It will be difficult to choose the most trans-propaganda-deranged progressive Democrat before The Great Stupid runs its wacky course, but Elizabeth Guzman will have to be in the finals. She is introducing a bill in the Virginia legislature based on the crackers theory that parents and guardians failing to support the gender identity declared by a minor child is child abuse and a crime. Brilliant!
Yes, it’s come to this. How many Democratic voters are that far gone? I’m almost afraid to ask.
The woman is, in technical terms, nuts. She wants it to be an arrestable offense for parents to tell children, “No, you are not a different sex than what your external organs suggest, but if you still feel this way after you are old enough to know your ass from your elbow and have had a chance to think for yourself instead of being indoctrinated by your irresponsible teachers the LGTBQ activist mob, we can talk about this.” She’s a menace.
She also is unqualified to be a lawmaker, and worse, she is a totalitarian at heart, wanting to use the criminal system to intimidate citizens who don’t think as she wants them to. “It could be a felony, it could be a misdemeanor, but we know that CPS charge could harm your employment, could harm their education, because nowadays many people do a CPS database search before offering employment,” she has said.
No, you despicable fool, “it” is unconstitutional, and any reasonably well-educated college freshman not attending Yale should be able to determine that without breaking a sweat. Why do Democrats tolerate people like Guzman in their ranks? Why don’t voters read what Guzman says and think. “Oh-oh. Any party that has officials like this is dangerous”? I don’t know, but both Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va)—you know, Hillary’s VP— and Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D., Va.,) have campaigned with Guzman.
Once again I note: when these people show you what they are, believe them.
Ethics Alarms 
Reason #489 to home school. Skip the majority of the indoctrination and limit government/progressive contact with your children.
Guzman is a recent immigrant from El Salvador, who truly believes in the power of the central state. Her logic is, “that’s a nice little job we let you have there, it’d sure be a shame if something happened to it.”
jvb
She’s also a social worker, as is Katie Hobbs, the Democrat nominee for governor in Arizona. Social workers? Do we really want government employees who make a living making sure other people get access to all the free money governments are providing actually pulling and pushing the levers of government? Hell no!
Minor point, John, wiki says she’s from Peru, another Latin American Commie training ground.
“Social Work” is one of those professions, together with education and, to some extent, psychology, where I look upon the academic credentials we demand from its practitioners, and upon the corpus of knowledge those credentials are supposed to represent, and ask myself whether it’s all imposture.
300 years ago, surgery was considered a skilled trade, often practiced by barbers on the side for no better reason than that they owned a set of sharp knives and a chair that reclined. Today, surgeons can repair a fetal heart in-utero or reattach a severed hand to make it functional.
150 years ago, electrification was just beginning, and there was no profession of electrical engineering as such. Now we all carry powerful computers in our pockets that link us to the sum of human knowledge and individuals around the world.
Social work and teaching, as professions, aren’t much younger than electrical engineering. Where are the wonders wrought by their specialized knowledge that laymen couldn’t begin to grapple with?
That does not happen to be the case, certainly not “around the world”. At most, you are considering a subset. I for one have never, ever carried any sort of computer in my pockets, and there are things, even some important things, that only I know and that cannot be accessed in that way. And those are just the counter-examples I can most easily cite.
P.M. Do you carry a cell phone in your pocket? Have you ever toted around an HP calculator, like, oh say back in the ’80s? I’m pretty sure all those sorts of devices have more computing power than the computers they used on the Apollo moon missions. Your car’s chips probably fall into the same category.
No. The only mobile telephone I have or have ever had is a loaner, dedicated to providing internet access to this laptop I am using right now. It has never been on my person at all.
Not in my pockets. The only calculator of that sort I have ever had is a bulky one I kept in a bag with other study materials I used for my M.B.A., too bulky to go in a pocket. My MS-DOS laptop was what I mostly used, except during certain tests that only allowed calculators.
As the Viet Cong general told the U.S. general when the latter claimed they had never lost a battle in the Vietnam War, that is true but it is also irrelevant. I have never had any of those sorts of devices in my pockets than I have had any of the computers they used on the Apollo moon missions.
What car? Not that I have ever had a car in my pockets either, other than toys when I was little and small computers in toys weren’t invented.
You may not have been operated on in-utero, either, that hardly defeats the point I was making. You could carry one if you so chose. And while there are some things known to at least one human, that aren’t available to the public on the Internet, it’s not like those things would be found in a library, a museum, or a college course either. I think the scope of knowledge available on the Internet -I’m talking everything from the text of the Bible, to the specific heat of Gallium, to the price of eggs at Kroger – is sufficiently vast that omitting things like where you hid your spare house key doesn’t detract from the whole.
And that hardly defeats the point I was making. You are resting on “facts” that simply are not true. The only way I could do that is to give up internet access. Your reasoning is on a par with “if my uncle had tits he’d be my aunt”.
100% true and 100% irrelevant. I went to some trouble to write “… even some important things …” precisely in order to head off that sort of straw man making out that only trivia escape the net, so that your claim holds of everything material. The only counter-examples I can give of my own knowledge would – being important – take a lot of time, trouble and effort to get over. But have you never heard of trade secrets, weren’t there things once known to but a few that only became well known centuries later, and did not Assange’s material exist even before he got hold of it? Do you think that has stopped? There are important things that cannot be found in the ways you mention, even without considering unsolved mathematical problems and the like (in case you dismiss that as a special case – and you can go No True Scotsman that way for any counter-example). It is the important facts only I know that drew my attention to that, though I have to point you at others for a practical refutation (do a reckoning of not only unsolved crimes, but undetected ones – surprisingly, we can estimate those statistically).
I wonder how far these ideas would go in heavily Catholic, no time for nonsense Peru.
One scene that was cut from Blazing Saddles has the lady saying (in pitch darkness), “Oh, it’s twue, what they say about black people! It’s twue!”, to which the sheriff replies, “Lady, that’s my elbow”.
The late, great Madeline Kahn. I wonder if she ad libbed that. But sounds too much like a Mel Brooks line. Remember from Space Balls? “My, you have a big schvartz!”
Supporting a child’s gender decision requires an affirmative duty to do something to advance that decision. This law amounts to compelled speech. This is completely different than being compelled to provide food, safety and shelter for one’s offspring – which so many chose to let the government do for them.
Only by limiting the scope of such an asinine law to only families on public assistance can you argue that the government has any right to dictate familial values. Ironically it is those on public assistance who are most vocal about being told what to do by the government; and even then, the government has proven itself to be as inept as some parents. Furthermore, the safety issue directly contradicts the edict that a child must be given gender affirming support because the safety of the child requires parental overrides of minor children’s decisions.
When did gender come to mean sexual orientation. There are only two genders but all the letters other than I&T seem to appear to be related to sexual orientation and many of those are duplicative. Why do we have distinct categories for bisexuality, pansexuality and queer when the bottom line is they engage in sex with partners of either gender. Asexual persons are not sexually attracted to anyone. As near as I can tell it seems like everyone identifying as LGBTQ&A are simply gender non-discriminating in their choice of partners.
I understand that intersex persons have a specific physical makeup that does not permit the binary classification and I will allow that some adults are struggling with gender dysphoria and need whatever care is available, but these represent a tiny fraction of the population. Furthermore, until gender dysphoria can be directly attributed to physiological differences in the brain and endocrine system, why do we immediately resort to highly invasive, costly and irreversible care instead of helping these people attempt to understand why they feel the way they do first.
I cannot buy into the idea that so many kids suffer from feelings of being non-binary. This is especially true when so many kids will do some damn fool things to get the attention from their parents that they need but are not getting. Moreover, as a teen, it is easy to claim you are non-binary when you really don’t have to do much and so many will welcome you because of it. Being non-binary is today’s way standing out in the crowd and rebelling much like long teens have been doing for generations.
I would not be surprised if we learn sometime in the future that the social isolation associated with being addicted to technology, even those purporting to facilitate communication, were the root cause of so many young people today not having a solid sense of who they are in their own skin. I liken this to the fact that many obese people who drink diet drinks never lose weight because the aspartame tricks the brain that it is being fed in the immediacy causing it to release massive amounts of insulin reducing blood glucose levels. The brain needs glucose, so it causes people to consume more food than they might otherwise.
My sources:
https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/lgbtq/meaning-of-lgbtqia
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2016/11/22/aspartame-weight-gain/
Stupidity is unmeasurable and increasingly unrecognized.
A big societal problem. Probably bigger than undiagnosed and/or untreated mental illness.
This is a clear example of the power — and money — of the LBGTQ community. Apparently the LBGTQs comprise somewhere between 5 and 6 percent of the population. Are they really discriminated against these days? Abused? Nope. Just want the publicity, and the aspiration to be something other than just a part of a larger population,
It’s despicable to introduce young children to this issue. Parents can deal with this, and can make it clear, if necessary, that their children are accepted regardless of sexual orientation. If this comes up pre-adolescence, and it sometimes does, it is not up to schools to take this on. If a child goes outside the family on this issue, for whatever reason, there are agencies out there to help. Using LBGTQ as a propaganda tool is reprehensible.
Elected officials engaging in this sort of thing just proves they go where the money is, and end up really, really thoughtless and stupid as a result.
The camel’s nose getting into the tent? Is this why people weren’t thrilled about gay teachers in the classroom and in administration? Are all the anti-homosexual bigots standing up in their graves and saying, “I told you so?”
Chris Marschner, in his comment at 9:11 AM, has touched on a significant point: “I cannot buy into the idea that so many kids suffer from feelings of being non-binary. This is especially true when so many kids will do some damn fool things to get the attention from their parents that they need but are not getting. Moreover, as a teen, it is easy to claim you are non-binary when you really don’t have to do much and so many will welcome you because of it. Being non-binary is today’s way standing out in the crowd and rebelling much like long teens have been doing for generations.”
It’s normal for teenagers to push against the status quo, to be confused during hormone-added puberty, to be anxious about their developing bodies and to crave attention and approval.
Which is why they are being programmed by the faddish notions pushed by the Left and its allies in the news media and the entertainment industry (and, unfortunately, allies in science, medicine and education) to believe that this can all be fixed by mutilating their bodies before they’ve even really grown into them.
Their minds are still developing. We don’t let them enter into contracts, vote, joined the Armed Forces or drink alcohol/smoke tobacco until they are of age because young people don’t have the experience to really grasp the permanence such choices can have on their lives.
Just like the Little Leaguers, the Olympic hopefuls, the beauty pageant contestants, the cheerleaders, the World Record aspirants, the perpetual bike trippers and, yes, the child actors, their youth is being sacrificed because they have been led to believe the lie that what other people want is actually what they want.
I came to EA via a guest entry that our host wrote for “A Minor Consideration” – an organization founded by former child actor/singer Paul Petersen (Jeff on “The Donna Reed Show”) – which raises awareness about the problems experienced in the entertainment industry by young performers. One entry marked September 10, 1986 (I believe is misdated because there was no internet then) does a good job explaining how a child is manipulated into believing that what his parents want is what he wants. Please read the whole entry which is linked below but I have included the pertinent description
http://aminorconsideration.org/developing-problems/
“Kid Actors aren’t ‘born.’ They are ‘created’. When a child is born into a family that sets a large store in the affairs of the Entertainment Business, ooohs and ahhhs over celebrities, comments favorably on performances, dedicates a lot of time viewing movies and television shows, the child quickly learns that for approval it is a simple matter to like what your parents like. Given that parents (one or both) are often overboard in their attention to the performing arts you can see how the subtle (and not so subtle) molding of the child begins.
Seeking approval is a key feature of being a child….along with fearing abandonment and the fear of falling…and children are very quick to pick up the ‘vibes’.
Layered atop this fundamental reality is the very nature of the parent: (a) who sees in their child a true gift from God. Their child is the prettiest, most talented, smartest…etc.. The urge is to share that child with the world. ‘Oh, isn’t she cute?’ ‘Come on, Tommy. Sing that commercial for Uncle Paul.’ We’ve all heard it.
Seeking approval is a key feature of being a child….along with fearing abandonment and the fear of falling…and children are very quick to pick up the ‘vibes’.
Layered atop this fundamental reality is the very nature of the parent: (a) who sees in their child a true gift from God. Their child is the prettiest, most talented, smartest…etc.. The urge is to share that child with the world. ‘Oh, isn’t she cute?’ ‘Come on, Tommy. Sing that commercial for Uncle Paul.’ We’ve all heard it.
And the molding continues. Early in the child’s development certain things begin to happen…like lessons, or that ‘casual inquiry’ to the nearest agent. It is at this point that the nonsense begins, for if you ask a young performer they always say, ‘Oh, I’ve always wanted to be in Show Business.’ The fact is they have been programmed.”
I’m back. If a child can be programmed into believing that he’s always wanted to be in show business, why is it so incredible that a child can be programmed into believing that he is really a she or she is really a he based on how much stock Mon and Dad put into being open minded about gender narratives that are reinforced by the school, the media and celebrities? Especially when there is an industry that’s apparently set up to take money to block puberty and mutilate the sexual organs of developing children based upon feelings. “I’ve always been a he (or a she)” isn’t something any young child says in a vacuum.