The push for special rights for "transgenders" is finally shaking awake many people who have ignored the steady progress of the radical homosexual movement. When it comes to the prospect of federal "employment non-discrimination law" favoring sexual deviants being shoved down our throats, and the reality of what it would mean for business owners and others, people are starting to understand the despotism such an edict would be. It would mean, for instance, that a businessman could very easily be successfully sued by a mentally disordered man who insists on dressing like a woman, if that businessman turned him down for a job. There are myriad bad scenarios you can imagine that would result from such a federal law.
On Monday, I read an outstanding column on this subject by Stella Morabito, who, according to her biographical entry, is a journalist, former intelligence analyst and an expert in various aspects of Russian and Soviet politics, including communist media and propaganda. Her piece, titled, " How The Trans-Agenda Seeks To Redefine Everyone," is truly a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the true goals of this diabolical movement. She writes:
Did you think only women get pregnant? Or only women get abortions? Planned Parenthood and NARAL – ironically both pro-abortion organizations that self-identify as champions of women's rights – may soon be trying to change your mind about that.
One signal comes from a little petition drive that goes by #protransprochoice. It urges both Planned Parenthood and NARAL to adopt language more "inclusive" of transgender persons and to acknowledge "gender-non-conforming" people. Both pro-abortion organizations, which have been longtime supporters of the LGBT lobby, tweeted back supportive replies.
So what does this mean and why should we care?
Ms. Morabito goes on to present the account of the "pregnant man" featured on Oprah Winfrey's show and throughout the major media a few years back. This "man" was, of course, a woman, calling herself "Thomas," who had her body surgically mutilated and hormones administered to give her a manly appearance, yet she retained her female reproductive organs and used them (along with donor sperm) to get pregnant and give birth to a few babies (poor babies!). Ms. Morabito then notes:
So what does it all mean? At root, this isn't really about people like Thomas. It's mostly about everybody else. It's all about changing you and your self-concept. As fringy as they may sound, injecting such lies into our language – "the pregnant man" and the push to separate the word "pregnancy" from the word "woman" – are clear signals that we are moving steadily towards erasing all gender distinctions in the law.
And why should we care? Because erasing gender distinctions, especially as they apply to childbearing and rearing, would serve to legally un-define what it means to be human. A new legal definition of human – as neither male nor female – would apply to you whether you like it or not. Already, there is social pressure for everyone to comply with the gender theory notion that biological facts are mere "social constructs."
Ms. Morabito mentions the Employment Non-Discrimination Act pending before Congress and its sinister implications for reconstructing the definition of humanity. She then writes:
The transgender movement has strong totalitarian overtones that Americans (especially certain senators) don't fully understand. How else to describe a crusade with such far-reaching consequences for First Amendment rights? The legal destruction of gender distinctions will inevitably dissolve family autonomy, thereby uprooting freedom of association. Free expression becomes "hate speech" if one doesn't fall into line with the directives of the transgender lobby or its pronoun protocol. Freedom of religion takes a direct hit any way you look at it.
Under the guise of "rights," the transgender movement can serve as convenient cover for consolidating and centralizing power under an ever-expanding State. Once we allow the State to refuse to recognize that children result from the male-female union, we grant the State more power to separate us from our children. As power becomes more centralized in the State, the individuals and institutions of the State, inevitably flawed, end up owning our personal relationships. With weakened mediating institutions – family, churches, private associations – we lose the buffer zones that stand between individuals and an encroaching state.
... Let's think this through a bit more. If gender distinctions are erased in law, all marriage will become legally obsolete. The elites pushing same-sex "marriage" have known this all along. If you thought it was really marriage equality they were after, see point three in this Federalist article, "Bait and Switch."
If we agree to change language to suit the transgender lobby, we ultimately agree to destroy in law the entire basis (sex distinctions) for the only union that can result in autonomously formed families. The implications for privacy and personal relationships are vast, and we need to understand that.
If you think you'll be able to cultivate and preserve strong personal relationships in this new matrix, you are mistaken. That can't easily happen in a system in which your familial relationships are not acknowledged or respected by the State. This gender-neutral scheme obliterates the template for the family as a unit. And if the family is no longer accepted as a union that originates through the union of male and female, there is no real basis for the State to recognize any family as an autonomous unit. Without any such obligation, children become more easily classified as state property and our personal relationships are more easily controlled by the state. If that sounds totalitarian, that's because it is.
Stella Morabito's entire column is well worth reading. She deeply considers the real implications of this tyrannical "transgender" movement subset of the larger militant homosexual movement, which is not what it is deceptively packaged as being.
The truth is that as more outrages occur at the hands of homosexual activists, rogue federal judges, deluded politicians and a lawless "president," more and more people will come to realize this movement is a grave threat to our God-given, constitutionally-protected freedoms and the very foundational unit of a free, civil society – the family. |
