So many shots in the right direction and yet still so far off the mark.
I believe that as a society, we’ve crossed the line, of when honest reflection and accountability once, in some distant past, ruled the day, while scapegoating and aversion to honesty became the socially acceptable and preferred method of i…
So many shots in the right direction and yet still so far off the mark.
I believe that as a society, we’ve crossed the line, of when honest reflection and accountability once, in some distant past, ruled the day, while scapegoating and aversion to honesty became the socially acceptable and preferred method of interaction with each other and with our collective society, for the sake of preserving the integrity of feelings, at present.
Let’s just think for a moment… political correctness was implemented for what purpose other than to mask honest feedback? Every single layer of Human Resources in any place of employment nowadays is grouped into a “team,” so no single person can be faulted for underperforming (and if a single person IS identified as such, how long does it take to terminate them nowadays?) Look, social media and media at large is only providing products that sell, just like any other business, there is clearly an appetite for such topics that in a past society would lead to bankruptcy. Social media is broken because society is broken. It really is that simple. Why is it broken? Because we were trying to be “nice” at the expense of being honest. Because getting to the root cause was too brutal of a task. Because live and let live made everything, and we all see for ourselves today that I do mean EVERYTHING is acceptable. But that’s what happens when natural law is subverted. It was a slippery slope we all should have seen but chose not to.
Let me show you something…
I entered the following into Google’s Gemini:
“What are the statistics for percentage of transgender children in heterosexual households versus those in homosexual households?”
Here was the response:
“Reliable data on the exact percentages of transgender children in different household types isn't readily available. Here's why:
* **Gender identity is a spectrum:** It's not simply heterosexual vs. homosexual households. There are many family structures and sexual orientations.
* **Data collection challenges:** Gathering information on transgender youth, especially regarding their family life, can be difficult due to sensitivity and privacy concerns.
* **Evolving identities:** Many transgender people don't identify as their birth sex until later in life, making childhood data collection even more complex.
However, some research suggests a link between same-sex parents and children who identify as LGBTQ+. Studies show children of same-sex couples might feel more comfortable exploring gender identity due to a more accepting environment.
(Don’t believe me? Try it yourself. We’ll compare our results.)
Did you catch that last part, starting with “However […]?”
Now let me ask you, what does “healthy” mean, exactly, when referring to “healthy gay” -man, -woman, -adult?
At what point is the line drawn between healthy and unhealthy with respect to sexual orientation?
Look at what “scope creep” actually means and amounts to:
“The key case is:
2020 - Bostock v. Clayton County: The Supreme Court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination, and therefore prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This applies to workplaces with 15 or more employees.
This decision didn't create a new law, but rather interpreted an existing one (Title VII) to encompass sexual orientation. It's considered a major step forward in legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.”
From voluntarily, and rightfully so, protecting people from discrimination based on natural law, being a woman or a man, to where are we now? Whom are we protecting, now? We can no longer protect our very own children.
So, tell me, is it the fault of social media?
And let’s not forget, PITT was not created in foresight of the issues being discussed, here. It was created in response to these issues.
Here’s my quick take on what we did by reinterpreting a virtuous law:
Broken man finds “true friendship” in another man
Broken man claims it’s “true love” what he finds in the other man
Broken man starts acting like not-a-man (he calls it “wo”-man)
Broken man then starts dressing like “wo”-man
Broken “wo”-man then wants ”marriage”
Broken “wo”-man says he feels like what he believes a woman feels like, on the inside, but looks broken, on the outside
Broken “wo”-man surgically transforms into what he believes a woman should look like on the outside
Broken “married” “wo”-man who claims to feel and look like what he believes should be a woman then wants children…
Broken are his children
Broken children break other children, because all they’ve ever known, was broken.
I think I’ve said enough, for now. (I’ll invite you to explore with me the term “ROGD” in a future post, because while it is assigned to our children, I think it’s actually aimed at us, the parents)
The following is My opinion:
So many shots in the right direction and yet still so far off the mark.
I believe that as a society, we’ve crossed the line, of when honest reflection and accountability once, in some distant past, ruled the day, while scapegoating and aversion to honesty became the socially acceptable and preferred method of interaction with each other and with our collective society, for the sake of preserving the integrity of feelings, at present.
Let’s just think for a moment… political correctness was implemented for what purpose other than to mask honest feedback? Every single layer of Human Resources in any place of employment nowadays is grouped into a “team,” so no single person can be faulted for underperforming (and if a single person IS identified as such, how long does it take to terminate them nowadays?) Look, social media and media at large is only providing products that sell, just like any other business, there is clearly an appetite for such topics that in a past society would lead to bankruptcy. Social media is broken because society is broken. It really is that simple. Why is it broken? Because we were trying to be “nice” at the expense of being honest. Because getting to the root cause was too brutal of a task. Because live and let live made everything, and we all see for ourselves today that I do mean EVERYTHING is acceptable. But that’s what happens when natural law is subverted. It was a slippery slope we all should have seen but chose not to.
Let me show you something…
I entered the following into Google’s Gemini:
“What are the statistics for percentage of transgender children in heterosexual households versus those in homosexual households?”
Here was the response:
“Reliable data on the exact percentages of transgender children in different household types isn't readily available. Here's why:
* **Gender identity is a spectrum:** It's not simply heterosexual vs. homosexual households. There are many family structures and sexual orientations.
* **Data collection challenges:** Gathering information on transgender youth, especially regarding their family life, can be difficult due to sensitivity and privacy concerns.
* **Evolving identities:** Many transgender people don't identify as their birth sex until later in life, making childhood data collection even more complex.
However, some research suggests a link between same-sex parents and children who identify as LGBTQ+. Studies show children of same-sex couples might feel more comfortable exploring gender identity due to a more accepting environment.
Here are some resources for further exploration:
* **Williams Institute - LGBT Parenting in the United States:** [https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/issues/relationships-parenting/](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/issues/relationships-parenting/) “
(Don’t believe me? Try it yourself. We’ll compare our results.)
Did you catch that last part, starting with “However […]?”
Now let me ask you, what does “healthy” mean, exactly, when referring to “healthy gay” -man, -woman, -adult?
At what point is the line drawn between healthy and unhealthy with respect to sexual orientation?
Look at what “scope creep” actually means and amounts to:
“The key case is:
2020 - Bostock v. Clayton County: The Supreme Court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination, and therefore prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This applies to workplaces with 15 or more employees.
This decision didn't create a new law, but rather interpreted an existing one (Title VII) to encompass sexual orientation. It's considered a major step forward in legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.”
From voluntarily, and rightfully so, protecting people from discrimination based on natural law, being a woman or a man, to where are we now? Whom are we protecting, now? We can no longer protect our very own children.
So, tell me, is it the fault of social media?
And let’s not forget, PITT was not created in foresight of the issues being discussed, here. It was created in response to these issues.
Here’s my quick take on what we did by reinterpreting a virtuous law:
Broken man finds “true friendship” in another man
Broken man claims it’s “true love” what he finds in the other man
Broken man starts acting like not-a-man (he calls it “wo”-man)
Broken man then starts dressing like “wo”-man
Broken “wo”-man then wants ”marriage”
Broken “wo”-man says he feels like what he believes a woman feels like, on the inside, but looks broken, on the outside
Broken “wo”-man surgically transforms into what he believes a woman should look like on the outside
Broken “married” “wo”-man who claims to feel and look like what he believes should be a woman then wants children…
Broken are his children
Broken children break other children, because all they’ve ever known, was broken.
I think I’ve said enough, for now. (I’ll invite you to explore with me the term “ROGD” in a future post, because while it is assigned to our children, I think it’s actually aimed at us, the parents)