The Weirdest Thing I Saw Today.

So I saw this on Twitter today:

One of the anti #LGBTQ folks gathering in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for a press conference calling for the Court to overturn its marriage equality decision pic.twitter.com/sA8ttWue3U

— Peter Montgomery (@petemont) June 26, 2019

And, holy Hell, where to begin?
First of all, that's not how the Supreme Court works.
Or it isn't how it's supposed to work, anyway.
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to respond to public pressure the way that elected officials are supposed to. They aren't supposed to look at a law and say "Hmm, this law clearly violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but on the other hand, some people really like it, so. . . "
Also, the Supreme Court can't just decide to reverse a prior decision. Someone has to bring a case before them. Someone would have to have standing. And no one is ever going to have standing to bring a case against Obergfell because how could anyone claim to have been harmed by that decision? (And having your little feelings hurt doesn't count.)


But then I saw the web address on his shirt. WWW -dot-ThirdGender666-dot-com. And my curiosity got the better of me.

So I went there.

Hoo boy!

Welcome to the house of weird!

First of all, there's the "In the News" section which contains precisely Two entries:

1:

In the news! Jan. 2007 - Elementary school kids being taught to embrace gay and lesbian lifestyles as a healthy alternative

2:
1959 - The Third Sex, a lesbian pulp novel from 1959 opened the minds of Americans to this secret society




Ah, yes. I remember how in 1969 everyone was reading this particular potboiler and how it opened up the minds of America to. . .how many people actually read this book? 
Also, what secret society? I've never heard of any secret societ. . . oh, right. Cuz it's a secret. Duh!
Anyway, I did a bit of online research about the genre and there were several more influential lesbian pulp novels published prior to The Third Sex, notably 1952's Spring Fire,





 1950's Women's Barracks

and 1953's The Price of Salt (which was made intro the 2015 movie Carol with Kate Blanchett and Rooney Mara)

So why place so mush import on this one particular pulp novel?

What are they, chopped liver?

Probably because whatever weirdo writes this website seems kind of obsessed with the term "third gender" (hence the site's name.)

To say "I was born the Third Gender" is to curse the name of the Lord, meaning evil speaking or slander attributing some evil to God. But God is holy and can do no evil. The concept of a Third Gender is an attempt to demean the plan, throne, sovereignty, and supreme power of the Creator. To dehumanize yourself and deprive yourself of human qualities, personality or spirit is inhuman and inhumane.

Wow, that's quite a leap! I don't know how one gets from "I was born 3rd gender" to "I curse thee, Jehovah, I curse thy holy name!" Also, I don't think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think most LGBT people refer to themselves as being "Third gender." Am I wrong, LGBT readers? The gay men I know refer to themselves as men. The lesbians I know refer to themselves as women. Also, I don't really get how it demeans the power of the creator to imply that he is capable of creating more than two genders. I mean, I make a pretty good chicken cacciatore and a decent pork lo mein, but if someone said "you also make chicken parm," I don't think I would feel demeaned by that. But, maybe that's why he's God and I'm not.

. . .Yet!

Then there is a section entitled "FACTS."

It begins like this:

Let's keep it simple. God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 

Okay. I mean there are certainly a lot of people who would dispute that - Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Scientologists. . . but that is a statement that would be assumed to be a solid fact by most Christians who, I assume, are the intended audience. So nothing too crazy yet.

. . .Yet!

 Consider the Tree of life: oxygen, water, and food. Oxygen is a colorless, tasteless, odorless gas in the atmosphere that comes from plant life. The odorless gas mixes with the clouds to produce rain water. 

Yeahhhhh, that is NOT how rain works.
At all.
I mean, you got the "clouds are involved" part, but other than that. . .

The rain comes down from the sky to insert life into mother earth, from God the Father. This God created process reveals the nature of how God designs and implements extremely complex methods that accomplish His intentions. He performs the impossible, then steps back for creation to enjoy. God's handiwork, his fingerprint, is recognizable and can be seen over and over. The Tree of life is a reproductive process, a spiritual sex, if you will, which yields the fruit of the earth. It's the seed from our spiritual Father.

Oh dear GOD! Are you saying that rain is. . . EWWWWWW!!!!
I mean, that seems like blasphemy to me. And also Ewwwwww!!!!
I will never look at rain the same way again.

Human sex from the womb is called holy by the Lord 

No. That is not where sex happens. It happens a bit South of the "womb." (Or sometimes South and around the corner, but that's none of my business.)

Also, when did God call sex "holy?" I went through 12 years of Lutheran schooling, I've read most of the Bible, and I don't remember anything positive in there about sex. You really need to cite a particular chapter and verse if you're going to make a claim like that!

A man inserts his penis into his wife's vagina, the genital canal, and a baby is born. 

I think there's a few steps in between. That's why the process generally takes several months.
Also, the term is "birth canal." Not "genital canal."

In the cycle of life, the man becomes the father, the wife becomes the mother and the cycle continues. The reproductive system to create a living being's sexual genitalia is clearly produced in the fruit of the womb. The baby is a boy or a girl.

A: that's gibberish.
B: you do know about hermaphroditism, right? (Is that a real word?) Somethimes babies are born with both male and female parts or sometimes with what is referred to as "ambiguous genitalia." Which is sort of a what you might call a "thied gender" sort of situation.

What is sexism or what is a sexist? Sex is only between the male and female. To convert good (God's design) to evil (your own perversion of sex) is satanistic. To speak or act as oral or anal intercourse is sex is blasphemous and profane.

Mp. That's not what sexism is. That's not what a sexist is. Also, sign me up for a little profane blasphemy this weekend, eh?

Why did God give them brimstone and fire in Sodom and Gomorrah? Because he knew that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender sinners would degenerate God's original intent for sex.

Okay, now that is just patently false. There is no ambiguity on this point. It is stated quite clearly what the "sin of Sodom" was:

Ezekiel 16:49-50 New International Version (NIV)49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Eh, I bet it was probably the gays!

Defend the planet or destroy the planet. Let's start with protecting defenseless children from satan. 

Honestly, I think we should concentrate on protecting defenseless children from I.C.E.

Let's start with protecting defenseless children from satan. Adam Adam, Eve and Eve. The power of love is to tell the truth. The power of hate is to stop the truth. Let us get high on love, not getting high on hate. 

So. . . is it Adam and Adam, then? I thought it was supposed to be Adam and Steve?  Or is it Eve and Eve? So many possibilities!

 

In conclusion, this question is posed, which you can answer by clicking on the provided link:

Do homosexuals strengthen the planet, or weaken the planet?

Write me so we can talk about it.

- Minister Leroy

Go ahead. I'm sure he'd love to know your thoughts on the subject.

What are conservatives scared of today?

Fear is conservatives' drug of choice.

Conservatives always need to be afraid of something. They neeeeed that fear. It's the only thing that makes them feel alive. Whether they're scared of the Communists or the feminists or the environmentalists or the secular humanists, they have to be terrified of something.

 

Look out, an immigrant!

So what is the number one fear of conservatives at this moment?

If you guessed MS-13, we have some lovely parting gifts for you. See, MS-136 is actually pretty scary. I mean, they would be if you ever encountered them. Most of us will never encounter MS-13, much less run afoul of them, but they're scary in the same way that tigers are scary. There';s no need for any Americans to sit up at night worrying about tigers, but if you ever did see one, do not , and I can not emphasize this enough, do NOT fuck with it.

Anyway, the answer we were looking for was "transgendered people."  

.

Why are conservatives so pants-wettingly afraid of trans folk'? It's hard to say. I mean, they seem pretty harmless.

Pretty easy on the eyes




Pretty cool, really.



And yet. . .

Mike Huckabee identifies 'biggest threat' to moral fiber of US
ANAHEIM, California — Redefining gender and sexual identity is the “greatest threat” to the moral fiber of America, said former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee

Oh, do explain, Governor!

“The biggest threat to biblical principles today is the failure to apply a biblical standard of maleness and femaleness,” Huckabee told The Christian Post during a sit-down interview last week in Anaheim, California. “We are creating this illusion that there is no gender, there is no identity."

Ah. I see. Because that is one thing that the Bible is completely unambiguous about. There must at all times and in all places be a bright line of demarcation between the male and the female.
Why, just look at this categorical statement to that effect from St Paul's letter to the Galatians:

28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Oooh. Sorry, Mike. Looks like maybe St Paul would disagree with you on that "biblical principle."  But what does Paul know about it, he's only IN the Bible!

The 2008 and 2016 Republican presidential candidate explained that California’s introduction of “no-fault divorce” in 1970 created the mindset that marriage “wasn’t really that important” and that one “could go in and out of it without a second thought.” 

Which of course has everything to do with gender-non-conforming people.

“That’s when we first started losing that sense of sacredness of what marriage meant,” he argued. 

Sure, 1970. I mean, by 1970, Elizabeth Taylor had been married five times and divorced four.
And Mickey Rooney was already on wife number seven.Jerry Lee Lewis was twice-divorced and married to his THIRTEEN-YEAR-OLD cousin. But yeah, up until then, marriage was seen as a sacred unbreakable vow.

“So I'm not really that surprised that same sex-marriage has become in vogue because the Christian Church were the ones who essentially abdicated a strict responsibility about what biblical marriage should look like.”

Um. . . the state of California and the Christian Church are two very different entities. California adopting no-fault divorce had no effect on the various Christian denominations' stance on marriage and divorce. I mean, you can't possibly think that churches around the country saw California's new law and threw in the towel on the culture wars. "Well, if California says you can get divorced without showing fault, then I guess we'll just have to change our entire moral worldview!"

“Once you've destroyed that, why can't you have any and everything?” he continued. “The gender dysphoria we're seeing today is largely due to the fact that the Church has failed to present very clearly the words of Jesus and Genesis 5:2: ‘Male and female He created them.’”

Why can't you have. . . what the hell are you talking about? NO-fault divorce became a thing in 1970. Did that throw open some floodgates to every alternative lifestyle or. . . I don't even know what point you think you're making. Hell, it took over 30 years for same-sex couples to be able to marry.

Also, if you're going to say that because the first two people were one male and one female, which would have been pretty necessary for reproduction, that that means that there can now only be males and females and you're stuck with whatever you get? Oh, and also, the Bible does say that God created them male and female. But it also says that God did not "create" Adam, but formed him from clay and then had to go back later and take a rib out out of him because he had completely forgotten to create woman, so maybe Genesis isn't the most sound basis for gender policy?

Huckabee pointed out that society today celebrates single parenting and posits the idea that fathers “really aren’t necessary” when it comes to raising children.
“There are some people who are in single parenthood, not because they want to be, but because they were forced to be. And we ought to give [them] all the support,” he clarified. “But we should never pretend that it is as good as a loving mother and father in a home where a child sees both genders play out their norms because that's the modeling of behavior that would be ideal for a child to grow up in.”

Yeah, like in the Huckabee household, where a male father and female mother managed to raise one child who tortures and kills digs and another who is a professional liar in the service of a pussy-grabbing cretin who takes children away from their parents.



Okay, we all know Huckabee is a moron. Let's let someone else have a try. What's so scary about trans people?

• MEDIA

MARCH 28, 2019

A Guest on Laura Ingraham’s Show Just Said Trans People Will Create a New Species That Is Part Machine

“They are truly taking our children from us. This is child abuse.”

 

Um, what?

Seriously?

That can't really be what they said. Could it?

*sight* Now I guess I have to look.

“I think that the trans people have taken it one step further because by abandoning gender altogether, not simply rewriting it,” Nathanson said, “they’re basically trying to use social engineering to create a new species.”

A new. . . species? Do you. . . do you know what a species is? I mean, whether someone is male, female, neither, both, or whatever option you can think of, they would still be the same species. A person wouldn't become a cat. Believe me, I've tried. 

A mare, a stallion and a gelding are all members of the same species. If you took the parts you had removed from the gelding and surgically attached them to the mare, that new type of horse would still be a horse. A new species? Who the hell is this Nathanson imbecile?

Her guest, Dr. Paul Nathanson of McGill University 

Dr. Paul Nathanson, a gender relations professor and author of books including Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture

Oh for God's sake. Looks like I'm going to have to re-evaluate my opinion of McGill University.

Unlesssss. . . It's not Jimmy McGill University is it?

Still inexcusable!

Nathanson then explained that he questioned his gender identity when he was a child but grew up to be a cisgender gay man. “I don’t look down on people who are confused about who they are,” he said. “I just think that the solution that many are choosing, to either mutilate their bodies in one way or another in order to effect a cosmetic change—because you can’t change your chromosomes, you can only change outward appearance—I think that solution is a misguided one.”

It wasn't the right solution for me and my specific life experience, therefore it is the wrong solution for everyone! I teach at McCill!

Ingraham then derided parents who allowed their children to undergo hormone therapy, referencing a “horrifying” situation in Washington state in which a child was allegedly taken from her mother because the mother had not consented for the child to receive hormone treatment.
“They are truly taking our children from us,” Ingraham said. “This is child abuse.”

I'm just going to go ahead and assume this "alleged" incident didn't actually happen. Although, even if it did, one child being removed from one home hardly constitutes "our children being taken from us." Although, to be fair, it does sound a lot scarier this way.
And I googled this story and I can't find it anywhere, not even in the fear-mongering stories about trans kids in outlets like the Federalist and The New American dot com.

During the episode, Ingraham and Nathanson discussed the “attack on masculinity” and some of the apparent hoaxes behind it.

Oh! That's surprising. I'm pleasantly surprised that they would admit that the "attack on masculinity" is a hoax. Or should I maybe read the next sentence?

The hoax that somehow sexes are all the same or capable of being bed into one continuum, that masculinity itself is toxic, terrible and poisonous, all of those things, and in fact has to be discouraged in many ways,” Ingraham said before introducing Nathanson.

Okay, yeah. That makes more sense.

Nathanson told Ingraham that trans and non-binary movements have sprung up because “feminists challenge the notion of gender” and this has evolved into the development of feminist ideology.

Uh, feminists have challenged the notion of traditional gender roles. I don't think any feminists have ever challenged the idea of the existence of gender. If there were no gender, how would there be feminists?

“If masculinity is bad and men are inherently going to be patriarchal unless somehow we can train them, and beat this out of them—to be protectors and to be courageous, all these things that we impugn upon men—well if you get rid of all that, then the traditional family itself collapses and that's one last bastion of Western Biblically-centered morality that enveloping our, and has helped us prosper, frankly, for millennia and advance in millennia,” Ingraham said, as transcribed by Media Matters.

Mmm, that's good gibberish!

She does have a good point, though. Western Christian principles have led to so many great advancements in civilization. Why, just ask Galileo! Or Alan Turing!

“So the goal is really quite radical,” he added. “We're not talking about people who want to simply do a bit of reform here and there, add a new category. They want, they must, in fact, destroy whatever is in order to replace it with what they think should be. We're talking about revolution, not reform.”
Ingraham asks: "And the new species will be looking like what? Will be part human part animal?

Part animal? Where the hell do you come up with "part animal?" You think that the "radicals" who are suggesting that maybe not everyone fits into a nice neat male/female binary want to a: destroy the existing genders, and b: transform America into the Island of Dr. Moreau?

That's furries. You're thinking of furries.

Nathanson said, "I think human and part machine," to which Ingraham replies "part machine, hmm."

"Hmm. . . Yes, doctor. You've given me much to ponder," replied Laura Ingraham, stroking her chin thoughtfully. "I had assumed we'd be looking at a Dr. Moreau scenario, but perhaps a Terminator situation is more likely."


Okay, we've just got a couple minutes left. Anyone else want to chime in? Anyone want to put zero effort into their half-assed objection to recognizing gender-non-conforming people?

Trump could become ‘first female president’ under new legislation, GOP lawmaker says

Jeezus, Gaetz, I thought you'd at least try a little!

Rep. Matt Gaetz R-Fla., said Tuesday he will not support The Equality Act in part because its provisions that seek to prohibit discrimination of transgender individuals could hypothetically lead to President Trump declaring himself the first female president.
“[I]f President Trump were to say, ‘I’m am now the first female president,’ who would celebrate that?” said Gaetz in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the legislation. 

Honestly, so what if he did? Who would that hurt? It's not like there's prize money for being the first female president that should rightly be going to Elizabeth Warren. If you're going to try to be scary, you have to pretend that there's the possibility of something bad happening.

The bill being pushed by Democratic lawmakers would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the protections under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Gaetz said he would not support the legislation because of the possibility of people abusing the new protections in the bill.

How? How could people possibly abuse that provision?

I guess you're maybe thinking that cis people are going to pretend to be trans so that they can, what exactly, just act with impunity? You know, just like how in the sixties, after the original Civil Rights bill was passed, all these white guys pretended to be black so they could flout society's rules and get away with it? Is that what you think might happen?

“I strongly support the rights of transgender individuals,” Gaetz said. 

**Ron Howard voice** "He did not support the rights of transgendered individuals."

 “But I am concerned about the potential bad actors who would exploit the provisions for their own gain.”

**Ron Howard voice** "He was not concerned about that potentiality."

So, what have we learned today? Well, one thing really. If you want to terrify your FOX-watching relatives or co-workers, just show them a trans person!

BOO!

Works every time!