Today, Little Johnny Identifies As A Baseball Bat

May 24, 2023

To say that the ideological Left has transformed itself from a group that championed tolerance and acceptance to an intolerant gaggle of full-on extremist, illogical bullies would be the understatement of the millennium. No better example exists to illustrate this than the current transgender movement.

I want to state – clearly – that I don’t care about anyone’s personal sex life. It’s not my place to care. Perhaps that’s a bit more Libertarian than most conservatives, but that’s where I exist because I believe in the uniquely American tenet of individualism. We all have an inalienable right to be who we choose to be. So, if you want to identify as a doorknob that wants to transition to being a tree stump, I say good for you.

In fact, if I owned a company that made titanium widgets and the identifying doorknob in transition applied for a job and was the most qualified and/or talented for the job I would say, “Welcome aboard, doorknob!” Hell, I’d probably work it into the marketing of the titanium widgets: “The only titanium widgets made by a doorknob! Untouched by human hands!”

Seriously, I really couldn’t care less about a person’s sexuality or their sexual preferences excluding those who are trying to normalize pedophilia or who traffick in the illegal sex slave trade. If you want to identify as a woman even though you have male genitalia, have at it. I hope you are fulfilled and living the life you want. To infringe on that is to deny a person freedom and individualism.

What I do object to, however, is having a group of people tell me that I have to accept transgenderism as normal. It is not normal. This is not a derogatory statement, it is simply a statement of fact.

The Radical Left’s Addiction To Redefinition

The clear-eyed have come to understand that those on the ideological Left have an addiction to redefining the meanings of words and phrases.

In a recent podcast, New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz – in talking about her new book Stolen Youth, touched on the notion that the leaders of the ideological Left constantly redefine and relabel movements and causes so that it might be easier to see who is in alignment with their ideology through their use of words and phrases.

To that point, the leaders and supporters of the transgender movement – a movement championed by high-volume but low-membership special interest groups and, disturbingly, Pfizer – are desperately seeking to redefine the definition of “normal” to include what is not.

Normal, as defined by Dictionary.com, reads:

“...conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural; serving to establish a standard…approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment; free from any mental disorder; sane…free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation; of natural occurrence…”

To attempt to couch transgenderism as “normal” simply defies the very definition of normal.

According to the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, the diagnosed instances of gender dysphoria (or as Wikipedia also alludes to it, “gender identity disorder”) accounts for just 0.005–0.014 percent of the world’s population for biological males and 0.002–0.003 percent for biological females.

(Note: The entirety of the LGBTQ+ community constitutes just 7.2 percent of the population of the United States.)

Psychology Today corroborates these diagnostic numbers and also writes, “Gender dysphoria in adults and children is considered a disorder if the person also experiences significant distress or impairment in major areas of life as a result of the incongruence.”

So, it is agreed – even among the medical and psychological communities – that true instances of gender dysphoria, the “disorder” that serves as the catalyst for transgenderism, affects, at best, less than one percent of the population, globally.

Does that qualify under the definition of “normal”? One would have to do some incredible contortion to find a way to include transgenderism under the definition of normal.

Instead, common sense and math (not new math) divulge that the current hyper-manifestation of those identifying as transgender stems from the fact the idea of transgenderism has become a social contagion, or the “spread of emotions or behaviors from one individual to another, sometimes without awareness.”

There Is A Big Difference Between
Empathy And Forced Acceptance

Yet, to listen to the leaders of the transgender movement; to witness how this movement is being embraced by corporate America, the government, and the for-profit medical industry, one would believe it affects more people than heart disease and cancer combined.

From the brand-destructive marketing and corporate actions of Anheuser-Busch and Disney to the CYA actions of corporations like Target, to governments legislating the “acceptance” of transgenderism into the realm of normal, people are being coerced into accepting transgenderism and gender dysphoria as mainstream when all of the evidence points – overwhelmingly – to the contrary.

Again, I am not saying that we shouldn’t have empathy for those who are truly afflicted by the disorder – and remember that label is validated by the medical and psychological communities. I am saying that it is unreasonable and, in fact, aggressively coercive to force the issue into the mainstream so that people are disenfranchised from the mainstream for acknowledging that less than one percent of the global population is affected by it.

A perfect case in point is a story that comes out of the glow-in-the-dark, cobalt-blue state of Oregon; a state with a government that defiantly ignores reality to the level of oblivious while never – ever – learning from its mistakes.

Capi Lynn, who writes for the Salem Statesman Journal, reports, via UpwardNews.com:

“Jessica Bates, a Christian mother of five, is suing Oregon state officials for allegedly barring her from adopting children due to her traditional beliefs about gender and sexuality, violating her First and 14th Amendment rights. At the center of the case is an Oregon state law that requires a person to ‘Respect, accept and support the…sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression’ of a child to receive approval for adoption.
“Officials told Bates that she would have to accept any form of ‘self-expression’ a child chooses regarding their gender or sexuality, even allowing them to receive cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers if they identify as transgender…Some of the state’s suggestions for LGBT-friendly parenting include taking a child to a Pride parade and not ‘forcing youth to attend’ certain ‘religious activities’ that are ‘unsupportive’ of LGBT lifestyles, according to the lawsuit. The state allegedly denied Bates’s application for adoption specifically because she stated that she would instead raise her child according to her religious values…”

Astonishingly, the Associated Press couches discriminatory legislation, such as Oregon’s law in this instance, as protection of trans minors “from parents”.

Let’s set aside the obvious violations of Ms. Bates’ constitutional rights for a moment, as the transgressions are obvious and egregious so that we can ask ourselves a few questions.

Quizzel Me This Bat-Man

In considering the realities that surround the trampling of Ms. Bate’s constitutional rights or the disenfranchisement of any Christian woman to provide the gift of adoption, we should re-center ourselves into the realm of the “normal” by asking a few questions:

What child wouldn’t rather spend their time playing and/or doing things that are “fun” rather than attending church on a Saturday or Sunday? For that matter, what child wouldn’t choose candy over a balanced meal for dinner?
When did society give autonomy to minors and, if this idea is to be condoned, when are parents to be indemnified for the actions of their minor children? Should all “social host” laws be repealed? Are parents no longer liable for neglect if children have autonomy over their decisions?
When did the First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion become a disenfranchising detriment to inclusion for any action afforded to any citizen under the protected freedoms of the US Constitution?
Why does the total of our society have to cater to blanket accommodations that affect less than one percent of the population around the world?
On what planet can the authority to socially engineer for ideological reasons be read in the US Constitution and/or any State constitutions?
And, lastly, when did the Judeo-Christian values used to create our Republic become disenfranchised from our society?

To the last point, it defies reality to believe that the values on which our nation was founded have become detrimental to freedom. Is it not a good idea to abhor murdering someone? Should we not recognize a power higher than ourselves (read: a Creator) so that government can’t claim the mantle of the bestower of rights? Isn’t stealing a bad thing? Is it not a bad thing to lie about others or disrespect your parents?

In times not so far into the past, the overwhelming majority of Americans could agree on each of those points. In fact, in the not-too-distant past, we all held the Bill of Rights as sacrosanct. When examining the agendas and positions of today’s radical Left, it becomes crystal clear they believe Judeo-Christian values and the Bill of Rights are impediments to freedom, not the lock to the gate that guards liberty and individualism.

Liberty Needs Empathy &
Empathy Requires Common Sense

The idea that society – or any faction of society – believes that a child has the full cognitive awareness to make life-altering decisions is beyond ludicrous. Today, little Johnny wants to be an astronaut. Yesterday little Johnny wanted to be a baseball bat. Tomorrow, what will little Johnny want to be? A girl? A rock? A puppy? King? A human with no arms or legs? Should we facilitate surgery to remove little Johnny’s arms and legs because he decided – today – to be a human with no arms and legs?

It’s not a stretch to declare that we live in a time of incredible self-absorption and accepted surrealism. In fact, our society has become more “me” oriented; more self-aggrandizingly delusional than it was during the height of the Baby Boomer “Me Generation”; the generation whose leaders have delivered us to this most irrational, coercive, and obtusely self-centered time in American history.

No, little Johnny can’t be a baseball bat. He can pretend to be a baseball bat. But for all of his want to be a baseball bat he will never achieve his desire. So, common sense mandates that we do not cater to little Johnny’s delusion by creating laws that force society to accept him as a baseball bat.

As much as Dylan Mulvaney wants to be a biological female, he will never be a biological female. So, why are elected officials crafting laws that force society to dispense with scientific truth; biological truth to cater to Mulvaney’s dysphoric pseudo-truth? Why must society conform to Mulvaney’s – and his supporters’ – redefined definition of “normal”, a redefinition strong-armed upon us through legislation?

With the aggressive self-absorption of today’s activist, radical Left comes a diminished ability to respect individualism, and that directly affects our ability to empathize. That lack of empathy leads to our society becoming even more divided than it already is while remaining vulnerable to activist and special interest groups who deteriorate our rights. This allows the government to drag our society down to the lowest common denominator; to facilitate for all instead of protecting the individuals that collectively are the “all.”

That’s what the radical, activist Left means by “equity.” There is no empathy. There is no individualism. There is no respect. There is no freedom. There is no equality. There is no liberty. We are all just dutiful cogs in their totalitarian “utopia.”

No thanks.

Just as the rights – the inalienable rights – of Ms. Bates need to be safeguarded from those who would disenfranchise her from them, we should all champion the protection of those same rights for every citizen, across the board. That is true equality, not coercive “equity”.

To do that with fidelity we must have empathy for those who are different from us, whether it is someone affected by true gender dysphoria, someone of another race, religion, or ideology, or something much more into the mainstream. It is the legacy our Founders and Framers bequeathed to us: E Pluribus Unum.

Out of many, one.