The transgender movement is sick, and exposing children to it criminal. From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:
It’s not always the case, but there are times when social conflicts arise in which one side is fully correct and the other side is completely and utterly wrong. When it comes to the debate over “trans rights” and the exposure of children to trans ideology, the political left has no logical defense. They are wrong to the point of pure madness, and like most insane people they choose to double and triple down on their delusions anyway.
They do this because they must – Their entire identity is dependent on this new cult religion, a religion built around the worship of ambiguous personal perceptions, narcissistic self worship and an unhealthy obsession with sexual fetishes.
The goal of leftists is to normalize trans ideology within our culture; not only that, but to make the ideology sacrosanct and protected from all rational criticism. Conservatives have long fought against this for a number of reasons, but there are two that are most important:
1) The trans movement is built on a lie. Biological sex is the only scientifically proven identifier of men and women. Gender fluidity, as leftists present it, has NO scientific basis in reality. There is no proof of its existence let alone enough proof to warrant the notion that laws need to be introduced to defend it and censorship enforced to save it from “bigotry.” It is a fantasy, fabricated by quack sexual scientists (like pedophile advocate John Money) with an agenda far beyond simple observation of behavior.
NATO and its US puppet-master are bat-shit crazy. From Patrick Armstrong at strategic-culture.org:
In previous essays I argued that NATO tries to distract our attention from its crimes by accusing Russia of those crimes: this is “projection“. NATO manipulates its audience into thinking the unreal is real: this is “gaslighting“. NATO sees what it expects to see – Moscow’s statements that they will respond to medium range missiles emplaced next door are re-jigged as the “threats” which justify NATO’s earlier act: this is “confirmation bias“. And, finally, NATO thinks Russia is so weak it’s doomed and so strong that it is destroying the tranquillity of NATOLand: this is a sort of geopolitical “schizophrenia“. (I must acknowledge Bryan MacDonald’s marvellous neologism of Russophrenia – a condition where the sufferer believes Russia is both about to collapse, and take over the world.)
I wrote the series partly to amuse the reader but with a serious purpose as well. And that serious purpose is to illustrate the absurdities that NATO expects us to believe. NATO here being understood as sometimes the headquarters “international staff”, sometimes all members in solemn conclave, sometimes some NATO members and associates. “NATO” has become a remarkably flexible concept: Libya was a NATO operation, even though Germany kept out of it. Somalia was not a NATO operation even though Germany was in it. Canada, a founding NATO member, was in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Some interventions are NATO, others aren’t. The NATO alliance today is a box of spare parts from which Washington assembles its “coalitions of the willing”. It’s Washington’s beard.