Goldberg suggests Bible supports transitioning children!

I can find nothing like that in the Bible. Jesus was concerned with the spiritual welfare of chidren. He said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14), but said nothing about hacking off their body parts. Once again Goldberg defiles the Ashkenazi surname she wrongfully uses. Her real name is Caryn Elaine Johnson

Whoopi Goldberg recently made a statement that shocked many people. On Thursday’s broadcast of ABC’s daytime talk show “The View,” she suggested that the Bible would support parents having the right to subject their minor children to sex reassignment surgeries.

“Now, what the hell is going on in this country? That’s what I want to know,” Goldberg began, asserting that Republicans had simply voted to punish Zephyr because they didn’t like being forced to listen to an opposing point of view.

“What are the rules that say, ‘I don’t like what you’re saying, so I’m going to get a whole bunch of people to think like I think and we’re going to ban you from talking,’” Goldberg continued. “When did that become the law of the land?”

The conversation stemmed from a Montana lawmaker, Zooey Zephyr, who is trans-identifying and who faced disciplinary action for breaking the rules of decorum. Zephyr lashed out at Republican colleagues who opposed transgender surgeries for minors.

Goldberg and co-host Sunny Hostin criticized the move, claiming it was proof that Republicans were banning speech.

But Whoopi’s statement was the most shocking. She claimed that if the GOP believed in parental rights then parents should be able to consent to life-altering and irreversible procedures for their children. She even went as far as to say, “God was really clear!”

It’s hard to believe that Goldberg would suggest such a thing. It’s even more disturbing to think of how she could believe that the Bible would support taking away a minor’s right to make their own decision about their body.

Gender transition treatments are not only dangerous, but they can have long-term psychological and physical consequences. No one should be pressuring a child to undergo such treatments. It’s important that parents talk to their children about the risks and give them the opportunity to make their own decisions.

https://libertyonenews.com/god-was-really-clear-goldberg-suggests-bible-supports-transitioning-children/

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

From transgendered to 'transabled': Now people are 'choosing' to identify as handicapped

A troubling societal issue called "transableism" is attracting attention these days.

Transableism is a newer term for BIID, or "Body Integrity Identity Disorder," in which a person actually "identifies" as handicapped.

BIID has been relabeled to transableism to align with today's trans community, according to some.

The point of "changing the identifier" from a psychiatric condition (BIID) to an advocacy term (transableism) is to "harness the stunning cultural power of gender ideology" to the cause of allowing doctors to "treat" BIID patients by "amputating healthy limbs, snipping spinal cords or destroying eyesight," according to Evolution News and Science Today (EN), which reports on and analyzes evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues.

Culturally, transableism is "the next abyss," that site also notes.

In one case, a woman in her 50s in Oslo, Norway, identifies as disabled and uses a wheelchair, although she has no physical handicap. (iStock)

Why?

Because "some of these persons mutilate themselves; others ask surgeons for an amputation or for the transection of their spinal cord," that site adds of the shocking steps some are taking.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) notes on its website, "Those with BIID desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or desire a paralysis."

A North Carolina college student called transableism a "cry for attention."

The 24-year-old told Fox News Digital, "It’s offensive to people who actually suffer from the condition that you say you need, in order to be your true self." "It’s offensive to people who actually suffer from the condition."

He went on, "It’s embarrassing, and I don’t know if you can be considered a serious human being if you alter your body like this, instead of getting the appropriate mental help you need."

In one case of BIID, Jørund Viktoria Alme, 53, a senior credit analyst in Oslo, Norway, identifies as disabled and uses a wheelchair, even though she has no physical handicap.

Alme is also transgender, according to Heraldscotland.com. Alme said on the morning TV program "Good Morning Norway" in 2022 that it had been a "lifelong wish" to have been born "a woman paralyzed from the waist down," the same source noted.

One woman in her 20s (not pictured) identified as blind but wasn't — and even took steps to try to destroy her own eyesight, according to multiple reports. (iStock)

In an even more shocking case, a 21-year-old North Carolina woman who identified as blind actually took steps to destroy her own eyesight, according to multiple reports from a few years ago.

One Arizona internist called today's transableism a "delusional disorder."

"In my opinion, both transgender and transabled persons suffer from a delusional disorder," Jane Orient, a general internist in Tucson, Arizona, and executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, told Fox News Digital via email.

"The Oath of Hippocrates adjures physicians to do no harm," Orient said. "Mutilating the body is an objective harm even if makes the patient subjectively feel better," she added.

"The disability is lifelong and imposes burdens on others — and neither patients nor physicians can duck responsibility for that."

Orient also noted, "With transgenders the follow-up is generally very short — not sure about the [follow-up with] elective amputees," she said.

"The ‘no other way’ [to cope with the condition] excuse is a cop out; we need to find other ways," she also said. "Denial of reality is anti-scientific."

Dr. Marc Siegel, a clinical professor of medicine and a practicing internist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City — as well as a Fox News medical contributor — told Fox News Digital via email that most doctors will "only perform procedures they feel are medically indicated."

Siegel referred to Munchausen syndrome, which is a "factitious disorder" in which a person "repeatedly and deliberately acts as if they have a physical or mental illness" when they are not really sick, according to WebMd.com.

Dr. Siegel continued, "We deal with Munchausen and Munchausen by proxy, where patients can be quite convincing about illnesses they don't really have — and we need to be on the lookout for this."

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/transgendered-transabled-people-choosing-identify-handicapped

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

The problem with ‘trans women are women’

Once upon a time, pollsters would phone you up and ask how satisfied you were with the railways on a scale of one to ten, or how you intended to vote in the next general election. These days — as in the UnHerd Britain poll, published today — you might equally be asked to pronounce on the deep metaphysics of womanhood. And indeed, on that most vexed of contemporary scholastic questions, namely whether “trans women are women”, it seems the jury is still out. According to the poll, 33% of us agree, 33% disagree, and 34% do neither.

Perhaps puzzlingly, this is despite the fact that, faced with practical questions about women’s spaces and women’s sports, there seems to be significant agreement that trans women should keep out of both. Had the latter results been the only ones revealed today, they surely would have suggested that, when push comes to shove, most people do not believe that trans women are women. For the alternative doesn’t add up: large sections of the British public believe there is a kind of anomalously shaped, baritone-voiced woman out there who also, for some reason, shouldn’t be allowed in a female changing room or on the sports field with other women.

A similar impression of confusion in the public mind emerges when the answers to two further poll questions are compared. A majority of respondents agreed that “people should be able to identify as being of a different gender to the one they had recorded at birth”. However, there was markedly less enthusiasm for making it easier to change “legal gender”. This too looks like a strange juxtaposition, at least at first.

In this case, though, the disparity is presumably explained by the fact that “to identify as being of a different gender” in the first question has been interpreted by respondents as nothing much more meaningful than donning fancy dress. To “identify” here mainly refers to men saying that they feel like women, and women saying that they feel like men (or at least, don’t feel like women) — perhaps with some non-conforming clothing thrown in for good measure. It would be an illiberal state indeed that tried to outlaw any of this, and at odds with our generally tolerant national character to try. Still, for poll respondents, rightly allowing people to express themselves freely doesn’t seem to have entailed that we should start handing out gender recognition certificates on the strength of it.

Yet the “trans women are women” answer remains an intriguing one. To my mind, the fact that 34% neither agree nor disagree is telling. And I don’t blame people for feeling befuddled. Pollsters inherit the limitations of dominant public ways of framing particular issues — and there is no more confusing framing than “trans women are women”. For a start, there’s the fact that the phrase functions like a mantra. As transactivists who frequently deploy the phrase no doubt realise, the repetition of the word “women” produces a slightly hypnotic effect. After all, it looks tautological — a bit like asking whether sausage dogs are dogs, or armchairs are chairs.

More fundamentally, there’s a widespread lack of clarity about who counts as a “trans woman” — a characteristic starkly exhibited in recent days by Scotland’s First Transactivist, Nicola Sturgeon. Is a trans woman someone who has had surgery to remove penis and testicles, and had a simulacrum of a vagina put there instead? Does being a trans woman require you to have taken artificial oestrogen for years, or to have had your natal testosterone suppressed? Do you have to own a gender recognition certificate?

Or does the category include men who don’t have any special legal status, and who only cross-dress, and perhaps don’t even bother doing that? Does it include convicted rapists who suddenly find a feeling of womanhood welling up within their bosoms on the way to a sentencing hearing? The more confusion there is about who counts as a trans woman, the less likely it is that people will be able to answer whether a trans woman is a woman or not with any certainty.

Whatever the source of the public’s confusion, it’s a testament to the dogged persistence of the LGBT+ lobbying sector that there is meaningful disagreement about the matter at all. For however you look at the polling, it still suggests that a significant proportion of the general population now think adult human males can change their sex by some kind of behavioural process — whether that’s a medical, legal, or merely sartorial one, or even just muttering “I’m a woman now” to your lawyer as the prospect of a male prison looms.

This bizarre epistemic situation did not arise on its own. Lamentable as the national standard of secondary school biology probably is, it still seems unlikely that many of us have mixed up human beings with sequential hermaphrodites. Clownfish, for instance, really can change their sex, going from the production of eggs to sperm over the course of a single lifetime. But — not to put too fine a point on it — humans aren’t fish.

And nor, I think, should we pay any attention to academics coughing and spluttering about the supposedly well-understood distinction between “sex” and “gender”. According to some of them, when someone says that a trans woman is a woman, they are not talking about adult human females at all. Rather, the speaker has accurately grasped something much more intellectually sophisticated — that womanhood is a “gender”, which some adult human males can come to possess, and some adult human females can shed.

The makers of this point conveniently ignore the fact that “gender” is used in multiple ambiguous ways these days, including as a polite synonym for biological sex, and alternatively as a name for a set of social stereotypes for femininity and masculinity. If you ask these same academics if they mean that womanhood is a matter of liking pink glittery things and tottering about on high heels, they get quite cross. And if you ask them to further explain what they think womanhood is then, if not conforming to sexist stereotypes, they may try to get you fired from your job. Either way, the idea that the general public is motivated by a deep comprehension of gender studies arcana seems to me somewhat optimistic.

So really, the victory here — if it can be called that — belongs almost entirely to organisations such as Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence, All About Trans, the Scottish Equality Network, and associated pals in the rainbow-hued phalanx. You really do have to hand it to them. Quite astonishingly, they have turned what used to be a boringly factual matter about whether Xs were Ys into a quasi-religious question revealing the respondent’s personal values. And at least to some extent, it has clearly worked.

https://unherd.com/2023/02/the-problem-with-trans-women-are-women/?cx_testId=4&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=3&cx_experienceId=EXHVQEIQA4S9#cxrecs_s

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

Dislike of fat is racist (?)

Some very devious reasoning below

Research has found weight-based shaming to be profoundly damaging when coming from family and friends. Plus, family members and friends often discriminate against larger people by discussing diets, teasing people about their weight, commenting on the shapes and sizes of others, and more. Intense shame can result, which can lead to disordered eating behaviors and the psychological and physiological challenges mentioned above.

Is fatphobia rooted in racism?

According to Sabrina Strings, author of “Fearing the Black Body: The Racial Origins of Fat Phobia,” fatphobia has its roots in the transatlantic slave trade, in which colonists asserted that Black people were prone to gluttony and sexual excess and that their love of food caused them to be fat. European colonists claimed moral superiority, valuing moderation and self-control, which made them thin, and, according to them, “the superior race.” By the early 1800s, fatness was considered a sign of immorality in the U.S., as well as racial inferiority.

Ultimately, people used body size and shape to distinguish between those who were enslaved and those who were free since skin color wasn’t necessarily a reliable indicator (due to two hundred years of interracial sex, mostly rape, when enslavers bred their enslaved). Essentially, larger bodies were deemed undeserving of freedom. And these anti-fat, anti-Black attitudes persist well into current times due to modern medical practices.

Doctors are some of the most common perpetuators of fatphobia and weight discrimination. Research shows that they spend less time with larger people on office visits, provide them with less medical information, and often hold biased, stigmatizing views of fat people, including that they are non-compliant or undisciplined.1

Is BMI racist and inaccurate?

You’ve likely heard of Body Mass Index (BMI) as a measurement of healthy weight. It’s used everywhere, from doctors’ offices to schools to places of employment. It is even responsible for the infamous “fat letters” many schools sent home to parents of students.

But BMI isn’t actually an accurate indicator of health. It is simply a person’s weight-to-height ratio. It doesn’t take any other factors into account, such as muscularity, biological and environmental influences, bone density, and beyond. For example, someone with a lot of muscle mass may have a BMI that falls in the “obese” range.

Generally speaking, proponents of BMI claim that a high BMI will lead to disease, negative health risks, and even premature death. But research has shown that BMI alone is a poor measurement of health and mortality. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Research by Katherine Flegal of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has shown that being overweight is actually associated with a lower mortality rate. Research by Dr. Tomiyama, director of UCLA’s Dieting, Stress and Health Laboratory, has debunked the accuracy of BMI, as well. Her research, which involved measuring health according to glucose, cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and blood pressure, found that over 47% of U.S. adults who fall into the “overweight” range for BMI are healthy, as well as nearly 20 million people who are considered "obese."7

https://learn.withinhealth.com/articles/the-racist-history-of-fatphobia-and-weight-stigma

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

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

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