Alex Jones WRONG on Pope Francis and Jesus's "Failure"

I've been an active listener to the Alex Jones Show for many years. I enjoy listening to him, he is a good speaker, and has a lot of good information. But in his attempt to "tell it like it is", he has woefully misrepresented the pope. Look, I don't agree with the pope on a lot of issues, especially economic ones. But I will not say the pope is satanic like Alex Jones is claiming. Get your facts straight Alex!

I understand that Alex Jones wants to be unfiltered and politically incorrect, and usually I applaud such an approach. But this time he has taken a few things he legitimately doesn't like about Pope Francis and turned them into something monstrous. One of his recent issues was during a speech by the Holy Father in which the pontiff said the following:

We can get caught up measuring the value of our apostolic works by the standards of efficiency, good management and outward success which govern the business world.
Not that these things are unimportant!
We have been entrusted with a great responsibility, and God’s people rightly expect accountability from us.
But the true worth of our apostolate is measured by the value it has in God’s eyes.
To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility.
The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.
Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.
And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus… and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.

Some people, such as Alex Jones have taken this to mean the pope is saying Jesus Christ failed in his salvific work on the cross. But nothing could be further from the truth. This is a clear example of purposeful defamation. It is obvious from the context what the pope is saying here. He is simply saying what Christians have said for centuries - to the outside world, to humanly standards, by being scourged, then crucified on the cross, Jesus seemingly failed, just as our efforts sometimes seem to fail. We as Christians know the difference. However, this apparent failure was indeed a great success for humanity. We were now saved from the eternal consequences of sin, because Christ died for our sins, so that we could have everlasting life.

Pope Francis isn't the first person to say this. St. Paul said something very similar IN THE BIBLE: In 1 Corinthians 1:18-25, St. Paul says the following:

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside.”
20 Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
21 * For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.
22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Pope Francis is simply making the same point. To the outside observer, Christ's death on the cross is the ultimate sign of failure, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. To the non-Christian, in a human sense, Christ failed. This is what both Paul and the pope are saying.

For Alex to use this as "proof" that the pope is satanic is beyond the pail.

Bill Nye is WRONG about Abortion

Lately it seems Bill Nye has become the "go-to guy" for anything related to science, even though he's not even a real scientist, and even if the topic is more about philosophy than science. First of all, he is a mechanical engineer. No one ever calls an engineer a scientist. Anyway, he recently released a video about abortion for Big Think.

He is wrong on virtually every point. Many of his statements will leave any educated person wondering how someone who even pretends to be a scientist could make them. I will break down what he says one-by-one to show how utterly absurd his statements are:

1. Many many many hundreds more eggs are fertilized for each that becomes a human.
Where does this information come from? It's a complete exaggeration. It is estimated that around 40-65% of conceptions end in miscarriage. Bill Nye is off by hundreds of times. It's more like 50/50.

2. If you're going to say after an egg has been fertilized it has the same rights as an individual, then whom are you going to sue/imprison? Every woman who has had a fertilized egg pass through her? Every guy whose sperm fertilized an egg then didn't become a human? Have all these people failed you? It's just a reflection of a deep scientific misunderstanding.
Not even sure where to begin with this one. Bill asks a rhetorical question. The question itself is very unclear. Who is being sued? And for what? I'm not even sure his question. But the point is no one has killed an embryo or fetus that miscarries. If a person naturally dies, no one is sued. It's a simple open and shut case. So how does he jump from that to saying this reflects a deep scientific misunderstanding? About what? We've already established that it is he who has deep scientific understanding since he knows nothing about human reproduction. He also seems to have no understanding of law, murder, or anything related to those.

3. He continues to say pro-lifers have a deep-seated scientific misunderstanding, then says "we should leave it to women". Then he says "we have a lot of men of European descent (another way of saying white) passing these laws based on scientific ignorance.
First of all, the makeup of the pro-life movement is about 50/50 men and women. There are probably more laws passed by men simply because there are more male lawmakers. Non-whites are also more pro-life on average than whites. So Bill is wrong on both counts. Not surprised. And the only scientific misunderstanding I have observed so far is Bill's.

4. It's based on your interpretation of a book written "5000 years ago, 50 centuries ago".
I can only assume he is talking about the Bible here, since this is a continuation of his previous statements about men of European descent. Once again, he is completely wrong. Doesn't seem there's been a single correct statement in this entire video so far. On a side-note, why does Bill constantly use code words. "European descent" instead of white, "Book written 5000 years ago" instead of Bible. Maybe it's so that later he can claim he was talking about something else. It's also interesting that he repeats the alleged age of this book in two different ways. The bottom line is the oldest book of the Bible, according to scholars, was written no more than about 800BC, meaning the Bible is at most 2800 years old.

Also, Bill implies that the only reason people are pro-life is because the Bible tells them to be. Well, the Bible also condemns murder in the 5th commandment. Does this mean people only believe that because it's in the Bible? Why did so many other systems of ethics also condemn abortion, including in Ancient Greece, Japan, India, etc? Did they also have access to the Bible?

5. Then it gets absurd. Bill Nye seems to say some people think this "book" as he calls it, tells people every time you have sex you have a baby, and somehow the laws reflect this.
It's difficult to address sheer lunacy. The Bible doesn't say that, and laws don't reflect that. Case closed.

6. "Nobody likes abortion."
My question whenever someone says this or a variant of it is "why not?" If the fetus has no rights, is not human but a clump of cells, then why would anyone care about abortion? Unless he's simply saying people don't particular enjoy going to clinics for medical procedures?

7. "You can't tell her what to do. She has rights over this. Especially if she doesn't like the guy who got her pregnant."
So we can't tell women they can't kill their child? Then by extension, laws are a violation of privacy in general. And the comment about not liking the guy? What if she stops liking him a few weeks or a few months later, does this child's life then go from safe to in danger? Plus, if this logic holds up, then if a mother doesn't like the father of a child who is now 4 moths old, why can't she just kill this child then also?
He also mentions rape. Rape is a terrible crime and ought to be persecuted. But having an abortion after a rape doesn't erase the rape, it just creates a new victim. It's also false that women are reminded of their rape every time they see their child. The opposite is true, women see the baby as something good that came from a tragedy.

8. We have so many more important things to be dealing with. To squander resources on this issue, on "bad science", from this lack of understanding, it's very frustrating.
Oh yeah, like what? Is there something happening where more people are killed than the 55 million since 1973 Roe vs. Wade in the US, or the almost 2 BILLION worldwide? Please Bill Nye, enlighten us as to the greater tragedy than this.
What resources are being "squandered"? If each abortion costs an average of $1000, that's almost $2 trillion that has been squandered in the last 40 years. Again, is the pro-life movement wasting more than this?
Also, Bill keeps going back to what he calls "bad science". But the "bad science" is just his original mistake, which logically wouldn't make a difference anyway. Even if he were right about 100 miscarriages per born baby, that wouldn't make killing a person okay.

9. You wouldn't know how big a human egg was if it weren't for microscopes, if it weren't for scientists. So you shouldn't make assertions about abortion because that's scientific and you don't accept science because you reject what I said above.
I sort of paraphrased. But Bill Nye's entire point rests on the idea that he presented some kind of scientific truth (which turns out to be totally false) and therefore if you claim to use science, you have to accept what he said and be pro-choice. Again, makes little to no sense. His information is patently wrong, and therefore should not be believed. But even if he were correct, his conclusion does not follow and is illogical.

10. Recommending abstinence has been completely ineffective.
Shockingly he does not provide evidence for this assertion. But I fail to see how it's even related. Whatever method works best for preventing pregnancy is one thing. Once the female is pregnant, that's another story altogether. So it really is unrelated.

11. Not giving women access to birth control and abortion has not been an effective way to healthier societies. I think we all know that.
Well, reducing abortion is clearly healthier for some members of society. Plus, abortion does not treat a medical ailment. It subjects a healthy woman to an unnecessary procedure. Giving access o birth control doesn't really seem to help much at all. Look at research by Edward Green of Harvard University.

12. I understand you have deeply held beliefs ... but I encourage you to look at the facts.
Again, Nye goes back to the idea that anti-abortion people arbitrarily base their ideas on the Bible, and in reality it's just a matter of opinion. But there are also groups of pro-life atheists which disproves this theory. But this part is very patronizing. It implies that while he "looks at the evidence", pro-lifers just blindly follow a doctrine that has no scientific basis, which is false.

13. We are now critical of the term "fact-based".
First I heard about this. Again, he just sets up a straw-man argument here, that pro-lifers don't listen to the facts, while he, on the other hand, is a logical, unemotional, rational entity who does.

14. I encourage you not to tell women what to do, and to not pursue these laws which are really in nobody's best interest.
Again, we tell people what to do all the time. To be consistent, he would have to advocate an end to all laws. Secondly, laws which prevent abortion are certainly in the best interest of many people, especially the unborn.

Conclusion:
Overall, Bill Nye presents a fact-less emotional diatribe directed at those he believes to be inferior to him. He consistently tells everyone to "check the facts", yet provides few himself and what he does present are completely false. If Bill were a true scientist (which he isn't), he would tell people that by the time a woman decides to have an abortion the embryo has a heartbeat and brainwaves, has its entire genetic code, is a unique individual. The only thing he/she needs is nutrition and time. To kill such a person is murder, and it's not just because it's in the Bible. We also must have compassion for women who have undergone abortion. Many were unaware of the gravity of their actions and we must pray for them.

Is the Pope Too Approachable?

The pope spoke at Congress today in the US. This is the first time a pope has ever spoken there. At work I only have access to our official propaganda machine known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It broadcasts leftist viewpoints to Canadians and receives over a billion dollars to do it. So, as expected, the only “highlights” of the pope’s speech involves him saying we have to accept immigrants and global warming will destroy the planet. Also, allegedly he mentioned something about weapons manufacturing and how that is evil or something. But they didn’t give any details.

So I have a few fears here. The first is how the pope is presenting himself. Common politicians speak in front of congress, not the Prince of the Apostles. I can already hear the objectors: “But the pope is a servant! He’s humble, so why can’t he present himself here!” It’s not about him personally. It’s about his office. That’s why there is so much pomp and pageantry surrounding the pope in general. It’s to indicate who he is. He’s the Vicar of Christ, not some average Joe Schmo. He’s the unifying element of the entire faith throughout the world. I think the pope ought to be much more discriminating when it comes to where and to whom he speaks. Otherwise, he risks watering down his image to that of some random politician from a foreign country.

The other fear is that Pope Francis is notorious for making statements off the cuff and for saying things which seem to contradict Catholic doctrine. Inevitably, spokespeople or the pope himself will issue clarifications. This is one of the dangers of being too laid back and casual in one’s approach.

I will not right now focus on the content of what the pope allegedly said at Congress. I will address that later. I am right now just referring to his casual papacy and the dangers it can cause. I think he must be very careful!

The pope today canonized Junípero Serra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jun%C3%ADpero_Serra

Pope Francis is in America now: My Concerns

So Pope Francis has arrived in the United States, He landed in Andrews Air Force Base in Washington DC to be precise. He'll also be visiting New York and Philadelphia during his 6 day trip. He will also be speaking at the United Nations in New York City.

It's really great that the pope has finally come to America. I'm in Canada, but this is as close as he's ever been to my country.

I am somewhat concerned about this pope. Every time he speaks, his apologists come out in droves saying "oh no, he didn't really mean what he said. he in fact meant the opposite." No one seemed to have to do this much with Pope Benedict.

Some people attribute this to the liberal media trying to put words in the pope's mouth which advance their cause, but why didn't this happen before? Again, no one put words in Pope Benedict's mouth except bad ones. So why, all of a sudden, are they using the new pope to push their agenda?

Often, papal apologists will say you have to put the pope's words into context. But even after reading the context, I still find the words troubling in some ways. There are many examples. From telling people they don't need to "breed like rabbits" at a time when Catholics are not even reproducing enough to keep the population going.

Or doing things like accepting a hammer and sickle shaped into a cross with Jesus on it. Vatican spokespeople will clarify these gaffs by essentially removing the pope's agency and saying he will pretty much accept anything. Are we to believe the Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Christ is incapable of standing up for himself? As a cardinal, he wore red to signify his willingness to die for his faith, but now that he's wearing white we are meant to believe he is not even willing to refuse a distasteful gift?

I believe the pope is the Vicar of Christ. I do not believe the See of Peter is empty or any other such thing. The Church will continue and the Holy Spirit will protect it from error. But should the pope even be speaking to the public as often as he does? I understand that he wants to cultivate a very approachable and loving image, but I think it can go too far. It's like the more you say, the less serious people take each word. In my opinion, the pope should mainly issue papal decree and be very careful about every utterance. We can already see the damage that he is happening from misinterpretations.

But it's not all bad. The pope has forcefully spoken against abortion, and even transgenderism. He has spoken rightfully about our duty to protect our fellow man and our need to care for the poor. Try as they might, the pope will never fit neatly into a Liberal soundbite.

But even the good things the pope has spoken against seem to lack something in my opinion. They lack the concept of individual holiness. He seems to focus instead of societal ills as he sees them. He appears to think of people in groups rather than as individuals. He even seems to oppose inanimate objects or concepts like air conditioning or economies of scale. In another post I will address the pope's economic theories and ideas. But I will briefly say with this topic too, instead of advocating personal responsibility, the pope seems to criticize an entire system of economics.

I hope this trip of the pope proves fruitful, but I am somewhat fearful that it will simply be exploited by the liberal media and institutions for their own purposes.

SHOCKING: Men and Women are Different!

There is a persistent myth being perpetrated by feminists that men and women should be exactly alike. This philosophy could be seen this past Friday when three sisters decided to ride through Kitchener Ontario topless. Everyone knows men and women are not alike, but feminists try to convince us otherwise. This all comes from a faulty understanding of equality. First of all, we are not equal in many ways. I find many modern-day philosophies are about simplifying concepts without nuance or distinction. Many socialists believe in “income equality”. Then they go around looking for any inequality in income and cry foul. They don’t consider the fact that the economy is rewarding the activities of some people and not others. They don’t consider that some people work long, hard hours, while others do very little. They see the simplistic inequality and that’s enough.

Same goes for sexuality issues. To any normal person, women’s bodies above the waist are much more sexualized than men’s. Part of the reason we wear clothes at all in western society is for modesty. This is such an important reason that it trumps every other purpose. Even if you are extremely warm you would never take off your pants in public. If you did you would be arrested. It’s not as if it’s not warm enough. In fact, during the summer in many places you could probably be fairly comfortable wearing nothing all day. Yet our norms about sexuality do not allow this and most normal people are embarrassed about walking around naked.

The fact is our bodies are different. The fact that this needs to be stated is surprising, but apparently it does. Also, men’s and women’s reactions to bodies of the opposite sex are different as well. As mentioned before, women’s bodies are much more sexual than men’s. A man not wearing a top will illicit much less sexual desire and stimulation in general than a woman doing the same. The fact is, everyone knows this. It is only brought into question by people who believe that rather than discovery human nature, it is our job to create and modify it to our liking. This has disastrous outcomes because God created us a certain way and if we try to act against it we only end up hurting ourselves. I might “decide” that I can live on just drinking Pepsi and nothing else. But this will have obvious negative consequences. I can protest as much as I like, I can join pro-Pepsi groups, but the reality will still hit me.

Another thing is how easily people dismiss cultural norms without ever investigating where they came from or what purpose they serve. I recently watched an episode of VSauce which briefly touched on the idea that people wear clothes to protect and hide their sexuality from the public which promotes monogamy and ordered sexual relationships. I don’t have a thorough or full answer to the purpose of clothes at this moment, but suffice it to say, there are true and valid reasons which developed over millennia.

As a side note, I find it funny that these women have Muslim-sounding names (last name Mohammed). In general, that religion seems more concerned about modesty than most, yet these women seem to have none.

 

One Step Closer to Destroying Marriage on a Civil Level

There’s been a lot of hoopla over five American Supreme Court justices deciding there is a right to gay marriage contained within the constitution. As Justice Scalia pointed out, finding things like this in the constitution somewhere is essentially legislating from the bench. Clearly the Founding Fathers did not see any such right and did not believe that marriage was some amorphous concept that should incorporate all definitions. In any event, the job of the supreme court is not to create legislation, but to interpret existing legislation in the face of challenges. This is not what happened here. Here, the justices somehow discovered the right of same-sex couples to marry. As Scalia pointed out in the dissent, this means for well over 100 years, states were unconstitutional.

The dissent for this ruling by the 4 in opposition was rather scathing. Scalia’s criticism basically amounted to the idea that 9 unelected lawyers are now creating legislation, overriding the desires of so-called democratic states. Many states in the US had even amended their constitutions to say marriage is, by definition, the union of one man and one woman. Then using no actual legal basis, the supreme court overrides the will of the people by discovering a right that had never previously existed.

Of course, the reaction of most people was one of elation. The hashtag #lovewins has been trending heavily on Twitter. I suppose given the absurdity of this supreme court ruling, you might as well believe the Supreme Court was deciding whether love would win or lose. Or maybe they were deciding if love would win or hate would win. Four justices apparently chose hate and five chose love.

When you search “Scalia on gay marriage” or something similar on Google, who wrote a dissent of the opinion, for about the first 50 results all you see are personal attacks on the justice, calling him close-minded, homophobic, etc. Never mind he doesn’t even express his own viewpoint and is simply interpreting the law, he’s still hated. Justices, as Scalia points out, are not supposed to give their own opinions or imbue them into their decisions. They are meant to be objective interpreters of laws made by the legislative branch or to verify their constitutionality.

There are a few issues here. First, declaring that marriage no longer has any sex-specific requirement simply takes away one more criterion for the definition of marriage. This requirement is so essential to the definition that removing it basically makes marriage a nebulous and unspecific concept with no real definition. Originally, marriage was a permanent union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and raising of children. The definition has already been severely tampered with. First there was legalized divorce. The process for this kept getting easier and easier, to the point where we now have no-fault divorce and people can separate for any reason. This removed the permanency of the union. Then contraception attacked the idea that marriage was procreative. Many couples chose never to have kids. All was left was that it was between a man and a woman. But now even that last requirement has been removed. Now a lot of people don’t thinks twice about 2 men marrying, having a childless relationship, then splitting up after a couple of years. The only shred of the original definition is the number of people involved, but that is now being challenged by those who want to legalize polygamy.

Now that marriage has almost been completely emptied of all meaning from the civil point of view, there is just one step left – complete annihilation, which on a civic level I’m totally okay with. The thing people don’t get about marriage is that they think the people for whom it is legal is some kind of sappy recognition of their love. But why would a faceless entity care about someone’s love? I love my mother, is there some form of official recognition for that? There isn’t even a form of recognition for other unions. Recognition only comes about for some state-related reason. The reason marriage was recognized by the state is because it helps promote a safe and stable environment for the raising of children and creates better citizens. Statistics clearly bear this out. But now people see it as some kind of badge of honor, but for what? Committing immoral acts? What benefit does that have to society? Plus, homosexual activity has been legalized in all first-world countries already, so that’s not the issue. Annihilation of marriage on the civic level would also hopefully destroy any legal hope gay activists would have to force churches to perform them. It should be a strictly religious institution anyway.

Bottom line: marriage has already lost most of its value and meaning when it comes to the state, and declaring something legal does not make it morally good.

This article was prompted after reading the following, a type of personal story we will probably be inundated with in the coming days:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/mount-pearl-man-living-in-u-s-excited-to-finally-be-able-to-marry-same-sex-partner-1.3131510

 

Bruce Jenner and More Transgenderism Talk

So Bruce Jenner is on the cover of Vanity Fair wearing women's clothing. Most people are praising this as a huge step forward for trans rights. But I think we need to step back and analyse the situation a little more closely.

Bruce Jenner is a 65 year old grandfather. He has 6 biological children and 5 grandchildren. Rather than being the patriarch of his family as he should be, he has decided to dress in women's clothing and act like a woman. I am not here to judge Bruce, who has now decided to call himself Caitlyn. I'm here to point out some information that others are unwilling to touch.

As if there is no objective reality anymore, the minute this man decided to call himself "Caitlyn", and say he is a woman, almost every news outlet decided to follow suit. Apparently what determines if a person is a man or a woman is entirely based on what they tell you, not biological fact.

Would we apply the same logic to a white man who insisted he was black? Would news outlets immediately start calling such a person African-American once he decided that's what he is? Would objectors be called bigots. The person in question would argue that despite his outward appearance, he is in fact black. Then I suppose this person could seek out benefits which only apply to visible minorities. On what grounds could anyone object to this person calling himself this, using our current thinking?

Dr. Paul McHugh who has studied transgenderism in depth, and was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins University, believes the modern-day approach to the issue is wrong. A year ago in a Wall Street Journal article, McHugh points out that people who undergo mutilation of their sexual organs to appear more like the other sex, also known as sex reassignment surgery, have a suicide rate 20 times higher than average. Usually pro-trans sources will say this is because society hasn't fully accepted them yet. However, no evidence shows this to be the case.

As an expert who has published 5 books and 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, Dr. McHugh believes transgenderism is similar to body dysmorphic disorder wherein a person believes false things about their body despite being clearly untrue, such as is the case with people suffering from anorexia.

There are disorders similar to this as well, such as body integrity identity disorder, wherein a person believes they should have been born missing a limb. Some of these individuals will go to great lengths to accomplish their desired bodies and will sometimes have healthy limbs amputated, often illegally.

Before you think this is just too weird and abnormal, keep in mind that this is precisely what is happening with "sex reassignment surgery". Often healthy limbs are amputated, fake limbs are added, and unnatural hormones are added to disrupt healthy and normal hormone production. The same type of process could theoretically be used to achieve any number of changes in a person's body.

The clear disregard for the obvious here is just a case of the emperor's new clothes. It goes along a well with the modern-day notion that beauty or even truth is not something to be discovered, but to be invented and is highly personal.

Dr. McHugh wrote a great article, which can be seen here, for First Things Magazine. After conversing with hundreds of pre and post-op transsexuals, he realized certain peculiarities about them. When these operations first started in the 70s, the operation candidates were all men. What he realized is that despite their insistence on being women trapped in men's bodies, they were not true women in many ways. For example, he says they seemed almost completely uninterested in babies and children, and that many of them expressed an attraction to women and preferred to be called "lesbian".

Also, although surgery can successfully lop off certain limbs and change certain body parts, many telltale signs remain, such as a larger Adam's apple, larger hands, smaller hips, and other things only seen in men. On top of this, many people who interacted with these transgender men said they did not "seem" like women. There are certain subtleties about women which these men did not possess.

Much of the desire for certain men to "become" female was not from a longstanding view of themselves as women as such, but rather an arousal they achieved from dressing as women and looking like women. What Dr. McHugh also noted was that years after the sex reassignment surgery, most of the patients displayed the same mental issues they had before the operation. The underlying problem had apparently not been properly addressed.

Other startling discoveries were made by Dr. McHugh's associate Dr. William Reiner in the area of males who were raised as girls from birth. In some cases, newborn boys' genitals were so badly malformed, some doctors suggested their genitals be removed and to have female genitalia constructed. Despite their genital mutilation present at birth, all the boys with one particular condition had received all the same hormones as a healthy boy in the womb.

The results were shocking. In 14 out of 16 cases, the boys were raised as girls. In 2 cases, the boys were raised as boys. Out of the 14, 8 had since declared themselves to be male, 5 were living as female, and 1 was of unknown gender. Also, every one of the 16 had displayed typical male characteristics during childhood, such as rougher play and traditionally male-child interests.

What all of this information tends to show is that transgenderism, far from being an indicator that there is in fact a woman born in a man's body or vice versa, what we really have is a person with a mental disorder who needs help. Such is the case with Bruce, now known as Caitlyn, Jenner. This man needs help, and his family needs a father.

Transgender Absurdity at Edmonton Catholic School

Alright, so there’s this 7 year old boy who claims he is a girl in Edmonton. His parents want him to be allowed to use the girls’ washroom at the Catholic school he/she attends. There are so many problems with this story.

1)      This is a Catholic school. According to Catholic teaching, if your gender identity does not correspond with your physical sex, then there is a mental disorder, but you are in fact your sex. In other words, a person with male genitalia is a male, regardless of their particular mental state. Therefore, if this person is attending a Catholic school, it only makes sense he would be held to their moral standards. If he does not like this (well if his family doesn’t), he should go elsewhere.

2)      The reason bathrooms are segregated by sex is because of the physical characteristics of the person, not any form of mental state. It’s actually irrelevant. Urinals, for example, are designed for male body parts. Regardless of if the particular male believes he is a male mentally is irrelevant to the question of the genitalia involved. Some might argue that separate bathrooms are unnecessary and that’s an argument that can be had. But the reason there are separate bathrooms in the first place is the difference in body parts.

To a large degree, much of the reason behind separate bathrooms is safety. Women would not feel safe doing something as intimate as using the bathroom with men around in close proximity. Bathrooms are a rather private area, they are certainly not public like other areas. Often people are alone in a bathroom and there are no cameras around. In the past, anyone seeing a man entering a woman’s bathroom would immediately be concerned. But how can anyone tell anymore? You can’t just “notice” someone’s mental state.

Women are right to feel worried about this. Allowing men to enter a women’s washroom without concern will do nothing but increase the incidence of sexual assault. It could prove a goldmine for men who expose themselves. No cameras, probably no other men, and private areas to “prepare” themselves such as individual stalls. It’s pretty safe to say that “legitimate” cases of transsexualism will go undetected as I’m pretty sure trans people will not be required to wear a visible identifier. I went off on a bit of a tangent, but it’s simply to explain that bathrooms are designed based on sex not gender.

3)      The kid was offered the ability to use a non-gender-specific bathroom. This seems like a more than reasonable solution to this problem. Of course, this is not enough for some people. Some Catholic school “trustee” is apparently disagreeing with this whole thing. First of all, how did she even get a job in a Catholic school – clearly she cares nothing about Catholic teaching. Also, the parents are not satisfied either.

4)      The school trustee, Patricia Grell, said she’s worried about the child’s mental wellbeing. Is she aware that a huge percentage of transgendered people actually commit suicide. I don’t have very much internet access here, but what I did find was that two-thirds of transgender youth have attempted suicide, according to CBC. I doubt attempted suicide is good for mental health or an indicator of it.

5)      One of the many contradictions of the modern feminist movement can be seen at play here. On the one hand, feminists insist that there are no specific gender roles, that men and women should act however they want. A woman can be a construction worker and a boy can play with Barbies. Yet somehow, when a boy does in fact demonstrate any tendency toward a traditionally girl-dominated activity, he’s immediately deemed transsexual, called a girl and referred to as “she”.

Catholic schools must have the ability to act as they wish, not forced to bow to societal pressures. If someone wants to attend a school that does not conform to Catholic standards, they can feel free. Secondly, only the feelings and attitudes of this child’s parents are being considered. What about girls who don’t want to share a bathroom with a boy? Where are their rights? Thirdly, this child is only 7. Just because he enjoys doing traditionally girl activities does not make him a girl. The fact that the parents are pushing this agenda is unconscionable. With the enormous risk that comes from being transgendered, they should give this child plenty of time to see if this is a phase, not propel him down a path to misery.

 

Story here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-catholic-school-bans-transgender-child-7-from-girls-washroom-1.3073737