Liberal Chickens Come Home to Roost

The recent panic amongst liberals regarding the Supreme Court vacancy is amusing in that it is entirely of their own making.

The hard Left has, since the 1960’s (and really before), embraced a judicial philosophy which is not essential to their position.  According to this philosophy, the United States Constitution (and written law in general) does not need to be interpreted as written, but has a meaning which “evolves” over time.   Thus, rather than amend the Constitution when it is in need of updating, the liberals have decided it is better to simply have a judge or justice declare that the law has evolved, and read into it a meaning that it never had before.

Conservatives are, of course, susceptible to this sort of forced interpretation because, of course, it is outcome-based.  In other words, rather than attempting to determine what the law as written means, and apply it to a given situation, this philosophy works by looking at the outcome desired and then twisting law and precedent to fit this desire.  The classic example is abortion.  There is no way, at all, that the founders and authors of the Constitution conceived of abortion of a constitutional right, yet Justice Blackmun felt comfortable in writing a decision giving us a right which doesn’t exist.  (While depriving the unborn of what actually is a constitutional right, the right to life.)  As I said, conservatives are quite capable of such faulty reasoning and have been guilty of it on occasion, but they have not adopted it as a judicial philosophy.

The Left decided to adopt this philosophy for a simple reason:  their radical agenda could never be imposed by a vote of the people.  However, an unelected panel of nine judges, all of whom attended elite law schools, could be easily convinced to override the Constitution and the will of the people to achieve the desired outcome.

I’ve often pointed out to liberals how short-sighted this philosophy is.  After all, if judges are unconstrained by written law, then they are unconstrained by anything other than their own imaginations.  Hence Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision which gave us a right to “privacy”.  What’s wrong with a right to privacy?  Well, it exists nowhere in the constitution, but Justice Douglas decided it exists in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Bill of Rights.  In other words, the right doesn’t exist anywhere but the Constitution simply emanates it.

But wait, isn’t a right to privacy a good thing?  I would say no, but here is a point I make even to people who support the murder of children also known as abortion:  even if you think abortion is a great thing, you should oppose Roe v. Wade because the reasoning is faulty, and because there simply is no constitutional right to abortion.  If a judge can just impose legal fictions into the written law because the thinks the law “emanates” this thing or that thing, that judge can just as easily take away what you’ve been given.  Why couldn’t a judge write out of existence the first amendment, or the fourth (which protects against illegal search and seizure)?

Someone once told me “I just care about the result.  You just care about the process.”  Of course.  Democracy is a process.  The difference between freedom and tyranny is the process.

And so now the chickens have come home to roost.  A Supreme Court vacancy should not be so big a deal as it is becoming.  It shouldn’t matter much at all.  And yet the left is terrified because a lifetime-appointed conservative majority could undo all their hard work of years.  The short-sightedness of their philosophy is now apparent.

This blogger is not particularly a fan of American democracy, which has dethroned Christ from his social kingship.  But I also realize we don’t live in a Catholic country, and as such, we need to be governed by laws and not men.  We need to follow the established processes and not fabricate law at the stroke of a pen.  Most of the country, corrupted by the schools and entertainment media, would probably vote for abortion and sodomitical marriage anyways.  Here’s to hoping Trump’s appointment forces the situation, by overturning Roe, Griswold, Obergfell, and many others.

Marijuana, Water, and Big Brother

Prostitutes are now called “sex workers”.  I remember when that first happened and we all thought it was a joke.  Now the news media use the ridiculous term with a straight face.  In a similar way, dope dealers are now called “CEOs of dispensaries.”  That’s also a joke.  Call yourself a CEO and you’re still a dope dealer.  Call yourself a sex worker and you’re still a whore.

A San Francisco dope dealer recently landed in hot water when she called the police on a black child selling bottled water without a permit.  The media seems not to notice the irony that this woman, who makes a living violating federal law, is calling police on somebody for violating the law.  Instead, the main focus is on her “white privilege,” despite there being no real evidence that the woman was motivated by racial bias.

More interesting, however, than alleged racism or dope dealing is the trial by social media which has happened in her case and in many recent cases of boorish behavior.  That’s exactly what it was, boorish, rude behavior.  There have been boorish, rude people for as long as there have been people, but never before have we had the ability to punish them instantly, humiliate them, and ruin their lives for our own enjoyment.  But now, with everyone carrying a cell phone in his pocket, the slightest misstep ends up becoming national news.

“Big Brother”, of course, refers to the omnipresent “tele-screen” in George Orwell’s 1984.  The screens were ever-present and always-watching, ready to punish citizens for any crime against the state.  And indeed, with our cell phones and drone cameras, we now live in a world far more disturbing than Orwell imagined.

The dope peddler may have been on a public street, but her conflict would once have been a private dispute.  Now she is publicly vilified and humiliated for alleged thought crimes.  The rest of the socially conscious liberal world sits back and laughs as one of their own, a dope peddler, is taken down by the mob.  It’s a lot of fun until it happens to you.

As in 1984, the dope dealer was required to make a public apology, appearing on the Today show and in the Huffington Post, appealing for forgiveness from the very mob that condemned her for racism which she displayed only by being white.

One is tempted to say this is an appropriate award for a woman who makes a living off of the misery of others, selling them dope to anesthetize themselves.  Perhaps it is, but of course nobody criticizes her for her real crime.  Meanwhile welcome, Permit Patty, to the new age of Big Brother.

Conscious Bias

Starbucks capitulated, as everyone does now, to the demands of the rabble who besieged them in person and in social media, and shut down their stores for Unconscious Bias training.  I haven’t seen the video of the incident that sparked the shutdown, nor do I really care.  If the barista’s were guilty of racism, they should be disciplined or fired, instead of subjecting the entire company to radical Marxist agitprop for a half-day.  Starbucks was kind enough to make the material available to the public, and it’s more disturbing than having a couple black people arrested.

In the first place, the web site provided by Starbucks features a banner photo so ridiculous it is beyond parody.  It’s just so awful to ever suggest that most Americans might be white people, so instead we see the obligatory head-scarfed woman, ethnic lesbian, and gaggle of females.  The only white male present is at least with-it since he has destroyed his arm with a tattoo sleeve and pierced his ears like a girl.

The material is written in a style that appears to be aimed at the mentally retarded.  The authors and authoresses seem to be unable to write in complete sentences.  “We can hold biases about race and age and religion. Gender and sexuality and body type. Ability and mental health and class. And many other attributes.”  I hold biases against people who don’t know what a comma is.

“Biases are not always easy to identify. They make us feel exposed. Maybe even critical of ourselves.”  There is no finite verb in that last sentence.  These are slogans, not even an attempt to convey meaningful thought.

A participant is supposed to fill out a journal, indicating the “first time you noticed your racial identity” and “went to work with your natural hair.”  Thankfully, I can answer the last question easily, since I don’t own a toupee.

I’ve worked with many competent black people over the years, whom I respect and who respect me.  But here’s some conscious bias for you.  My company has a Chief Diversity Officer, a black woman, who has absolutely no qualifications for the job other than being a black woman.  As far as I can tell she does nothing.  Nobody in the company seems to notice the irony that the Chief Diversity Officer could never, EVER, be a white heterosexual male.  Never.  This woman gets paid a half million dollars a year.  That’s bias.  That’s institutional racism.  Whites are the most discriminated against racial group in modern America.

Meanwhile, I’ll leave you with the most disturbing phrase in their training.  “Speak your truth and respect other people’s truth.”  There it is, plain as day.

TRUTH IS OBJECTIVE.  There is no “my truth” and “your truth”.  There is only truth.  The great irony is, of course, that they are asserting unconscious bias as a truth, and if one of their employees protested too much, he’d be fired.  But the mere fact that they can push a self-contradictory and idiotic phrase like this onto the brainwashed staff, and that people will accept it, shows how far this country has sunk.

Congratulations Ireland!!!

Congratulations Ireland, from the USA!  Congrats for your bravery and courage!  Congrats for throwing off the shackles of the patriarchy and the Catholic Church!

You’ve finally broken the bonds of patriarchal oppression definitively.  You’ve proven to the world that you are a modern state, that you value freedom and sexual liberation.  You have said to the world that you’re not that backward country people thought you were, but a country that values personal liberty over old-fashioned mores.  Congrats, congrats, congrats!

We over here in the States have great cause to celebrate.  We, of course, led the way, by legalizing abortion in 1973.  We led the charge into modernity.  Unlike you, we didn’t even vote on it.  Instead we just imposed it by the will of seven unelected judges who all went to elite law schools and know better than the general populace.  You still have a way to go in learning about process, but at least the results were right.

Since Roe v. Wade, we’ve killed 60 million infants.  Hah!  You have a long way to go to get close to us in your tiny country.  Of course, you’ll never catch up to the good ole US of A.  We’re still aborting at a massive rate, and our people are so sexually liberated that we’re going to be aborting more and more babies every year.  They are the consequences of sex, of course, but we like to call them “consequences” and not babies because it makes things easier.  Remember that.

Just think about it.  The Nazi’s only killed 6 million Jews.  We’ve beaten them by a factor of 10!  We’ve even beaten Stalin, killing more than double his paltry 25 million!  And we don’t wait for them to grow up.  No, we nail ’em in the womb, where it’s easy and they can’t complain about it.  It’s awesome, as we say here.

Some of them we just suck out when they are little embryos.  But we specialize in ripping them limb from limb, while they actually fight the surgical instruments.  We also like to just partially deliver the baby and crush his/her skull in the birth canal, or heck, even after they are born.  And then we sell the parts to the highest bidder, or just chuck them in the “rubbish” as you Irish like to say.

We glorify our leaders who help us accomplish this.  The head of our largest abortion provider makes Hitler look like an amateur, but she’s got a bestselling book and goes on all the talk shows!  We love her!  And Gwyneth Paltrow, our favorite actress, is beloved for telling everyone to go get abortions on Mother’s Day.  How about that.  Ironic isn’t it?  She knows how to throw off that patriarchal Church better than you do!  She sells occult supplies on her website for a fortune, because of course, the God of the Christians doesn’t like abortion but the demon god Moloch actually demands infant sacrifice.

Yes, you have a long way to go, but what a start.  Keep it up Ireland!

No sympathy for sin

Imagine this:  a man walks into a crack house and proceeds to violently execute everyone in it.  A tragedy?  Of course.  A reason to excuse crack smoking and pretend that crack smoking is a good thing?  Of course not.  A senseless tragedy such as a slaughter of crackheads does not make being a crackhead good.  It is still an evil, and almost anyone commenting on such a tragedy would not hesitate to point that out.

Why is it then, that those of us who have chosen to point out the evil of homosexuality in reference to the Orlando slaying are considered to be so tasteless and wrong?  The deceased were all at the Pulse nightclub to, at the very least, celebrate a wicked and destructive lifestyle, and in many cases, to bring home one or more people with whom to commit horrid, horrid, sexual acts.

The following is more explicit than I would normally post, so please look away if you are easily disturbed.  From ex-“gay” Joseph Sciambra:

In the pre-HIV era, the various gastrointestinal and rectal maladies in male homosexuals seen by physicians and proctologists were collectively referred to as “gay bowel syndrome.” I experienced this first hand, as the constant ritual of anal cleansing, douching, enemas, and penetration, caused the already naturally dry and thin-skinned rectum to become perpetually red, irritated, and swollen. Diarrhea was a relentless affliction; some rather active gay men who otherwise were beautifully muscular and apparently healthy-looking took to wearing diapers – especially during intense work-outs or weight-lifting scissions [sic] at the gym, as the increased pressure often caused abnormal leakage. Visits to a San Francisco proctologist were frequent, and his waiting room, crowded with other gay men, sometimes turned into a place to meet and talk as there was always someone I knew – also there waiting to see the doctor. Though, not everyone with this secret problem was single and adventurous; one such friend – a sincere guy who had been in a monogamous relationship for a couple of years, was continuously left with painful anal fissures. After I left the lifestyle, and went back home, my smaller town doctor still knew of my past – as soon as he saw the ravages of what had been my backside. By then, my hemorrhoids were protruding severely – and thus began a few years of one painful surgery after another. During that time, I was constantly walking about with suppositories, frequently with embarrassing stains soaking through my pants, my underwear had to be continually bleached to remove blood stains, and I stunk from fecal matter seeping out.

There is nothing praiseworthy in this.  Of course it is a tragedy that these homosexuals are dead.  I have no idea the state of their souls, but given Church teaching it seems that it is extremely unlikely they are now in a good place.  Like the crack heads, we must feel sorrow without affirming the sin.  Instead, we should double down on communicating its evil to the world.

Misguided Tolerance

Anderson Cooper, a open homosexual, grilled the twice-married, alleged conservative Miss Pamela Bondi after the Orlando shootings.  The interchange is a great example of conservative failings and total paralysis in the face of the “gay” agenda.

Miss Bondi had argued in court, correctly, that if people of the same sex were given the “right” to contract their faux-marriages, then it would do harm to the people of the state of Florida.  In the wake of the Orlando shootings, Miss Bondi was totally unable to defend her position:

“Are you saying you do not believe it [gay “marriage”] would do harm to Florida?”

“Of course not, of course not,” Bondi replied. “Gay people — no, I’ve never said that. Those words have never come out of my mouth.”

“But that,” Cooper responded in an increasingly tense exchange, “is specifically what you argued in court.”

Miss Bondi, reduced to a nonsensical fool by her cowardice.

Conservatives are terrified to speak the truth.  While I have said, and continue to say, that this is a terrible tragedy, there is no way I am going to profess solidarity with the “LGBT” community, or suggest that in any way they are right.  Of course they are wrong.  Of course these men and women who died were engaged in self-destructive, sinful behavior.  “Gay people” aren’t a class that needs to be protected, they are sodomites who need help.

Another article I saw said that the shooter was set off by seeing two men kissing.  It was love, said the article, that led to the shooting.  No, no, no.  The people in that club were almost all looking for sexual partners to bring home.  They were looking for people to help commit their act of sodomy.  Sodomy isn’t love.  It isn’t for heterosexuals, and it isn’t for homosexuals.  Smashing your erection into someone’s colon is hate.   Volunteering for such an act is self-hate.  Nothing about it is good.  Nothing about it is holy.  Speaking directly, as I am, is not hate but love.  I want nothing less than the good of these people.

Out of love, I wish “gays” would leave behind their frenetic sexual escapades and come home to the Catholic Church.  I wish they would experience the joy of confession and repentance.  I wish they would go to Heaven after their journey in this world.  That’s love.

Affirming anyone in self-destructive behavior, whether out of cowardice or misguided ideas about tolerance, is hateful.  And if Miss Bondi truly wanted to feel good about herself, she shouldn’t have tried to abase herself in front of this gay.  She should have called him and all other homosexuals to repentance and forgiveness, and a far better life.

Pulse Massacre

It goes without saying, but I will say it, that the latest outbreak of Muslim violence, this time at a homosexual nightclub is a tragedy.  It is a tragedy when anyone is killed without justification, and these people obviously were.  They were there to enjoy a “lifestyle” that is offensive to God and destructive of their bodies.  Many, if not most, were intending to come home from the club with one or more “partners” to engage in horrific sexual acts.  They didn’t know that they would never come home at all.

As Catholics, we do not hate these people.  They are sinners, as are we all.  However, they have shown no desire to repent of their sin and ask God’s mercy, but instead chose to revel in it.  The rejected God’s love for them and made themselves God, misusing their bodies in ways unintended by nature and nature’s God.  What we, as Catholics want, is not their deaths but their repentance.  Any time I meet a homosexual, I want to see him in Heaven some day, God willing, should I manage to get there.  I want him to leave behind his self-destructive life and enjoy the rewards in the next.  Anyone who wishes otherwise is not Catholic.

When you summarily execute a sinner, you deprive them of the chance to repent.  These men and women almost certainly are damned forever.  It’s a terrible thing to say and to imagine, but it is a far greater tragedy than their murders.  No Catholic wants that.  We want them to live, so they can repent.  Islam, on the other hand, is interested in summary execution.  You are non-Muslim, you die.  Period.

These shootings and bombings, which now come with a frightening regularity, are, as they say, the “new normal.”  Stopping Muslim immigration won’t prevent it;  the murderer in this case was born here.  We are too far down this path.  The only way to recover is forceable expulsion of Mohammedans.

Meanwhile, it is virtually guaranteed that the Left will not see this as a condemnation of Islam, but as an opportunity to condemn all religion, including Catholicism and Protestantism.  The so-called LGBT movement is full of professional, trained agitators and organizers who will not let this opportunity go to waste.  Expect to see massive repercussions against those who hold their so-called preference to be sinful.  These are dark times we live in, in every way.

A five year old threat

The “transgender” movement is in full swing now, with the support of the press.  The Washington Post, bastion of liberalism, has just published an article by Mr. and Mrs. Ron Ford, Jr., a husband and wife who say that their 5-year old boy is actually a girl.  You see, their boy “came out” as transgender when he was four years old.  Well, that seals the deal.  Now he’s a she!  The headline emphasizes that this girl (sic) is not a “threat.”

This is actually the latest in a series of articles by the Post going back to 2012, in which they report on and validate various children’s claims to be “transgender.”  The Post may have a reputation as a storied and respectable paper, but it’s obvious that in the digital age, they need a little sensationalism to keep people interested.

Meanwhile, to the article:  This boy, whose name is given only as “Ellie”, was “born a male” (i.e., is male), but at age four decided to let the world know “who she truly was.”  Now truth is the correspondence of the intellect to reality, so we have a problem here.  “Ellie” is truly a boy.  In truth, in the objective order of that pesky thing called reality, this child is not a girl.

One might expect the teachers at this child’s school to be a bit more reasonable, but no, they said: “of course she can use the girls’ bathroom … she’s a girl!”  Which, of course, he is not.  Now we come to the threatening part:  “Ellie’s (sic) fellow students, taking the clear cue from teachers and staff, treated Ellie like the girl she is…” (Emphasis mine.) I hope you immediately see how demented this is, but if not, let me help:

1. There are two genders, male and female.
2. Your gender is irreversibly determined during the gestational process.
3. It cannot be changed.
4. Children are aware, from a very young age, of the difference between boy and girl.
5. The children in “Ellie”‘s class know he is actually a boy.
6. They, following the cue of their so-called teachers, now believe “Ellie” is a girl.
7. “Ellie” is not a girl.
8. The children now believe that fundamental, basic, and objective reality can be changed on a whim by adults.

Think about it.  This is far worse than it would be had “Ellie” showed up already masquerading as a girl.  They knew him as a boy, and now, with the approbation of the adults involved, they know him as a girl.  This is worse than brainwashing.  Brainwashing substitutes one reality for another.  These adults are destroying the very idea of objective reality in its entirety.

The Fords go on to tell us, in entirely subjective terms, why their boy should be allowed to use the girls room.  If he had to use the boy’s room, why, “She (sic) would cry. She (sic) would withdraw.”  Right, how sad.  Children, at some point, have to learn that they face a reality that exists outside of them and isn’t necessarily to their liking.  Usually it involves some crying and withdrawing, but we all made it through it alright.  How can you ever expect this boy to face the harsh realities of life if he can’t even face the fundamental reality that he happens to be a boy?

Of course, they end their article with the standard plea, the same one that brought us sodomitical marriage:  “And, yes, she wants use the bathroom that matches her gender identity when she needs to pee. Not because that’s special treatment, but because that’s the same treatment everyone else receives. Our daughter wants to be included, just like everyone else.”  Remember that one?  “We just want the same rights as everyone else!  You can be married, why can’t we?!”  Well, this boy has the same right as everyone else–to use the bathroom that matches his gender.  He’s a boy.  He gets to use the boy’s room.

At the end of the day, this child, is in fact, a huge threat.  He (or more properly his adult enablers) are forcing, forcing, a false reality upon those who surround them.  They are forcing others to accept and repeat the lie that this little boy is a girl.  They are forcing us to either buy into their delusion, or else be forced into pretending we do.  They are trying to break the wills of normal, thinking people, and they are winning.  And that’s a huge threat.

Whether Mr. and Mrs. Brown actually believe the lie they are pushing is immaterial.  Note well that Mr. Brown works for the federal government.  This is nothing less than a final push to break your will and mine, to smash us down into the dirt and to force us to lick their boots.  And I guarantee you, the more we give in, the more we capitulate, the more they will do it.  Do you think this is the end?  This is just the beginning.  Once they’ve broken you of your attachment to reality, they can make you do anything.  Just wait.  Just wait.

Reason, morality, and the Golden State Warriors

Let’s take a little break from transgenderism and talk about something controversial:  sports.

Sports and reason

I began this blog with a post arguing that it is not moral for a Catholic to watch professional sports.  I based my arguments on the traditional moral teachings of the Catholic Church.  I augmented this argument with a few more recent commentators, including Catholic psychologist Raymond Lloyd Richmond, Miss Ann Barnhardt, and the New Oxford Review.  I disagree with all of them at least in part, but agree fundamentally that modern professional sports are evil.  This is something of a heresy in today’s “conservative” world, where sports are considered something of a last refuge for true masculinity.  The competition is considered character-building, and sports are considered to teach the value of teamwork.  Criticism of sports is the domain of rabid feminists who want to stomp out any last vestiges of male superiority.

Not long after making that post, my own local sports team had failed a major playoff game.  I didn’t particularly care, but when my five-year-old nephew, whose family roots for a rival team, called me to “trash talk” and insult me, a man thirty-five years his senior, I became more convinced than ever that sports teach nothing good to the youth.

If you read traditional Catholic moral theology books, you’ll notice that they have a common standard for judging the morality of behavior:  is the behavior in accord with reason.  God who created us is Reason Itself.  Remember that the Greek word for “word,” logos is perhaps better translated as “reason”.  God is reason itself, and we are made in His image in that we have reason, unlike the irrational beasts.  Man is the only rational animal.  I’m sorry, but Koko the gorilla doesn’t cut it.

Thus, behavior is immoral when we descend into irrationality.  Drunkenness is a mortal sin when it takes away our use of reason.  Modesty means we conduct ourselves in accord with reason, and behavior is immodest which is not in accord with reason.  Anger and sexual immorality are sins because they deprive us of reason, causing humans to descend into bestial behavior.

Now I don’t follow basketball, obviously, but a certain team has been in the news rather extensively of late.  I don’t read the sporting news, but I simply can’t help seeing pictures of the Golden State Warriors.  Have a look at this one:

Does this man look like he is comporting himself with in accord with reason?  Does he look modest and in control?  Or does he look like he is celebrating his rage, and vaingloriously reveling in his triumph over his opponents?  In fact, nearly every picture of this man and his team depicts them in a similar state.  Snarling, veins bulging, angry and out of control. This is the image our society wants our youth to celebrate.  Is it any wonder the youth are also out of control?  More and more I encounter degenerate children whose parents are unable or unwilling to exercise discipline.

Entertainment

In fact, nearly every form of “entertainment” presented to us today involves the rejection of modest and rational behavior.  The more someone “goes crazy,” the funnier they are thought to be.  Robin Williams was sainted by the entertainment industry, and he made his career acting like a buffoon.

The so-called music of the modern age, rock, is nothing more than degeneracy with a huge budget for stage effects.

Once again, are these people acting in accord with the virtue of modesty?  Are they accepting their God-given reason?  In the words of Dr. Richmond, do these look like Christ’s disciples, or Satan’s?

If you are so deluded by the age that you cannot answer that question, allow me to show you what one of Our Lord’s disciples looks like.

St. Francis Xavier is more of a man than any of the above.  If you think his serene countenance is feminine or inferior to Mr. Curry’s scream, above, you should spend some time reading about him.  St. Francis, in the 16th century, traveled to India, Japan, and China, nearly being killed by locals as he showed up in their countries and converted the inhabitants to Catholicism.  He was known for popping into pagan temples and trashing them, overthrowing the idols therein and insisting the occupants convert.  He undertook this journey in full knowledge he would never return home, and died on a remote island.

So take some advice and turn off your sports, and really all other entertainment, and spend a little more time trying to emulate St. Francis.  And believe me, if he is your children’s role model, instead of some degenerate athlete or rock star, you’ll have a far easier time with them.  And so will the rest of us.

Evidence of transgenderism?

I realize that this blog is read by almost nobody, which is fine by me.  I don’t advertise, I just let people mysteriously find it in the ether.  I don’t want the inflated ego many popular Catholic bloggers develop.  But occasionally I really wish people would pay attention to what I have to say, and this is one of those times.  “Conservatives” so often are their own worst enemies.

Thus, we have Kevin Clark writing in Crisis about the transgendered bathroom controversy.  His article is entitled “The Fact-Free Universe of Transgender Activism.”  It sounds good, since the entire transgender movement is based, as I have often said, on the denial of the undeniable;  namely that there are two sexes, and that whichever sex one belongs to is predetermined before birth.

However, Mr. Clark says that the problem with the transgender activists is that, by not requiring proof of one’s “transgendered status,” the activists are opening the door to anyone using anyone’s restroom.  “An evidence-based system would remove a large part of the objection from the public,” Mr. Clark writes.  Target et al should be allowed to ask for a doctor’s note (!) which at least gives the “stamp of approval” from a “medical professional.”  And this is allegedly a conservative writing.

“Evidence” commonly refers to facts which are used to validate the verity of a proposition.  What “evidence” can a man provide to show that he is actually a woman?  A doctored birth certificate?  A note from a psychiatrist saying that he “identifies” as a woman?  But a man cannot be a woman, nor a woman a man.  A man can take hormones, lop off his penis, get breast implants, and wear women’s clothing if he wants.  In that case, he is a man with no penis, fake breasts, and a hormonal imbalance.  It can no more make him a woman than one can make 2 + 2 equal to 5 simply by wishing it.  It doesn’t matter what lawyer or doctor signs off a document ratifying this man’s madness, at the end of the day he is still, in the objective and real order of things, a man.  And no matter what freak show he makes of himself, he has no right to use the women’s room. In fact, the farther he goes along this bizarre path, the less right he should have.

When the conservatives are throwing around this kind of stupidity then we know the surrender is complete.  When a writer in Crisis considers there to actually be “evidence” of being “truly transgendered,” then we’ve lost the fight already.

The answer is simple.  Any doctor who mutilates a patient should lose his license and be arrested.  Any man who parades down the street in women’s clothing should be considered a suspicious person, and hauled into the police station for questioning.  In saner times, there would be no hesitation about doing this.  Now we are feebly reduced to asking for “evidence” of transgenderism.  And that’s why they will roll over us.