THIS IS YOUR ANSWER!                       

Written by Fernando Milanés

23 de mayo de 2023

Like many schools, Kent State University has a free speech rock that is a symbol of the right to free expression at that institution. However, some at the school appear to have a narrow view of what constitutes free speech after College Republicans painted “What Is a Woman?” on the rock.

The rock painting led to a petition declaring that “The Kent State College Republicans must be held accountable for their actions.”

Men are from mars and have a penis. Women are from Venus and have a vagina.

Pro-family Christians and radical feminists may not agree about much, but they agree that redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” is a truly fundamental shift in American law and society. It also strips women of their privacy, threatens their physical safety, undercuts the means by which women can achieve educational equality, and ultimately works to erase women’s very existence. It not only revokes the very rights and protections Congress enacted specifically to secure women’s access to education but does so in order to extend Title IX to cover men claiming to be women. 

Three harmful consequences follow from redefining “sex” in Title IX to mean “gender identity”.  First, women will lose their physical privacy and face an increased risk of sexual assault. This redefinition allows any man to justify his presence in any women only space simply by uttering the magic words, “I identify as a woman”, subject only to the condition that male students “notify[y] the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records”.  But male faculty, administrators, other employees, and any other men who walk onto the campus of a Title IX institution do not have to notify anyone about anything; they can just show up in any women’s restroom, locker room, shower, or dormitory whenever they want. 

Brief of amici curiae women’s liberation front and family policy alliance in support of petitioner 

The above refers to a case that had being discussed in the SCOTUS about whether discrimination on the basis of gender identity is covered in the Civil Acts law of 1964.   

Their decision was that they were, as It should be, if not for the fact that the LGBT lobby has used the ruse of an invented word that not only covers the real transsexuals that are born with an extremely rare condition (less than 0.05% of pop.) in which a person is afflicted by a sense of being of a gender different than what their anatomy (sex) indicates, but up to more than two dozen conditions and/or behaviors.   

After a prior experience and studies on the present exploitation of a term I determined that what this movement was aiming towards was to abolish all genders with the ultimate goal to change our society.    

Unfortunately, it has been proven correct; I wrote more than a decade ago, to wit; 

The ultimate goal of this movement is to abolish the biological determinant of two genders, male and female, and establish a “gender neutral” society. Already we face fewer unions of couples, and more “open marriages” and hedonistic lifestyles. When instincts and the pursuit of pleasure become dominant in the population, it becomes the beginning of the end of its existence. Traditions and morals might vary in different cultures, but no civilized society has been able to survive without rules that control excess on its behavior, and where amorality rules. We are presently facing this danger. 

Other than in books, mostly as an asterisk due to the rarity of the ailment, the public learned about transsexuality after a man aka Christine Jorgensen went public.    

Born with male organs and known as a pro tennis player he went through hormonal and surgery to change his sex to a female to match her perceived gender.    

With all the publicity given to her, John Hopkins Medical School started a review on this rare occurrence and became experts in the transition hormonal/surgical treatment.   

In my practice I, as many others, started receiving patients misdiagnosed as transsexual with acute depressive and psychotic breakdowns.    The abundance of false positives made John Hopkins abandon their pioneering efforts and it’s at the time Chair started writing about the dangers of “copycats” of this disorder that attracted many with different psychological/psychiatric disorders.    

The decision of SCOTUS depended on their definition of transgender, which obviously, like many, did not understand. The majority of we the people assume transgender means a biological condition, but their lobby means a behavior that depends on a choice thus expanding “rare” to “popular” and using politics to further their clear and dangerous goal.    Here is the fallacy of their argument.    

A true transsexual will change their anatomy completely to match her pathological desire. When the change is complete, they stop being Trans, they are men or women. Thus, no need to have different bathrooms as the anatomy is changed, no need to fear discrimination as will have the same rights of born man or women. When becoming men, they will feel as such, attracted to women then the opposite sex, and vice versa. To avoid as much as it is possible, mental health observation should start as soon as symptoms appear, frequently in childhood. Most of these cases return to satisfaction with their anatomy in their adolescence and in the less than 0.05% of cases that persists surgery and hormonal treatment is indicated. A panel of medical and mental health professionals should attest the validity of the change, and laws made to adjust to the current gender.    

Now let us be clear, homosexuals are content with their anatomy, their desires are not by choice but biology, and queers (effeminate boys and tomboy girls) are not all homosexual and not transgender.    Persons wanting to choose a different gender should not qualify unless their claim being Trans is proven scientifically.    

Exhibitionists, transvestites, sexual fetishes sufferers, pedophiles, sociopaths, etc. are not transsexual even if covered by the umbrella term of transgender. 

SCOTUS decision (2021); The decision not to take the case about transgender students, Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm, leaves in place a lower-court ruling that found that a Virginia school district violated federal law when it barred students from using the restrooms that align with their gender identities. The denial of review was celebrated as a victory for LGBTQ rights, although it doesn’t foreclose the possibility that the Supreme Court could take up a similar issue in another case in the future.

My opinion.

I would love to challenge SCOTUS to define what the definition of “transgender” means. Homosexuals, as I wrote have never been, as should be, banned from using the bathroom according to their anatomy.   Justices, what about transvestites, cross dressers, and more than 50 conditions included in the LGBT… movement? Transsexuals (now called Gender Dysphoric) should use the bathroom that fits their assigned sex after treatment. But warning! A true transsexual is defined only after adolescence when sexual maturity is achieved. 

99.99 % of children and/or not fully mature persons voluntarily go back to accepting their anatomy when older.

Temas similares…

0 comentarios

Enviar un comentario