Intra-acronym wars: The race to be the more favored victim.

what a boy!?

Peter Heck, writing for PJ Media, used the term above, and it is his words in Italics, below. The acronym in question is LGBTQ. Gay activist and author Andrew Sullivan explains why:

This is the deeply confusing and incoherent aspect of the entire debate. If you abandon biology in the matter of sex and gender altogether, you may help trans people live fuller, less conflicted lives; but you also undermine the very meaning of homosexuality. If you follow the current ideology of gender as entirely fluid, you actually subvert and undermine core arguments in defense of gay rights. “A gay man loves and desires other men, and a lesbian desires and loves other women,” explains Sky Gilbert, a drag queen. “This defines the existential state of being gay. If there is no such thing as ‘male’ or ‘female,’ the entire self-definition of gay identity, which we have spent generations seeking to validate and protect from bigots, collapses.” Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them.

And it’s important to realize this isn’t just academic opposition.  It has real-life consequences, and those, perhaps more than anything else, are what seem to be motivating an increasingly vocal lesbian revolt against their transgender foes. Julia Beck, an outspoken lesbian, was recently kicked off Baltimore’s LGBTQ commission.  Her crime?  Offending the pronoun police in the transgender crusade.

“I was found guilty of ‘violence.’ My crime? Using male pronouns to talk about a convicted male rapist who identifies as transgender and prefers female pronouns.  It doesn’t matter that he sexually assaulted two women in a women’s prison after being transferred there on account of his ‘gender identity.’ Oh no, it is far more criminal for me to call a male rapist ‘he’ than it is for him to rape,” Beck argued… “The meeting made one thing crystal clear: Inclusivity means all voices are welcome, except women’s, except lesbians’,” Beck said. “Everything is about the T now, entirely eclipsing the L, G, and B. The T is diametrically opposed to the first three letters in the acronym, and especially to the L.”

And Beck isn’t the only lesbian who has suffered the consequences of being a member of the less-favored victim category at the moment.  Iconic tennis legend Martina Navratilova has been dropped from the advisory board and ambassador position for the LGBT group “Athlete Ally.”  Why?  Because Navratilova wrote these words in a Sunday Times op-ed:

“A man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organization is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires,” she wrote. “It’s insane and it’s cheating,” she continued. “I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair.”

Gee, why the objection? It is acknowledging the reality that male hormones build more muscle mass than female, males have greater lung capacity and heart/blood pumping force. Of course, women in great shape could build greater endurance than a sedentary male, but she is talking about conditioned, trained athletes.

Martina Navratilova has done more to advance the homosexual rights movement than perhaps any sports figure in history.  She “came out” in the 1980s and faced far more opposition to her positions than any of these modern sexual revolutionaries will ever know.  She should, in every way imaginable, be their hero. Instead, she’s slammed as a hater and kicked out of the club.  Lesbians everywhere should be on notice: if they’re willing to trample the name, legacy, and reputation of Martina Navratilova, they’re willing to do it to you. 

And for all those who have advanced the identity crusade of homosexualism the last several years, your greatest enemy is not conservative Christians who point towards redemption in Jesus.  Your greatest enemy is in your own acronym. This echoes the immortal words and country wisdom of Lyndon Johnson, when asked why he would invite sworn enemies to join his campaign: “I’d rather have him in the tent pissin’ out, than out of the tent pissin’ in.” Amen.

But wait, how did this state of affairs occur so fast and so thoroughly? How did transgenderism, which is either an anomaly or a hoax, gain so much cultural power? Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains in the chapter of his book, Skin In The Game called the Dictatorship of the Small Minority that in a complex system in which a flexible majority and intransigent, inflexible minority (need I say fanatical), the most intransigent wins. What the heck am I talking about? He gives an example of Kosher products. A tiny but inflexible minority in our society demand Kosher food, while the majority don’t care or even know what Kosher is. But, unbeknownst to most of us, many foods we buy carry the little kosher symbol–a U surrounded by a circle–sometimes with the word pareve. When I read that, I thought nah, can’t be. But in my fridge and pantry, Heinz barbecue sauce, Trader Joe’s almond butter, Walmart soy sauce, Trader Joe’s almond milk, Planters peanuts, Barilla pasta, Trader Joe’s maple syrup…what? I have shopped at Trader Joe’s for years, and have seen countless yuppies, but not a single Hasidim or yarmulke in any TJs store. Yet, it seems the majority of their products are Kosher. Why?  Simply because going full Kosher allows the producer, grocer, restaurant, to not have to distinguish between Kosher and nonkosher with special markers, separate aisles, separate inventories, different stocking sub-facilities. The simple rule that affects the whole is as follows: A Kosher (or halal) eater will never eat nonkosher (or nonhalal) food , but a nonkosher eater isn’t banned from eating kosher.

Talib points out that two factors influence how yielding the majority, who tend to be flexible, will be to the I.M., intransigent minority. Distribution in the population: If the I.M. is randomly distributed throughout the majority, their demands are more likely to be met than when they are concentrated in their own enclaves. Cost of accommodation: There is a relatively simple cost-benefit calculation involved when we are talking about a product line being all Kosher vs. the cost of differentiating Kosher from nonkosher. When we are talking about behaviors rather than products, the analysis skews much more in the direction of accommodating the I.M., and the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease, so we could assume, even if overwhelming evidence was not shoved in our faces, that the trans lobby squeals the loudest.

So there you have it. This aberration or hoax or anomaly called transgenderism and it’s handmaiden, gender dysphoria, have rapidly and radically accumulated political and cultural power by virtue of their intransigence! I think the rest of the culture needs to be a lot more intransigent!

Wearable schizophrenia.

We’ve all read about or seen so many recent instances of MAGA hat insanity, people being assaulted or refused service just for wearing a hat with four capital letters on it. Make America Great Again is apparently a capital crime. What if I was a rabid Arsenal soccer team fan–there are probably millions–and I wanted to tout Make Arsenal Great Again? Would I still be refused service? Does the MAGA hat wearer have to be added to the ever growing list of government protected groups? What if I was black, or transgender, or cross dressing, and wore the hat, would I still be refused service, or assaulted or verbally abused? Nope, hat or not, those are protected groups. I’d call down the wrath of the local EEOC!

What if, as an unprotected and unloved straight white male, I wore a hat with two brims facing opposite directions, each having an entirely different message? One side is red, and merely says MAGA, the other side is black, and says #blacklivesmatter. I could wear whichever message was appropriate for the neighborhood, making friends of those walking towards me from the front, and enemies of those behind me. That’s one way to incite a riot. Or I could turn the hat sideways, illustrating schizophrenia. Ridiculous you say? More ridiculous than assaulting someone for their headgear?

I suppose the general rule for today’s culture is, “outrage makes anything acceptable.” Though of course, it doesn’t. Outrage is only your personal emotions worn on the surface. That doesn’t make anything done from that state of intoxication acceptable or desirable, no more than behaviors driven by being drunk/high on alcohol, meth, cocaine, heroin, or PCP, for instance. Outrage is intoxicating, and you are no less dangerous than the drunk or drug addict panting for a hit.

Oh, am I being intentionally naive? Don’t I know that MAGA stands for President Trump? So what? Does that give you the right to break laws because someone is wearing that message on a hat? Some normally law abiding business owners say publicly that they will refuse service to someone wearing a MAGA hat. Huh? Isn’t that illegal? No, it’s now illegal to refuse service to a man kissing another man, or someone flamboyantly dressed like the other sex (ah, a clothing crime, because they must be trans), or someone with a different skin color. I would like nothing better than to see Billy Porter, that black actor who considers him/herself to be the wife of a man, who wore that flamboyant “tuxedo gown” to the Oscars, wear a MAGA hat to a restaurant virtue signaling by refusing service to the hat!

Yeah, that’s likely! I can always dream. Isn’t that America?

When your eyes are open.

Oops, wrong ring…..boom!

I consider marriage to be a lifelong joining of a biological man and woman. Needless to say, that is an outmoded definition in our postmodern culture, but so what, that’s what I believe. Transgenderism (why the heck is there an ism for a condition?) and it’s current umbrella, LGBTQism, which is already starting to fray in the strong winds of trans intransigence, would argue that anyone can “marry” anyone, though slipperyslope-ism will eventually argue that anyone can marry anything. In fact, there is a guy who insists he married a dolphin. None dare call that an aberration. Today’s aberration is tomorrow’s mainstream, if we keep heading off the cliff of sanity.

I don’t like genuflecting to transgenderism. I’ve called it an aberration, anomaly and a hoax, maybe all three, though I haven’t used the word trannies yet (transmissions are also called trannies) and I have been waiting for a reader to call me out, and ask “how do you think trans people should be treated?” That’s a reasonable question, so rather than wait until it’s asked, I will volunteer my answer. That depends on the venue or context. Within their biological family, they should be loved. Within a Christian church, they should be loved. When out and about among everyone else, they should be loved, and within the company they work for, they should be loved. So should all of us in those venues, in a perfect world. But I need to define love. It doesn’t show up the same in every venue.

Love within your biological family must recognize certain realities: parents don’t take advice from children; as the children get older they take less advice from parents and resent direction more; parents frequently mistake enabling for love, though maybe the truth is that they love themselves so much that they are unwilling to be unpopular with their children. I have no right or authority to make any recommendations for someone else’s family, but I believe children will grow out of gender confusion, unless they choose a peer group that thinks it’s cool. Heaven help them. Parents who buy the idea that hormones or surgery are the answer for gender dysphoria confusion may think they are loving by affirming, but what about the responsibilities of adult counsel? Whatever you do, there are at least two sides to the issue. Why not get both and then apply the test of Y2K? What is that? Remember how many people were in a panic prior to the year 2000 over the impending worldwide computer meltdown that never materialized? I was a financial adviser then, and many people asked my advice. My advice was the same for everyone: Since no one knows what will happen, don’t make irrevocable or irreversible decisions based on the worst case. Plan for a range of scenarios. The trouble with betting everything on the worst case is, you then have a vested interest in the worst case happening.

What this has to do with gender dysphoria confusion is this: The worst case is that your child is truly, biologically “misgendered”. Betting everything on that scenario means irreversible surgery and drugs. If you let them go that far, both they and you have a vested interest in transgenderism being real, and in defending the change, and suppressing regret. What happens when regrets set in, like if God forbid, a biological woman who transitioned to the appearance of a male by having HER uterus removed, changes her mind and later wants to marry a man and have children? What if you rushed to get her testosterone injections and surgery when she was a teenager? Mom or dad, though mostly it’s moms, you failed your daughter. Where was the adult in the family? Instead, if you were more prudent and weighed all kinds of counsel, and came to the conclusion that if your child was still gender confused when they reach the legal age of consent, you would love and accept her or him whatever they chose, what would be your counsel then? Mine would still be “don’t do anything irreversible.” Am I saying that if a parent gives in to a child’s whim or temporary confusion, despite their (hopefully) better judgment, they aren’t loving them. Can you say “enabler”? Love doesn’t collapse with the pressure of expediency.

What about love in the context of a Christian church? What does the Bible say about the creation of human beings? “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27. Did God make a mistake in transgenderism? Or is the dogma of transgenderism the mistake? Love, in the context of the church, is upholding the Word of God and preaching that God will clear up all sexual confusion, and ministering to those in pain without watering down the truth. What about love in the other venues of life? The principle of love is always the same, and it starts with truth. Lying by embracing a fad that would have been considered mental illness a few years ago is still lying, and not love. As for those who profit from advancing a false dogma, and who pressure parents to allow irreversible damage to be done to their children, you are cursed. “But what if it’s not irreversible”, you ask. If you even have to ask, you admit the possibility that the winds of fad can change direction. You are doubly cursed.