[ Rose’s breast-baring at the White House will serve as the regular graphic accompanying this topic in the future, because it perfectly symbolizes the attitide of these activists toward the public,
The Tran Ethics Train Wreck was made official back in February, and in retrospect Ethics Alarms should have designated it much earlier. An ethics train wreck is a continuing and evolving situation involving ethics issues and dilemmas that entice anyone becoming involved in them to end up looking foolish at best, misguided at worst, and in between, subject to anger and abuse. Latest developments:
- The University of Wyoming’s Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority is being sued for allegedly changing the definition of ‘woman’ to accept a trans member, a biological male with equipment intact who is 6’2″ and 260lb. She has been accused of ogling her “sisters” with a full erection, among other issues. The suit alleges that the sorority’s leadership bullied and intimidated member to accept Artemis Langford. The current and altered sorority rules only require that a member “identify” as female. KKGs lawyers argue that the definition of “woman” has evolved since the sorority’s founding 150 years ago”The term (woman) is unquestionably open to many interpretations,” the sorority’s filing claimed. I question whether a law suit can prevail here, as clear as it seems that the complaining members were subjected to a bait-and switch. If they cannot get the sorority to agree to a policy they find tolerable, and if they really have been subjected to bullying, I suggest that they quit.
-
AMC Theaters canceled screenings of a documentary film showcasing the experiences of de-transitioning transsexuals following an aggressive campaign by a group called the Queer Trans Project which sends “Build-a-Queer kits” to “transitioning” LGBTQ+ individuals. The kits include chest binders and tucking tape The online activist group encouraged protesters to send letters to AMC executives to block the screening of the documentary titled “No Way Back: The Reality of Gender-Affirming Care.” The film shares the stories of five young transsexuals regretting their decision to cross gender lines as well as critical commentary from medical experts. Once AMC announced that it would not show the film, the group posted: “We did it! Our community’s swift action is a testament to the power of advocacy and the importance of raising our voices against harmful content. Your collective efforts have made a significant impact, and the decision to pull No Way Back from AMC theaters is a step towards fostering a more inclusive and respectful environment. Thank you for your dedication and commitment to creating positive change.” AMC claims that the decision was based entirely on poor advance ticket sales.
And absent leaked documents or emails, there is no way to determine which story is true, or if reality is some mixture of both. The activist group would try to take credit regardless the actual impact of its lobbying, and AMC would never admit to suppressing speech and art because of political pressure. - This doesn’t help: New Hampshire’s first transgender state representative, Stacie-Marie Laughton has been arrested and charged with multiple counts of distributing child sexual abuse images. Laughton’s girlfriend was also arrested on the same day on one count of sexual exploitation of children, and one count of distribution of child pornography. She was working at a daycare called Creative Minds and is accused of taking pictures of the children in her care.
That’s quite a role-model you have there, Trans World!
-
The International Swimming Federation (FINA) voted to revoke eligibility for transgender athletes seeking to compete based on “gender identity.” The new standards prohibit male athletes from competing as women if they went through male puberty.
“We have to protect the rights of our athletes to compete, but we also have to protect competitive fairness at our events, especially the women’s category at FINA competitions,” FINA President Husain Al-Musallam said. In addition, FINA is considering an “open” category for athletes to compete based on gender identity.
It has been reported in the press that measure was “overwhelmingly passed.” It received just 71.5% approval from the FINA Member Federations; I regard that as underwhelming, and ominous. It ought to have passed unanimously. The votes against it were based on politics and political correctness rather than proper concern for the integrity of women’s sports.
- “You will be assimilated! Resistance is futile!” Reduxx reports:
A female-only lesbian advocacy group in France was excluded from their local Pride parade on the basis that they did not allow the membership of trans-identified males. Femmes Entre Elles was labeled “transphobic” for restricting its advocacy to issues faced by women. Femmes Entre Elles, which translates to “Women Among Themselves,” is a single-sex association for lesbian and bisexual women that has operated for over 30 years. It has been involved in campaigns to support women’s sex-based rights and the rights of lesbian women. But on May 27, the group was informed via email that they were not welcome to participate in the annual Pride march in Rennes, which was held on June 17. Leading local LGBT center Iskis explained that the decision was made because Femmes Entre Elles did not welcome the membership of men who claim to be women.
- But I saved the best for last! LGBTQ activists participating in New York City’s annual Drag March last week chanted, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children!” in a Tompkins Square Park in the East Village as part of the city’s Pride Month celebrations.
Morons.
This is so incompetent and irresponsible that it would be unbelievable except that—well, look at Rose at the White House: that’s how this movement rolls. The chant was obviously some gay wag’s idea of satire, mocking the silly fears of those right-wing zealots like Ron DeSantis, except that there is substantial evidence that significant numbers in the LGTBQ community are “coming for” the children. How else should one interpret drag shows aimed at kids, or school lessons aimed at making non-heterosexual relations seem romantic and desirable, or legislation seeking to allow schools to push students toward gender confusion without informing parents or seeking their approval? “Oh come on, can’t you take a joke?” doesn’t work if there is substantial reason to believe it isn’t entirely facetious. I would strongly suggest that other advocacy groups pass on this strategy. “Sensible gun control” rallies would we wise not to chant, hilariously, “We want to confiscate your guns!” BLM marchers might want to reconsider the “You dominated us all these years, now it’s our turn!” mantra. Anti-abortion advocates should avid the “Women should be baby machines!” chorus. Climate change nuts should not chant in jest, “We’ll make you eat bugs!” Democrats should definitely stifle their “We’re going lock up you MAGA fascists and indoctrinate your kids!” gag.
Ethics Alarms 
Lefty’s LONG HISTORY Of Transphobia
‘GENDER TRANSITION’ REGRET Deserves A Voice, Says Former Patient
University TURNED DOWN Politically
Incorrect Transgender Research
My I WOULD HAVE BEEN A TRANS Story
My PERSONAL FAVE? Govvy Gavvy gettin’ b!tchslapped int the cheap seats:
If Men Could GET PREGNANT This Wouldn’t Even Be A Conversation
What’s happening around us is quite absurd and the Trans Ethics Train Wreck is just one small piece of the puzzle. As far as I’m concerned there is an epidemic level of absurdities infecting our society and it’s getting harder and harder to be able to reasonably predict a positive outcome on the other end of this absurd cultural upheaval.
Last Item: As I said on Legal Insurrection where I first saw this, only one person chants, “We’re coming for your children”, one time, the rest are chanting “We’re not going shopping”. Weird slogan, but it’s what they’re saying.
Apparently reports vary.
“We’re not going shopping” is obvious satire, and can’t be translated as a threat. It means, “Don’t take us lightly.
I’d be surprised if just one chanter could prompt this kind of response.
https://nypost.com/2023/06/25/drag-queens-chanting-were-coming-for-your-kids-hurt-gay-rights/
I get what the writer is saying, unfortunately, he is missing one key point. Yes, a lot of movements for various changes contain large numbers of or even majorities of people who just want as he says “a seat at the table.”. However, frequently that’s not enough to move the needle. So, the movements rely on the radicals who want to “turn the table over,” to get any change at all. The problem is, that quite often doing that means you create a monster that will go farther than you want to go, become counterproductive, and become very hard to stop. Once that happens, there’s a good chance that the other side will come roaring back to undo whatever was done before.
The fact is that the same innate fairness that led this country to accept the redefinition of marriage pretty quickly also leads this country to hate bullies and those who enable them. The mainstream media is now squawking about arise of anti-LGBT hate and white supremacy. The media is also squawking about “Christian nationalism” and “institutionalized ignorance.” I have to ask, “why are you surprised?”
The bell can only swing so far before it is rung, and then it swings back toward the other side, until it rings on that side as well. I warned 6 years ago that the creation of and reliance on all kinds of identity politics would lead to white identity politics one day. I warned that going beyond fair into the absurd and the disgusting would eventually turn mainstream America against the LGBT agenda. A bunch of us here said 3 years ago that defunding the police was an absurd idea and would create far more problems than it would solve. How many assault, robbery, arson, and even murder victims have paid the price of proving us right? I didn’t warn about this in so many words, but some, maybe even a large number of people, are smart enough and wise enough to eventually figure out that they are not being asked to help those who need help, they are being asked to conquer themselves. In a lot of ways it is a bait and switch, but whose fault is it if you fall for the bait and switch? Someone compared being a race or gender or whatever “ally” to joining a religion, but pointed out that most religions at least promise redemption or salvation. Allyship promises nothing at all and I think a lot of folks are catching on to that. It’s just a question if enough catch on fast enough for next year.
Gamereg wrote, “only one person chants, “We’re coming for your children””
That’s simply a false claim.
From what I could hear using a pair of studio quality pair of headphones, the entire crowd chanted the phrase and you can read the lips of many of the participants.
You making a claim that it was only chanted once is an absurd claim after hearing the crowd enthusiastically chant it in that 21 second video; however, the 21 second video cuts off before any more of the same chant could be heard. If you honestly think that just because you didn’t hear the same chant more than once in the video then that’s proof that they never chanted it before or after that 21 second video then your absurdly naïve and you haven’t a clue what goes on in these kind of mob chanting sessions.
So I listened to it with my left earphone in my right ear, and I think I could hear more than one person on the “we’re coming for your children”. I see what you mean about the lips, the person in the black suit and necktie on the right is not the primary speaker but seems to be mouthing “coming for your children” rather than “not going shopping.”
Thanks for your reply and reexamining the video.
Query: Why does Rose get all the attention? She covered her boobs with her hands. The person on her left is truly bare-breasted. Who is she and why does she get a pass. Or why aren’t her nipples pixilated or whatever the correct term is for digitally hidden?
I want to tackle this, because I saw online that Rose had basically said that the uproar about their chest and not the chest of the person beside them was evidence that we thought that Rose was a woman and the other person was male.
I mean… It probably feels very affirming to think like that, and I understand why they took that track…
But if someone wanted to become a unicorn and had a penis surgically adhered to their forehead, their forehead wouldn’t just be a forehead anymore. And displaying their forehead without some kind of penis-covering would probably lewd. That says nothing about their gender, or their state of being, only that the plastic surgery they’ve undertaken has approximated something society deems lewd.
Which doesn’t really answer the question above about the bare, unblurred chest of the person beside Rose, who has surgically had their breasts removed. Is removing organs the complete reverse of adding them? I’m honestly not sure. If instead of a woman’s breasts, had a man had his penis cut off and plasticed into an approximation of a living Ken doll (no apparent organs at all, the mechanics of that be damned) I’m not sure what the response would be to that person flashing his nothing at people. It’s probably still offensive, but I’m not sure it’s lewd in quite the same way.
I think Rose’s chest got attention because it’s a nice rack, and nameless person’s chest scars didn’t illicit comment because no one cared. It’s like the definition of pornography: I know it when I see it.
HT,
Generally, I find your comments/posts enlightening and insightful. This comment, though, hurt my head. Why is Rose referred to as “they/them”? Is Rose one person? Two persons? Multiple persons? Does gender identity also include numerical identity, as well? Is gender identity, then, a form of schizophrenia?
If Rose is a she, then why not refer to her as “she/her”? This whole pronoun nonsense is simply too confusing and silly to follow. Writing, as opposed to James Joyce and/or Hemingway, is supposed to provide information, context, and messages. Trying to figure out who, what, where, when, why, and how in modern vernacular is the exact opposite of clarity.
jvb
I respect your intelligence too much to let you don the robes of purposeful obtuseness. You know what I meant, and you understood what I wrote.
But you want me to write it out? Fine. For Rose, “she” might be most appropriate, because it’s what Rose prefers. But this is a political conversation, and it feels like giving up to use “she”. But “he” seems kind of rude and tone deaf to my 38 year old ears. “They” seems like an acceptable compromise, especially since, despite protestations and pearl clutching to the contrary, there are acceptable uses of the singular “they”, particularly in the context of not knowing someone’s gender.
An example:
A) “I talked to the Amazon rep about our issue today.”
B) “Awesome, what did they say?
Why don’t people completely drop the use of pronouns and reword their sentences to use the person’s name? I’m not perfect at it and I forget sometimes but that’s what I’ve been endeavoring to do.
But what do I know?
But, HT, I am not engaging inobtusery or jackwadery. I am stating that thr current trend to refer to single individuals as plurals is stultifying and incoherent.
jvb
Except when it’s not.
Again… I can give examples of “they” used as singular use pronouns all day.
A) “Do you know who your interviewer is?”
B) “No, I hope they’re nice.”
A) “Pizza Delivery sure is late”
B) “They’ll get here when they get here.”
The examples get a little derivative from there, because there aren’t many situations where someone’s gender is unclear, but I could do this all day. I am fairly sure, at some point in your recent history, you have used a singular they and just not realized you did it.
Pretending that “they” is a universally plural pronoun doesn’t have the benefit of truth. And it’s a bloody stupid hill to die on because the examples to the contrary are so obvious.
Another day and another example where Humble Talent still hasn’t learned when to simply walk away from a conversation where someone disagrees with his opinion and instead HT starts building his own “bloody stupid hill to die on”. Life is all about choices. When will HT climb down off his high horse and learn to say something very simple like “I disagree” and move on or say nothing at all?
Zoltar, the moment someone who’s opinion I value tells me that, I just might do it.
In the meantime, if I wanted your opinion, I’d throw a quarter in a bad opinions machine.
Humble Talent aka Jeff wrote, “…the moment someone who’s opinion I value tells me that, I just might do it.”
Actually, I don’t believe that statement from you is even close to being truthful. The pattern I’ve seen from you is that as soon as someone starts to get under your skin, disagrees with you and has the audacity to tell you or suggests that you should do something you ride the rails right over the edge, say something like “get bent”, no longer value their opinion, hold a grudge forever, and try to smear them at every turn with direct and indirect insults to their intelligence.
How dare someone get under your skin, disagree with you and/or give you suggestions.
You know I’m right HT so don’t try to deny it.
Humble Talent wrote, “…if I wanted your opinion, I’d throw a quarter in a bad opinions machine.”
I don’t care one bit if you don’t want my opinion, get over yourself. You’ll get my opinion when I think it’s warranted., It’s entirely your choice to let my opinion get under your skin and cause you to react the way you do. Again; climb down off your high horse and learn to say something very simple like “I disagree” and move on or say nothing at all? Life is all about choices. Choose differently.
Your continuing “bloody stupid hill to die on” with me has gone on long enough. Let it go and…
Give it a rest.
Zoltar… Fuck off.
I have no idea why you feel the need to insert yourself like this, but if at any point you would like the conversation to end, you have the ability not to participate.
In the meantime. I know this confuses you and drives you… But I think your position is wrong. I disagree with it. I will argue against it. I also think you’re a retard and there’s no use actually engaging with you, because you’ll invariably end up telling me that I’m wrong, calling me a name, and posting a definition from urban dictionary that you think proves your point.
I will never suffer your idiocy unmolested. I will, 100% of the time, tell you exactly what I think about you, which is that you are everything wrong with conservatism and too stupid to type and breathe at the same time. I will paint the canvas of those themes colorfully, with vulgarity, because I find you boring, but I find the exercise fun.
And you can avoid all this! You can avoid it all by not talking to me. Like I’ve asked you not to. So many fucking times.
Oh, this is delicious!
jvb
Earlier I wrote, “The pattern I’ve seen from you is that as soon as someone starts to get under your skin, disagrees with you and has the audacity to tell you or suggests that you should do something you ride the rails right over the edge”
Then I wrote, “Give it a rest.”
Then the above comment spewed forth.
A while back HT wrote “nothing pushes my buttons and encourages me to dig in like someone telling me to drop it”.
Get professional help HT.
I rest my case.
And just for blistering clarity Zol –
“The pattern I’ve seen from you is that as soon as someone starts to get under your skin, disagrees with you and has the audacity to tell you or suggests that you should do something you ride the rails right over the edge, say something like “get bent”, no longer value their opinion, hold a grudge forever, and try to smear them at every turn with direct and indirect insults to their intelligence.”
That has happened exactly twice – With you, and with Alizia.
That’s not a pattern. The pseudonym “Humble Talent” is ironic, you seem like someone who needs something like that spelled out. I’m humble enough to admit when I’m wrong, which has happened, but I’m talented enough that it doesn’t come up very often.
The pattern is that when someone says that I’m wrong, I try to engage in good faith… At least until I think that the other person isn’t. Jack and I disagree, and while I’m very open that I think his hang-ups around marijuana mimic a modern day temperance movement, I think we generally get along well. I’ve argued with Tex, with Ryan, with Steve. Famously Steve. Epically Steve. And yet, we’re still pretty civil. You should consider the implications of that. Maybe this is a you-problem and you can’t tell me to “drop it” out of existence.
I’m a generous mirror, Zol, I give out what I get, and then some. The pattern when someone disagrees with me is that I’ll sometimes point out that their position is silly, untenable, unrealistic or otherwise lame. I enjoy the debate. I’m rough with it, but I think I’m fair, and your experience is not typical.
Because you are untypically stupid. What’s frightening about you is how oblivious you are to your own failings. You honestly think I’m doing you dirty here, when you don’t even have the class or respect to leave me alone. I asked you nicely. Then I started to be assertive, and then aggressive. I’m hostile now. I admit it. You deserve it.
And my last comment on this before leaving, so long as there are no further replies…
“Give it a rest.”
“Let it go.”
“Drop it.”
You fucking hypocrite, take your own damn advice.
Drop it. Let it go. Give it a rest. Fuck off. Leave me alone.
There is zero scientific evidence for any human genders other than male and female. The current iteration of this gender ideology is nothing more than a belief system based on faith. The believers have a right to their own beliefs, but they have no right to force their beliefs down other people’s throat.
In my opinion, the idea that a human can have a catgender, a gender that changes by the hour, a gender that resembles the sun, sky or moon, or any of the other gender variations being added to the list, is asinine. Gender ideology is roughly equivalent to flat earther beliefs. I would believe that alien lizards are running the planet before I would believe a human ended up with a cat’s brain.
People are free to believe whatever they want, including that other people’s beliefs are stupid. If someone chooses to believe they are a cat, I am totally within my rights to think they are dumber than a box of rocks and refuse to play along.
There is no such thing as gender fluid. There is no such thing as non-binary. There is no such thing as catgender. It might be unethical to openly mock such beliefs, but it is not unethical to refuse to participate. It is physically impossible to change from one sex to another, and it is not unethical to refuse to play pretend with people.
No amount of bullying non-believers is ethical.
I agree with your points, Null*. The Left, and it is the Left more than those with gender issues, wants to embrace social confusion as truth to sow social discord and destroy the fabric of organized society. The Left has declared that there is no objective truth – either moral, ethical, social, philosophical or theoretical – and that all things are relative. To embrace an objective truth is to prejudice or discriminate against someone’s lived truth. substituting experience for truth. The end result is societal schizophrenia.
jvb
*Ed. Note: The author of this comment is a doofus. He has been reprimanded. Repeatedly and often. He thinks he is much funnier than he actually is. Go figure.
I think this is true, although I’m not so sure it is the left so much as the ruling class and crazy people. Maybe that is redundant. It’s a divide and conquer strategy to warp elections and assert control, but the rulers of both “sides” seem to think they benefit. I guess they have backup plans for when the country goes belly up.
Blanket lawfare is probably the only thing that is going’s to put a stop to this rampant nonsense. Carpet bombing the courts with lawsuits seems more likely to achieve results than letting idiot politicians pass laws they know are unconstitutional or worthless for votes and fundraising. The political class is a useless seething mass of corruption and greed, so expecting them to do anything sensible is a fool’s errand.
I’m not sure anything is going to make society less schizophrenic, though. A toxic combination of 4th wave industrial revolution and corrupt government is going to do what it does best: make a mess.
NP, evidently you’ve got it backwards: teaching genetics is in fact teaching religion!
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/06/biology-professor-allegedly-fired-for-teaching-that-sex-is-determined-by-x-and-y-chromosomes/
Gender ideologues are zealots of the highest order. They will be burning non-believers at the stake before long. Whack jobs. All of them.
Last item reminded me of a satirical trolling (nicely played, IMO) tweet a couple of months back from one identifying as “Carpe Donktum”:
“As a 3rd grade teacher, I often talk about Jesus with my students, they are so excited to hear about my faith. They point to the cross on wall and ask me about the resurrection.
Some have gotten baptized in the sink, as long as they don’t tell their parents. It’s our secret.”
Poe’s law coming into play, many who responded thought it was a real claim.
The LGBTQ Drag participant chant is nothing new. In 1933 all youth organizations in Germany were brought under the control of the Reich Youth Leader and designated as “Hitler Youth.” They too came for the children….
On the Kappa Kappa Gamma case…
My understanding, and it’s probably not a great understanding, because I have no practical experience with “Greek Life”, but my understanding is that part of the problem the girls in the sorority are facing is that once accepted into KKG, they were precluded from applying to other sororities. So now that they’ve been bait-and-switched into KKG, they can quit, but they can’t quit and join another sorority.
I mean, this is almost meaningless to me, I think Greek Life is an entirely overblown phenomenon, but those girls thought it was important to them, and there does seem to be a correlation between sorority membership and good outcomes (although I tend to think that the kind of people who are going to experience good outcomes might disproportionately join sororities.).
HT: I was in a fraternity (as with much good fiction, Animal House is in large measure grounded in reality 😉 ). and I found the situation, as described, confusing. Using the term “Sorority” for the organization writ large is itself awkward, as the individual chapter is also commonly just called
“the sorority”. Other links referenced “fraternity”, which is an archaic 19th reference from before such were differentiated male/female. It was unclear, at times, as to whether they were talking about chapter or national leadership, members/pledges, etc., and who, exactly did what and when.
Going a few links into the articles reached this: https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/03/28/women-sue-university-of-wyoming-sorority-for-accepting-transgender-member/ which makes things a bit more clear.
As best as I can tell now, it appears that the chapter leadership (pushed by the national organization as well as their own wokeness) pressured (including using a non-secret voting procedure) newer members, who had joined expecting a female-only sorority, to vote to accept Langford. and these members are the ones who have called foul. If their complaint is accurate, it also seems Langford is gaming the system.
This whole “trans” movement is quite absurd.
Personally, like other lifestyle choices, I just don’t give a damn what “trans” people choose to do to their bodies or what they choose as a lifestyle after they become adults. If they want to act like absurd abnormal fools in public throughout their lives, that too is their individual choice.
As with most actions of abnormal and socially extreme people in the 21st century, these people are intentionally trying to bait their opposition into reacting in negative ways so they can socially condemn them and somehow use those reactions to justify their own abnormal behaviors. These people are not rational, they are delusional, don’t bite!
Those that are “trans” are clearly abnormal (read the link I just provided so you know what I mean when I write abnormal) and many in the trans community appear to be narcissistic psychological freaks that choose to mutilate their bodies and some dress up like overly emphasized and sometimes cartoonish caricatures of the opposite sex. This abnormal behavior, like so many behaviors of the 21st century social justice woke, is absolutely absurd. These people are clearly obsessed exhibitionists, they’re abnormal societal rejects trying to normalize their abnormal behaviors across society.
When it comes to trans people chemically or surgically changing their bodies to reflect their abnormal minds; in my opinion, self mutilation is their choice, their consequences and I refuse to pay one red cent out of my pocket towards their self mutilation obsession via insurance or any other social or government subsidized support program that psychologically or financially enables self mutilation. I’m also opposed to paying for voluntary cosmetic surgery. They can do whatever they want to their natural bodies after they become legal adults but they have absolutely no right to the dollars in my pocket to satisfy their abnormal self mutilation obsessions.
Activist parents supporting the trans community that choose to take their impressionable youth to “trans” events appear to me to be intentionally trying to psychologically manipulate their children into seeing abnormal behaviors as normal behaviors. These parents are fools and their social activism will likely back-fire in the long run. Tolerance is one thing, indoctrination is quite another. Trans persons intentionally exposing their abnormal behaviors to children as if their behavior is “normal” is the epitome of indoctrination.
Critically thinking parents should try to avoid exposing their children to these abnormal trans people until the children are clearly mature enough to understand that trans persons are not normal and some appear to be narcissistic psychological freaks that choose to mutilate their natural bodies. Parents should prepare themselves to have some really hard conversations with their children and don’t be afraid to oppose the woke crowd and be politically incorrect.
Lastly; parents of children that express that they are psychologically a gender that is anatomically opposite of their genetic body and want to become, or live as, the opposite gender (I personally know a family like this) must remember that they are in a no-win situation. The mind of their child is functioning abnormally and how they react to that abnormal behavior has consequences. The choices these parents make, no matter what the choices are, will directly and indirectly affect everyone in the family and there is nothing they can do to change that fact. Get plenty of psychological help for the entire family and try to make wise choices knowing full well that no matter what choices they make there will be people in our society that will adamantly oppose them.