Barack on non-binary

Barack on non-binary...

The video clip at bottom of page is of a podcast type show of Michelle Obama's where controversial topic was skirted by (in)conveniently editing it out.

The end of Barack's (guided) monologue was cropped off — must've been patriarchial (or whitey) hubris (or whatever) — but he went on talking about a gay professor of his who was influential for him.

Author's note:

I took issue with Donald Trump with his use of word lynching and so I wouldn't vote for him. That was prior to the time when transgender experimentation surgeries were more in public attention. President Trump hasn't waivered on his stance on the latter issue and he's realistic on that point.

It's asinine to continue speaking about ideas like "non-binary people" and colonization of Mars (there, Barack — people ain't living in underwater colonies in the ocean & why not? hmmm...).

I have to take the positions I do for my own personal integrity, regardless of possible stigma. I have a website that is documenting evidence of life-threatening abuse of a young woman who was caught up in that entrapment of sadistic liberalism and she suffered as result! (Ignorance is bliss.)

What's important here too is the overall message that if a parent says something that doesn't make sense, and even if regarding a subject that is effectively life & death level of seriousness, then they can pretend like it was never said. All the stigma surrounding "mentall illness" & nobody stops to think that a child's parents (or family) may be so complicit in their role that the child is abused (by somebody) and they can flat out act like it's all in the child's head. & then the family (as well as others) can laugh and ridicule the child to teach them that is how this world supposedly works.

A related issue brought up in local city Meta post.

The controversy of what's known as "gender affirmation" or transgender experimentation (as I phrase the topic) has the associated activism on the behalf of the victims (as I'll describe them here) to inform the public of the difficulties of stigma, discrimination and violence the people encounter. I don't doubt or really disagree with any of that but my point is that at same time there exists the ongoing atheist agenda to promote continued experimentation. The idealogy is that with increased population in the demographic and puplic awareness the people can become more accepted and as result, there'd be decreased violence against them. The issue is now, however, that there's also tendancy by activists to insist that any unexplained death of a transgender person, where the person is found alone somewhere for example, has got to be as result of someone else's involvement. The narrative is that the transgender person was happy and outgoing and fun, etc., and anyone who'd believe there was self-harm involved, or circumstances where the transgender person provoked attack against them then the dissenters are labeled as transphobic ("ad hominem", or kafka-trapped; or scapegoated). There becomes an obvious desire of activists to engage anybody in discussion who isn't in complete agreement with them. The "complete agreement" is the true issue since a) There is really underlying misandrism present and noticeable (which in and of itself isn't such an issue since it can be understandable) but b) There is defensiveness of parents and practicians too and sympathy for the former isn't entirely unwarranted (don't get me wrong), but defensiveness of medical personnel who make money from destroying people's lives isn't so palatable.

In regards to parents of transgender people though, defending them isn't acceptable since they are the first and most critical influence for a person in regards to the a child's physicological health. I'm not out here to imply that there is some standard that can always be relied on to resolve the issue once and for all since myriad individual circumstances exist but when activists won't acknowledge the parental abuse, insisting that they were completely innocent, and then labeling anyone who doesn't go with the idealogy as "transphobic" and implication is that the dissenters are capable of the very violence that is subject of discussion when in reality there's misdirection, scapegoating, since there was violence committed against the transgender person when they were first operated on or administered medicine to facilitate gender modification. There is goal to silence any opposition and then (of course) the lack of outcry is construed as consensus.

The debate on the local city's post and subsequent argument with me when I pointed out that Charlize Theron adopted a boy and a girl and now she as two daughters made me realize though that the example given is perfect since I was insulted and condescended, patronized (enough to prove the point, anyway) but here I am who, by people's accounts who are college educated and work in human services field themselves, I've been a victim of violent crime in myself. The trauma I experienced prior to meeting those people were the reason I was there and I appreciated their help. My reputation in regards to my advocacy is important and it extends to other areas. I'm insightful and respectful and all that (so I've been told). I have information about my advocacy work in my profile on Facebook but it's ignored and people will troll me with quips implying that I'm just stupid, bigoted, or what-have-you depending on topic. The point is here that in most cases, or subjects (like immigration), I mainly consider that as irritating and often people will let up. In this particular topic though, the badgering me is really hypocritical since if the discussion is about stigma and discrimination, etc. against people then the example set is dismissing a person's experience (mine), ignoring it in the midst of accusing me of ignoring the plight of transgender people. I presented (only) one example to be brief and that was used against me and then of course when I provide more I'm ignored and there's hundreds of comments at that point.

The goal gets to be about luring others in and throwing them under the bus, so to speak. Many people understand that and the agenda is ongoing to destroy people's lives who might off-chance be in proximity of someone who is distressed due to jealously because of their lack of intimacy with other people. Everybody is responsible for themselves (their physical self), as I'll put that here, but with the idealogy I'm describing there is implication that other people are (going to be held) responsible for a transgender person's acceptance of their own physical self. Again, what I'm stating here isn't anything new or unknown. The annoyance gets to be that there is more to this world but people want to get others wrapped up in the most rudimentary controversy there is.

This is a reply to a comment I made on a local official city group on social media. The person is local to me and celebrates a wealthy woman who destroyed a child's life.

The plain text and screencapture(s):

Suzie McMillian

The actress. Charlize Theron, adopted a boy and a girl, Ashley Stires, now she has two daughters. What are the odds of that? If there is high mortality rate with people receiving "gender affirming care" then it's society's fault, right? How exactly?

Shari Glassgow

Suzie McMillian so a single example proves there's no mortality in any other population? Seriously? I'm happy that Charlize Theron is trans-positive with her kids, but that does not negate the rate at which trans kids are disowned, bullied, and murdered. Let's not deflect.

The negligence is established by the liability, not the liability by the negligence. ~ An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law - Roscoe Pound He also states (which is pertinent too since it's discussion of nihilism philosophy): "But note that the negligence here is a dogmatic fiction."