Archive for December, 2016

The Re-imaging of Humanity – 3 – The Transgender Revolution

Thursday, December 1st, 2016

9780956450739

This weekend we have just had our SPA weekend (St Peters Alive)…we had a tremendous time together as a fellowship looking at the whole issue of identity.  Glynn Harrison was superb and I hope the talks will be online soon.   One of the issues covered was of course that of gender and transgender.  This is part three of my talk to the Solas Day in Edinburgh in which we look at issues of gender, transgender and children.

Re-imaging Humanity – Part 2 Sexuality, Marriage and the Fall

Re-imaging Humanity – Sex, Sexuality, Gender and the Inhumanity of 21st Century Humanism – Part 1

Gender – gender as identity makes a whole lot more sense. After all what is more basic for the cry  to come from the nurse to the mother of the newborn – it’s a boy/girl!  Most people today have been brought up in a world where we were just male and female aka Genesis.   We no more got to choose our identity in terms of gender than we do in terms of skin colour or height. But this is now all changing. First of all we are being told that gender is much more than biological and it really is dependent on how we feel. Whereas gender dysphoria was a recognised psychological disorder now we are being told that we all have the right to choose our own gender. And it is not limited to two…. That is so binary. You can have your 56 genders if you wish. In fact one activist told me that there are as many genders as there are people.

You realise of course what is happening when you get to that stage? You’re getting rid of gender altogether. The practical effects of this are phenomenal. For a start it kills all women sports. Have you seen the Iranian womens football team – eight of whom are biologically male? Or how about This story from the US?

It will also put to an end the Scottish government’s plans to have gender quotas in terms of politics and business. It’s how you end up with the great restroom row in the United States. And in case you think this has nothing to do with us here in Scotland every new school building Scotland will now be built with specifically gender neutral toilets.

Transgender –. A recent parliamentary committee report called for a move away from viewing transgender identity as a disease or disorder of the mind, and replacement of the present medicalised process with a simplified administrative procedure based on self-declaration by the individual applicant, free of intrusion by medical and legal personnel.

The same report proposed that 16- and 17-year-olds should be eligible to apply for gender recognition, that children should be able to use puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones earlier, and that Government should move towards ‘non-gendering’ official records. In other words you could walk into a post office tomorrow, and declare that you are the opposite gender of the biological sex to which you were born.

Again I want to ask where all this lead us.. Where is the harm?   Members of the transgender population are at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population. Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that sex-reassigned individuals were about 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.

Multi- Gender – The Scottish government is going to change the law to allow for non binary gender – in a recent article the New York Times celebrated the fact that Scotland has now become the most homosexual and transgender friendly society in the world!

“It’s extraordinary: We have started a conversation about a genderless society,” said Bob Orr, 66, who in 1982 co-opened Edinburgh’s first lesbian and gay bookshop, Lavender Menace. That bookshop closed years ago, as have several gay bars. Gay people increasingly go to mainstream places, Mr. Orr said, and several singers in his “L.G.B.T. choir” are straight.  “The boundaries are going,” he said. “And that was always the point — that sexuality ceases to matter.”

Again what is happening here is that gender is moving from identity to being self-identity. One aspect of this is the use of non-binary pronouns –  as in this card developed by the University of Wisconsin to guide students.

1F921F8F-5541-43CF-867B-3CF7D6A1448D.jpg

Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and a clinical psychologist. He has found himself an enormous difficulty because he refuses to accept the current fad for gender neutral pronouns – read about his horrendous story Here

In New York there are now 31 protected gender identities. (Facebook offers you 58). You can be fined if you refuse to use the preferred pronoun. It is not just that speech is being confused, it is that freedom of speech is being taken away. In our attempt to become as God we are creating a new tower of Babel.

But again we ask – where’s the harm in the gender fluidity? Apart from the mass confusion.  For me the main thing about what is happening is that it is a form of child abuse.

It has long been recognised that the best context in which to bring up a child from birth to adulthood is within the context of a family, and that family has normally been understood as being a man and a woman and whatever offspring they may have.

Whats the harm? Research on children in same sex households shows that normal households with a mum and a dad are by far the better context to bring up kids.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/new-research-on-same-sex-households-reveals-kids-do-best-with-mom-and-dad

I don’t have time to go into the research on this but it should not be surprising to those of us who follow the maxim, or by the maker’s instructions, that children do better with mum and dad. For couples with children, the dissolution rate for same-sex couples is more than double that of heterosexual couples.”

Children are a special case when addressing transgender issues. It is important to realise that only  a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.

Let us ask the question again – Where is the harm? I think that transgender people need help. It is a genuine psychological condition.  But there is a world of difference between realising that a small group of people need help and support and thinking that this justifies attempting to change the whole way we view ourselves and bring up children.

Where’s the harm?   Think of Aaron an 18 year man old in Polmont Young Offenders prison, accused of two rapes.  He now says he is a woman called Alexis. Women prison officers have been ordered to do rubdown searches on him. Other females prisoners are concerned because he will have open access to women.s prison cells.  In what world does this make sense?  Putting a rapist into a women’s prison because he says he is a woman?!

But there is harm in other ways.

Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults. (The American College of Paedaetricians)

Also see this article about the abuse involved – Here

Let me put it very simply and quite straightforward. When the Scottish government say that they are going to enforce and promote a radical culture which says that children can choose their own gender, they are engaging in organised, systematic, state enforced child abuse. And in case you think this is some kind of fanciful horror story from the future – let me tell you about one seven year old girl who came home from school the other week and told her parents that she had been taught in school she could choose whether she wanted to be a boy or a girl.  This is happening now.  Today. In Scotland.  It is State sponsored child abuse and for the sake of our children we need to take a stance against it.

It is important to understand that in in our post-truth society the promotion of transgender and gender fluidity has nothing to do with facts or truth.  It is political and sexual ideology being imposed on the rest of us by those who regard themselves as the cultural and social elites.  Their position is ‘right’ and anyone who dares question it is obviously an idiot, or a homophobe or a transphobe – and probably all three!  The BBC for example are now proposing to indoctrinate children into this ideology through CBBC

Next week in part four we will look further at the implications for society…

Meanwhile I would highly recommend Vaughan Roberts little book about this subject which is very helpful to anyone seeking to understand –

41ybjtcyhfl-_ac_us160_-1

Islamists Won: Charlie Hebdo Disappears

Thursday, December 1st, 2016
  • “The newspaper is no longer the same, Charlie is now under artistic and editorial suffocation.” — Zineb el Rhazoui, French-Tunisian intellectual and journalist, author of Destroying Islamic Fascism.
  • “We must continue to portray Muhammad and Charlie; not to do that means there is no more Charlie.” — Patrick Pelloux, another cartoonist who left the magazine.
  • “If our colleagues in the public debate do not share part of the risk, then the barbarians have won.” — Elisabeth Badinter, philosopher, who testified in court for the cartoonists in the documentary, “Je suis Charlie.”
  • After the Kouachi brothers slaughtered Charlie Hebdo‘s journalists, they ran out into the street and cried: “We have avenged Muhammad. We killed Charlie Hebdo.” Two years later, it appears that they won. They succeeded in silencing the last European magazine still ready to defend freedom of expression from Islamism.

Over twenty years, fear has already devoured important pieces of Western culture and journalism. They all disappeared in a ghastly act of self-censorship: the cartoons of a Danish newspaper, a “South Park” episode, paintings in London’s Tate Gallery, a book published by the Yale University Press; Mozart’s Idomeneo, the Dutch film “Submission”, the name and face of the US cartoonist Molly Norris, a book cover by Art Spiegelman and Sherry Jones’s novel, “Jewel of Medina”, to name just a few. Most of them have become ghosts living in hiding, hidden in some country house, or retired to private life, victims of an understandable but tragic self-censorship.

Only the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was missing from this sad, long list. Until now.

The disappointment with what Charlie Hebdo has become is reflected in the words of the French journalist, Marika Bret: “From Italy we receive many threats.” The reference is not to some Italian jihadist cell, but to a September Charlie Hebdo cover that mocked victims of the earthquake in Italy. It seems that the satirical weekly, almost destroyed by French Islamists two years ago, has been “normalized”.

Take Charlie’s recent covers. Against terrorists? No. Against those who called them “racists”? No. It was against Éric Zemmour, the brave French journalist at Le Figaro who has led a public debate about French identity. “Islam is incompatible with secularism, incompatible with democracy, and incompatible with republican government,” Zemmour wrote.

Laurent Sourisseau, aka “Riss,” now the publishing director and majority owner of Charlie, was shot during the 2015 attack on the magazine, and lives under police protection. He depicted Zemmour on the cover with an explosive vest, effectively comparing him to a terrorist.

Charlie Hebdo also recently satirized Nadine Morano, a critic of Islam, depicting her as a baby with Down Syndrome.

Riss also recently published a comic book attacking another easy target of submissive conformists, entitled “The Dark Side of Marine Le Pen.” Le Pen leads France’s National Front party, with a platform fighting for national sovereignty and Europe’s Judeo-Christian identity. In Charlie, the political leader of the French “right” is dressed as Marilyn Monroe.

For the first anniversary of the massacre at Charlie Hebdo‘s office, Riss released a cover not with Mohammed, but depicting a murderous Judeo-Christian God, as if Riss’s colleagues had not been butchered by Islamists but by Catholics. Riss had, in fact, announced earlier that the magazine would “no longer draw Mohammed“.

The first person at Charlie to capitulate was “Luz”, a well-known cartoonist. He surrendered, saying: “I will no longer draw Muhammad“.

Charlie Hebdo, after Islamist terrorists murdered much of its staff in 2015, announced it would “no longer draw Mohammed.” Instead, the magazine now focuses on attacking critics of Islamism, and mocking the Judeo-Christian God.

“The transplant that works worst,” said Jeannette Bougrab, the companion of Charlie’s late editor Stéphane Charbonnier, “is the transplant of balls.” Bougrab charged the attack’s survivors with bowing to terrorism and threats by betraying the legacy of free speech for which these truthful men were murdered.

After the massacre of January 7, 2015, the cartoonist “Luz” cried in front of the cameras after presenting a cover depicting the survivors, in which Muhammad was portrayed as saying, “All is forgiven”. Luz then appeared in Le Grand Journal along with Madonna, and in a gesture of sad voyeurism, displayed his genitals, covered by the logo “Je suis Charlie”.

Charlie‘s “normalization” was also reflected in the recent dramatic decision to terminate the magazine’s relationship with another survivor, the French-Tunisian intellectual and journalist Zineb el Rhazoui, who also now has to live under police protection for her criticism of Islamic extremists.

“The newspaper is no longer the same, Charlie is now under artistic and editorial suffocation,” she told Le Monde. Rhazoui is the author of a new book, “Détruire le Fascisme Islamique” (“Destroying Islamic Fascism“).

“We must continue to portray Muhammad and Charlie; not to do that means there is no more Charlie”, said Patrick Pelloux, another cartoonist who left the magazine.

There were seven cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. Five were killed on January 7, 2015: Charb, Cabu, Honoré, Tignous and Wolinski. The other two, Luz and Pelloux, resigned after the massacre. The headline of the monthly Causeur captured the atmosphere: “Charlie Hebdo Commits Hara-Kiri,” playing with the Japanese form suicide and the previous name of Charlie (which was “Hara-Kiri“). Between murders, desertions and self-censorship, Charlie‘s story is almost over.

What is happening? Sadly, the Islamists’ threats and attacks are working. A similar crisis affected the Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the 12 cartoons of Muhammad, which Charlie Hebdo immediately, to show solidarity, reproduced. “The honor of France was saved by Charlie Hebdo,” wrote Bernard-Henri Lévy when the magazine republished the Danish cartoons, while many “right thinking” media blasted the “Islamophobia” of those caricatures.

“The truth is that for us it would be totally irresponsible to publish the cartoons today,” the director of Jyllands-Posten, Jorn Mikkelsen says to justify his self-censorship. “Jyllands-Posten has a responsibility to itself and its employees.” Such as Kurt Westergaard, author of the caricature of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, who now lives in a house-fortress, with cameras and security windows and machine-gun toting guards outside.

An ideological clash inside Charlie Hebdo developed well before the terror attack. Zineb el Rhazoui arrived at the weekly magazine through editor Stéphane Charbonnier, “Charb”, the brave journalist who lead the battle against Islamist intimidation in Europe. Even from his grave, he penned an “Open Letter to the Fraudsters of Islamophobia Who Play Into Racists’ Hands.” But, as Libération writes, “Riss opposed Charb; he is less politically identified, more introverted than him.”

Charbonnier belonged to the generation of Philippe Val and Caroline Fourest, the libertarian journalists determined to criticize Islam, who, from 1992 to 2009, shaped the weekly magazine.

Charb? Where is Charb?“, shouted the terrorists in Charlie Hebdo’s office, to make sure they found the journalist they considered responsible for the Mohammed cartoons controversy.

Philippe Val, who as a former Charlie Hebdo editor, was put on trial in Paris for printing those cartoons, published a book “Malaise dans l’inculture” (“Sickness in the Lack of Culture“), which attacks “the ideological Berlin Wall” that has been raised by the Left.

In 2011, after a firebombing that destroyed Charlie’s offices, an appeal by frightened, intimidated journalists announced their refusal to support the magazine’s stance on Islam. Two years later, one of the signatories, Olivier Cyran, a former editor of Charlie Hebdo, charged the magazine with being “obsessive about the Muslims.” So did a former Charlie journalist, Philippe Corcuff, who accused his colleagues at the magazine of fomenting “a clash of civilizations.”

The attacks continued with another former cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo, Delfeil de Ton, who, in Le Nouvel Observateur, after the 2015 massacre, shamefully accused Charb of “dragging” the staff into the slaughter by continuing to satirize Mohammed.

After the Kouachi brothers slaughtered Charlie Hebdo‘s staff, they ran out into the street and cried: “We have avenged Mohammed. We killed Charlie Hebdo.” Two years later, it appears that they won. They succeeded in silencing the last European magazine still ready to defend freedom of expression from Islamism. And they sent a special warning to all the others. Because after Charlie Hebdo, writing articles critical of Islam, or penning a cartoon, make them a target for assassination attempts and intimidation campaigns.

The feminist and philosopher Elisabeth Badinter, who testified in court for the French cartoonists in the documentary, “Je suis Charlie,” said: “If our colleagues in the public debate do not share part of the risk, then the barbarians have won.”

The magazine Paris Match asked Philippe Val if he could imagine the disappearance of Charlie Hebdo. Val replied: “This would be the end of a world and the beginning of Michel Houellebecq’s ‘Submission'”. After attacks comes self-censorship: submission. If Charlie Hebdo is tired and fleeing from responsibilities, who can blame it? But the others, the rest?

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.