Timothy Birdnow

In a very good article at American Thinker Robert Arvay argues that "transgendered" are no such thing and that we should stop calling them that. He is right.

What defines a person's sex? Well, the Left has insidiously changed the terminology from sex to gender, which used to be a function of language; you used gender to distinguish between the sexes. In the usual deconstructive technique employed by liberals, sex has morphed into "gender" which is "a social construct" rather than a fact of life, a reality which we must deal with whether we like it or not. Liberals, in their never-ending quest ot be gods, have subtly changed the words to confuse the average person, who will not think of it. This is the old technique employed by leftists for generations.

Remember Orwell's 1984? The government was in the process of creating and imposing "Newspeak" which was a fundamentally altered language, one that made it impossible to even think beyond the limits the State imposed. Orwell rightly saw the direction that Fasco-Marxism was heading and warned against it as best he could. He understood that controlling language was the way to control thought.

And the liberal/left has been doing this for decades. We don't have homosexual pseudo-marriage, but rather "marriage equality". We don't have womb-ripping but rather "abortion rights" or "the right to choose". Racial preferences for minorities are "affirmative action". Following traditional norms of behavior morph into "white privilege" or "microaggressions". Reading classic Western literature becomes "cultural imperialism". The list goes on and on.

And this whole "gender" issue is a prime example. The term for men (or women, a far smaller group) who dress and act like the opposite sex is transvestite. That had a pejorative connotation, so the left, cameleon-like as always, have now morphed this into "transgendered" and have confused this with "transsexual". Often transsexual does not mean a person who actually had their genitalia modified through surgery, but rather just plain old transvestism. It is not.

That is why I am loathe to use the term transsexual. Even when the person has been snipped, it still is a misuse of terminology, an inaccuracy that should not be permitted. You still have a person who has y chromosomes. You still have a person without a working uterus. You may have artificially constructed breasts and an opening where the scrotum once resided, but that does not make a man a woman. And women "transsexuals" are even less so, with an enlarged clitoris masquerading as a penis.

These are not true transsexuals but rather simply mutilated men and women.

And that does not even take into account the experiential and psychological aspects of flipped sexuality. You can say you are a girl all you wish but you did not have the experiences of being a little girl. It just isn't part of you.

So Chelsea Manning (and I'll call him that since he can choose whatever name he wishes) is not a woman but a man, a dude tricked out to look like a woman. I will not call him "her". Nor showuld any of the rest of us.

Until a way can be found to change the chromosomes, to make the body actually change into a viable, truly female (or male) form, and to change the mental and psychological aspects of a person, we cannot say we have sex change but rather a masquerade, and a poor one at that.

Why does the left do this? Sexual identity is a fundamental part of who we are, and by dissolving it, by breaking it down, we lose sight of everything. Family just isn't family without the specific sexual roles we play. Our very concept of social structure is broken. This is the same reason why the liberals sought to promote homosex7ual marriages, even though there was hardly a pressing societal need for such (as homosexuals make up a scant 3% of the population).
Gay Marriage" (and there's a word that has been coopted) helped to break the cohesion of society. They knew this would happen and eagerly sought it. Karl Marx called for the dissolution of the family, and so did Lenin, and this is just another tool to bludgeon the most ancient social unit. to break it so the State may take the job on and really promote the kind of social change the leftists have always dreamed about. Before the big push for homosexual marriage we had the sexual revolution and the rise of Feminism, which was not in any way about giving women a fair shake but about breaking traditional social norms and sexual roles. Men and women became far more antagonistic when the Left stoked massive grievances in women. Znc And the sexual revolution turned men and women from seeking true intimacy and marriage into cheap, tawdry attempts at physical gratification without the emotional strings. It was all aimed at destroying the family.

Destroying God also. He made the family and to rid ourselves of this pesky Creator we had to reject everything He ordained. This is, in the end, the revolution against the Almighty, the same evil enterprise that started with Lucifer.

"Transgenderism" is so clearly a rebellion against God that there really is no way anyone can argue against the claim. It is a defication of Man, a clear violation of the First Commandment which says "Thou shalt not have Strange Gods Before Me".

So, if we accept the new terminology we accept the rebellion. Rebellion against Sith empires or Nazis is noble, but rebellion against God is not only ignoble it is batshit crazy. God is the one who ordained this stuff, and He so ordained it that our refusal to accept reality eventually means immense suffering because we are going against the way the Universe works. Is it somehow unfair we cannot fly without a mechanical aid? We should be able to jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon and expect to fly! Nobody complains when someone goes "splat" when they do something this crazy, but they do complain when they aren't allowed to wish themselves to be the opposite sex.

We live in an era of horrendous self-delusion. It's time we start calling this nonsense out.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1051 words, total size 6 kb.