War has been declared on normality, reality, biology, morality and sanity. The militant homosexual/transgender revolutionaries have unleashed a reign of terror on everyone and everything that stands in their way. And everywhere casualties are mounting up.
All this chaos, carnage and confusion is being brought upon us by the aid of scientifically bogus propaganda which has been used to fool millions, and has done untold damage, especially to our children. The claim that homosexuality is genetically based and is immutable is one of the lies being pushed.
But at the same time we are being told with utter assurance that gender is fluid, a social construct, and can be changed at will. Um, so why is it that a person can be heterosexual today, bisexual tomorrow, transgender the next day, transvestite the following day, and so on, but the homosexual condition is set in concrete and inalterable?
The propaganda of the sexual anarchists has taken hold in our culture to such an extent that we can cling to completely contradictory claims without even batting an eyelash. In my books I have debunked the various claims about homosexual determinism, and fortunately many experts are now coming out debunking the baloney of the transgender activists.
One such person is Dr. Joseph Berger. He is certainly qualified to speak on these matters: he is certified as a specialist in Psychiatry by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and is an elected Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. He is also a past Chairman of the Toronto district of the Ontario Medical Association and past President of the Ontario branch of the American Psychiatric Association.
A recent article has highlighted his very grave concerns about the transgender movement, and is worth quoting from at length:
A prominent Toronto psychiatrist has severely criticized the assumptions underlying what has been dubbed by critics as the Canadian federal government’s “bathroom bill,” that is, Bill C-279, a private member’s bill that would afford special protection to so-called “transgender” men and women.
Dr. Joseph Berger has issued a statement saying that from a medical and scientific perspective there is no such thing as a “transgendered” person, and that terms such as “gender expression” and “gender identity” used in the bill are at the very least ambiguous, and are more an emotional appeal than a statement of scientific fact.
Berger, who is a consulting psychiatrist in Toronto and whose list of credentials establishes him as an expert in the field of mental illness, stated that people who identify themselves as “transgendered” are mentally ill or simply unhappy, and pointed out that hormone therapy and surgery are not appropriate treatments for psychosis or unhappiness.
“From a scientific perspective, let me clarify what ‘transgendered’ actually means,” Dr. Berger said, adding, “I am speaking now about the scientific perspective – and not any political lobbying position that may be proposed by any group, medical or non-medical.”
“‘Transgendered’ are people who claim that they really are or wish to be people of the sex opposite to which they were born, or to which their chromosomal configuration attests,” Dr. Berger stated. “Sometimes, some of these people have claimed that they are ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ or alternatively ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’.”
“The medical treatment of delusions, psychosis or emotional happiness is not surgery,” Dr. Berger stated.
“On the other hand,” Dr. Berger continued, “if these people are asked to clarify exactly what they believe, that is to say do they truly believe whichever of those above propositions applies to them and they say ‘no’, then they know that such a proposition is not true, but that they ‘feel’ it, then what we are talking about scientifically, is just unhappiness, and that unhappiness is being accompanied by a wish – that leads some people into taking hormones that predominate in the other sex, and even having cosmetic surgery designed to make them ‘appear’ as if they are a person of the opposite sex.”
He explained that cosmetic surgery will not change the chromosomes of a human being in that it will not make a man become a woman, capable of menstruating, ovulating, and having children, nor will it make a woman into a man, capable of generating sperm that can unite with an egg or ovum from a woman and fertilize that egg to produce a human child.
Moreover, Dr. Berger stated that the arguments put forward by those advocating for special rights for gender confused people have no scientific value and are subjective and emotional appeals with no objective scientific basis.
“I have read the brief put forward by those advocating special rights, and I find nothing of scientific value in it,” Dr. Berger said in his statement. “Words and phrases, such as ‘the inner space,’ are used that have no objective scientific basis.”
“These are the scientific facts,” Dr. Berger said. “There seems to me to be no medical or scientific reason to grant any special rights or considerations to people who are unhappy with the sex they were born into, or to people who wish to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex.”
“The so-called ‘confusion’ about their sexuality that a teenager or adult has is purely psychological. As a psychiatrist, I see no reason for people who identify themselves in these ways to have any rights or privileges different from everyone else in Canada,” he concluded.
I encourage you to read the entire article. But another brand new piece is also worth mentioning. Matt Walsh offers us some hard-headed realism in his column, “With The ‘Transgender’ Movement, Liberalism Has Finally Descended Into Total Madness”. He writes:
It’s not debatable. It’s not a matter that can be discussed among intelligent grownups. There exists not a single morally or intellectually sound justification for this madness. I am often accused of being too harsh and too absolutist in my pronouncements on issues. Whether my gorilla in a China shop approach is always appropriate is another matter, but in this case, with this sort of thing, when dealing with the mind-numbing lunacies of “transgender” propaganda, I think every opponent should be adopting a hard-line stance. This is wrong. It’s demented. It’s evil. It’s dangerous. It’s abusive. Every argument in favor should be dismissed as the blathering nonsense it so clearly is.
Moreover, “transgenders” are men who struggle with mental illness and sexual perversion. Of all the men to permit in a girl’s locker room, one might argue that “transgenders” ought to be last on the list. Remember Lila Perry, the male “transgender” Missouri high school student who demanded, and was granted, the right to change and use the toilet with girls? A look at his own social media postings reveal that he is attracted to females (and males), and enjoys taking pictures of himself simulating explicit sexual acts. What sort of parent wouldn’t be concerned about a vulgar, hypersexual boy like that using the locker room with their daughter? What sort of government claims that a boy like that has a civil right to infringe on the privacy and security of girls?
The answers: neglectful parents and depraved, tyrannical governments.
His second point deserves to be emphasised:
2. The homosexual/transgender lobby can never be appeased.
This Illinois case is incredible considering how far the school district went to accommodate the deluded young man. Administrators first changed the pronouns on official school records to reflect whatever sex the “transgender” is pretending to be. That wasn’t enough. They allowed boys to play on girl sports teams, needlessly endangering safety and providing an unfair advantage to the team with the cross dressing male. That wasn’t enough. They let “transgenders” use the bathrooms of their choice. That wasn’t enough. They even let the boy use the girl’s locker room. The only stipulation — the only attempt they made to offer the real girls some shred of privacy and decency — was to ask the boy to change and shower behind privacy curtains, which they had specially installed for him. That wasn’t enough.
The school, like most schools in the country, bent over backwards to grant enormous and unreasonable favors to a small and demanding branch of an already tiny demographic. They made girls give up their sport’s teams, their bathrooms, and most of their privacy in the locker room, but the one single concession they asked of the boy was that he use a curtain. It still was not enough. It is never enough.
In liberalism, there is simply no demand that can be made, no requirement that can be expected, no line of distinction that can be drawn where “transgenders” and homosexuals are concerned. They must be given everything. Everything. And it’s never enough.
This is what the marriage fight was all about. Many states had already offered homosexuals an arrangement that would carry all of the same legal benefits as marriage, just without the title. But it wasn’t enough. Most homosexuals aren’t even interested in monogamous relationships, but they wanted access to marriage — marriage itself, not something close to it — because, well, just because. Because it’s never enough.
This also explains the fights over wedding cakes and photography and floral shops. Homosexuals can go basically anywhere and get a cake, or hire a photographer, or buy flowers, but if they encounter one business — just one, in a sea of other businesses — that wishes to refrain from being involved in gay “wedding” ceremonies, they must force it to comply or see that it is destroyed. It’s not enough to simply go somewhere else. It’s never enough.
Let me conclude with his final point:
5. Liberals are waging a war on reality.
Liberalism has officially severed itself from any semblance of reality, and indeed declared war upon it. If our culture cooperates; if we relent and concede that science is relative and human beings are gods who can choose their own biological makeup; if the left jumps over the shark and into the dark waters of full-fledged insanity, and many in our society take the plunge right along with it, then there will be no stopping liberalism. It will have won the culture irreversibly.
If we willingly forfeit the definition of “man” and “woman,” right after forfeiting the definition of marriage, and long after forfeiting the definition of human life, then we will have no basis left to oppose anything else liberalism tries to do. We will have given it everything, ceded its every demand, compromised on every single imaginable point, and that will be the end of it. All we’ll be able to do, then, is sit and wait for our civilization to eat itself and collapse into dust.
We either draw a line here and make a final stand for objective truth – declaring without equivocation that some things, like our sex, are real and absolute – or else we give up and play along and tell ourselves that truth never mattered all that much anyway.
I have no real confidence that, as a culture, we’ll choose truth. But if it’s ever going to happen, now’s the time. Liberals have made it clear that they intend to finally and categorically reject and outlaw reality itself. Now the question is: will the rest of us stand up and do anything about it? I hope so. But unlike liberals, I’m a realist, so I’m praying but I’m not holding my breath.