point, my aunt (in her late 70s early 80s) thought nothing about getting in her travel van & doing road trips. Since I lived 400 miles away from her but have a nurse cousin who lived near by, I asked my cousin to go check on her. My cousin found that our aunt had been consuming a toxic cocktail of drugs that her various physicians had not paid any attention to when they prescribed a medication for some ailment or another. Once the drug package was identified and removed, she got better. My aunt, who was born in 1921, was in the generation that idolized modern medicine and felt her doctors & Big Pharma knew best. I'm not in that mentality and feel Big Pharma is killing people with a big smile!
Yes, to everything you said. The business of illness would go bankrupt if they healed us. Big Pharma is a mafia, and the CDC a jab factory. I hope to be alive to see these institutions fall like Rome did.
Yes, you are correct!
You’re definitely right about 99% of this. The only thing I’d disagree with is the implication that trans women shouldn’t be thought of as women. A trans woman is not a biological female, but if she identifies as a woman, we should respect that. It’s the difference between “female” (biological sex) and “woman” (societal gender). A lot of people seem to think that trans women claim to be female. They do not. They’re women trapped in male bodies.
I think it's a longer, more complicated, and much more painful conversation (than can fit in a comment section). But a question for future discussion: how come the emphasis is not on, "Trans men are men"? And that's because no one fears trans men. The "trans women are women" line is used to force homeless shelters, restrooms, locker rooms, and prisons to accept biological males (who identify as female) into formerly safe spaces for women. And so one reason that it is so polarizing and such a flashpoint in society is that there have been transgressions of those safe spaces by biological men under the guise of being trans. So yes we absolute must respect difference. But when there are no safe spaces for biological women anymore, in a society that is already incredibly violent towards women, something important has been lost.
I completely agree that it's important, wherever possible, to protect women and females from males who might be predators masquerading as trans women. But how are you going to enforce that? When someone shows up at a shelter looking like a woman, are you going to make them lift their skirt? In any case, while the specific concerns you mentioned are valid, there was only one statement in your article that I took issue with, and that was when you included "trans women are women" in your list of claims made by liberals, with the implication that they shouldn't claim such a thing.
It’s a bridge too far. I can identify as anything I want but forcing people to “accept” that is wrong for the sole reason that it is simply false. I’m not judging its goodness or badness. Just that it’s only in the mind of the person saying or feeling it. It is not objectively real. I can identify as a cat but that does not mean that I am one. Forcing society to see me as a cat does no service to anyone and is just manipulative.
Instead, that person needs to accept the responsibility of his/her own feelings and the discomfort that comes with that perception. It’s his burden, not society’s.
Again, it sounds like you're confusing sex with gender. If you thought you were a cat, that would be a physical thing. Transgender people do not think they are a different sex. They simply identify as a different gender. And since gender, unlike sex, is not a physical or biological reality, but a social construct, that's perfectly legitimate, and we should use the pronoun they identify with. They are not confused; they are not schizophrenic; they're not wrong; they should not be compared to someone who thinks they are a cat. A male identifying as a woman is just as valid as a female identifying as a woman.
I feel like you’re splitting hairs and making any argument to justify your conclusion. But even if I accept your definitions, why doesn’t it simply stop there, I.e. acknowledgment of a pronoun. Do I also have to accept all of the things she now wants because she identifies as something different that her biological state? Why does “identifying” as anything give that person the right to affect others negatively, in this case for example, obliterating fair competition in sports? It negatively impacts women who are biologically of the female sex. I can accept her “identity” but I can’t accept her insistence that she now displace an entire group of people because of it.
I'm not splitting hairs. My conclusion follows logically from the facts. I am not saying that you have to accept that trans women should be allowed to do everything that females are allowed to do. All I'm saying is that you should pay them the respect of acknowledging them as the gender that they identify as, just as you are acknowledged as the gender that you identify as. You would be annoyed if someone insisted that you were the opposite gender, or didn't use your preferred pronouns. And any time you do claim that they shouldn't be allowed to do something that females can do, just make sure there's a really good reason for it, and that you're not just being prejudiced.
Facts? I think you mean perceptions. Perceptions are not facts. Genitalia and sex (and I would argue, gender) are facts. What we are doing now is simply saying they are other things now than they were yesterday. I do not identify as female--I AM female. I was born this way. I would be annoyed only if someone insisted that I was male simply because I am not. That's different isn't it? Again, I have no argument with people calling themselves, seeing themselves, identifying themselves in any way that they want, but I don't think all of society should be forced to change the "rules" for them. Nor do I think hateful speech or conduct should be allowed or tolerated. But if they insist on sharing a locker room, a jail cell or spot on a women's team (as examples) and the biological sex of that person is used against the other in the name of "gender," I have a problem with it. I think those are "really good reasons" to stop taking the idea and turning it into a global scheme of things. In the end we're talking about 1% or less of the population to boot.
Your comments make it clear that you are still unclear on the distinction between sex and gender. The word female refers to physical sex. Words like woman and girl refer to gender, which is a societal construct existing in people's minds. So you are correct that the fact that you are female (physical sex), is not a matter of how you identify. The gender that you identify as is "woman." When I talked about the hypothetical situation of someone misgendering you, I wasn't referring to someone trying to claim that you are physically male. I was saying that if someone told you that you aren't a woman, that would be just as disrespectful as you saying that a trans woman isn't a woman. It's accurate for you to say that she's male. But you shouldn't say that she's a man. This is not a change from the past. "Gender" has referred to a societal phenomenon for a long time, as distinct from sex (male/female), which is physical. Again, I have not been making any sort of argument regarding males in jail cells or on sports teams. The only thing I have been saying is that we should respect the gender that people identify as and use their preferred pronouns. A trans woman is a woman, she just isn't a female.
You are right on Toby. But the problem is fixing this mess is a marathon not a sprint. They (Dems and Republicans alike) have been tearing down the boundaries, built in by our founders, that protect people by limiting power. Many of those have been removed using powerful influence by well funded ideologues through associations like the Bar Assoc, National Governors Assoc, Municipal League of Cities, etc. on politicians. They are eroding our Federalist System Layer Cake for a Marble Cake Cooperative Federalism with centralized power and few boundaries. This is why almost all states reacted the same way to COVID regardless of being Red or Blue. We have to engage in a high level chess game to restore the boundaries and diffuse power. We need to know our government system, look at it as a system. Depersonalize government to an "it" not a "they". We have to fix the problems not the symptoms. We need to educate ourselves, organize and start working the crowd, old school, face to face. Talk to neighbors, friends, co workers. Through connecting and conversations we can get back to our roots. The Patriot Academy I hear has great training. I went to some classes this weekend though https://www.centerforselfgovernance.com/
I love this country and I want my children and grandchildren to enjoy it as I have, at least until 2020. No more staring at our phones for long periods of time. We have to get up and get active.
This terrifyingly reads like 1984. But this Big Brother is not fiction, it is real and we are all living it.
I can't imagine that the people who write this totally incomprehensible trash actually know what they are writing about. Clearly from an intelligently balanced, reasonably-human, vantage point, this is 1. a waste of time to discern; 2. completely laughable; and 3. requires one to spend a portion of their day building an orgasm of pity for the very sick, captured, and disappointing, poor-example-of humanity who live, breathe and bend as they are designed: techno-robots. That is what they sound like to me!
A big problem: it seems that once a principled, activist Republican gets elected to office, their principles and enthusiasm in promoting them takes a backseat to getting along with the opposition, avoiding media criticism, and retaining elective office. Few Cincinnatuses or Washingtons.