Not with My Wife in There!

Let me explain some basic genetic science chromosomally:


XX = female (homogametic)
XY = male (heterogametic)

There’s your gender. Anything else is science denial. Regardless of what one wants to be, or pretends to be, that fundamental, biological truth is inescapable. [I’m not interested in entertaining minuscule-fraction XX/XY genetic syndromes either; that’s beside the point here, a tangential straw-man, not at all relevant to the argument.]

Genetically, you are as you popped out of the womb, no matter your act, no matter your appearance, no matter your presentation. The XX or XY with which one is born stays in every single cell regardless of any cosmetics, desires or pretending to the contrary. Thus, since trying to be something you’re not is fundamentally dishonest, pretending womanhood when you’re male (or vice versa) is a big, fat charade–a lie. Yes, lie…which makes every “transgender” (get ready for it)…a liar, a pretender, a poser, inauthentic as a $3 bill. That completely inverts and falsifies their claims to being “true to oneself”, and is a foundational self-contradiction.

To really be true to oneself, go into your own private bathroom, undress, look between your legs, take careful note of what’s there…and act like it. If you want to pretend to be something you’re not, do it at home, an acting stage, or a drag-queen parade…not in a bathroom with my wife.

    “Two men say they’re Jesus, one of ’em must be wrong.”

      Dire Straits

I love that line, because it fundamentally calls out fakers for who and what they are. On some days I may wish I were a ghost, invisible! That doesn’t make me one. When I was a kid I wished I were a flying superhero. That didn’t happen, no matter what costume I wore and how much I yelled about saving the world. I put on a football uniform and threw passes really far for a little street-rat punk; that didn’t make me Roger Staubach no matter how much I pretended to be him. Perhaps I wish I were a holy man, a prophet, a savior to the world. Some people are delusional enough to think they are; but there was, is, and will be only one Jesus the Christ.

Wishing or behaving or dressing as a woman wouldn’t make me one, period. Nor does it anyone else on earth. And if “gender” is just an “identity” and not physical, why bother with the ‘nard-carving, the hormones and the makeup? Therein lies another basic self-contradiction in the whole deal.

Still, does that mean one can’t carve up one’s gonads surgically and pretend to be something they’re not? No. I don’t understand that mentality; it’s bizarre and twisted, but in the libertarian sense, one has the right to do with one’s own body as one chooses. [This, of course, excludes abortion, where the life of another complete genetic human being within the body is at stake in a potential homicide situation.] One even has the right, under the same document I cite below, to play-act like they’re a dudette when they were born a dude, at that drag parade.

Invert your organs, shave your legs, put on dresses, wear heels, splash on the Eau de Fakerie Parfum, whatever. You have that right and I will not deny it. I also have the right to criticize it, to call it a forgery, a delusion, a lie. I will continue to do so, and there’s nothing anyone can or will do about it. Why? It’s something the purveyors of perversion might not know about called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That’s the supreme law of the land. Freedom of speech, folks: learn it, live it, love it.

Nevertheless, let’s now assume for argument’s sake that no surgical or wanna-be “transgender” person ever did anything wrong in a bathroom, anywhere. Let’s consider the other posers: those pretending to “identify”. It is their very existence, above all else, that nullifies any and all arguments for “gender-neutral” bathrooms.

Yet under “identity” rules and laws spreading nationally like a contagious mental disease, anybody can decide he is a woman (or a girl, if in K-12) for the day, and stroll unquestioned into the women’s latrine or locker room. Postal-poster perverts and pedophiles the nation over are foaming at the possibilities. Genderless bathrooms elsewhere already have encouraged voyeurism. Peeping Toms now only need to “identify” as tomboys to succeed at peeping. Just call oneself “transgender” or “I identify as…”, and you’ve got license to leer. How far into the toilet have we gone, as a society, to allow lecherous leeches to have lawful access to their targets by means of “identifying” as something they’re not? All of that is batshit insane! What about the rights of the women and girls in that restroom?

If you’re a dude, and my wife, daughter or sister are in a public restroom, you’re not going in there, period. No man is going to be exposing himself around the ladies I love, if I can see it coming. I don’t care if you think you’re a woman at that time. I don’t care if you think you’re a dog and start barking on all fours. I don’t care if you “identify as” Mork the Alien and start chanting “Nanu Nanu”. It doesn’t matter what delusion of otherness you have. It’s not happening.

If “the law” says you can go in there, that’s a bad law; I’m still keeping you out until my loved ones are done. Like Rosa Parks on the “colored section” of that bus, I’m not morally obligated to follow an immoral law, an inverted Jim Crow statute that allows anyone to access any restroom if they feel like it. The safety and well-being of those I love matters more than somebody’s delusional “identity”.

Further reading, from a woman who has been raped:
A Rape Survivor Speaks Out about “Transgender” Bathrooms

Critiquing a Critical Essay: “Friends”, Cultural Degradation, Education, and David Hopkins’ Pandering

In the Dallas Morning News, David Hopkins wrote what initially appears to be a mildly iconoclastic essay on the cultural implications of the 1990s pop-fad TV show, Friends. I found the opinion piece (this version of it anyway) thought-provoking, even if I did not agree with some of his points.

Background: In the ’90s, I quite deliberately chose never to watch a single episode of Friends or Seinfeld, precisely because they were popular with most of my 20-something, cultural-conformist, Gen-X age peers. Same went for the ’80s when I was a teen with Cheers, Roseanne, Family Ties, etc. Same applied to when I was a pre-teen kid in the ’70s (Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, MASH, etc).

There are and were exceptions, of course. As an adolescent I loved Dukes of Hazzard as unpretentiously mindless redneck entertainment and for Daisy…Dallas because of its clearly cartoonish, self-parody character portrayals, hometown scenery and of course the women who were easy on the eyes…and Miami Vice for the tropical scenery, fast action with guns and explosions, and, naturally, hotties in bikinis. Don’t infer a lustful common denominator too deeply, however; I did not watch Baywatch when it was a hit.

Regardless, Dukes, Dallas and Vice were not that popular with most of the people in my age group, in my schools, for whom I had little or no respect. Some bug in me connected the shallow, anti-intellectual, vain, self-interested, shortsighted, superficial, materialistic behavior of the bulk of those peers, poor and rich alike, with trite chatter over their favorite situational comedies, and I wanted nothing to do with those shows or (for the most part) those peers either. It was as if they were too caught up in the here and now, the herd mentality, the illusory realms of culture and fashion and “what’s in it for me” selfishness. Even non-conformity itself became conformist: pretentious, inauthentic, and obviously image-driven…to wit: punk rock, Goth dressing and Madonna.

So it is from that perspective that I found the essay most insightful. The more I learn about most of those shows, the more glad I am not to have wasted time with them. Yet the author seems to blame “Friends” or any other shows for the cultural vacuousness and degradation, when instead they were merely reflections of them. Without a demand for such material, it wouldn’t have been broadcast! While I don’t deny that pop culture influences society (that would be foolish and dishonest), the demands for the mental opiates of self-gratification, vanity and materialism are there regardless of what pop-fads and cultural media are created to satiate them.

The premise of the show as blame aside, he rightly implores people to put down the remote, stop cluttering their minds with pop-cultural fluff, and read actual books. Hear, hear! Critical thinking seems to be a skill whose commonness curve asymptotically approaches zero.

The volume of younger society wielding analytic thought fails to touch the aught line only through two saving factors. The first is a decided minority of parents who emphasize critical assessment of the world and its messages with their children, from earliest ages. This includes the notion that not every idea being pumped into one’s mind by a teacher is a valid one. Think independently! Of course, it’s up to the kid to follow through; some do, some don’t, giving in to peer pressures and worldly cultural mores out of convenience and expediency, and yes, conformity.

The second saving grace involves the perseverance of a small cadre of intensely curious young people over an educational system that has done them great injustice, and public schooling in particular. Catering to the lowest common denominator and perpetuating the glorification of personal victimhood, our educational system deprives kids of the manifest benefits of strenuous academic rigor in favor of “feelings”, “self-esteem” and slow-creep spread of sociopolitical propagandizing in curricula.

In that sense, I fully endorse this plea of the writer, who was himself a teacher, and as such bears the credibility to say this: “The public education system is broken. Educate yourself, so you can be part of the conversation.” Moreover, don’t just educate yourself on matters of agreement. Learn deeply the other side of the issues, to understand them better, and if for no other reason, so that you can more effectively battle the arguments (a fundamental concept as old as the strategic teachings of Sun Tzu).

One bit of self-contradiction did stand out: If Hopkins advocates reading and writing instead of wasting time on shows like Friends, why was he “binge-watching” it? Ouch. An inconvenient truth, methinks…

Regardless, and refreshed at having encountered a needed essay advocating imploring critical thought and intellectual involvement, a happenstance occurrence then soiled the experience. I stumbled upon a link to another version of the essay over on medium-dot-com, this one peppered with profanities.

Those who know me personally will attest that I’m not above cussing sometimes, and even have written just a few potty words on these virtual pages. However, the fact that a non-profane version can appear in the Morning News and make all the same points just as effectively proves intrinsically that the profanity was gratuitous, done for theater only, as targeted for the audience of that medium (pun intended). That’s called pandering. Yes, pandering! It’s obvious to me that this writer infused the “medium” version with cuss words solely for the sake of appearing edgy to that presumably younger and more culturally hip audience. That sounds like something a devoted pop-culturalist would do.

As such, the writer lost my respect just as he was gaining it. For the authentic iconoclast, for the essayist who truly is secure in his own skin, what’s good for one audience should be good enough for all–no weak-spined theatrical pandering. It’s too bad that a valuable message on avoiding the herd mentality, and on thinking for oneself, had to be diluted by the sideshow rubbish and self-contradiction, all of his own (un)doing. It appears Mr. Hopkins still has much growth to do as a writer. And so he gets here what he attempts to dish out to culture.

Elitist Double Standards? You Tell Me!

The screen capture below (at the bottom, due to layout limitations) is from a rather ironic, public-domain web posting that is currently freely available online at the State Department, from 2012, when a particular employee worked there who since has resigned to pursue elected office.

In that light, I have three questions:

  1. 22 e-mails from a State Department employee’s personal, non-secured server are being declared “Top Secret” and withheld in full (not even in redacted form) from we the taxpayers. Since official classification is not just based on title or identification but on content, why is this declaration by the very same State Department for which the employee worked not sufficient by itself for prosecution?
  2. At least one of that State Department employee’s e-mails, placed on purpose on a non-secure personal server, contained information identified as “HCS-O,” which is the intelligence code for human spying. Since classification is not just based on content but on title or identification, why is this not sufficient by itself for prosecution?
  3. Who in State Department is going to be charged and jailed for contempt of court for open defiance of the Federal court order by releasing only a small minority (1,000 pages out of an 8,000-page batch) of that employee’s e-mails before the deadline?

Bonus question (phrased three ways…answer either or all):

I did not name the employee on purpose because that person’s name should not matter to the ostensibly celebrity-blind scales of justice. SO…

    a) What do you think would happen to any non-famous, low-level employee who conducted sensitive government business (including using classified-level content) on a non-secure, personal e-mail server with 1,300 messages taken all, or in part, from classified documents?

    b) Put another way, would/should that hypothetical grunt be given the exact same treatment, in strict equivalence, as the person now being investigated? Or

    c) Put another way, is/should there be a double standard for high-level, corporately funded managerial elites and ordinary government employees?


Next Page →