The Self-Contradictory Absurdities of “Liberal” Transgenderism Public Policy, part 2
Perhaps the most primary blunder in the agenda behind these policies entails the dishonest commission of a double standard by its utter neglect of (indeed outright disregard for) environmental considerations in the social arena. Despite the present bureaucratic imposition of environmental impact studies prior to the construction of even the tiniest bridge, building or landscape development, virtually no thought is given to the obvious environmental ramifications which follow from opening girls showers to men and boys. Even the vocabulary that is typically employed (“restroom facilities”) serves (in contra-diction to the recent feminist mantra, “my body, myself”) is dismissive of the degree of the violation endured by females of all ages in terms of the loss of their personal sense of modesty and the deprival of their self-determination. At the same time the determination on the part of the proponents of this agenda to advance the same, come hell or high water, is so resolute as to lead them to throw rationality itself to the wind. As I introduced the theme earlier, so now I will briefly summarize where it is in the current agenda that its proponents entangle themselves in four self-contradictions: Their program logically entails both 1) a profound perversion of the concept of justice and 2) a superficializing (dumbing-down) of the concept of compassion. It also entails both 3) the illegitimate subordination of objectivity under subjectivity, despite the specifically inter-personal nature of the context, and 4) it dismisses decisive relevant scientific data insofar as it undermines their ideology. It is these incongru-ities which I name in the following letter to the editor I submitted for publication on May 17, 2017 to the Everett Herald. In keeping with the Herald’s guidelines I adhered to the specified limit of 250 words.
The “Madman” in atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s parable by the same name, declared that the denial of God leads logically to the denigration of humanity. Yet, although morality is one indicator of societal dissolution, other formative aspects of our culture are also deteriorating today. St. Paul anticipated this same inevitability in Romans 1:18-32. Assumptions behind that agenda which is driving the overthrow of protective boundaries concerning feminine modesty undermines rationality itself with respect to justice, compassion, logical reflection, and the authority of scientific truth. Indeed it is built on a house of cards.
Any concept of “justice” which overthrows the protection of girls and women by opening their showers to men and boys cannot bear the scrutiny of its own rhetoric. Such a travesty of justice can be maintained only by perverting the definition of justice.
What entitles promoters of this agenda to vilify their opponents as “intolerant” when they are the ones imposing such humiliating consequences onto defenseless females? Their posture restricts privilege to only a few while depriving the remainder of fundamental “rights to privacy.”
By what theory of intellectual formation should students be required to address transgenders with pronouns that contradict their anatomy? The classical goal of education as the pursuit of truth is thereby perverted into deceitful brain-washing.
Finally, the fact that the new criterion for identifying one’s gender has become their “inner self-identity” as opposed to genitalia and genetics, indicates that “educators” will even pragmatically dismiss science as expendable insofar as it hinders their agenda.
Sadly, the newspaper chose not to print the letter.