Tag Archives: LGBT

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.

Court rules that father must affirm that his son is a girl

Most people today who have noticed that men are hesitant to get married, or even get into relationships, with women. But few outside of the men’s rights movement are aware of the real reasons. Although it’s fashionable to mock men as weaklings for their cautiousness with women and marriage, it takes a little more work to look beyond the insults and find the real root causes.

So, with that in mind, consider this story from the red state of Texas, about a man whose ex-wife took him to court to force their 7-year-old boy to transition (via drugs and surgery) to becoming female.

Here’s the first from Life Site News, posted in December 2018:

A six-year-old Texas boy is being dressed and presented as a girl by his mother; at the same time, she is threatening the boy’s father legally for not going along with her plan for their son to live as a girl.

J4m35 lives as a girl when with his mother, but when with his father and given the choice, the six-year-old boy lives as a boy.

Court order:

J3ffr3y Y0ng3r is currently prohibited by court order from affirming in any way his son’s sex, including imparting Christian teaching on gender and sexuality to J4m35.

Child abuse charges against the father for disapproving:

4nn3 G30rgu1a5 has charged Y0ng3r, her ex-husband and J4m35’s father, with child abuse for not affirming their son as a transgender “girl,” according to court documents.

Restraining order blocking father’s contact with the boys:

She has also sought restraining orders against Y0ng3r, she is trying to terminate his parental rights, and also seeks to compel Y0ng3r to pay for J4m35’s visits with a transgender-affirming therapist and for medical procedures to “transition” J4m35 to a girl.

Chemical castration and sex-reassignment surgery:

The controversial “treatment” could include hormonal sterilization that could begin in as soon as two years when J4m35 turns eight, in preparation for J4m35 to later have “sexual reassignment” surgery.

Father loses all parental rights:

The court has awarded her the sole right to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment of J4m35 and his twin brother Jude, rendering the boys’ father unable to get a second opinion.

Child Protective Services:

Y0ng3r is even prohibited from cutting his sons’ hair, having been reported by a teacher to Texas Child Protective Services for giving J4m35 a haircut.

Father gets the bill:

Since the cost for psychological and psychiatric treatment of children is considered child support in Texas, a website on the case created by friends of the family says, and current Texas statutes being what they are, Y0ng3r could be “forced to pay for the sexual mutilation of his own son.”

And here is the latest from Life Site News about the outcome of the trial:

A jury has ruled against J3ffr3y Y0ng3r, the father who is trying to protect his seven-year-old son, J4m35, from chemical castration via a gender “transition.”

[…]The jury’s decision likely means that Mr. Y0ng3r will be required to “affirm” J4m35 as a girl, despite his religious and moral objections, and will also be forced to take a class on transgenderism.

Although it was a jury trial, I just want to point out that the judge overseeing the trial is a woman, and G30rgu1a5 has two female lawyers leading the questioning of witnesses.  The therapist who diagnosed the boy with gender dysphoria is also a (gay) woman, and founder of Da11as Ra1nb0w C0uns3l1ng. So a panel of women is overruling the wishes of the child’s father for his son, and this apparently isn’t a problem for anyone.

The American Conservative noted that G30rgu1a5 is not the biological mother of the boys. They were conceived with Y0ng3r’s sperm and eggs from an egg donor. This is an immediate red flag to me, as women who use IVF are often feminists who deliberately delayed child-bearing during their fertile years for their careers.

By the way, the story has also been reported in The Blaze, the Daily Caller, Daily Wire, Christian Post, etc.

Support for gay marriage by gender (Source: Pew Research 2019)
Support for gay marriage by gender (Source: Pew Research 2019)

My thoughts

First, everyone who reads this blog knows that I am forever blaming women for their poor choice of men, and poor choices of when to have sex. Well, it works exactly the same in reverse: Jeff Y0ng3r should not have married this woman. I blame him for this mess.

Second, there is no concern in the church about the challenges facing marriage-minded men in this society. Christian men receive no support from the church when they try to lead on moral or spiritual issues that conflict with women’s emotions and preference for non-judgmentalism. In my opinion, it’s very likely that if I were somehow married to this crazy lady, that my church would side with her against me, just because she is a woman. After all, what are people learning in church about male headship or defenses against feminism or LGBT? NOTHING. The church’s goal is to produce feelings and community. They prioritize essential oils and praise hymns. What good is that to me against  an army of anti-Christian teachers, doctors, therapists, lawyers, judges, and powerful gay rights groups? I’m not going to get involved in a situation where I am wasting a lot of time and money losing legal battles.

Finally, I just wanted to point out that marriage-minded men are aware of how the government is stepping in and overruling their authority as fathers and husbands. It’s not just in obvious ways, like no-fault divorce, higher taxes, big government meddling in families, Equality Act, etc. It’s also in subtle ways, e.g. – men are forced to pay into a public school system that is dominated by secular leftist administrators and teachers. Stories like the one above show a growing intrusion by government into Christian men’s lives, which is made possible by higher taxes and more government spending. The money for big government intrusions comes out of Christian homes. The bigger the government, the less money and fewer degrees of freedom the husband / father has to execute his plan. And this is something we have to address if we expect Christian men to take the risk of getting married and having kids. “Man up and jump off this cliff that feminism and socialism has made!” isn’t going to cut it.

What did Democrat presidential candidates say at the CNN forum on LGBT issues?

Enraged Joe Biden howls out his hatred for Bible-believing Christians
Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden raging against Christians

I was at the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in Charlotte, North Carolina last week, so I missed reporting on the Democrat presidential candidate discussion of LGBT issues hosted by CNN. But there were a few things said by the candidates that I think that Christian voters need to know about.

Here’s a clip of some of the weirdest things that were said:

And here’s a story about the event from the Washington Free Beacon:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) called her previous stance on taxpayer funds going to sex reassignment surgeries wrong.

“I think that was a bad answer,” Warren said, reneging on her 2012 criticism of a federal court’s ruling that Massachusetts must provide sex reassignment surgery to a convicted murderer.

Warren’s comments follow the release of her plan for LGBTQ Americans on Thursday. Among other proposals, Warren has promised to direct the Bureau of Prisons to imprison transgender individuals in facilities in accordance with their gender identity.

Elizabeth Warren is the front-runner in the Democrat primary. But what I found the most disturbing was a comment from Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, who is from TEXAS of all places.

A different Washington Free Beacon article explains:

Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke (D., Texas) said he would strip religious institutions of their tax exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage.

“We are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans,” the former congressman said during CNN’s Equality Town Hall on Thursday.

CNN host Don Lemon pressed O’Rourke on the particulars of his plan for LGBT Americans.

“Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax exempt status if they oppose same sex marriage?” Lemon asked.

O’Rourke answered with an unequivocal yes, and stressed that as president, he would make punishing religious organizations a priority.

“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us,” O’Rourke said.

You might think that Joe “Bloody-Eyes” Biden would be more moderate. He spoke recently at an event put on by the Hum4n R1ghts C4mp4ign about what he would do if elected president.

Here’s the report on the speech from PJ Media:

Biden announced at an event in Ohio on Saturday that his number one priority, if elected, will be to enshrine LGBTQ rights into federal law via the Equality Act, a contentious, Orwellian effort by left-wing bullies to silence Christians who believe biblical teachings on marriage and reject the view that boys can be girls and girls can be boys.

During a half-hour speech at the Hum4n R1ghts C4mp4ign’s annual gala in Columbus, Ohio, Biden said, “It’s wrong and it is immoral what [the Trump administration] is doing,” citing efforts to bar transgender troops from the U.S. military and protect medical providers from being forced to violate their consciences.

[…]During his speech Biden portrayed LGBTQ individuals as victims, ignoring the fact that it is people of faith who have been the big losers in this war of ideas. Bakery owners are being sued out of existence, medical professionals are being pressured to embrace transgender ideology, and major corporations are pulling their business out of states that seek to protect religious freedom — which, by the way, is what made Mike Pence Public Enemy #1 in the eyes of the cultural revolutionaries.

[…]”The current vice president uses religious freedom as an excuse to license discrimination across broadly [sic] areas and denying LGBTQ Americans their basic rights. It is wrong and it is immoral what they are doing,” he declared.

“Just look at how much damage has been done in the past two weeks,” Biden said. […]The Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to allow homeless shelters to turn away transgender people. This is beyond the scope of anything remotely what we’ve seen before.”

To be clear, when he’s talking about homeless shelters, he’s talking his support for putting biological males into women’s shelters, where many of the women will have suffered sexual abuse.

I really enjoyed what Ben Shapiro had to say about this CNN event last Friday:

When a political party picks a political candidate, they normally pick candidates who are the most moderate, so they can win the general election. So, when you’re looking at these statements by Warren and O’Rourke and Biden, just keep in mind that these are the moderate people in the Democrat party. I wonder what the real Democrats would do to people who disagree with LGBT rights?

By the way, if you would like to know more about the HRC group, then check out my previous post on their co-founder.

New study: there is no gay gene that causes homosexuality

Homosexuality and the progress of science
Homosexuality and the progress of science

I heard one of the authors of this new study commenting on how he was a gay man, and the purpose of his research was to show a genetic basis for homosexuality, in order to make it equal to race. His goal was to make it impossible to disagree with homosexual behavior, because homosexual behavior would be seen as natural and normal. Let’s see if his new study helps him out.

The blog of the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One reported on the new study, which was published in the prestigious journal Science.

Excerpt:

The once-prevailing concept of a “gay gene” dictating sexual orientation has been put to rest in a powerhouse study published today in Science. The work brilliantly illustrates the very nature of science: evolving with the input of new data, especially the large-scale contributions of bioinformatics and crowd-sourcing.

“We formed a large international consortium and collected data for more than 500,000 people, comparing DNA and self-reported sexual behavior. This is approximately 100 times bigger than any previous study on this topic,” said lead author Andrea Ganna, of the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Finland and an instructor at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, opening a news conference earlier this week.

[…]The investigation estimates a genetic contribution to same-sex sexual behavior as under 1 percent, thanks to analysis of a trove of data from the UK Biobank and the consumer genetic testing company 23andme.

So, there you have it, there is no gay gene. But this is of course something we’ve known for decades, as all the previous studies had found the same thing.

The normal way that people do these studies is to analyze identical twins, and see how often both identical twins are gay.

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

By the way, a previous study also found that transgender behavior was not genetic, but was clearly linked to environmental factors such as peer approval and social media.

Here is the report from Science Daily:

This month, a Brown University researcher published the first study to empirically describe teens and young adults who did not have symptoms of gender dysphoria during childhood but who were observed by their parents to rapidly develop gender dysphoria symptoms over days, weeks or months during or after puberty.

[…]The study was published on Aug. 16 in PLOS ONE.

Littman surveyed more than 250 parents of children who suddenly developed gender dysphoria symptoms during or after puberty.

[…]“Of the parents who provided information about their child’s friendship group, about a third responded that more than half of the kids in the friendship group became transgender-identified,” Littman said. “A group with 50 percent of its members becoming transgender-identified represents a rate that is more 70 times the expected prevalence for young adults.”

A previous study also found that children are more likely to be gay if they are raised by gay adults. It was reported in AOL News.

Excerpt:

Walter Schumm knows what he’s about to do is unpopular: publish a study arguing that gay parents are more likely to raise gay children than straight parents. But the Kansas State University family studies professor has a detailed analysis that past almost aggressively ideological researchers never had.

[…]His study on sexual orientation, out next month, says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. “I’m trying to prove that it’s not 100 percent genetic,” Schumm tells AOL News.

His study is a meta-analysis of existing work. First, Schumm extrapolated data from 10 books on gay parenting… [and] skewed his data so that only self-identified gay and lesbian children would be labeled as such.

[…]Schumm concluded that children of lesbian parents identified themselves as gay 31 percent of the time; children of gay men had gay children 19 percent of the time, and children of a lesbian mother and gay father had at least one gay child 25 percent of the time.

[…]Finally, Schumm looked at the existing academic studies… In all there are 26 such studies. Schumm ran the numbers from them and concluded that, surprisingly, 20 percent of the kids of gay parents were gay themselves. When children only 17 or older were included in the analysis, 28 percent were gay.

It’s very important for people to understand that there is a trend in society to make every behavior traditionally seen as sinful into something caused by genetics. The twin goals of this effort are to insulate the behaviors from criticism, and to minimize evaluation of the effects of these behaviors on society as a whole. The genetic argument was used extensively to normalize same-sex marriage and transgenderism. I have seen the genetic argument used to defend other behaviors like pedophilia and incest. But the scientific research does nothing to support any of these arguments. What’s amazing is how a majority of people in the Unites have such false beliefs about the scientific research. They vastly overestimate the number of gay people, and also the influence of genetics.

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.