You had better see five lights...

...or it's a trip to Room 101 for you.

California legislature ponders jail sentence for persistent refusal to use "correct" pronoun.

"Room 101" reference here.

"Five lights" reference here.

Videos

Brave New World 3.0

Where men are men, men are women...

...and some women aren't women.

Women with "High T" banned from some sports.

Things are complicated in the early 21st century.

But we still don't have flying cars.

I was promised flying cars.

LA progressive discovers her inner Trump voter.

And why not?  Progressive social science experiments are supposed to happen to the other people who don't get to live in gated community with armed security.

Liberal woman surprised and scared by man standing in women's bathroom in Disneyland.

The women didn't know what to do.


//Not transgender. There was a man who felt entitled to be in the woman restroom, because he knew no one would say anything. There were 20-25 people by the time I left, who were scared and uncomfortable by his ominous presence. And the only thing stopping us, was our fear of political correctness and that the media has told us we don’t know what gender is anymore. I never want to be in the position again. Im not asking for permission to tell transgender people to get out my bathroom. I need to know it’s ok to tell a man, who looks like a man, to get the fuck out. Gender just can't be a feeling. There has to be science to it. DNA, genitals, amount of Sephora make up on your face, pick your poison, but as a very progressive woman...I'm sorry it can't just be a feeling when theres but a mere suggestion of a door with a peep hole separating your eyes from my vagina or my children's genitals.//

This pretty much supports my prediction that changing gender norms would confuse women in places where they might value security. Under the old rules, the answer was simple: the women would have told him to leave or they would have gotten park security.

Now, though, doing either thing means that the women run the risk of being labeled as homophobic.

And, of course, that moment of confusion and indecision is precisely what a criminal relies on.

As I've always said, men make the best women.

...or "So what?  I'm waiting for the day when a transgender girl takes the boy's wrestling championship."

Uproar as Transgender Boy Wins Texas GIRLS’ Wrestling Tournament

Are there any pictures of this dude from the waste down in his wrestling tights?

Also, what did the girl who lost, and her family, think?  Or are they too tired from being declared unpersons by the Compassionate Left to speak out?

NB: The girl is actually a girl on steroids "transitioning" to a boy.

Yeah...that's totally fair.

Liberal Fascism/Academic Fascism.

Virtue Community at John Hopkins demand that school condemn heretics who argue that transgender is a psychiatric condition.

Because, we know, that the best way to truth is when centralized institutions impose it on science.

//The basic gambit of the Western mode of scientific inquiry is that the competition of ideas will ultimately produce scholarly truth, or at least something close to it. This process must be decentralized and unencumbered by political dogma. For the Johns Hopkins administration to throw the weight of its authority behind one side or another in an ongoing scholarly debate in order to appease political activists would corrupt the process Jonathan Rauch has called “liberal science.” The university can help protect the integrity of academic thought by sending a strong message to the outraged petitioners that it will let its scholars’ work stand or fall on the merits.

Transexual Mania.

The way that liberal elite culture has accepted the ideology of transexualism within the last 10 years resembles the Tulipmania craze of the Netherlands in the 16th century as everyone with the wherewithall to do so invested in tulips and tulip bulbs beyond reason.  Presumably the Dutch thought that the science of tulip-investing was as settled as moderns think that the notion of "gender fluidness" is settled.

But, wait!  There are dissident voices who have not yet been stifled by the straight-jackets of conformist ideology:

//A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.

The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”

The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.//

The report is at The New Atlantis. 

Read it before the last copy gets burned.

Men make the best women.

Men can compete as women in the Olympics.

Who could have foreseen this?????

But, according to our moral betters, and I'm looking at you Kirsten Powers, these girls will just have to get over having 6 foot tall, deep-voiced men in dresses in rooms where they undress....or something.

//Maya Dillard Smith, interim director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, has resigned over the ACLU’s position on who can use which public restrooms. The resignation occurred after her two daughters were traumatized by encountering men in the women’s restroom. Dillard Smith explained:

I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered. My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer.

Dillard Smith complained that the ACLU has become “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights” and that the “hierarchy of rights” the ACLU chooses to defend or ignore is “based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities.” Further expressing her disillusionment, Dillard Smith stated:

I understood it to be the ACLU’s goal to delicately balance competing rights to ensure that any infringements are narrowly tailored, that they do not create a hierarchy of rights, and that we are mindful of unintended consequences. I believe there are solutions that can provide accommodations for transgender people and balance the need to ensure women and girls are safe from those who might have malicious intent.

Unfortunately, as she has learned, Dillard Smith’s view of the ACLU bears little relation to reality. The ACLU’s goal — like that of the LGBT movement — is to shove a radical agenda down the throats of the American people, not to balance rights and find reasonable accommodations.//

Fight for Reality

Take back the language.

So the goals for those who wish to re-anchor to the world of reality are: stand firm, attach language to reality, and reject anti-reality—and to do so with good cheer, without any intent to offend. Herein follow some modest suggestions to help reclaim the language.

DO use the word “sex” in place of the slippery term “gender.” The main effect of gender ideology is to replace sex, a word that points to something real and recognizable, with “gender,” which exists only in a person’s mind. Succumbing to usage of the term “gender” is a trap that sucks you into Orwellian anti- reality.

DO consider scratching the term “gender” off forms, and replace it with “sex” before checking the box, whenever possible. You are a sex: male or female. Again, gender doesn’t really exist except in any given person’s mind, and is ever-changeable. In this way, you can also reclaim your body in documentation.

DON’T play the gender game. Example: “I don’t have a gender. But my sex is female. Rather, I am female.” Another example: “I don’t have a ‘gender identity.’ I do have a human identity which is whole and complex. I happen to be male because that happens to be the sex I am.”

Cisgender is a totally weaponized term that forces even more de-sexing in society.

DON’T get sucked into the mind game of “cisgender.” Cisgender is a totally weaponized term that forces even more de-sexing in society. It’s also a pejorative term that is supposed to mean that your mind just so happens to allow your “assigned sex” to exist alongside your “gender identity.” In gender ideology, a cisgender person is inferior to a transgender person.

Politely insist you are the male sex or the female sex, which actually matches up with your chromosomes. Period. Since the prefix “cis” means “on the same side as” (as opposed to “trans,” which means to cross over), perhaps you can cheerfully add that you are “cis-reality.”

DON’T say “gender neutral.” DO use other more accurate terms, such as “de-sexed” or “de-privatized bathrooms.” “De-sex” is particularly accurate when referring to what the state is doing to every one of us when transgender law insists that the term “gender” is superior to the reality-based term “sex.” Example: “The phrase ‘sex assigned at birth’ de-sexes us.” “Unisex” is far preferable to “gender neutral” in referring to clothing styles or hairstyles or any other material things that uniformly apply to both sexes.

DON’T say “gender non-conforming.” “Sex-non-conforming” is more accurate. The transgender idea, after all, is not to conform to the verified reality of the male or female sex.

DON’T get trapped in conflating intersex with “gender identity.” Intersex people are not transgender, though transgender activists use them to promote the agenda of gender ideology. The fact that anomalies exist in nature doesn’t cancel out the realities of nature, but actually accentuates them. Every single human being—male, female, intersex, or transgender—got here the same way: through the union of one male and one female.

Brave New America.

Woman speaks Truth to Power.

Democrat says "Shut up, Bigot."

Media applauds Democrat.

Peak Crazy.

I just heard Kirsten Powers tell Bill O'Reilly that the North Carolina Register's statement that little girls, their parents and society needs to get over its "hang-up" about girls being exposed to male genitalia. She generously allowed that "during this transitional time," transgenders could be required to show alone.

So, let's explore the reasoning by asking "Why can't Trans shower with boys?" They all have the same parts, after all, and there is no hangup about boys being exposed to male genitalia. And it can't be that normal boys would have any sexual interest in boys who think they might be girls. And if it is the latter, we assume that boys who think they are girls can muster enough good behavior to act with decorum.

So, what's the problem?

I think the problem has something to do with "body identification." Boys who think they are girls are shocked(?)...disturbed(?)....befuddled(?)....by being classed with boys who know they are boys, apparently. So, in the interest of gender coherence, they are to be allowed to shower with the people of the body parts they don't have.

But what about those people with girl parts? Don't they have gender identification issues that are at least as significant? What does it tell them when they are required to shower with a penis-enabled American?

So, in Kirsten's world, gender and gender identification is fluid and body parts don't matter....for normal people. For confused people, they are controlling.

How does this make any sense.

Also, noticeably absent from the discussion was any sense of parental consent. We are in a transitional period, but sometime....soon?...things are going to be the way that elites like Kirsten decree and the little people are going to have to get in line.

Insanity.

Civilization 3.0...

...more inclusive of the abnormal, but still less civilized.

A leading North Carolina newspaper issued an editorial last week telling girls to attempt “overcoming discomfort” at the sight of “male genitalia,” should transgender bathroom laws be enacted.

In a defense of President Obama’s order compelling schools to allow access to restrooms on the basis of gender identity, the Charlotte Observer editorial board compared the discomfort of school-aged girls seeing male genitalia in locker rooms to the discomfort of white people being around black people in post-segregation America.

“This is what the Obama administration nudged the rest of the country toward Friday,” the editorial said. “Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms — and vice versa — might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort — with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage — then realizing it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined.”

While admitting that exposure to male genitalia is a possible outcome of transgender bathroom laws, the editorial said the notion that such laws constitute a threat to the privacy and safety of women and children is a “political fiction” pushed by Republicans.

What social engineering? 

The War on Reality.

The State will compel you to share politically correct delusions.

New York will fine employers for referring to transexuals by their actual gender.

We live in a culture that says that it is acceptable for men to "appropriate" the form of women, but not acceptable for whites to "appropriate" the form of minorities.

From First Things:

//In fact, as a culture, we are always policing the boundaries of transformation, and not consistently. While we celebrate Bruce Jenner’s appropriation of the female gender, for example, we’re told to denounce cultural appropriation in other forms. God help the white pop star who adopts dreadlocks, as Miley Cyrus did recently when hosting the MTV Video Music Awards; and don’t even think about posting a picture of yourself on Instagram wearing something that looks Native American or vaguely “ethnic”—you will be reprimanded by real ethnic people proclaiming, “My culture is not a costume.” Even the liberal stalwart Lena Dunham was chided by her young female fans when she jokingly posted a picture of herself online wearing a hijab.

The transgender debate has so far focused on the liberating aspects of embracing a fluid identity. But it is one thing to transcend your class or your place of birth; it is another to say that your own DNA has gotten you wrong. It is one thing to be liberated from the expectations of demanding parents or a rigid faith tradition; it is another to seek liberation in the removal of body parts with which one was born. The fact that this has become an all-but-unacceptable thing to say is a mark of how nightmarish our liberationist cultural confusion has become.//

What does that say about our culture?

Clearly, we live in a culture that wants to set in stone accidental features, like cultural artifacts, but make essential differences, differences that cannot be removed without violence, totally liquid and fungible.

I'm reading The Devil's Pleasure Palace, in which the author observes:

//The attack on normative heterosexuality— led by male homosexuals and lesbians, and invariably disguised as a movement for “rights,” piggybacking on the civil rights movement of the 1960s— is fundamental to the success of Critical Theory, which went straight at the hardest target (and yet, in many ways, the softest) first. The reason was simple: If a wedge could be driven between men and women, if the nuclear family could be cracked, if women could be convinced to fear and hate men, to see them as unnecessary for their happiness or survival— if men could be made biologically redundant— then that political party that had adopted Critical Theory could make single women one of their strongest voting blocs.//

Walsh, Michael (2015-08-11). The Devil's Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West (Kindle Locations 1630-1635). Encounter Books. Kindle Edition.

So, permanent ethnic voting blocs - kept at each other's throats by denouncing appropriation - and the dissolving of the bond that unites men and women by denouncing those who might object to such appropriation....all in the name of political power.

Quite a legacy.

Surviving your Obama-prepared grownchildren this Thanksgiving.

Some tips:

//Fake Statistics. It was my old friend Boston Irish who alerted me to this ticklish little trope, when he observed that no matter how absurd the statistic you proposed to a progressive, if that statistic seemed to call attention to whatever bugaboos xhe was excited about, xhe would respond with a gushing "I know, right?!"

He demonstrated this to me at a party by interrupting a couple of liberals talking, and announcing to them:

"You know, based on current statistics, in ten years, the entire state of California will be homeless."

"Right! I know!" came the response.

By the way, that is not schtick. That is not a joke written for this blogpost. I was really there, he really said that, that really happened.

After having secured the agreement to his obviously-crank "statistics," he turned to me with a slightly arched eyebrow and sipped his beer in quiet triumph.//

Reminds me of the time, Jim Druley​ and I were listening to a post-op transgender at a book  club explain that a woman's normal attraction to a man had "nothing' to do with gender.

Jim: "So you're saying that a woman's attraction to a man has nothing to do with her gender?"

P-O TG: "Yes, that's right."

Woman in book club audience: "Oh, that's so interesting!  I'm learning so much!"

Neither P-O TG or the woman in the audience picked up on Jim's philosophically-informed essentialist sarcasm.

Why are normal people forced to live in the warped fantasy of people with delusions?

Why are delusions more important than, you know, the truth?

Students walk out in anger over male with male genitalia who thinks he is a girl using girl's bathroom.

Students at Hillsboro High School in Hillsboro, Missouri, staged a walkout Monday to protest a transgender student who is being permitted by the school to use the facility's women's restrooms, despite being a biological male.

The controversy began after a transgender student, "Lila" Perry, (Perry's birth name was not listed in any news reports.) told school administrators that she was no longer comfortable using a unisex faculty bathroom that she had been given access to and wanted to be able to use the women's bathrooms and locker room facilities.

The protest came following a School Board hearing last Thursday, during which parents complained that Perry was being afforded special rights that would make their children and other students uncomfortable. 

During the protest, Perry was locked in the principal's office for "her" safety.  

According to reports, the overwhelming majority of those protesting opposed Perry's use of the women's facilities, although there were a few counter-protesters present protesting in support of Perry.

Several of those interviewed during the protest shared their concerns about a student with male genitalia being permitted to change and shower with teenage girls.

“The girls have rights, and they shouldn't have to share a bathroom with a boy,” said Tammy Sorden, who has a son at Hillsboro High. It is fine to be different, she said, but it is not right to give Lila special treatment “while the girls just have to suck it up.”

The one time I listened to a transexual talk about his "re-assignment" my conclusion was that his understanding of being a women was limited to wearing "pretty things."

Paul McHugh - who specializes in this area - corroborates that sense:

//I have not met or examined Jenner, but his behavior resembles that of some of the transgender males we have studied over the years. These men wanted to display themselves in sexy ways, wearing provocative female garb. More often than not, while claiming to be a woman in a man’s body, they declared themselves to be “lesbians” (attracted to other women). The photograph of the posed, corseted, breast-boosted Bruce Jenner (a man in his mid-sixties, but flaunting himself as if a “pin-up” girl in her twenties or thirties) on the cover of Vanity Fair suggests that he may fit the behavioral mold that Ray Blanchard has dubbed an expression of “autogynephilia”—from gynephilia (attracted to women) and auto (in the form of oneself).//

The Crazy Left - and therefore a large chunk of America - specifically the chunk that decides manners and mores - is beyond parody.

Gay Pride event bans Drag Queens because Transgenders might be offended.

There is such a thing as gender differences...

...and the dude in a dress is a male.

Also, this show had the tone of a classic New Leftist/Marxist re-education meeting, as 5 of the 6, told Ben Shapiro that he was politically incorrect for saying that a guy with a penis is a "male."

If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?

Bruce Jenner is a woman now and has the Vanity Fair cover photo to prove it.

I am going to quote author/scholar Danusha Goska​:

//To me it isn't "supportive" of Bruce Jenner or anyone else to redefine the word "woman" to mean "dresses like a slut in public regardless of chromosomes."

And what you describe -- men who like to dress in clothing coded female -- is a widespread phenom. It's its own phenom. Why not let it be that? "biological male who likes to dress in clothing and makeup coded female" ? Why redefine "woman" or "female" ?

Don't you see the problems inherent in doing so?

Don't you see that that definition cheapens women horribly?//

Why is it so wrong to say that Bruce Jenner is "a man who dresses like a woman" and have that be perfectly acceptable?  It is his thing.  He doesn't have to involve us in his thing. We aren't judging him, but we aren't going along with his view of reality, either.

The implication of the insistence that we accept Bruce Jenner as something other than a "man who dresses like a woman" is that there is something "wrong" with a man dressing like a woman, like it violates some proper ordering of life.

It is interesting how deeply buried "gender normativity" is, like it is inherent in the wiring of the human way of looking at the world.