Tag Archives: LGBT

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.

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.