The good news is that Yours Truly’s prognosticative skills are sharper than ever. Of course this is only a relative blip in happiness. The ultimate Good News we celebrated yesterday.
The bad news is, as forecast, Reality is now illegal. Which only goes to show you, as the man said, the law is an ass. Or can be in the hands of the Will of the People. Statistical fun fact: half the People are below median intelligence. But their wills are just as sovereign as anybody else’s. Skip it.
What was my prescient prediction, my perceptive prognostication, my perspicacious presagement? That the government, in this case New York City, will fine employers “up to” a quarter million bucks for asserting Truth, for acknowledging Reality, for saying What Is So.
Ain’t that somethin’? Here’s the actual headline: “NYC will fine employers up to $250,000 for referring to ‘transsexuals’ by their natural gender.” Now metaphysically, scientifically, biologically there is no such thing as a “transsexual”. There are men, there are women. And that is it. Some men pretend to be women, and fewer still women pretend to be men, and even fewer actually believe they are the opposite sex. The technical name for this state is insanity.
Well, many people—even kings, even celebrities—have been insane and lived to tell of it. There are many misfortunes one must and will suffer in this sojourn before the final trump. Life in the world to come will be different, but for now there are crosses to bear. The sane know this, acknowledge its practical consequences, and so consider it impolite to speak of a person’s misfortunes openly, even when invited to do so.
This is also America where, until not too long ago, we used to have a “live and let live” attitude. Why, if a man wanted to pretend to be a labrador we’d not scoff but instead say, “Can he fetch?” We might have even, when in a favorable mood, helped pick out his leash. Nobody’s perfect, so why complain?
We weren’t always in a favorable mood. Circumstances do not always allow it. Men sometimes, and more often than is currently desired, need to be men. This attitude is now disparaged. Thus, many have forgotten what it is to be a man. It is even somewhat embarrassing, or distasteful, to say, “I am a man.” Nevertheless, some remember and some do say it without flinching. And when they recall their duty, and when manly deeds are required, they are forced to say to the man who believes that he is a dog or woman, “Brother, you need help.”
The government hates Reality and anything to do with it. The theory of Equality says that anybody can not only pretend or believe what he is not, but that everybody else must pretend or believe, too. What NYC is doing, and what governments elsewhere will emulate, is removing the ability to speak of Reality. Now, since as previously documented, many are of below average intelligence, they will be disorientated when language’s anchor to Reality is removed. They will begin to believe with the insane that men really can be women. And they will believe many other stranger things, too.
Yes, but why does government hate Reality? Because Reality is a competitor. Simple as that, really. The elites who run government in Will-Of-The-People regimes do their best to keep as much of Reality from their constituents as possible. Why? Reality is harsh and uncooperative. It does what it wants and it demands much, even the ultimate. The government is jealous.
If government gets to define what “is”, then the government can manipulate people towards the ends it desires. This is generally, and probably always, towards some form of slavery, even if it isn’t always called that. Well, again, not calling slaves slaves is another denial of Reality.
So much for political theory. The practical effect of denying people from speaking of Reality is obvious. All our best writers warned us of the effects. But somehow because government isn’t actually insisting that we pronounce “2 + 2 = 5” we believe—or rather attempt to tell ourselves—that these writers’ warnings don’t apply to us.
Naturally, in NYC many businesses, those friends with the government, those interested in forming fasces with which to rule, will embrace these new bannings of Reality. It will only be a few on the margin who can still see clearly who will face punishment.
In the end, only the Remnant will survive. Merry Christmas.
Note: Readers are reminded that my preferred pronouns are “your majesty” when speaking of me, or “his majesty” when speaking of me. Those not wanting to comply better have their checkbooks ready.
Well, put your money on virtual reality as there’s not much call for the real thing except for monks and folks like that.
The emperor is indeed wearing clothes … your majesty
Wyoming is now officially as demented as the rest of the country—two homosexuals were allowed to “adopt” a kid and now he has two “dads”. Of course, what he actually has is two adults committing unnatural acts whom the government has given a child. I now eagerly aware the placement of a child with a pedophile due to the child being older than the preferred age of the offender (don’t gasp—it’s been tried elsewhere). In the name of equality, NO lines can ever be drawn. EVER.
We should be calling these people aftermarket hermaphrodites. That is what they are. You cannot change sex, only your appearance. You have the DNA of one sex, the characteristics of another=hermaphrodite. Of course, that is reality and we can’t let that happen.
Soon we’ll be goosestepping down streets like they do in North Korea, proudly singing how we are going to destroy the world for our beloved leaders. You can quote me on that. In the end, even those who preached the removal of reality will be destroyed by this action (note what happened to the Uncle of North Korea’s leader—DNA relationships don’t save you, nor anything else.). You can’t outlaw reality—it just does not care. Or as the Borg would say: Resistance is futile.
The inmates really are running the asylum.
If you have two fathers or two mothers, is one of them transparent?
Sheri,
” You have the DNA of one sex, the characteristics of another=hermaphrodite.”
Actually this is not true. A true hermaphrodite as fully functional genitalia for both genders at the same time. This is exceedingly rare in vertebrates. Worms and some plants are naturally hermaphroditic.
Very rarely a human will be borne as a pseudo hermaphrodite, where the person appears to have both a penis and a vagina, but both are never fully functional in a reproductive sense.
At no point in the process does a man->woman or woman->man transsexual have (or appear to have) both a penis and a vagina.
Sheri,
“Wyoming is now officially as demented as the rest of the country—two homosexuals were allowed to “adopt” a kid and now he has two “dads”. Of course, what he actually has is two adults committing unnatural acts whom the government has given a child.”
Many, many kids get abused in the foster care system. And few who age out of it achieve any degree of success.
While the kid you mention might be better of if he were adopted by a traditional couple. It is impossible for me to believe that he/she would be better off having not been adopted at all.
If I decide to ‘self-identify’ as a woman and never get a hair-cut again my hair will grow to somewhere between my shoulder blades then stop but I want it long enough to sit on. Who do I sue? Who does NYC prosecute?
Requiring the rest of us to acknowledge that gmarriage is marriage is of the same order of reality denial.
Gary in Erko: 🙂
MattS: What about pregnant males?
As for adoption by a homosexual couple being “better than nothing”, I’m not sure throwing kids into “better than nothing” is appropriate. Would you suggest they be placed in a drug user’s home if the drug user really wanted them and could care for them (I’ve known drug users who function well in society—hold jobs, etc)? How about alcholics? Where does one draw the line? Should kids be placed in anarchist’s homes? Openly racists homes? Personally, I think “better than nothing” is a tacky way to place kids with families.
Depending on the stage of one’s transition, someone who is formerly male still has the male’s risk of developing some diseases, and will not have a female’s risk…. say for ovarian or uterine cancers. Will the doctor treat the patient on their birth sex, or will the doctor treat the patient on their imagined sex? In medicine that has to be some base acknowledgement of what was. Right?
This is what New Yorkers get when they elect a petulant profligate preening professional platitude-presenting pandering politician as mayor. Maybe more New Yorkers will vote in the next election but I fear the can of worms has been opened and there is no putting them back in.
Perspicacious presagement? Lovely.
If they take legal action they can use this as legal argument. Perhaps some good will come of legal actions taken.
Not all men who dress as women agree with the nonsense phony outrage written into law. Some I’ve listened to on Tv and the video I Linked a few weeks ago have, it seems often more reasoned normal, attitudes, thank goodness. They still tend to argue with the same type of language the the triple letter abbreviations make your head spin but at least many question the victim approach.
Anon: No, in medicine trans males can be paid maternity benefits.
Chuck L: Impressive use of words beginning with “p”!
MattS: Is my usage of hermaphrodite any less accurate than calling a human being with male DNA a female?
Pingback: This Week In Doom: Reality Now Illegal | Reaction Times
Sheri,
“As for adoption by a homosexual couple being “better than nothing””
I never said it was better than nothing. I said it was better than foster care/state institutional custody.
Quite frankly for many kids, nothing (being out on the streets on their own) would actually be better than being in foster care or state institutional custody.
” Would you suggest they be placed in a drug user’s home if the drug user really wanted them and could care for them (I’ve known drug users who function well in society—hold jobs, etc)? How about alcholics?”
As if the foster care system was free of drug users and alcoholics.
And yes, I believe that being placed with a moderately functional drug user or alcoholic would be better for most kids than what they are exposed to in foster care or institutional state custody.
” Where does one draw the line?”
Considering how bad foster care/state institutional care is for kids, I would suggest you think about why a line should be drawn at all. Absolutely nothing you mention would be worse for a kid than foster care.
Sheri,
” Is my usage of hermaphrodite any less accurate than calling a human being with male DNA a female?”
Yes.
It’s rare, but occasionally a human child is born with an XY chromosome (male DNA) but unambiguously female internal and external genitalia. Do you believe that it would be fair to insist that such a child identify as male? Why? Should that child be forcibly subjected to surgery to make it’s genitalia conform with it’s DNA?
Pingback: On Denying Reality | For God and Free Trade
MattS: If I understand you correctly, foster parents are horrible and the system should be abolished ASAP. I wonder what the millions of caring foster homes would think of your assessment? Do you want to abolish therapeutic foster homes while we’re at it? What convinces you a moderately functioning drug user or alcoholic is better than any foster home or most foster homes? Having seen children raised by a functioning alcoholic fathers, I don’t see how foster care could have turned out any worse. What’s more fun than watching Daddy pass out on Christmas eve, drunk out of his mind, right? I’ve also seen very compassionate foster homes that helped kids cope with life and develop into responsible adults. There are bad and terrible parents and there are bad and terrible foster homes. There are also loving parents and loving foster homes.
(Monty Robbins, the Horse Whisperer, was raised in a foster home and gives credit to his foster parents for his becoming who is now.)
Okay, I will henceforth refer to “transsexuals” as women with penises (as in the case of Caitlyn) and men with uteruses (like the fathers who gave birth to their children). Still sounds much closer to hermaphrodite than calling them “women” or “men” and pretending they are what they are not.
As for the true hermaphrodite, if the child had only female genitalia, and a uterus, then it might be better to go with female. However, the child is going to run into difficulties if the male attributes such as facial hair surface in puberty and may need hormone therapy. No matter what the choice of the parents (surgery or do nothing), there are going to be difficulties. As for forcible surgery, there are parents out there having sex change treatments on 10-year-olds who claim they “know” they are female and not male as they were born. Parents do a lot of forced things to children, many of which are very permanent and very damaging.
I still don’t agree that calling a man a woman is somehow more acceptable than calling a woman with a penis an hermaphrodite. If we are not going to use incorrect terminology, then it remains as I stated in the first part of my comment—male with uterus, female with penis (assuming the person did not remove all vestiges of the opposite sex, which seems to be the majority of transsexuals). We cannot call men “women” no matter what they surgically alter themselves to.
“say for ovarian or uterine cancers. Will the doctor treat the patient on their birth sex, or…”
Gender isn’t an impedance.
The margins of the cancer or extent of the surgery are dictated by the cancer itself. Then preservation of form and shape are secondary.
Cancers are frequently sensitive to certain sex hormones. The correct drug therapy is chosen to affect this at a cellular level. Gender is not a consideration, Life preservation is a priority. The patient always has the choice to refuse treatment.
Drug treatment and surgical indications don’t change. The treatment is for the cancer not the gender. It’s a difficult choice regardless of history. If there are options, patients are invited to make an informed choice together with the consultant.
Guidance and support is adjusted according to the patient’s sensitivities at the time.
The only difficulty would be for the surgeon who would have to deal with surgical scars and altered anatomy. They do this anyway.
Merry Christmas Maj!
Sheri,
“hat convinces you a moderately functioning drug user or alcoholic is better than any foster home or most foster homes?”
For every story that you can point to of a child that died in an abusive home because CPS didn’t take the child, I can point to another story of a child that died in an abusive foster home. There are thousands of such stories. In fact I have read stories of foster homes where multiple children died before CPS even started to investigate the foster parents.
Little to no effort is made to screen foster parents, and little to no effort is made to police them after they are given someone else’s kids.
The entire CPS system is broken beyond repair.
“As for the true hermaphrodite, if the child had only female genitalia”
The child I described with male DNA and female genitalia is not a hermaphrodite. That child isn’t even a pseudo hermaphrodite because the genitalia are not ambiguous.
Get this through you head a true hermaphrodite is both male and female not just by appearance, or DNA, but functionally from a reproductive stand point. A true hermaphrodite can reproduce as both a male and a female.
A pseudo Hermaphrodite has ambiguous genitalia. Breasts are not part of the genitalia. Breasts and a penis is not a pseudo hermaphrodite. To qualify a pseudo hermaphrodite a person must appear to have both a vagina and a penis at the same time. Most naturally occurring human pseudo hermaphrodites do not actually have a penis. Mostly they are women with extremely large clitorises that look and (and can function like) a penis but they don’t pee through them and they don’t produce semen.
Gender re-assignment surgery doesn’t produce pseudo hermaphrodites. The original genitalia are surgically removed at the same time the new genitalia is constructed.
Serri,
I do get it, you don’t want to call someone like Bruce/Catlin Jenner a woman because you think that’s delusional.
My point is that it’s every bit as delusional to call Bruce/Catlin something else that he is clearly no just to not call him a woman.
Okay, ma’am.
JMJ
Matts: Do you have any experience with the adoption system? It’s based on race and the personal beliefs of the system. Conservatives often adopt outside this country or buy American teenagers. People still get money and care for the kids, even after adopting. You think people don’t adopt for money? If it’s one for one for stories, then leaving the kids in CPS is equal to adopting them out to homosexuals to make a political statement (and the IS why it’s done—the fitness of the home rarely has anything to do with where kids are placed) and either choice can result in bad outcomes. Of course the CPS is broken, it’s 100% politics—with adoptions and with foster care. BOTH are done by the same agency. You’re arguing one branch is somehow competent while the other is compassionate and caring? Do you have evidence that CPS is competent in one area and not another?
Okay, I will abide by your demand that I use language that is precise ONLY if you never refer to transsexuals as such. You must use “women with a penis” and “man with a uterus” unless there is documentation the transformation removed ALL vestiges of sexual identity. If there is evidence, you must say “Caitlyn, born a man” to be accurate. Get that through your head. The original genitalia are NOT removed in the largest percentage of cases (as in Caitlyn). Maybe not with women, since what does one remove? Apparently, the vagina is NOT removed if they can become pregnant as a man or all these men with uteruses are having C-sections.
As noted, I will use the proper term “women with a penis” from now on for Caitlyn. That should make you happy. (Why I use hermaphrodite is it is closer to accurate than “woman” is and refuses to follow the PC route.) I suppose I could go with “the woman who was formerly a man” in the tradition of the artist formerly known as Prince. Is that any more acceptable? I personally like the “woman with a penis” because it’s a more colorful, yet PC way of giving Caitlyn what he wanted while pointing out the insanity of the idea. Transsexual is not accurate—they did not change sex. They were surgically altered to make the adam’s apple smaller, cheeks look more feminine, breast augmentation and hormone shots. They are still male, just cosmetically altered. Women, same thing. Chaz Bono is still female, just surgically altered and wearing men’s clothing. They in no way “trans”d anything.
JMJ: Careful there, you may be banned or sent to a re-education camp for failure to use “your majesty”. Politically incorrect speech will be punished. Next thing you know, you’ll be calling homosexual marriage invalid. It always starts small.
“They will begin to believe with the insane that men really can be women.”
What a strange twist after all these years pretending there was no difference between men and women, so why want to be the other if it is the same? How will you know when you have succeeded in becoming a thing the People of the Left (POTL) insist does not exist, namely gender differences?
What is going to happen in a generation is total chaos as a boy wants to be a woman, thinks he is a woman, and yet what it is to be a woman is what used to be a man, so after all this “trans” stuff he might end up being what a man used to be 40 years ago. Or what looks and acts rather like a normal man, was born male, transitioned to female but is a cross-dresser pretending to be a man.
In the computer world a similar phenomenon exists: The “backslash”. Just to avoid confusion, it is this: \ and the slash is this: /.
The slash was a fraction bar, 3/5 for instance, and often used to denote money, 47/100 dollar.
The slash is used as the file path separator in Unix/Linux and now Apple which is a variant, if I understand correctly, of BSD Unix (or FreeBSD).
For reasons not clear to me, Microsoft decided on the “backslash” as the file path separator thus something like c:\windows instead of c:/windows.
But a generation of lazy children shortened “backslash” to just “slash” and for them, \ is slash and thus / must be backslash, exactly backwards. Countful times I have explained this as part of my helpdesk duties: “The slash is under the question mark” (and the “dot-comma” is a semicolon, and the reason your commas are “up in the air” is because that’s an apostrophe. Try the comma next to the letter M”).
So the newest generation has reversed it again; but not with everyone; so it is quite impossible to predict what a person means by “slash”.
I am pedantic; words need to have understood meanings or there’s no point conversing.
Sheri, your comment “I will use the proper term ‘women with a penis’ from now on for Caitlyn”
But that is not proper. It is not accurate. While considerable wiggle room exists for defining man or woman, whatever it is, cannot include the opposite. I am pedantic; I simply cannot bring myself to call the day “night” or vice versa. It is lying to do so. I do not call a man a woman; nor a woman a man. I can say that some men behave in accordance with behaviors normally associated (rightly or wrongly) with women, such as difficulty choosing what to wear. The phrase “woman trapped in a mans body” is fairly well understood as to meaning; but it exists because of stereotypes, not because there actually is a woman spirit in a man’s body. That other people believe such a thing is possible is what makes POTL (People Of The Left) so interesting — many dispute the existence of gender norms while other POTL are very busy embracing gender norms, just not that of their own gender.
So when Caitlyn wanted to become a woman; what does that MEAN? I think it means she wanted to embrace a stereotype and obtain the benefits that very definitely extend only to women.
So what do I call Mr/Ms Jenner? I don’t. I have no word in my vocabulary; “him” is inaccurate, “her” is inaccurate, “it” is inaccurate and I’ve just exhausted my list of third person pronouns.
In the case of spayed and neutered dogs; one goes by the penis or lack thereof whether its a “him” or a “her” even though not completely a him or a her. For my own purposes, short of DNA testing for XX or XY chromosomes, the same procedure seems accurate. A reasonable description therefore is “a man that thinks he is a woman and acts and dresses as he imagines a woman ought to dress and act” which may of course be nothing like actual women dressing and acting; or that all women everywhere dress and act in a “way”.
Sheri, I see that you were responding to other comments and the part that I responded two is not perhaps an accurate representation of your thoughts on this matter.
As to homosexuals adopting a child; by itself I do not judge it good or bad. It is not the best thing possible and it is not the worst thing possible. The foster system seems to be pretty bad overall; consequently it is entirely possible for an adoption by homosexuals (or even just fostering since homosexuals do not seem to stay together more than heterosexuals), is better in the case that, apart from homosexuality, they have good values; the definition of which can wait for a different day, but would certainly include things from the Boy Scout law; trustworthy, helpful and so on.
But I am not going to pretend that Suzie having two Daddies is optimum or even equal to having a mother and a father. I question the mens’ qualifications to counsel their daughter over menstruation and a great many other issues.
This is the point where in a typical online conversation someone trots out this anecdote or the other, the exception to the rule which actually helps illustrate the rule.
Michael 2: I agree with your statements on how can we care about gender “changes” when men and women are equal. Why does gender matter at all, yet the Left insists we label gender according to our preferences, not reality. It’s like a colorblind society, something the Left also will never allow to happen. Differences mean division and the Left needs divisions, in spite of claims to the contrary. Division is what the Left is about.
As for what to call Caitlyn/Bruce that is accurate, I don’t know. Caitlyn, formerly Bruce, is about the only term I can come up with. There are no gender pronouns because this is abnormal. It does not occur in nature, so we must create a new gender term—like the nonsense with pronouns that are gender free. He is not a woman, yet he altered himself to make himself look like that and it’s a surgical alteration versus cross-dressing. It appears we need a lot of new words to cover the insanity that ignoring reality creates. (Actually, I think Caitlyn. formerly Bruce, was attention seeking and it certainly worked.)
My major objection to the homosexuals adopting is it is a political act, rather than concern for the child. The problem with girls and only daddies happens in widowed or divorced dads raising girls. My brother simply did not explain anything to his niece—she got all of her sex education at school, from friends and presumably from the hookers he lived with off and on. She refused to admit she had reached menstrual age, even when evidence indicated she had. (Am I aiding or hurting my case with this example?)
It’s unfortunate that this turned into a discussion about the foster care system.
Going back to the main topic: No state or employer could ever get me to call a man a woman, or refer to “her” desk. I don’t care what the man wants, looks like, or has done to himself. He can do what he wants, but he can’t require me to lie. Now, if I had a male neighbor or coworker who wanted to be called “Jane,” I’d call him Jane regardless of what he looked or acted like — just as I’d call him “Junior” or any other preferred name (I do have a neighbor who goes by “Dragon” — I have no idea why). That’s just what one does when someone says, “I go by XXX,” no matter how normal or weird. But call someone by a different pronoun? Even a made-up one if he or she prefers? NO. And I would not pay a fine if they levied it. I hope people in NYC have some sense.
A long time ago I used to have my hair cut at a salon where man dressed and made up as a striking-looking woman was the receptionist. He went by the name “Sirocco,” which is what I called him. I quickly found another salon.
You go on about denial of reality which, in this specific case, is certainly taking place, but early on in this article you state that, “Life in the world to come will be different…”
Um… Excuse me? What ‘world to come’? What are you talking about? There is this life and then… well, we don’t know what for sure. Oblivion, most likely. If you are going to write about the current state of insanity the world is plunging into, it would help to leave religious myths out of it, for when they are included they merely damage your case.
Anyway, if you think NYC is now a modern-day ‘Sodom’, then you should be thankful you don’t reside in Australia, where a number of years ago a prominent lesbian politician adopted a child with her ‘partner’, and the press triumphantly proclaimed that ‘Minister X has just had a child! Congratulations!’
Really? My very first thought was, “Who was the father?” That was never mentioned, and his name will forever remain unknown, because in this Orwellian world within which we live it would be a thought-crime to even mention him. He is a non-person, he doesn’t exist.
How I miss the 20th century. The Cold War, the MAD doctrine, the Soviet Union, good vs evil – much simpler times, a paradise of sanity compared to now. Now everyone is just bat-sh*$ crazy (with a few exceptions, of course. But for how long will the small oases of sanity be able to hold out?).
Another term often heard: “We’re pregnant” meaning the husband and wife. Obviously, there is no “we” in this. The wife is pregnant. The husband made his contribution, she is now making hers and together they raise the offspring.
Peter A: Best comment on all this so far: “How I miss the 20th century. The Cold War, the MAD doctrine, the Soviet Union, good vs evil – much simpler times, a paradise of sanity compared to now. Now everyone is just bat-sh*$ crazy…”
Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/12/27) | The Reactivity Place