Billy Porter’s Scarlett O’Hara attire at the Oscars thrilled fashionistas and depressed me, so it’s the lead entry in tonight’s illustrated edition.
There’s something for everyone (at least everyone with sound common sense, an informed mind, and a good brain) in my latest illustrated edition.
I had a post I wanted to write today, but haven’t yet figured out how to do it without violating someone’s privacy. So, while I wrestle with that, here’s an illustrated edition. I’ll start with the world as it was in the 1970s, when nobody thought there was anything outrageous about older men flirting with teenage girls:
I can’t link to it, because it’s posted in a private group, but there is a post from a 60-something Southern lady saying that, when she was a teen in the 1970s, the old-fashioned dynamic was that families helped select a husband for their young daughter. And since the expectation was that he would be the breadwinner and she would be the baby-maker, they looked for older men, in their late 20s/early 30s, who were established in their careers and would ensure that the family’s daughter would not want for anything while she was raising the children.
And now to the pictures:
It’s quite possible that this is the best poster yet made to comment on the whole transgenders in the military debacle — a debacle predicated on a lie.
And if you want the proper commentary to go with that poster, I highly recommend Brendan O’Neill’s brutal honesty about the Orwellian thinking that is being pushed on ordinary people. His starting point is the Tory proposal that people can edit their birth certificates at will to state their preferred gender (of the moment):
It’s madness. And most people know it’s madness. Ask any normal, decent member of the public if Dave, 32, born a boy, still in possession of a penis, and a five o’clock shadow on a rough weekend, is a man or a woman, and I bet you they will say: ‘Man.’ Not because they are prejudiced or ‘transphobic’ – the latest phobia slur designed to pathologise dissent – but because they understand reality. And truth. And biology and experience. They know that in order to be a woman, you first have to have been a girl. They know womanhood is not a pose one strikes in front of the mirror but is biological, relational, cultural and social. They know the man who wears a dress is a man who wears a dress. Which is cool, and his choice, and he must have the right to wear that dress. But he isn’t a woman. We know this. At some level he knows this. Why won’t more people say it?
Because it has become the great unsayable. To say there are two sexes – leaving aside that infinitesimally small number of nature’s hiccups that are intersex people – has become tantamount to a speechcrime. To say a man cannot become a woman – no matter how many hormones he takes or operations he undergoes – is now next to blasphemy. Even if you fully accept that these people are trans-women, and that they should enjoy exactly the same rights as every other person, from the right to speak to the right to work, you will still be hounded and harassed if you dare say, ‘They aren’t women, though’. As trans-sceptical feminists have discovered, the utterance ‘Men cannot become women’ is to the early 21st century what ‘Jesus is not the Christ’ was to the 15th. We must accept that the person with a penis and a birth certificate that says ‘Boy’ is a woman. We must accept the lie. Like Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, beavering away at the past-altering Ministry of Truth, we are made to lie. Trans agitators’ greatest accomplishment has been the institutionalisation of lying.
Obama planted a poison pill when he put transgender folks in the military. Republicans should discharge them, instead of quibbling about surgery.
Two interesting headlines about transgender people in the military. The first comes from Gateway Pundit:
The second is at Truth Revolt:
Here’s the short story: Republicans tried to stop forcing taxpayers to provide the money so that mentally ill service members who reject their body’s sex and, instead, believe they belong to the opposite sex, can have their external sexual organs sliced off and be given hormones that can cause cancer and other nasty things. Twenty-four RINO’s sided with Democrats to continue federal funding for this surgery.
The problem the Republicans who oppose funding have is that the Obama Pentagon officially declared that thinking you’re really a member of the opposite sex is not a mental illness. If it’s not an illness, but is merely a problem with ones body, why in the world should service members with hernia’s or dislocated shoulders get free medical care while people suffering from excess penises or breasts are denied?
The issue, then, isn’t the funding question, it’s the “who let mentally ill people openly service in the military to begin with?” question. That’s the problem.
In terms of the mental illness known as body dysmorphia, all of the following people suffering from exactly the same problem: [Read more…]
Even as Progressives prepare to March for Science tomorrow, their institutions peddle lunatic delusions that will harm a generation.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time trying to hunt down the science behind the claim that gender is separate from biological sex. Admittedly, modern medicine has made great headway when it comes to the risky job of delaying puberty, the equally risky job of giving women testosterone and men estrogen to make them display some of the physical and mental characteristics of the opposite sex, and the surgical skills necessary to remove breasts, penises, and testicles, as well as the skill and technological wonders that make it possible to insert silicon breast molds, carve out fake vaginas, and sculpt fake penises. That’s all science, I guess.
But the core issue — whether gender is indeed mutable — is one that science doesn’t touch. There are a couple of things we know with certainty: An infinitesimally small percentage (less than 2%) of the population is born with genetic mutations that leave those people with the characteristics of both sexes. Also, prepubescent children of all ages may be drawn to the behaviors and identities of the opposite sex but, in 98% of the cases, if the adults in their world don’t make a big issue of it, by the time the children pass through puberty they’ve comfortably settled into their biological sex identity. (Incidentally, I cannot find authority saying that greater or lesser levels of estrogen or testosterone affect people’s gender identity, although it might affect their behavior and sexual attraction.)
We also know that, in the Cloud Cuckooland of Leftism, we are told (told? Feh! Hectored!) that, if you’re gay — which is a behavior, not a gender identity problem — you’re born that way. However, when it comes to sexual identity, you’re not born that way at all. Instead, it’s infinitely mutable. As far as I know, there is no reputable study that’s been subject to rigorous scientific testing that supports either of these notions.
At least one brave psychiatrist has come out and said what I’ve long suspected, which is that the rise in young people with so-called “gender identity fluidity” comes about because it’s trendy: [Read more…]
Progressives pretend that their transgender politics are based on science but they’re not; it’s fantasy all the way, which is a disservice to children.
The other day, NPR had a fascinating article. Because it is fascinating, allow me to quote some of the more interesting points:
Why Caitlyn Jenner can never be a woman
The man formerly known as Bruce is still a guy with a dick, testes, and a male skeleton, trying to be one of the girls.
Being female is a bright and shiny diamond, and here in America in the age of Hillary and Women’s Marches, everyone wants to wear it like a pussy hat on their head. The attitude, the language, the humor, the makeup, the style, all of it is covetable, and everyone from Elizabeth Warren to Madonna to Ashley Judd is trying to get high — and rich — off it.
But, like diamonds, a woman is created under extreme pressure and high temperature, deep down in the recesses of her core. It is sitting on the toilet when you’re thirteen, alternately fascinated and disgusted by the blood flowing from you for the first time. It’s watching your body going through the changes of pregnancy, everything from morning sickness, to suddenly sprouting Pamela Anderson boobs, to your blooming belly that’s periodically warped out of shape by the infant’s movements, to the pain and triumph of labor, to having your breasts go from being sex objects to being a baby’s private juice bar.
Being a woman is pre-menstrual syndrome, and menstruation, and post-menstrual syndrome. It’s hanging with your girlfriends when you’re all ugly ducklings, desperately jealous of the early bloomers, unaware that early bloom often fades quickly. It’s listening to your girlfriends’ lament, knowing that they’ll listen to you too and, even better, knowing that this is a sharing experience and that none of you will try to tell the others what to do. It’s keeping an eye on your friend who’s drinking too much, even though she promised not to, and making sure to get her safely home rather than running the risk that she’ll hook up with someone who makes her feel bad or, worse, find herself roofied and raped.
Being a women is up in the bones, the fragile bones, with their broad hips and their shoulder construction that means girls’ softball has that weird underhand pitch, instead of the overhand throw guys use. It’s in the muscles which, even if women try to beef them up with testosterone, will never be as strong as a man’s. It’s in the uterus and the ovaries that help create and then grow an entirely new human being, and in the breasts that produce the perfect food to sustain that human life.
And it is the ultimate in male privilege, really, for a man to see that diamond, all shiny and hard and unbreakable, and pluck it for his own, like it’s a gift from Tiffany’s, with seemingly zero regard for the pressure, the heat, the pain it went through — that we went through — to earn that shine.
That’s an amazing essay, isn’t it? Moreover, it’s one that I bet you never thought you’d read at NPR. And if you want the truth, you never will read it at NPR.
The fact that I’ve been too busy to blog does not mean I’ve been too busy to think. My thoughts of late have turned to gay marriage. I predicted a long time ago that turning gay marriage into a Constitutional right would open the way for a direct attack on religion — or, more accurately, on traditional Christian faiths — and I was entirely correct. NRO’s David French has been busy tracking the immediate legal, political, and financial attacks aimed at the church in the wake of the execrable Supreme Court decision. It no longer matters that the Court could have reached a similar, constitutionally correct, outcome without destroying religious freedom. The reality is that the Court did what it did, and the Left is armed and ready to fire.
Another thing I observed back in 2008 or 2009 is that the gay “marriage” problem is, as much as anything, a question of semantics. Although America long ago constitutionally separated church and state, our concept of marriage remained stuck in the British tradition, one in which church and state were the same thing. Marriage was seamlessly a civil and a religious event.
In the past century, and with accelerating speed in the past two decades, Americans have turned to the word “marriage” to represent two entirely different events: The first is the religious, or quasi-religious, coming together of a man and a woman before their friends, their God, or their New Age guru; the second is a bureaucratic process notifying the government that a couple wants the economic and contractual benefits and burdens the government bestows on those who live together with the presumptive intent of having children. The word “marriage,” therefore, has two fundamentally unrelated meanings, one purely religious and one purely civil.
Because this semantic difference is causing real problems thanks to same-sex and polygamous “marriage” demands, I have been arguing since 2008 that America’s federal and state governments should get out of the marriage business entirely and, instead, sanction only “civil unions.” Under this scheme, states can sanction whatever the heck “civil unions” they want — man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, cow/pig, man/women, etc.. Each state would be an experiment in determining what unions most benefit society as a whole, the state’s economic well-being, and, most especially, children’s ability to thrive.
But that’s not what Justice Kennedy did. Instead, he looked at the U.S. Constitution and found hidden in it, hidden behind the unicorns and rainbows, a constitutional right holding that everybody’s dignity is such that they can marry whomever or whatever they want. Most of the Founders would be horrified about this hitherto unsuspected “civil right,” although I suspect old Benjamin Franklin would have been amused.
Still, as the old saying goes, if the mountain won’t come to Mohamed, than Mohamed most go to the mountain. Because Kennedy has insisted that government “owns” marriage, it’s time for the church to let go of marriage entirely and try something new. Now, don’t get too upset. Hear me out, because I think the Left has shown traditionalists the way to go. You need to think about the stories that have been dominating news headlines for weeks, even years, of late.
Rachel Dolezal has shown us that all people, no matter their genetic racial make-up, can be whatever race they prefer. Of course, this can be a bit of a double-edged sword as the media showed with George Zimmerman. Race becomes a fluid concept depending on whether you’re the right kind of victim or not. If you’ve been beaten up by a white guy, you’re undoubtedly black or Hispanic (or gay, or all of the above), but if you’re a light-skinned Hispanic who killed a murderous black man in self-defense, you’re first white and, when that fails, you’re that new breed of race called “white Hispanic.”
Of course, successful racial re-identification isn’t limited to blacks and Hispanics. In academia, the favored racial “borrowing” is Native American. Andrea Smith, Elizabeth Warren, and Ward Churchill have shown us that, no matter the absence of a single drop of Native American blood in your body, if you think you’re an Indian, then you’re an Indian. (Actually, Irving Berlin had already figured this one out a long time ago.)
The most exciting type of re-identification, of course, has to do with sex. Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner has shown us that anyone, no matter his or her X and Y chromosomes, or the conspicuously present or absent dangly bits in a person’s crotch, can be whatever sex he or she prefers.
This ability to define reality to suit oneself isn’t limited to ones own body. It can also apply to events. For example, despite overwhelming proof to the contrary, poor deluded Emma Sulkowicz is a rape victim. Lena Dunham’s drunken, consensual hook-up? Rape and she’s a victim too.
The important thing to remember with all these re-imaginings of ones self is that, no matter how ludicrous they are, everyone else is honor bound to accept them as truth. Despite Caitlyn’s massive upper body, missing waist, present penis and testes, and absent (but not surgically removed) ovaries, uterus, and milk ducts, Caitlyn is henceforth a man. That’s reality. You’re not allowed a gracious, polite accommodation of her delusions. Instead, when you use those feminine pronouns to describe Caitlyn, you’d better mean them. Anything else, any doubt about reality, is grotesque cisgender heteronormative sexism. Oh, and while you’re at it, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
What’s scary is that this kind of delusional thinking (of the “we have always been at war with Eastasia” stripe) is not limited to lay people. A doctor I know insists that Caitlyn Jenner, having undergone breast augmentation and hormone treatment (although the dangly bits apparently remain intact), has actually “changed” from one sex to another. The fact that the changes are superficial or transient, and that they do nothing to alter Bruce/Caitlyn’s gender-based bone structure, internal organs, and DNA is irrelevant. To the doctor, the magic is real: Caitlyn and others similarly situated are truly changed, rather than merely having undergone procedures bringing their physical shape into greater conformity with their personal desires and sense of self.
I’ll add here, as I often do, that I have no particular beef with Caitlyn Jenner, although I find distasteful her relentless exhibitionism. If you want to have me pretend you’re a woman, and are not insisting that I abandon reality and my society’s stable social structure to do so, I will happily refer to you as “Miss.” Heck, I’ll call you Loretta or perhaps I’ll call you a cab — anything you like as long as your delusion isn’t foisted on me.
What the Left has done is put its imprimatur on the Humpty Dumpty school of defining words. As H-D famously said to Alice in Through the Looking Glass,
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
It seems to me that, now that the Church faces the threat extinction at the hands of Leftists with the Obergefell bit in their teeth, it’s time to go Humpty and turn the Left’s tactics back upon it.
I once said that the state should get out of the marriage business. Since that’s not going to happen, traditional religions need to get out of the marriage business. The big announcement should go out: In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell, it’s become too financially risky for traditional religious institutions to conduct marriage ceremonies any longer. To the extent Obergefell governs a constitutional right to “marriage,” the traditionalists are taking their marbles and going home. They simply won’t play the marriage game any more.
That’s not as draconian as it sounds.
Just as Columbo always turned away, only to turn back again with that one last question, religious organizations might have a tag end to that “end of marriage” announcement:
“Oh, by the way . . . . One more thing. Having searched through our religious texts, we’ve discovered that what God actually requires of the faithful isn’t ‘marriage’ at all, but a “covenanting ceremony.” And in case you’re wondering, it’s just a coincidence that this covenanting ceremony looks precisely like the weddings of old, right down to the one man/one woman aspect, the prayers and blessings, the officiating priest, minister, rabbi or imam, or anything else. No matter what you, the Leftist might think, these are no longer marriage ceremonies, any more than Caitlyn is still a man, George Zimmerman is Hispanic, or Emma Sulkowicz is a delusional girl rather than a rape victim. They have been transformed.”
I’d like to add one other point while I’ve got your attention. Straight people, when they marry, proclaim their love and commitment to each other in the presence of God, their family, and their friends. The civil aspect is simply a pragmatic step to obtain the benefits of civil marriage, irrespective of some of the corresponding civil burdens. The Left, with its “#LoveWins” battle cry has made clear that, when it marries, it wants Big Brother to proclaim its love for them. That’s really kind of sad when you think about it, isn’t it?
I should be heading for bed, as it’s after midnight, but I’m so thrilled to have a moment to myself that I can’t resist a little blogging. I’m feeling especially smug (and tired) tonight because my heroic 1:30 a.m. efforts yesterday were the difference between success and ignominious failure on a big motion. Damn it all! I deserve some time to write.
Anything you can be I can be better….
My favorite military humorist, Lee Ho Fuk has taken the Rachel Dolezal mantra — “anything you can be I can be better” — to a whole new level: