This post was originally meant to be a comment over at Nicki’s The Liberty Zone. It’s a response to how a state over in the US has ruled that bathrooms must be male or female only. The discussion is about rights and government over-reach, and for the most part I agree with Nicki’s post, that a business should be allowed to decide whether or not they will accommodate transgender people being allowed to go into the restroom as the gender they identify as. But as Nicki said, this is not a simple question at all, and from my own limited observations, it is slowly escalating outside of the seemingly innocuous question of bathroom access.
And that escalation is not in favour of the transgender people getting their way. There are plenty of news articles where someone who is gay or transgender who get to impose what they want over someone else, usually with the weight of a court case behind them. Particularly grating is the case of the transgender but intact and biologically male high school student who pushed his entitlement – and it was a textbook case of entitlement. The school had already made accommodations for the student in question to be allowed to change in a staff restroom, in order to accommodate everyone, but the transgender student demanded that he (because at this point, he still has his bait and tackle, so no, despite everything, that’s still a guy and I’m sticking to that) be allowed to change in the girls’ locker room. Last I heard the whole student body walked out in protest and I haven’t really kept up on that bit of news – but it’s illustrative of how entitled this person felt. HIS wants and comfort were more important than everyone else’s, and if the other girls were uncomfortable about undressing in front of an intact male student (and potentially being exposed to those private parts), then they were the bigots, not him being a selfish jerk.
But this tantrum throwing behaviour is supposed to be considered by the advocates as ‘strong and brave’ and ‘standing up for rights they should have.’ Given the insane witch hunts that result when anyone else tries to protest reasonably (after all, why should everyone be uncomfortable just to make one person happy, when those students are not physically or verbally maltreating that boy?) along with a social rush to grant ‘minorities’ greater privileges and status ‘to make up for’ their being different it is no surprise that criminals and predators have flocked to these movements to grab them a slice of that privilege reparations and special treatment pie.
I do not think that simply being either gay, bi or trans equals criminal, let that be stated now.
However, there have been plenty of cases where criminals have used political correctness and the threat of suing people for bigotry and sexual orientation discrimination, to hide their crimes – especially when one considers the climate of “point, screech and destroy the heretic” that is endemic in the West now. It is clear that sexual identity and similar advocacies are just as likely to be used by sexual predators, in the same way that predators have used the priesthood, police positions, doctor positions, and so on, to get closer to their prey.
Further muddying the waters with regard transgender issues are stories like the ones listed in the link following. I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing. It is not for the faint of heart It opens thus:
This is a solid batch of evidence to show to trans cult “allies” and other useful idiots who say that male transgenderists are merely sane, harmless, gentle souls who should be allowed to indulge their “identities” by obsessively invading women’s restrooms, locker rooms, shelters and other spaces where men shouldn’t go. Science shows that male-to-fake-female transgenderists maintain a male pattern of criminality, even after getting their balls cut off and penises inverted; their rate of violent crime convictions is 18 times higher than that of women.
Christopher Hambrook pretended to be transgender to gain access to two different women’s shelters. He sexually assaulted a woman in each one.
Pursuant to a Canadian sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI) law, Hambrook used women’s attire to gain access to two women’s shelters in Toronto in January and February of 2012. Both times, he claimed to be a transgendered woman named Jessica. But he wasn’t. He was a dangerous sexual predator. Once accepted inside the women’s shelters as a resident, he sexually assaulted a woman in each of the shelters. One of the women was already a survivor of domestic violence. The other is deaf and homeless. Both were victimized and assaulted by Hambrook, who is not “transgender” but a sexual predator who, according to prosecutors, “simply cannot control his deviant sexual urges.” One of the victims awoke to find that her tights had been pulled down and her undergarment had been pulled to the side. Hambrook was assaulting her. She screamed. He giggled. The other woman Hambrook assaulted described how he grabbed her hand and placed it on his crotch, where she could feel his erect penis. She also testified that she caught Hambrook peering at her through a gap in the door while she showered.
Remember: these events took place in a women’s shelter, where women are supposed to be safe and protected. Because of a SOGI, these women were anything but that.
Canadian law will not allow the release of the names of the women that Hambrook assaulted. But they are real people, who were really violated because of a law just like the proposed SOGI. Their story deserves to be heard. Their story should never be repeated.
Hambrook has a history of assaulting women and girls. In the past, he served time for sexually abusing a 5 year old girl and for raping a 27 year old woman. And a SOGI made it easy for him to target and violate his latest victims, allowing this predator easy access to his targets.[1]
Noel Crompton Hall is a prisoner in an Australian prison. He was sentenced to 22 years for the 1987 murder of a hitchhiker. Once in prison, Hall began claiming to be a woman. He demanded to be transferred to the women’s jail. The Australian authorities agreed that Hall was now a woman and moved him to the women’s prison in August 1999. Hall quickly gained a reputation as a sexual predator. He was only in the women’s prison three months but was charged with raping his cellmate. Numerous other female prisoners accused him of additional sexual assaults. He may even have impregnated one of the women prisoners.[2]
…
Sean Gossman is a biological male who considers himself a transgendered woman and lives in Onsted, Michigan. In May 2013, he showed up in court for his arraignment on child pornography charges dressed in feminine attire complete with a wig, makeup, stuffed bra, and halter top. Those who know him relate that he dressed like that all the time. They say that he told them he hoped Michigan would pay for his sex change operation.
It is not a crime to be transgendered. It is a crime, however, to possess thousands of pictures and movies of children being sexually assaulted. And that is what Gossman is charged with. Some of the pictures depicted children being tortured. One picture was of a baby girl with a noose around her neck and a bag over her head. Some news outlets report the baby was dead.
Gossman’s attorney pled for leniency, stating that ““The idea of being placed in a male facility is somewhat frightening for Sean Gossman, as he has been taunted and made to feel like a freak by other inmates.” One can only imagine how terrifying it was for the children he victimized. [15]
Why is it suddenly, this filthy waste of oxygen has to have more consideration than the children he has abused? Why should his ‘feelings’ of ‘fright’ be something anyone else should consider, when the children who were his victims were, at no point, given even the most basic human consideration with regards their safety, their fear, their pain?
Seriously, fuck that. Toss the sick bastard into general and let them deal with it as bloodily as they can.
Because I am not familiar with the laws involved, I’ll ask these questions: Would someone who is a sexual predator who then becomes transgender would have their previous criminal history erased, or if not and at a later date their abuses under their previous name exposed, would we be prevented from the sane reaction of disgust and condemnation by political correct thought? (See how SJWs reacted to the discovery that Sarah Butts was a paedophile – they focused more on the ‘dead naming’ instead of the paedophile part as being somehow worse.) I am of the opinion that an established history of sexual predation and abuse should not be sealed, and the option should only become available if it is proven that the accusation is false beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, if there are laws against ‘discrimination’, how would such a revelation that a criminal claiming to be transgender to escape their crimes be treated by the media and society and the law? As evidenced by the article I’d linked above, there are a number of stories where a sexual predator claimed transgenderism in order to gain access to the most vulnerable of their prey.
Since transgender rights follow on the trail of gay rights, it is possible that at some point, transgender people will be allowed to adopt children.
Considering this, there is the rather unfortunate reality that there are men who were considered the shining lights and highest illustrative advocates of gay rights to adoption who turned out to be vicious pedophiles operating their own international child pornography rings using the children that they adopted, or, in a particularly sickening case, sired through surrogacy for the sole goal of sexually exploiting and abusing the child, whose abuse began at the age of 2 weeks of age.
Further, it is clear that determined predators will use any advantage to gain access to their prey, as well as position themselves in a manner that would make it easier for those like themselves to gain access to the most vulnerable of the population. In the article regarding criminals who ‘become transgender’ to hide their crimes, they used society’s willingness to be accepting as a weapon, gaining access to women’s shelters and women’s prisons and women’s restrooms to commit sexual assault.
With regards gay adoption advocates, they used, and abused their positions of trust and advocacy. From the Daily Mail:
Among the crimes was a shocking sexual attack carried out on a three-month-old baby boy by an executive adviser on child sex issues.
James Rennie, chief executive of a publicly-funded gay rights group, was one of the men exposed yesterday as members of Scotland’s biggest paedophile ring.
Rennie, 38, molested the toddler son of unsuspecting friends – a little boy he had been trusted to babysit – recording the abuse and sharing it with other perverts.
In the course of the police investigation, the boy’s parents were forced to watch a video of their baby son being violated by Rennie.
Last night, after the eight men were found guilty of a string of child sex charges at the High Court in Edinburgh, the child’s parents reacted with disgust.
They said: ‘For over 15 years, James Rennie seemed the closest of family friends and it is hard to put into words the extent of the betrayal he has exacted upon us.’
…
One of the most worrying aspects of the case is the way Rennie was able to reach a position where he could influence Executive policy on child sexuality.
A trained teacher, Rennie became the boss of LGBT Youth Scotland, a publicly-funded support group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people.
He took on the £40,000 a year role when the group was set up in 2003 and became the Executive’s most important and influential adviser on gay issues affecting children.
Under his leadership, the group backed proposals to allow gay adoption. As well as appearing in the Scottish parliament, he was invited to a Royal Garden Party and to Downing Street.
Yesterday, Rennie, from Edinburgh, was found guilty of indecently abusing the baby boy. The abuse began when the child was three months old and continued for several years. Rennie filmed and photographed himself committing the abuse, sent the images to others and allowed another man to listen on the phone while he molested the child.
He allowed the boy, whom he called his ‘nephew’, to be abused by another paedophile and also offered him to other deviants in a series of emails.
When his home was raided in December 2007, Rennie had gone to the trouble of hiding computer hard drives, discs and CDs in a gap next to the water tank in his kitchen. Between these storage devices and his laptop computer, he was found to be in possession of thousands of images, many of them at the most extreme level of the scale.
Rennie carried out his vile activities as part of a Scottish paedophile ring swapping images of child pornography on the internet.
Given this reality (and the reality that searching for this sort of news is difficult – Google Search listed the Mail article in page four or five) it is unfair to condemn people for entirely legitimate concerns regarding their safety, or the safety of their female kin, or that of their children. It must be asked: Whom is a parent supposed to owe their ultimate loyalty to? Whom should the state prioritise in protecting? Should orphanages give special treatment to gay or transgender people who wish to adopt and give them children, even if those potential parents show the red flags that would get a heterosexual potential parent/s denied their petition to adopt a child? What if the fear of losing their jobs or, in the case of doing their jobs they find themselves dragged through the court for false allegations of bigotry prevent them from protecting the children as they should? (And just to show that paedos will do anything to get their hands on a child, have this article on a heterosexual couple who sexually abused the children in their care. My point is: will LGBT fight against the predators in their midst, or try to protect the LGBT tribe’s image against the criticism?)
With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems.
In reality, they were paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care.
Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men’s explanations and did nothing.
Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey, they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.
In a scathing report published yesterday, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council was condemned for treating the men as “trophy carers”.
The children’s charity Kidscape said those in charge of overseeing the safety of children in the care of Faunch and Wathey had allowed political correctness to override common sense.
The report, following an independent review of the case, said: “One manager described the couple as ‘trophy carers’ which led to ‘slack arrangements’ over placement.
“Another said that by virtue of their sexuality they had a ‘badge’ which made things less questionable.
“The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not ‘thinking the unthinkable’.
“It was clear that a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic.
“The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive.”
The report also accused the council of failing to carry out proper assessments before and after the children were placed with Faunch and Wathey.
“Issues arose in the first longer-term placement of two children, including potential indicators of child sexual abuse, which were inadequately investigated, understood or acted upon,” it said.
“More children were then placed with Faunch and Wathey, some successfully, some with concerns which were again inadequately investigated, understood or acted upon.
“The practice of some social workers in this case was deficient.”
The report’s authors, led by former Surrey social services chief Brian Parrott, said they could not be sure that Faunch and Wathey were “predatory paedophiles” who became foster carers in order to have access to children.
…
The couple, who lived together in Pontefract, West Yorkshire, were approved as foster carers by the council in August 2003.
Their victims included a 14-year-old boy with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism,who had a mental age of seven and was forced by Wathey to watch gay pornography.
Another youngster with a “very troubled background” was only in their care for a few weeks before being abused by Faunch.
But social workers had been aware of “inappropriate” behaviour long before then.
Just eight months after they started as professional foster carers a mother of eight-year-old twins, who couldn’t cope with raising them on her own, voiced concerns about them with social services.
While visiting the twins, the 34-yearold single mother was shown a picture taken by Faunch showing one of the boys going to the lavatory during a visit to Butlin’s holiday camp in Skegness and discovered a similar snap had been taken of the other twin.
A social worker took the photograph and promised a full investigation.
But the court heard that not only did social services staff lose the photo, they decided against contacting police after accepting Faunch’s explanation that he was trying to embarrass the boys into shutting the lavatory door.
Police later discovered that, days after the photos were taken, Faunch recorded an indecent video of the twins taking a shower. They began abusing the boys three months later.
Undetected, the offences continued over an 11-month period, Leeds Crown Court was told last year.
Police were called in to investigate the couple only after one of the abused boys told a woman he had been touched by one of the men.
An orphanage is supposed to try and vet and choose the best parents for the child. It is their duty, their responsibility, to the child in their care – else, what’s the point? We already know the result of this clash, as there have already been clashes between the First Amendment and the selfish demands of gay people forcing their will on an orphanage with religious beliefs attached to it. (After all, why want to get a child from a Catholic orphanage if you have no intention of raising that child in the faith, never mind the whole homosexual angle? Why make people go against their own conscience? Why not adopt from state, secular orphanages? Because the children are different? Perceived as ‘better taken care of?’) Forced to choose between acting in the best interests of the children by making judgements based on faith and morals, and anti-discrimination laws used as whips by the LGBT movements, the Church has closed many orphanages.
At no point did the gay adoption movement consider the right of the children; all they cared about were their own rights, their own desires, their wants, their demands. (And, in retrospect, given the revelation that certain prominent gay adoption-right advocates being pedophiles, this gives a more sinister angle to why religiously organized orphanages were not given religious exemptions.) Yet, I remember when this was going down, one of the orphanages interviewed said they had allowed gay couples to adopt as long as they raised the children entrusted to them in the Catholic faith and Christian values. (The Catholic God is a forgiving God, after all, and, priorities. Why else would a gay couple approach a Catholic orphanage? There ARE gay Catholics after all; some even choose not to marry in deference to their faith as part of their own life choices, shocking as it might seem.)
Then clearly, someone came along, was a selfish cunt and ruined it for everyone else.
The ones who lost out were the children in the care of those orphanages. But hey, gay rights uber alles, it seems. And perhaps later on transgender rights over everyone else’s rights.
There are people these days who, to great approbation, declare that they would raise their children lesbian or gay, or even ‘without gender’ regardless of the child’s own desires, natural inclinations or sexuality or psychological health. There is no respect for the child in that approach, but instead a selfish desire to ‘prove a point.’ In fairness, there are heterosexual parents and gay parents who choose this path – besides the history of radical feminism and radical lesbianism to attack lesbians who choose motherhood – and frankly those parents people are not fit to be parents at all.
Ideally, a gay or transgender or heterosexual parent should be able to set aside their ideology and provide the best parent for that child – and raise that child to the best of their ability. I believe that there are gay or transgender parents who do their best can be good parents just the same as heterosexual ones – which is one of the many reasons why the abuses of sexual predators enrage me, because while the greatest harm they inflict is upon the children, they damage the trust that other gay and transgendered people are capable of acting like ‘everyone else.’ As noted above, the orphanages were capable of being flexible, especially if they were able to see that the couple were more interested in the child’s well being than the status of ‘gay.’ The inflexible ones who hold their sexual identity as more important than any other person or ideal to the point where it negatively affects others, especially children placed or born into their care, are by definition unable to be selfless.
Because the trait of selfishness transcends sexuality and sexual identity; stripping away the terminology necessary when discussing LGBT issues, it boils down to this question: “Are you an egotistical, narcissistic, self-absorbed ideologue, or are you capable of giving up huge chunks of your life raising this helpless child who ended up in your care?”
REGARDLESS of sexual preference, sexual identity, race, or station in life, this is a question whose answer that distinguishes the good parents from the bad. I am not talking about those parents who make mistakes in their attempts to try their best to provide for their children, and try to give them as good a life as they are capable of, but the ones who put themselves, or something else as a higher priority than the life that was put into their care.
It is simple reality that if there is a thing that is desired and there is a choice between yes or no, there is someone who will lose and someone who will win. There is a difference between getting along with your neighbour and forcing that neighbour to tolerate bad behaviour, and the key to that is compromise, communications, and mutual respect. As time goes by, these things are no longer being utilised in working towards a solution that would have had everyone getting something that might not have been a 100% win for one side or the other, but benefited everyone involved. It’s become too easy to simply run to the media and attempt to destroy your opponent, while the metaphorical bone being fought over – whether its’ children, or acknowledgement of one’s sexual identity, or a right- is eventually lost, broken or trampled in the rush ‘not to lose.’
So strong is that desire to ‘beat’ the other, that there is, to me, no desire to protect that thing which is claimed to be desirable. It seems more like “I don’t care if it’s broken, as long as I’m the one who gets it.”
It’s that behaviour that ultimately will swing opinions – that’s how society works. Society has rules, lines drawn on what is considered acceptable behaviour, and it’s slowly becoming apparent that these advocates are not in fact interested in people, but the kudos they gain when they ‘win’. Or have more sinister aims in mind. There are lines that simply should not be crossed, ever.
Looping back to the start of my topic – this is why people are protesting. This is why the law that relegated male-female bathrooms to biological gender got passed. Because people started thinking about their priorities, about what else they might lose, if ground were given now.
The choice made is the choice that must be made if a culture, a society, or a nation is to survive, to continue: women and children first.