Whence the sudden mania about transsexualism?

Up until quite recently, effeminate men and butch women had mostly found a happy home among homosexuals. And they had flown quite under the radar. They were mentioned only in passing. Suddenly, however, a new rage-filled religion has emerged around such people. Quite recently they have changed from being ignored by the Left to becoming the great new cause of the Left. How come?

It's not hard to understand once you realize that the Left are the angry people and angry people need something or someone to be angry about. They need someone to shout at and tear down and attack. They need a "cause"

And their old causes have mostly lost their steam. The workers now mostly vote for Republicans so there is no longer any joy in patronizing them; The battle for gay rights has been won and pitying blacks has become too obviously a failure. But more on that:

The Left once thought that the very low average economic success of blacks was the result of them being badly treated by the educational system. The "gap" between black and white success is huge there. But no matter what Leftist educators tried, the "gap" between black and white school results remained quite immovable.

And affirmative action was not much of a remedy either. Blacks put into jobs for which they were poorly qualified tended not to do those jobs well and their children tended to do no better than other black kids. So equalizing blacks and whites was frustratingly elusive. All the anger about black disadvantage clearly achieved nothing of substance. Trying to equalize blacks became simply frustrating and boring. Leftist anger changed nothing

But the fact that blacks could not often be lifted up economically still cried out as a gross breach of the fundamental Letist faith that all men are equal. If the black/white "gap" could not be changed it had at least to be explained. So critical race theory was born. It says that hidden white prejudice is responsible for black failure.

But telling whites that they are secretly prejudiced does not do much. You cannot easily aim your anger at something hidden. And whites seem generally not too moved by the charge against them. It is hard to make whites suffer for their invisible evil. Most whites simply ignore the accusation and that is that. Some weirdos may self-flagellate but they are too few to be satisfying.

So the left had simply run out of things that they could make into a great cause for their anger. They needed a new enemy. And all that pent up anger is now directed at people who think that there are only two sexes. It's absurd but absurdity has never held the Left back. Their core belief that "all men are equal" is absurd.

And policies born out of anger are seldom wise or constructive. And the latest obsession is no exception. Who would ever have thought that cutting of a young girl's breasts or a young mans penis would ever be seen as virtuous and in need of encouragement? One almost pines for the day when all that Leftist anger required was a mandate to give High School diplomas to illiterate blacks

But who are these angry people? What makes the Left seethe with anger? Have you ever seen anyone seethe with anger the way the Left did when Donald Trump was elected President? Leftist anger was a great foaming torrent at that time -- completely unrestrained. We saw then with crystal clarity the anger that was behind the mask of doing good

All the studies of it show that the Left/Right political polarity is strongly inherited genetically -- so to a large extent the Left are just born in their unhappy state. The world just looks all wrong to their eyes. But there may of course also be life events and circumstances which generate chronic anger. Failing to get much of the rewards that life offers might well make one an unhappy person. Black anger is explicable that way. I go through various other possibilities elsewhere:

http://jonjayray.com/leftism2.html

************************************************

Canada Takes 'LGBTQ' To A Whole New Level

It has become easy to poke fun at Canada’s Gen-X Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. From his incessant warbling about Climate Catastrophe to his bedrock antagonism to firearms, Trudeau personifies Woke-ism more than any other leader of a major nation. It is his Liberal government’s obsession with the LGBTQ phenomenon, however, that takes the cultural cake.

At the beginning of this month, for example, Trudeau’s Global Affairs Canada, a counterpart to our country’s State Department, issued its latest “travel advisory” for its citizens to be wary of travelling to the United States. Among the myriad dangers for which Canadian visitors to the United States are urged to prepare (including volcanoes, earthquakes, wild fires, mass shootings, yellow fever, and rabies), is the “danger” they face because their neighbor to the south has become exceptionally hostile to “LGBTQ people.”

Of particular concern to Trudeau’s Deputy Prime Minister Chrysti Freeland, is the fact that some jurisdictions in the United States have passed legislation limiting “drag shows.” Freeland’s office also singled out for specific criticism the fact that certain American states have “restrict[ed] the transgender community from access to gender affirming care.”

Although Canada has published a general advisory for LGBTQ matters at least since early this year, the most recent advisory warning about LGBTQ hostility being prevalent in the United States, appears to be the first time Ottawa has specifically flagged our country in this way.

The Global Affairs department did not cite any statistics on how many visitors from Trudeau’s country actually have attended or plan to attend drag shows in the United States, or how many, if any, of its visiting citizens might otherwise have sought access to “gender affirming care” while visiting America. Nonetheless, the advisory cautioned visitors to carefully check the “laws and policies” of jurisdictions to be visited before venturing across the border.

A review of Canada’s official positioning on LGBTQ issues reveals an even more complex and extensive inclusionary framework than commonly used here in the United States.

For example, the basic gender nomenclature government policy in Canada is officially deemed to be “2SLGBTQI+” rather than our culture’s more constrained “LGBTQ.”

Unfamiliar as I am with this longer acronym, I discovered that the “2S” prefix is used to identify “a person whose gender identity, spiritual identity and/or sexual orientation comprises both male and female spirits.” Apparently, at least in Canada, such two-spirit sexual orientation is “traditional to many Indigenous cultures.” Learn something new every day. (The “I” stands for “Intersex,” with an explanation that is at once ambiguous and all-encompassing, and ultimately meaningless.)

The Canadian gender identity bureaucracy includes a lengthy and downright confusing glossary of applicable terms, including “SOGI” (“Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity”), “SOGIE” (“Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression”), and “SOGIESC” (“Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression and Sex Characteristics”). It is a complex world, indeed.

In addition to the now-commonly employed terms such as “Cisgender,” “Questioning” (which, according to the official government glossary, can be an indefinite state of existence), and “Pansexual,” our northern neighbor pays homage to an individual “who lacks romantic attraction or interest in romantic expression” – identifying such person as “Aromantic.” Similarly, for the Canadian government it is critical to distinguish a person who is “sexually attracted to two or more genders” (“Bisexual”) from one who is “romantically attracted to two or more genders” (“Biromantic”).

The Trudeau government’s fixation on LGBTQ matters, as reflected in these official edicts -- including the travel advisory warning against travel to the United States simply because some states have passed laws reflecting concern that gender-altering medical procedures can be undertaken without parental consent or even knowledge -- is but the latest manifestation of what many in Canada see as an “incompetent” and “unserious” administration led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. In this assessment, I agree.

https://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr/2023/09/07/canada-takes-lgbtq-to-a-whole-new-level-n2628073

**************************************************************

Massachusetts’ Religious Bigotry Leaves Foster Kids Without Homes

Religious freedom, Congress said unanimously in 1998, “undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.” Today, however, an obsession with gender ideology is driving governments to ignore the First Amendment, defy clear Supreme Court precedent, and even violate their own laws and regulations to root out those with the “wrong” religious views about sexuality. This bigotry not only violates fundamental rights, but it also puts vulnerable children at risk.

During the 2021-22 fiscal year, more than 9,700 children were placed in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, which had already acknowledged a serious lack of both foster families and group homes.

While DCF does not publish an official number, reports began to emerge that abused and neglected children removed from their homes who had no place to stay ended up sleeping in social workers’ offices, sometimes for nights at a time. Other foster children were forced to stay in hospitals or emergency rooms because no other placements were available.

Especially in the middle of this crisis, what could possibly be more important than finding families who could provide a safe and loving home for foster kids? The answer is the same thing that drives disastrous business decisions, dangerous educational practices, and media self-censorship: gender ideology.

Here’s what Massachusetts is doing.

Mike and Kitty Burke are lifelong residents of Springfield, Massachusetts. Mike is an Iraq War veteran, and Kitty has experience working with special needs children. After finding they could not bear their own children, the Burkes applied to be foster parents, successfully completing training and going through extensive interviews and an evaluation of the home environment in which foster kids would live. DCF, however, rejected their application solely because of their religious beliefs, as faithful Catholics, about sexuality and marriage.

DCF regulations require foster families to “support and respect a child’s sexual orientation and gender identity” but, unfortunately, do not further define what this means. The Burkes’ objective qualifications and commitment to accept, love, and care for children regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity was not enough.

During their foster parent training, the Burkes were told that foster parents must actually affirm same-sex relationships and transgender identities, a requirement that apparently extends to their own personal beliefs.

The home interviewer recommended against allowing the Burkes to foster children “due to the couple’s views. … They are heavily involved in their Catholic Church and cite their religious views” as the basis for how they look at sexuality and marriage. In the end, DCF rejected the Burkes because of their “beliefs.”

In rooting out applicants with the “wrong” religious beliefs, DCF ignored its own regulations. DCF’s Foster Parents’ Bill of Rights, for example, prohibits discrimination against prospective foster parents “on the basis of religion,” and its regulations claim that it “does not deny any adult the opportunity to become a foster family on the basis of … religion.” Tell that to the Burkes.

DCF policy supposedly prevents staff from “imposing their personal, cultural, and/or religious beliefs on children and families involved with the Department.” At the same time, DCF makes this very imposition more likely by leaving key determinations about applicants’ fitness to a social worker’s unfettered subjective discretion.

Here, DCF rejected the Burkes because, as the primary social worker assigned to their application put it, their “faith is not supportive” of every child’s sexual orientation and gender identity.

DCF claims to prioritize applicants willing to care for sibling groups, children from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds, and those with special needs. The Burkes checked all of those boxes, and evaluators noted that Mike’s experience of PTSD following his military service and Kitty’s work with special needs children would enhance their effectiveness as foster parents. The Burkes even said they were open to adopting foster children who could not be reunified with their birth families. Still not good enough.

In a way, DCF’s discrimination is worse than if it had simply excluded all people of faith. DCF, you see, claims to recruit foster families from diverse faith communities. No, DCF discriminates among religious families, rejecting those with religious beliefs that the state finds objectionable. In other words, Catholics (as well as Muslims and many Jews and Protestants) have a shot only if they reject their church or faith tradition’s teachings on sexual orientation and gender identity.

DCF not only disregarded its own policies and regulations, it also ignored the U.S. Constitution and several recent Supreme Court decisions interpreting it:

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, for example, the Supreme Court held that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by terminating Catholic Charities’ contract to be a foster care agency solely because it declined to certify same-sex couples for foster child placement.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court held that government must enforce its laws and regulations in a “fair and neutral” manner and may not show hostility toward religion.

In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the Supreme Court made clear that government may not exclude otherwise qualified individuals from participation in programs solely because of their religious views.

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court held that government may not “coerce an individual to speak contrary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal conviction, all in order to eliminate ideas that differ from its own.”

The desperate need of children, DCF’s own policies and regulations, and even clear Supreme Court directives are not enough to hinder gender warriors in Massachusetts. Foster children have already endured enough trauma; they should not be collateral damage in the war over gender ideology.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/09/06/massachusetts-pushes-gender-ideology-finding-homes-foster-kids

********************************************************

Racist duck hunting regulations in Australia

The recent state parliamentary report into recreational native bird hunting gives Victorians a taste of the kind of division the Voice to Parliament will have across every area of life in regional Australia should advocates for constitutional change be successful at the October referendum.

The report, almost 300 pages long, lays out a recipe for the kind of race-based division of laws and rights that the federal government would make permanent nationwide.

Without any solid justification – except, it would seem, that some people do not like bird hunting – the committee has recommended the Victorian government end recreational bird hunting on all public and private land from 2024.

Only that would not apply to everyone. According to the committee, the hunting rights of ‘traditional owners’ should be retained.

Other key recommendations include that the government introduce additional protections for ‘Aboriginal cultural heritage’ sites and current penalties for ‘cultural destruction’. The committee even recommends a government re-education program that would require hunters to learn about ‘Aboriginal cultural heritage awareness’.

One of the claims made in support of the committee’s proposed restrictions is that bird hunting is a niche practice and only 0.4 per cent of Victorians hold a bird hunting licence.

It is not clear whether the committee questioned how many ‘traditional owners’ are currently exercising their hunting rights. One gets the impression that it would not matter to the committee members, as its position is that one category of Victorian deserves greater protection.

This goes right to the heart of the concern of a growing number of Australians when it comes to the proposed Voice to Parliament, that laws are increasingly being used to separate people into different groups.

Brazen in its divisiveness, the Victorian parliamentary committee said it would be too cruel if Victorians who do not have Indigenous heritage were allowed to continue to hunt, but it would not be too cruel if those Victorians were Indigenous.

The same concerns became a flashpoint in Western Australia recently, with the confusion and concern generated by proposed Indigenous Cultural Heritage laws. These now abandoned reforms would have mandated property owners obtain permission from local Indigenous authorities before even a fence post could have been dug on land only slightly larger than a suburban block.

The Western Australian reforms were abandoned after overwhelming community pressure following statements of the newly appointed Premier Roger Cook let the cat out of the bag saying his ‘cultural heritage laws do the same thing as the Voice.’

Claims that people should be divided and given different rights would become more commonplace if the indigenous-only voice to parliament – a parallel system of political representation based on race – is inserted into the Australian Constitution.

The federal government’s proposed constitutional change would establish the voice and give it the constitutional duty to make ‘representations’ to the Parliament and the executive government. This means the voice would be empowered to intervene at all stages of the lawmaking process – not just the drafting, review, and debate of laws, but also the right to make representations about how laws are enforced.

There is no limit to the scope of matters that the voice may make recommendations. If passed, the Voice would have the right to make representations to the government ‘on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’. This, in effect, means any issue because all Indigenous Australians are Australians, and the law applies to all Australians equally – or at least it should.

Any disputes in the lawmaking process between the Canberra Voice to pParliament and the elected Parliament will not be resolved democratically. Because the Canberra Voice to Parliament will be enshrined in the Constitution, it will be the High Court that will determine the scope, rights, and powers of the Voice and adjudicate disputes.

The Victorian bird hunting inquiry demonstrates how issues of general concern can quickly be hijacked by activists pushing a divisive agenda and demands for separate treatment can be accommodated by dismantling the principle of equality before the law. At the referendum on October 14, 2023, this could become a permanent feature of our way of life.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/09/victorias-duck-hunting-ban-is-a-sign-of-things-to-come-with-the-voice

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************