The Transgender Wars — Part II

This is the second part of a five-part series on the transgender wars in Virginia.

by Tom Pafford

A behind-the-scenes tug-of-war is happening between the Left and many in the LBG movement. You certainly won’t read about it in USA Today! But you can in Gay news outlets where Gay intellectuals state their concern over Gender Identity.

One such outlet is the Intelligencer:

As many of us [Gays] saw our goals largely completed and moved on, the far left filled the void. The movement is now rhetorically as much about race and gender as it is about sexual orientation. [intersectionality] prefers alternatives to marriage to marriage equality, sees white men as ‘problematic,’ masculinity as toxic, gender as fluid, and race as fundamental. They have no desire to seem ‘virtually normal’; they are contemptuous of “respectability politics” — which means most politics outside the left. Above all, they have advocated transgenderism, an ideology that goes far beyond recognizing the dignity and humanity and civil equality of trans people into a critique of gender, masculinity, femininity, and heterosexuality. ‘Live and let live’ became: “If you don’t believe gender is nonbinary, you’re a bigot.” I would be shocked if this sudden lurch in the message didn’t in some way negatively affect some straight people’s views of gays…. If the gay-rights movement decides to throw in with this new leftism, and abandon the moderation and integrationism of the recent past, they risk turning gay equality from being about a win-win process for gays and straights into a war between ‘LGBT’ people and the rest. That’s a battle none of us need to fight. Especially after the real war was won.

A male can be either heterosexual or homosexual. The same with a female. Their gender and their sexuality are intertwined, not separate. They accept who they are. Trans desire to separate who they are. The Left says this is normal. That is the War between LGB and the Left.

In another online magazine, Eating Disorders, Alex Redcay, at the time, a PhD student, attempts to put this War to bed. Redcay puts it this way:

First, the most important aspect to understand is that gender has nothing to do with sexuality. Let me say that again, gender (male, female, transgender, etc.) has nothing to do with sexuality (heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc.). Experts are partly to blame for our confusion because whoever came up with the acronym LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) married the two very different ideas of sexuality (LGB) and gender (T) so much that we are thoroughly confused. Let’s divorce LGB (sexual minority) from T (gender minority)….

Redcay compares the Trans/Gender question to a gingerbread man and calls it the GENDERbread person, specifically pointing out certain areas — the brain, heart, genitals, and the whole body.

The Genderbread Person, helps us to understand gender. The red heart of “attraction” is the only part that refers to sexuality or sexual orientation. This red heart is focused on whom we love and to whom we may be attracted, but this is unrelated to gender. Gender Expression [is] the entire outside of the gender bread person from head to toe showing that the way we look, act, and are perceived by others is our gender expression. However, our Gender identity is in our brain, our internal, deeply held sense of being male or female which is unknown and invisible to others, while biological sex is assigned at birth, mainly based on the appearance of anatomy.

Redcay omits the facts that in real people the brain controls all of these functions and it is a person’s DNA that determines male or female. The “appearance of anatomy” reflects that DNA. By using The GENDERbread person, Redcay poetically moves readers into accepting the separation of gender and body by avoiding real science. It also suggests that DNA should not be used as an indicator of maleness or femaleness. Note also, that the GENDERperson is taught to many in elementary schools.

Strange is Alex Redcay’s opening statement, “First, the most important aspect to understand is that gender has nothing to do with sexuality.” There is a specific reason for this statement. The scientific community has no proof that sexuality is separate from gender. Psychiatry does not back up Redcay’s statement. But, repeating this statement in hundreds, if not thousands, of websites, radio and TV shows, the Left creates the impression that the statement is truth. No one questions it; therefore, the Left never has to confirm it. And, with this “truth” firmly grounded in the minds of listeners, a foundation is laid on which to build the Left’s Trans agenda. The truth of this can be found in all Left-Wing literature. Everywhere, when discussions of gender and sexuality arise, they are now separated.

So, what is the real science? Part Three overviews the Left’s Trans War with the Scientific Community.

Tom Pafford, an Annandale resident, is running for a seat on the Fairfax County School Board. View his campaign website here.

There are currently no comments highlighted.

6 responses to “The Transgender Wars — Part II

  1. This is actually far more interesting than the puff piece in the RTD this weekend, but how is a strong focus on this topic going to get this guy elected to something in Fairfax County? Maybe that’s a hopeless cause anyway, but at some point Republicans need to understand that winning the actual election is the key first step…… By his own data he is writing about an argument between 3 percent of the population and about three-tenths of a percent of the population. Media attention has made the “trans” thing a bit of a fad so it is probably more common now.

  2. Ever since I was an adolescent I found girls sexually exciting. This wasn’t an intellectual decision. It was how I was wired. I never found guys sexually exciting. It didn’t take me long to realize that other people are wired differently. If a guy found other guys as sexually exciting as I found girls … what was that guy supposed to do? Sexuality is innate. People don’t decide to become gay any more than they decide to become hetero.

    I think we both agree so far.

    Isn’t it possible that a person like Bruce / Caitlyn Jenner has the same innate sense that he is really a woman? He didn’t wake up one day and decide it would be “cool” to be a woman. By all accounts he was conflicted about his gender for decades. Finally, she resolved that conflict and became Caitlyn.

    I get your distinction between sexuality and gender but I wonder how much it matters. Isn’t the real issue the ability to openly express your true identity in society – whether it is as a straight, gay, bisexual person or a transgender person?

    Your articles have been interesting so far. But I kind of agree with Steve ….

    “By his own data he is writing about an argument between 3 percent of the population and about three-tenths of a percent of the population.”

    Is that going to be the crux of this five part series? If so, it could be a bit of overkill. You’ve been flying the plane around for a while, it might be time to land it.

    Transgender people cause legitimate issue in schools and sports (among other areas). Should a 17 year old boy who identifies as a woman shower with the girls? Should that same “boy” be able to play on the woman’s soccer team?

    The argument as to whether LGB should also have T is interesting. The debate about how society should accommodate transgender people is fascinating.

    • Transgender issues do not need to become big and divisive until they begin affecting others. If a transgender man wants to use the men’s room, who cares? If a transgender woman wants to wear a dress to class, who cares?

      It gets more complicated when the transgender girl bring male genitals to a shower with teenaged girls or post-menopausal women. Or when that person wins races against biological females, who don’t have the same muscle mix, etc. Or when taxpayers are asked to pay for gender-change surgery from people who enlist in the military in order to get free surgery.

      And why stop at gender? Why can’t people also claim the right to change their age to what fits their mood? My grandmother did it most of her life but never when it affected others, such as claiming the right to Social Security when she was 55. Why can’t a 15-year old decide to be 19 to protect against statutory rape charge for his/her partner? Could a monkey claim to be a human or vice versa? What people want to do in their private lives is generally none of anyone’s business. And ditto for day-to-day interactions with others. But when you start messing with other people’s rights (such as the right to avoid the opposite sex when one is nude in a locker room), we need to balance the interests.

  3. Somehow – I have some heavy skepticism that it’s the left that is unable to agree and that if we got the left out of the way that the folks on the right would come up with a solution that was acceptable.

    Yes -the left gets into some fierce battles over what to do or not but the right is often not going to agree to ANY of the left’s solutions.

    If the right folks had the solution – they’d just wipe out the left all together including at elections.

    I’d be truly interested in the right-thinking folks solutions but I’m not going to be surprised if their solution is to keep the status quo.

    Oh.. and when you are “explaining” an issue to the Nth degree – it’s not a good sign.. the average person wants the nub – not every nook and cranny.

    The bigger issue is how do we accommodate those who are different – and we’ve been there and done that.

    Think back to when we had no handicapped access and folks on the right said it was just wrong to spend all that money on facilities for them… remember that?

  4. Okay, Larry, I call BS on that….when was it ever “folks on the right” opposing ramps and door openers? Maybe some contractors or building owners balked at the expense, or the mandate, but it was never an ideological cause. If you are going to be a one-trick pony, at least get that trick down.

    http://www.american-historama.org/1990-present-modern-era/americans-with-disabilities-act.htm

    Who’s face on the page, Larry? I’m getting sick of this game.

  5. Oh but Bush is called by Conservatives today as a CINO !!!

    yes they DID oppose on cost AND the idea that the govt mandated it – that’s the essence of Conservative thought on issues like this.

    here’s your history:

    ” Many members of the business community opposed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Testifying before Congress, Greyhound Bus Lines stated that the act had the potential to “deprive millions of people of affordable intercity public transportation and thousands of rural communities of their only link to the outside world.” The US Chamber of Commerce argued that the costs of the ADA would be “enormous” and have “a disastrous impact on many small businesses struggling to survive.”[34] The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that lobbies for small businesses, called the ADA “a disaster for small business.”[35] Pro-business conservative commentators joined in opposition, writing that the Americans with Disabilities Act was “an expensive headache to millions” that would not necessarily improve the lives of people with disabilities.[36]”

    and it gets worse today – we ask ” Would Republicans Support the Americans with Disabilities Act Today?”

    more: ” There are few acts of Congress in the modern era that have done more good for more people than the Americans With Disabilities Act, the profound and lasting contribution to …. equal rights shepherded through the Congress by Iowa’s Democratic senator Tom Harkin and signed into law in 1990 by Republican President George H. W. Bush. It passed the House by unanimous voice vote, and the Senate by a vote of 76-8. ( notice the phrase – “equal rights”).

    It was not an easy lift; there was plenty of opposition from conservative extremists who back then did not control the entire party apparatus, but they were getting there. By 2010, Rand Paul, not yet a bro-bro hero, won a Senate seat in Kentucky despite having quite openly called for the ADA’s repeal. ”

    Steve – you’re a moderate Conservative – but you are in bed with a much more virulent GOP than you are.

    They are not tolerant of folks who are “different” than them – and this is readily apparent in the LGBT realm… but as I said – it’s really just a continuation of more than a few of them to the ADA.

    It’s just the way a lot of Conservatives are – and it’s a hallmark of liberals in general to accommodate – even if it causes tax increases!

    You know this guy, it’s not BS…

Leave a Reply