Post 214--Parent 1 / Parent 2: Christie vs Justiin

In Post 212 I promised I would treat you to a dish of Christie--Christie Blatchford, that is, a Postmedia columnist.  212 dealt with that amazing issue of public bathrooms and transgender. Well, this one today also deals with a trans issue. And of all the luck, would you believe it? This particular column of Christie is crossed out and does not appear on the internet, which means I either keyboard it in myself or summarize--or break my promise, something that many many moons ago I pledged not to do too often. 

Remember those posts way back when? I promised I would try not to break too many promises, but that it is hard to avoid all the time. Just for the record, in the case of 212, I did not break any promise; I just postponed one.  Hope you'll accept subtle distinctions. We writers thrive on them!

Back to Christie. Her heading:  "Can we put the Liberals on mute?"  Her subtitle: "Government's social engineering going way too far."  The "Government" she's talking about is Canada's Fed. Though in this article she applies this to gender terminology, her subtitle can be applied to a wide range of things that all lead to a desire on my part to mute the beast, period.

I should be more moderate with my language. Referring to one's Government as "the beast" is a bit much and harsh. Being a Christian, the admonition in Scripture to respect, obey and pray for government is important. For a moment I forgot, which is not difficult to do, given the kind of "leadership" oozing out of Ottawa these days. 

I hope you remember my statement in 212 that I am fully in favour of giving our transgender friends full scope and freedom. I resist any unnecessary restriction on their freedom as well as on mine. I added to that that I do oppose and resent the agenda(s) of the extreme among them, as I do any extreme apart from those extreme in genuine Christian love. Well, the extremist(s) in this case are Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, whom Christie refers to as "that self-described proud feminist," and his hangers on.     

It is so absurd that the only way I can describe the issue for you is through Christie's nimble fingers. "Service Canada bosses have been given a directive telling them to use gender-neutral language to avoid 'portraying a perceived bias toward a particular sex or gender.'  Instead of using the tried-and-true Mr., Mrs. or Ms., for instance, employees were told to either use a client's full name or to ask how they'd prefer to be addressed. Similarly...workers were also told to avoid such gender-specific terms a 'father' and 'mother', and to use 'parent' instead."  

Not surprisingly, it's "already causing employees grief, having to inquire of bewildered patrons if he/she is 'parent 1' or 'parent 2." Nor is it surprising that "Families Minister Duclos was furiously back-pedaling, tweeting that Service Canada would of course'continue to use Mr/Ms....  We are only confirming how people want to be addressed as a matter of respect."  Christie asks, "Then why did he tell his people to stop using those particular honorifics?" She states, "This government's insistence on viewing the world through an 'equity lens' is pervasive and exhausting, not to mention distorting."    

With reference to a related issue in another section of the article, Christie writes, "I quote directly from the government's press release of the day, because I've no real idea what on earth it actually means. Towards the end of her article, "This may not be a perfect country, but for women, it comes close enough that evolution, not revolution, is all that's needed. Most of us muddle along just fine.... The last thing...the rest of us need or want is more gendered language instruction or social engineering from this strangely obsessed government."  Hear! Hear!

Post 212--Result of Ignoring Gender

This is my no. 2 today.  The pressure of my main retirement job, namely building an ONLINE CHRISTIAN ACADEMIC LIBRARY, is off for a couple of weeks. That gives me more time for doing this and another blog (Christian-MuslimWorld).  

Some time ago, I complained about Canadian authors resorting too much to American sources. I meant that sincerely, but recently am finding myself doing the same thing. I apologize. It's not hypocrisy so much as being busy and not having enough time to do the Canadian research. America is huge and it's all over the place. Americans are activistic, much more so, I believe, than we Canadians. They've got ten times as many people and, probably, ten times as many researchers and writers.  Given their activistic nature, probably more than ten times. I will try to restrain myself and do more Canadian stuff. Of course, most of the issues I write about are similar in both countries.  

Another but related issue is that American Christians are much more activistic than us Canadian Christians.  They are also more in number and thus have more people to speak up against the awful things that the secular or post-modern crown tries to impose on us. One has to look longer and harder to find Canadian Christian writings objecting to the raw secular Canadian culture. I promise: The next post will zero in on a Canadian writer, a woman even!:  Christie Blatchford. 

Now I want it understood that I do not identify with many issues that American or Canadian Christians promote.  I am strongly in favour of giving my gay neighbours their rights of marriage, for example, but I do not favour or champion the gay agenda which is to accept homosexuality as normal and even desirable.  

Today's issue is the Transgender Bathroom law. This contribution is about Alaska, but we face the same issue here in Canada with the same problems. I am quite sure most Canadian women will object just as much about having men intrude into their public bathrooms, not to speak of perverts. I doubt that anyone consciously chooses to be trans, but some people somehow or another are that. We need to accept them and give them the space they need, but I do not go along with the extremists described below. 

So, here goes:   

Help Overturn Anchorage's Dangerous Transgender Bathroom Law

BB

Brian Brown <info@nationformarriage.org>

 

|

Thu 03-22, 1:22 PM

You

View this Message Online.

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2018 All across America, communities are pushing back against LGBT extremists and their political allies who insist on imposing a dangerous gender ideology of allowing biological men into the most intimate, private areas reserved for females – including showers, bathrooms, locker rooms and changing areas. NOM has helped champion this push back at the federal level, successfully urging President Trump to repeal Obama's transgender directive to the public schools and in our military, and in communities like Houston where we successfully urged voters to overturn the transgender bathroom law imposed on their community. Just like the Houston City Council did, local politicians in Anchorage, Alaska ignored the wishes of citizens and enacted an ordinance that allows men to force their way into intimate areas reserved for women and girls simply by claiming a female "gender identity." And just like in Houston, citizens have risen up to say "enough" and put the issue on the ballot. It will be decided at the April 3rd municipal election. I'm asking you to step up to make a generous financial contribution to the Yes on 1, Protect Our Privacy campaign in Anchorage. Polls show that voters oppose the transgender bathroom law and are ready to overturn it. But LGBT activists are flooding Anchorage with outside money in an attempt to confuse the issue and mislead the electorate. LGBT activists can't come up with convincing arguments to persuade voters to endorse their position, so instead they resort to ugly attacks on opponents, labeling them bigots. We say, "baloney." Preventing men from having access to women in intimate areas like showers and bathrooms isn't about bigotry, it's about biology. It's also about common sense and respecting the wishes of women, including victims of sexual assault and abuse. Many women simply are uncomfortable being in a vulnerable situation, including being in a state of undress, in the presence of a biological male. Forcing them to do so disrespects their rights, violates their privacy and risks their safety. The LGBT activists say there's no problem with men who claim a female "identity" showering with women, or sharing the same intimate areas like changing rooms and restrooms. But it sure didn't take long for Anchorage residents to see that there is a problem. Just a few weeks ago a man claiming to be a woman demanded access to an Anchorage women's shelter that serves homeless women and female victims of sexual assault and is run by local Christian churches. According to media reports, the man has a criminal record and had been kicked out of another shelter for fighting. After the Christian-run shelter refused him access, the man filed a complaint with the local Equal Rights Commission and is trying to get them to order the shelter to give him access to the women because of Anchorage's transgender bathroom law. The Commission is actively considering doing just that. There are plenty of better ways to accommodate those who believe they are transgender without sacrificing the privacy and safety of young girls and women.  The results of this municipal election will reverberate far beyond the city limits of Anchorage. A victory there, just like what happened in Houston, will send a powerful message to officials across the country that it's time to stop pandering to LGBT extremists and start standing up for common sense.

Post 177--Millennials and Political Correctness

Again, someone else's article with my comments attached. It seems that Scott Masson of Toronto does not wish to accord the transgender population their full recognition.  I feel very sorry for that group and do not think their condition was part of what God intended when He created humanity. At the same time, they are here and not be their own decision or choice. By birth, would be my opinion. As such, they do not have a lot of choice in the matter. I know a couple of them and know they suffer because of their condition.  It is my firm opinion that they must be given their full human rights same as I do, even though I do not think their condition is desirable and should not be considered standard.  So, it seems I disagree with Masson on this aspect.  

What interests and concerns me in Masson article below is that millennials seem to have lost the traditional freedoms and rights that families have enjoyed for centuries in our Western civilization. They are, in fact, quite prepared to trample on them and force their opinion on everyone else, even to the extent of disregarding the rights of families and of breaking them up when they hold opinions contrary to those of millennials. The sense of social justice, according to Masson, has gone completely topsy-turvey. That to me is a serious issue and does not bode well for the future of freedom and democracy. So, have a listen and see where you find yourself.

=========

A new survey was released in the US last month, and it showed just how far society has moved on the issue of gender confusion. The poll focussed on “millennials” – generally people under 30 – and it found almost half of them would be OK with the notion that the government should take children away from parents if those parents refuse to affirm those children’s gender identities. Scott Masson is an Associate Professor of English at Tyndale University College in Toronto. He says the survey shows that traditional views of family are starting to change, especially in a certain segment of society. “It says that those that are most animated by issues that we would call ‘social justice’ are in favour of breaking into the family and its historic freedoms in order to justify the ends of what they would call ‘social justice’.”

He says the survey shows that respondents don’t have “any notion of what we would call ‘sphere sovereignty’.” Masson says the poll’s focus on millenials shows the impact that political correctness has had in the education system over the past 30 years. “I’ve been living with that in the university system ever since the 1980’s, and certainly it’s the case that millennials (have) experienced nothing but that. They’re not used to freedom of expression. If they find a view that they don’t like, they’re gonna have no tolerance for it.” He says that demographic is not bothered by the loss of liberty that we’ve seen in recent legislation in Canada, because “they never really thought those liberties really ought to exist as long as social injustice was being done.”