Email *

The young 6-foot, 250-pound rookie linebacker hurries out onto the field, it’s 4th and goal to go. It is his chance to make an impression on the coaching staff in this preseason game. The ball is snapped, hand-off goes to the running back, the rookie moves to tackle the running back and is run over. He took a hell of a shot to the head, he is not getting up, and oh no he may be seriously injured. Too bad this young 250-pound linebacker was trapped in the body of a 105-pound housewife. A few bystanders tried to intervene and tell “him” “he” was really a 105-pound housewife, but these bystanders were booed and yelled at for not respecting “his” feelings and were told who were they to judge. As with many who try to point out the obvious these well meaning bystanders just walked away shaking their heads thinking this is just way too weird, they should have read the program before they entered the stadium, it would have told them the new norm is weird. Yes, weird, maybe I could be persuaded to use the word abnormal but I am not going to dance around this weirdness that has been unleashed recently. I suppose some would claim my example is absurd… really? Absurd, there is plenty of absurdity to go around.

Let us move on to today’s absurdity that will be tomorrow’s heroes that fought for their “rights” to be accepted for who they are. “We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present “transability” at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa. The first time I heard of this, transability, was on talk radio. I waited for the punch line, it never came, you can’t make this stuff up. Simply put an able bodied person “feels” that or “believes” that they are a disabled person trapped in an able-bodied body. How should such a person be treated? As a person with a mental disorder or shall their feelings/beliefs be taken seriously and allow them to be surgically mutilated. Oh wait you think the latter is over the top? going too far? consider this: In the late 1990s, Scottish surgeon Dr. Robert Smith amputated the legs of two patients at their request. While the surgery involved National Health Service staff, each patient paid nearly $6,000 for their procedures. Perhaps ESPN has an ESPY on their shelf for some future time to honor some famous sports figure that discovered by-gosh by-golly he/she was really a transabled person, and had the courage to have his/her leg amputated, what a hero.

Get a hold of yourself man, you’re a dude Bruce, now you’re a dude without a penis, don’t forget to put the seat down. Sound harsh, the world is harsh and there are realities that must, or at least should be accepted. I am not sure if people like Bruce are fortunate to be living in a world that gives them the luxury to be so weird. Dr. Paul McHugh has a somewhat contrary view from mainstream media; he gives pause to the idea on “reassignment” surgery. He wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal, the title is Transgender Surgery Isn’t the Solution. He was once the psychiatrist in chief at John Hopkins Hospital. John Hopkins was the first American medical center to do sex-reassignment surgery. John Hopkins discovered their psychosocial adjustment was no better than transgender patients not having the surgery. Seeing no vast improvements they stopped doing the surgeries. In his article he sighted a 30-year study from Sweden of 324 people having sex-reassignment surgery, the findings showed a high suicide rate among these people. He ends his article this way:
“At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. “Sex change” is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

Gay Marriage, oh sure that means a happy union between a man and a woman. Of course I already wrote on this subject, got some feed back too. It proves that if you cry like a baby because you don’t like the meaning of a word, marriage: the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united on a permanent basis. Merriam and Webster Dictionary pre-2009 and have the support of liberal [sic] politicians, media and academia you can cause collective amnesia and cause many to forget the meaning of the word. You can even get them to believe marriage was an invention of evil Christians to be used to disenfranchise homosexuals centuries later, now that was thinking ahead. Liberals framed it as Christian’s discrimination. Sorry all civilizations across many millennia considered marriage to be a union between a man and a woman. So it must have been Ug and Og sitting around a campfire coming up with a way to disenfranchise homosexuals today. Ug asks “disen-what, homo-who?” Anyway I am waiting to be taken away to get my mind right but until then marriage is between a man and a woman.

So in 1974 after many years of research and many peer reviewed studies the American Psychiatric Association found that homosexuality was no longer a mental disorder. Well that’s not quite what happened, as there is nothing new under the sun, gay activists continually protested the APA. Under the pressure the APA cured millions of a mental disorders overnight. The trustees of the APA voted to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. According to the Diagnostic Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5) “substance use disorder describes a problematic pattern of using alcohol or another substance that results in impairment in daily life or noticeable distress.” Good news for all us lushes out here we can just go protest the AMA and be cured, now that would be one hell of a protest. You won’t even have to hide that nippy bottle in your desk any more, get a 5th and leave it right there on top of the desk; they threaten to fire you that would be discrimination.
Tolerate: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference
Accept: believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct.
The former, someone tells me they are gay I may respond with an OK with an inquisitive sound to it, inquisitive because I am thinking why the hell are you telling me this for?…TMI. The latter someone tells me they are gay I respond with, that is awesome! You got a significant other? Are you going to get married soon? I would be glad to bake a cake for the wedding and take the wedding pictures.

The Contrarian is libertarian, don’t have the government force me to accept your weird ideas and I will not have them make you accept my weird ideas. I am conservative in the sense I realize the standard of living we are blessed to have did not just appear overnight, it has been built upon ideas of liberty going back centuries and through much of that time government was the hindrance to liberty not its proponent. The march goes on, weirdness seems to be winning and has been for quite sometime. Two things that seem to drive the liberals [sic] in the media, politics, and academia. One: they are always on the look out for a new victim class to champion and by champion they mean more government involvement. They interfere with people freely interacting with one another under the guise of stopping discrimination. Coming to a Hooters near you a waiter/tress with more cleavage than your wife and a larger package than yourself.  Two: they know who they are infuriating when they push these agendas, The Religious Right, oh baby yeah! Schadenfreude! Many of these “victims” should realize there is very little, if any, true compassion or concern; you are just another tool to expand the power of the true enemy of liberty and our prosperity, government.

You may not like me or my views, you may not like to hear I know the difference between a man and a woman and find it overly simplistic when I tell you what some things are for and what some things are not for and I suspect that you think it a bit old fashion that I believe it is wrong to surgically amputate normal healthy organs. But when your done helping the government build its Utopia and it all comes crashing down, you’re going to need people who understand the true principals of liberty and what they were built on, it will take people like that to put society back together, there won’t be time for dwelling on what some one “believes” or “feels” they are, that luxury will be gone, you got what you got and you are what you are.