In south Florida, transgender rights are all the rage. The mention of the word “rights” is as exciting to the progressive community as the rumors of an impending Rip Taylor film festival. The transgenders also need to be a “protected class” because “three to five percent of the population struggles with gender identity.” Taking that number at face value, approximately five million people do not know whether to shop for themselves at Dicks Sporting Goods or at Victoria’s Secret. When there are that many people who are confused, the government and the courts must become involved as “equality and fairness arbitrators.”All of this is chronicled in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. The article, “Transgender community works to gain protections in South Florida” is illuminating to those of us in the trenches fighting the good fight.
A quote that always appears when the topic involves “rights” is that it is all about “civil rights,” conjuring up misty images of Rosa Parks and the lunch counter sit ins. Wrong. The attempt to velcro your cause to the real civil rights struggle is blasphemous. This “guilt misdirection” is implemented to make you wobble. What it really boils down to is the forcing of the unacceptable upon the majority and that the majorities “uncomfort” with the abnormal is what is abnormal.
The “problem” lies with those of us who chafe when someone NEEDS to parade their “differences” in front of us and then mandates our acceptance against our will. Our morals are “abnormal” and their “difference” is normal. There is no more transparent definition of Friedrich Nietzsche’s “Transvaluation” (Old virtues become sin, old sins become virtues.) than that. It is the modus operandi of those who seek to moralize legal issues and legalize moral issues.
When you legalize moral issues, discussion of the topic is verboten because to disagree then becomes illegal. The moral issues of the day used to be addressed in church. Now morals are arbitrarily decided by someone in a black robe and if the plumbing underneath is under construction, all the better! In short, the “moral” guidebook used to be the Bible. Now it is the uncounted billions of pages within legal tomes spread across the nation, which are capriciously interpreted to fit ones agenda when it is convenient. No wonder the left is so confused.
What the “immoralists” always try to do is implement the patented liberal flanking move: the brow beating of the majority into acquiescence. When that plan fizzled out like a North Korean missile, they then decided it was time to FORCE change upon the unwilling utilizing the path of least resistance: the activist courts.
The gavel drop of one psychotic judge turns one individuals “life choices,” temporary or permanent, into a newly ordained constitutional right whereupon disagreement can lead to imprisonment or at least a few months in therapy at the “Progressive Sensitivity Reprogramming Center for the Perpetually Unrepentant.”
The “Immoralist War” has many fronts but of the utmost importance is the targeting of the moral authority figures and their influence. When the moral begin to question the sanctity of its church leaders, (The Catholic priest scandal used as an indictment of all priests as pedophiles.) the liberals simultaneously attack the Holy book, (the Bible) drudge up ancient religious conflicts (The Crusades, etc.) and assault religious symbols. (The Ten Commandment monument in the Georgia Court house, mangers at Christmas, and the cross on Mount Soledad, etc.) When the progressive battery weakens the resolve of the moral, concession is but a step away.
Within this article are almost all the clues that will help us to understand the lefts war on morality. The article says they “started in liberal West Palm Beach.” They took the legal battle where resistance was literally non existent. Any city where the word “liberal” fits snugly as a prefix, immediately becomes the progressive’s Omaha beach. They savor an easy victory and use it as a template for a nationwide mandatory conversion. If West Palm Beach says it is so, then the whole nation must comply.
Once the moral hokey-pokey begins, it quickly reaches the point where it becomes technically impossible to ever say NO. The standards you enforce once you reach the point of vomiting should have been implemented from the get go. Remember: the application of morals and standards makes you “intolerant” or an “oppressor.” If you back down to prove your sensitivity and compassion, you have just completed the “Neil Armstrong corollary” to our civilizations destruction. (“That’s one small step ‘backwards’ for man, one giant leap ‘backwards’ for mankind..”)
If transgenders NEED to be a “protected class” in south Florida, is it “fair” to leave out the polygamists? If so, what are you basing their exclusion upon? Remember that right and wrong are “moral assessments”, “fair” is nonjudgmental and “right” and “rights” are two different things! What about the necrophiliacs? What about the neighbor who suddenly discovers that your cat is his soul mate? The left will deny in your presence, endorsing perversion today, but rest assured the ACLU would begin enthusiastically defending it tomorrow. When you exist in the “If it feels good, do it” septic tank, you are always but one more flush away from officially sanctioned depravity.
“Heather” Wright, who “transitioned” from he to a she, now “feels comfortable.” This transitioning thing, is it permanent? Who knows how this “sexual weather vane” turns, could one more accidental glimpse at ESPN while channel surfing necessitate a mad dash to the surgeons for the re-installation of a spigot? My advice would be to use a tap and put threads on it for those days when confusion sets in. This will keep all the options open in this age of immoral uncertainty..
Wright is a mother. The progressives all view children as property, (that is, the ones who manage to escape the Planned “Parenthood” saline injections.) so social experimentation is fine as long as “Mom” is happy. Time to rename the lesbian classic, “Heather is a mommy…for now.”
Wright says she has been dealing with this “since I (she) was born.” I have always known that the progressives were intellectually superior, but it is good to know that their hypersensitivity causes them to question their “gender status” even at the age of two weeks. Consult your Yellow Pages for the nearest “Toddlers in Sexual Confusion” support group in your area.
The article mentions “fitting in.” Have we reached the point where everyone who “faces tremendous challenges fitting in” needs the governments ham fisted assistance and the courts official seal of approval? The question is; who should be doing the “fitting”? Is this really “fitting in” or is it actually “standing out”?
When you demand that your abnormality be recognized with a “protected class status”, you are placing yourself on a type of “endangered species” list for people. Suddenly, your accomplishments are secondary to your “status.” Transgender “set-asides” will be enforced and you will need your own transgender Al Sharpton (What is RuPaul up to?) to ensure that your rights and quotas are sufficient. You go from anonymity to your every move being under constant observation from all sides.
While Florida’s transgenders “re tool” (or “un tool”, as the case may be.) themselves, they demand that we “re tool” our values, principles, and standards. They will next demand that this overhauling be covered by the insurance companies. Nothing screams “elective surgery” more than whims of the progressive’s newest poster children. They may say that all they want is “greater acceptance” but what that really means is “mandatory and unequivocal submission by everyone else, OR ELSE.”
The hue and cry USED to be “Whatever anyone does in the privacy of their own home is their business.” That has now morphed into “We can do whatever we want, where ever we want, all under the inclusive banner of ‘celebrating diversity’.” Good luck explaining it all to your kids!”
It is hard to take someone seriously when one minute they are squawking about being equal and the next minute they are trumpeting their differences. Is everyone “equal” or are you “special” and it is therefore obligatory to acknowledge your “status” in order to fulfill a compulsory judicial quota? Is it better to ignore someone’s differences and treat them equally or is it more important to recognize the differences and treat them differently?
It is all so confusing, but that is the point.