Something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily.
Objective reality is, period. You can choose to ignore it, a brainfart which is, at minimum, stupid. If you go there, human genepool improvement awaits.
Objective reality is - in many people's minds - annoyingly intransigent. It's doubly irritating when it refuses to change to suit the latest wild hair someone got up their butt. A prime example is the mushrooming popularity of transgenderism. Bolstered by the newfound popularity of this raised middle finger to human biology, school boards from sea to shining sea are rewriting their rules of engagement. Wanting this gender identity crap to be true doesn't change the fact that gender dysphoria is a well-known psychological malady which is, often self-correcting.
It sucks that reality refuses to transform itself to please these gender-bending pinheads. What rots LGBT socks is the stop the presses fact that objective reality isn't a popularity contest, and it won't change to match the latest opinion poll numbers. Objective reality is what it is, no matter what someone "feels" about it. All the wishful thinking in the known universe can't change this inconvenient state of affairs.
Determined to reject the dreaded evil of binary gender, the usual suspects target the low hanging fruit: children.
Apparently children as young as 4 are not too young to be told that gender and sex are different and that their genitals don't indicate their gender, according to new Planned Parenthood guidelines for parents.
On a page of its website titled "How do I talk with my preschooler about their body?" the abortion provider says if a child inquires why boys and girls have different bodies, a parent should introduce the concept of transgender identity.
"While the most simple answer is that girls have vulvas and boys have penises/testicles, that answer isn't true for every boy and girl," the organization says. "Boy, girl, man and woman are words that describe gender identity, and some people with the gender identities 'boy' or 'man' have vulvas, and some with the gender identity 'girl' or 'woman' have penises/testicles. Your genitals don't make you a boy or a girl."
Parents should then point out to their child, the page continues, that genitals do not definitively establish gender, and that their children "can make that decision based on your values and how you plan to talk with your kid about gender as they grow up."
Rogue, rational inmates at some cess-schools suffer the consequences.
Minnesota's Department of Education has released an advisory to all K-12 schools to "segregate" students who raise objections to the state's new mandate for transgender locker rooms and bathrooms.
Earlier this month, state officials approved of a new gender toolkit titled "Safe and Supportive Schools for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students" aimed at making "non-binary" and transgender students feel welcome from kindergarten through 12th grade.
The toolkit also calls for segregating students concerned with their privacy away from transgender students so it "does not result in stigmatizing the transgender or gender nonconforming student."
The new guidelines are designed to "help school districts and charter schools create environments where transgender and gender nonconforming students are safe, supported, and fully included, and have equal access to the educational opportunities provided to all students as required by federal or state law."
At present, the toolkit will not prevent a male student from stepping into the girl's locker room while claiming to be transgender. Instead, female students who object to the intrusion will be "segregated" so the male student does not feel stigmatized.
Furthermore, schools are instructed to provide transgender students the privilege of choosing their own preferred gender pronouns, and staff are not merely encouraged, but advised to oblige their demands.
Teachers who fail to address these students by their chosen pronouns are warned that they could be in violation of federal law.
Tolerant to a fault, Progtards have vilified biologically based gender designations as - ta da - hate speech.
Princeton University Kindly Requests You Stop Using "Gender-Binary" Hate Speech Like "Freshman"
For those of you, like us, who are constantly putting your foot in your mouth with highly offensive terms like "businessman" instead of "businessperson" or "freshman" instead of "first-year student," Princeton University has published the perfect pamphlet to help you develop a more "gender-inclusive" vocabulary. As Princeton points out, "gender-inclusive" language is much preferred to the traditional "gender-binary" language used by people in ancient times who largely identified as men OR women. Can you imagine? How could they live in such an unsafe space?
For those of you who are still unsure if your language is "gender-inclusive" compliant, Princeton offers the following definitions:
Gender-inclusive language is writing and speaking about people in a manner that does not use gender-based words.
Gender binary is the traditional view on human gender, which does not take into consideration individuals who identify as otherwise, including and not limited to transgender, genderqueer, gender non-conforming, and/or intersex.
Heard enough? Me too.
When writing about Oregon's decision to allow taxpayer-funded sex change operations for children as young as 15-years-old and without parental consent, I noted a study that shows gender reassignment surgery to be ineffective. Post-operative patients tend to remain depressed, even suicidal.
Further, according to Paul McHugh, the Oregon rule amounts to child abuse:
Paul McHugh, of Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Department and himself a pioneer in gender reassignment surgery, says Oregon's policy amounts to child abuse. He is quoted as saying, "We have a very radical and even mutilating treatment being offered to children without any evidence that the long-term outcome of this would be good."
A 2008 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry further calls into question the wisdom of this procedure, noting as it does that "most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty."
The American College of Pediatricians finds that this (far too early) push for children to select their "gender identity" is harmful to the point of potentially causing life-long physical damage. They also call into the question the very concept of "gender dysphoria" as an innate trait, the justification progressives use to "teach" young children about "gender identity."
In an article entitled "Gender Dysphoria in Children," the American College of Pediatricians's abstract states:
Gender dysphoria (GD) of childhood describes a psychological condition in which children experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and the gender associated with their biological sex. When this occurs in the pre-pubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence. Currently there is a vigorous, albeit suppressed, debate among physicians, therapists, and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for GD in children.
This new paradigm is rooted in the assumption that GD is innate, and involves pubertal suppression with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists followed by the use of cross-sex hormones—a combination that results in the sterility of minors. A review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is founded upon an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base, and violates the long-standing ethical principle of "First do no harm."
The American College of Pediatricians concludes:
Gender dysphoria (GD) in children is a term used to describe a psychological condition in which a child experiences marked incongruence between his or her experienced gender and the gender associated with the child's biological sex. Twin studies demonstrate that GD is not an innate trait. Moreover, barring pre-pubertal affirmation and hormone intervention for GD, 80 percent to 95 percent of children with GD will accept the reality of their biological sex by late adolescence.
The treatment of GD in childhood with hormones effectively amounts to mass experimentation on, and sterilization of, youth who are cognitively incapable of providing informed consent. There is a serious ethical problem with allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young to give valid consent themselves; adolescents cannot understand the magnitude of such decisions.
Ethics alone demands an end to the use of pubertal suppression with GnRH agonists, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents. The College recommends an immediate cessation of these interventions, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies. Healthcare, school curricula and legislation must remain anchored to physical reality. Scientific research should focus upon better understanding the psychological underpinnings of this disorder, optimal family and individual therapies, as well as delineating the differences among children who resolve with watchful waiting versus those who resolve with therapy and those who persist despite therapy.
Don't expect the self-appointed "party of science" to pay any attention to this important study, however. They'll be too busy confusing and traumatizing our nation's children to bother with details like that.
Dr McHugh's oped included these reality bytes:
[One transgender] subgroup consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from "everything is normal" sex education, amplified by Internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. "Diversity" counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.
Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston's Children's Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.
At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. "Sex change" is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.
One final tidbit seems appropriate:
The most frequently cited estimate is that 700,000 people in the United States, or about 0.2 to 0.3 percent of the population, are transgender, though some experts say the true number is probably greater than that.
Transgenderism isn't a plea for tolerance and understanding. This assault on objective reality paints a bull's-eye on the cornerstone of American culture: the family. So-called activists nurture naturally occurring gender dysphoria, then use it as a wedge to isolate parents from their child. Mother, father, sister, brother, as well as male and female are vilified as hate speech.
If they can coerce rational individuals into throwing human biology under the short bus of science, where does it end?
If Bruce Jenner is a woman, Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill are Indians, Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King are black, and Jeb! Bush is Hispanic, then Paul Wolscht is not only female, he is 6 years old:
In an interview with the gay news site The Daily Xtra, Stefonknee (formerly Paul) Wolscht details his struggles with being a male-to-female transgender person.
The Daily Xtra video, however, glosses over a tiny bit of important information about Wolscht: he thinks he is actually a six year-old girl—not just a woman, but a six year-old girl—stuck in the body of a 50-something man.
At age 46, Wolscht deserted his wife and his seven children to live his "true" life.
Wolscht is all set up in the depraved, self-indulgent fantasy he has devoted his existence to wallowing in.
He explains, "Well, I have a mummy and a daddy. [An] adopted mummy and daddy who are totally comfortable with me being a little girl.
Insanity is the new national pastime.
Trans-aged? Wow! I never saw that one coming.
PIGish after thoughts: Where the f**k did he find mummy & daddy? Under a rock?
First they unleashed transgender.
Now, they're taking weird off the scale with trans-age.
For a long time I laughed at this insanity. I'm not laughing now.
Welcome to our Brave New World.