Religious nutters are obsessed with disparaging transgender persons. They should pay more attention to their own aberrant behavior.
According to Jeanette Ward and Jonathan David Farley: The endgame is in sight: Participate in the mass delusion of trans ideology or face sanction. The subtitle reads:
If Republican politicians challenge their Democratic opponents on the transgender issue, Republicans will win every fair election.
Jeanette Ward belies that notion. She served one term on her local school board in Illinois and was ousted by voters. She was perhaps best known for her transphobic diatribes.
Ward subsequently ran for the state senate seat held by Republican Jim Oberweis when he retired. Prior to Oberweis the seat was held for 12 years by Republican Chris Lauzen. Ms. Ward was easily defeated by her Democratic rival. Thus a transphobic Republican lost a state senate seat in a heavily Republican district.
As for Jonathan David Farley, he is an associate professor of mathematics at Morgan State University. Based on his work history I suspect that he does not play well with others. I am quite certain that he is a whiz at mathematics. However, he is an imbecile when it comes to human sexuality.
By the way, this screed was originally titled: “When Hairy Met Silly.” I wish I were kidding.
After several offensive paragraphs (too crazy to comment on) these two bigoted geniuses write:
A 2015 Fox News article says, “Caitlyn Jenner and other transgender celebrities have been greeted with almost universal acceptance.” Forgetting the lesson of the Trojan Horse, Fox News program “Gutfeld!” invited Bruce Jenner on as a guest this month, but that show’s hosts used female pronouns for the male Bruce Jenner, and happily called him “Caitlyn.”
“Much of the transphobic rhetoric in use has its roots in homophobic rhetoric.”
Yeah. In polite society we address people as they choose to be addressed. Furthermore, according to the science a transgender woman is, for all intents and purposes, a woman. Her male chromosomes are less relevant than her female presentation. Dead naming and misgendering transgender persons is very boorish and uncivil.
The inanity continues with this gem:
The Chicago Sun-Times published, then pulled and apologized for, an essay stating that female impersonator “Laverne Cox is not a woman,” and the federal government under former President Obama warned that not acknowledging the self-proclaimed sex of any individual could constitute harassment.
“Self-proclaimed” is intended to suggest a gratuitous and whimsical choice. In point of fact, the issue is gender, not sex. Gender is not a choice. It wasn’t that long ago when the same idiots insisted that homosexuality is a choice. Much of the transphobic rhetoric in use has its roots in homophobic rhetoric.
Furthermore, President Obama had a point. If you do not approve of someone’s sexuality so be it. You are entitled to believe in the sanctity of kosher salami if that suits you. However, if you go out of your way to denigrate someone whose sexuality you disapprove of then that does constitute harassment.
Later on, science deniers claim that the science isn’t science:
Yet the resistance to this science-denying ideology also grows.
Get a grip on reality. Transgender persons are not adherents to an ideology. They are addressing a medical condition.
“Resistance” takes the form of obnoxious, prejudicial polemics. It has no effect on anyone who is transgender. Moreover, resistance is just a defense of scripture and religious doctrine based on scripture.
“Or is the AAP participating in a sinister conspiracy to, … to do what exactly?”
Moreover, assuming that (in the above quote) “this” refers to transitioned persons, the scientific consensus is overwhelming. It is perhaps best represented by the clinical practice standards of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Or is the AAP participating in a sinister conspiracy to, … to do what exactly?
Common elements of transphobia are pretty consistent:
A protest at Hillsboro High School in Missouri against a boy’s use of the girls’ bathroom — the boy claims he is a girl despite having all his original parts — is just one of many cultural events that suggest claims of universal acceptance are greatly exaggerated.
Some of those common elements are:
- Pretending that the independent construct of gender does not exist.
- Pretending that public opinion has some relevance to medical science.
- Pretending that a religious objection is secular.
- Offering no realistic alternative to transitioning.
Getting to one of the authors writing about themselves:
During a U-46 Board Meeting, one of this commentary’s writers, Jeanette Ward, asked if a student’s refusal to use a gender-dysphoric peer’s preferred pronoun could result in a charge of bullying. Two board members indicated that such a refusal would constitute bullying, and the remaining four remained silent. It would appear that the government is compelling minors to lie or face discipline.
That is former school board member Jeanette Ward. Add “obtuseness” to the list above. First of all, let’s separate fact from opinion. If a kid is transgender then it is a fact that he or she has transitioned to present as their gender.
It is also a fact that misgendering a child does violence to that person. Moreover, it is a fact that conforming to polite behavior does not cause distress to the individual doing so. At least it should not.
“When natal sex and gender are incongruent, gender usually prevails.”
Someone’s religious disapproval of another individual’s sexuality is an opinion. The notion that someone is lying by being transgender is absurd. Only a dogmatist confuses facts and opinion in this manner.
We live in a diverse society. Asking kids to be kind to people who are different should not be controversial. Adults should be capable of setting a proper example.
Do either of these nitwits think that a natal boy whimsically chooses one morning to wear his sister’s dress to school? Do they have the vaguest clue regarding the criteria for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria which includes at least six months of distress causing impairment?
More science denial spouted as science:
The media uses the pronoun “she” to describe biologically male students who wish they were girls, and in so doing denies science and the very basis for sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms.
Readers know that I have a fondness for people who disagree with me. All I require to garner my respect is intellectual honesty. When natal sex and gender are incongruent, gender usually prevails.
“Should people be forced to suffer because of the religious disapproval of others?”
Again, this has nothing to do with privacy, free speech or the wellbeing of others. All this nonsense exists because of religious disapproval. Yet, Mr. Farley would have people believe otherwise:
What really gets the goat of one of this commentary’s writers, African-American Jonathan Farley, is when defenders of this nonsense claim that trans identity is analogous to race, based on nothing other than the fact that both blacks and opposite-sex impersonators have been discriminated against. This fallacious analogy ignores that racism is based on objective, behaviorally neutral conditions akin to eye color, whereas opposite-sex impersonation involves subjective, often fluid feelings, and volitional behavior — including acts that violate the privacy of others.
I make no such claim. However, discrimination is discrimination regardless of the underlying prejudice. RuPaul is a female impersonator. Transgender people are just the opposite.
Trans persons are conforming to their gender over which they have no choice.
Then we get to the issue of whether conforming to one’s gender is “volitional behavior.” Most transgender folks can either suffer with crippling anxiety and depression or they can mitigate the symptoms of gender dysphoria by transitioning. Transitioning is successful, in that regard.
Should people be forced to suffer because of the religious disapproval of others? By the way Farley writes “often fluid feelings.” I would wager that he could not answer the question: “How often?” Nor could he explain how that relates to who transitions.
“…abusing people because one has a religious objection to their sexuality is mean spirited.”
It is not mean-spirited to say that the feelings and beliefs of such young people are not “normal.” Nor is it bullying to refuse to participate in their delusional thinking. It is no more compassionate to pretend a boy is a girl than it is to pretend that someone is Napoleon or to pretend that an anatomically whole person who experiences Body Integrity Identity Disorder is an amputee.
Actually, abusing people because one has a religious objection to their sexuality is mean spirited. Furthermore, where “normal” means attributes pertaining to the majority of people, the minority should not be subjected to debasement.
I won’t dignify the comparison to Napoleon or BIID with a response. Suffice it to say that medical science differentiates conditions in terms of diagnosis and treatment.
Apparently gender dysphoria is contagious:
It’s Time Magazine that should apologize for putting Laverne Cox — a biological male who pretends to be a woman — on the cover where even children at the supermarket will see adult deviance.
If Republican politicians challenge their Democratic opponents on this single point, Republicans will win every fair election. This is the issue the GOP should seize to win back the government.
Jeanette Ward proves otherwise. Just how cynical is it to abuse people for political advantage?