How We Define Gender In Hawaii

[Primemuscle]

They are not limited to that tiny percentage of intersex birth defects.  Any parent in New Jersey and other places that have adopted this allow parents to decide what gender their kid will be, regardless of biology.  

I know this. And in my opinion, it is untrue and it is wrong. Not that it means a hill of beans to me either way. People will do what they want to regardless of what I think. Honestly, I couldn't care less what someone's birth certificate reads. What I do care about is the dishonesty involved.

I am splitting hairs here, but I'm not sure being born intersex is a birth defect so much as it is congenital. Sometimes, it is not even detectable at birth.

When I was 15 my mom falsified my birth certificate by changing my birth date to make me 16 so I could get a driver's license a couple of months early. When I later requested a new original, it was something of a hassle. I still have the one she 'doctored' in my files and it is such an obvious fake that it is laughable. The folks at the DMV must have been blind or she slipped them a few bucks.  

Parents should not be allowed to determine their babies sexual identity for them. The doctor said, "It's a boy!" The parent replies, "But, I wanted it to be a girl. Change my baby's birth certificate to reflect what I want or at least make 'it' gender neutral." So now the doctor exclaims, "It's an it!" What a bunch of bullshit.

I highly recommend this book, which is available on Amazon.

[Dos Equis]

I know this. And in my opinion, it is untrue and it is wrong. Not that it means a hill of beans to me either way. People will do what they want to regardless of what I think. Honestly, I couldn't care less what someone's birth certificate reads. What I do care about is the dishonesty involved.

I am splitting hairs here, but I'm not sure being born intersex is a birth defect so much as it is congenital. Sometimes, it is not even detectable at birth.

When I was 15 my mom falsified my birth certificate by changing my birth date to make me 16 so I could get a driver's license a couple of months early. When I later requested a new original, it was something of a hassle. I still have the one she 'doctored' in my files and it is such an obvious fake that it is laughable. The folks at the DMV must have been blind or she slipped them a few bucks.  

Parents should not be allowed to determine their babies sexual identity for them. The doctor said, "It's a boy!" The parent replies, "But, I wanted it to be a girl. Change my baby's birth certificate to reflect what I want or at least make 'it' gender neutral." So now the doctor exclaims, "It's an it!" What a bunch of bullshit.

I highly recommend this book, which is available on Amazon.

I agree.

[chaos]

I know this. And in my opinion, it is untrue and it is wrong. Not that it means a hill of beans to me either way. People will do what they want to regardless of what I think. Honestly, I couldn't care less what someone's birth certificate reads. What I do care about is the dishonesty involved.

I am splitting hairs here, but I'm not sure being born intersex is a birth defect so much as it is congenital. Sometimes, it is not even detectable at birth.

When I was 15 my mom falsified my birth certificate by changing my birth date to make me 16 so I could get a driver's license a couple of months early. When I later requested a new original, it was something of a hassle. I still have the one she 'doctored' in my files and it is such an obvious fake that it is laughable. The folks at the DMV must have been blind or she slipped them a few bucks.  

Parents should not be allowed to determine their babies sexual identity for them. The doctor said, "It's a boy!" The parent replies, "But, I wanted it to be a girl. Change my baby's birth certificate to reflect what I want or at least make 'it' gender neutral." So now the doctor exclaims, "It's an it!" What a bunch of bullshit.

I highly recommend this book, which is available on Amazon.

"It's an it!"
Classic

[Dos Equis]

Supreme Court Revives Ban on Transgender Military Service
New York Times
By Adam Liptak
Jan. 22, 2019

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday revived the Trump administration’s policy of barring most transgender people from serving in the military. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices temporarily allowed the ban to go into effect while the case moves forward.

The vote was 5 to 4. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

The policy, announced on Twitter by President Trump and refined by the defense secretary at the time, Jim Mattis, generally prohibits people identifying with a gender different from their biological sex from military service. It makes exceptions for several hundred transgender people already serving openly and for those willing to serve “in their biological sex.”

Challenges to the policy have had mixed success in the lower courts. Trial judges around the nation issued injunctions blocking it, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, is expected to rule soon on whether to affirm one of them.

On Jan. 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a third injunction, that one issued by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a federal trial judge in Washington. The appeals court said its ruling was “not a final determination on the merits.” But it handed the administration at least a provisional victory.

The Supreme Court granted stays of two other injunctions, issued by Federal District Court judges in California and Washington State, both in the Ninth Circuit.

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, had argued that the stays were needed to address a troubling phenomenon.

“It is with great reluctance that we seek such emergency relief in this court,” Mr. Francisco wrote. “Unfortunately, this case is part of a growing trend in which federal district courts, at the behest of particular plaintiffs, have issued nationwide injunctions, typically on a preliminary basis, against major policy initiatives.”

“Such injunctions previously were rare, but in recent years they have become routine,” he wrote. “In less than two years, federal courts have issued 25 of them, blocking a wide range of significant policies involving national security, national defense, immigration and domestic issues.”

The administration had also asked the justices to immediately hear appeals, an unusual request when an appeals court has not yet ruled. The court turned down those requests.

The Supreme Court’s rules say it will review a federal trial court’s ruling before an appeals court has spoken “only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this court.”

In a separate brief, Mr. Francisco wrote, “This case satisfies that standard.”

“It involves,” he wrote, “an issue of imperative public importance: the authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the nation’s armed forces.”

He told the justices that prompt action was required to ensure that the Supreme Court could rule before its term ends in June. The alternative, he said, was to defer Supreme Court arguments in the matter to the term that starts in October, with a decision probably not coming until 2020.

But lawyers for current and prospective members of the military challenging the policy said there was no need to upend the status quo while the case proceeded.

“Transgender people have been serving openly in all branches of the United States military since June 2016, including on active duty in combat zones,” their brief said. “Transgender individuals have been permitted to enlist in the military since January 2018.”

“The government has presented no evidence that their doing so harms military readiness, effectiveness or lethality,” the brief said.

The hundreds of people grandfathered in under the new policy, the brief added, “cannot be squared with the government’s claims of urgency to eliminate all other transgender personnel.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/us/politics/transgender-ban-military-supreme-court.html?fbclid=IwAR0yhticiZ3Bg-1DTtwCA36dWO3fLw2gbpJ2Rq6cZud6rXeJ9svnP3V1Uwg

[Dos Equis]

Dem. Senator Bans ‘He/She’ Pronouns During Legislative Hearings
Grammar police preparing to issue citations
By Katy Grimes
20 Jan 2019


California State Senate Judiciary Committee chairwoman Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) announced Thursday that only “gender neutral” pronouns will be permitted during committee hearings. No more will Sen. Jackson allow “he” or “she” to be used when referring to a male or female; “they” will be the only allowed pronoun.

Acknowledging this incorrect grammar, Jackson said since California passed a law recognizing the non-binary designation as a gender, “he and she, we are now merging them so we are using what my grammar teacher would have had a heart attack over: we are using the phrase ‘they’ and replacing other designations so it’s a gender neutral designation.”

“In the spirit of gender neutrality for the rules of this committee, we now designate the chair as ‘they,’” Jackson said, referring to herself as “they.” Or should we say “oneself,” referring to a gender neutral subject with a reflexive pronoun? And isn’t Sen. Jackson a “chairwoman” and not a “chair?”

As silly as this sounds, Sen. Jackson has the authority to make this change. Pursuant to the California Constitution, the Legislature has authority to do what they want for their committee rules.

https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/dem-senator-bans-he-she-pronouns-during-legislative-hearings/

[Primemuscle]

Dem. Senator Bans ‘He/She’ Pronouns During Legislative Hearings
Grammar police preparing to issue citations
By Katy Grimes
20 Jan 2019


California State Senate Judiciary Committee chairwoman Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) announced Thursday that only “gender neutral” pronouns will be permitted during committee hearings. No more will Sen. Jackson allow “he” or “she” to be used when referring to a male or female; “they” will be the only allowed pronoun.

Acknowledging this incorrect grammar, Jackson said since California passed a law recognizing the non-binary designation as a gender, “he and she, we are now merging them so we are using what my grammar teacher would have had a heart attack over: we are using the phrase ‘they’ and replacing other designations so it’s a gender neutral designation.”

“In the spirit of gender neutrality for the rules of this committee, we now designate the chair as ‘they,’” Jackson said, referring to herself as “they.” Or should we say “oneself,” referring to a gender neutral subject with a reflexive pronoun? And isn’t Sen. Jackson a “chairwoman” and not a “chair?”

As silly as this sounds, Sen. Jackson has the authority to make this change. Pursuant to the California Constitution, the Legislature has authority to do what they want for their committee rules.

https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/dem-senator-bans-he-she-pronouns-during-legislative-hearings/

Stop it! I'm too old to learn new pronouns. If it looks like a girl I'll address it as such. If someone looks like a guy, I will use male pronouns. If it looks like an it, I won't bother to figure this out and simply ask and call them by their name.

[illuminati]

Stop it! I'm too old to learn new pronouns. If it looks like a girl I'll address it as such. If someone looks like a guy, I will use male pronouns. If it looks like an it, I won't bother to figure this out and simply ask and call them by their name.

Complete & utter fucking madness
That Bitch has got Mad Cow Disease.

Absolutely Right Prime.
Well Said.

You see Prime I’m not above agreeing with you or acknowledging when you are Right.

[Skeletor]

Stop it! I'm too old to learn new pronouns. If it looks like a girl I'll address it as such. If someone looks like a guy, I will use male pronouns. If it looks like an it, I won't bother to figure this out and simply ask and call them by their name.

You are a hateful bigot and literally Hitler! How dare you assume genders and not use proper pronouns?

[Dos Equis]

6-Year Old Texas Boy On Track For Repressed Puberty Due To Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis
Little James is comfortable being a boy when he's around his dad and other friends. So why is his mother dressing him as a girl and calling him Luna?
By Walt Heyer
JANUARY 29, 2019

As reported in an earlier article concerning a Dallas, Texas, custody case, when in the care of his mother six-year-old James attends first grade obediently dressed as a girl enrolled under the name “Luna.” But when with his father, where he’s given the choice of boy or girl clothes, James chooses boy clothes and refuses to wear girl clothing. Despite this inconsistent behavior, a gender therapist has given James a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

In response, heartwarming things have happened in the fight to save James. A team of designers volunteered their services to update the savejames.com website and another caring friend started an online petition directed to Texan representatives to do something to prevent this kind of abuse of children. Generous people donated to the father’s legal expense fund, raising half of what is needed.

But the father, Jeff Younger, is still hampered by a shortage of finances to secure expert witnesses and perform a forensic custody evaluation to change the outcome for James.

Follow-Up Visit
After writing the first article about James, I arranged to visit Jeff and his six-year-old twin sons in Texas. We met on a Thursday evening during the boys’ usual two hours of visitation with their father. To keep the time casual, Jeff suggested we spend the time with his good friends, the Scott family and their four young children, who always enjoy time together.

Jeff and I drove across town to the mother’s home to pick up the boys. As we pulled up, the front door opened, and the two young boys came flying out. James was dressed as a boy, like his brother. Into the backseat they went, saying hi to their dad and to me before they started talking about Ninja Turtles and other things they had done at school. Not one smidgeon of gender dysphoria or “girl talk” appeared during the drive back to the Scott home.

The next two hours were supervised and playful bedlam. Jeff brought out a toy popular with this bunch of friends—plastic swords and shields. Immediately, all six children were joyfully absorbed in rough-and-tumble swordplay with their fathers and each other.  A pleasant dinner followed, and then the children went off to other playtime activities.

I observed James’ mannerisms, voice inflections, and interactions, looking for evidence of gender dysphoria. I can emphatically say that during the two hours of the visit I saw no sign of gender dysphoria. James indicated no desire to be a girl, nor did he behave like a girl or talk like a girl during the entire time. Both James and his brother happily engaged with the four Scott children and the adults. Both were talkative, demonstrated strong vocabularies, and eagerly showed off their artwork created during a previous playdate.

I asked Jeff why James was dressed as a boy when he ran out of mom’s house. Jeff explained that James prefers to dress as a boy, even at his mother’s, except when he goes to school dressed as a girl.

After observing James and his behavior, I cannot see how his counselor at Dallas Rainbow Counseling could have diagnosed James with gender dysphoria. She spent time with James and his father, where James showed a preference for being a boy. Even if James preferred a girl name in sessions with his mother, it is a huge leap to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. He’s only six, after all.

A misdiagnosis cannot be ruled out, and a prudent next step is a comprehensive psychological assessment to explore why he identifies as a girl with mom and as a boy with dad. Per the custody order, the only parent authorized to oversee James’ psychological counseling is his mother.

A Single Diagnosis Is Not Enough
A single therapist’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria has put James on a life-changing protocol known as the Dutch protocol. (The Dutch protocol lacks scientific basis, yet clinics are adopting it.) The protocol consists of social transition to acting like the opposite sex, and hormone blockers.

Social transition is the first step. James’ mother has enrolled him in first grade as a girl with a girl name and dresses him as a girl for school. Social transition for a young child is not harmless. It’s grooming. My grandmother dressed me as a girl when I was 4, 5, and 6 years old, which led to my own gender confusion.

The next step is administering drugs to block the necessary and natural process of physical maturity and puberty, as early as age 8. Dr. Michael Laidlaw, an endocrinologist practicing in Rocklin, California, says, “What parents should find truly terrifying is the psychological effect of this medication.”

Early evidence shows a troubling effect: All of the children put on blockers continue towards sex changes. The blockers themselves seem to influence children to transition. In vivid contrast, 60 to 90 percent of trans kids who are not reinforced in this desire or put on puberty blockers are no longer trans by adulthood. In other words, most trans children naturally grow out of it as they go through puberty, if they are not socially locked into an opposite-sex identity and puberty is not blocked.

Puberty blockers and the following step, cross-sex hormones, are known to cause serious side effects, including infertility. Children are not able to understand these consequences or give informed consent.

James is on track to be given these drugs.

Another opinion is so clearly needed. It’s easy to see why this father is alarmed and fights so hard for his boy. An intervention is clearly needed and needed now. A second opinion needs to come from someone who is not a cheerleader for diagnosing gender dysphoria and preparing a child for a sex change. The ideal counselor will explore the family dynamics and other contributing factors.

If the current counselor is solid in her belief the gender dysphoria diagnosis is indisputable and fixed, she should support getting a second opinion in the best interests of the child.

Cross-Dressing Young People Will Influence Their Future
The case of James is very troubling to me because I know how the story unfolds. My grandmother dressed me as a girl when I was 4, 5, and 6 years old. Like James, I was far too young to comprehend the long-term consequences of being encouraged to cross-dress at such a young age, much less fight back. In my child’s mind, it felt good to be the center of her attention. Now I call what grandma did to me “child abuse” because her grooming of me as a female negatively affected my entire life.

In adulthood, I was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and underwent unnecessary cross-gender hormone therapy and surgical gender change. I lived eight years as a woman and tried my best to make it work, but after surgery I still had gender dysphoria. Even worse, I was suicidal. Before giving me hormones and surgery, my medical providers should have helped me explore the possible psychological roots of my desire to escape into a female persona, but none did.

I’m not the only one whose life was hurt by the rush to change gender. I have heard from so many trans adults who ask me for advice in going back to their sex at conception that I compiled 30 people’s emails into a book, “Trans Life Survivors.” Several people in the book transitioned in their teens but when they hit their twenties, their feelings of gender dysphoria changed. They grew out of it, but only after making irreversible changes to their bodies, including the ability to have children, and losing years of their life to an alternate identity.

Help James From Being Locked In
Jeff and his lawyer are pursing action through the court to save James, but public response is still very much needed. Even after a generous outpouring of support, Jeff is still hampered by a shortage of finances to secure expert witnesses and perform a forensic custody evaluation.

This case is not only about one six-year-old boy, but about all children who will get locked into a trans life by a gender dysphoria diagnosis and a parent’s endorsement of social transition and hormone blockers. If Younger can prevail in proving the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the resulting treatment is misguided, this Texas case has the potential to save other young children from similar gender identity nightmares.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/01/29/6-year-old-texas-boy-track-repressed-puberty-due-gender-dysphoria-diagnosis/

[illuminati]

6-Year Old Texas Boy On Track For Repressed Puberty Due To Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis
Little James is comfortable being a boy when he's around his dad and other friends. So why is his mother dressing him as a girl and calling him Luna?
By Walt Heyer
JANUARY 29, 2019

As reported in an earlier article concerning a Dallas, Texas, custody case, when in the care of his mother six-year-old James attends first grade obediently dressed as a girl enrolled under the name “Luna.” But when with his father, where he’s given the choice of boy or girl clothes, James chooses boy clothes and refuses to wear girl clothing. Despite this inconsistent behavior, a gender therapist has given James a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

In response, heartwarming things have happened in the fight to save James. A team of designers volunteered their services to update the savejames.com website and another caring friend started an online petition directed to Texan representatives to do something to prevent this kind of abuse of children. Generous people donated to the father’s legal expense fund, raising half of what is needed.

But the father, Jeff Younger, is still hampered by a shortage of finances to secure expert witnesses and perform a forensic custody evaluation to change the outcome for James.

Follow-Up Visit
After writing the first article about James, I arranged to visit Jeff and his six-year-old twin sons in Texas. We met on a Thursday evening during the boys’ usual two hours of visitation with their father. To keep the time casual, Jeff suggested we spend the time with his good friends, the Scott family and their four young children, who always enjoy time together.

Jeff and I drove across town to the mother’s home to pick up the boys. As we pulled up, the front door opened, and the two young boys came flying out. James was dressed as a boy, like his brother. Into the backseat they went, saying hi to their dad and to me before they started talking about Ninja Turtles and other things they had done at school. Not one smidgeon of gender dysphoria or “girl talk” appeared during the drive back to the Scott home.

The next two hours were supervised and playful bedlam. Jeff brought out a toy popular with this bunch of friends—plastic swords and shields. Immediately, all six children were joyfully absorbed in rough-and-tumble swordplay with their fathers and each other.  A pleasant dinner followed, and then the children went off to other playtime activities.

I observed James’ mannerisms, voice inflections, and interactions, looking for evidence of gender dysphoria. I can emphatically say that during the two hours of the visit I saw no sign of gender dysphoria. James indicated no desire to be a girl, nor did he behave like a girl or talk like a girl during the entire time. Both James and his brother happily engaged with the four Scott children and the adults. Both were talkative, demonstrated strong vocabularies, and eagerly showed off their artwork created during a previous playdate.

I asked Jeff why James was dressed as a boy when he ran out of mom’s house. Jeff explained that James prefers to dress as a boy, even at his mother’s, except when he goes to school dressed as a girl.

After observing James and his behavior, I cannot see how his counselor at Dallas Rainbow Counseling could have diagnosed James with gender dysphoria. She spent time with James and his father, where James showed a preference for being a boy. Even if James preferred a girl name in sessions with his mother, it is a huge leap to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. He’s only six, after all.

A misdiagnosis cannot be ruled out, and a prudent next step is a comprehensive psychological assessment to explore why he identifies as a girl with mom and as a boy with dad. Per the custody order, the only parent authorized to oversee James’ psychological counseling is his mother.

A Single Diagnosis Is Not Enough
A single therapist’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria has put James on a life-changing protocol known as the Dutch protocol. (The Dutch protocol lacks scientific basis, yet clinics are adopting it.) The protocol consists of social transition to acting like the opposite sex, and hormone blockers.

Social transition is the first step. James’ mother has enrolled him in first grade as a girl with a girl name and dresses him as a girl for school. Social transition for a young child is not harmless. It’s grooming. My grandmother dressed me as a girl when I was 4, 5, and 6 years old, which led to my own gender confusion.

The next step is administering drugs to block the necessary and natural process of physical maturity and puberty, as early as age 8. Dr. Michael Laidlaw, an endocrinologist practicing in Rocklin, California, says, “What parents should find truly terrifying is the psychological effect of this medication.”

Early evidence shows a troubling effect: All of the children put on blockers continue towards sex changes. The blockers themselves seem to influence children to transition. In vivid contrast, 60 to 90 percent of trans kids who are not reinforced in this desire or put on puberty blockers are no longer trans by adulthood. In other words, most trans children naturally grow out of it as they go through puberty, if they are not socially locked into an opposite-sex identity and puberty is not blocked.

Puberty blockers and the following step, cross-sex hormones, are known to cause serious side effects, including infertility. Children are not able to understand these consequences or give informed consent.

James is on track to be given these drugs.

Another opinion is so clearly needed. It’s easy to see why this father is alarmed and fights so hard for his boy. An intervention is clearly needed and needed now. A second opinion needs to come from someone who is not a cheerleader for diagnosing gender dysphoria and preparing a child for a sex change. The ideal counselor will explore the family dynamics and other contributing factors.

If the current counselor is solid in her belief the gender dysphoria diagnosis is indisputable and fixed, she should support getting a second opinion in the best interests of the child.

Cross-Dressing Young People Will Influence Their Future
The case of James is very troubling to me because I know how the story unfolds. My grandmother dressed me as a girl when I was 4, 5, and 6 years old. Like James, I was far too young to comprehend the long-term consequences of being encouraged to cross-dress at such a young age, much less fight back. In my child’s mind, it felt good to be the center of her attention. Now I call what grandma did to me “child abuse” because her grooming of me as a female negatively affected my entire life.

In adulthood, I was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and underwent unnecessary cross-gender hormone therapy and surgical gender change. I lived eight years as a woman and tried my best to make it work, but after surgery I still had gender dysphoria. Even worse, I was suicidal. Before giving me hormones and surgery, my medical providers should have helped me explore the possible psychological roots of my desire to escape into a female persona, but none did.

I’m not the only one whose life was hurt by the rush to change gender. I have heard from so many trans adults who ask me for advice in going back to their sex at conception that I compiled 30 people’s emails into a book, “Trans Life Survivors.” Several people in the book transitioned in their teens but when they hit their twenties, their feelings of gender dysphoria changed. They grew out of it, but only after making irreversible changes to their bodies, including the ability to have children, and losing years of their life to an alternate identity.

Help James From Being Locked In
Jeff and his lawyer are pursing action through the court to save James, but public response is still very much needed. Even after a generous outpouring of support, Jeff is still hampered by a shortage of finances to secure expert witnesses and perform a forensic custody evaluation.

This case is not only about one six-year-old boy, but about all children who will get locked into a trans life by a gender dysphoria diagnosis and a parent’s endorsement of social transition and hormone blockers. If Younger can prevail in proving the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the resulting treatment is misguided, this Texas case has the potential to save other young children from similar gender identity nightmares.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/01/29/6-year-old-texas-boy-track-repressed-puberty-due-gender-dysphoria-diagnosis/

Wow unbelievable that The mother would do that to her son.
She needs stuffing with the rough end of a Pineapple several Times.

As for the trans & there wanting to go back to being what they were born
More proof it’s a Mental Illness.

[Skeletor]

A single therapist’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria has put James on a life-changing protocol known as the Dutch protocol. (The Dutch protocol lacks scientific basis, yet clinics are adopting it.) The protocol consists of social transition to acting like the opposite sex, and hormone blockers.

This is extremely worrisome if true. How can this be adopted for such crucial cases if it lacks scientific basis?

[illuminati]

This is extremely worrisome if true. How can this be adopted for such crucial cases if it lacks scientific basis?

Libtard Leftists that’s Why.
They ruin everything.

[chaos]

Libtard Leftists that’s Why.
They ruin everything.

[myt1]

Stop it! I'm too old to learn new pronouns. If it looks like a girl I'll address it as such. If someone looks like a guy, I will use male pronouns. If it looks like an it, I won't bother to figure this out and simply ask and call them by their name.

Prime, your two rational posts on this page are really fucking with my head right now.  Did your account get hacked?  I know you've said you're an older gentleman a few times....Did you fall, and hit your head?  When's the last time you've been to the Dr.?  I'm just concerned sir!   

Seriously though "Congrats!  It's an it!" should be turned into a meme for sure!

[Primemuscle]

Prime, your two rational posts on this page are really fucking with my head right now.  Did your account get hacked?  I know you've said you're an older gentleman a few times....Did you fall, and hit your head?  When's the last time you've been to the Dr.?  I'm just concerned sir!   

Seriously though "Congrats!  It's an it!" should be turned into a meme for sure!

I'm just fine. Thanks for asking. I just finished reading Out magazine The Hollywood Issue. I spent more time trying to figure out the featured people's gender than I did reading about them. Sometimes we old dogs have difficulty learning new tricks,



What pronoun would you use when addressing this person?

[illuminati]

I'm just fine. Thanks for asking. I just finished reading Out magazine The Hollywood Issue. I spent more time trying to figure out the featured people's gender than I did reading about them. Sometimes we old dogs have difficulty learning new tricks,



What pronoun would you use when addressing this person?

1st glance from that picture it’s presenting its self as Female.

It’s probably got confused mental illness and doesn’t know which end is up.

[Primemuscle]

1st glance from that picture it’s presenting its self as Female.

It’s probably got confused mental illness and doesn’t know which end is up.

You are right, this person was not born female. - Attractive looking, never-the-less.

[Dos Equis]

You are right, this person was not born female. - Attractive looking, never-the-less.

Looks rather mannish to me.

[Dos Equis]

California Wants to Teach Kindergartners There are 15 Genders    
By: Alex Newman
Published : January 18, 2019

The California Department of Education is working on a plan to teach kindergartners that there are at least 15 different “genders.” The materials under the scheme also claim it is impossible to know whether babies are boys, girls, or something else, because they cannot talk yet. Parents will not be notified and are not allowed to opt their children out of the indoctrination sessions.

According to a report in FaithWire, the proposed changes would be implemented under a revision to the state's “Health Education Framework” to be voted on in May. The scheme says it “supports the development of knowledge, skills, and attitudes” across a range of areas including “sexual health,” which serves as a catch-all to teach children all manner of perversion and evil.

One of the recommended books, titled “Who Are You? The Kid's Guide to Gender Identity,” purports to provide “a straightforward introduction to gender for anyone aged 4+.” The book claims, among other absurdities, that grown-ups “make a guess” about what gender babies are “by looking at their bodies.” The cover features a boy in a dress and a girl climbing a tree.

Meanwhile, a chapter in the health framework guidelines explains to teachers how to teach “sexuality” to kindergarten children. “Discuss gender with kindergartners by exploring gender stereotypes and asking open-ended questions, such as what are preferred colors, toys, and activities for boys/girls, and then challenging stereotypes if presented,” it reads.

Then, the teacher should continue to confuse the children. “Throughout this discussion, show images of children around the same age who do not conform to typical gender stereotypes,” the instructions read. “Examples do not have to be exaggerated or overt. Simple differences, such as colors or toy preferences, can demonstrate acceptance of gender non-conformity.”

Of course, preaching this sort of madness to vulnerable and impressionable children captive in a government classroom has devastating effects. As The Newman Report documented last year, a study from the University of California, Los Angeles, found that more than one fourth of children in the state between the ages of 12 and 17 are “gender non-conforming.”

The new proposed guidelines, which are even more extreme than the previous ones, also call for encouraging middle-school students to fornicate with multiple people at the same time. “Some students may be non-monogamous and the term ‘partner(s)’ may be used to be more inclusive,” reads the material, which aims to normalize perversions that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.

Among the examples offered is “polyamory,” which is defined as “the practice of, desire to, or orientation toward having consensual non-monogamous relationships (i.e. relationships that may include multiple partners).” Another option is “polyfidelity (which involves more than two people being in romantic and/or sexual relationships which is not open to additional partners), amongst many other set-ups.”

What exactly any of this perversion has to do with “health” was not made clear — especially since encouraging this sort of promiscuity and fornication leads to all sorts of venereal diseases, some of which can be deadly. Ironically, some of the sex propaganda is taught under the guise of preventing venereal disease.

On the gender-bending madness, the American College of Pediatricians has said that encouraging children to believe they can change genders by taking hormones and mutilating their genitals is “child abuse.” In other words, these schools are institutionalizing the abuse of children.

This sort of dangerous indoctrination will have the effect of destroying morality, destroying families, destroying lives, and ultimately, because families are the building blocks of civilization, destroying civilization itself. And that is exactly the point.

The government's indoctrination centers have become a mortal threat not just to the children entrusted to their care, but to the very civilization that birthed them. The consequences are going to be devastating.

https://freedomproject.com/the-newman-report/966-california-wants-to-teach-kindergartners-there-are-15-genders?fbclid=IwAR3X-qR2yM2XPSS04nRLeT8HWzZN-YqbnvXI6STPnmc9no3erF4CNq4RMjo

[Skeletor]

California Wants to Teach Kindergartners There are 15 Genders    
By: Alex Newman
Published : January 18, 2019

The California Department of Education is working on a plan to teach kindergartners that there are at least 15 different “genders.” The materials under the scheme also claim it is impossible to know whether babies are boys, girls, or something else, because they cannot talk yet. Parents will not be notified and are not allowed to opt their children out of the indoctrination sessions.

According to a report in FaithWire, the proposed changes would be implemented under a revision to the state's “Health Education Framework” to be voted on in May. The scheme says it “supports the development of knowledge, skills, and attitudes” across a range of areas including “sexual health,” which serves as a catch-all to teach children all manner of perversion and evil.

One of the recommended books, titled “Who Are You? The Kid's Guide to Gender Identity,” purports to provide “a straightforward introduction to gender for anyone aged 4+.” The book claims, among other absurdities, that grown-ups “make a guess” about what gender babies are “by looking at their bodies.” The cover features a boy in a dress and a girl climbing a tree.

Meanwhile, a chapter in the health framework guidelines explains to teachers how to teach “sexuality” to kindergarten children. “Discuss gender with kindergartners by exploring gender stereotypes and asking open-ended questions, such as what are preferred colors, toys, and activities for boys/girls, and then challenging stereotypes if presented,” it reads.

Then, the teacher should continue to confuse the children. “Throughout this discussion, show images of children around the same age who do not conform to typical gender stereotypes,” the instructions read. “Examples do not have to be exaggerated or overt. Simple differences, such as colors or toy preferences, can demonstrate acceptance of gender non-conformity.”

Of course, preaching this sort of madness to vulnerable and impressionable children captive in a government classroom has devastating effects. As The Newman Report documented last year, a study from the University of California, Los Angeles, found that more than one fourth of children in the state between the ages of 12 and 17 are “gender non-conforming.”

The new proposed guidelines, which are even more extreme than the previous ones, also call for encouraging middle-school students to fornicate with multiple people at the same time. “Some students may be non-monogamous and the term ‘partner(s)’ may be used to be more inclusive,” reads the material, which aims to normalize perversions that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.

Among the examples offered is “polyamory,” which is defined as “the practice of, desire to, or orientation toward having consensual non-monogamous relationships (i.e. relationships that may include multiple partners).” Another option is “polyfidelity (which involves more than two people being in romantic and/or sexual relationships which is not open to additional partners), amongst many other set-ups.”

What exactly any of this perversion has to do with “health” was not made clear — especially since encouraging this sort of promiscuity and fornication leads to all sorts of venereal diseases, some of which can be deadly. Ironically, some of the sex propaganda is taught under the guise of preventing venereal disease.

On the gender-bending madness, the American College of Pediatricians has said that encouraging children to believe they can change genders by taking hormones and mutilating their genitals is “child abuse.” In other words, these schools are institutionalizing the abuse of children.

This sort of dangerous indoctrination will have the effect of destroying morality, destroying families, destroying lives, and ultimately, because families are the building blocks of civilization, destroying civilization itself. And that is exactly the point.

The government's indoctrination centers have become a mortal threat not just to the children entrusted to their care, but to the very civilization that birthed them. The consequences are going to be devastating.

https://freedomproject.com/the-newman-report/966-california-wants-to-teach-kindergartners-there-are-15-genders?fbclid=IwAR3X-qR2yM2XPSS04nRLeT8HWzZN-YqbnvXI6STPnmc9no3erF4CNq4RMjo

They probably don't even know how to count to 15 at that age, they're going to learn all those "15 genders"?

[Primemuscle]

Looks rather mannish to me.

Well there is no plastic 'boob job' going on. Also, Zackery isn't cartoonish or whorish looking, which might explain why people in the (movie) industry take Zackary seriously. This is a successful producer who is working on several films as well as Netflix original television shows. Quite an achievement four only being in the industry for five years.

[myt1]

1st glance from that picture it’s presenting its self as Female.

It’s probably got confused mental illness and doesn’t know which end is up.

1st glance, not being able to see the pic while I reply is square jaw, no upper chest contour, and looked like a wig.  I might think different on the wig once I hit "post" and look at the thread again, but base on the first two things really standing out I'd say " 'sup dude!?"

[myt1]

Wow unbelievable that The mother would do that to her son.
She needs stuffing with the rough end of a Pineapple several Times.

As for the trans & there wanting to go back to being what they were born
More proof it’s a Mental Illness.

*Bonus points for region specific punishment that relates to thread title.  Well done sir!

[chaos]

California Wants to Teach Kindergartners There are 15 Genders    
By: Alex Newman
Published : January 18, 2019

The California Department of Education is working on a plan to teach kindergartners that there are at least 15 different “genders.” The materials under the scheme also claim it is impossible to know whether babies are boys, girls, or something else, because they cannot talk yet. Parents will not be notified and are not allowed to opt their children out of the indoctrination sessions.

According to a report in FaithWire, the proposed changes would be implemented under a revision to the state's “Health Education Framework” to be voted on in May. The scheme says it “supports the development of knowledge, skills, and attitudes” across a range of areas including “sexual health,” which serves as a catch-all to teach children all manner of perversion and evil.

One of the recommended books, titled “Who Are You? The Kid's Guide to Gender Identity,” purports to provide “a straightforward introduction to gender for anyone aged 4+.” The book claims, among other absurdities, that grown-ups “make a guess” about what gender babies are “by looking at their bodies.” The cover features a boy in a dress and a girl climbing a tree.

Meanwhile, a chapter in the health framework guidelines explains to teachers how to teach “sexuality” to kindergarten children. “Discuss gender with kindergartners by exploring gender stereotypes and asking open-ended questions, such as what are preferred colors, toys, and activities for boys/girls, and then challenging stereotypes if presented,” it reads.

Then, the teacher should continue to confuse the children. “Throughout this discussion, show images of children around the same age who do not conform to typical gender stereotypes,” the instructions read. “Examples do not have to be exaggerated or overt. Simple differences, such as colors or toy preferences, can demonstrate acceptance of gender non-conformity.”

Of course, preaching this sort of madness to vulnerable and impressionable children captive in a government classroom has devastating effects. As The Newman Report documented last year, a study from the University of California, Los Angeles, found that more than one fourth of children in the state between the ages of 12 and 17 are “gender non-conforming.”

The new proposed guidelines, which are even more extreme than the previous ones, also call for encouraging middle-school students to fornicate with multiple people at the same time. “Some students may be non-monogamous and the term ‘partner(s)’ may be used to be more inclusive,” reads the material, which aims to normalize perversions that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.

Among the examples offered is “polyamory,” which is defined as “the practice of, desire to, or orientation toward having consensual non-monogamous relationships (i.e. relationships that may include multiple partners).” Another option is “polyfidelity (which involves more than two people being in romantic and/or sexual relationships which is not open to additional partners), amongst many other set-ups.”

What exactly any of this perversion has to do with “health” was not made clear — especially since encouraging this sort of promiscuity and fornication leads to all sorts of venereal diseases, some of which can be deadly. Ironically, some of the sex propaganda is taught under the guise of preventing venereal disease.

On the gender-bending madness, the American College of Pediatricians has said that encouraging children to believe they can change genders by taking hormones and mutilating their genitals is “child abuse.” In other words, these schools are institutionalizing the abuse of children.

This sort of dangerous indoctrination will have the effect of destroying morality, destroying families, destroying lives, and ultimately, because families are the building blocks of civilization, destroying civilization itself. And that is exactly the point.

The government's indoctrination centers have become a mortal threat not just to the children entrusted to their care, but to the very civilization that birthed them. The consequences are going to be devastating.

https://freedomproject.com/the-newman-report/966-california-wants-to-teach-kindergartners-there-are-15-genders?fbclid=IwAR3X-qR2yM2XPSS04nRLeT8HWzZN-YqbnvXI6STPnmc9no3erF4CNq4RMjo

California needs a political revolution. Or an enema.

[Dos Equis]

House Votes to Effectively Ban Women's Sports
Terence P. Jeffrey
By Terence P. Jeffrey | May 22, 2019

At the 2016 Olympic trials, sprinter Tori Bowie ran a lifetime best of 10.78 in the 100-meter dash.

But English Gardner edged her out, running 10.74.

A month later, at the Rio Olympics, Bowie won the bronze in the 200-meter dash, the silver in the 100-meter dash, and — running with her USA teammates — the gold in the 4x100-meter relay.

All these races — in the Olympics and Olympic trials — featured women competing against women.

Even though she was one of the fastest women in the world, Bowie would not have won competing with males.

Doriane Lambelet Coleman, who as a student at Cornell in the 1980s was the U.S. National Collegiate Indoor Champion in the women's 800-meter race, is now a law professor at Duke. Together with her colleague, Wickliffe Shreve, she has explained why Bowie would not win the male competition.

"If you know sport, you know this beyond a reasonable doubt: there is an average 10-12 percent performance gap between elite males and elite females," Coleman and Shreve wrote in an analysis published online.

"The gap is smaller between elite females and non-elite males, but it's still insurmountable and that's ultimately what matters," they wrote.

"Translating these statistics into real world results," they wrote, "we see, for example, that: Just in the single year 2017, Olympic, World and U.S. Champion Tori Bowie's 100 meters lifetime best of 10.78 was beaten 15,000 times by men and boys. (Yes, that's the right number of zeros.)"

This brings us to Washington, D.C., where the legality of all-female athletic competition is now a matter of legislative debate.

Democratic House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York has described the so-called Equality Act as a bill that "amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other core civil rights statutes to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity."

In the Judiciary Committee report on the bill, published this month, dissenting Republicans quoted Coleman's analysis at length.

Why?

"The new legislation would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act by redefining 'sex' to include 'gender identity,'" Republican Rep. Greg Steube of Florida explained in a House floor speech last week.

"Without an exception, the definition would apply to all amendments to the 1964 act, including Title IX," he said. "Most schools, colleges, the NCAA, and the Olympic Committee would be affected because they receive federal funds and operate in interstate commerce."

"For example," he said, "a sports team couldn't treat a transgender woman differently from a woman who is not transgender on the grounds that the former is male-bodied. Yet the reality is that putting male- and female-bodied athletes together is co-ed or open sport. And in open sport, females lose."

"Requiring that biological females face competition from biological males will mean the end of women's sports in any meaningful sense," Steube said.

In the Judiciary Committee, Steube had made a straightforward effort to stop the Equality Act from effectively banning women's sports. He offered an amendment that said: "Nothing in this act may be construed to require a biological female to face competition from a biological male in any sporting event."

The committee rejected Steube's amendment. No Democrat voted for it. No Republican voted against it.

When the Equality Act came up on the House floor last Friday, Steube tried again to amend it to protect women's sports.

This time his motion would have added language to the bill that said: "Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act may be construed to diminish any protection under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972."

Title IX says: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

The House rejected Steube's proposal 181 to 228. One Democrat voted for it, and one Republican voted against it.

The House then passed the Equality Act 236 to 173.

The champions of this bill do not deny that it would allow biological males to compete in women's sports.

Democratic Rep. Katie Hill of California took to the House floor to specifically champion this cause.

"State schools and athletic organizations across the country have found for many years that letting LGBTQ student athletes, including girls and women who are transgender, participate in sports does not harm women's and girls' sports in any way," she said.

"As an athlete, athletic success is based on so many factors, like individual ability and strength, and those abilities vary widely for people who aren't even trans," she said. "It has nothing to do with whether someone is transgender or not."

Nadler echoed that view. "Transgender individuals play sports, and sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, just like everyone else," he said.

This bill will not pass the Republican Senate.

But it is another indicator of how the American left's radical agenda forces it to deny objective facts. To justify their abortion agenda, they have long needed to argue that some human beings are not human beings.

To justify their transgender agenda, they now argue that not all boys are boys.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/house-votes-effectively-ban-womens-sports?fbclid=IwAR0sFPQcyM1exjJHl5pt_yOLiWssTxIpvkiRL-7txUR6DWc-2B6fnUC2Nlw#utm_source=cnsnews&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=facebook&utm_term=n-facebook&utm_content=n-women-sports