Wednesday, March 29, 2023

A transgender shooter! How inconvenient! Hush it up!

How to describe the gender of the now-deceased Nashville school shooter has quickly emerged as the latest controversy regarding transgender issues, with major media sources tiptoeing around the issue, often in tortured fashion, by avoiding gender pronouns as much as possible.

At the same time, trans activists are calling out what they say is bias against the trans community while prominent conservatives such as Donald Trump, Jr. and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene are invoking the tragic shooting as they denounce some positions of the trans rights movement.

At a press conference on Monday, the chief of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, John Drake, announced that the shooter did “identify as transgender.” Despite the disclosure, many media outlets continued to refer to Audrey Hale, the shooter, as a woman, leading some corners of social media to denounce the mainstream media for “deadnaming,”

In a statement, the Trans Resistance Network called the Nashville shooting “not one tragedy, but two.” After a short statement offering condolences to the family and friends of the six victims, the statement calls on the media to stop “pandering to the Right.”

“We remind the news media to respect the self-identified pronouns of transgender individuals that come across your desk,” the statement reads. “We also urge you to avoid pandering to those individuals on the Right who will use this double tragedy to foment fear and terror of transgender people.”

Many media outlets continue to refer to the shooter as “Audrey,” the shooter’s given name, which the trans community decries as “deadnaming” — wherein one refers to a transgender person by the name chosen by their parents rather than the name the person chooses for themselves.

Some conservative social media influencers, journalists, and podcast hosts have used the tragedy to denounce the mainstream media and some trans activists for their stances on trans issues.

Ms. Greene also weighed in on the shooting and coverage of the killer’s gender. She implied that hormone treatment could be responsible for the shooting.

News outlets have also seemed to be dancing around the subject of the shooter’s gender. The New York Times, in an addendum to their reporting on the rarity of female mass shooters, pointed out that officials used the pronouns “she” and “her” to refer to Hale.

Newsweek seemed to blame the state of Tennessee for banning drag shows and “gender-affirming care,” suggesting the possibility that politicians in the state had brought this on themselves. One CNN analyst believed the shooter’s gender to be irrelevant in this case, despite the fact it appears the shooter could have harbored some resentment against the school. “Pronouns do not kill children, people with guns kill children,” CNN’s Juliette Kayyem said on Monday.

ABC News anchor Terry Moran also seemed to imply that the shooting was an almost logical outgrowth of Tennessee’s prohibition on drag shows that cater to minors and surgery or hormone therapies for minors who seek to change their gender, despite the fact that the shooter was 28 years old.

“The shooter identified herself as a transgender person,” Mr. Moran said on Monday. “The state of Tennessee earlier this month passed and the governor signed a bill that banned transgender medical care for minors as well as a law that prohibited adult entertainment as well as male and female impersonators after a series of drag show controversies in that state.”

On Tuesday morning, CBS Detroit said it was still “attempting” to determine whether or not the shooter was transgender, despite the announcement from Nashville police. USA Today wrote that the police had “misidentified” the shooter’s transgender status.

The way in which legacy media outlets cover transgender issues has come under fire from the left in recent months, highlighted by a recent letter published by contributors to the New York Times.

In February, hundreds of contributors penned a letter to the Times’ associate managing editor for standards, Philip Corbett, about “editorial bias in the newspaper’s reporting on transgender, non⁠-⁠binary, and gender nonconforming people.”

“The Times has in recent years treated gender diversity with an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language, while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources,” they wrote.

The paper’s executive editor, Joseph Kahn, promptly responded in defense of his reporters, their research, and their professionalism. “It is not unusual for outside groups to critique our coverage or rally supporters to seek to influence our journalism,” Mr. Kahn wrote in a memo to staff. “In this case, however, members of our staff and contributors to The Times joined the effort.”

“We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums.”

On Monday, the Daily Beast reported that staff reporters who signed the letter are being called into meetings with top editors where they are being reprimanded.


Humza Yousaf’s election a bad day for Scotland

Scotland has been deprived of the opportunity for a fresh start. Humza Yousaf has been elected leader of the Scottish National party, and he is set to be confirmed as first minister today in the Scottish parliament.

In the end he defeated runner-up Kate Forbes by 52 to 48 per cent on second preference votes, which is ironic considering that when the UK voted to leave the European Union by the same ratio, the SNP argued this was not a sufficient mandate and there should be another vote.

Despite this, Scotland will now have to prepare for life under a new first minister. And Yousaf’s election should concern us all.

Yousaf has stated throughout the election campaign that he wants to push social justice and progressive values as first minister. He has disturbing form for engaging in personal attacks against those he disagrees with, accusing rivals who have raised serious and legitimate concerns about the impact his ideology will have on society as ‘lurching to the right’.

In the Q&A following his victory speech he made a point of accusing the UK government of engaging in a ‘power grab’ regarding their use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 to block the SNP’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill. He went on to say that he will launch a legal challenge against the UK government to allow the Bill to go ahead.

It has been clear for some time that the Bill poses significant threats to safeguarding across the entirety of the UK. It would lower the age at which someone can legally change their sex in Scotland from 18 to 16; reduce the required period of time someone must have lived in their acquired ‘gender’ from two years to just three months; and would remove the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. In essence, it would introduce self-ID, watering down existing checks and balances designed to ensure that those who wish to ‘transition’ are genuine. All polling has demonstrated that it is opposed by most Scots. Yet Yousaf has now committed to championing the legislation, even if it throws women and child safeguarding under the bus.

For an individual who claims to oppose the ‘culture wars’, Yousaf has shown himself more than happy to stoke its flames

The ramifications of this ideological policy were made clear when the convicted male rapist Isla Bryson (formerly Adam Graham), was initially placed in a female-only prison. On this, Yousaf’s response was completely nonsensical. Despite supporting the Gender Bill, which would make it easier for biological men to be housed in female prisons, he also accused Bryson of not being a ‘genuine transwoman’.This, in and of itself, demonstrates the problem with self-ID. Who exactly is to judge whether someone is ‘genuine’ or not?

Yousaf has held senior cabinet positions (including health minister) in a government that has aggressively pushed gender ideology. In Glasgow, the Sandyford gender identity clinic has continued to operate without proper political or clinical scrutiny, despite recent shocking admissions within the clinic regarding child safeguarding. When treating those with gender dysphoria, the Scottish NHS continues to openly rely on guidelines from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, a trans-activist organisation. Last year, the Scottish government even published educational guidance that purports to support schools keeping pupils’ gender transition secret from their parents.

It’s not just on gender ideology that Yousaf has a disturbing record. Equally worrying is his approach to free speech. He has committed to pushing forward with legislation to ban ‘conversion therapy’ in Scotland, notwithstanding the significant concerns many have about the chilling effect it could have on therapists, potentially forcing them to affirm a child who says they are trans into going through medical transition. This flies in the face of ethical therapy, which should be explorative in nature. We have already seen the serious ramifications of this type of legislation. In Victoria, Australia, where ‘conversion therapy’ was recently banned, it is now potentially a criminal offence if a parent does not affirm their child into taking puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

As justice minister he introduced the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill. This included provisions on ‘stirring up hatred’, which pose a significant risk to free speech, and may even criminalise private conversations in Scots’ own homes. Thankfully, the Bill was at least amended during its passage through the Scottish parliament to remove prosecution for cases of unintentionally stirring up hate, which could have criminalised libraries for stocking contentious books. It’s lucky for Yousaf as well that the legislation is not yet in force. He was reportedly referred to the police for ‘misgendering’ the rapist Bryson, which would arguably have fallen foul of his Hate Crime Bill if it had been law.

For an individual who claims to oppose the ‘culture wars’, Yousaf has shown himself more than happy to stoke its flames. In a speech in the Scottish parliament, he recently engaged in what can only be described as a rant, listing senior public positions in Scotland held by people who are white, seemingly forgetting the fact that 96 per cent of the Scottish population are white as well.

He has also been happy to cosy-up to the Scottish Greens, whose co-convenor, Maggie Chapman, has previously said that eight-year-olds should be able to change sex and that ‘sex is not binary or immutable.’

There are some silver linings to Yousaf’s leadership, at least. He is gaffe prone. Just six months into his brief as transport minister, he received a fine of £300 and six penalty points after he was stopped by the police while driving a friend’s car without holding the proper insurance. And just a few weeks ago, during the election campaign, he jokingly asked a group of Ukrainian women in Edinburgh ‘where are all the men?’before it had to be pointed out to him that their partners were in Ukraine fighting the war.

If Scotland is lucky, this could be a very short-lived premiership. Many are already calling for a general election. A significant proportion of both the SNP membership and the country as a whole are opposed to his leadership. Many prominent voices, including JK Rowling, have his card firmly marked, while those rushing to his support include organisations engulfed in controversy, such as Mermaids.

Last year, a clip of Yousaf went viral after he fell off a scooter he was riding through the Scottish parliament. For the sake of free speech and sanity in Scotland, it is hopefully only a matter of time before Yousaf and the SNP come tumbling down in the same way.


Do Conservatives Oppose Change?

If you Google "what is conservatism?" this is the definition you will receive: "Commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation."

This is but one more illustration of the lack of objectivity wherever the Left is in control.

The idea that conservatism means, by definition, "opposition to change or innovation" is nothing more than how liberals and leftists see conservatism. Why? Because the farther left you go, the greater the commitment to change and innovation. "Change" and "Innovation" are left-wing gods. That is why, for example, the mantra of the Barack Obama campaign and presidency was "hope and change."

Because the Left is so committed to change (for its own sake), people on the Left assume that anyone who opposes leftism opposes all "change and innovation."

Unfortunately, the Left's misapprehension of conservatism is almost equaled by conservatives' inability to define the term. For that reason, just as I recently defined another widely used term -- "Judeo-Christian values" -- I think it important to do the same for conservatism.

Conservatives conserve.

If you want a good definition of conservatism, don't Google "conservatism." Google "conserve." You will then find this definition: "To protect from loss or harm; preserve."

The first and most important characteristic of conservatism is that it conserves what is best from the past.

Conservatives have no issue with change or innovation -- when warranted or harmless. The American Revolution, which conservatives seek to preserve, ushered in a radically innovative blueprint for liberty and self-government. Our problem is with jettisoning past greatness and replacing it with mediocrity -- which is precisely what has been done for at least a century.

What could be more noble, uplifting, beneficial or altruistic than giving every generation the best that humans have ever created? A generation that deprives the next generation of Beethoven, Shakespeare and Da Vinci is committing a combination of child neglect and civilizational suicide.

Why, then, isn't everyone -- at least as regards conserving the best of the past -- a conservative?

Here is why:

Since so few people in any generation can equal, let alone excel, the greatest of the past, conserving the past does not allow almost anyone living at the present time to shine.

Therefore, if I can't compose great tonal music, I won't even bother trying. I might shine, however, if I write "atonal" music.

If I can't paint like a great classical artist, I will jettison all rules of art. I'll throw paint onto a canvas or place a crucifix in a jar of my urine and call such things "art" -- and demand that you, too, jettison all standards.

If I can't hope to match Shakespeare, I will dismiss Shakespeare as just another Dead White Male and replace him with living nonwhite females who possess exponentially less talent.

The same holds true for teachers. Many of them are bored at the thought of teaching Shakespeare every year. So, they, too, opt for "change" and "innovation" over excellence -- but thereby deprive their students of the best.

Likewise in the moral sphere. Why would I teach the moral roots of our society -- the Bible, the Ten Commandments, Aristotle, the American Constitution, the Founders? That would mean I have nothing particularly important to say regarding morality and society. Again, I won't shine. So, I will ignore or even reject those moral codes and devise a new moral system.

That's what Karl Marx did, quite consciously -- which is why he hated Christianity and Judaism. Only if he could overthrow Bible- and God-based morality could his new morality be taken seriously. So, he replaced God with man, and he replaced good and evil with rich and poor, oppressor and oppressed. Today we are witnessing another rejection of God- and Bible-based morality, replacing the moral categories of good and evil with racial categories -- white and black.

And talk about innovation. What could be more innovative than "men give birth"? While conservatives are boringly conserving the fact that men are men, women are women, and one cannot become the other, the believers in change and innovation insist that sex/gender is completely subjective.

A couple of weeks ago, Time Magazine inadvertently gave the game away.

In the introduction to its hundredth anniversary edition, the CEO and editor of Time described the purpose of the magazine.

You probably think they would write something like, "to report the news as truthfully as possible." But you would be completely wrong.

Here is what the CEO and editor wrote: "As we begin our second century, that spirit of innovation and disruption inspires us every day."

"Innovation and disruption." There you have it.

Reporting news as truthfully as possible is not just boring. It is worse than that. It is conservative.


40 State Legislatures Have Passed or Introduced Legislation to Restrict Transgender Child Abuse

We undoubtedly are in the middle of one of the largest legislative pushes against child abuse in our nation’s history. This child abuse, masquerading as “gender-affirming care,” has been taken up as a banner of humanity by progressives over the past five years—and they encourage children to mutilate their own bodies if the kids feel they’ve been born in the wrong one.

In many cases, public schools have begun hiding gender transition information from students’ parents, with activist groups claiming that a child’s transition must be protected at all costs and demonizing disagreeing parents as “abusive.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been outraged at shocking videos and other images of permanently scarred children who have undergone “transgender treatments” as adults encouraged those children to abandon all reason in the pursuit of affirmation.

In response, 40 state legislatures have passed or introduced legislation to restrict the practice of transgender child abuse.

Although 10 states currently ban transgender experiments on minors, 21 others are considering legislation that would ban minors from receiving transgender hormonal “treatments” or surgery.

The American Civil Liberties Union has attempted to rally national support against these bills as attacks against all LGBTQ+ individuals, but the bills have gained incredible traction as the gruesome nature of the procedures has been exposed to the public.

“Treatments” include:

—Phalloplasty, in which girls’ forearms are stripped of muscle and skin to create a fake penis that doesn’t function. Videos of this procedure being used on minors played a major role in Tennessee’s outlawing the practice for minors.

—Castration and “Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty,” in which boys’ penises are cut off and a wound is created to simulate a vagina. These wounds must be kept forcibly open as the body attempts to close the hole—a serious risk for infection and cancer.

—Mastectomy and “Top Surgery,” in which incisions are made below the breasts and muscle, fat, and glands are removed. Before Florida banned the practice on minors, one surgeon, Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher, provided “top surgeries” to multiple children around age 15 every month—claiming to have operated on about 40 children a month.

—Feminizing/Masculinizing Hormone Therapies, in which teenagers are given heavy doses of estrogen and testosterone as well as experimental doses of other hormones to simulate levels of reproductive and stabilization hormones normally present in the opposite sex. Hormonal treatments pose a serious threat to several glands in the endocrine system, which can result in permanent sterilization, cancer, and gland failure in adults. No long-term studies have been done yet to show the impact of this “treatment” on minors with developing glands.

Additionally, the testimonies of several individuals who deeply regret their “gender transitions” have resonated with legislators and voters alike. They have begged Americans to stop allowing such a heinous practice.

The ACLU has tried flooding statehouses around the country with its own protesters to demand minors be given unfettered and private access to these medical experiments. These protesters often make false claims about what legislation does and doesn’t do to stoke emotional responses.

Hundreds of LGBTQ+ activists traveled to their state capitol buildings to protest, scream, and curse at legislators during public testimonies. If the ACLU and other LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations were attempting to persuade legislators to encourage children to be like those that showed up, they failed miserably.

Many legislators walked out of committee hearings on proposed bans of these experiments on minors convinced that many of the LGBTQ+ activists were mentally unstable. They witnessed yet another reason that minors should be protected from this abomination.

Certain state legislators have been making fools of themselves.

Nebraska state Sen. Megan Hunt, D-Omaha, threatened Friday to filibuster every future piece of legislation if the Nebraska Legislature were to pass a ban on transgender treatments for children.

“No one in the world holds a grudge like me,” Hunt told Republicans in the Nebraska Senate. “And no one in the world cares less about being petty than me. I don’t care. I don’t like you.”

Legacy media have attempted to classify these medical experiments as “gender-affirming youth care,” and consistently have painted the debate as a battle for freedom between young children wearing capes made of transgender flags and mean, old, religious bigots. These media outlets often obscure or ignore children and teens who detransition or heal from their gender dysphoria.

Such methods of news coverage have backfired, as social media posts by legacy media subtly praising transgender care find their comment sections flooded with images of double mastectomies, forearm lacerations, and other unhealthy examples of surgical “transgender affirmation.”

The matter hasn’t been settled yet, and Tennessee, Arkansas, Idaho, and Florida have encountered lawsuits from desperate activists attempting to hold the door open for child abuse.

As more evidence of the barbarism found in transgender “treatments” is presented, more legislation will follow to protect children from making a lifelong mistake.




No comments: