The transgender furor revived

My Recent Posts

As this topic has again become front and center in public discussion, it brought to mind some thoughts I recorded last summer when "the bathroom bill" was a point of contention.


“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
George Orwell – 1984

For those among you who find it tiresome to once again trot out this oft cited dystopian masterpiece you may feel free to stop reading here. For all the rest, please read on. This is a line taken from a piece of fiction. When attempting to support one’s arguments it is generally considered better to use fact instead of fiction, but as art will imitate life can not life also imitate art? Besides this there are political and social arguments that emanate from Washington and the halls of academia that are wholly rooted in nothing but fiction. Almost daily, I would venture to say.
The Oxford dictionary of the English language is generally agreed to be a good source for factual content so let us begin there. We must start with a single word: gender. Oxford defines this as follows:
Gen-der n. 1 a the grammatical classification of nouns and related words, roughly corresponding to the two sexes and sexlessness, b each of the classes of nouns (see MASCULINE,FEMININE,NEUTER,COMMON adj. 6) 2 (of nouns and related words) the property of belonging to such a class. 3 colloq. a person’s sex.
Now it is a reasonably safe assertion that the majority of English speaking Americans are not knowledgeable of language other than their native tongue, that being the American variety of English in all of its various dialects and manifestations. The concept of gender assignment to nouns is a curiosity; it is foreign. For those who may have wrestled through the obligatory two years of foreign language as a prerequisite to college there is at least a knowledge of such a thing, though even then it may not be a concept wholly grasped. Suffice it to say then that in the daily life of the average American the word “gender” is not typically associated with language. It is instead regarded as a term synonymous with the noun form of the word sex, as again defined by Oxford:
sex n. 1 either of the main divisions (male and female) into which living things are placed on the basis of their reproductive functions.
In spite of the clear differences in the proper definition of the two words there is a general acceptance in the public discourse that the word gender is known as a term corresponding to the individual’s sexual identity. Taking all of this into account let us return to the premise posed by Orwell’s words.
One may never be able to determine just where this began or who the culpable party or parties may be, but it does appear that we have a case of the latter half of Orwell’s proposition in this line. That language has been co-opted, used, to corrupt thought. The orthodoxy of politically correct speech dictates that gender refers to sexual identity. The definition, the thought, has been corrupted via the language. It is accepted now. Therefore you will accept it. Yes, you will, for you see the act of questioning this, actually seeking to use the truly correct as opposed to the politically correct definition is to allow thought to corrupt the language.
The specter of a number of other prescient ideas expressed in Orwell’s work begin to loom over any discussion of the matter.
“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
“Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
“…..two and two are four. Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
Though these words come to us from a work of fiction penned in the middle of the last century they speak very plainly to what is perpetrated in real life today. Words are made to mean what suits a particular agenda. The acceptance of these erroneous ideas is to be automatic, unchallenged. And at all times words will mean whatever they need to mean in the advancement of the agenda. If you do not accept this you are insane. You are a hater.
One who does not see this has been swallowed by the orthodoxy just as they have swallowed the proverbial purple Kool-aid. They have either been conditioned to a point that they are unable to see it, or? The other possibility is just that they refuse to see it. In denial, easier to accept and embrace the lie than to summon the necessary mental faculties to find the truth. When your currency is fiction facts can be very inconvenient.
I do not mean to suggest that we exist in a world that is all very clearly defined in black and white. The fact is that much of what we negotiate in our daily lives resides within the murkier shades of grey. But grey is composed of parts of the two. In order to make any sense at all of the grey areas one needs to understand the difference between its component parts; what is black and what is white. When the definition of either or both of these has been corrupted from the truth then it all becomes grey. Two and two are four. Or three. Or five. It doesn’t really matter now does it? It means whatever you think it means.
We are not perfect beings nor do we live in a perfect world. Nature can be a cruel mistress. To our eyes nature may sometimes make a mistake. Sometimes young are born with genetic defects. Incurable diseases, absence of limbs, improper function of vital organs, cognitive impairments. They happen. They are not mistakes, per se, merely the random function of nature. Or to some be it the will of God. However one chooses to define this they are occurrences beyond our control. We do not know the purpose of such things and nor are we meant to.
Can a person be born with a mental and emotional make up of one sex, but through some genetic mishap be born with the physical characteristics of the opposite sex? Certainly. It can happen, it has happened and it no doubt will continue to happen. For whatever reason that nature or God may ordain it. Although it is a rare thing there is indisputable physical evidence of the existence of hermaphrodites. Not the creation of science or surgery, but actual human beings that have been born that way. So to try to suggest that transsexualism is somehow a myth is absurd. It is a real thing. Pedophiles, whether the creation of nature or of experience are no less real things. I know I’m skating out onto the thin ice here, but bear with me. I am not attempting to equate the two. I mention it for the sound purpose of illustrating a point.
Let us consider this scenario. You are an average American with a child in a public school. Maybe you’re white and live in the suburbs in a traditional two parent home. Maybe you’re a single mother living in a more urban environment. Or a grandparent in a rural area raising one of your grandchildren. Maybe a family of illegal (or undocumented, if you prefer) immigrants whose children were born here. Different people, different backgrounds, socio and ethnic, but the one common thread is that each have their children enrolled in a public school. Your tax dollars, or at least someone’s tax dollars are supposedly going to educate these children. Your public school district will readily admit that many of those tax dollars come to them via the federal government under the kind auspices of the U.S. Department of Education.
Within this community of parents and guardians there are many differing beliefs, customs, values. It is not a monochromatic, bigoted, monolithic collection of haters. They all have school age children and share a concern for the best interest of said children. If some career bureaucrat within the Department of Education decides one day that they wish to use the power and authority of their agency to champion the cause of pedophiles and their plight in society it would be a policy that would arouse a good deal of controversy. First there is the question of how this matter falls within the purview of the Department of Education. Second, and more importantly, the parents and children served by the school are going to be, regardless of any other differences they may have, strongly opposed to the use of their school as a vehicle to implement such a policy.
The high minded and socially enlightened bureaucrat, who no doubt only acts from the most sincere desire to protect and preserve the sacred diversity that is the common good, will frame their reasoning in such a fashion as to appear completely benign in character. A full embrace of tolerance, which is of course a critical component of the social education of our children. This bureaucrat will likely have either the active and vocal support of the administration’s chief executive, or at the very least a passivity that will not stand in the path of the workings of good government. It will be a policy statement couched within the typical legalese double-speak of government, but in effect will say something like:
“The phenomenon of pedophilia is not an illness or aberration. These poor people did not ask to be born as they are; it is simply the circumstance of their genetics. Just because they are different from the norm does not mean that they are not entitled to the same tolerance of their sexual orientation as the homosexual, bisexual or transgendered individual. They have a right to be who they are, comfortable within their own skin, and not have to cower in a closet from the bigoted and intolerant treatment of ignorant haters. They have the same rights to access of public restrooms and facilities in our schools as any other American. Therefore, as a matter of public policy, these people shall be free to enter the restrooms or locker rooms of either gender at any time in any public school. The attempt on the part of any school or school district or state board of education to interfere with or controvert this policy shall be met with a filing against them through the Department of Justice for civil rights violations and the withholding of funding from the federal Department of Education.”
In other words the Department of Education is telling us that although they are unable to pass legislation that would legitimately mandate such a policy they will, nevertheless, ram it down your throats through threat of costly litigation and the leverage of those precious tax dollars. It is a form of paternalism akin to “ If you are going to live under my roof you will abide by my rules. If you don’t like it you can get out and fend for yourself.”
Now for those of you saying “That is patently absurd. The Department of Education would never try to do such a thing. Why that would be insane!”. I would ask you. Really? Are you so sure? If I had told you say ten years ago, that the President of the United States himself would, on a Friday afternoon issue an executive order, circumventing any constitutional process or recognition of the states’ rights on the matter, that would mandate the free and unfettered access to the restroom or locker room facilities in a public school or institution to an individual self identifying as being of a gender ( the correct word here would be sex ) other than physically indicated by their genitalia, or else? If this can occur through executive fiat why, then, could it not just as easily occur for the sake of the pedophile supported by the same sketchy logic? Ne dit jamais jamais, mes Amies!
The point here, however, is twofold and really does not require a lot of laborious reasoning to comprehend. The individual who openly identifies as being a pedophile will nearly universally be vilified. No set of parents or guardians defined earlier will accept being forced to allow this individual into such private and thus vulnerable circumstances with their children. The specious “right” of the pedophile could simply be preserved by the pedophile not announcing to the world what they are. The argument only becomes absurd if one will accept the notion that the pedophile will voluntarily identify themselves as such. Whether they may be a product of genetics or of experience does not change what they are. The only difference between pedophilia as a sexual orientation and pedophilia as criminality is the behavior.
There is the similarity with the case of transsexuals in this respect only. Whether they are a product of genetics or conscious choice does not change what they are. Oh, but wait! Maybe it does, actually. We could debate whether or not pedophiles are genetic or by choice, but how does one prove this one way or the other? Cloaked in a protection for their sexual orientation and not being able to determine positively one way or the other this places them into two categories. The first would be that there are those who are truly the victim of their own faulty genetics. The second would be those who choose to engage in the behavior and under the guise of protection for their involuntary orientation.
The problem that has been thrust upon us all now is this: we are to rely upon and accept nothing more than the assertion of an individual which gender (again, its sex) they identify as for establishing which restroom or locker room they may use in our public facilities. Well, as with the pedophile, how are we to be sure? I hear the rumblings out there of those who will insist that I am one of the haters, that I do indeed mean to equate transsexualism with pedophilia. In response I return to Orwell: orthodoxy is unconsciousness. You are not thinking, you are not listening.
Where the pedophile seeks to hide their true identity it would seem that that the transsexual seeks to openly declare it, or at least that’s what the media would seem to want us all to believe. My suspicion is that the voices of those championing most loudly for the rights of these individuals are not even transsexuals themselves. Rather they are individuals who have hitched their ride upon this as the latest cause célèbre. As with most things much of the controversy would be removed if government just kept their ever obtrusive nose out of the matter altogether. One only needs to objectively consider simple physiology to find a reasonable resolution to all of this.
For the individual identifying as female but who is equipped with male genitalia one should think that their objective would be to identify as being female by living as a female. If that were the case upon entering the ladies room it might be noted that there is a conspicuous absence of urinals. So, dressed the part and behaving as a female, would not this individual simply realize their public identity by not broadcasting the fact that they have a penis, go into a stall and do their necessary business, replace their panties and go on about their day? That’s not forcing someone into a closet. It is in fact allowing them to live as they identify. What’s the need to declare it? If that is who you are on the inside then isn’t that just being who you are, as surely this movement tells us is all these people really want.
Now I suppose the other side of this equation becomes a bit more difficult to realize where it comes to the restroom. For those identifying as male but finding themselves equipped with female plumbing the urinal becomes a daunting enterprise. Not really sure what your options are there, other than to always wait for a stall or enter the ladies room and simply be mistaken as a very “butch” female. I don’t suppose that would do, though, as it fails to accommodate their “living” their gender (sex. Its sex. The correct word is sex.) Sorry folks. I don’t have the answer for this one.
Those of you clinging stubbornly to the orthodoxy, I hear your wailing and gnashing of teeth. “ That’s the restroom!”, you retort snarkily. “ What about the locker rooms, huh?” Well you may rightfully ask. Here the accommodation becomes more of a challenge, I will grant you. I know this will fly in the face of your manner of thought, but here is what I would consider a reasonable solution to the issue. It goes something like this:
I am a parent or guardian of a child who during their elementary years may have perhaps exhibited some behaviors or traits that would seem opposite of their sex. It’s not so unusual to observe this in children really, as at those tender ages they aren’t really “sexual” beings yet, are they? Now if this were to continue into middle school with the onset of puberty and my child can begin to verbalize what they are experiencing then I might seek the help of a medical professional. I would want to have that discussion with that doctor or doctors and if there were enough cause to warrant it I might wish to take whatever steps are necessary to obtain an actual clinical diagnosis of the condition. If from that point it were confirmed then I would, as a responsible parent, upon enrolling that child in school make an appointment to meet with school administration and explain the facts. My child has this medical condition. He/she is different in this way. I want my child to be able to be themselves, but I understand that this does pose some challenges. I know that kids can be assholes and there is nothing you can do about that. It is not your job to change minds other than by educating them. The rest of it is on the individual. All I ask is that you make some accommodation with regard to restrooms, gym class or situations where the “identity” may pose a problem.
One of two things will happen here. The school will work with you to meet those requests or they will not. If they don’t, then I’m simply looking for another school. I would not want my child to live in fear of being who they are. I likewise do not want my child feeling that they need to broadcast their sexual identity. In parenting one has to continually confront some unpleasant truths. In this instance I would have to tell my child “This is the hand you have been dealt. This makes you unusual. Not abnormal, not deformed, just unusual. There are not great numbers of people who have what you have. You can be under no illusions; there will be times that this is going to make your life very difficult. You don’t have to like it, but if you want to preserve your sanity you are going to have to accept that. Who you are is determined by what is between your ears, not between your legs. Given your condition you should understand this as well as anyone. But you must also understand that not everyone will. The fact is you are very different. It’s not right or wrong, just different, and as long as you understand that then whatever anyone else thinks doesn’t matter.”
The bottom line is this. It only becomes a big deal if you allow people to make it a big deal. An executive order makes it a big deal when it doesn’t need to be. But I could, of course, be wrong.



Autumn Cote Added Jul 29, 2017 - 7:38pm
Please note, the second best way to draw more attention to your work is to comment on the work of others. I know this to be true because if you do, I'll do everything in my power to draw more attention to your articles.
PS - There is a lot I can do and would like to do on your behalf.
Leroy Added Jul 30, 2017 - 9:26am
You're absolutely correct.  In light of you personal circumstances, I have to admire your objectivity.
I have commented extensively about if we must accommodate homosexuals and transgenders as being normal because the were born that way, then, logically, we must accommodate pedophiles as being normal.  They are not normal or usual.  They are unusual.  They are human and we have to deal with them as such.  Unfortunately, we use big government to fight the preceived ills of society.  It forces us to tolerate the intolerable.  As much as we seek global solutions, local decisions better serve us.
Christian Peschken Added Jul 30, 2017 - 12:19pm
So are you of the belief that there is little difference between one who is transgender and one who is a pedophiliac?  Or were you just quoting someone else?
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 30, 2017 - 12:37pm
Christian :
I was quite emphatic on this. Go back and read it again. Carefully.
If you cant follow the train of thought try reading some lighter fare.
Thanks for commenting (?)
Dino Manalis Added Jul 30, 2017 - 12:47pm
The military should reinforce don't ask, don't tell to avoid discrimination and unrest, our military has to be focused on keeping America safe, not social experimentation or people's sexual preference in the bedroom.  Gender is not a matter of choice and we shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money on it.
Christian Peschken Added Jul 30, 2017 - 12:55pm
You write with way too many quotes.  I have no idea what you believe...just some friendly advice.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 30, 2017 - 1:33pm
It may be friendly but I fail to see where this qualifies as advice. If you are unable to parse it and figure out what I believe on this topic then I might suggest some remedial courses at your local community college. Just some friendly advice .....
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 30, 2017 - 1:39pm
Four quotes of Orwell in an entire piece of original material. Wow. If that poses a challenge to your comprehension maybe you need some medication. My voice is my voice. I am not writing for your approval. If you dont like it then there is a simple solution: when you see my avatar? Just skip over it. Last I'll say on it. Not worth any more of my time.
Stone-Eater Added Jul 30, 2017 - 3:05pm
Congrats on that one. I sometimes ask myself who made that PC and gender shit a trend, if it was the US or us.
Stone-Eater Added Jul 30, 2017 - 3:06pm
....not talking about the PURPOSE, yet ;-)
Leroy Added Jul 30, 2017 - 3:14pm
It was the Canadians.
Bill Kamps Added Jul 30, 2017 - 3:15pm
TBH, my  theory is that people have been sorting through these problems for eons, and have managed to most times not make it a big deal.  Trans sexuals have been going to the bath room forever, and as you say, somehow sorting things out. 
Three points.
It would seem forcing someone who dresses like a female, but in fact has a penis, to go to the men's room seems on the face of it more disruptive than simply letting them use the ladies room.  After all, they  would on the surface appear to be a woman, when entering the men's room.  What then?  On the other hand mostly likely no one would notice if they went to the ladies room and simply used the privacy of a stall. 
Second, how do we police the bathroom rules?  Do we check everyone entering the men's room for a penis? and the reverse?  If they go to a stall to do their business, how do we make sure they are a guy?
Third, these rules are given to us as a form of "protection".  Are acts of violence in restrooms rampant?  I here a lot more about the rules, than the "problem" they are trying to fix. 
Lately I have seen more gender neutral restrooms. They have one common room with sinks, towels, etc, and then private stalls for everyone, no urinals. The private stalls are really private rooms with a lock, and this solves the problem for everyone, including the business owner who cant predict how much capacity to have for each gender.
So we have rules created that are unenforceable, trying to solve a problem which largely doesn't exist.  Yes there are issues at school for those who have had early sexual issues. But as you say, those again need to be worked out between the school and the parents, not by the politicians who most likely are grandstanding on the issue, rather than trying to solve real constituent problems.
Ian Thorpe Added Jul 30, 2017 - 3:16pm
Burghal, you have to try and remember, when writing objectively and presenting a balanced case without coming down on one side of the other that public education over the past few decades has inculcated a binary mindset. One is either right wing extremist or liberal, a militant atheist or a God - nut, pro life of pro choice. In life, as you say, there are more grey areas than black and white choices. Transgenderism is fully covered in your article, so taking my last example, abortion, as a similarly contentious issue, I have always been in favour of terminations being legally available, but with constraints. It should not, as has happened in the UK, be promoted for political reasons as a method of family planning. Here we have a cut off point at 24 weeks into pregnancy, after which only in cases of medical necessity.  Militant feminists campaign against this but undermine their case by going for abortion on demand right up to the final week, because "a woman's right to choose." I know the same is happening in the US. Such demands make abortion a political rather than a human issue.
The whole question of terminations is a maze of grey areas, religious, human, political and economic. Religion is the same, I don't believe in God but at the same time do not exclude the possibility of something beyond humanity, (I particularly like the creation myth of the Uitoto tribe from the Amazon rain forest, who say the father god created the world when he attached a dream to an illusion). Many people of course would deny me the right to even consider that as a topic for philosophical discussion by screaming, 'superstition and magical thinking.'
Perhaps there is a case to be made for segregated communities after all, those happy to accept the orthodoxy in bleak, modern cities, the free thinkers in a world or natural beauty, architectural diversity and cultural liberty.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 30, 2017 - 3:37pm
Ian -  That sounds like a rather good plan to me! And you are exactly right. Reading the comments from most here I can tell that my point got across. I'm not here to change minds, I just say what I think. I like to form my conclusions upon some measure of rationality. I consider Orwell to be quite a good model for this.
Your ending suggestion brings an odd thought to mind. With so much controversy surrounding the idea of a border wall there is cause to think upon walls in our recent history. There was a call to tear down the Berlin Wall. A long, loud, wailing lament. It was a wall that was not constructed to keep people out, rather it was a barrier erected to keep people in. In the construct of society you suggest I can easily envision a wall being built for the same purpose around the orthodoxy sector. it would only be a matter of time before people would be plotting ways to get over that wall, to escape the state orthodoxy. There would be no purpose to that wall keeping the rest out because none of them would have any desire to get in! 
A bit off topic, but true nonetheless.
Leroy Added Jul 30, 2017 - 3:58pm
Bill, a man can pop in and out of a bathroom in minutes.  You go to a sporting event.  You go to the bathroom.  The women's bathroom has a line that wraps around the stadium twice.  In the men's room, there is no waiting.  For this reason alone, there should be separate bathrooms.
As far as gender neutral bathrooms go, it seems to be the standard in doctors' offices today.  I was told by a civil engineer that a gender neutral bathroom by law could only be a one-holer in my state.  Indeed, this is what you see.  The same applies to parts of Mexico, I am told.  Imagine your 12-year-old daughter in the wee hours of the morning and she has to go to the bathroom.  Would you be comfortable with your 12-year-old daughter going to the same place as men separated only by a stall?  Would you follow her in to ensure her safety?  Would you do it with a women only bathroom?  It's bad enough today with guys installing cameras in female showers and bathrooms and changing rooms.  It would just be worse.  At least if you see a guy entering a woman's bathroom, at least you know he shouldn't be there.  I think most women think men are disgusting anyway and would prefer separate facilities.
In the past, transgenders might have used a bathroom not according to their birth gender.  Don't ask; don't tell is the best policy.  Once you become flamboyant about it, then it becomes an issue.
We don't know what mixing genders in bathrooms will do.  I think it will end up a lot like sports where women want to join the men's team.  They want it to be gender neutral.  That means men can join the women's team.  Men who can't compete as men compete as women--and win.  Careful what you ask for.
Tamara Wilhite Added Jul 30, 2017 - 4:52pm
Liberals have a long term objective to remake society where everyone is absolutely equal no matter how unfair their actions to force us into such standardized packages. The sexual freedom free of constraints was achieved from no fault divorce to hook up culture to legalizing homosexual "marriage".
Once that was achieved, they jumped immediately to the next thing to attack - gender roles based on biology. By championing the idea that you can change gender by changing clothes and mannerisms, the belief says that gender is irrelevant and unimportant.
It also furthers the liberal idea that feelings define morality, what one feels is one's reality others much accept. You say you're a woman? You don't need surgery, hormones, just identify as such because your personal identity is more important than biological reality - and furthers the liberal redefinition of people as utterly interchangeable even as sexual partners; this explains the liberal bullies' demands that lesbians have sex with biological men who identify as women and lesbians and liberal hate poured on men who don't want to have sex with a man in a dress.
Trump's executive order is a resounding "no" to this attempt to deny reality and hold up ideals contrary to biological reality as sacred, unquestionable truths. People who reject all limits except those they define themselves are like toddlers told no rebel with full tantrums. Grown up, they become crybullies, crying victim even as they destroy property and utter death threats. Or join in entitled liberal mobs to assault people who violate their emotionally based world view, because how dare those people hurt their feelings, the liberals' are love and that makes the people offending their emotionally based reasoning evil haters, death to the unbelievers.
Stone-Eater Added Jul 30, 2017 - 4:56pm
Good one, Tamara.
Cullen Kehoe Added Jul 30, 2017 - 8:45pm
If I understand the author's point, it's that these matters can be handled at the local level by the individual schools. President's executive orders MAKE it more problematic that if it were left up to the school. I'd tend to agree. 
Cullen Kehoe Added Jul 30, 2017 - 8:48pm
I would agree that there are cases where, for all intents and purposes, you look and see a girl. Dress, mannerisms, play, peer friendships. You'd never guess that person has the plumbing of a boy. In that case, maybe you let that person use the female toilets.
Whereas in other cases, a boy who looks like a boy, acts like a boy, mannerisms of a boy, but the parent wants him to use the female toilets and the parent seems to be pushing that 'he feels like a girl'. The educator and school senses that perhaps the best thing for all is for that child to keep using the boys toilets. 
The school is full of very educated people. Why not let them handle this? 
Cullen Kehoe Added Jul 30, 2017 - 8:56pm
Tamara makes an interesting point. Sorry, but my general opinion is this is how civilizations decline. They become overly fixated by stupid things, neglecting what's important like actually teaching kids math, science, and English. 
In their hubris, they think they can redefine the rules of life itself. And in their zeal to do so, miss the fact that they are destroying their own civilization. 
Ancient Chinese emperors at times became obsessed with mercury thinking it was a substance of the gods. They started baking it into stuff and eating it to become more god-like. They thought they were reaching the heavens but were poisoning themselves and making their minds go crazy instead. It seems to be a good comparison. 
All I can say, is if the Democrats keep embracing this stuff, they are going to keep losing at the polls. Not even the might of Hollywood, Bruce Springsteen, Beyonce, and all the news media on their side could win them the last election that didn't feel right to the average American. 
Ian Thorpe Added Jul 31, 2017 - 9:34am
Burghal your response to my comment brought to mind another great dystopian novel of the last century, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. In this the central character Bernard Marx constantly rebels against the strictures of a tightly regulated materialist dicatorship (I'm sure you know this but others in the thread may not.) he and his friend Hemlholtz read literature, discuss philosophy and generally refuse to behave in the shallow, materiaistic way required of their caste (the Alphas). Marx does this openly to challenge authority while Helmholtz is more discreet. But in the end, when both have pushed their Controller too far, while Marx resorts to snivelling humility in order to avoid exile (to Iceland) Helmholtz, the true rebel rather than the attention seeker welcomes it.
There would certainly be people scheming to get over (or under) your wall around Orthodoxyland, but perhaps not the ones we would expect. 
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 31, 2017 - 10:47am
Quite familiar with it. I adore Huxley! I also quite enjoyed one of his much lesser known works, Point-Counterpoint. It is more of a period piece, really, not of the more fantasy realm. If youve not read it I highly recommend it. Brilliant use of dialogue.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 31, 2017 - 10:49am
And to your climbers or sappers? Indeed. One would need to be quite careful of those.
Ian Thorpe Added Jul 31, 2017 - 1:16pm
I don't know how to put an image in a comment, but this Russian graffito is a good illustration of the kind of resourceful people who might be getting under the wall:
The Burghal Hidage Added Aug 1, 2017 - 8:30pm
Patrick -
You have correctly taken my central point here. The scenario you posit with what I would refer to as the "whack job parent", although a rare thing, is certainly possible. Your suggestion that this be trusted to the judgement of the educators I think extends a little more qualification than most are worthy of. In such a case I believe the proper course would be referral to a qualified physician or mental health specialist.
Maureen Foster Added Aug 2, 2017 - 2:34am
Is this an article about transgender or pedophilia?  The title suggests one thing, the content suggests another.  The two have nothing to do with each other.  Adults that have sexual relations with minors are breaking the law and need to go to jail.  They have no “plight” for society to be sympathetic towards. 
The Burghal Hidage Added Aug 2, 2017 - 4:43am
Maureen -
It is actually about neither. It is about yet another example of government over reach to "solve" a "problem" that is best resolved on an individual basis at the local level. It does deal with how this applies in the case of resolving a social dilemma that arises from the phenomenon of transsexualism.
If you were to read this more carefully you would see that the content is not a treatment of pedophilia, rather it is introduced as a means of illustrating the absurdity of federal bureaucracy dictating local solutions to a problem which only becomes a problem by their sticking their nose in it to begin with. NOWHERE is there even the hint of apology for the pedophile and again, with a more attentive reading it would be clear that there was an explicit effort to state that I was not equating the two.
As for your assertion that pedophiles should be locked up I would take this a step further. Why bother locking them up? So they can be rehabilitated? I disagree. Shoot them in the head and leave their carcasses for the crows and vultures to feed on. I wouldnt even dignify a pedophile with a burial.
Hope that clarifies it for you.
opher goodwin Added Aug 2, 2017 - 6:04am
Burghal - that is a bit extreme!
The Burghal Hidage Added Aug 2, 2017 - 6:49am
Which? My reply or my suggestion for pedophiles? ;)
I have zero tolerance for people who prey upon children. If not shot in the head than can we find a way to remove them from society without having to spend more than a nickel on their maintenance? Surely there is some remote island somewhere that could serve as a penal colony?
S.R. Morris Added Aug 2, 2017 - 7:19am
If your article is about neither transgenders or pedophiles, why put transgender in your title?  Why mention pedophilia five times?
The Burghal Hidage Added Aug 2, 2017 - 7:28am
Why are you breathing my air? Why is the sky blue? Why are some people obtuse? You either get it or you dont. You are not my editor
S.R. Morris Added Aug 2, 2017 - 7:43am
It's called constructive criticism.  Maureen offered a really good comment and I found your response lacking.  So either put on your thinking cap on and deal with it or stick your obtuse head in the sand. It's up to you.
The Burghal Hidage Added Aug 2, 2017 - 8:13am
Tamara Wilhite Added Aug 2, 2017 - 10:25am
 Patrick Writes You aren't unique in that view.

Camille Paglia: 'Transgender Mania' is a Symptom of West's Cultural Decline, The Collapse of Cultures
Stone-Eater Added Aug 2, 2017 - 7:24pm
Who cares about genders if it's not for reproduction ? All that fuss about nothing. Keep people occupied LOL
Stone-Eater Added Aug 2, 2017 - 7:25pm
BTW: I'm all for LGBTJKUGUTWKPSL. Although myself I'm HTBQUTEZ.
Read my newest article in the JKHKGHDSTTRUIZOP magazine LOL
The Burghal Hidage Added Aug 2, 2017 - 8:01pm
Ich bin erstaunte, mein freund! Ich hatte gedacht, dass du das verstehen wurde. GFYWARC bedeutet auf Englisch fick dich mit einer rostigen Kettensage. Klar?
Cuckoo o'clock Added Aug 2, 2017 - 9:03pm
i tried to read your article but it was so long - less is more!
The Burghal Hidage Added Aug 2, 2017 - 9:52pm
Cuckoo -
If you find my pieces too taxing upon your attention span I might suggest twitter. I dont do twitter.
The Burghal Hidage Added Aug 2, 2017 - 10:04pm
Black is not white, up us not down and less is not more. Less is Less. I am not writing ad copy here. I write what I write because it is what I have to say. To the best of my understanding this is not a writers workshop. It is a forum. This makes three critics today ( for all I know they are only bots) who have no comment as to content and offer little if any counterpoint to what I have stated. Only to nitpick at how it is written. Here is a clue: I dont need your advice on how to form my own thoughts. Here is some advice: go waste someone else's time