Thursday, December 29, 2016

Transgendered...does it really exist?

The idea of being transgender is that a person prefers activities and clothing usually seen in the opposite se/x and begins to feel that she or he was born in the wrong body. And of course, surgeons are willing to mutilate the body to allow the person to dress in costume to look like the opposite gender. However, I have yet to meet a transgendered person who really acts like the gender they think they are. And there is a good biological reason for this.

If you have a kid who feels this way, here's how to talk to them and tell them, "how the hog eats the cabbage" so to speak.

Transgendered? NOT

1. Each cell has a "central computer" called DNA. 2. Your gender is encoded in this central computer in each cell of your body. Males have an XY chromosome combination and females, an XX combination. All the billions of cells in your body have this encoded thusly. Therefore you cannot really change your gender...all you can do is have your body mutilated and dress in costume. Now, do you really want to do that?  Especially in our society, fact is, you can change roles, dress in whatever you want etc. I've had short crew cut hair most of my life and I don't really own a skirt. I was a Tom boy and loved cars and riding bicycles and only used my dolls, my hopeful Mum kept buying me, to tie up when I was playing cowboys with the boys. In school, and since we moved a lot, I went to a new school every 6 months to a year, the kids tried to bully me because I looked like a geek but I stood up to them and did a fist fight when called for, usually getting the bully in big trouble and after that they left me alone.  Be what you are but be true to yourself.   I still love riding bicycles and motorcycles, love wearing pants, wear no makeup etc. And, I don't even own any skirts, but I love being a wife, loved being a mother and raising our son and love being a grandma and a great grandma. Each of us is a total individual so we don't have to fit into any mold except OUR mold!  The only "normal" for us is OUR normal and that will be different for every person!

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Campaign Notes

This well researched thought provoking blog is really worth reading!

Well, this two year campaign season has finally come to a head. Through all of the debates, all of the press interviews, all of the talking heads, all of the newspaper ink spilled, all of the social media chatter, we have finally crystallized the most vital issue of the day, the greatest threat to the security and prosperity of the nation.

It isn't Benghazi.

It isn't the fact that we have the largest number of Americans not participating in the workforce--ever.

It isn't the Democrats' Obamacare plans with $6K premiums AND $6K annual deductibles.

It isn't the fact that we have had a string of Islamic mass murders on our own soil over the past eight years.

It isn't the fact that the Secretary of State allowed the entire world to read our most classified emails by having them on an unencrypted private server in her home.

It isn't the fact that Clinton erased all of those emails AFTER the server was subpeonaed by Congress.

It isn't that the FBI gave immunity to her coconspirators and then agreed to destroy THEIR records on laptops.

It isn't that the FBI and Justice Department failed to indict on all of this.

It isn't Obama and Clinton funneling almost a billion dollars to Iran in cash.

It isn't the loss of American power and prestige around the world under Clinton and Obama.

It isn't the rise of ISIS because of Clinton and Obama's disastrous foreign policies.

It isn't the war on the Catholic Church by Obama and Clinton's acolytes.

It isn't the commitment by Clinton to strengthen Planned Parenthood and increase access to abortion and force taxpayer funding of abortions.

It isn't that under this administration 1 out of every six Americans now relies on Food Stamps.

No. It's none of these things.

The most important issue driving the electorate now is the fact that Donald Trump spoke like a pig twelve years ago, and good Christians everywhere simply cannot abide such behavior. Ever.

Never mind that Clinton orchestrated intimidation and character assassination against her husband's victims of sexual assault.

Nope. Trump has a potty mouth, and had a bad attitude toward women, and that matters more than national and economic security, more than religious liberty, and more than the right to life itself. We cannot have a pig in the White House! Not until Bill moves back with Hillary.

Guest blog by Dr Gerard Nadal, PhD (reprinted with the kind permission of the author)

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

New Yorker article does not prove allegations about Trump

Apparently Tony Schwartz the writer, detailed in the New Yorker article, was contracted to write Donald Trump's autobiography.  Mr. Trump allowed Schwartz to shadow him for 18 months (which is impressive because obviously, Trump was not trying to hide anything).  But lately, Schwartz, a lifetime liberal, has turned against Trump publicly in the an article in the New Yorker entitled "Trump's ghost writer tells all"

Trouble is,  IMO, Schwartz failed to prove his allegations that Trump is a "sociopath" etc.  On the contrary, in the lengthy article, Trump comes out as a rather nice individual.  While reading the article, I got to thinking that Schwartz's biggest beef against the GOP presidential candidate was possibly rooted in a bit of envy, that Trump has continued to be so successful in business.  (It should be noted that one of the criticisms often leveled against Trump is that he had several bankruptcies however, this seems to have been true of most who have made a success in business - including greats like Wanamaker and Macy, and is where the term "fourth time" comes from, i.e. after three bankruptcies, the fourth time might be the success.

Most writers, if being honest, will describe the many rejections they received, before they finally got their first chance at being published.  Hemingway described wall papering one of the walls in his home with rejection slips!

In the following analysis, I give details on why, I feel that Schwartz did not prove his allegations about Trump.

First, in his attempt to "prove" that Trump is a "sociopath", Schwartz alleged that:

"Trump  prefers TV as news source"... well, newsflash, all the presidents and busy people do that, in addition to a great percentage of the American public.  If this makes Trump a "sociopath" then, most of us other Americans are also guilty as charged.

"Trump has a short attention span" states Schwartz...My answer to this is that Trump is probably doing a lot of multi level processing in handling his businesses, and has what Dr Ted Hallowell, PhD, calls a "race car brain" which appears as a short attention span but is capable of thinking through many things simultaneously, a talent only observed in a small number of intelligent individuals (including Dr Hallowell, himself). Dr Hallowell says another name for this, is "a dose of American life"

"Trump hasn't read a book straight through his adult life" is the next allegation... Schwartz bases this on seeing no books on Trump's desk however, many highly intelligent, but busy people, read audio books or read on the computer (including our son who has a PhD and is very busy)... No basis for this allegation either...

As for Donald Trump being incorrect in citing a book title, that is a common error, especially for a very busy person.  I keep a database of books I read - if I didn't, I would find it difficult to remember titles and authors and I read A LOT.

It seemed to me that despite Donald Trump allowing Schwartz to shadow him for 18 months, Schwartz understood neither Donald Trump nor what it takes to run big businesses as Trump does and that Trump allowed Schwartz to shadow him, suggests Trump had nothing to hide which impressed me.

Schwartz admitted not being honest in his book about Trump ... which leads me to wonder how I would know if he's being honest now. 

Schwartz describes Trump as having an "insatiable hunger for money, praise and celebrity"  but this again, describes most Americans and probably is true of Schwartz himself.

When Schwartz  quoted Trump as saying that it was "Possible that the president [Obama] was born in Africa" as a "proof" of his allegation that Mr Trump is ignorant, this again falls greatly short of proving the allegation and suggests it is Mr Schwartz who is lacking in facts.  In fact, it is likely true, that Mr Obama was born in Africa - at least, this was what the President claimed in his book, DREAMS of MY FATHER written a few years before he became president... however, the common conservative allegation that this makes Mr Obama not a native born American is false - those of us who studied "government" know that if born to an American mother even if the birth takes place in another country, the baby is considered a natural American.

The New Yorker article stated that Mr Trump was angry because Schwartz spoke out negatively about him   - well who wouldn't be - Schwartz a life long liberal, has an agenda - Trump allowed him to shadow him for 18 months, and now, with the election in the horizon, Mr Schwartz basically turned on Trump, a move which is a bit, ethically challenged to say the least.

If the article was trying to prove what a "sociopath" (Schwartz's allegation) Trump is, it failed miserably.  Schwartz did NOT, in any shape or form, prove his allegations and actually, Trump comes out looking like a kind of a nice guy and a rather impressive person in the article. 

Just saying...

Source article......

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Gender specific restrooms - are they really protective?

So I have been following the latest news and outrage, so to speak. I am referring to the "interpretation" of the law which suggests the changing of gender specific public restrooms to be - what we used to call - "unise/x" i.e. 1 washroom for men, women, transgender and whatever.

Why this ruling now?  I wonder if it isn't just to annoy conservatives in order to divert their attention from more important issues.  If so, that ruling certainly has accomplished this end.  Many conservatives are extremely upset about this and social media like Facebook is filled with cries of outrage.

What are we forgetting?  That transgender folks probably, at present, use the restroom of the gender they feel they are, rather than the restroom for the gender in which they were born (and in which many still remain, since gender change surgery is risky, and expensive and obviously not covered by insurance).

What I am wondering is, why has this whole thing morphed into some folks feeling that - well, I'm not sure what they feel - do they think that folks who are transgender are all perverts?  That certainly is not true!  I've known many transgender folks and I feel although that they might be confused, to call them perverts is more than a bit "over the top".

 Confused? - yes - because our gender is in our genes and no matter how we change our bodies or what clothing and/or makeup we wear, we will always remain the gender of our birth - that's hard coded, into every cell of our bodies.  But to assume that because folks are gender confused, they must be perverts, is a leap I simply cannot, in any way, make.

They are, just like the rest of us humans, just trying to make sense of their lives and doing their best to be whom they are.  To dress in the clothing of the opposite gender or even take hormones, is to me, possibly, foolish because it really doesn't change anything hard coded in every cell of our bodies and poses some health risks to the individuals involved but, perverted?  Certainly not!

In thinking about this phenomena, I think it might be a holdover from earlier times where dress codes and behavior were extremely rigidly prescribed, for each gender - for instance, when I was a young 'un, a lady DID NOT wear pants and of course, males did not wear dresses ... although I thought back then, was a bit strange since, for example, the Scottish "kilt", worn exclusively by men, is, essentially a skirt!  I remember times when I, in rejecting makeup (I didn't like how it felt on my face), was horribly, going against the tide, this action considered more than, a bit strange by some around me.  Although this "rule" of makeup was NOT applied to guys! :)  (Now the tables have turned and lots of ladies don't wear makeup and  some guys DO wear makeup.) :)

Conservatism, is to me, the holding up of a Christian moral code, including important things like abstinence outside of marriage etc. and not, diverting our attention to possibly, non-issues like defining (or re-defining) public bathrooms, which seems a waste of time, and weakening our stance on more important moral issues for which we stand.  Just saying.