Political correctness has consequences

warning.gifThe LGBTIQQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer, and Questioning)  agenda rolls on. 

And no, I did not make that acronym up.  LGBT has been around for a few years, and I coined the term LGBTX (the “X” being the variable for whatever they might add next).  I predicted it would be polygamy in 2008, but I was wrong.  They added three more in that time!

1, Christian photographer hauled before Human Rights Commission for refusing same-sex job.  I wish it would have been a Muslim photographer.  That would have made it more interesting. 

2. Judges: ‘Gay’ exposure OK for kindergarteners

As WND reported in 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed the civil rights lawsuit by David and Tonia Parker of Lexington, concluding there is an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

3. You’re transphobic if you oppose letting people go in the bathroom of their choosing.  If your young daughter wonders why the bearded guy in the dress is in the women’s room, accuse her of hate speech.

To show how far removed from reality these folks are, consider this bit of etiquette that they propose (emphasis added):

A person’s external appearance may not match their internal gender identity. You cannot know the gender or sex of someone by their physical body, voice, appearance or mannerisms. Pay attention to a person’s purposeful gender expression. We consider it polite to ask: “What pronoun do you prefer?” or “How do you identify?” before using pronouns or gendered words for anyone.

Yeah,  that’ll work well in the real world.  Hey kids, go up to your teachers and ask them that.  Hey adults, try it on your bosses and customers.  They’ll be thrilled that you didn’t jump to conclusions about what sex they “really” are.  Once they answer, be sure to ask, “Are you sure?”

4.  Apparently churches shouldn’t be able to discipline according to the Bible

A gay Christian who won a claim against the Church of England has been awarded more than £47,000 in compensation. John Reaney took the Hereford diocesan board of finance to an employment tribunal after his appointment as a youth worker was blocked.

5. Lots more examples here.

Political perspective: These folks have successfully infiltrated churches, the education establishment and government.  It is only going to get worse if “civil unions” are approved more broadly, because they establish a precedent for sexual preferences being civil rights.

Religious perspective: Those are just examples outside the church!  To make things worse we have false teachers in the church causing unnecessary division and promoting the political side as well.  I’m glad for groups like GCM Watch that help address those areas. 

Matthew 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

83 thoughts on “Political correctness has consequences”

  1. Barbara – thx for sharing your link!

    Jeff – thanks for the clarification. Yes, let’s keep the conversation going.

    BTW, in the fight example you gave, the teacher was wrong for the eradication comment and of course the attack was wrong.

    I am against bullying in all forms and think that broader anti-bullying guidelines work much better. Special considerations aren’t necessary. As I’ve said before, I don’t care if people bully because they think someone is too fat/thin/gay/straight/tall/short/smart/stupid/etc., it is all wrong.

    Verbal and physical bullying should be stopped immediately. I think the GLBT activities in schools are just Trojan Horses to get their agenda in, and that the bullying could be dealth with much more effectively than it has been. If I saw someone bullying a gay person I would protect the gay person every time. But the GLBT movement deftly conflates issues and implies that if you don’t completely endorse and affirm their lifestyles then you are a bigoted homophobe. Clever marketing, I suppose, but very dishonest.

    Like

  2. Dan, I see that Neil offered a direct and explicit refutation of your presumption that he was calling for people’s death or suggesting that certain people are worthless. To that you responded, “You’ve just supported my interpretation.” If even an explicit refutation supports your interpretation, just what in the world would cause you to rethink your interpretation?

    Out of curiosity I wonder, under what circumstances would you think that a photographer is in his legal rights to refuse a clientele?

    You clearly think that a photographer should be legally required to accept as clients a couple who wants photos taken of their commitment ceremony because employers and businesses should be legally prohibited from discriminating “on the basis of skin color, sexuality, religion, gender, or disability.”

    I note that you say sexuality and not just sexual orientation, and you now argue that “Sexual Behavior between consenting adults is morally neutral.”

    (“And it is only people who force their religion on society who say otherwise,” you continue. It takes all of two minutes to demonstrate the utter implausibility of this claim.)

    Okay, then.

    A woman calls a photographer to ask him to photograph her commitment ceremony.

    Situation A: The woman explains that everyone will be wearing Star Trek costumes (or, alternatively, at a baseball park or on a roller coaster), and the photographer believes that such things trivialize what ought to be a solemn occasion.

    Situation B: The woman explains that the ceremony is with a man and two other women, and the photographer believes that only monogamy is moral.

    Situation C: The woman explains that the ceremony involves dog collars, leather, and assorted whips and clamps, and the photographer believes that sado-masochism is a perversion that should not be celebrated.

    Situation D: The woman explains that her beloved has reached the next plane of existence. That is to say, the man’s a corpse. Now, before he died, the man clearly gave his consent for this ceremony, so the ceremony would be conducted with the consent of both parties. The photographer thinks that, consensual or not, necrophilia is disgusting.

    Under which of these circumstances should the photographer have the legal right to deny the client? And what justification can you give to explain the line between legal and illegal?

    Like

  3. There is a fundamental difference between government discrimination and individual discrimination.

    When a 11-year-old girl only invites other girls to her sleepover, that’s okay. It is not okay for the government, via the public school system, to not allow boys into class one day.

    Colleges discriminate on the basis of sex all the time. At many schools, boys are given a leg up in admissions. That’s okay. Schools like Wellesley and Smith bar men from attending. Hampden Syndey (in Virginia) bars women. That’s okay – and that is a great part of our society. We recognise that some people choose to do certain things without others, and we allow that.

    The Knights of Columbus discriminates based on sex. So does the Society of Women Engineers. Neither political side really has a lock on it; in fact, it isn’t hard to find cases of private discirmination that the Left wholeheartedly endorses.

    To analogise in a way to get the Left to understand: lawyers serve clients, much in the same way that a photographer has customers. They are not obligated to take anyone who comes through the door, may, if they choose, take only sweet customers, or clients whose cases are winners.

    What do you think about a lawyer who conscientiously objects to representing the government in a policy matter which he finds to be morally abhorrent? Would you think that any lawyer ought to be commandeered to defend the legitimacy of Gitmo? What about, in the private context, the defence of a polluting chemical plant? a student charged with hate speech?

    Hum….? Can we start to understand how our fundamental freedoms are always NEGATIVE – we cannot force someone to do something, but we do have the freedom to exist and to go about our lives without interference. The gay couple who sued the photographer are trying to negate his fundamental right to live his life without being compelled to act by his fellow citizens. He need not be a part of that ceremony.

    Like

  4. Thank you, Theo. I agree completely. What is truly ironic about this scenario is that it IS the liberal position to advocate that business owners are able to select their customers. Remember, the root of “liberal” is “liberty”. 😉

    Like

  5. Of the many abuses of the English language in the last century, two stand out to me as the most egregious: the left has been able to portray as opposites the two very similar totalitarian ideologies of communism and fascism, and the left has distorted the word “liberalism” to a statism that is almost the exact opposite of its original meaning.

    Like

  6. For what it’s worth, I will note that Dan hasn’t gotten around to answering my fairly simple questions. Instead, he’s still continuing to insult us at his blog:

    “Its really funny that folks here are brave enough to post in the presence of wingnuts, but aside from Neil, they prefer an echo chamber for their thoughts.”

    I for one don’t understand his hang-up about where we discuss this particular subject: since civil voices with opposing points of view are welcome here, to the point that many here take great pains to address those other views, this blog is hardly an “echo chamber”. And, frankly, the discussion is more substantive.

    But even if cross-blog participation is some sort of indication of courage — and it isn’t, and it’s foolish to act like it is — just what is Dan crowing about? The only other person from his blog who has commented here is Sarah.

    Like

  7. Good points, Bubba. I’ve heard the “echo chamber” type of comments before but never quite understood them. We must have had around 1,000 comments from the Dawkins’ crowd the last few month (one commenter had over 200 alone).

    It was interesting that he challenged the courage of commenters and referred to them as wingnuts in the same sentence. I could be mistaken but I haven’t noticed any personal attacks going the other direction.

    I had a similar experience with someone who took exception to my piece on pro-abortion macro-evolutionists. No big deal, but they just paraded a stream of logical fallacies and fact-free personal attacks. One of the downsides of blogging, I suppose.

    Like

  8. “Bad logic.

    There are two activities, A and B. You say that B comes with its own risks, therefore, A is no more riskier than B.

    I think we can all see the little problem with logic you are having here. Just because B is not completely risk-free does not mean that it is equally risky to something else.

    Sorry, hon – additional risks when you allow men in women’s restrooms without anyone questioning it.”

    I don’t agree. You will first have to prove that transgender people abuse children at rates comparable to men. We can assume that given that estrogen is given to some incarcerated pedophiles to reduce their criminality that the same would be true for non-criminals who are taking female hormones for medical reasons (to treat transgenderism or intersexuality).

    It makes far more sense to prevent both adult men and women (in essence, ALL adults) from being with children in private spaces unsupervised. If we are truly concerned about children’s welfare, then parents should accompany their young children into public restrooms or direct them to use bathrooms which are not open to adults.

    Like

  9. “Sigh. I was merely pointing out that if a transgendered man can use a women’s restroom, so can a non-transgendered man.”

    I guess I’m not following your thinking here. How would allowing transgendered people to use the bathroom of their choice infer that those who identify as men will be able to use the opposite sex’s restroom? Are you talking about FtM transgendered people using the men’s room? I don’t see the connection.

    Regarding your little brother, if the public restroom permits adult men to use the same facilities as children then your brother is at risk. His risk of being the victim of a pedophile would be lower if the bathroom did not allow adults, or someone supervised him while in there.

    Like

  10. Sarah,

    If someone who looks like a man can walk into a woman’s restroom without questioning, then I think there is a big problem.

    I see no reason why we should have four sets of bathrooms because transgendered people want to “fit in” in society. Guess what – that still doesn’t solve the problem of not wanting pre-op transgendereds in the ladies’ room.

    Let’s focus on the issue. You have every right to get someone to perform radical operations on you that altern your anatomy. What you don’t have the right to do is to violate laws in pursuit of that.

    Like

  11. Neil,

    Here is a link to an awesome sermon about Marriage: The Image of God

    To the right of the sermon notes, you can click on either the mp3 or video version of the sermon.

    It is one of the best I’ve heard regarding the real issues of what is at stake in this battle to force same-sex marriage upon America.

    If you think it is worthy to be shared, please send the link to as many people as possible. I would also love to read your opinion about it, too.

    Like

  12. “I see no reason why we should have four sets of bathrooms because transgendered people want to “fit in” in society. Guess what – that still doesn’t solve the problem of not wanting pre-op transgendereds in the ladies’ room.”

    That’s a strawman argument. No one is proposing four bathrooms. In fact, the whole problem is that not everyone fits neatly into the culturally created categories for gender. There are a large number of intersexuals in our communities that are often invisible to us. Likewise, a relatively large number of people are born with gender identity issues that are treatable with counseling, hormonal therapy, and/or gender re-assignment surgery.

    Like

  13. Er… men’s, women’s, boy, and girl. Did I miss anyone?

    Sarah, sex and gender are different. Almost everyone fits within a category of sex, and, frankly, that is the relevant part for bathrooms – which part of your body do you use to urinate?

    Like

  14. Sarah,
    I don’t think asking somebody with a male body part to use a male restroom is that demanding. Likewise with female body parts.

    Yes, somebody may feel like a woman trapped in a man’s body, but either they have to deal with the more abstract emotional discomfort of continuing to use a man’s restroom, rather than me experiencing the very real and physical discomfort of using the restroom with a bunch of women. Yes, the former is much more politically lucrative, but still, this is not an unreasonable request.

    Like

  15. Well, Chance, as someone who is dear friends with a person who was born intersexual I have to strongly disagree. My friend has struggled throughout his life to try to fit into society’s neatly defined categories but to no avail. He has changed his gender on his driver’s license twice, nearly been arrested in a public restroom, and has largely been ostracized by his family because of his ambiguous genitalia. He now lives in the Pacific Northwest and identifies as neither male nor female. Apparently, according to your logic, because his clitoris is abnormally large he shouldn’t be allowed to use the women’s room, but because he also has a vagina he shouldn’t use the women’s either. I hope you realize that your irrational reaction to this affects real people very directly. My friend poses no risk to society, children, or anyone else. He just wants to be able to piss in a bathroom without harassment.

    Like

  16. Sarah, you write, “the whole problem is that not everyone fits neatly into the culturally created categories for gender.”

    No, the problem is that some people think everything is culturally created and therefore open to discussion and amendment.

    It’s not. With the exception of very, very rare genetic deviations all humans have one of two combinations of sex chromosomes: XY or XX, male or female.

    All of us should come to grips with the chromosomal package that we’ve been given. If some want to but have trouble doing so, we should provide as much help as we can in terms of therapy and the like, but we shouldn’t contort our society for their sake: it doesn’t help their stated goal of normalcy, and it certainly doesn’t make the rest of our lives any easier.

    And if some don’t want to accept the chromosomes they have, they are and should be free to pursue their own happiness, but they shouldn’t expect and should hardly even ask for the rest of us to embrace their literal perversion.

    They’re free to let their freak flag fly, but the rest of us are under no moral obligation to salute.

    Like

  17. Ah, yes, a variation of the retort of “I hope/don’t hope your kid is gay.”

    I didn’t see your last comment when I was typing mine, but let me be clear that your friend has my sympathies.

    But let me say, if I had a child who was suffering from sexual confusion, I would love that child dearly, no less than if he or she didn’t. By my approach with this dilemma would be no different than if my child suffered from kleptomania.

    If my child grew to be a kleptomaniac but truly wanted help, I would provide whatever assistance I could. If my child insisted that kleptomania defined him and insisted that his resulting larcenous behavior was a thing to be embraced and celebrated, I would still love him, but I would disagree and could not support this decision.

    Either way, I certainly wouldn’t ask society to change on my child’s behalf: I wouldn’t ask society to remove laws forbidding theft. If he wanted help, such changes would not be conducive to his therapy; if he didn’t want help, whatever accomadations that were provided wouldn’t be enough, and society would be worse off for its misguided compassion.

    You have to think through the consequences of what you’re suggesting, and making this society embrace gender-bending does society no favors.

    Like

  18. You are seriously comparing genetic problems with kleptomania? I think you may be seriously not understanding the issues involved here.

    Like

  19. “”You are seriously comparing genetic problems with kleptomania? I think you may be seriously not understandng the issues involved here.”

    If anyone is not understanding the issues here Sarah, I would say it’s you. To put it buntly the issue is simply this: unless I’m painfully mistaken, public restrooms are provided for one purpose. Elimination of bodily waste. If you have a penis, use the men’s room; if not, use the ladies room. If you’re confused about which to use, see a doctor. But please spare me the arguments about rights along with the rest of this nonsense.

    My apologies folks, but sometimes enough is enough.

    Like

  20. The problem is that Sarah is deliberately conflating several different problems.

    Some people are “transsexual”; they feel as if their gender does not conform with their sex (i.e. chromosomes).

    There are people who are literally born with both male and female parts. They are often assigned a sex at birth. Often, doctors are incorrect. I imagine that, as technology improves, we will get better at determining which way to assign children, if we continue along that path.

    There are people, different from both groups above, who have Klinefelter’s Syndrome (I believe it is) wherein they have three chromosomes (XXY). They are men.

    While I understand that those people are in a tremendously difficult situation (well, the latter two), I – and many others – rationally do not think that we ought to rework our entire society to accomodate rare individuals. Born with both parts? Choose one when you are an adult and use the associated restroom. Extra chromosomes?

    Fact is, sex is a biological issue, not a societal one. When dealing with biological issues, such as elimination of waste via either male or female parts, it is sensible to make distinctions based on sex. Gender has nothing to do with it.

    They’re free to let their freak flag fly, but the rest of us are under no moral obligation to salute.

    ROFL. I love it. 🙂

    Like

  21. “There are people who are literally born with both male and female parts. They are often assigned a sex at birth. Often, doctors are incorrect. I imagine that, as technology improves, we will get better at determining which way to assign children, if we continue along that path.”

    As a libertarian, I am shocked that you are taking this position. You honestly believe it should be entirely up to doctors to “assign” a sex to those infants that are ambiguous. I think it is far better to listen to intersexual adults and allow them to determine how they want to body to be “assigned”. There are a large number of intersexual people who feel very victimized in that they had no input on the surgical procedures done on their genitalia.

    “If you have a penis, use the men’s room; if not, use the ladies room.”

    I’m glad you are conceding my point. If you are intersexual, and have both, then you can use both. If you are a post-op transsexual you should use the one which matches your current gender. I guess this only leaves the pre-op transsexuals out.

    Like

  22. Sarah, if a person’s DNA has either XY sex chromosomes or XX chromosomes, it would be more accurate to say that the doctor isn’t “assigning” sex: he’s ascertaining the already existing sex of that person.

    It is only in chromosomal deviations (e.g., XXY) that there can be said to be a genuine ambiguity.

    Like

  23. “It is only in chromosomal deviations (e.g., XXY) that there can be said to be a genuine ambiguity.”

    This is not true and really gets to the root of this issue. There are a variety of genetic conditions where a person would have “normal” sex chromosomes (XY/XX) and still be intersexual. There are people who are XY who appear to be entirely female and vice versa.

    Like

  24. Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is “intersexual”. The terms get confusing. Transgender, transsexual, those are ones that feel they are male in a female body (or vice versa), right?

    How many different variations are there? Male, female, ttranssexual (2 of those I guess). Are there others?

    I’m a science fiction fan. There are always talks of races with more genders than just 2. I guess we’ve crossed into the twilight zone…

    Like

  25. Sarah,

    Read what I wrote, and then get off your high horse. Take your “I can’t believe you call yourself liberatarian!” hysteria elsewhere.

    Often, doctors are incorrect. I imagine that, as technology improves, we will get better at determining which way to assign children, if we continue along that path.

    I have no idea – not in this world, at least – you got the idea that I approve of that procedure. Would a dry recitation of the methodology of waterboarding tell you that I believe in it?

    What do you think, “If we continue along that path” means? Here’s a clue: Maybe we shouldn’t continue to do that.

    I frankly saw no reason to go into a digression about my own beliefs in assigning sex to those born intersex. The fact that you then take this to get into a huff-fest is your own problem, NOT MINE.

    Clear?

    Like

  26. Morning folks,

    I reread all the posts & I gotta be honest, I lost count. How many new restrooms do we have to build????

    Have a great day.

    Like

  27. Thanks Theo.

    Now the the only thing I have to work on is the 23 different languages on the sign by the door :>).

    BTW – Good luck with the last 3 months of law school.

    Like

  28. I would like to invite readers at this blog to please watch the message at the following link. I also hope that you will be motivated to share your comments!

    Marriage: The Image of God.

    Go to the site and click on the arrow on the right of that particular message.

    When you view this video, you will see what the illicit sexual battles being faced by the church today are really all about. The fact is, it is not really only a physical battle, but more importantly, a spiritual battle that is transpiring.

    Sincerely,
    Christine W.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s