Transgender Problem

[ralis]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141449506

 

 

These are a few of the states that were required to have preclearance in regards to the 'Voting Rights Act' and the same discriminatory behavior rears its ugly head.

 

 

 

 

States Dig In Against Directive On Transgender Bathroom UseSource: ASSOCIATED PRESS

BY JONATHAN DREW AND PAUL J. WEBER
Associated Press
RALEIGH, N.C.

Politicians in Texas, Arkansas and elsewhere vowed defiance — and other conservative states could follow suit — after the Obama administration told public schools across the U.S. on Friday to let transgender students use the bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity.

--CLIP
One by one, conservative political leaders thundered against it and President Barack Obama.

"This is the most outrageous example yet of the Obama administration forcing its liberal agenda on states that roundly reject it," said Mississippi Republican Gov. Phil Bryant.

The guidance was issued just days after the Justice Department and North Carolina sued each other a state law requiring transgender people to use the public bathroom that corresponds to the sex on their birth certificate. The law applies to schools and many other places.



Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article77417542.html

[ralis]

No, no. 'Society' has not 'stood up' at all. Instead a group of liberals have forced positive discrimination for a tiny minority onto the majority. Our experience in the UK is the violence against blacks is committed by other blacks and yet it is whites that are accused of racism. Crazy. Same as feminists that are moaning about transvestites using their toilets/changing rooms and feminist/diversity liberals welcoming immigrants now complaining of getting raped by immigrants. None of that is very suprising, even at college the Pakistanis were at war with the Indians and the Arabs targeted the Jews-Meanwhile Arabs and Black Muslims drop homosexuals out of buildings, rape children and stone women to death. The white western population are called bigots if the object to any of this going on in our own countries.

 

In your world view, it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against what you consider a tiny minority and given the problems of rampant abuse and discrimination, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written to protect minorities.

 

https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007677

 

 

JOSEPH GOEBBELS SPEAKS AT BOOK BURNING IN BERLIN

Forty thousand people gather to hear German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels speak in Berlin's Opera Square. Goebbels condemns works written by Jews, liberals, leftists, pacifists, foreigners, and others as "un-German." Nazi students begin burning books. Libraries across Germany are purged of "censored" books. Goebbels proclaims the "cleansing of the German spirit."

 

 

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb41.htm

 

The Versailles treaty of non-peace stood in its way. Poverty, unemployment, desperation, and decay accompanied it through all its ups and downs. An over-refined democratic parliamentarianism that today seems almost grotesque found its last and highest expression. It provided the stage on which National Socialism rose to power. We told our opposition often enough that although we were using its weapons and rules for our purposes, we had nothing intellectually or politically in common with them. To the contrary, our goal was use these means to put and end to them and their methods, to finally eliminate their theories and policies. Both in theory and practice, National Socialism opposes liberalism.

Just as liberalism after the French Revolution had various effects on every nation and people, depending on their nature and character, the same is true today for the forces that oppose it. German democracy was always a particular playground of European liberalism. Its innate tendency towards excessive individualism was foreign to us, which lost it any connection to real political life after the war. It had nothing to do with the people. It represented not the totality of the nation, but turned into a perpetual war between interests that gradually destroyed the national and social foundations of our people’s existence.

 

I resent your incessant rant that a liberal is somehow beneath you and the cause of so many societies ills. I posted these quotes from Dr. Joseph Goebbels as a reminder!

[roger]

I feel that we should debate very lovingly.

 

The thing is that divine love manifests in the most subtle of ways.

 

I'm not judging anyone, just trying to love and say what I feel is helpful.

 

Ask yourself if your words are aggressive, gentle, conflictual, healing......what is the spiritual nature of your words??

 

The importance of divine love can't be overemphasized, and is understated even by Christian ministers in my opinion.

 

Two questions to ask are: 1) What would I want to be said to ME? 2) What if EVERYBODY said this, what would that be like?

 

I know I could be construed as "preaching" but I honestly don't mean it that way, just trying to help.

 

Peace.

[liminal_luke]

I feel that we should debate very lovingly.

 

I appreciate what you´re saying here, and I´d never argue against loving action.  The question is, what would truly loving action look like in this instance?  

 

I´m not sure why, but for me, this thread has been something of an emotional sandtrap.  It gets me worked up.  On the one hand, I´ve enjoyed thinking about the issue and formulating my thoughts as best I can.  Some fellow bums have been supportive of my posts, and I feel as though some cyber friendships have been built and strengthened.  For that I´m grateful.

 

But it´s also been frustrating when I feel I´ve made a point very clearly and a few bums have been unable or unwilling to acknowledge that I might have even the tiniest smidge of a point.  I´ve come to recognize that it´s a dead end, that a person could say anything and these bums would continue to maintain that two and two are five.  

 

In any real debate, two people have to possess at least the theoretical ability to change their minds.  I want to be someone capable of saying...you know, I didn´t see that before but now that you point it out that way I agree with you.  Without that, there´s no real debate at all.

 

I like to think that we are all here to learn and grow.  But this is a public forum and it´s open to everyone with enough intelligence and impulse control to stay out of the way of the moderators.  And that leaves the board open to a lot of less than savory characters, characters whose motive is not, shall we say, spiritual growth. Some of these people might be armchair sociopaths.  They might enjoy setting off verbal bombs and watching everyone scurry around defending silly values. Some people see Taobums as a kind of game where they are the cat and everyone else is a mouse they get to taunt and play with.

 

As hard as it is to walk away from this thread, I´ve decided it´s the loving thing to do.  I´ve said all I have to say and now I need to take care of myself.  I love to have peaceful conversations where philosophical topics are passionately but gently debated, but that´s not possible here and I need to face up to that sad fact.  The loving thing to do when you meet a sociopath isn´t to invite him to tea -- it´s to run the hell away as fast as you can. 

Edited May 14, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

In your world view, it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against what you consider a tiny minority and given the problems of rampant abuse and discrimination, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written to protect minorities.

 

https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007677

 

 

 

 

 

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb41.htm

 

 

 

I resent your incessant rant that a liberal is somehow beneath you and the cause of so many societies ills. I posted these quotes from Dr. Joseph Goebbels as a reminder!

 

Strawman as usual. Funnily enough it is you that is acting in precisely the way that you say you decry.

 

Let me make it plain. In Nazi Germany a few Jew haters imposed their will, through the state, on the rest of the population. What they were doing was social engineering. The state effectively removed ownership of private property and turned it over to the state. This is what the Jim Crow laws did. They told the people who they may associate with and who they may serve in their businesses. It made the state the owner of the business and the proprietor merely a manager carrying out the states orders.

 

Is there any difference in the 1964 act ? No. The Government is telling businesses how they must operate and therefore denying ownership of private property.

 

Your constitution states implicitly the rights everyone is accorded life, liberty, private property, justice and the pursuit of happiness. Rights are NEGATIVES they can only say what may not be done to you and not what should be done for you. If rights are stated POSITIVELY then they are not rights but PRIVILEGES and privileges are issuances by tyrannies.

 

This of course is what you want Ralis, because you are a collectivist statist. You are a communist hiding under a cloak, just the same as every hateful anti-life collectivist that wants 'equality'. Your aim is actually 'conformity'. In a word 'control'.

 

Rights must be for everyone equally, stated as negative. If a group cannot be discriminated against, then no group maybe discriminated against and that includes private business owners being told who they must serve by the state. It is clear discrimination. It denies freedom of association, it denies property ownership, it denies Liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness. It tells individuals that neither their life, or property is truly their own, that it is in the control of the state and that is a great injustice.

 

The law need apply equally also. It should recognise neither colour, race, sex, sexuality, religion or creed. It holds all men equal before it. It does not allow for acts of racist bullying or violence, neither should it allow acts of government racism or violence which are against the rights it must uphold.

 

The Government should not be attempting social engineering neither by civil rights acts, nor by the Nazi final solution. One segues easily into the other. Where it's acceptable to do one, it is perfectly acceptable to extend it to the other.

 

Ralis does not agree with private property unless it's for 'the public good' and by public good he means whatever the state decrees is a public good and that does not include property rights. That's what Hitler and Stalin most certainly agreed on, that the public good was whatever they decided it was. That's how easy it is to slip into tyranny on the back of what looks like a moral idea.

 

 

[steve]

As hard as it is to walk away from this thread, I´ve decided it´s the loving thing to do.  I´ve said all I have to say and now I need to take care of myself.  I love to have peaceful conversations where philosophical topics are passionately but gently debated, but that´s not possible here and I need to face up to that sad fact.  

 

I'll join you.

[Aetherous]

it takes nothing away from other students to allow a transgender student to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity or to allow the student to play volleyball with other students they identify with.

 

I would tend to agree...although I heard someone recently bring up the good point that in school locker rooms, they change in front of each other and sometimes have communal showers. Despite what the individual identifies as, it would be problematic. Imagine a shower full of teenage girls, and then a person there among them has a penis...or a shower full of teenage boys, and one has breasts and a vagina. It's something that responsible adults will always try to avoid, in order to protect everyone involved.

[ralis]

Strawman as usual. Funnily enough it is you that is acting in precisely the way that you say you decry. Let me make it plain. In Nazi Germany a few Jew haters imposed their will, through the state, on the rest of the population. What they were doing was social engineering. The state effectively removed ownership of private property and turned it over to the state. This is what the Jim Crow laws did. They told the people who they may associate with and who they may serve in their businesses. It made the state the owner of the business and the proprietor merely a manager carrying out the states orders. Is there any difference in the 1964 act ? No. The Government is telling businesses how they must operate and therefore denying ownership of private property. Your constitution states implicitly the rights everyone is accorded life, liberty, private property, justice and the pursuit of happiness. Rights are NEGATIVES they can only say what may not be done to you and not what should be done for you. If rights are stated POSITIVELY then they are not rights but PRIVILEGES and privileges are issuances by tyrannies. This of course is what you want Ralis, because you are a collectivist statist. You are a communist hiding under a cloak, just the same as every hateful anti-life collectivist that wants 'equality'. Your aim is actually 'conformity'. In a word 'control'. Rights must be for everyone equally, stated as negative. If a group cannot be discriminated against, then no group maybe discriminated against and that includes private business owners being told who they must serve by the state. It is clear discrimination. It denies freedom of association, it denies property ownership, it denies Liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness. It tells individuals that neither their life, or property is truly their own, that it is in the control of the state and that is a great injustice. The law need apply equally also. It should recognise neither colour, race, sex, sexuality, religion or creed. It holds all men equal before it. It does not allow for acts of racist bullying or violence, neither should it allow acts of government racism or violence which are against the rights it must uphold. The Government should not be attempting social engineering neither by civil rights acts, nor by the Nazi final solution. One segues easily into the other. Where it's acceptable to do one, it is perfectly acceptable to extend it to the other. Ralis does not agree with private property unless it's for 'the public good' and by public good he means whatever the state decrees is a public good and that does not include property rights. That's what Hitler and Stalin most certainly agreed on, that the public good was whatever they decided it was. That's how easy it is to slip into tyranny on the back of what looks like a moral idea.

 

Make all the accusations you want, but you fail to understand the problem with your extremist narrative. You posit an extreme Ayn Rand selfish view and all others be damned. I am finished with this discussion.

[Chang]

I wonder what Ayn rand would have had to say regarding transgener problems.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Chang

[Old River]

.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Old River

[Karl]

Make all the accusations you want, but you fail to understand the problem with your extremist narrative. You posit an extreme Ayn Rand selfish view and all others be damned. I am finished with this discussion.

 

Flounce :-)

I don't fail to understand your extremist narrative. Ayn Rand never said 'others be damned' she showed that it was the complete opposite. That, in fact it is the selfish viewpoint that is the only view point which agrees with reality and is pro-life. It is pro-peace and totally opposed to the initiation of force. The only ones that suffer in an objectivist universe are those trying to get on the backs of everyone else and cause the current mayhem. Where everybody is equal under the law and their right to life, liberty, private property and justice upheld there is no point in racism of any kind. Discrimination is purely by values held and not skin colour or sexuality. The merit of the individual has primacy and not the tribe/state/group.

[Karl]

I wonder what Ayn rand would have had to say regarding transgener problems.

 

 

The thing to understand about Rand is that she is first and foremost a philosopher, but also a human being. Therefore she has opinions about smoking, wallpaper, cake and cuckoo clocks, that have zip all to do with her philosophy. She may very well conclude homosexuality to be an immoral perversion as an opinion, just as she might detest apple pie but love cherry cake.

 

When asked specifically about homosexuality she had an opinion, she likely had one about gamblers, drug users, open relationship adulterers, but philosophically she had nothing at all to say.

 

As peikoff said when asked:

 

"philosophy has no view in regard to specific kinds of sex. A scientific study of sex, different kinds of sex, their motivations, and results would be required. There's nothing in philosophy that will tell you about this question. I once asked Ayn Rand -- I think I mentioned this in OPAR -- "What does philosophy have to say about sex?" She said, "Only one thing: that it’s good." [Transcription and emphasis mine.]"

 

I don't think we should concern ourselves with the motivations of transvestites in exactly the same sense. We might well have an opinion of them as mentally unstable, or some other thing. Personally I will treat people as I find them and as they treat me. Whatever their motivation it does not impinge on my Liberty, life, justice, private property or the pursuit of happiness in any sense what so ever, just as wealthy people buying jet planes and palaces don't, or any of the billions upon billions of personal choices that every person makes.

 

The caveat is of course that we all act peacefully no matter what our opinions, that we can reject anyone we disagree with on fundamental values. As soon as some individual or group attempts to impose its tolerance/intolerance on another individual or group they are participating in violent action and are initiating force. That is why right are negative and the law must judge everyone equally. "Who is/was initiating the violence"? is the only question. There are no 'excuses' or 'explanations'. It's cut and dry. The law might take into consideration the circumstances as a precursor to applying justice, but beyond that, guilty is guilty. On that question of morality and ethics objectivism has much to say.

[Karl]

.

I wish people could grasp the difference between opinion and philosophy. The difference between adopting a position and having an entire philosophy which is not 'a position' in isolation. To grasp when something is philosophical and when it isn't.

 

Rand wasn't omniscient and so objectivism and logic do not guarantee that you are always right. As far as I'm concerned Rand was wrong about homosexuality-I would argue that point if I had ever met her and objectivists often disagree on such issues.

 

Objectivism isn't a dogmatic philosophy like Christianity, instead it accepts mans fallibility, but sees it as a necessity. Where Christianity professes to know what 'God' thinks and would condemn homosexuality on moral grounds, so, objectivism does not. It says that man must decide for himself what is good and bad by his prime value of his own life, that he must make these decisions using his mind and that he has to do so with reason and logic. That he must be entirely free to think and act in his own best interests with his life as purpose in and of itself. That he must allow other men that same latitude fir the same reason.

 

Do you get that ? That Rand doesn't have a 'cult' that she wrote a philosophy of Liberty and of man as an end in himself, his own moral arbiter with all his possibilities of fallibility. She said 'think for yourself and no other'. Apply your mind to the problem in the best way you can, using everything you have learned and take pride in hard thought. It's difficult for people to see it, because they are used to adopting a position with a floating opinion and look to the state to put its thumb up or down like the ancient roman emperors at the coliseum and that this is then a concrete truth. Objectivism discards opinion, emperors or deities and puts the responsibility to decide on the individual. Rand asked no one to follow her, she told people to think that's all, to stop believing in the mysticism and dogmatism of states, stars, Kings, Gods and Ghosts. She laid out only how to think about a problem but left the decision in each individual's hands completely.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

And for those that think differently, here is Rand saying in her own words exactly what I have said. That the law should have nothing to say about homosexuality between consenting adults and that she believed all anti gay/anti gay marriage laws should be repealed.

I hadn't realised this was in one of her QandA sessions.

 

[dust]

I'll take it a step further and say it's pretty much irrelevant, period.

Psychological, biological, choice, I see little difference.

It may be useful to investigate if you are transgender, a close loved one is, or you are a researcher, or care provider.

Otherwise, what's the difference?

 

Well.. yeah. When it comes to most situations, the cause is not relevant. The important thing is, as Luke said, kindness.

 

At the same time, I think public discussion around the subject is necessary, as with any other contentious issue.

 

For one thing, saying "This is nothing to do with you, it's not your life, shut up," while basically true, doesn't really help. There are still going to be objections.

 

For another, public discussion helping to form opinions may well influence the way certain parents react to their own children. If the general consensus among a segment of the population is that transgenderism is purely psychological, and that therapy can 'fix' it, it might be good to get those people thinking about the notion that it could well be physiological, biologically determined, and not 'fixable'.

 

Stifling conversation, in my opinion, will only lead to the unaccepting becoming even less accepting. Forcing opinions upon others without discussion is rarely useful.

 

I see the same kind of thing with 'race'. The vast majority of scientific research proves that the notion of distinct 'races' is bullshit, yet there are still people who believe in a human class system. Even many people who are accepting of other 'races' and of 'inter-racial' marriage often hold some basic belief that 'race' is a valid concept. People are not fully aware of the scientific literature. Many are not capable of holding open conversations on the subject, and many are prevented from doing so because it's not socially acceptable to talk about it.

 

Conversation should be socially acceptable, even encouraged. Whether the science eventually concludes that most transgender people are biologically fixed or psychologically troubled or whatever, knowing and understanding the causes might help certain people to act with more kindness and compassion, to realize that transgender people aren't demons or perverts..

 

 

 

It's shocking how closed minded and insensitive we can be, especially for folks who claim to be interested in spirituality.

 

Yeah. This forum is a weird place.

Edited May 14, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

And rand on racism. It's only 10 minutes. See if we can see a pattern. :-) Naturally Ralis won't watch, but I like the bit where she said we must protect the racists and communists rights to free speech even though both are evil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ralis]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141443359

 

 

 

The Department of Justice Monday filed a lawsuit challenging North Carolina's HB2, known as the state's "bathroom bill." The complaint alleges that provisions in the law that bars transgender people from using bathrooms of public agency aligned with their gender identity violates various civil rights laws.

In particular the Justice Department is focusing on North Carolina state government as an employer and alleges that enforcement of the law discriminates against transgender state employees.

The complaint coincides with the deadline the Department of Justice had given North Carolina to confirm "that the State will not comply with or implement HB2," as the agency said it violates various federal statutes. Not only did Gov. Pat McCrory ® signal he would not be backing down from enforcing the law, he fired an opening shot Monday morning by filing a legal complaint of his own against the federal government, accusing the Obama administration of a "radical reinterpretation" of civil rights laws.

The defendants in the case are McCrory and the State of North Carolina, the University of North Carolina, and the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges their implementation of HB2 "stigmatizes and singles out transgender individuals seeking access to covered facilities, results in their isolation and exclusion, and perpetuates a sense that they are not worthy of equal treatment and respect." It calls the law a violation of Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination by employers (among other types of discrimination); of Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education; and of the Violence Against Women Act.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/doj-press-conference-north-carolina-law

[Old River]

Funny how in the 200+ years of the existence of the United States, this was never a problem.  It's a problem now only because some small-minded people have decided to make it a problem.  

 

Republicans are grandstanding to garner more votes from bigots-- even when they lose battles such as this.  It's the same old southern strategy dogwhistle politics, appealing to people's bigotry so people will vote against their own interests.  It's the only way they can get less wealthy people to vote for them, by further poisoning people's minds with fear and resentment.  And they work round the clock warping the souls of many good people.  

 

But this sudden concern about bathrooms was never about implementing a pragmatic policy of any kind.  Will everyone be required to carry "their papers" with them every time someone has to go to the loo?  Pull down your pants?  Look at your medical records?  How will the government really know?  

 

Funny how a political party that claims the government shouldn't interfere with people's private lives are obsessed with people's privates, from marriage equality to transvaginal ultrasounds, ad nauseum.  Doesn't sound like "small government" to me.  This is why I can't take conservative opposition to the so-called "nanny state" seriously.  

 

Bigots can't eliminate minorities, but by god, they will do everything in their power to shove all of them back in the closet.  It's about sending a message: "Keep in your place-- you are not acceptable."  In other words, just bullying -- the sad obsession with wanting to feel superior. 

[Old River]

“For that is what conservatism is: a meditation on—and theoretical rendition of—the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.” ~ Corey Robin, The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin

 

“Make America great again.” ~ Donald Trump

 

[Karl]

:The real reason for all this TG hoop la:

 

 

American Thinker

May 13, 2016

Escape from Obama's transgender school bathrooms

By Daren Jonescu

 

Barack Obama's transgender regime has officially carried its demands for your child's compliance with sexual deviancy to the level of an imperial directive:

 

Public schools must permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, according to an Obama administration directive issued amid a court fight between the federal government and North Carolina.

 

The guidance from leaders at the departments of Education and Justice says public schools are obligated to treat their transgender students in a way that matches their gender identity, even if their education records or identity documents indicate a different sex.

 

The Department of Justice, which apparently now means primarily "social justice," aka cultural Marxism, is joining the Department of Education – a thoroughly anti-constitutional entity the continued existence of which represents the greatest failure of the Reagan presidency – to complete American compulsory schooling's true, original, and essential mission: the reduction of the population to a confused, helpless mass of spiritually unindividuated "worker units" for the benefit of a permanent corporate-political ruling elite.

 

The sudden (but long anticipated and well prepared) drive for transgender bathrooms in public facilities is part of progressivism's final assault on modesty and personal privacy. Train children from an early age that sexual behavior is a harmless physical gratification, no more important than scratching an itch; teach them that there are no consequences of sexual activity that cannot be prevented or "taken care of" with a visit to the doctor; teach them that marriage and family are mere lifestyle choices not at all different from any other, and in no essential way related to the erotic impulse; and teach them that nothing but the old-school morality of racists, sexists, and homophobes stands between their bodily urges and a dream world of polymorphous pleasures – teach children all of that, and you have destroyed the soul of man, sapped a generation of its vital energy, and dried up the primary sources of civility, personal responsibility, and moderation.

 

Advanced progressives for a century have known two things with perfect certainty: (1) that delayed gratification, sexual modesty, and in general self-restraint are the chief moral obstacles to the compliant, state-dependent collective required of democratic socialism (i.e., populist totalitarianism); and (2) that government-controlled schools are their ace in the hole, the progressive poison in the civic well that ensures that, in spite of all private resistance, the population will eventually, gradually, succumb to materialism and amorality.

 

Here's a prediction that I am very confident in making: thousands of parents who are shocked and disgusted at the thought of their young daughters being forced to share a shower room with boys are going to be in for an even bigger shock when their daughters mock their concern with "what's the big deal, Dad? I mean, it's just bodies, after all!"

 

This transgender assault is being pursued now because generations have been prepared for it. They have been prepared in public schools, which teach – both in explicit lessons and, more importantly, through their social structure – that sexuality is "no big deal," that modesty is for prudish grandmothers, that sexual differentiation is sexist. Eros – nature's delicate thread linking our bodily urges to our essential purposes, our souls to the stars, our petty existence to being and eternity – is being deliberately snipped, in order to leave us stranded on this earth, with no hopes or aspirations beyond immediate physical comfort and pleasure. In other words, nihilism.

 

Men left stranded on earth, without a sense of the divine, including the divine spark within themselves, are primed for a material savior, a new divinity to replace the one toward which Eros and nature had previously pointed us. They are ready, willing, and eager to submit to the State.

 

Nothing less than that – creating the moral (or rather amoral) platform for progressive authoritarianism – is the true significance of Obama's imposition of transgender bathrooms in public schools. Though inherently absurd, this absurdity is an indication of how far the progressives know they have traveled toward their ultimate goal.

 

The good news, for those still able to hear it, is that the solution to this final degradation is both available and actually quite obvious.

 

Get your children, your children's children, and your friends' children out of public school now, and keep them out.

 

If thinking of your nation's girls and boys being submitted to this degradation – and even worse, thinking of them learning to accept this degradation – is not enough to shake you out of your well-trained adherence to the fool's dream of "improving the public schools," then perhaps you are unreachable.

 

If, on the other hand, these thoughts are able to move you, then it is beyond time to get serious about unraveling America's, and the entire world's, most insidious entitlement program: public education. (If you are in this latter group, stay tuned! I'll be explaining all of this – what public education is, how it came to be, what it causes, and what to do about it – in my book, The Case Against Public Education, coming very soon.)

 

On a personal level, the immediate solution, for most families, is fairly simple. It does, however, require long-term commitment, a lot of mental effort – and a genuine love for your children and grandchildren that supersedes petty concerns about practical inconvenience and reduced income potential. If you understand that hearing a thirteen-year-old girl say, "What's the big deal? It's just bodies!" is the Rubicon progressive totalitarians have been aching to cross, and that they are literally months away from crossing it on a nationwide scale, then is there really anything left to debate about?

Edited May 14, 2016 by Karl

[dust]

Funny how in the 200+ years of the existence of the United States, this was never a problem.  It's a problem now only because some small-minded people have decided to make it a problem.  

 

What was never a problem?

[Old River]

What was never a problem?

 

-- Transgendered people going into public bathrooms.  

 

Why, after all these decades after, say Christine Jorgensen and other publicly known transgendered individuals, is this suddenly a crisis in 2016?  That's what makes this whole "controversy" stirred up by McCrory disingenuous.  

[Old River]

 

Even FOX thinks McCrory misguided.  The only one obsessed with transgender people is him.  He just can't help himself.  

[ralis]

 

Even FOX thinks McCrory misguided.  The only one obsessed with transgender people is him.  He just can't help himself.  

 

I would say that dude is sexually suppressed and as Dr. Wilhelm Reich would say it is character armoring.

[Karl]

[/url]

 

Even FOX thinks McCrory misguided. The only one obsessed with transgender people is him. He just can't help himself.

 

He doesn't seem obsessed in any sense. Rational people grasp the problem, it isn't this senator that's bringing in 'bathroom laws' it's Obama and his left wing fuck wits.

 

Well you will have to live with what the USA will become. If you sell your freedom cheap for virtue signalling-to gain a value that you haven't earned-you will discover how quickly the elite will take advantage of your vanity.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Karl