Dakota Beacon

What about a law that says that no one under the age of 21 be allowed to begin any "transgendering" process – hormonal, surgical or other – and that until the person is 100% physically "transgendered" he or she must continue to use the locker rooms and bathrooms and other gender-specific facilities dictated by biology. And a law that ends the pressure on young people to "accept" such deviance as "normal".

We are indoctrinating our children from earliest childhood that everything from homosexuality to cross-dressing to "transgendering " is "normal". It is not normal. It is not normal for a girl to look in the mirror and think she sees a man. It is not normal for a man to look in the mirror and think he sees a woman. NOT NORMAL. In every person there is some degree of the opposite sex in terms of traits commonly associated with gender. There are men who exhibit amazing levels of understanding with small children, for example. This is usually the realm of women historically. There are women who have shown tremendous courage in physical battle – obviously an historic trait of men. This does NOT mean the sensitive, insightful man is less a man nor the bold, brave woman is less a woman. But the LGBT people have attempted to extrapolate from these individual differences that enrich us all some kind of "normality" in men and women confusing their biology.

The result of catering to these extremists – I am speaking of the LGBT groups – is perversion of nature itself. It is placing young girls in the untenable situation where they are forced to be exposed to naked males and gives them no alternative to disrobing in the presence of men. This is a situation they are not equipped to handle. The only alternative available to them is to not participate. Or to not use a public restroom. This is total asymmetrical public policy. Putting some kind of bandaid on it in the form of gender-unspecific bathrooms or changing rooms is very costly and although it provides immediate, short-term relief, it does not address the sickness underlying this whole issue. A culture cannot be said to be surviving when its people don't know whether they are men or women. We desperately need to correct this idea that everything and anything is "normal". If someone's confusion lasts more than a short-term passing phase (which should not be catered to by the rest of us) that person should be seeking help to overcome it, not validation of this serious aberration. Instead of beginning hormonal experiments on 6-year old children who think they want to be a boy when they are not or a girl when they are not, we need to help them to be what they are. Our culture, for better or worse, has opened almost every door to both genders. Fields that were once the domain of women are wide open to men to pursue – health care, early education, all of the arts - and careers once open only to men are welcoming women – construction, engineering, truck driving, law enforcement, etc. The only bar should be the physical abilities required and the hazard posed to other co-workers (which is why women in combat are not generally a good idea – ask most professional soldiers).

We need to address the problem under all of these news stories, not just the immediate issue of the safety of little girls using a restroom. These are major problems and the LGBT people are not helping. Should they be given the deference they assume is theirs? By what right? They are chiefly an advocacy group not so much concerned with the people they supposedly advocate for as they are in recruiting more to their fold. It is not a healthy aspect of our culture and not one we should encourage. Tolerance and kindness to others is one thing, calling deviancy "normal" and selling our children a bill of these kinds of goods is another.

Why are they so interested in promoting this? Advocates for the people who suffer from ALS don't want to spread that. The Cancer Society is not working overtime to create new cancer victims or usher in a lifestyle in grade school that fosters it. When Jerry Lewis hosted the annual Muscular Dystrophy benefit show, he was not hoping to encourage more sufferers. What sets the LGBT pro's (I am not speaking of the individuals they purport to represent) apart is that they seek to undermine the culture and the family unit. Gay marriage is another aspect of their "service". Marriage in any culture is there to ensure the continuance of the population, and to provide a stable environment and support for children and mothers. It is not historically considered a long date. Or a party. In our country, more than half of marriages end – I did not say "fail" – I said "end" – in divorce. That is only those who actually marry, of course. It is a growing trend and an unfortunate one, that people simply live together without marriage. They see no problem in bringing children in to such a situation. And without a strong family unit – a mother and father united in looking out for the children and their future, the state moves in to fill the void. This is the bottom line.

Advocates of greater power of government over people have long had opposition in the form of family structure. In a family unit, members have loyalty and devotion first to each other – not the state. Hitler recognized this and put children in camps and schools where their family loyalty was undermined. He was famous for brainwashing school children to spy and report on their parents and siblings. Stalin and other Soviet dictators knew this. They employed it with great success. A whole population was spying on each other and reporting to the state. The murderer Mao instituted the Red Guard to do the same in China. In a free world context, the state must be subordinate to the family unit. But when we see traditional marriage, between one man and one woman, attacked by an organization through the idea of "gay marriage" we are witnessing the undermining of the family unit. This has never been about anyone's rights. There is no point in gay "marriage". Marriage is an arrangement to provide for children and their support. Anything other than traditional, one man-one woman marriage, simply exists to demean and undermine it. When your culture mocks a thing openly and institutionally, that thing will inevitably decline. And in its place, the state is ready and waiting to step in.

Do gays want this? Probably not. Do they gain more by pushing for it? History says no. Historically, except in societies distinguished by personal liberty, gays have been discriminated against and their existence even threatened. We see this today in countries ruled by Islam. Gays' best climate is one of freedom. Should they work to enhance the power of the state? Not if they are wise. But, as I have stated, the LGBT organizations do not care so much about their supposed constituents as they do about growing their power.

There was a time years ago when we were having this conversation about labor bosses. They were not so much concerned that workers have jobs or that the workplace was safe and healthy and wages were fair as they were about their own political power.

We don't live in a perfect world. There will always be unfairness, real and perceived. But by far the most conducive environment for fairness and even safety and survival is one of freedom. Certain institutions support freedom – the family, as the bulwark against statism, cultural norms that protect women and children from the inevitable perverts in any society, the idea that everyone's rights are important, not just the .3% who are "transgendered". How is there freedom when little girls are told not to use the restroom? When girls' locker rooms become a place where men undress in front of them and expect them to undress there as well? Where are these little girls' freedoms? Do we tell them, you can't take swimming lessons because you are normal little girls?

We are in a lot of trouble in America today. Either we recognize the illness and begin at once to treat it or we can apply these bandaids until we die as a culture and our liberty with us.