Apparently, starting with the February meeting, the committee had security present.  Whether they were armed or not has yet to be confirmed.

Those individuals seemed to think the guards were armed whereas an observer I talked to later said he didn’t think they were armed. It was too hard to tell from the bit of video that I had of a security guard at the March meeting:

Update: additional footage from PJ Media’s Nicholas Ballasy shows that this guard was not armed:

It is also not clear WHY the committee thought they needed security at the February meeting in the first place. Were they tipped off to a rumor that a large number of observers were to be expected? And if so, why would an increased public presence create an immediate need for security? Heck, FCPS students don’t even get guards though it is STUDENTS who are at risk from violence and not school board representatives.

Despite being packed like sardines in the third floor conference room, observers politely made room for newcomers, eventually exceeding capacity by twenty people or so.

There were some snickers and laughs (admittedly most were from me), but for the most part observers were quiet. And why wouldn’t they be quiet? Parents desperately wanted to hear what insanity the Leftist activists on FLECAC were coming up with for their children.

There was only one verbal altercation that I saw. It involved an observer and a committee member (Lawyer Dan, of course) who had started waving his hand at the observer’s camera and making faces at her. When she responded verbally, a security guard came in and asked her to leave. She refused, and nothing else happened.

There was no violence nor threat of violence at any point in time. The lady also never violated Lawyer Dan’s personal space—she remained as pressed against the wall as much as possible the entire time. Not that he can’t keep from lying about it:

Was the observer behind his shoulder? Nope. Look at the picture. She was directly behind the woman who was seated perpendicular to him, pressed against the protruding corner. Here’s another angle to show you the distance:

Keep on lying, Dan. You only expose your character issues further. What’s obvious is that you did not like having people record you. Too bad, Dan. That’s the price of “public service.”

The atmosphere might have been a bit tense here and there for some sensitive people who realized that the observers outnumbered the committee members, especially since the vast majority of those observers were not Leftists. Personally, though, it just felt like how I’d imagine sitting in the audience of a Maury Povich show would be.

“This can’t be real” just kept rolling through my mind.

After the meeting ended, Alex Dixon, a school board member representative, asked Roxanne Edwards, a transgender activist who had been observing the meeting, if he would like an escort to his car. It was a ridiculous question since, as far as I could tell, he had been completely ignored by the rest of the observers. Edwards was also present at the February meeting and obviously felt safe enough to return to the March one.

The next day, Lawyer Dan posted a public statement on Facebook in an attempt to paint the observers as a group of attackers with the potential for becoming violent in the future. Fellow Leftists were quick to jump on the bandwagon. He wrote:

[…] some people will continue to attack me for this. That’s fine, as long as the attacks remain verbal and not physical.

Come on, Dan, you’re gonna need to ratchet up your Alinsky game. That one was weak.

Look at this comment from Pat Hynes, the Hunter Mill District Representative on the Fairfax County School Board:

Was there any intimidation, name-calling or shouting down from observers at the FLECAC meeting, which is what Dan’s FB post was about? Nope. But that’s okay. Just imply that this is the kind of thing FLECAC members face and accuse concerned parents of supporting harassment and discrimination of kids. There, they’ve all been unpersoned and so their concerns can be ignored.

Robert Rigby, an LGBT activist and FCPS Latin teacher, called large crowds of concerned parents “ugly.”

Michael Fruitman, the FLECAC representative for the Hunter Mill District, called his fellow representatives, Laura Murphy and Jim Zanotti, “backward.”

It’s uncomfortable, isn’t it, Leftists, to have all those parents’ eyes watching you as you vote and their ears listening to you discuss the obscenities and convoluted gender ideology that you are planning to teach to their children–children who are UNDER THE LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT? People might even think you are…..perverted.

I certainly do. I sat there and thought, ‘Well, I’m looking at tables full of perverts. This is a strange experience.’

Alright, everyone, it’s time to explain how progressive men will use typical manipulation tactics to dismiss women’s concerns about their rights and legal protections. Feminists might call this “mansplaining.”

Today we have an example from Virginia Delegate Marcus Simon.

Back in January, a group of Virginia delegates introduced a bill that would overhaul the legal method of changing a person’s sex on his or her birth certificate.

You can read all about HB 407 by clicking HERE.

Marcus Simon was a patron of this bill. Thankfully, it was killed in a House subcommittee by Republicans a month after it was introduced.

Here we have Mr. Simon in an email exchange employing a variety of tactics to steer the conversation away from legitimate concerns while also revealing his transphobia against transgender-identified females (“transmen”).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Let’s check out what he does (and you’ll notice this pattern happens ALL THE TIME when women express such concerns online):

1. Make it personal.

You seem very passionate about this bill. I’m wondering what got you so interested in this topic.

No, he doesn’t really care about you. They never do. What they want to do is make this personal—maybe they’ll try to make it about your political beliefs or your religion or your personal experience. “Oh, you’re just a bigot / transphobe / hater” in order to invalidate your concerns.

Depending on how they think you feel and what they think you believe will determine if you are a person they should listen to or an unperson to be disregarded.

And now he reveals his transphobia:

This often involves men who were born as women.  I’ve met several of these men and I definitely wouldn’t want them in a bathroom or locker room with my daughter- but that’s not really what this bill is about.

No one is “born as a woman,” Mr. Simon. We are born as girls (females) or boys (males). Womanhood comes with physical FEMALE maturity.

He doesn’t want transgender-identified females–maybe because of the way they look or because of their mannerisms?–to be in a bathroom or locker room with his daughter. He doesn’t explain why he feels this way, but it’s not like they’ve got male reproductive organs or male chromosomes. What’s he afraid of? Their muscles? Their facial hair?

2. Focus on the small potatoes, and ignore the elephant in the room.

No one yet checks your birth certificate on your way in and out of public restrooms.

The purpose of this tactic is to derail the conversation. In this example, he misrepresented the entire purpose of the email in an attempt to avoid addressing the serious concerns.

Mr. Simon then employed tactic #1 again:

What got you so interested in this topic?

Translation: “Please give me something that I can use to accuse you of ignorance or bigotry or ANYTHING, and then your concerns can be invalidated because you are an unperson.”

3. Shame.

Most of my constituents are more concerned with fixing Metro, improving their commutes, attracting better teachers to the profession, and doing something to address the epidemic of gun violence.

Yours is one of very few messages I’ve received about this topic which affects a relatively small number of people.

Translation: “Normal people worry about ___ or ___. Obviously there is something wrong with you to be concerned about this small issue.”

This is one of the nastiest of manipulation tactics. And it speaks to his mindset: “You should think the way I think you should think otherwise you think wrong.”

4. Condescension

Sorry to have alarmed you.

He is not sorry, of course. They never are because they’ve been attempting to unperson you the entire time.

My, my, Mr. Simon. You are a real piece of work.

It was amazing to watch dozens of representatives being led around by their noses by one bully of a lawyer last night (8 Mar 2018). He was late to the meeting, and the dynamic immediately changed the minute he opened his mouth.

Of course, it is clear that the vast majority of the representatives on the committee are political leftists. And with a lawyer leading the charge to radically change the FLE curriculum to be as far left ideologically as possible, they were more than happy to quietly go along like bobbleheads on the dashboard of a runaway 18-wheeler.

The highlight of the evening was when Daniel Press motioned to change all references to biological sex or biological gender in the curriculum to “sex assigned at birth.”

But before that was a conversation about abstinence. Because Lawyer Dan has no idea what the Virginia code says about Family Life Education requirements, and he really doesn’t think that abstinence should be presented as the appropriate choice for minors under the age of 15 (8th graders in particular). It should simply be presented as an option among other appropriate choices.

Tell us, Lawyer Dan, what other lawful and appropriate choices are there for 8th graders when it comes to sexual activity? Care to explain?

And not only did Lawyer Dan blatantly lie to the committee members about the medical community’s use of the term “biological sex”–which really is a redundancy because the medical community just uses sex. But it helps people to clarify that one is talking about the reproductive system and associated physiology versus the reproductive act–but he lied on social media about what happened when he was rude to an observer.

He says:

Of course, it would have been nicer if one of the citizens were not literally standing right behind me filming close enough to potentially read personal and business messages on my phone…

Bullshit, Dan. I was watching and video taping that particular corner of the room nearly the entire time (because you tend to dominate the meeting). But I was directly behind Carl Jones with my phone, and he didn’t say a word about my filming (and my occasional outbursts of laughter).

This was the closest she ever got:

The topic of consent, and a subsequent motion, was brought up by a young lady who appeared to be a student representative. Early on in the meeting, Catherine Carroll made the really good point that promoting abstinence should be about teaching kids not to pressure other kids for sex rather than only teaching kids how to resist the pressure from others.

But, of course, Lawyer Dan’s gotta take credit:

refocusing the abstinence and sexual assault curriculum to increase the focus on teaching students not to be sexually aggressive/coercive, rather than focusing primarily/solely on resistance techniques/the victim/target of advances.

And I really don’t see how that can make up for the completely asinine move he made to take a gender dysphoria-related term “sex assigned at birth” and apply that to the entire FLE curriculum. You do realize, don’t you, Lawyer Dan, that 99.4% of the world’s population does not see the world through the lens of transgenderism, and therefore their terminology will reflect a viewpoint more in line with biology rather than ideology?

Oh, and the best–Dan writes:

My motion passed 21-3, so it’s pretty clear it’s not some sort of radical concept,

They’re all far left liberal Democrats, Dan, JUST LIKE YOU. He continues:

but some people will continue to attack me for this. That’s fine, as long as the attacks remain verbal and not physical.

This is my summary of Action Items 10.02 & 10.03 at the school board meeting that can be viewed HERE.

Changes proposed by Brenda L. Sheridan (version A):

I moved to amend Policy 7012 by inserting after “disability” in line 7 “sexual orientation and gender identity” so it would read … The Loudoun County School Board is an equal opportunity employer. It is the policy of the school board to conform to the laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia and not discriminate against qualified applicants and their employees on the basis of race, color, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, marital status, age, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or genetic information, and any other characteristic provided by law.

Ms. Sheridan gave additional commentary:

I’ve met with, talked to and emailed employees, parents, and staff. I am confident that adding the language to protect LGBTQ employees to our policies under consideration tonight is the right thing to do. We have received many emails in support of the motion to add sexual oriention and gender identity to our EEO policy and harassment & discrimination policy.

Sheridan went on to share some of the comments, many supportive and others vehemently against the changes, while keeping their identities anonymous.

Beth Huck also spoke about the emails she received, and she used the ones she called “hateful” as a reason to believe discrimination and harassment against LGBT people in Loudoun County is a problem, and therefore proof that a school board policy change is necessary. Ms Huck then implied that Christians who quoted the Bible in opposition to pro-LGBT policy changes were not being loving Christians. She tearfully explained that she only desires to protect students from being harassed and bullied, and therefore she would support the motion.

Several other supervisors spoke, Eric DeKenipp (against), Debbie Rose (against), and Joy Maloney (for). Eric Hornberger said:

This policy came to us in a regular review. After over five years of not being reviewed. It didn’t come to us because we had an overwhelming need to correct the policy. When I read the policy initially—and of course I appreciate the fact that we’ve had an opportunity to look into it further—I did find it unsatisfying. Part of the reason it’s unsatisfying is because it’s not our language. It’s language we have to have into our policy because of state and federal law. None of these pieces that are on this are things that local school boards have added. It’s because of federal and state statutes that we’re implementing.

And one of the things that … I have been trying to figure out … [are] the limits of what we do in terms of employment policy as a school board or as an organization. I talked to our staff to ask “Do we have cases of discrimination? Do we have people who have said this is a problem?” And time and time again it hasn’t been a case that has come formerly into LCPS except for the opposite—where people have made bigoted comments and said things like that, and those are the people that get in trouble in Loudoun County Public Schools.

So, again, I look at this and I say, “Okay, so if we go down the road of adding these protected classes now and take that authority as a school board, why do we stop there? Because, again, you could always find vulnerable groups.

And the problem is this is not some total of how we feel as an organization. I had other people say, “Well—and some of the board members have said—you know, I’d rather not have all these different protected class lists in that we just don’t discriminate on the basis of anything other than merit. Or on qualifications for a job and the ability to do that.”

But the reality is that we can’t do that, and the reason is that we are under state and federal law, and there’s historical reasons why these lists are in there. But they’re not lists that local school boards have come up with. They’re lists that have either come from the state or federal statute.

But again I’m still left with, you know, the issue of being unhappy with that being the sum total of our words on employment. And so as board members know, I will be proposing a different paragraph that I think actually sets a tone with the way we really do hire and what we do value when we hire. And it’s not related to: “Well, if you’re one of these classes we won’t discriminate against you.”  Well, no, it goes beyond that because we hire because of merit. We hire because we want the best professionals teaching our students and serving in our schools. We want people who — as a school division, we value diversity. We do. We have homosexual teachers. We have them. I know them. So it’s not, to me, that’s not “we’re against them.”

That’s the problem that I see with the way the language is written currently, but, again, that’s not of our making. That’s a list that we are provided and we have to provide in here for other reasons.

So, I’m not going to support the addition of language at this point because I think that fundamentally changes the nature of the list—it becomes our responsibility to add protected classes. And that’s not what my understanding of why this was included in the first place, and why every school board has to have this in their policies.

But I do think we do need to work at broadening our policy to speak about what we do value. And so I’ll be making an amendment after this amendment that I think begins to do that.

Tom Marshall then spoke indicating his support for the additional language proposed by Ms. Sheridan.

Mr. DeKenipp spoke again:

To clarify, these are employment policies, however, by including the verbiage in the employment policy we are creating protected classes, and therefore setting a precedent that could be used against us for students. So by setting that precedent in employment policies we are potentially liable to not afford those same protected classes at the student level. So there is a precedent that would be set and there would be implications—I just wanted to clarify that.

Jill Turgeon spoke, explaining that she was not in favor of changing the policy. Then Joy Maloney responded to Ms. Turgeon and gave additional commentary. And then Jeffrey Morse spoke, and he pointed out that anyone who is different is going to be targeted for bullying. He indicated that he would not support the proposed policy language change for two reasons: school leadership are already handling LGBT issues with respect without policy changes, and that the Supreme Court in a matter of months will decide the issue for the board anyway.

Then Brenda Sheridan spoke again before the final vote.

Brenda Sheridan: in favor

Beth Huck: in favor

Joy Maloney: in favor

Tom Marshall: in favor

Eric DeKenipp: against

Jill Turgeon: against

Debbie Rose: against

Eric Hornberger: against

Jeffrey Morse: against

Motion failed.

Then, the board was presented with Mr. Hornberger’s proposed addition to the LCPS School Board’s EEO statement. After some back and forth, the motion was unanimously approved:

After that, the board was presented with Mr. Marshall’s proposed policy: the Adoption of New Policy 7014, Harassment and Discrimination, and the Deletion of Policies 7-2, 7-2A, and 7-34.

He explained:

Currently LCPS has policies concerning sexual harassment and disability harassment. Sometimes complaints are received about other federally protected categories outlined in lines 4-6 of the proposed policy. Some examples are race and age. LCPS completes harassment and discrimination investigations on these complaints as is compliant with federal regulations. However, because no broad policy exists naming these other federally-protected categories, it is not very transparent for employees. Policy 7014 would correct that.

Currently we have a procedure for employees with sexual harassment complaints and a seperate procedure for employee disability complaints. Policy 7014 would establish a uniform procedure for all complaints of harassment and discrimination related to the federally-protected categories. …

This creates one procedure for employees to understand. We have checked with legal council and the procedure proposed complies with federal requirements. The new policy outlines timelines that are expeditious as possible and apply to all federally-protected category investigations. This both helps employees know what to expect as well as keep administration on track to bring the investigation to completion. The new policy explains that compliance officers and the complaint form and the harassment & discrimination complaint form and how to find them.

That’s some of the nuts and bolts of the policies found in this one. So we’re looking at the policy version A, and I believe that you have copies in front of you.

Brenda Sheridan then made a substitute motion to adopt Version B, seconded by Beth Huck.

Version B failed in a 3-6 vote (Sheridan, Huck, & Maloney in favor). Version A passed 7-2 (Sheridan & Huck against).

Click HERE to see Version B’s proposed changes to Mr. Marshall’s new policy. This proposed change was further explored in this blog post.

This piece goes further into a topic originally introduced in this post.

WARNING: Due to explicit language of a sexual nature, this post may not be safe for work or school settings, and it is definitely not appropriate for kids.

The mainstreaming of homosexuality and its associated sexual acts have made gender nonconformity more stigmatizing, not less. One survey shows Americans became less accepting of LGBT in 2017 compared to the preceding three years.

A boy who is different—more gentle, quieter, enjoys more stereotypical “girly” things—is perceived to be gay because so many “out and proud” gay men openly enjoy girly things and express effeminate mannerisms. The gentle boy has been sexualized.

In the same way, a girl who is rough and loud and bold and into “boy things” is perceived to be a lesbian when many years ago she would have just been seen as a tomboy. Now the gender nonconforming girl might be called “butch” or “dyke” or any other number of labels. The tomboy has been sexualized.

And guess whose fault this is?

LGBT activism. Here’s why:

A boy who appears to be a bit effeminate (or even just less masculine than other boys) is presumed to be gay thanks to the mainstreaming of homosexuality. What sort of pressure does such a nonconformist boy receive from the gay community itself that he is (or will be or should be) gay? Or that he is really “a girl on the inside”?

“It’s okay to be gay!” “Just come out of the closet!” “I behaved just like that and then I came out to my mom that I was gay (or that I am really a girl)!”

Thanks to that pressure, how many boys put on a hyper-masculine “show,” act out, or otherwise misbehave in order to prove to others (or even themselves) that they aren’t actually gay?

Boys shouldn’t have to feel pressure to prove that they aren’t into sodomitical acts with other males simply because they aren’t rough-and-tumble or hyper-heterosexual. And boys should not be shamed as “homophobic” just because they don’t want to be perceived as gay.

Any stigma about being gay has very little to do with gender nonconformity and sexism. It has to do with the sexual acts between gay men.

This is the 800lb gorilla in the middle of the room that everyone wants to tiptoe around.

Some of the tiptoe-ers recognize this, and so they are working to desensitize kids and groom them out of their natural visceral reaction to homosexual acts through the public school family life education curriculum. Case-in-point: Fairfax County. They are working to desensitize boys and girls to anal sex as early as eighth grade. These are 13 year old kids who can’t consent to sexual acts of any kind for another 2 years. The goal is to groom these kids into accepting anal sex as a perfectly normal and healthy sexual behavior. A group of concerned Fairfax County residents has evaluated the Family Life Education curriculum and their findings are shocking.

Already a media publication aimed towards female minors, Teen Vogue, is encouraging teen girls to embrace this sex act. The subtle message being sent to girls is that males may become bored with the female reproductive system, therefore females need to be open to a variety of other sexual activities for the enjoyment of their sexual partner.

Boys who may be struggling through puberty and male friendships might be groomed to believe that anal sex is a perfectly healthy and normal expression of love for another male, when instead love for another male should be presumed to be brotherly, not sexual. Boys should not be made to feel that affection with their male friends is possibly of a sexual nature.

The hyper-sexuality in our culture today is tainting healthy friendships and blurring the line between love and eroticism. It is turning the human body into a machine to be sexually enjoyed by others in whatever way they like so long as there is consent. But the rectum is not a sex organ and for good reasons it should not be treated as one, and minors should not be trained to regard it as a sex organ.

The fact that Fairfax County adults are trying to desensitize and groom minors into accepting sodomy should have parents up in arms. This is PERVERTED, and this is PREDATORY. These people need to be named and shamed: “You are a pervert, and you need to stay away from children.”

What is clear to me is how badly The Loudoun Times-Mirror wants the LCPS school board to pass pro-LGBT policies, as evidenced by this article. Is the Manassas Park policy ever actually quoted in the article that is headlined “Manassas Park City School Board adds LGBTQ non-discrimination protections”? Nope. Seems like a glaring omission. But I have never actually seen ANY quotations of proposed or passed LGBT-related policies in any of The Loudoun Times‘ articles on the subject. So, I’m starting to think it is a purposeful omission.

I looked it up in the LCPS school board agenda documents, and you can read a summary of the pertinent school board meeting HERE. It’s clever how activists tried two different ways to create special protections for gender identity and sexual orientation (sexuality). The first was to add the two terms to the EEO statement. That motion failed in a 4-5 vote. And the second method was to use anti-discrimination policies regarding biological sex as a way to slide in special protections for gender identity and sexual orientation. (Motion failed 3-7.) The argument was that homosexuals who behave publicly in certain ways so as to express their sexuality are being discriminated against based on their failure to conform to sex-based stereotypes. This argument is made in the Dear Colleague letter presented to the school board.

In other words, since this boy is attracted to males, but most boys are attracted to females, he is being called mean names because he is different from the stereotypical boy.

The issue, of course, particularly if you talk to boys and men, is not that gay boys/men aren’t actively attracted to females–it’s WHAT THEY LIKE TO DO (or WOULD LIKE TO DO) WITH MALES that is the problem. To put it bluntly, it’s the sexual ACTS that gay men do with each other that arouses disgust and hostility in some heterosexual males.

Now, we could ask ourselves why some males are disgusted and hostile towards males who want to engage in various homosexual activity. A common answer put forth is homophobia. But this is simplistic–it’s just a label that means fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. It doesn’t actually answer the question WHY? Why would a heterosexual male feel this way? And so the common answers for this would be things like religion and upbringing (“ignorance” or “brainwashing”). And although these things could definitely be reasons why some boys and men are against homosexuality in general, it doesn’t explain the visceral reaction many of them have against the physical acts of homosexuality. In fact, without deliberate desensitizing and purposeful grooming on the topic, most boys are grossed out when they discover some men like to engage in sexual activity with other males. Disgust is a natural reaction. And THIS is something rarely talked about. In fact, it is blatantly ignored most of the time, and if it does come up it is blamed on…..you guessed it: homophobia. It is circular reasoning every time.

This is my opinion on those public comments specifically regarding LGBT that can be viewed HERE.

Only two people spoke about LGBT issues during the public comment period.

The first said:

Good evening. My three children are enrolled in Loudoun County schools, so I have a direct interest in what children are exposed to while there, and because of the children in this room, I have adjusted what I originally was planning to say.

I listened to the public comments during the January 9th and February 13th school board meetings, and I came away with a lot of questions that I hope the board will be able to answer before considering a revision to school policies.

One of those questions is: What forms of self expression are LGBT students unable to safely make in LCPS schools today under the current policy? What is it that they want to be able to do in school that they cannot right now?

When did school become a forum for teachers’ proclivities to be expressed and discussed with students?

Is the school setting the place for youths to be connecting with adults based on similar attractions? Do students have anything else about their identity that they can connect with teachers on or are proclivities the end-all-be-all? This is a huge red flag for me.

Would a revised policy make it a violation for a student to say, for example, that transwomen are men or that bathrooms should be segregated based on biology and not gender identity?

Would such a policy make it impossible for LCPS employees to speak critically about these issues? Would such an employee be allowed to dissent if a male student demanded access to the female bathrooms or locker rooms based on gender identity?

I request that the school board not revisit the policy, and I want to thank those of you who voted against amending the policy last year. I will continue to be a vocal supporter of keeping teachers’ proclivities out of the classroom and of keeping female students’ spaces (such as locker rooms, sports teams, and bathrooms) separate from male students.

Thank you.

The second speaker to talk about LGBT issues only mentioned it briefly, referring to a recent national PTA resolution in favor of pro-LGBT policy changes as well as a statement about bullying, before delving into another topic for the remainder of her 2 minute time slot.

The two speakers were mentioned in a 2 Mar 2018 local news article. To read my commentary on The Loudoun Times article, click HERE.

“Heteronormativity” is not a bad thing. It’s a natural thing: the human organism is organized toward heterosexuality. We are not hermaphroditic or asexual creatures. Our individual reproductive systems are incomplete: we require the reproductive system of someone of the opposite sex in order to actually reproduce. This is the natural order—whether you believe in atheistic evolution or creationism or panspermia or any other explanation for the origin of life.

We can explain the purpose of the organs of the circulatory system and of the digestive system, and we can just as easily explain the purpose of the organs of the reproductive system. We know why they are shaped the way they are and why they are located where they are. They are ordered toward sexual intercourse (and the subsequent childbearing) which is heterosexual in nature.

This is why “heteronormativity” exists—because heterosexuality is normal. And there is nothing wrong with saying this. It’s a basic observation about the human species. It’s not a “privilege” to be accounted for. It is the natural order of Homo sapiens, just as it is the natural order of our species to be bipedal and have bilateral symmetry.

Along with this, of course, is “cisnormativity.” Cis is a prefix that basically means normal: the person identifies as what they actually are as opposed to some amorphous construct based solely on emotional projection and conformity to sex-based stereotypes. Most people have a fairly realistic idea of what they are, and based on this understanding they are able to better know themselves and describe who they are. It isn’t a privilege or a special advantage to recognize that you cannot change what you are and that what you are plays an integral part in shaping who you are.

Children inherently recognize heterosexuality (and “cis”) as the norm because from a very young age they understand the basic reality of sexual reproduction despite their ignorance of the mechanics of it: everyone has a mother and a father, even if one or both of them are not personally known for reasons outside of the child’s control. This natural human family unit is created upon the moment of a child’s conception, and it exists regardless of the emotions of the individuals involved because the relationship is based on the physical biological reality of the child.

Children conceived through anonymous sperm or egg donation, or who are adopted, or who never know their biological father, experience pain from the lack of their relationship(s) to one or both biological parents, even if there is a good reason to not be in a relationship with them (i.e. abuse or neglect). Biological heritage is an important part of a person’s identity. It explains why we look the way we do, and it often plays a role in our personalities and talents.

To deny these people their pain—to deny that their existence is rooted in loss—is cruel. We have to recognize that adult selfishness hurts children in a myriad of ways and that the effects will continue to haunt children into adulthood.

Based on the observable natural order of the human organism, it is not unreasonable to believe that human behaviors should be in line with the natural order of our bodies. What we do should be ordered towards what is good for our bodies and good for those new people (babies) who may be made from the acts of our bodies.

“What is this body part for?” is something we can understand from a fairly early age, and if someone suggests that we do something with it that is not normal, then it should be no surprise to that person if his or her suggestion is met with discomfort, disgust, or even horror. “THAT DOES NOT GO THERE” is a perfectly reasonable response to some of the sexual behaviors being taught by school systems such as Fairfax County.

And if a student or teacher behaves in such a way so as to advertise that he likes to use his body parts in sexual ways that are not in line with their natural purpose, it is not unreasonable for other students to be grossed out by that. It is not unreasonable for them to see such behaviors as perverted. It is not unreasonable for students to avoid other students or teachers who they believe to be perverts because of those behaviors.

We cannot make people be accepting of behaviors that they instinctually understand to be disordered. The only thing you can do is try to brainwash them and desensitize them and punish them. Except no one has the right to teach students that things they understand to be unnatural and repulsive are instead good things that they have no right to criticize. In fact, I’d argue that people trying to do such things to students—brainwashing, desensitizing, and punishing—are wicked, selfish people who deserve nothing less than to be publicly ostracized.

The Hyper-Sexualization of Females and the Evolution of Transgender Identity and Extreme Pornography.

By Jenn Smith

My theory is that the current transgender epidemic emerged out of our having driven large segments of society essentially mad by constantly bombarding them with sexual imagery. The perpetual assault of sexual imagery and pornography on the human mind is totally out of place/balance with nature. The most susceptible minds are males, especially young males, because they are biologically preprogrammed to have strong reactions. I believe this obsessive bombardment has caused a kind of sexual sensory cognitive trauma to, particularly, although not exclusively, the male mind. Some males will be more prone to it than others, as will some females, although male physiology would make them naturally more susceptible. We know the male mind responds to sexual imagery in much the same way the brain responds to cocaine, thus perpetual exposure to hyper sexual images would constitute a form of cognitive sexual overdose. The consequences of this are a kind of quasi-psychotic break in certain minds, and the need for more and more unusual and even extreme forms of sexual expression and identity. Just as drug addicts develop tolerance for their drug and need more and more, so my extensive personal experiences with sex addicts indicates that they too develop a tolerance for normal or less intense forms of sexual behavior, and continually escalate to more and more unusual and extreme forms of sex.

The idea that an over-stimulation of the mind and body by sexual imagery has caused individuals to begin thinking and acting in bizarre and extreme ways, also correlates with the fact most serial killers report extensive and excessive exposure to pornography, usually beginning at a young age. Thus serial killer Ted Bundy, in his final interview said, “my experience with pornography … is once you become addicted to it … you keep craving something that is harder, something that gives you a greater sense of excitement.” “Until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far, you reach that jumping off point where you begin to wonder [about] … actually doing it.” But it does not have to be pornography in its most extreme form. Most sex addicts will tell you that even fully clothed but sexualized images of females can trigger them over and over. Not only does the rise in transgender identity correlate with the rise in sexual imagery and pornography in society, but we also see a corresponding rise in the extreme, debauched, and frequently violent nature of modern pornography. Those that produce such pornography, especially pornography that mixes sex with violence (including “R” rated pornography in TV shows such as True Blood), are guilty of sexually traumatizing the collective unconscious of humanity. I believe this hyper-sexual traumatizing of the human mind gave birth to the modern transgender epidemic, although once big pharmaceutical companies and other vested interests, not to mention social engineers, got involved and began manipulating the public for political and financial reasons, the causes have now become more diverse and complicated.

The media is working hard to normalize the mutilation of children’s bodies and the confusion of children’s minds about what it really means to be a girl or a boy.

As usual, the media and the confused people they report on believe it’s about sex-based stereotypes: since most girls want to wear dresses but this child does not, it must mean the child is really a boy.

“As early as 3 years old, he was choosing masculine boy clothes. We had cute dresses and he would turn up his nose at them. He would tell us he felt like a boy and wished he was a boy.”