I will never forget the cold January morning when my Elementary school gathered the entire student body in our shoddy gymnasium to watch a Space Shuttle launch; the year was 1986, the astronaut Cabbage Patch Kid was one of the hottest holiday items, and space exploration captured the imagination of a nation who still felt a deep sense of pride in being American.
The buzz amongst the students felt electric, excited to see the Challenger escape the surly bonds of the Earth’s gravitational pull and… in a flash it was over. And there was silence.
That evening, with my parents and the rest of the country, I watched President Reagan give an eloquent and moving speech regarding the tragedy that we had witnessed live. Reagan’s words still stir-up emotions thirty years later:
“And perhaps we’ve forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle. But they, the Challenger Seven, were aware of the dangers, but overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly.
And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle’s take-off. I know it’s hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It’s all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It’s all part of taking a chance and expanding man’s horizons. The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.“
Reagan gave context and meaning to the tragedy, and in doing so, provided a definition of “courage.” The astronauts were brave because they risked their personal welfare for something greater than themselves; the Challenger crew gave their lives to aid in “the process of exploration and discovery,” in order to attain the greater good of “expanding man’s horizons.”
Courage had a sense of lofty selflessness, and it was this noble trait that we collectively honored.
If courage was considered putting aside individual ends for the collective good, modern courage has been redefined as pushing the extreme limits of individuality as seen through the media frenzy and massive high-fiving caused by Bruce Jenner’s transformation to Caitlyn.
We collectively stand on the verge of an open dialogue regarding the transgender issue being considered dangerous progressive heresy; a social faux-pas punishable to the extreme. Progressive bullies will force the issue to only be spoken of within the parameters of their construct, and dissenters will ultimately yield in favor of maintaining their own sense of social normalcy.
After all, if there is only one transgendered person per fifty-thousand progressive high-fives in honor of that transgendered person, does it really matter if the transgendered person gains a positive sense of newfound identity as a result of the high-fives, and if the high-fivers enjoy the full depth of their own moral superiority?
Even if progressive high-fives are condescending and hollow, the issue seems inconsequential.
The issue doesn’t seem to pass the threshold of ‘conviction versus social suicide’; there doesn’t seem to be enough reason for an average person to be so adamant toward voicing a dissenting opinion as to risk their own social status.
But as we collectively stand at this precipitous, let’s take one last look at the fallacies and far-reaching potential consequences of transgender promotion.
Transgender is conveniently lumped together with gay and lesbian issues despite progressives making sure the unenlightened understand that someone feeling as though they are mismatched between biology and “authentic-gender” (the definition of which even the most collegiate progressive seems unsure of) is not the same as being gay.
The grouping is done for purposes of easy indoctrination and public acceptance of gender fluidity.
A progressive victory has certainly been the growing social tolerance for homosexuality. Homosexuality is ultimately harmless on a macro-social level, and certainly life is far more comfortable for the individual homosexual on a micro-social level.
Progressives, feeling the rush of social victory, decided to ride that wave and include transgender in the gay and lesbian subset.
Gender confusion and homosexuality differ in that a person can decide they are gay for any given period of time and, if they ever feel differently, can decide they are no longer gay without permanent ramifications stemming from the time they had identified as gay.
I don’t know what engenders feelings of being biologically mismatched with a seemingly more valid gender-identity, but once those feelings are nourished it seems unlikely that the gender-confused person will be open to accepting their biological gender.
Once feelings of gender-confusion are supported and validated, the logical end is to undergo a full gender transition which includes massive surgery and artificial hormone treatments. Once this process has begun it is impossible for the person to return to their original biological gender.
What hangs over this issue is the impossibly high suicide rate of those successfully transitioned. The suicide rate implies that encouraging gender transition is not a realistic solution to gender confusion; that a true gender change is not possible, and the results are largely dissatisfying to those who undergo the process. If these solutions aren’t satisfying or realistic, we need to rethink experts advising these practices to individuals seeking help for gender confusion.
Tolerance becomes Promotion
“One of the nation’s largest public school systems is preparing to include gender identity to its classroom curriculum, including lessons on sexual fluidity and spectrum – the idea that there’s no such thing as 100 percent boys or 100 percent girls.
Fairfax County Public Schools released a report recommending changes to their family life curriculum for grades 7 through 12. The changes, which critics call radical gender ideology, will be formally introduced next week.”
Progressives are so excited to celebrate gender fluidity that they are willing to accept a young child as transgendered based solely on the child’s own account and perspective; this same child is not able to legally make any other serious decisions for themselves.
Adolescence is naturally a time of confusion and insecurity. While most adolescents will feel reasonably comfortable within the typical parameters of their biological gender, now the female tomboy or the awkward kid bullied by his masculine peers may consider themselves “gender confused” through suggestion by-way of the Education they receive in their Public School.
While homosexuality has definite markers, namely feeling attracted to fellow members of the same sex, what places an individual on the spectrum of being transgendered is a grey area; how uncomfortable does a person need to be within the confines of their biological gender to qualify as gender confused, and does what motivates such discomfort resonate as valid or invalid when considering if someone is “authentically gender mismatched” or merely confused about their own confusion?
With new education, media promotion, progressives tripping over themselves to give and receive massive high-fives, why wouldn’t a depressed adolescent- possibly bullied, possibly sexually rejected, possibly unathletic, or possibly overly athletic- consider the possibility of a gender mismatch, and in doing so, possibly commit to a lifetime of dissatisfaction and confusion?
If a grandiose notion of courage is the giving of yourself to a more noble cause, it stands to reason that individual bravery is the “serenity to accept the things you cannot change, the courage to change the things you can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
It’s worth thinking about where gender and sex fall into that framework.
Like my post? I accept Bitcoin tips via ChangeTip @ killtoparty.tip.me/