How does one respond to the statement, “There is a demon of rape inside of this [transgender] movement to violate your daughters.” Do you laugh and shake your head at the stupidity? Do you brush it off?
Or, do you cry?
Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt has a YouTube channel entitled Pray In Jesus Name, and he stated that in his Nov. 27 posting. In that 27-minute video he had a segment on Coy Mathis, a 6-year-old trans girl from Colorado.
Klingenschmitt also stated in that video that Coy was “being abused by his parents. These abusive parents now have used this little boy to try and claim that he’s a girl to try and tell the world that they ought to let transgender adults into your little girl’s public bathrooms!” He also said the reason Coy’s parents are allowing her to transition is because “they have a political agenda to push these co-ed bathroom bills into Colorado state law.”
In his Oct. 23 video posting, Klingenschmitt stated that the Florence High School trans teenage girl who was falsely accused of sexually harassing other girls in her high school was “raping, at least visually, [the school’s other] teenage girls” in the school’s locker rooms.
If that wasn’t enough rape and abuse language being used in conjuction with minor trans youth for you, then Delta County, Colorado School Board member Katherine Svenson added more to the mix.
“I would like to pass out something that shows people what is going on in the rest of the country,” stated Svenson at the October meeting of the Delta County School Board. “Massachusetts and California have passed laws relating to letting a student perform as the gender he thinks he is, or she is; I just want to emphasize not in this district. There would have to be castration in order to pass something like that around here.”
When KREX reporter Amanda Brandeis interviewed her regarding her statement, she stood by it. “I don’t have a problem if some boys think they are girls, I’m just saying as long as they can impregnate a woman, they’re not going to go in the girls locker-room.” When Transadvocate editor Cristan Williams asked Svenson if she was referring to transgender youth raping other female students, she replied “Totally correct. And that’s all I’m saying, that on the basis of identifying them as of the male sex – capable of producing seed – that they have no place being within view of the private parts of the female sex – defined as having the capability of being fertilized.”
Dran Reese, the head of the Salt & Light Council (a nonprofit dedicated to promoting biblical values) here in San Diego, told our local ABC affiliate that there was “a recent case in which a Los Angeles area high school student complained to her school that a transgender boy harassed her and peeked at girls over the stalls.” By “transgender boy,” Reese meant a trans girl that she considers to be a boy.
When Cristan Williams fact-checked this story with a representative of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the representative stated that “[LAUSD] did get the complaint and it turned out that it was fabricated by one of the parents who opposes transgender students in schools. So it was an unfortunate situation, to have to put the students through, but it was fabricated.”
When we talk about civil rights that include trans people, these kinds of statements are the subtext. What’s perhaps a relatively new twist to the “bathroom bill” meme – the meme that transgender people are bathroom rapists and “peeping toms” – is that there are now a number of conservative Christians who are attributing those illegal behaviors to trans minors … even ones who are as young as six.
Me, I react first with tears and next with anger. Then those feelings are turned to passion to make the world a better place for today’s and tomorrow’s trans youth.
Perhaps, instead of throwing the usual hissy fit, you might try thinking a bit. The simple fact is, the vast majority of women, including myself, are very uncomfortable with the idea of males (i.e. persons who have intact male genitalia, specifically a penis, and especially those who have no desire to be rid of that penis) sharing personal space with us). When transgender extremists insist that they have some inalienable right to force themselves on us, and our children, and our grandchildren, particularly when that insistence literally reeks of male privilege, is it any surprise that some might well feel that it is, in effect, a form of “rape?”
Yeah, the vast majority of women, including myself, are very uncomfortable with 6′ obese old men (i.e. you) sharing personal space with us. But we’ll get over it, mmkay Usher?
Look up definition of “force.”
ROTFL! And the silliness continues.
ROTFL indeed, late-transitioning, obese, churchgoing guy 😉
Once again, you show you have no real arguments, and thus you can only resort to childish taunts. Mildly amusing, but primarily a bore. But hey, keep making a fool of yourself.
Remember saying how I didn’t know, lol? Yes, hypoplasia sir. Btw, Google Image result is a laugh. ^^
Yawn…. Any real arguments? Didn’t think so. Classic silliness.
None besides you obviously scaring ladies’ in the bathroom. Built like a brick, lol.
So, as I said no real arguments. Just you imaginary insults.
Google Images doesn’t lie 🙂
I assume you are referring to a rather awful photo taken when I signed up as a member of a panel with the San Francisco Chronicle. Anyone can take a bad photo, and any silly boy can make nasty comments while hiding. Funny, but I kind if suspect you are nothing like you claim.
Pretty sure all of your photos are pretty bad. As for me: 23yo 5’9″ 150lb white female, 38/28/34. Believe or not, I don’t really care, golden oldies man. 🙂
Nope, don’t believe it at all….
Too bad, lol. 😉
Well, this has been fun, but I have known all along who you really are… Maybe it is time to do another post on my blog about your obsessive behavior….
Ah,didn’t know you posted about me. But by all means go ahead. It’s not like anyone reads your blog, sir. 😉
Oh, quite a bit…of course using your real name…
Nothing can be more delusional than seeing what is not there as if it was. Delusions of perceived danger (DoPD) is a real mental disorder, if not official yet over and over convicting innocent persons of crimes not yet committed except in the mind of the accuser continues to be sold as “fact.”
There is no law forbidding male parts in female areas. The only requirement is that of legal gender. With a background in public safety at various levels, I can assure you that “possession of a penis in female areas” never rises to the level of being illegal (lewd conduct is an entire different matter) nor is it considered as being a “forceful” act, despite those who delude themselves to believing such is the case. These anti-LGBT inciters to violence conflate harassment with privacy, access with criminal acts, proximity as rape. It really is exceedingly difficult to get more delusional than “pretending something has happened” when the evidence is to the contrary.
Sorry, but that all sounds like a bunch of double-talk.
There are a lot of jurisdictions where a male (i.e. someone with a penis) is in violation of various ordinances regardless of how he might be dressed, or what he might claim to believe himself to be. You may be speaking about a specific jurisdiction, but even in areas where such is allowed under various well-intentioned “non-discrimination” laws, there are many who may think themselves “women” who are going to cause, at the very least, discomfort and even fear, among women who have to share a rest room with them. That they think that such women should, “just get over it” shows that they are not, in any sense of the term, actually women.
The article refers to statements by conservative Christian adults regarding rape associated with trans minors — being associated with trans minors when literally no rapes by trans youth have actually occurred in any public schools that have policies of treating trans girls as girls and trans boys as boys.
And, one of the rape associations is connected to a trans 6 year-old.
If you agree with adults conservative Christians associating rape to trans youth, please be clear that that is what you’re agreeing with. As it is, your comments for this article appear to be non sequiturs — commentary related to how you perceive the adults in the trans civil rights movement as opposed to commentary of conservative Christian adults associating rape with minor trans youth — one as young as 6.
No, I am simply pointing out that, as usual, the transgender extremists are not paying attention to what is actually said, choosing instead to create straw arguments. While I don’t agree that “rape” is an accurate term, I do see why it is being used. The transgender extremist approach is one of all, or nothing. The demand is that anyone who claims to be a woman has to be admitted to women’s spaces, regardless of how this affects the women in those spaces, and further, it is now demanded that women tolerate the presence of nude males in showers and dressing rooms.
The fact that this is even being demanded, totally negates any claim of their actually being a “woman.”
Simply put, I do not agree with the extreme rhetoric of the Religious RIght, and I don’t agree with the extreme demands of the transgender extremists. Both sides are equally wrong.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, part of the transgender strategy is to obviously avoid dealing with real facts, and instead to hide behind shrill cries “transphobic hate.” The truth is, disagreement is NOT hatred.
So, I got it.
This article was about how inappropriate it is to connect trans minors as young as 6 to rape by Christian conservative adults. It appears clear to me that you are clearly excusing rape language by Christian conservative adults applied to trans girls as young as 6 because you “see why [that language] is being used,” as well as because you consider those who are either proponents or opponents of AB1266 to be “extremists” that are both “wrong.”
Good on you — at least you own your excusing of uses of “the demon of rape” language applied to trans girls as young as 6.
No, I am saying that false outrage (unless you really are truly clueless) at deeply held concerns is going to come back to bite you. We have two absurd extremes here. One side has the good sense to accept reasonable compromise. The other is all or nothing. And nothing is what they may well get. If you can’t see this, well I am unlikely to be affected, but a lot of kids may wind up being hurt. But you will have stayed ideologically pure.
Oh, so you’re excusing rape language being applied to trans youth as young as 6 now becasue of a concern that there is “false outrage” on some level involved.
Now I have it — we’re both clear that you’re excusing rape language used by religious right conservatives in conjunction with trans youth as young as 6 because of attributes you asscribe to trans people as a class of people.
I am simply observing that one side chooses to use a metaphor, that the other side, rather than disagreeing with in a calm and rational manner, instead goes into a hysterical rage.
The simple fact is, transgender is about behavior, as opposed to transsexual, which is completely unrelated to transgender, and is a medical condition.
Trying to advance rights based on behavior tends to fail. Even in cases where both intrinsic characteristics and behavior are involved (the classic example being alcoholism) the intrinsic characteristic may well be protected, but the behavior may still be sanctioned.
And no, I am not excusing anything. I am simply objecting to an overt attempt to limit a groups right to free expression because, well, because the other side really has no valid arguments to counter with.
So you are downplaying — excusing — rape language being used in conjunction with trans youth now as simple “metaphor.”
I’m not sure when it’s ever okay to use rape language that implies that primary aged youth are on the predatory side of rape. But, this is what’s literally occurred already.
Whether you see yourself as excusing rape language connected to trans youth as young as 6, you are. And, it’s clear you’re doing it because you disapprove of trans people as a class of people.
You’re already owning the downplaying/excusing of reprehensible behavior, and you’re clearly identifying why you are. I just don’t see why you just don’t in plain language own what its clear you’re stating and believe.
It is called “critical thinking.” You cannot answer the real issue, so you scream”bigot” and refuse to face reality. I am simply pointing out cold, hard reality to you. And, I admit, watching you react like a vampire facing a Crucifix..
What am I saying? I am saying that females should not be made uncomfortable must so someone can engage in certain behaviors. I am saying there a compromises that can work for both sides. And most importantly, I am saying shame on extremists trying to use children to weasel their way into women’s spaces, especially those where nudity is an issue.
Sadly, the children are just pawns in this argument.
Please point out in this column where I used the term “bigot,” or even mentioned bigotry or transphobia. Reread it: I didn’t.
I mentioned rape rhetoric being connected to trans youth as young as 6. You keep skirting that issue — your “critical thinking” is downplaying and excusing the use of rape rhetoric for trans youth as young as 6.
You want to make this article something about which the article isn’t about. In the process your’re excusing rape language, now having stating that the rape language is simple “metaphor,” ant that you “see why [that language] is being used” because it’s being pointed out by people you identify as “trans extremists,” and when a trans activist identifies that rape rhetoric — in terms of predatory behavior — is being connected to trans youth as young as 6 as being “false outrage” by trans activists.
You’re trying to make the column about something it isn’t. And, in the process you’re downplaying and excusing the reprehensible behavior of connecting rape to trans youth as young as 6 — it doesn’t suit your desire to change the narrative to your your general take on AB 1266 and those who support the new law instead about how reprehensible it is to connect rape to trans youth as young as 6.
You’re not changing the subject here without it being pointed out that in that attempt to change the subject you are clearly downplaying and excusing the inexcusable behavior of connecting rape to trans youth as young as 6. And, clearly you are.
So, here I am waiting for you to make your next attempt to make this column and this comment thread to something that the column isn’t about. Connecting rape to trans youth as young as 6 is what the column was about. That you can’t leave it to “Yes, that’s wrong,” speaks volumes.
Ah, so your response is to play games with semantics and argue that because you did not use specific words you are not pushing certain positions.
So, for the record, are you saying that the Religious Right does not engage in, and has never engaged in, and will never engage in bigotry and homophobia? Nope, didn’t think so.
I am not skirting the issue at all. I am simply pointing out that you are focusing on the choice of words to avoid the real issue, which is male bodied persons being allowed to force their selves into spaces reserved for the privacy of females, AND CAUSING DISTRESS FOR FEMALES BY DOING SO.
That, and that alone is what this article is really about. And you know it.
Again, the term rape, rightly or wrongly, is being used metaphorically. No one is suggesting that a sex year-old is engaging in forced sexual intercourse with another person. You, however, seem to be trying to claim that in order to avoid the issue of whether or not that six year-old, or someone years older, have the right to engage in certain behavior at the expense of other’s privacy and comfort.
That you resort to silly semantics simply proves my point.
Ha, lol. Jennifer Usher telling us how we’ll cause stress for other Females. Irony score: 10/10.
The simple fact is, even if you are as “perfect” as tou pretend to be, you will never be able to assimilate as a female…not that you want to. And again, no real arguments. And no, in the context you are using it “other females” is a misnomer. You aren’t…
Again, you appear unable to condemn the connection of trans youth as young as 6 with language that connects them with predation and rape, and in the process are downplaying and excusing that behavior because you don’t like the trans people you identify as extremists; because doesn’t suit your desire to change the narrative to your general take on AB 1266 and those who support the new law instead about how reprehensible it is to connect rape to trans youth as young as 6.
You need to go review the source material. Former chaplain Klingenschmitt’s use of the term “demon of rape” in regards to trans youth wasn’t metaphor — he clearly believes it. Katherine Svenson’s tying of rape to trans teens wasn’t a metaphor either — she was asked a direct question and answered in the affirmative that her opinion about trans youth and bathrooms is because she believes some trans youth will be rapists.
The latest comment by Carol Clemenson, a Tea Party activist from 50 miles outside of Florence, Colorado who spoke to the Fremont RE-2 School District on December 9th. To quote The Transadvocate piece “Fact Checking: anti-trans “parents of students” speak out at school board meeting” (where one can listen to Clemson’s recorded statements):
Recently a Colorado School Board member from another district (who’s an active member more than one anti-LGBT group) said that trans children should be castrated before being allowed to urinate and Clemenson agrees. “They aught to castrate the sucker. That’s what I told the School Board Monday night. ‘Ya aught to castrate the sucker before you let him [sic] into any girl’s restroom.’ That way, I know that he [sic] can’t rape anybody, but he [sic] could.”
Clemenson was quoted in the Canon City Daily Record as saying that cis girls were victims. She clarified that she felt they were victims, not because they were attacked or harassed (because they weren’t), but because they’re not allowed to bully trans girls. “The [cis] girls are the victims because, they’re the one’s who are being victimized, they cannot ridicule him [sic] and they have to show him [sic] respect.”
This again isn’t metaphor.
And let me repeat what I stated in an earlier thread comment: that you can’t leave it to “Yes, that’s wrong,” speaks volumes.
Again, the simple fact is I already have — better than you, lol.
The sad thing is, the extremists hijacked children who need real protections in their efforts to force their way into women’s spaces. No child, who is actually transsexual, (or adult for that matter, would want to be seen unclothed. But the extremists put provisions into the law to cover that. It is clear from statements from several extremists that nothing less than full access, regardless of surgical status, is the goal. This is outrageous.
So, no, I am not going to let you avoid the real issue. I am not going to let you hide behind children to sneak in wwhere you don’t belong. Drop the phony outrage.
You? Assimilate? ROTFL!!!!!!!! Oh, THAT is hilarious. You are either delusional, of lying. I strongly suspect the latter.
Friends, family, husband — again, better than you. ^^
And all imaginary.
Jealousy, lol.
Nope, just smart enough to know you are lying.
“Liar, liar. Pants on fire!” and all that… lol.
Yes, you are a quite “flaming…”
fail, lol
Well, in your fantasy land…I suppose you might think that…
Yeah, you haven’t been fooling me…
No, I am not going to “condemn it” because I am not going to play your semantical game and allow you to avoid the real issues. I have pointed out that they are clearly engaged in metaphor, to make the point that males, in general, do not have any business forcing their presence on females.
You are painting with a broad brush. Yes, a former Navy chaplain has gone off the deep end, and made, on his own, some absurd comments. But he is one isolated kook.
Yes, in many cases, what you refer to as “cis” girls (the correct term is simply girls, as there is no need for some silly qualification created in an attempt to claim that girls normally have penises) are victims. They are forced into an extremely uncomfortable position. That you have no understanding, sympathy, or empathy for such feelings says a lot.
Yes, what I say speaks volumes. Volumes that you are attempting, desperately, and vainly, to avoid.
The simple bottom line is, if the transgender extremists cannot accept compromise, they should receive NOTHING. That is, if you cannot accept compromise, then your only decent choice is to use the men’s room.