Tag Archives: LGBT

Fascism: Canadian court rules that child can change genders without parental consent

In Canada, citizens pay taxes, but the government makes the decisions
In Canada, citizens pay taxes, but the government makes all the decisions

The Federalist reports:

For the past 11 months, Robert Hoogland, a father in Surrey, British Columbia, has been forced to watch as his 14 year-old daughter was “destroyed and sterilized” by court-ordered testosterone injections. After losing his legal appeal to stop the process in January… is making a desperate attempt to bring his case into the courts of public opinion, even though it breaks a court order demanding his silence about the case.

“I had a perfectly healthy child a year ago, and that perfectly healthy child has been altered and destroyed for absolutely no good reason,” Rob said in an exclusive interview. “She can never go back to being a girl in the healthy body that she should have had… She won’t be able to have children…”

[…][T]he courts judged his daughter competent to take testosterone without parental consent… [and] he was convicted of “family violence” by the BC Supreme Court for his “expressions of rejection of [his daughter’s] gender identity.” He was also placed under threat of immediate arrest if he was caught referring to his daughter as a girl again.

[…]Rob remains under a strict gag order forbidding him from speaking about his daughter’s case in public and requiring that he “acknowledge and refer to [his daughter] as male” in private.

The Nazis didn’t want the rest of the world finding out about their bullying of the parents, so they tried to cover up their fascism with publication bans and threats of immediate arrest and imprisonment.

How far would the secular leftist Nazis in Canada go to cover up their coercion of the father with armed police?

This far:

[…]Rob granted two video interviews to Canadian YouTube commentators about his case… [T]he commentators who granted them quickly found themselves under threats of litigation. Rob’s first interview was immediately taken down. Rob’s second interviewer… faced similar threats, but initially refused to take her video (not currently available in Canada) down.

[…]Justice Michael Tammen of the British Columbia Supreme Court ordered that Thompson’s interview and various social media posts be taken down. When Thompson stalled, trying to keep a rapidly sharing copy of her interview available to Canadians on Bitchute, the police were sent to her house to demand she take the video down.

Tammen also harshly reprimanded Rob for speaking about his case to the media, warning him that if he broke his silence again, he would likely be cited for contempt of court.

Canada is not a free country that respects human rights. It is a tyranny ruled by secular leftist fascists. Keep in mind that the Nazis who are doing this to the father are all taxpayer-funded. The father is paying all of their salaries through his mandatory taxes. And he doesn’t get an opt-out. Just like the Jews in 1930s Germany, his only opt-out from tyranny is to leave the country… if he is able to legally immigrate somewhere else.

You can see the actual Nazis behind the attack on the father in the story, you can check out this story from Mass Resistance, where they have photos and names of all the intolerant, bigoted, hate-filled Nazis responsible for this miscarriage of justice. These people have this much power over individuals because Canadians voted for an enormous government to run their lives in education, healthcare, crime prevention, daycare, retirement, etc. The government runs everything, and the individuals are like children – with no space to make their own decisions and run their own lives.

Lest you think that this is just one rogue province, the Canadian legislature has actually introduced a bill (C-8) that allows the government to jail parents who refuse to approve their child’s gender transition for up to 5 years:

Under C-8, parents could spend up to five years in jail for trying to help their son accept himself as a boy, or for helping their daughter to accept herself as a girl. Bill C-8 also would impose prison terms up to five years for doctors, counselors, psychiatrists, psychologists and other paid professionals whose treatment for gender confusion departs from politically correct orthodoxy. Parents would be punished if they do anything other than encourage a confused child to “transition” to the opposite gender. Transitioning is an extreme form of intervention that includes taking puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and undergoing permanent surgical sterilization, including the removal of healthy organs such as breasts and testicles.

When government is running something, the taxpayers have no power. They have already paid for the services through taxes, and they are at the mercy of the secular leftist Nazis who run the system. If we don’t defeat the Democrats in elections in America, we should expect the same sort of elimination of human rights under a fascist totalitarian state as we see right now in Canada. Canadian voters (including Canadian Christians) sold out their human rights for government-provided “free stuff” long ago.

We should look at the Canadian experiments with socialism. It seems pretty clear to me that when the secular left gets power, it’s the end of liberty. It’s the end of conscience. It’s the end of human rights. And the same thing could happen here. If the Democrats win enough elections, you will not have a right to run your life as you see fit. You will pay secular leftist Nazis to run your life as they see fit.

And by the way, American public school teacher unions want the exact same rules in place as in this Canadian case, as the Daily Signal reports. Which is why you should support school choice.

One final point. In America, about 75% of young, unmarried women vote for more government control and less freedom when they vote for the Democrat party. Women go through high school and university, and they just adopt the secular left values of their teachers and professors, because it makes them feel good and look good. They don’t think about how these big government policies are perceived by marriage-minded men, and about how it diminishes their opportunities to get married and have a family.

Women need to understand that good men do not get involved in marriage and child-bearing if all they are allowed to do is earn money to pay bureaucrats to rule their family. Men marry when they think that they will have the respect of their wife and children, and when they will be allowed to lead the home. And unfortunately, almost all women today learn nothing about respect for husbands as leaders and fathers as providers. And that includes what Christian women learn from their Christian parents, their Christian schools, and in their Christian churches. It’s almost impossible to find anyone in the Christian culture brave enough to stand up to warn Christian women not to make decisions that will cause men to see the marriage enterprise as an unattractive value proposition.

It’s a huge mistake for young, unmarried women to destroy male leadership by siphoning family money and discretionary power into the hands of secular leftist fascists. Good men will not marry or have children if secular leftists are ruling his marriage and his home. Get that straight. There is no use complaining about “where are all the good men?” and “why are men afraid of commitment?” when your voting is the root cause of the problem of men going on strike against marriage and family. Take responsibility and fix the problem. Or stop complaining.

Are gay relationships more stable than straight ones?

Sherlock Holmes and John Watson are going to take a look at the data
Sherlock Holmes and John Watson are going to take a look at the data

Let’s look at this post from The Public Discourse and see if gay relationships are as stable, or even more stable, than straight ones.

Excerpt:

The [NFSS] study found that the children who were raised by a gay or lesbian parent as little as 15 years ago were usually conceived within a heterosexual marriage, which then underwent divorce or separation, leaving the child with a single parent. That parent then had at least one same-sex romantic relationship, sometimes outside of the child’s home, sometimes within it. To be more specific, among the respondents who said their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship, a minority, 23%, said they had spent at least three years living in the same household with both their mother and her romantic partner. Only 2 out of the 15,000 screened spent a span of 18 years with the same two mothers. Among those who said their father had had a same-sex relationship, 1.1% of children reported spending at least three years together with both men.

This strongly suggests that the parents’ same-sex relationships were often short-lived, a finding consistent with the broader research on elevated levels of instability among same-sex romantic partners. For example, a recent 2012 study of same-sex couples in Great Britain finds that gay and lesbian cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than heterosexual couples.[3] A 2006 study of same sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages”[4] such that Swedish lesbian couples are more than three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples, and Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce (net of controls). Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, two of the most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage in the U.S. academy, acknowledge that there is more instability among lesbian parents.[5]

This paper from the Family Research Council makes the same point:

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a “current relationship,” only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this “snapshot in time” is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that “typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in ‘transactional’ relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months.”[5]

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[6]

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[7]

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

It’s a Grindr lifestyle. And it’s not a good environment for meeting the needs of children. (Example)

There is one study (Rosenfeld, 2014) that tries to argue against the conclusion of all these other studies, and the problems with it are discussed in this post.

The right way to think about gay marriage is to think about it as an extension of no-fault divorce. The same feminists and leftists who pushed for the legalization of no-fault divorce told us back then that the children would be fine, that children are resilient. No-fault divorce was a change in the definition of marriage. The leftists said that divorce would never become widespread, and that it would not harm children in any way. It was all a pack of lies. If the practices of the gay lifestyle become conflated with marriage, then marriage will come to denote relationships engaged in for “love” not children, such that unchastity, infidelity, increased domestic violence and frequent break-ups are incorporated back into the definition of marriage. Marriage is about permanence, exclusivity and building an environment that can welcome children and supply for their needs. It’s not about government giving people respect for their romantic feelings. Those are volatile. What government ought to be rewarding is lifelong commitment.

Transgender activist arrested for assault, also faces civil suits

J3551c4 Y4n1v
J3551c4 Y4n1v

I’m learning about transgenderism by reading about this transgender activist from Canada. Previously, I blogged about how the transgender activist (named Y4n1v) had tried to force women to wax Y4n1v’s genitalia. Y4n1v also tried to get female gynecologists to perform examinations of Y4n1v’s genatalia. The latest news is even stranger than before.

Here is the latest news from The Post Millennial:

Je551ca Y4n1v was arrested for the assault of a Canadian journalist on over the weekend. According to Keean Bexte, the journalist who was assaulted by Y4n1v on camera outside of the B.C. courts on January 14, 2020, Y4n1v spent time behind bars on the charge of assault. She may face up to five years for the assault.

That same day, Y4n1v falsely accused TPM‘s own Amy Eileen Hamm of sexual assault while at the courtroom. Hamm is suing Y4n1v for defamation.

[…]When reached for comment, Bexte said, “Y4n1v has been ordered to cease all contact with me, both directly and indirectly. I can’t wait for the day when Y4n1v is put away for the long haul. He is dangerous and unpredictable.”

Even if Y4n1v is behind bars, the civil litigations brought by Bexte and Hamm against Y4n1v for assault and defamation respectively can proceed. According to Bexte, Y4n1v would be court-ordered to appear for the civil litigations as planned.

Y4n1v was released back into the community after the arrest and will appear in court in February. She will also appear in court in February for two prohibited weapons charges.

Just to be clear, the weapons charge is against Canada’s firearms law.

This reminds me of the “It’s Ma’am!” person at Gamestop:

The video begins with a transgender woman (name unknown) threatening to “fight” a GameStop employee after he allegedly called the transgender customer who identifies as a woman a “sir.”

[…]“Excuse me, it’s ma’am, it is ma’am,” states the transgender woman to the other woman off camera before threatening to call the police department on the increasingly furious customer.

“You need to settle down and mind your business,” the transgender states to the lady off-screen.

The transgender woman then states to the GameStop employee that he must not use “sir” but in the video, he does say “sir” again, in which viewers are unaware who that was directed to.

The woman in pink then states to the employee, “motherf***er – take it outside – you wanna call me sir again, I will show you a f**king sir!”

She then urges the employee yet again to “take it outside.”

“Motherf**ker!” shouts out the transgender women who then attempted to destroy property by kicking over a few Gamestop “bundle gaming consult packages” and walking towards the exit.

[…]”I plan on telling the entire LGBTQ community,” the transgender women yells back at the employee, “You’re going to lose money over this.”

By the way, while reading stories on TPM, I happened upon a post about a transgender woman MMA fighter who was fighting biological women and breaking their bones in order to win matches:

Fox, a male to female transgender athlete, destroyed Erika Newsome in a Coral Gables, FL, MMA fight during which [he]“secured a grip on Newsome’s head… With [his]hands gripping the back of Newsome’s skull, [he] delivered a massive knee, bringing [his] leg up while pulling [his] opponent’s head down. The blow landed on Newsome’s chin and dropped her, unconscious, face-first on the mat.” That was Newsome’s last pro fight.

[…]Fox also beat Tamikka Brents, giving her a concussion and breaking 7 orbital bones.

Now, I am pretty critical of feminism on this blog. My reason for being opposed to feminism is precisely because I think that the attempt by feminists to deny their female nature, and act like men, is harmful to everyone. Normally feminism hurts women in non-violent ways, by teaching them that traditional male roles aren’t valuable when choosing a man. But this skull-cracking goes above and beyond that. This is what happens when the standard that says that men should be gentle to women goes out the window because feminism says that men and women are identical, and men have no special duty to be careful with women.

The rise of feminism also meant that feelings became more important than traditional moral standards. Moral standards are too “judgmental”. Society instead made “right” mean “whatever makes the most easily-offended people feel good”. So, you can’t exclude a biological man from competing in a women-only sporting event, because of hurt feelings. Feminism also said that male and female natures were “social constructs” and that men and women are “identical”. That’s why a man can call himself a woman and crack another woman’s skull and be seen as a hero by people who have taken feminism’s denial of biological sex differences to its logical conclusion.

UK judge rules in favor of firing people who disagree with transgenderism

Thinking about transgenderism
Thinking about transgenderism

This case is from the UK, but keep in mind that the United States is just a few years off from this, depending on who wins the presidency in 2020. A woman tweeted that transgender women (biological men) are not the same as biological women. The judge ruled that it should be legal to fire employees who say that a transgender woman (biological man) is not the same a biological woman.

Here is the story from Insider:

A judge in the UK ruled on Wednesday that it was legal for a leading think tank to fire a worker for arguing publicly that transgender women are not real women.

The Centre for Global Development (CGD) sacked tax expert Maya Forstater in March 2019 over a series of tweets in which she supported the notion that “men cannot change into women.”

She sued the CGD on grounds of discrimination, but her argument was rejected by a judge, who said her position on the issue is “not worthy of respect” and does not enjoy legal protection.

[…]Before her dismissal Forstater was accused by her managers of using “offensive and exclusionary” language and “fear-mongering,” the Times of London reported.

The judge said that the defendant “is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.”

NBC News had an article up where the author explained why the ruling was justified:

This, then, is what Forstater wanted the courts to uphold: Her right to make her co-workers uncomfortable… her right to be… rude and disrespectful in social and professional contexts; and her right to disrespect U.K. law, which defines transgender women as women and transgender men as men…

Courts, of course, tend to look askance at being asked to rule that an employee should be allowed to harm their employers and co-workers based on “philosophical beliefs” they’ve decided are both “biological truths” and tantamount to religious canon.

Indeed. So the mainstream view among the progressive elites is that not affirming the views of transgender people is “harming” them. And the right way to stop dissent from the LGBT agenda is to have these people fired, so that they have to choose between feeding their family and supporting the LGBT agenda. And this is all fine with the “compassion” crowd, who are more concerned with the feelings of transgender people than with free speech and conscience rights.

By the way, the UK judge’s position is the same as about half the people in this country – the half that votes for the Democrat Party. The Democrats in the House have already passed a bill called the Equality Act, which would make American laws match the UK laws that make it acceptable for people who express disagreement with the LGBT agenda to be fired.

Personal application

I’ve noticed that a lot of evangelical pastors and leaders are drifting away from the teachings of the Bible on sex, marriage and morality in general. And it’s becoming a real question about how far they will go with this. Like, I don’t know where “conservative” evangelical pastors and leaders would stand on this question of firing someone who isn’t “generous” about accepting a transgender person’s preferred pronouns.

Based on what I’m seeing right now, I don’t expect that Bible-believing conservatives who disagree with LGBT agenda are going to get any help from the “conservative” evangelical pastors and leaders . And that affects how free those Bible-believing conservatives are to be generous about taking on additional responsibilities, like charitable contributions, marriage, and children. After all, if the “conservative” evangelical pastors and leaders aren’t concerned when a secular leftist fires a dissenter from LGBT orthodoxy, then why should that dissenter take on additional obligations to others that reduce his ability to survive being fired?

Here is what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord.

33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—

34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.

35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

And here’s Paul again in 2 Timothy:

 Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer.

I do understand that evangelical pastors and leaders think that men just marry for love, and they don’t even think about how much providing for a wife and children costs. But that’s delusional. Men DO calculate the costs of having a wife and children, and they understand that it is easier to be faithful on controversial issues when you are a single man, than when you are burdened with a wife and children. If pastors don’t want to do anything to defend free speech from the secular left, that makes marriage less attractive to men who are committed to fighting the secular left.

How do LGBT activists respond to free speech discussions of LGBT issues?

What should we think about LGBT activists?
What should we think about LGBT activists?

I like to have some diversity in my Twitter feed, so I follow some people who disagree with me. One of those people is Andy Ngo, who is gay. I started to follow Andy because he does a good job reporting on the secular leftist fascist movement in America (Antifa), fake hate crimes and false accusations. The tweet above is from Andy, and after I read the story he linked, I decided to write about it.

Here’s the story from The Post Millennial.

Word spread quickly on social media this evening that Simon Fraser University has backed out of its decision to host the event entitled “#GIDYVR: How Media Bias Shapes the Gender Identity Debate” on November 2nd.

In addition to Vancouver feminist Meghan Murphy, the event was slated to feature Quillette Canadian editor Jonathan Kay and The Post Millennial contributor Anna Slatz, and was co-organized by Mark Collard, an SFU professor of anthropology, Amy Eileen Hamm, Holly Stamer, and GIDYVR. Free speech activist Lindsay Shepherd was set to moderate.

Collard, who had originally sponsored the event and assisted in booking the venue at SFU’s Harbour Centre campus, decided to withdraw his support for the event after speaking to senior director of campus public safety, Tim Marron. Marron explained that there was a high risk of violence as a result of the event.

[…]The Post Millennial also reached out to Meghan Murphy, who told us, “We are still going to fight this. GIDYVR is in touch with our lawyer, Jay Cameron, from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms in order to put pressure on SFU to keep our booking. Apparently, there was a meeting involving a trans activist group, and security determined that there was a viable threat of violence from this group.

The article notes that Marron thought that after meeting with the trans activist group, that on a scale of 1 to 10, the probability of violence was an 11.

It looks like it would be a pretty interesting event. I’ve blogged about Meghan Murphy before. She’s a feminist, so I don’t agree with her on many things. And I blogged about Lindsay Shepherd, and I don’t agree with her on many things. But I wouldn’t stop them from speaking in public. I don’t see why in a free country that people can’t get together on campus to debate and disagree about something controversial. Unless it’s not a free country at all?

One thing is clear. If I were presenting my views to other people, and their response was that my disagreement with them would cause them to kill themselves, then I would really wonder about whether their views were able to be defended rationally and evidentially. And if they said that their response to disagreeing views was to resort to vandalism, fake hate crimes, lawsuits, death threats, violence and even attempted murder (e.g. – the domestic terrorism attack by the gun-wielding gay activist Floyd Lee Corkins II against the Family Research Council headquarters), then I would just lump that person in with the other fascists in history, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. All on the secular left, notice.

Here is a good rule that applies to everyone: If you can’t make your case for your views using reason and evidence, but must instead use threats of violence to cancel out free speech that offends you, then you’re a fascist, no different than any other fascist, except that maybe you lack the means at this time to achieve the results they did in a society that still is running on the fumes of Judeo-Christian moral standards. As a conservative, I am fine with free speech that disagrees with me. I don’t use threats, coercion and violence against those who disagree with me. Think what you want. Say what you want. It ought to be like that in a free country.