Monday, January 18, 2016
A conservative Social worker and counsellor reports his observations of homosexuality
He starts out with a shot at the asinine criticism: "You must not generalize". Every word in our language is a generalization
A generalisation is a recognisable pattern within a majority. Naturally a minority fall outside of that pattern, otherwise there wouldn't be a recognisable pattern within a majority.
I could list many practices and attitudes that are common in homosexual lifestyle and so sad and tragic that they would at first shock and then incite pity in the heart of most decent persons strong enough to bear them. How male youth and young men are targeted, the degree and types of drug use, the degree and types of violence, the internal hatreds and prejudices, the common diseases and common psychological conditions, the particular kinds of self harm, the loneliness of middle and old age for homosexuals, the rate and methods of suicide, and the common psychological effects and abuses of the homosexual lifestyle -- all these are covered up and denied by homosexuals. Homosexuals don't call themselves gay for nothing.
And leftists, particularly cunning and treacherous feminists who get themselves into socially manipulative positions such as counsellors and youth workers will do anything to manipulate receptive male youths, young men and men in crisis, towards their weakest and their worst, because its all good for the stats and funding, and more importantly it feeds leftist beliefs, delusions and projections.
One of the unrecognised suffering groups caused by the leftist homosexual push is that group of young men who were conned into thinking they were homosexual by their leftist school teacher/counsellor/youthworker, targeted because they were in someway susceptible to leftist manipulation. As an example, a case I dealt with: A young heterosexual man conned into thinking homosexuality was natural was so disgusted with himself that he hung himself, only to be found by a passer by and cut down before he was dead, so after recovery he scalded his entire face and head with steam, then threw himself off a high roof only to survive as a physical and psychological tragedy.
On stat forms in psych units and counselling facilities there is never a category for male heterosexual victims of the leftist homosexuality push. But there is usually a box to tick for homosexual depression and suicide. So in a final ironic insult to such heterosexual men, cases of depression, ptsd and suicide associated with regretful or traumatic homosexual experience often go in the stats as being homosexuals, and get used to further feed the feminist-leftist homosexuality push.
Multiculturalist is jailed for more than two years for infecting a woman with HIV by having unprotected sex after meeting online
A 32-year-old man has been jailed for more than two years for infecting a woman whom he met online with HIV.
Simba Kuuya had known about his condition for four years but kept it a secret from the woman and continued to have unprotected sex with her.
The unnamed victim only discovered that Kuuya had the virus when their brief relationship ended and one of his former partners contacted the victim on Facebook.
When he denied it, the woman went for a blood test, which came back positive.
In a statement read to the court, the woman said the virus had had a 'devastating' effect on her and was something she would have to live with for the rest of her life.
Kuuya, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, has now been jailed for two years and two months after pleading guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm.
Handing down the sentence, Judge Christopher Vosper told him: 'Her life has been completely changed by being infected - something that could easily have been avoided if you had been honest from the start.
'You chose to conceal something from her that you should have been open about. The consequences have been devastating.'
Swansea Crown Court heard Kuuya had HIV for four years before meeting the unnamed woman on the online dating site.
The couple chatted online before exchanging phone numbers and meeting up in person.
Prosecutor Sue Ferrier said the woman only leaned Kuuya was infected with the condition after their brief relationship came to end.
Miss Ferrier said: 'One of his former partners contacted her via Facebook and broke the news to her.
'The victim confronted Kuuya about his medical condition but he denied it - however she sought a blood test at Singleton Hospital which came back positive.'
Huw Rees, defending, said Kuuya had been in denial about his condition, which 'sadly had consequences for others.'
The court was told Kuuya has 14 previous convictions for 25 offences including burglary, assaulting a police officer, theft, affray, battery against his mother, and assaulting a partner by glassing her in face with a smashed tumbler.
IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Churches
Government's assault on religious liberty has hit a new low as the IRS settles with atheists who sued the government over an alleged policy of not enforcing restrictions on churches' political activities.
A lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ignored complaints about churches' violating their tax-exempt status by routinely promoting candidates from the pulpit.
The lawsuit has now been dismissed without prejudice by a U.S. District Court in response to a joint request by the FFRF and IRS. The joint motion stated that the FFRF was "satisfied that the IRS does not have a policy at this time of non-enforcement specific to churches or religious groups."
The irony of the enforcement question is that it involves the same Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS that was once headed by Lois "Fifth Amendment" Lerner and that openly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups.
Among the questions that the IRS asked of those targeted groups was the content of their prayers.
Those who objected to the monitoring of what is said and done in mosques for signs of terrorist activity have no problem with this one, though monitoring what's said in houses of worship is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Can you say "chilling effect"?
Congress can make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So it's not clear where the IRS gets off doing just that by spying on religious leaders lest they comment on issues and activities by government that are contrary to or impose on their religious consciences. Our country was founded by people fleeing this kind of government-monitored and mandated theology last practiced in the Soviet Union.
The FFRF cites as its authority the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which states that tax-exempt groups cannot endorse candidates. A 2009 court ruling determined that the IRS must staff someone to monitor church politicking.
The FFRF claims that the IRS has not adhered to the ruling and that the settlement amounts to enforcing both the Johnson Amendment and the court ruling.
But is the Catholic Church "politicking" when it proclaims its "Fortnight for Freedom" dedicated to opposing ObamaCare's contraceptive mandate and the government's forcing schools and charities it considers an extension of its faith to include it in insurance coverage or face crippling fines?
Are Protestant and evangelical churches "politicking" when they participate in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" this year on Oct. 5 to encourage congregations to "vote their faith," which they consider to be an exercise of free speech and freedom of religion?
The FFRF says that such events at "rogue churches" have "become an annual occasion for churches to violate the law with impunity." But doesn't the Constitution say that Congress can make no such laws?
Rather than "rogue churches," it's the rogue IRS that needs to be stopped.
British proposal to let confused people denote their sex on passports with an X
Some of you may vaguely remember Maria Miller, who was forced to resign from the Cabinet over her expenses. She was accused of wrongly claiming £90,000 in mortgage payments and upkeep on her parents’ house.
Although a self-serving committee of MPs overturned a ruling from the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner that she should repay half the money, it wasn’t enough to save her skin. It also emerged that she’d managed to avoid capital gains tax on a £1 million profit she made on her second home.
Eventually, after an undignified struggle to cling on to office, Miller stood down as Culture Secretary in 2014. Her graceless resignation statement to the Commons lasted just 32 seconds.
Throughout this tawdry business she insisted she had acted within the rules. It’s still not clear if she paid anything back. But after all that, I assumed it would be the last we ever heard of her.
Apparently not. Miller may have resigned as a minister but she remained an MP and was subsequently re-elected as Conservative member for Basingstoke. More fool Basingstoke.
Now she’s back in the high life again, as chairman of the Women and Equalities Select Committee. And in that capacity, she has just produced a report declaring that every person over 16 should be able to change their gender at will.
Her committee says people should not have to record their sex as male or female on passports and other official documents, because it infringes the human rights of the ‘trans’ community.
Instead, they should be able to put an X on their passports in the box marked ‘gender’. Let’s see how that works out. Can you imagine some of the more conservative Middle Eastern states admitting someone who describes their sex as X? Not to mention the United States.
We’ve got enough trouble already with male jihadis trying to sneak across borders by disguising themselves under burkas. We don’t need long queues at airport security behind men and women who refuse to declare their gender to immigration officials, even though it’s bleedin’ obvious to a myopic mole in bottle-top bi-focals.
You can’t say you weren’t warned. I’ve been writing for the past ten years about ‘trans’ being the next frontier for the diversity warriors.
In 2008, Manchester University redesignated its toilets to accommodate ‘trans’ sensibilities.
The following year, Britain’s first purpose-built ‘non-discriminatory’ public conveniences opened in Rottingdean, East Sussex, in the teeth of fierce local opposition.
Since then, it’s been full steam ahead to adapt society in line with the demands of a noisy, belligerent, but minuscule number of people — with the police and local councils, naturally, in the vanguard.
We have now ended up with an official approach which turns nature, reason and common-sense upside down.
It’s one thing for those individuals who find themselves trapped in the wrong body to seek help and treatment.
I’ve never had any problem with the NHS coming to the rescue of those with genuine physical and psychological problems.
They clearly deserve our sympathy, understanding and support. There are so few of them that it doesn’t place a strain on the health service. For instance, although the number of people seeking gender reassignment surgery is said by campaigners to have ‘increased fivefold’ over the past few years, the total still stands at only 697.
Yet, absurdly, Miller now claims that the number of people who are what she describes as ‘gender incongruent, to some degree’ is an astonishing 650,000.
No, I don’t believe that figure, either — even though it is now accepted as gospel in some quarters.
Here’s why. In 2010, the BBC reported that a Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust survey found Gender Identity Disorder (GID) affected one in every 4,000 people. Assuming that Britain’s population is now somewhere around 65 million, that would put the total with GID at 16,250. How do you get from there to 650,000 in six short years?
Answer: you don’t, unless you are deliberately massaging the figures to make a political point.
Given that fewer than 700 people applied for sex-change operations last year, you can’t possibly summon up 650,000 — even if you include Dame Edna Everage, Ziggy Stardust and any young man who once resorted to the dressing-up box out of curiosity.
Even then, 650,000 is enough to fill Wembley Stadium seven times over. Sorry, but it just doesn’t stack up. So don’t let’s pretend that ‘trans’ is the new normal.
Pulling on your mum’s high heels, aged five, does not automatically make you ‘gender incongruent’. My mum and auntie used to amuse themselves by making me try on women’s hats at C&A in Ilford when I was a young boy. But I didn’t grow up to be Eddie Izzard or that ludicrous Caitlyn Jenner character.
Which brings us to the most ridiculous aspect of the ‘trans’ pantomime: the idea that men such as Jenner, with a full set of male sexual organs, can be described as ‘women’ — just because they say they are.
As Dame Edna’s creator Barry Humphries and the writer Germaine Greer said recently, having your wedding tackle surgically removed doesn’t make you female in the truest sense of the word.
The notion you can change sex just by saying so turns millennia of human evolution on its head.
But the head-bangers behind this latest report aren’t interested in reality. They simply want to parade their right-on credentials and impose their warped, minority view of the world on everyone else.
This is about creating new classes of ‘victims’ and, by extension, criminalising anyone who has the audacity to disagree with them.
It’s no coincidence that Miller’s committee also wants ‘insulting’ transsexuals to be made a specific criminal offence. Since when did insults become a crime? For crying out loud. Do you think I could have Maria Miller nicked for insulting our intelligence?
Still, in our brave new world of ‘safe spaces’ and ‘hate crimes’, saying boo to a goose will probably get you arrested for a breach of animal rights.
Look, before the usual suspects start bouncing up and down, I reiterate that transsexuals have every right to our understanding and support. It is only polite that we accommodate difference in this day and age.
If some men decide to call them-selves women, and the other way round, there’s not much we can do about it.
(I do hope they won’t mind if I don’t join them, though. Even if I wore a little off-the-shoulder Hermes number and a pair of slingbacks, I’d still manage to make Dame Edna look like Nicole Kidman.)
But what the ‘trans’ lobby and their self-righteous supporters most emphatically do not have the right to do is reorder the whole of society to suit their personal circumstances and prejudices.
They shouldn’t be allowed to tear up the established order, or get official sanction to declare that men are women and vice versa — regardless of the biological evidence — just because it suits their selfish political agenda.
Nor should they be free to proselytise their sexual fluidity in schools, by subjecting vulnerable children as young as four to questionnaires about whether they would rather belong to the opposite sex.
No doubt I’ll be accused of ‘transphobia’ by the usual bunch of bigots who consider any criticism or contrary opinion to be some kind of ‘hate crime’.
Never mind, I’ll be in good company. It’s instructive that the ‘trans’ brigade despises lifelong feminists such as Greer and Julie Burchill, who refuse to accept that men can become women simply by going under the surgeon’s knife.
Maybe Maria Miller, who undoubtedly fancies herself as a professional as well as visceral feminist, might like to explain where Greer and Burchill are wrong, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Perhaps she is hoping that by championing such a fashionable, high-profile cause, it will mean everyone might forget she’s just another grubby career politician on the make, who had to resign from the Cabinet in disgrace.
If that’s her intention, she’d be better off changing her name to Max Miller and declaring that from now on she will be defining herself as a man.
We’ll know where to find you, pet. X marks the spot.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.