Just maybe, it all comes down to courage.

I’m ready to confront that Rottweiler!

Way back when I was a “family therapist”, personal counselor or performance coach—yeah, different names, different audience but similar processes—I noticed some common patterns in people who sought third party “expertise” in solving their problems. The most noticeable were: on their list of “who’s to blame”, the same someone was always missing; someone was always to blame; they had no clear standards with which to compare themselves; they assumed that the public behavior of other families, couples or individuals was typical of their private lives; and of course, the corollary of the last point was “my life is worse than theirs.”

A well-known social media site has decided that from now on it will not publish how many people “liked” what people had posted on it because some posts attracted many more “likes” than others, thereby wounding the self-esteem of those whose posts were not much “liked.” From now on, the only person to know how many “likes” his post attracts will be the person who posted it. He will not be able to compare himself with others and will therefore be able to continue to think well of himself. “Thinking well of oneself.” Called self-esteem. Definition of self-esteem from Merriam-Webster: 1- a confidence and satisfaction in oneself. Synonyms for self-esteem: ego, pride, pridefulness, self-regard, self-respect. A more “psychological” definition from Psychology Today: Confidence in one’s value as a human being is a precious psychological resource and generally a highly positive factor in life; it is correlated with achievement, good relationships, and satisfaction. I would say there’s a very thin line between negative aspects of self-esteem—pridefulness, egotism—and the positive aspects—respect, confidence. The problem, as always, is beginning with “self”.

My personal favorite, the one which inspired this post, is not so much a definition as a commentary, by psychiatrist and writer Theodore Dalrymple: “A lack of self-esteem can be blamed for almost any human failing, from arrogance to self-effacement, from exaggerated risk-taking to cowardice, from drug-taking to puritanism. No patient ever complained to me that he had too much self-esteem and requested a treatment by which it might be reduced, though it is obvious that any self-esteem at all is too much; but many patients claimed that their problem was lack of self-esteem. What they usually meant by this was that they continued on the same self-destructive path despite their knowledge that it was self-destructive. They were complaining not of lack of self-esteem, as they thought they were, but of lack of courage.

“Self-esteem is a psychological, or pseudo-psychological, concept or characteristic; courage is a moral one. People much prefer to think that they are psychologically deficient rather than morally deficient; among other benefits, psychological deficiency turns their problem into a technical one that someone else should have the means to solve. But where does courage come from? It comes from the decision to exercise it and to take the consequences of having exercised it. It is true, of course, that many people have been constantly denigrated in their lives, told repeatedly that they cannot do this or that, and so forth, and seem to have absorbed the message; they behave as human doormats. But it is still courage that they need, not self-esteem, for the latter is a quality that is believed to be deserved irrespective of what a person does, almost as a human right. It is like the right to have an opinion irrespective of whether one knows anything about the subject on which it is an opinion, rather that the right to have an opinion on that subject because one has studied it and knows a great deal about it. Freedom of speech is a human right, but an opinion based upon knowledge is a locus standi.” He summarizes by writing “self-esteem is one of those psychological concepts by which we empty the world of moral meaning, hoping for a technical solution to our discontents—a world in which the number of likes is the measure of all things.” I agree. The opposite view, one I disagree with, is taken by the following, my comments in bold.

1stHolistic.com says this: The human race is exhibiting low self-esteem in epidemic proportions. Nearly everywhere you go, you see and hear signs of low self-esteem including people complaining, avoiding, or judging one another. It is time for people to begin recognizing where they may have low self-esteem and start believing in themselves in all areas of their lives. You mean like American students rating themselves as better in math than Korean students, when in reality they are nowhere close in performance? The following 10 symptoms of “low self-esteem” are assumed by the author to be the effects, rather than the cause of it. What if those behaviors are actually the cause?

1. Walking with your head down. If you’ve ever seen someone walking with his head pointed downwards, with his chin scraping the front of his body, then you have witnessed low self-esteem. How can you know that? There is no objective measure of self-esteem. This is typical psychobabble. Especially if they’re using a metal detector on the beach.

2. You don’t make and/or sustain direct eye contact with others. Someone who shifts his eyes about and/or is unable to make direct eye contact is communicating low self-esteem. Maybe, then again the other person may simply be ugly or sporting a huge wart on the nose.

3. You do not accept compliments well. “Oh no, not me”. Responding to a compliment with a statement of denial is another sign of low self-esteem. Isn’t it more often both a form of false modesty and a way of fishing for more compliments?

4. You apologize and feel guilty. If you say the words “I’m sorry” often, then you are apologizing for living. Apologizing a lot usually goes hand in hand with feeling guilty. Guilt is a major low self-esteem growth hormone. No idea pisses me off more than “guilt is a feeling.” No, it’s a judicial conclusion, either you are guilty or not guilty. What if the feeling we call guilt is more often our reaction to a failure to do the right things, or forswear doing the right things?

5. You get frustrated, impatient, or angry often. When you do not feel good about yourself, you tend to have very little patience with others. This is the worst, blaming your behavior on some immeasurable internal state. Those are bad habits which can yield to training of good ones.

6. You use negative, hopeless language. Low self-esteem seeps in to one’s daily language. Examples of negative, hopeless, low self-esteem language include phrases like: “It figures”, or “If something bad is going to happen, it will happen to me”, or “I’m only human”. A close second to #5 in the self justifying sweepstakes, don’t people substitute such phrases for the effort required to do better?

7. You are depressed. Chronic, pervasive, and extended bouts of low self-esteem are often precursors to depression. Cause effect reversal. Much if not most chronic, severe depression can be chemical or hormonal. I used to believe this one, but having lived with some seriously, chronically depressed people, including bipolar, I now disagree. Unfortunately, most people taking antidepressants are not clinically depressed, but unhappy and looking for a cure.

8. You take things personally. The lower your self-esteem, the more you will feel unsure of yourself. The more unsure you feel about yourself, the more apt you will be to take what other people say personally. This one is often close to the truth. People in my life who do that, and see that I never do, accuse me of being “unfeeling “. Why should I take anything personally?

9. You do not engage with others. Your lack of belief in yourself may motivate you to choose to hide away from reality or cloister yourself away from other living, breathing humans. The people store is a pain in the ass. How many of us normals would prefer less interaction if it weren’t required?

10. You do not take risks. Some people respond to low self-esteem by avoiding taking risks in their personal and professional lives. Some truth here, though more often those people will risk using a “preemptive strike” as a fallback.

In conclusion, your worldview is either moral or therapeutic. If you look at our world and despair of how idiotic it often seems, maybe what is needed is a return to a moral worldview. Whose morals you ask? That’s a complicated question. My worldview is Biblical. You can start by asking people you know what principles they subscribe to, then ask yourself, “whom would I rather spend time with?” It’s a start.

“Come near to me” replaced “keep your distance”.

Holy of holies curtain torn from top to bottom at Jesus’ death.

“The Old Testament is so harsh, so bloody, I don’t accept it as part of the Bible. I can accept the New Testament, and the love of Jesus Christ (because that feels good to me), because God is love, but that Old Testament, ugh.” I am paraphrasing countless people who either consider themselves Christians, or “spiritual”, but who are turned off by the Old Testament. But my friends, Charles Spurgeon has a word for you. Here is his medication and meditation for September 15:

“A people near unto him.” Psalm 148:14. The dispensation of the old covenant was that of distance. When God appeared even to his servant Moses, he said, “Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet”; and when he manifested himself upon Mount Sinai, to his own chosen and separated people, one of the first commands was, “Thou shalt set bounds about the mount.” Both in the sacred worship of the tabernacle and the temple, the thought of distance was always prominent. The mass of the people did not even enter the outer court. Into the inner court none but the priests might dare to intrude; while into the innermost place, or the holy of holies, the high priest entered but once in the year. It was as if the Lord in those early ages would teach man that sin was so utterly loathsome to him, that he must treat men as lepers put without the camp; and when he came nearest to them, he yet made them feel the width of the separation between a holy God and an impure sinner. When the gospel came, we were placed on quite another footing. The word “Go” was exchanged for “Come”; distance was made to give place to nearness, and we who aforetime were afar off, were made nigh by the blood of Jesus Christ. Incarnate Deity has no wall of fire about it. “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” is the joyful proclamation of God as he appears in human flesh. Not now does he teach the leper his leprosy by setting him at a distance, but by himself suffering the penalty of his defilement. What a state of safety and privilege is this nearness to God through Jesus! Do you know it by experience? If you know it, are you living in the power of it? Marvellous is this nearness, yet it is to be followed by a dispensation of greater nearness still, when it shall be said, “The tabernacle of God is with men, and he doth dwell among them.” Hasten it, O Lord.

“Sin is so loathsome to a holy God.” If you can’t accept that word, perhaps you don’t believe in sin, or you can’t reconcile the idea of it being loathsome to God with your concept of God’s love. The key words here are “you” and “your”. You are the measure of truth, for you say in your heart, “my god would never allow the cruelties of the Old Testament.” Notice the small g in your god, the concept of god that is your creation, who is bounded by limits set by you, who you might even bless when your life is pleasant, and curse when trials and adversity are upon you. Folks, what if the adversities of life are the true blessings, and prosperity–when we most often tend to forget God–a test of your faithfulness? Ugh, how can that be, my god wants me to be happy 😃. Otherwise, why believe in god?

Then there are those who believe in god within themselves. “I am god, you are god, we are all god, we just have to believe in our power enough to manifest it.” Good luck with that when your precious child falls ill to the point of death, when your mother ceases to recognize you due to Alzheimer’s, when all the love you’ve invested in your spouse is betrayed by infidelity, when a hurricane destroys your home and business and the insurance company denies your claim. If you are god, can you change any of that in the slightest? “Well, I just need to increase my faith in my divinity.” Or, “I curse God for bringing this suffering.” Or “if God were just, this would not have happened.” It will, suffering will come to all, to test your faith, to build your endurance, to show you God is God, you are not.

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” – Matthew 27:50-54. The curtain of the temple, separating the priests from the “holy of holies”, was torn from top to bottom. Why is that significant? It showed that God did it, not some man, who would have torn it from bottom to top. The tearing of symbolized the removal of the separation. It was God’s way of saying, “now you may come near.”

What about all those nasty and brutal things in the Old Testament, how can that be a loving God? The book of Judges is certainly the ugliest, human sin on prideful, selfish display. That isn’t God at all. The book begins with the Israelites obeying God’s commands to conquer and occupy the territory He had given to them and ends with the explanation for the evil they committed. In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. – Judges 21:25. The king was not an earthly king, it should have been God’s commands.

There is also beauty in the Old Testament, like the book that follows Judges, Ruth. There is wisdom in Proverbs, Psalms and Ecclesiastes. There is love in the Song Of Solomon. There is unshakable faith in Job, Joshua and Nehemiah. There is prophecy in Daniel and Isaiah. If you think it’s all violence and bloodshed, you haven’t read much…probably just enough to confirm your prejudices.

No thanks, but I’ll raise my mug to you.

I have lifted most of the content herein from Takimag.com, an essay by Christopher DeGroot titled “multicultural frauds”, since I am not quite up to his level of eloqunce…yet. My comments are in bold: “Here, then, is a glimpse of the future of America. Here is the monstrosity of leftist power, the sentimental authoritarian mind.” To what is he spefically referring? “In 2017, the Brookings Institution took a survey of 1,500 current undergraduates. To the question of whether a student group had the right to shout down or otherwise disrupt a speaker who is “known for making offensive and hurtful statements,” 51% answered that they found such a tactic justifiable. One in five students said that violence was acceptable in silencing a politically incorrect speaker. Though slightly more Democrats than Republicans rejected the use of violence as a counter to politically incorrect speech, 62% of Democrats, compared with 39% of Republicans and 45% of Independents, believed that it was permissible to scream and chant in order to stop a controversial (read: non-leftist) speaker from being heard by the audience.

“To a significant extent, the U.S. is free speech; democracy is the freedom to disagree and therefore offend, because without such friction we cannot argue our way toward the best means of dealing with our many problems. Yet today many students, instead of being taught to think for themselves, instead of nurturing the ability to learn from experience itself, whose greatest fruit is wisdom, learn to misperceive reality in terms of an a priori agenda: the progressive dream of the academic left (this dream is what I have been calling, in my blog posts, the “Perfectionist Progressive Utopian wetdream”). To be sure, many of these students mean well; they think they are on the side of ‘social justice,’ nobly standing up for the oppressed. Still, they are like a high-speed train without a conductor.

“Compared with ordinary Americans, whom he regards as ‘unenlightened,’ the multicultural intellectual is like a sham believer who points a self-righteous finger at his sinful fellow citizen: ‘You are the problem,’ he asserts. ‘It is your ignorance that precludes social justice.’ (Why do I say Perfectionist Progressive? The goal is a world in which everyone attains to the standard of enlightenment that the perfectionist imagines himself to possess–everyone that is who is left alive after the eggs have been broken to make this particular omelet.) In a better, manlier time, such a type would be nothing but a laughable diversion. As it is, this accuser is increasingly common and highly influential. So we must expose the truth about the multicultural intellectual.

“There is high comedy in the fact that although the multicultural intellectual, with his ignorant simplifications and petty resentments, looks down on the ordinary man, it is the latter who has the more healthy and balanced nature. Whether his work clothes are dirty overalls or a dark suit, the ordinary man does not hesitate to laugh off the anxious lies of women’s studies, to which the multicultural intellectual must pay respect. ‘Toxic masculinity?’ the blue-collar laborer asks with mocking grin. ‘No thanks, ugly duckling. I’ll have a beer with my buddies and wish you luck at getting a life, too.’ Likewise, his nature is hardy enough not to get bogged down in sentimental despair upon intuiting that, deep human value invariably being a matter of the severest selectivity, not every desirable end can be achieved, unhappiness shall always abound, and minimizing the suffering of what is nearest must be primary.”

Middle east follies

Sad Syria

Could any people on earth be more miserable than the beleaguered, vulnerable Syrians caught in the middle of a war not of their own making? From Judicial Watch corruption chronicles, August 29, 2019: “A multi-billion-dollar government program to feed “vulnerable” Syrians has provided food for jihadist militants in a group designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). American taxpayers have spent a fortune on “emergency food assistance” during the Syrian crisis that began with the 2011 Arab spring and some of it has actually gone to terrorists that hate us and want to kill us. The Al Qaeda affiliate is known as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and it aims to establish a regional Islamic caliphate, according to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Since 2012, the U.S. government has provided Syria with nearly $3 billion in emergency food assistance, approximately $1.8 billion to help “vulnerable families” inside the country and more than $1.1 billion for “vulnerable refugees in neighboring countries.” 

The famously corrupt U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which has a monstrous budget and little oversight, handles the money and doles out cash to groups, mostly non-governmental organizations (NGOs), that provide food.  This is hardly the first time that terrorists benefit from USAID’s unchecked generosity. The agency has sent Yemen, the Islamic nation that serves as the headquarters of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), $768 million in “humanitarian aid.” One in-depth report confirming that “Yemen has emerged as the breeding grounds for some of the most high-profile plans to attack the U.S. homeland.” Additionally, dozens of terrorists freed from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have joined Al Qaeda in Yemen. Yet the American humanitarian dollars keep flowing with little oversight.

Last year Judicial Watch reported that USAID funds a global humanitarian group that helps Islamic terrorist organizations abroad as well as a country that appears on the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism. The Scandinavian organization, Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), received USAID funds despite violating federal funding requirements by providing material support to Iran, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP). The middle east may be a slouch when it comes to peace or feeding their people, but can breed alphabet groups with the best of them. Hamas, PFLP and DFLP appear on the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control’s specially designated nationals and blocked persons list. USAID claims it filled NPA’s coffers to support the leftist group’s various projects in the region aimed at bringing “human worth and equal rights for all, irrespective of sex, disability, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual preference, or social status.” What, “wokeness” comes to the middle east?

Meanwhile, in the people’s paradise of Somalia, a member of our House of Representatives declares the importance of supporting a terrorist organization. Oh my, I meant in the United States, not Somalia. Sorry, I get confused sometimes. Ilhan Omar is demanding that a telecom company founded and operated by a renowned terrorist financier, receive protection from that country’s government and peacekeeping forces. An Israeli-based newspaper broke the story a few days ago, but the American mainstream media has been notably silent on the matter. Really?

The company, Hormuud Telecommunications, was created and is operated by Ahmed Nur Ali Jim’ale, a chief financier of alShabaab, an east African-based jihadist group whose viciousness is exceeded by only Boko Haram and ISIS, known as “despoilers of young women” an “despoilers of any age, any sex” respectively. In her social media account, Omar writes that Somalia’s government and peacekeeping forces need to protect Hormuud and the Somali telecom industry as they make enormous contributions to the economy and provide vital services. “During my visit to Somalia in 2011, I was surprised by the quick evolution of technology in Somalia,” Omar posts, indirectly praising the telecom firm with terrorist ties, because who else around there has the expertise? The second U.N. Security Council report, published last year, links a terror attack that killed hundreds in 2017 to Hormuud. The event is described as the deadliest terror attack in Somalia’s history, carried out with a large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. 

Just what the Islamic world needs now, unwitting (?) U.S. assistance in technology and food.

The “Neo-cervix” syndrome of Canada.

Oh Canada, have you lost your collective, ever-lovin minds?And don’t shrug and say, “eh.” I want you to explain how the Canadian Cancer Society thought their new ad campaign to fight cervical cancer should be dominated by a transgender person who is a biological male and has no cervix. Look at the absurdity of the ad under the caption “Transwomen and Cervical Cancer Screening”. Maybe the insanity isn’t complete, as the site explains that the risk of cervical cancer for a person with no cervix is very low. Does very low mean 0? “If you’re a trans woman, you may not have given much thought to Pap tests and cervical cancer. And if you haven’t, that makes a fair amount of sense. After all, in order to get cervical cancer, you need to have a cervix.” Duh. But don’t be fooled by the seeming clarity of this statement. They go on to talk themselves out of it. “If, however, you’re a trans woman who has had bottom surgery to create a vagina (vaginoplasty) and possibly a cervix, there’s a very small risk that you can develop cancer in the tissues of your neo-vagina or neo-cervix. The risk depends on the type of surgery you had, the type of tissue used to create your vagina and cervix and your personal health history. Talk to your healthcare provider to figure out your specific cancer-screening needs as part of your overall pelvic health following surgery.”

A “neo-cervix” is a fake cervix. It’s not a working body part. It’s a representation of a cervix created on an operating table. By whom, a plastic surgeon? A sculptor specializing in clay? Calling it a “cervix” or even a “neo-cervix” doesn’t make it an actual cervix. And if it isn’t a cervix, can it contract cervical cancer? Maybe neo-cancer (is that a thing)? Telling the public that biological men can get “cervical cancer” on a part of their body that was sculpted to look like a cervix is ridiculous. And let’s not forget that Canada uses a single-payer health care system where long wait times cause many unnecessary deaths and suffering. How many actual women with female organs will now suffer because their “women’s” health screenings are clogged up by biological men who don’t need to get them?

In England, the public health department included biological men who pretend to be women in their cervical cancer screenings too if they identify as female. And if females identify as male, they will not be invited to be screened for cervical cancer despite having working cervixes. Almost makes Canada seem sane–I said almost! Women’s campaigner Laura Perrins told the Mail On Sunday: “We’ve now got to the point where state collusion with this transgender agenda is endangering the health of women. “It’s a ludicrous use of NHS resources to invite men for a cervical smear test, while it’s immoral and dangerous not to invite women.” Laura, a comment that sane could get you locked up in an insane asylumpsychiatric hospital. Don’t worry, I’ll write to you.

The ultimate politically incorrect sexual identity questionnaire!

Which way did they go?

This morning, I visited my Ear, Nose and Throat specialist for a persistent sinus infection, and his nurse had a questionnaire for me. Since the office already had previous questionnaires on me, I only had to circle three new questions: what gender were you assigned at birth, what gender would you be considered now, what gender do you identify with? When I finished laughing, I asked what my gender had to do with my sinuses. She shrugged and mumbled something about the whole organization requiring these questions. Lest you think that the organization was just a local ENT practice, no. This organization operates in multiple states, and is one of the largest medical providers in the country. Needless to say, I thought the incident requires a post, because I was so inspired. Thus, presenting the Ultimate Sexual Identity questionnaire. Circle or underline the most appropriate response.

1. When you were born, what did the delivery team guess your sex to be? Male. Female. Transgender. They didn’t want to say it out loud for fear of losing their jobs. I don’t know what they said, that was before I could understand English.

2. When you were in kindergarten, what did you think when your teacher asked you to identify with a gender? What’s a gender? What does identify mean? Why is your hand inside my pants? Why does my class have their phones out? Oh, you mean my sex!

3. Once you were old enough to understand English, did you play “doctor” with other kids? Yes, fully dressed, it wasn’t that interesting. Yes, with underwear pulled down, but interrupted by a severe spanking. No, we just looked through National Geographic magazine. No, the sex education videos made that game unnecessary.

4. In high school, what gender expressions excited you the most? The most clearly opposite sex. Any of them, even in a burqa when the hormones were raging. None, Playboy Magazine was quite adequate. The guys wearing dresses and falsies. The girls who didn’t need falsies.

5. If visitors from another planet landed on your college campus, what would you want to know about their gender expression? Say what? Can I peek under your carapace? Nothing, I was too busy running from their death ray after that last question. Have you checked in with the campus diversity and inclusion office?

6. If Trump is re-elected, what will happen to the diversity of gender expressions? Everyone, regardless of sex, will be required to wear their hair in a combover. All 51 flavorsgenders will be required to shave their heads, so his hair will be the longest. Without importing clothing from China, no one will be able to afford gender expressions. Nothing, the president has no power to control that.

7. Which statement about sex and gender is correct? Sex is usually under the sheets, in private. Gender is less disgusting than sex, because no fluids are involved. Sex is less confusing than gender, because 2 is a smaller number than 51. Gender is less confusing than sex, because there is only one acceptable position.

8. When you were running for your life from the alien death ray, what were your thoughts about gender? I’m glad I have testosterone, it helps me run faster. If I were a woman, could I appeal to the alien’s sense of chivalry not to zap me? If I were transgender, could I appeal to the alien’s fear of being transphobic? Gender politics was not uppermost in my mind at that moment.

I may be on a roll here, but that knocking on my door sounds a little limp wristed, and I fear it’s the gender police, so I’ll end here. I forgot to load my new .38 Special revolver.

Diversity. Equity. Inclusion. DEI GRATIA means “by the grace of God”.

D.E.I. is anything but the grace of God, but I wanted to play a word game with the letters. Buzzfeed.com published Mr. Gender Bender’s letter to parents of children who stare at him. “But one type of attention stands out above the rest: the attention of confused children. I first started noticing it when I moved to New York City at the age of 22. I was reminded of this attention again the other weekend, when I traveled from Los Angeles to Florida for a queer conference at the Orlando Hilton resort. But the most common reaction was that your children, upon noticing my gender expression, turned to you and exclaimed something like, ‘Mommy, that boy is wearing lipstick!’ or ‘Look, Dad! Look at what he’s wearing!’ After your kids called your attention to my gender expression, you all did pretty much the same thing. You looked my way, made eye contact with me, became swiftly embarrassed yourselves, and told your kids that ‘It’s not nice to talk about strangers.’

Parents, I’ve decided that we need to have a little chat, because you can do better than that. You have to do better. You owe it to me, to the trans community, and to your kids’ emotional development to do better. Parents of the world, I’d like to suggest a better paradigm for handling this situation when it inevitably arises again. The next time your child turns to you and says, ‘Look! That boy is wearing lipstick!’ or ‘That girl is wearing a bowtie!’ don’t shut down the conversation by telling them not to talk about strangers. Instead, try answering the question that they’re really asking; try talking to them about the beautiful diversity of gender expression in our world.You’ve decided WE need to have a chat? Thanks for your parental advice, but I think I’ll pass. However, in the interest in D.E.I., let’s take a swing at my having a conversation–a teaching moment with my daughters–when they were young.

This story comes to us from the UK, where a school in East Sussex decided they needed to ban all “gendered” clothing in order to not offend the sensibilities of transgender students (are you listening, gender bender guy?). That meant girls would have to wear pants at all times (gender bender guy says, “may I still wear a dress, as long as I don’t shave?”). The school decided the best course of action was to literally lock the gates and not allow girls who had skirts on to enter the school. That boiled into a protest of over 150 kids, mostly girls wearing skirts. A huge crowd demonstrated with banners outside Lewes Priory, in East Sussex, demanding the school reverses its gender neutral policy banning girls from wearing skirts. Sussex Police were brought in to help control the planned protests and officers were seen standing guard at the entrance checking uniforms. But many students found they couldn’t attend classes on their first day of term, after teachers closed the main gates when the crowd gathered outside.

The demonstration comes after the school announced in 2017 that all students were required to wear trousers, after ‘concerns’ were raised over the length of skirts and to accommodate transgender pupils. Doesn’t quite seem to jibe with their website’s description: Priory School, Lewes is an 11-16 mixed comprehensive school. We are proud of the highly successful rounded education we provide. At Priory we have a longstanding history of academic excellence within a culture of strong pastoral care. Priory is a school where students are expected to work hard and as a result make excellent progress. We believe in balancing the pursuit of academic excellence with the well-being of our community. Our broad curriculum offer reflects the community we serve. Priory School is well regarded and is consistently oversubscribed. Our school aims to reflect the uniqueness of Lewes, historically and socially.

A high school in North Carolina is under fire for an assignment entitled “Diversity Inventory” that left students crying and parents outraged. Heritage High School English teacher Melissa Wilson gave out an assignment to her class last week that asked them to categorize themselves, their parents, their doctor, friends, and more by race, class, sexuality, and religion, among other things. North Carolina Values Coalition reports. “Students were also asked to stand up, and walk towards posters in different areas of the room that correlated with their sexual identities. Another student had a friend who had recently shared very private information about themselves to a select number of their peers, and went white when the teacher asked students to now stand and reveal their private identities.” When the students expressed discomfort, the teacher’s response was to tell them it was alright because “she used to be Catholic and is now a bi-sexual atheist.” Well, excuse meee. I guess it’s okay then.

The teachers at this school district are involved in a district-sponsored program called WCPSS Equity. This office promotes a far-left “social justice” curriculum written by the controversial anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center. The assignment, created by Wilson, is taken from lessons found on a website founded by the SPLC called Tolerance.org. The district also contributes to Tolerance.org via articles written by at least one staff member, assistant superintendant of WCPSS, Rodney Trice, who wrote: “Equity work is not a one-off professional development training or an office that works in isolation. This work requires embedded and systemic shifts. Diversity, equity and inclusion must be infused within the very fabric of your organization, school or district. The transportation department needs to be operating with an equity lens just as much as an academic department, and so on. While traditional leadership is top-down, equity leadership looks more like a lattice—everyone from families to support staff to educators all the way to the school board must be in.” If you aren’t, you’re a bigoted transphobic moron who doesn’t deserve to take up space on this planet! He really wouldn’t be thinking that, would he?

Does this school intend to churn out nothing but politically and culturally brainwashed students? If so, they must necessarily target for censorship any dissenting voices. One wonders how Christian students fare in Ms. Wilson’s class. The Tolerance.org website is full of far-left propaganda, including lessons about gender that are completely unscientific and based in the far-left fantasy that biological boys can be girls and biological girls can be boys. The site also gives away grants to schools that use their radical teaching materials. Is this how the SPLC spends the massive contributions? (see my Monetizing Hatred of Hate post)