The saga of Tammy is not about sexual preference, lesbianism or homosexuality. It is about our Gaia-given right to get anything we want, any damned thing at all. It is about establishing that everyone has a right to an Ipod, affordable housing, a world without nuclear weapons, solar panels which cost three times as much as their competitors yet which should somehow be competitive. It is about our right to live in a world where the BATF can give away guns to Mexican drug dealers, the better to prove that the Second Amendment is evil because it is part of a Constitution that is at least a hundred years old and which no one understands any more; to a universe where things are so because we want them that way without any reference to economics, physics, chemistry, history or bothering to ask anyone.The untold story is also one of sex-segregation. A boy at an early age sees two mothers, and says he is one of them -- as a girl. The two women who's own preference is for women naturally go along with their son being a woman. This isn't about homosexuality the activity in the bedroom, but it is about about oppression of the other gender. He'll be happier that way, no bias here.
Comment Policy
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The State vs the State of Nature ... promoting prejudice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The child was pre-puberty when she was experiencing so many of these feelings of gender. With my own children, a lot of things of 'gender neutral' simply because things have to be hand me downs. I couldn't imagine her feelings, with threats of genital mutilation at seven??? My boys only see their penis, as something they can aim with when they are in the bathroom. They know girls don't have them, but rarely think about the difference, other then women have a birth canal so we can give birth instead.
ReplyDeleteIf someone grows up and is determined to be transgender, I can understand, but let children be children first.
With no Father in "Tammy's" home, who can wonder that a whole part of who he really is, has been denied expression and daily example.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
ReplyDeleteSexual activity is not what I'm worried about. We have two women who've shown by preference they are happier without men. That decision makes for an uneasy influence in marginal situations such as this.
In a situation of two widows, or other situations where the missing man is due to circumstances beyond their control, there is little perception bias if anything. Their circumstance is beyond their decision. And that is far more passive bias than the active bias of gender preference.
File this one in the "same-sex couples make better parents" and "nothing bad has happened yet" files. For good measure you might also add it to the "if someone's willing to pay, a doctor's willing to do it" file. (This last file may be better known as the "Michael Jackson" file.)
ReplyDeleteI think we can see what "GLBT" ultimately stands for: Gender-Less Babies and Toddlers.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm serious. Since gender is not to be considered something one is born with, but something one chooses, how long is it going to be before the idea is advanced that babies and children should not even be referred to as boys or girls until they reach an age when they can decide which they want to be? That any reference to them as one or the other before that time is to be seen as an attempt to "influence" them? Not to mention "influencing" them by dressing them in girl's or boy's clothes, a concept which we will see attacked.
Don't be surprised if it comes to that.
R.K., I believe it has come to that. Remember this Toronto family?:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Toronto+parents+hide+child+gender+neutral+treatment/4837762/story.html