Gay Patriot Header Image

This Is Pretty Horrible If It’s True

David French wonders if the left’s transgender zeal is victimizing the mentally ill.

I ran across this heartbreaking interview of a University of Michigan-Flint social work professor whose 19 year-old daughter is “transitioning.” She’s autistic, and she’s been influenced by everything from pop culture to support group meetings to believe that she’s really a man. The story is tragic:

She started attending a local PFLAG meeting, where she met many trans people, including a number of FtoM trans teenagers who were raving about a certain “gender therapist.” Although the APA recommends a minimum of one year of “gender counseling” before surgery, this gender therapist (whom I consented to, before really understanding what I was doing) gave my daughter the go-ahead to have a bilateral mastectomy after only two sessions. This gender specialist never reviewed any of the Special Ed records or spoke to my daughter’s previous therapist, who had known her for a decade. And, crucially, she never asked my daughter, “Might you be a lesbian?”

It gets worse. As you might expect, her daughter wasn’t mentally equipped to understand the true consequences of her decision:

To give you some sense of my daughter’s level of understanding of what it means to transition, she told me recently that she believes that the testosterone “will grow her a penis.” I had to break the news to her that, although this is the mythology in the PFLAG meetings (where a number of the other young trans people are also autistic), this is not the case.

She has been taken advantage of. Healthy organs were amputated. This is insurance fraud, poor clinical practice, a violation of APA standards, unethical and unjust. It is a crime not just against women, but particularly against disabled women. So many of these young women who are “transitioning” are also autistic.

Despite stories like this, many states and professional associations are doing their dead-level best to render it not just unethical but also illegal to counsel teens away from such life-altering mutilations.

It is impossible to have an honest debate about the link between mental illness and transgenderism because to even suggest that a person who feels trapped in the wrong sex body would benefit from psychotherapy will result in accusations of bigotry and “transphobia.”

Obviously, the only “compassionate” thing to do to such people are to chemically and surgically mutilate them.

I Don’t Care If They Never Go Back

Posted by V the K at 12:30 pm - May 23, 2016.
Filed under: Gay Victimization

The San Diego Padres made the mistake of inviting the San Diego Gay Men’s chorus to sing the National Anthem at a baseball game.  Drama ensued.

But when the moment arrived, the chorus was forced to stand on the field and listen to a recording of a woman singing the anthem instead, and the Padres never took any action to correct what the organization said was a mistake, such as allowing the chorus to perform after the recorded anthem ended.

I think the explanation that it was a technical glitch is completely plausible. But, you know how it is with snowflakes.

We call on the San Diego Padres and Major League Baseball to immediately launch a full and transparent investigation into the incident to determine if someone or some people intentionally engaged in anti-gay discrimination or a hate crime by playing a female’s voice to represent a group of gay men with the purpose of denigrating and/or ridiculing gay men. The historic significance of such an act is not lost on the LGBT community—especially in relation to professional sports—and added to the depth of embarrassment experienced by the singers and their families.

We also call upon the City of San Diego City Attorney’s Office and the City of San Diego Human Relations Commission to independently investigate this incident to determine if members of the San Diego Padres organization engaged in activity in violation of the San Diego Human Rights Ordinance or engaged in any deliberate hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

Oh, Good Lord, Princess. Get over yourself.

You’re always a victim. And it’s always about you.

Whatever.

HT: Peter H.

Gary Johnson Defends Wedding Cake Fascism

Posted by V the K at 7:23 am - May 23, 2016.
Filed under: Freedom,Liberal Intolerance

In a Facebook post, Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson explains why the State should be allowed to force bakers and florists to participate in gay weddings even if such participation goes against their religious beliefs.

In a nationally-televised debate among three of the Libertarian candidates for President (A debate that should, by the way, have been more inclusive of all the candidates.), a highly unlikely hypothetical question was raised about whether a Jewish baker has the right to refuse to serve a Nazi sympathizer asking for a “Nazi cake”. I responded to that question in the legal context of whether a public business has the right to refuse to serve a member of the public, as distasteful as it might be.

The simple answer to that question is, whether all like it or not, U.S. law has recognized the principle of public accommodation for more than 100 years: The principle that, when a business opens its doors to the public, that business enters into an implied contract to serve ALL of the public. Further, when that business voluntarily opens its doors, the owners voluntarily agree to adhere to applicable laws and regulations — whether they like those laws or not.

To be clear, anti-discrimination laws do not, and cannot, abridge fundamental First Amendment rights. I know of no one who reasonably disagrees. In the highly unlikely event that a Nazi would demand that a Jewish baker decorate a cake with a Nazi symbol, the courts, common sense, and common decency — not to mention the First Amendment — all combine to protect that baker from having to do so. It’s not an issue, except when distorted for purposes of gotcha politics.

Does a public bakery have to sell a cake to a Nazi? Probably so. Does that bakery have to draw a swastika on it? Absolutely not. And that’s the way it should be.

Of course, we all know that this conversation is really “code” for the current, and far more real, conversation about society’s treatment of LGBT individuals. I have even heard some talk of a “right to discriminate”. And of course, we have states and municipalities today trying to create a real right to discriminate against the LGBT community on religious grounds — the same kinds of “religious” grounds that were used to defend racial segregation, forbid interracial marriages and, yes, defend discrimination against Jews by businesses. That is not a slope Libertarians want to go down.

Once again, my belief that discrimination on the basis of religion should not be allowed has been distorted by some to suggest that a legitimate church or its clergy should be “forced” to perform a same-sex marriage. That is absurd. The various ballot initiatives I supported across the country to repeal bans on same-sex marriage all had one provision in common: A specific provision making clear that no religious organization, priest or pastor could be required to perform any rite contrary to that organization’s or individual’s faith. That protection was supported almost universally by the LGBT community — even though most legal scholars agreed that such a protection already exists in the Constitution. We just wanted to leave no doubt.

I was the first major candidate in the 2012 presidential campaign to call for full marriage equality, and Libertarians have long stood for equal treatment under the law for all Americans. As your candidate for President, I will not tarnish that record.

He’s wrong, of course. Public accommodation laws arose from the necessity to protect travelers from harm way back when being denied a room in an inn or a meal at a tavern could be a matter of life-or-death. Getting one’s feelings hurt because someone doesn’t cheer one’s lifestyle does not rise to the level of harm that warrants state involvement. His assertion that the law trumps individual conscience is an odd one for someone who claims to be a libertarian; the Jim Crow laws forced merchants to discriminate even if they didn’t want to, because “It’s the law.”

If a bakery (or a florist, or a photographer) doesn’t want to participate in your wedding, there is a simple solution that doesn’t involve the State, go to another baker. Someone else will be gladly accept the business.

Forcing those who religiously object to gay marriage to participate in gay marriage ceremonies is an act of forced political speech in a way that just selling a generic cake to a gay customer is not. It’s disheartening that Mr. Johnson cannot distinguish the difference. However, since his opinion on the matter is no different than Hillary’s or Trump’s, it isn’t a deal-breaker.

untitled1

Gun Rights Are Gay Rights

Posted by V the K at 5:51 am - May 23, 2016.
Filed under: Gun Control

At the end of the day, the human right of self-defense is orders of magnitude more important than the “right” of a gender appropriator to use the opposite sex’s bathroom. It’s pretty effed up that this is not the order of priorities on the Gay Left, but there it is. A Federal Judge in DC recently upheld the right of all people to avail themselves of the necessary means of self-defense; one of the plaintiffs was a gay dude.

The plaintiff, Matthew Grace, is a district gun owner and member of The Pink Pistols, a shooting group that “honors diversity and is open to all shooters regardless of sexual orientation,” with dozens of chapters nationwide.

“We teach queers to shoot. Then we teach others that we have done so,” their website states.

Armed queers don’t get bashed. We change the public perception of the sexual minorities, such that those who have in the past perceived them as safe targets for violence and hateful acts — beatings, assaults, rapes, murders — will realize that that now, a segment of the sexual minority population is now armed and effective with those arms. Those arms are also concealed, so they do not know which ones are safe to attack, and which are not…which they can harm as they have in the past, and which may draw a weapon and fight back.

By applying progressive argument logic, if you are opposed to gun rights, then you support the gay bashers.

I Won’t Be a Part of It

Posted by V the K at 12:26 am - May 23, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

Papa Giorgio asks:

V… I have a question for you. I am not a fan of Trump, to say the least. And for the first time since voting Bush Sr. (my first vote) have voted GOP. This will most likely be the first year I do not. And even started a site to work against Trump, “The Constitutional Federalists of America,” buying many URL variation of it. Anyhew… I started to think and came up with three points that would make me consider my vote drifting back towards the GOP, they are these three:

✦ He would have to announce plans to be in office for one term;
✦ He would have to announce a conservative leaning VP;
✦ He would have to foreshadow his choices he is considering for the Supreme Court.

It sucks that we have to be soo worried about the Court… these Justices shouldn’t have the power to interpret the Constitution… the Constitution should reign them in. But this is the sad reality we face.

In my most recent upload to my YouTube channel Levin talks to Carrie Severino about what apparently seems to be one of my criteria met.

THE QUESTION IS THIS: If Trump meets the other two, would you consider voting for him? … if not, why not?

And this is my answer:

I can’t imagine Trump limiting himself to one-term, but that really wouldn’t make any difference to me.

I don’t think Trump is going to pick a conservative for the vice president spot, I think he is going to pick John Kasich — a scheming, nasty little weasel of a man with crossover appeal to moderates (who also tend to be weasels). The vice president pick is irrelevant. He may as well pick John Oates, or that other fella from ‘The Pet Shop Boys’ for all the influence his VP will have.

If the SCOTUS appointments are reason enough for you to hold your nose and vote for Trump, that’s a perfectly valid rationale and I won’t argue with it. It’s not persuasive to me because it just isn’t enough. We can probably survive with a few more liberals on the Supreme Court, I’m not so certain we can survive the type of sewer politics Donald Trump represents.

Which is pretty much the answer to “Why not?”

(more…)