Men sailing under false flag

people holdning hands
Let’s hold hands while we trust each other to be honest about our orientation. Photo: Becris via

What does it mean to be tolerant? According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary it’s a willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own.  This does not in any way mean we have to agree. On the contrary, disagreement is a prerequisite for tolerance.

Tolerance implies that we accept or put up with something or someone we do not like. When we say that we tolerate someone, we also say that we have profoundly different opinions. Most people probably haven’t thought of tolerance as problematic, but I have been moving in that direction the last few years as I have witnessed a type of tolerance that ignores other people. Everything is about what gives ourselves pleasure; our neighbour does not matter at all. So we want to be able to enjoy liberal laws and attitudes, even when it has negative consequences to others.

I have written about Colleen Francis in a previous post. This 45 year old transgender, but biological man, was granted the right to use the women’s locker room at Evergreen College because he identified as a woman. Read about it in Mail Online. I recently came across a similar case, and this time it wasn’t an individual claiming this right, but Target was eager to show their level of tolerance. They referred to a federal law designed to prevent discrimination based on gender identity, and they introduced transgender bathrooms. This means that men can use the ladies room if they say that they identify as a woman. It doesn’t matter that they are still biologically a man. We are just supposed to trust that a man no longer has the sex drive he had as a man. Target had a positive angle and claimed this was in line with the company’s inclusiveness. Read a brief statement on the Target site.

This may sound like a good idea, but not when we have men like Norwood Smith Burnes who undressed in front of children in the women’s restroom at a WalMart, and Christopher Hambrook who assaulted a woman in a shelter in Toronto. North Carolina wants to keep biological men and women separated and the state has had a fight with federal authorities, which has led to law suits both ways. Federal authorities feel it is wrong to discrminiate against someone who has chosen to identify as transgender. There are a lot of worms in this particular can, and I believe we could see many other groups demanding rights.

People are very different and some may feel that society should respect them and clear some space for them. It’s not inconceivable that some people in the future might openly identify as pedophile or rapist, crazy as that sounds. There is a high profile blogger in Norway called Saksynt that argues that owning child pornography does not make you a pedophile, which has had some people question his orientation. A few years ago the infamous attorney Tor Erling Staff defended a pedophile called “the pocket man”. The attorney wrote in his biography that he had sex with older men from the age of 12 and he thought that the only problem was the way society reacted. That’s what harmed children, according to Staff. These are some of the attitude socalled respected people have.

There’s a diagnose called species dysphoria, which is used for people that feel they are less human. There was a case in Norway recently and the state broadcasting corporation was criticised because people felt that a woman who was being interviewed should have been protected from herself. She said she had always felt like a cat and that’s how she lived her life. There is also something called dysmorphic disorder, which is a strong feeling that there is something wrong with your body. What about personality disorders? People with paranoid personality disorder are supposedly sensitive, easily offended, and perceive the world as unfriendly (it is to many people without being mentally ill) and they may decide to fight back. Compulsive personality disorder is characterized by excessive orderliness and so much focus on details that they can’t see the whole picture.

If someone decides to identify as something else, are we supposed to enable them? This could have some extreme results. If a 15 year old girl decides to become anorexic should her school make it easier for her to choose that lifestyle, and if they don’t would that be a violation of human rights? The Huffington Post had a couple of posts where they didn’t seem to take the “bathroom debate” seriously. They claimed this wasn’t about safety for girls and women, but about those who feel unformortable around transgender people. They quoted the police in another article claiming transgender bathroom would not increase the risk of rape. Nevertheless I think the new law will change things. This will make it easier for men with malicious intent.

my little pony
Many feminists don’t like Lego Friends because it’s not gender neutral. I suppose My Little Pony isn’t any better to them.

I can tolerate transsexuals in the sense that I disagree, but accept their right to choose a different lifestyle as long as they don’t violate other people’s rights. I’m still not convinced it’s a good idea to send girls into a restroom or locker room where I suspect there could be tetosteron-producing males. There may not be many rapes as a direct result of this liberal attitude, but it’s hardly going to help victims knowing society has allowed this to happen.

Another thing is whether we are willing to risk treatmant. There was a documentary series in Norway last year called Born in the wrong body. This received a lot of positive feedback and everybody agreed that we should accept their right to choose gender. Doctors used to prescribe large amounts of estrogen drugs for women in menopause, but about 15 years ago they started to realise how dangerous this could be. A number of studies have shown a risk of cancer, heart/vascular disease and stroke. When we accept the assertion that some girls are trapped inside a boy’s body and vice versa, we should ask ourselves whether it’s worth the risk.

A woman replied to the Norwegian version of this post. She pointed out that someone who feels that he/she was born in the wrong body doesn’t have the experiences they felt they should have had. A boy who thinks he should have been a girl doesn’t have the body or the hormones of a girl. This always reminds me of a boy I met some years ago as a teacher. When he started 1st grade as a six year old he presented himself as a very pink boy. His parents had encouraged him to like girls toys. He gradually lost this interest during his first year in school and eventually football with the boys was more interesting than pink dolls and ponies.

I heard about a boy in Argentina a couple of years ago. When he was six he supposedly told his parents that he felt he should have been a girl. His parents had the paper work done to change his gender officially, but as he will be growing up in a male body I don’t think he is every going to feel like a girl.


North Carolina’s sweeping anti LGBTQ law explained


6 thoughts on “Men sailing under false flag

  1. Hi John – another great thought-provoking post. I don’t think many people today have thought through the various implications that these laws and policies will have on society as a whole. It’s interesting to me that the very things that these groups, who truly have been victims of unjust discrimination in the past, are willing to discriminate now against anyone who disagrees with them. They have become the very thing they fought against in the past and I’m not sure they even realize it. Keep up the good work.

  2. Thank you for your response. I’m all in favour of people having the right to make their own choices, as long as it doesn’t ruin other peoples’ lives. I sometimes wonder how things work out for people that make the sex change, either they do the surgery or not. The official story says that this will give the people who feel they grew up in someone else’s body all they dreamed of. I am sure many feel liberated when they have finally achieved something they thought was impossible, but I am skeptical. The absence of other voices could of course mean that the euphoric period doesn’t end, and that life is good, but I suspect there are some voices out there we should have heard.

    I was thinking a little about religion after I published my post earlier today. It seems like there is a strong will to force all religions to accept more liberal laws. It’s bad enough for the conservative Christians, but I wonder what the Muslims think about this. It sounds like many religions will have to make changes in the coming years.

  3. Bravo, John!

    You cover several salient points on this issue. But who among us would have ever imagined that such things would be matters of public policy?

    As rpfingston said, it doesn’t appear that some people have thought through the various implications of these laws. But I suspect that those at the policy making level actually have. Perhaps those implications are ultimately the point and the purpose?

    When I was young and in college, I knew some transgender individuals, and I had much compassion on their situation. But what I see different now, than 15-20 years ago, is this forceful, bullying, in your face approach of the transgender movement. There have always been transgender people, but in the past, they seemed to genuinely want to be seen and accepted as the opposite sex, which ultimately meant discretion on their part. The whole point seemed to be to “pass” as the opposite sex. I am sure that we all have unknowingly shared restrooms with such individuals at some time or another. And I suspect that most of that sort are probably harmless. But now, we have another phenomanon…. which seems designed to serve some other purpose than to simply ensure that transgender people are safe and not discriminated against. The other purpose(s) seems to include:

    1. Making non-trangendered people as uncomfortable as possible
    2. Making people who do not accept the normalization of transgenderism appear to be the equivalent of racists, bigots, etc.
    3. Demeaning womanhood to the level of mere synthetic hormones, make-up and high heels…. (a similar demeaning is being done to manhood, but as woman I feel the former more keenly)
    4. Eradicating rights for women and girls.
    5. Providing legal protection for predatory males who choose to pose as transgender to gain access to female-only spaces.
    6.To eradicate any meaningful differences between sexes/genders (men and women become interchangeable)
    7. To render a portion of the population sterile.
    8. To lay the groundwork in popular culture, society in general for transhumanism–the modification of human beings.
    9. To eradicate the very concept of Natural Law
    10. To elevate the transient feelings of males over the rights and safety of females and children (though the transgender “man” in the mens’ room impacts males as well).
    12. To normalize the deviant and demonize the natural.
    13. To criminalize Christians and persons of other religions who will not celebrate/accept/promote/support this deviancy of natural law. (though I think a person could very well be an atheist and oppose this on the simple grounds of logic and biology)

    and I think this list could go on and on….. Just as gay people and their issues were used by certain “special interests” to promote agendas that were not really about the civil rights of gay people….the transgender bathroom movement seems to be a similar situation……..

    Makes you wonder what will be next……? Did anyone else notice how almost immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage last year, the article that popped up in Salon Magazine defending pedophilia as just another “sexual orientation,” and bemoaning the discrimination against pedophiles? Even the DSM V has recently classified pedophilia as another sexual orientation….and several articles on this popped up shortly after the Supreme Court decision. I kid you not, look it up.

    With regards to the so-called “happily ever after” story of sex-reassignment surgeries, google Walt Heyer and Sex change regret. The “happily ever after” story is just as delusional as the body-misperception underlying transgenderism.

    But the worst part of all, is what I consider child abuse: the “transitioning” of young children. It reminds me of Nazi human experimentation. NO ONE knows the long-term effects of giving cross-sex hormones to children and adolescents. We do know that hormone replacement therapy, as John pointed out, puts menopausal women at a greater risk for cancer. Odd, isn’t it, that in all the hype and cheerleading for the transitioning of children and the whole, “I am Jade” fad, we never hear a word about the cancer risks for these children? And forget about the whole whacking off genitals before the kids have had a chance to use them, and make an informed decision……….and the whole psycho-social-sexual implications of screwing with kids’ heads like this……or what the head of the John Hopkins Psychiatric clinic had to say about this outrage.

    In conclusion……….I also have to wonder what role that the endocrine-disrupting chemicals are playing in this sudden seeming “epidemic” of transgender children. There has been some very disturbing research published about the effects of Atrazine (a pesticide) in amphibians. It can convert males to females, etc. make frogs homosexual, as well as sterile. So, I suppose the whole “transgender” movement can also be a cover for the environmental poisoning of us and our children. The abnormal propogandized as the normal. Sick becomes the new normal. Sterility is to be celebrated; fecundity to be rejected.

    Ultimately……it is an anti-human, anti-creation, and anti-God agenda……

    Sorry John, for getting on a soap-box, and my apologies in advance for any unpleasant controversy that my comments might arouse.

    Great writing. The sanity is refreshing………

    1. Thank you for your comment. I can see that I could have turned this into a long serious of posts with your input. I wrote something on my Norwegian blog today that seems to be relevant to this topic. Tomorrow is our Constitution Day, which is a really big public celebration. All the schools take part in a parade together with the school bands and this parade ends up in front of the town hall. There are several speeches there, one by a student and one by an invited speaker.

      The speaker this year is one of the early gay rights activists. She won a free speech award in 1978, but returned it together with the prize money in 2009, which she referred to as Judas-money. She and many others were provoked when the same foundation gave the award to a philosopher that had opposed the new marriage law, which equated heterosexuals and homosexuals. This gay activist has used freedom of speech to offend a lot of people, but apparantly she wants to limit free speech when it suits her. I suppose she’s going to tell the children about democracy and freedom tomorrow.

  4. You can always write a sequel! 🙂

    Not surprised about the speaker. Apparently tolerance and free speech only applies to certain views and positions. A “free speech for me but not for thee…” sort of approach.

    Oh by the way, I loved your title. Very apt!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s