The Million Person March

In a couple of days, on September 20, a “Million Person March” is planned for cities across Canada, “against gender ideology in schools.” The claimed intent is to protect children against abuse by the schools; the common slogan is “leave our kids alone!” The concern is that schools and other authorities are encouraging children to question their gender, explore sexuality at very young ages, even in some cases undergo medical procedures to change their sex, and even without their parents being informed. 

Others are organizing against the march. Those opposed to it also say they are protecting children from abuse—protecting transgender children who might be abused by their own families, should their families be informed of their gender transition.

Who is right?

To begin with, the first question needs to be: who is more likely to have the best interests of the child at heart, the government and the school, or the parents?

Some parents are abusive; this is a truth too rarely acknowledged. On the other hand, historically speaking, most governments and government bureaucracies are openly abusive; most families, by contrast, do care for their children. It is instinctive. Accordingly, the family should be given precedence. There should be some clear reason to suspect abuse in a specific case before the state can intervene. 

Yet here, family abuse is the default assumption.

This looks like an attack on the family rather than a concern for the interests of children.

Beyond this, the concept of “gender” is arbitrary. It is in the first instance a grammatical term: words have gender, not people. “Bridge” is masculine in French. “Sea” is feminine. In this sense it is of course nonsensical to speak of a child changing his or her gender. Can we also ask a bridge what his preferred pronouns might be?

The second meaning of “gender” is as a cognate for the word “sex”: “males or females viewed as a group.” It is nonsensical to speak of children changing sex. Sex is a simple biological fact, programmed into every cell of your body. 

The third meaning first appeared, according to Oxford, in 1945. “The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones.” The term expresses the modern feminist claim that men and women are identical mentally and emotionally, and are arbitrarily forced into social roles based on their physical sex.

If you buy this claim, there is no justification for “gender transition.” Gender is purely a social construct. What is there to transition to or from, other than to deny and reject the construct? Women simply need to refuse to stay in the home, or be sexually passive, and so forth. Men only need to choose to wear nice clothes and cook and clean. Why would there be any sense in surgically altering body parts?

So the bottom line is that gender transition is logical nonsense. It is a mask concealing the sexual grooming of children. And perhaps worse: deliberate intent to do them permanent harm.

Muslim Protest in Front of the PMO

 

https://twitter.com/truckdriverpleb/status/1672683426535682056?s=20

https://twitter.com/truckdriverpleb/status/1667193315576487936?s=20

So much for Trudeau's claim that Muslims support secularism and Christianity is anti-Muslim.

As a believing Christian, I actually felt more comfortable in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States than I do in secular Canada.

Unicorns and Rainbows

 

Watching video of recent demonstrations in Ottawa for and against “LGBTQ rights,” there is no trouble distinguishing sides. I see that one of the pride protesters is dressed as a cartoonish furry pink unicorn, against the inevitable backdrop of rainbow flags and rainbow colours and pastel pink and blue trans flags. It looks a lot like Disneyland.

Which brings up an obvious thought, one I am amazed has not occurred to me before.

Before the era of trans and gay rights, what would be automatically evoked by cartoonish furry pink unicorns? By rainbows? By pastel pink and baby blue? For that matter, by men in whiteface painted extravagantly as women? Who would be the intended audience?

Children. Not knowing what it was all about, children would naturally be delighted, and drawn to such an exhibit. Clowns! Toys!

The whole gay thing has always been targeted at children. They have always been coming for the children, as the San Francisco Gay Choir recklessly blurted out in song some years ago.

Saudi Arabia has a reputation for suppressing gay rights. I lived there for some years, and a lot of foreign teachers I knew were there because it was a paradise for gay men. They could be open about it, find a partner every night, and nobody bothered them. One of my Arab students even did his class presentation on his gay lover. Nobody seemed to have any problem with it.

But one colleague was suddenly given 24 hours to leave the country. He had solicited a student.

In other words, the actual offense is not homosexual sex. It is grooming. This is no doubt why homosexuality has traditionally been banned in most cultures.

We have or some years been fed the fiction that people are born gay or trans. This is obviously untrue: if there were such a thing as a gay or trans gene, it would be bred out within a generation. Gays are made by sexual experiences in childhood or early adolescence; we are programmed to be deeply imprinted by our earliest sexual experiences. In ancient Greece, it went without saying that an adult gay man’s lover would be a “youth.”

It is only becoming more explicit that the fundamental “gay right” or “trans right” is pedophilia. Without this practice, given the natural operation of human sexuality, there will over time be no gay partners.

And finding partners is necessarily a grave problem for a gay.

It was all bound to come to a head, and now it has.