The Politics and Propaganda of Gender Identity

I am distressed by the recent coverage of the trans-gender bathroom debate, and the failure of both the hosts and guests to address a number of very specific issues.
First, I would like to point out the obvious: genetically there are those with XX chromosomes who are typically identified as female, and those with XY chromosomes who are typically identified as male. Any genomic testing facility or forensic lab would identify any given individual as male or female based on this unalterable reality.
Second, every species of animal that reproduces sexually is divided into male and female by genetic makeup. To deny this is to ignore millions of years of evolutionary biology.
Now, quite suddenly in the past few years, it has been put forward that anyone who “believes in the myth” of two physiological genders is radical, biased, homophobic, hate-mongering, and worse – probably republican.
I would submit that anytime a group feels that they must marginalize and vilify others in order to make themselves “right”, they have already lost the argument.
They put forth the notion that unless I, and the rest of society at large, fundamentally alter our understanding of sexuality as it has existed since the dawn of civilization, that we are trapped in the backward thinking, un-scientific mindset of the early slaveholders.
Facebook, for example, now recognized 56 different genders. I find it amusing that the “party of science” has adopted a position completely devoid of any scientific reality.
Should any choose to debate the point, I would counter that drug addiction and alcoholism are classified as diseases, as are a wide variety of psychiatric disorders, all of which have at their core a form of denial or psychosis which is a refusal to believe an uncomfortable truth. Anosognosia takes this a step further, where the individual has a genuine inability to recognize that a problem exists.
Thus we could safely maintain that anyone who has XY chromosomes and male genitalia but believes himself to be a female must suffer from an unfortunate psychiatric disease. Further, the psychotic personality tends to believe that when outcome differs from expectation, the failing must lie with the world at large, which should be altered until it matches intention, so clearly the push to change thousands of years of societal norm for a new and rapidly growing list of possible gender variations must be a form of psychosis.
I don’t necessarily believe this to be true, but neither am I a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging neanderthal because I am unwilling to go skipping merrily down the path of gender re-definition.
Let us look at the likely issues that will arise from this course of action:
A physiological male who emotionally identified as a female sued to be able to shower in the high-school girls locker room. What you have failed to ask your guests, or even answer yourself, is if you feel it is acceptable for someone with a penis to shower naked with a room full of people with vaginas. I am not interested in euphemistic platitudes. Answer that question – yes or no.
What about those females (who identify as females) who feel uncomfortable showering with someone who has a penis? If the argument goes that the trans-gender individual feels uncomfortable showering with those he/she/it physically resembles, then how could it be acceptable to make others uncomfortable?
If the penis of a trans-gender touched a female, would our courts rule that it was not a sexual assault because it wasn’t a “male” penis?
Conversely, in the past few years, several female teachers were arrested for sexual relations with their students. Would placing a trans-gender physiological male in an all-female environment open the possibility of the trans-gender being sexually victimized?
If a trans-gender person with breasts and vagina, who identified as male, undressed in the male locker room, what is the anticipated result? If any males in that locker room got an erection from looking at a naked physiological female body, would they be charged with sexual assault? Is there an even greater likelihood of rape? Would it even be classified as rape?
Even in, or perhaps especially in the adult world, the situation is as complicated.
On one occasion, my wife was in a Walmart restroom, when an elderly woman suffered a severe case of diarrhea, and was not able to reach the toilet in time. My wife and several other women helped clean her up, and went out into the store to get new, clean clothes for her. If this was a gender-agnostic restroom, that elderly woman would have suffered the additional embarrassment of standing naked by the sinks with a troupe of men going by.
When we took out grandchildren to the pool at the YMCA, my wife would take our granddaughters into the locker room to change. If it was trans-gender or gender-agnostic, then she would be in the uncomfortable position of having the little girls see a penis, along with any associated need to explain girl-parts and boy-parts, which would serve only to convert a family outing into an unwanted sex lesson.
Understand also that those who push for radical social change are never satisfied. Once there are no more spaces restricted to those with the same sexual anatomy, when male genitals may be seen in female restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms, and vice versa, then why not in public as well? There are already a growing number of naked protests, bike rides, and parades; there are Masturbate-a-thons, love-ins, sex-ins and all manner of explicit behaviors. Why not make it mainstream and public? Lewd and indecent? A thing of the past!
I can already hear the chorus of those who say this is ludicrous, and a wild exaggeration. To them I say compare the growth in the number of the above-mentioned activities since the 1950s. A 30 second Google search will find tens-of-thousands of instances.
Remember, too, that it was not the conservatives that started this fight: It was those who advocated radical social change who decided that for the first time in human history is was now a civil right for trans-gender people to be able to go into any bathroom or locker room of their choosing.
For those who question why any of this should even be a concern, I would ask them to research the sexual decadence and experimentation during Germany’s Weimar Republic. The citizens of the country were so engrossed in their indulgences that they missed both the nation’s economic collapse and the rise of the nazis.
Finally, how is it that pre-pubescent children are self-identifying with this plethora of sexual identities? How do these young children even know about all these sexual identities, or for that matter are familiar with the concept of sexual identity other than who is a boy and who is a girl? Is this the result of the sexualization and overstimulation of these children by adults who are using them to carry out a political agenda?
What is lacking in this discussion is an honest portrayal of the issues and ramifications, followed by the unambiguous query: Are you ready to go down that path? Say it: “Yes I am”, or “No I’m not”.
I don’t deny that there are people out there struggling with the desperate and painful reality that their lives, for whatever inexplicable reason, don’t conform to any societal or physical norm. There situations are tragic and worth of our compassion and understanding. Certainly we should do whatever we can to accommodate them, but we must also acknowledge the rights of the few do not outweigh the rights of the many. Furthermore, we cannot permit every person and every group with abhorrent behavior to claim that it is their right, and therefore society must not only allow them full rein, but must embrace and endorse it as well.
I also believe the LGBT and trans-gender communities are pawns in a much larger political game, and don’t realize they are the expendable pieces in this gambit. Those who claim concern and well being for them, use them for political positioning, and ultimately will ignore and discard them as soon as they cease to be useful. There will be no winners in this fight other than the liberal progressives whose interest lies in their own power.