My Gender Is 'Fill In The Blank'

Now that Time Magazine has told us that transgender is the new black, I’m going to say something politically incorrect: Your gender is not whatever you think it is. Put another way, there is no such thing as, “My gender is ‘fill in the blank.’”

Unfortunately, Facebook didn’t get the memo, and so, according to AP’s Martha Mendoza, “Facebook users who don't fit any of the 58 gender identity options offered by the social media giant are now being given a rather big 59th option: fill in the blank.” (Yes, I know this sounds crazy, but it’s true.)

One year ago, I reported on Facebook’s new policy which offered American users 50 ways to describe their gender, including up to 10 different descriptions simultaneously.

Unknown to me, that number somehow increased to 58, as noted in the most recent report. But 58 “gender identity options” were obviously not enough. Some people needed another option, one they could quite literally make up themselves.

As Mendoza explains, “Facebook software engineer Ari Chivukula, who identifies as transgender and was part of the team that made the free-form option, thinks the change will lead to more widespread acceptance of people who don't identify themselves as a man or woman.”

Come again? By allowing people to describe their gender however they imagine it to be, this will lead to “more widespread acceptance” for them? And you can be a human being without having to identify “as a man or woman”?

In the vast majority of cases here, we’re not talking about someone with a serious, biological or chromosomal issue, because of which their gender identity is debatable.

We’re talking about people who are biologically male or female but are convinced in their minds that they are something other than their biological sex – either the opposite of their biological sex (and so, a man trapped in a woman’s body or vice versa) or some other variation (no fixed gender; alternating genders; multiple genders; no gender).

Now Facebook is making room for that option: My gender is “fill in the blank,” and so the sky is literally the limit.

But lest you think Facebook is introducing some cutting-edge innovation, they are actually late to the party.

According to a document dated February 5, 2005 – and so, more than 10 years old – the Los Angeles Unified School District Reference Guide stated that, “‘Gender identity’ refers to one’s understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one’s biological sex.”

Your gender is whatever you perceive it to be, regardless of your biological sex, to the point that, if you believe you are both male and female or neither male nor female, that’s who you are.

And what if your perceptions change over time? So does your “gender identity.”

As explained in a 2013 NPR interview, one housing director “has clients who might be Jimmy one day, and Deloris the next,” because of which you have to “develop the habit of saying, oh, that person, that is a she, that's Delores. It doesn't matter that she looks rather like Jimmy or looks like she was called Jimmy by her parents” – unless, of course, today, she is Jimmy, in which case she is he.

In fact, I recently watched a video in which the speaker explained that one’s gender could actually change by the hour. I kid you not.

During the aforementioned NPR interview, one participant explained that some “high school students . . . said, I want you to call me Tractor and use pronouns like zee, zim and zer. And, in fact, I reject the gender binary as an oppressive move by the dominant culture.”

Why not? Who are we to argue? Who wants to be labelled transphobic and insensitive?

And what if your perceived identity is not even human, like those people who genuinely believe they are part animal? (That’s a whole other story for another article, but it’s a growing trend as well.) What if you genuinely believe you’re a werewolf or the like? How about “My gender is male werewolf”? Will that work?

I truly care for people who struggle with their gender identity, especially little children, who cannot possibly be accused of having some kind of sinister agenda, and I do hope we can get to the root of the very deep and significant issues that contribute to the feeling of disharmony they experience between their bodies and their minds.

But it is madness to have 58 ways to describe your gender or, worse still, to offer a “fill in the blank” option to describe your gender.

These mentally ill people have been destroyed by the Progressive culture which emasculates and destroys the feminine nature of motherhood and promotes lies and misinformation 24/7, esp to little boys. Lots of evil visuals to destroy virtue in boys.

The system for 40 years has been to destroy Virtue (Wisdom/Excellence/Justice) and promote satanic, pagan religions while banning the only rational and most perfect religion—true Christianity-from the public square and public schools. It is only demeaned and mocked 24/7 in public schools.

Progressives are totally irrational-—like Marxists and tell little children lies from day one and form their sick, evil worldview by neglecting babies and putting little children into institutions to be dehumanized and misinformed and embed irrational emotions.. All behaviors are learned-—all dysfunctions are caused by a warped, evil environment.

All desires are embedded in early childhood and are not easily changed-—that is why John Dewey wanted younger and younger children—so they could shape their desires and beliefs to their warped artificial Reality where Slavery is Freedom and Vice is Virtue.

The Cultural Marxists knew that to destroy Virtue in children—to sexualize them at crucial sexual identity formation periods they could be made into tribal irrational minds like the Afghani harem boys.

Our Constitution and Worldview is based on Natural Law Theory-—Reason and Christian Ethics only-—no other ethical system treats all human beings equally and fairly-—with dignity and worth for all.

Bingo!

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3200158/posts
Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives
Frontpagemag.com ^ | 9-2-2014 | Mallory Millett

“When women go wrong men go right after them.” – Mae West

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill wrote this over a century ago.

During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment. I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!”

What a giggle we girls had over that. “How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are,” we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.

Sometime later, I was a young divorcee with a small child. At the urging of my sister, I relocated to NYC after spending years married to an American executive stationed in Southeast Asia. The marriage over, I was making a new life for my daughter and me. Katie said, “Come to New York. We’re making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it.”

I hadn’t seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.

And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.

To me, this sounded silly. I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses. I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn’t care what anyone thought because they just hadn’t seen what I had or been where I had been. I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.

How could they know? Asia is beyond our ken and, as they say, utterly inscrutable, and a kind of hell I never intended to revisit. I lived there, not junketed, not visited like sweet little tourists — I’d conducted households and tried to raise a child. I had outgrown the communism of my university days and was clumsily groping my way back to God.

How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable — clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt — plot such a thing? Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity? And why?

I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building. I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.” This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women. Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat. The only hope for women’s “liberation” (communism’s favorite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; “liberation,” and much like “collective” – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.” Her books captivated the academic classes and soon “Women’s Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.

Imagine this: a girl of seventeen or eighteen at the kitchen table with Mom studying the syllabus for her first year of college and there’s a class called “Women’s Studies.” “Hmmm, this could be interesting,” says Mom. “Maybe you could get something out of this.”

Seems innocuous to her. How could she suspect this is a class in which her innocent daughter will be taught that her father is a villain?...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.