Let me tell you just a few things I've observed in all this "transgender/transsexual" hype. This coming from a woman who has struggled with her own femininity without ever feeling I was in the wrong body. I haven't been watching "Call Me Cait" or whatever the show is, but I did see a trailer on the big swim suit episode. In one minute, I saw why Bruce Jenner doesn't even think like a woman. For most real women, past 35; choosing a swimsuit is the ultimate in dreaded events, and a very, very private matter. He simply doesn't think like a woman, really doesn't look like one, and clearly doesn't sound like one. This being said by a sturdy, pick-up truck driving, do-it yourself former tomboy, that jokes about singing bass. I was born a female, and am 100% female. I've discovered that all of the not so traditional interests I have, like operating a chainsaw, homesteading, and home improvements have absolutely nothing to do with sex or gender.
San Francisco is known for being cutting edge when it comes to gender confusion issues, and it seems one school is starting very young, as in elementary students. Bathrooms will simply have no sexual distinction whatsoever.
Now, on to this young man in Missouri who was making a production out of gym class. He raises several questions that simply cannot be answered by this LGBTQA (more alphabet) . . . Agenda. First, he claims he's been "out" gay first, then transgendered for 4 years. With his family's support in this. Why is he wearing a wig? Why isn't his hair long? Hair grows about 1/2" a month, he surely would have some serious locks by now. The next big statement only served to prove how little like a female he actually thinks.
Here this young man is given private accommodations for changing and showering, but he doesn't want that! Any real teen aged girl would jump at the chance for private accommodations through PE class. The memory of dread of PE and locker rooms is quite vivid for most women. Not that we were actually damaged by it, but it's just the way teenage girls are. Teenage girls are self conscious about their bodies and want all the privacy they can get! It seems, and I can't speak for guys, but it seemed the enthusiasm for the sports or activity superseded all details. There was never a tone of dread when the guys said, "Time to hit the showers."
The fact that this young man is making the issue he is and even saying the girls are the ones making a big deal out of the situation, reveals clearly how self-centered he truly is. One of the girl's fathers referred to the situation as an "intact male" using the girl's locker room. I can assure young Mr. Perry, he has a witness that he has male genitalia, and his statement about the locker room proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, he's not a female at heart.
On a grander scale, we need to assess the definition of democracy . . . the rule of the majority. If the "democratic progressives" change the rules to accommodate 1 individual, and disregard 200, then by definition the democrats are no longer representing democracy at all!
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Sunday, February 15, 2015
What Am I Missing?
Am I missing something in this latest "gender identity" issue, or am I calloused? My opinion is; my gender identity is not based upon who identifies with me, or even if I identify with stereotypical mainstream. I am what and who I was created to be! I am female, and although I am my father's daughter and I'm not perfect, I was born into the right body, while my brain and emotions understand and embrace my uniqueness! I truly believe what I am missing is the confusion that is being introduced. I read a blog in which a pregnant mother proclaims that she asked her son and daughter, 6 and 3 respectively, what they hoped the new baby would be. She wrote, they conferred, giggled, then announced they'd like a transgendered sibling . . . since there was already a boy and a girl. So, have we gotten to the point in society that the only people who can verbally recognize only two genders are those who are embracing the list of "potential variables?"
I am truly saddened when I see all this programming and recruiting taking place now, as I remember my childhood a half century ago. We had the privilege of knowing who and what we were, by simple anatomical identification. Regardless of rope climbing, creek wading, and scrub baseball, I, like Elly Mae Clampett, knew I was a girl. As it turns out, and stands to this day, male genitalia is not required to enjoy outdoor activities and sports. Also confirmed is the fact that one need not identify with a specific community to enjoy non-stereotypical interests.
As a young child, my mother continuously harped at Daddy, that he was encouraging me to be a tomboy. Truth be told, it was her harping, haranguing, and micromanaging that encouraged me to stay out of the house . . . but that's a topic for another day. I identified with Daddy in a number of areas, and see no reason whatsoever that these interests must be in accordance with a specific gender or reproductive anatomy. I was a tiny little girl in hunting photos. Before I could ride a bike, I remember driving my home made go-cart, designed and built by Daddy, Grandpa, and Uncle Earl. As a middle aged adult woman, I jokingly refer to myself as "the unson" of the family. As I wrote that last sentence, I may have discovered exactly what it is that I'm missing. Perhaps, it's the programming that one needs to "belong" that is making so many young people so vulnerable to this aggressive agenda. Many just long to have a place to belong, to be a part of something and to share an identity. I accepted my exclusion early on, and it has simply been a part of my identity as well, but there was no pushy agenda trying to recruit me . . . or perhaps the LGBT community didn't want me either. LOL.
My mother says we just don't see anything the same. My sister hasn't spoken to me in years. One of my daughters and one of my nieces has blocked me and unfriended me on social media and not quietly, I might add. One of my granddaughters has followed the lead of her mother but recently refriended me to what feels like stalking my facebook wall and trolling my posts. Many church ladies have their panties in a twist and in real time avoided me, in social media; unfriend me, yet I've not been unfriendly to them. I do not back down from my convictions, and those convictions now include the revelation that rejection of a person may indeed drive them to a more accepting group. For me, that's been fine as I've simply never minded being the only woman in a group of male friends or at the worksite.
I've always had male friends. Straight men don't have so many emotional rules in getting along, so it's been quite comfortable for me to be a sort of non-sexual woman. My womanhood has not been challenged or questioned by myself or my peers. What I'm seeing here, though, is the possibility that the introduction of acceptance and the early programming by this agenda may be the catalyst to so many young people being "gender variant" as the blogging pregnant mom referenced in regard to one of her 3 year old's friends in preschool or daycare. That leads me to the next "what am I missing?"
Many day cares do receive federal funding and of course, the head start program is a government program . . . Although I do know some folks of my generation who identify gay or lesbian, and we can certainly read about old guys at this late stage in life, deciding they'd like to have long hair and firm breasts, but it wasn't programmed and they weren't recruited as three year olds. I simply can't help but believe, what was missing 50 years ago is the early programming. The agenda of gender confusion had not yet been implemented and introduced. The "diagnosis" of homosexuality was entirely removed from the third edition of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in 1986, but gender dysphoria was added to the fifth edition in it's own category, as an issue for children.
Since that time, the agenda and recruitment has gained momentum, exponentially.
I am truly saddened when I see all this programming and recruiting taking place now, as I remember my childhood a half century ago. We had the privilege of knowing who and what we were, by simple anatomical identification. Regardless of rope climbing, creek wading, and scrub baseball, I, like Elly Mae Clampett, knew I was a girl. As it turns out, and stands to this day, male genitalia is not required to enjoy outdoor activities and sports. Also confirmed is the fact that one need not identify with a specific community to enjoy non-stereotypical interests.
As a young child, my mother continuously harped at Daddy, that he was encouraging me to be a tomboy. Truth be told, it was her harping, haranguing, and micromanaging that encouraged me to stay out of the house . . . but that's a topic for another day. I identified with Daddy in a number of areas, and see no reason whatsoever that these interests must be in accordance with a specific gender or reproductive anatomy. I was a tiny little girl in hunting photos. Before I could ride a bike, I remember driving my home made go-cart, designed and built by Daddy, Grandpa, and Uncle Earl. As a middle aged adult woman, I jokingly refer to myself as "the unson" of the family. As I wrote that last sentence, I may have discovered exactly what it is that I'm missing. Perhaps, it's the programming that one needs to "belong" that is making so many young people so vulnerable to this aggressive agenda. Many just long to have a place to belong, to be a part of something and to share an identity. I accepted my exclusion early on, and it has simply been a part of my identity as well, but there was no pushy agenda trying to recruit me . . . or perhaps the LGBT community didn't want me either. LOL.
My mother says we just don't see anything the same. My sister hasn't spoken to me in years. One of my daughters and one of my nieces has blocked me and unfriended me on social media and not quietly, I might add. One of my granddaughters has followed the lead of her mother but recently refriended me to what feels like stalking my facebook wall and trolling my posts. Many church ladies have their panties in a twist and in real time avoided me, in social media; unfriend me, yet I've not been unfriendly to them. I do not back down from my convictions, and those convictions now include the revelation that rejection of a person may indeed drive them to a more accepting group. For me, that's been fine as I've simply never minded being the only woman in a group of male friends or at the worksite.
I've always had male friends. Straight men don't have so many emotional rules in getting along, so it's been quite comfortable for me to be a sort of non-sexual woman. My womanhood has not been challenged or questioned by myself or my peers. What I'm seeing here, though, is the possibility that the introduction of acceptance and the early programming by this agenda may be the catalyst to so many young people being "gender variant" as the blogging pregnant mom referenced in regard to one of her 3 year old's friends in preschool or daycare. That leads me to the next "what am I missing?"
Many day cares do receive federal funding and of course, the head start program is a government program . . . Although I do know some folks of my generation who identify gay or lesbian, and we can certainly read about old guys at this late stage in life, deciding they'd like to have long hair and firm breasts, but it wasn't programmed and they weren't recruited as three year olds. I simply can't help but believe, what was missing 50 years ago is the early programming. The agenda of gender confusion had not yet been implemented and introduced. The "diagnosis" of homosexuality was entirely removed from the third edition of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in 1986, but gender dysphoria was added to the fifth edition in it's own category, as an issue for children.
Since that time, the agenda and recruitment has gained momentum, exponentially.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Q & A
As a princess, I want to conduct myself in a manner befitting my royal status. I do not want my behavior or words to bring shame upon my Beloved or my Abba. As the headlines and news feeds are filled with the suggestive subjects and the agenda of perversion, the openness of sexual discussion abounds. I'm old enough to remember a time when much of what is now general conversation was only mentioned in hushed whispers with few details, and never in mixed company. I am not backward per se when it comes to sexual discussion, but I do not appreciate coarseness. I prefer to keep the subject of sexual matters to straight forward fact and function.
On the other hand, I've never been terribly comfortable in discussing my own feelings on an emotional level when it comes to intimacy. I find the topic of intimacy to be much more personal than sex. With same sex marriage in the headlines, and the concept of being transgendered, introduced to elementary aged school children, obviously the subject of sex has gone far beyond fact and function. Suddenly it seems as if there are no facts, just perverse imaginings that seem to have no end. There are facts, though! There are spiritual, emotional, and physical facts that simply cannot be ignored.
I've spent several years in a very non-intimate marriage, on every level . . . That's the old fashioned way of saying we are not soulmates, we don't share interests, we don't talk if we don't have to, and we do not "sleep together." "Not soulmates," means we do not pray or share religious beliefs and "do not sleep together" is the old fashioned reference to celibacy in a relationship, and in my case, separate bedrooms. Recently, in a conversation I was asked how I could be so content sharing nothing with my husband. As I thought about that, I realized I would have to give up being the person Abba has created and called me to be, to be desired by him . . . I've seen the women this man finds attractive, and heard the words that reflect their character.
This thought made me wonder how many other people think they have to embrace something or accept the invasive opinions or belittlement by others to be accepted or wanted. In all this talk of freedom and individuality, there are many, many expectations of conformity and compliance. I can honestly say, without any doubt, the fact that I have an intimacy issue or lack does not make me look for another type of relationship. It simply causes me to give pause and assess my priorities. A relationship should enhance a person's life and bring out the best in both, not cause one to give up their identity, dignity, integrity, and priorities to be accepted. That is not love.
When it's all said and done, giving up one's birth right and identity to be accepted, will prove to have dismal results and returns. We are not gender assigned at birth. We are created in the womb with a purpose and a plan, and some of us may not have physical intimacy or desires as has been promoted by society or even religion. That is no reason to embrace the perversion that is being promoted, or to silence those who live by Scriptural values. Bakers and photographers have already been targeted by the agenda for their values, and now it's moved on to more reality tv.
Last year Phil Roberson was targeted for his comments, and this year apparently the Duggar's are in the sites of the LGBT agenda. Although I am not a proponent of the full quiver concept or conception, as the case may be, I do defend the Duggar's rights to say what they choose and live according to their beliefs. In all honesty, I don't qualify for the one man and one woman for life "marriage photo" on their page, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to have their page. Many of us are different from what is considered mainstream, but changing mainstream is not the answer. For all those who question their identity, discovering G-d's Truth is the only answer.
On the other hand, I've never been terribly comfortable in discussing my own feelings on an emotional level when it comes to intimacy. I find the topic of intimacy to be much more personal than sex. With same sex marriage in the headlines, and the concept of being transgendered, introduced to elementary aged school children, obviously the subject of sex has gone far beyond fact and function. Suddenly it seems as if there are no facts, just perverse imaginings that seem to have no end. There are facts, though! There are spiritual, emotional, and physical facts that simply cannot be ignored.
I've spent several years in a very non-intimate marriage, on every level . . . That's the old fashioned way of saying we are not soulmates, we don't share interests, we don't talk if we don't have to, and we do not "sleep together." "Not soulmates," means we do not pray or share religious beliefs and "do not sleep together" is the old fashioned reference to celibacy in a relationship, and in my case, separate bedrooms. Recently, in a conversation I was asked how I could be so content sharing nothing with my husband. As I thought about that, I realized I would have to give up being the person Abba has created and called me to be, to be desired by him . . . I've seen the women this man finds attractive, and heard the words that reflect their character.
This thought made me wonder how many other people think they have to embrace something or accept the invasive opinions or belittlement by others to be accepted or wanted. In all this talk of freedom and individuality, there are many, many expectations of conformity and compliance. I can honestly say, without any doubt, the fact that I have an intimacy issue or lack does not make me look for another type of relationship. It simply causes me to give pause and assess my priorities. A relationship should enhance a person's life and bring out the best in both, not cause one to give up their identity, dignity, integrity, and priorities to be accepted. That is not love.
When it's all said and done, giving up one's birth right and identity to be accepted, will prove to have dismal results and returns. We are not gender assigned at birth. We are created in the womb with a purpose and a plan, and some of us may not have physical intimacy or desires as has been promoted by society or even religion. That is no reason to embrace the perversion that is being promoted, or to silence those who live by Scriptural values. Bakers and photographers have already been targeted by the agenda for their values, and now it's moved on to more reality tv.
Last year Phil Roberson was targeted for his comments, and this year apparently the Duggar's are in the sites of the LGBT agenda. Although I am not a proponent of the full quiver concept or conception, as the case may be, I do defend the Duggar's rights to say what they choose and live according to their beliefs. In all honesty, I don't qualify for the one man and one woman for life "marriage photo" on their page, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to have their page. Many of us are different from what is considered mainstream, but changing mainstream is not the answer. For all those who question their identity, discovering G-d's Truth is the only answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)