21st Century Wire says…
What is the appropriate age for a child to become “gender aware”?
As transvestites get a 21st century medical upgrade to ‘transgender’, the storm of gender politics is becoming more and more visible in American life. By the same token, LGBT agents of change are targeting a much younger audience these days.
Previously, 21WIRE reported on the story in California where a state law was passed which allows K -12 students to ‘decide’ what gender they would like to be at any given time, giving them free access to either-sex school locker rooms, bathrooms and self-nominate which sports team they would like to play for – all enforced by the state courts.
Activist will say that this is only about Civil Rights, but it’s hard not to notice how politicized this issue is becoming, and how children are being pulled in between the gears of an adult political machine.
This week, the State of Maine got into the transgender act as well, passing a similar ‘transgender access’ law for students (see full report below) based on what was passed earlier in California. Is this is bona fide social trend, or is it merely part of the new extremist liberal social engineering agenda? The aggressive nature at which the gender agenda is targeting very children is a little disturbing, to say the least…
Barbie Online: Children are being nudged away from gender identity.
We’re told that it’s all about catering to the “unique problems of young transgender people in America”, only children do not manifest these kind of social agendas. Adults do.
Culture engineers have even designed a new flag for this new social compartment…
IMAGE: The new ‘Transgender Pride’ flag.
One should ask the obvious question here: what does a 10 yr old 5th grade student really know about ‘gender identity’? Is it down to their parents, or are aggressive gender politics simply the inevitable byproduct of an ultra-liberal social agenda which dominates America’s media and entertainment in the 21st century? Children are already heavily challenged by the fast pace of education, technology and media in their lives – without adding additional confusion by introducing sexual politics into their lives.
A cursory glance at who is promoting the ‘third gender’ agenda reveals some of the major player and corporations behind political trend:
“In the 2010s transgender people became increasingly prominent in entertainment. Chaz Bono became a highly visible transgender celebrity when he appeared on the 13th season of the US version of Dancing with the Stars in 2011, which was the first time an openly transgender man starred on a major network television show for something unrelated to being transgender. He also made Becoming Chaz, a documentary about his gender transition that premiered at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival. OWN (the Oprah Winfrey Network) acquired the rights to the documentary and debuted it on May 10, 2011.” (Wiki)
Adults can and will do whatever they like in a free society. Everyone accepts the endless machinations and fascinations of adults in their pursuit of happiness, but the overt sexual politicization of children is something else altogether. To the casual observer, this seemingly innocuous adult sexual and gender agenda appears to be focused only on promoting ‘alternative lifestyles’, but there exists a much more extremist circle within this broader international movement who are actively campaigning to lower the age of sexual consent – earmarking children as young as 12 as potential sexual targets. A minority of adults are literally dragging our children by the hair into this twisted hall of mirrors.
Political operatives see today’s youth as nothing more than tomorrow’s voting block, and corporate marketeers see them as future consumers for their new products – flags, T-shirts, fashion, film, music and media. This is just another example of ‘Divide and Rule’.
As with any major social engineering project, the target audience gets ever younger, and at its present rate, this ‘progressive’ gender agenda may succeed in dissolving the fundamental fabric of the family-oriented society in one generation.
New State Law Allows ‘Transgender’ Students to Use Any Bathroom or Changing Room
So holds today’s Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision in Doe v. Regional School Unit 26, as to a fifth-grade student who is biologically male but identifies and dresses as a girl. Maine law bans discrimination in places of public accommodation based on “sexual orientation,” which includes “gender identity or expression.”
The court held that this means that transgender people were entitled to use the restrooms appropriate to their gender identity, rather than their biological sex.
Maine law requires schools to provide restrooms “[s]eparated according to sex and accessible only by separate entrances and exits.” The court, though, concluded that this doesn’t affect the analysis under the public accommodations statute:
Because [the school bathroom statute] does not mandate, or even suggest, the manner in which transgender students should be permitted to use sex-separated facilities, each school is left with the responsibility of creating its own policies concerning how these public accommodations are to be used. Those policies must comply with the [antidiscrimination law]….
[W]e do not suggest that any person could demand access to any school facility or program based solely on a self-declaration of gender identity or confusion without the plans developed in cooperation with the school and the accepted and respected diagnosis that are present in this case. Our opinion must not be read to require schools to permit students casual access to any bathroom of their choice. Decisions about how to address students’ legitimate gender identity issues are not to be taken lightly. Where, as here, it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity, denying access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation discrimination in violation of the [public accommodations law].
Justice Mead’s dissent disagreed, reasoning that,
The statutory directive to segregate bathrooms in schools by sex, and providing for separate entrances and exits for those bathrooms, clearly anticipates that the use of a bathroom would be restricted to the sex for which it has been designated…. The plain language of the provisions of [the school bathroom statute] and the [antidiscrimination statute] are in conflict, and I believe that principles of comity require us to defer to the representative branch of government to resolve the issue.
Chief Justice Saufley’s concurrence agreed with the majority, but noted an important point that the dissent also mentioned:
[T]he Court has concluded, as it must based on the statutes, that discrimination in the public accommodation of communal bathrooms is prohibited based on sexual orientation. The statute requiring that result also prohibits discrimination based simply on “sex.” Thus, the next logical step given the Court’s inevitable interpretation of the existing statute is, as the dissent points out, the assertion that access to the public accommodation of designated communal bathrooms cannot be denied based on a person’s sex.
Put simply, it could now be argued that it would be illegal discrimination for a restaurant, for example, to prohibit a man from using the women’s communal bathroom, and vice versa. I agree with the dissent that it is highly unlikely that the Legislature actually intended that result. Accordingly, on this matter of public policy, it would benefit the public for the Legislature to act quickly to address the concern raised by the dissent in this matter…
READ MORE US NEWS: 21st Century Wire US
READ MORE SOCIAL ENGINEERING NEWS: 21st Century Wire Social Engineering Files
