Where do we draw the line at crazy? At what point does someone move from being able to make their own decisions, to someone who shouldn’t be allowed to make any decisions at all?
It used to be a simple question. And, for most of us, it definitely fell within the constraints of “I know it when I see it”.
Today? Not so much.
Let me give you an example:
If a woman attempts to have surgery that would take a substantial portion of her forearm and fashion it into something that sort of resembles a tail, because she thinks she’s a horse, well, I think we can all agree that’s a clear example of insanity.
But, if that same woman would elect to have a surgery that would take a similar portion of her forearm and fashion it into something that sort of resembles a penis, because she thinks she’s a dude, well, there are some people who expect you to believe that it should be considered perfectly acceptable.
There are, technically, two differences. The first is about a 180-degree variation in placement. I’m talking about the difference between attaching the flap of skin in front of the body or the back.
The second is that before the fake-penis is attached, the doctors will scoop out her completely-functional reproductive organs and then sew her back up. Whereas with the fake tail, no other alterations are made.
I’m confused. Because to me, they both sound like examples of someone not playing with a full deck. And, if I’m being honest, the woman wanting to get a fake dick sounds at least 83% more crazy than the woman wanting a tail.
Neither of those actions is something a sane person would do. Yet a fake penis is considered OK, while a fake tail is not.
Usually, change is based on pushing the boundaries of precedents. So, what should have happened first is that the fake tail should have paved the way. Because it’s the less crazy of the two.
Then, the fake penis lobby could point to that and say, “A fake dick is essentially no different than a fake tail. And scraping out her ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, etc.? That’s just an incremental change.”
But they didn’t do that. Instead of moving the crazy bar a little bit, they made a quantum leap in craziness and went right to the maximum amount of body mutilation they think they can get away with. Yet they still consider the tail-wanting woman to be two bricks short of a load.
Before I continue, I’m going to encourage you to go to Google Images and search for “trans man bottom surgery”. I warn you though, it’s not for the faint of heart. And keep in mind that once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
What you’ll see are images of surgeries so horrible, they could have been performed by Dr. Frankenstein himself.
I think you’ll agree that a woman willingly having that type of surgery shouldn’t be allowed to make her own medical decisions.
We should all agree. But we don’t.
While you and I clearly know that we’re seeing insanity, other people see the same thing we do and celebrate the lunatic being her “authentic” self. But only if her authenticity involves a fake penis and not a fake tail.
Here’s another example:
In 2022, the Minnesota state legislature passed a law called The Minnesota Human Rights Act. It’s the state law prohibiting discrimination in Minnesota. It defines sexual orientation as follows:
“Sexual orientation” means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment, or having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s biological maleness or femaleness. “Sexual orientation” does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.” (emphasis added by me)
Lee Finke, a man pretending to be a woman, and a Minnesota State Representative, has introduced a bill that would delete the carve-out for pedophiles. In other words, it would be illegal for someone to discriminate against known pedophiles.
That is clearly despicable. But is it crazy? That depends.
Homosexuals have argued that nobody gets to choose who they fall in love with or have a sexual attraction to. It’s the argument they used to go mainstream. Here’s the thing. That argument can also be applied to pedophiles.
So, if you believe that homosexuals are “normal”, then you must also believe that pedophiles are normal too. Because what Lee Finke is essentially saying is that there’s no discernable difference between homosexuals and pedophiles.
Based on legal precedence, we shouldn’t discriminate against pedophiles for the exact same reasons we’re not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.
Crazy sneaks into this not because of the proposed language change, but because of Mr. Finke’s reason. When defending his position, he stated, “Of course pedophilia is not a sexual orientation.”
Really? I think it is. And I challenge anyone to explain to me how it’s not. Being sexually attracted to the same sex or being sexually attracted to little kids is the exact same thing. If a homosexual gets special consideration because “they can’t help themselves”, then so should pedophiles. As soon as the question of someone’s “sexual orientation” came into play, the door was opened to all sorts of similar arguments.
And secondly, if he truly believes that pedophilia isn’t a sexual orientation, then why does he want to remove the language that states that pedophilia specifically isn’t a sexual orientation?
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending pedophiles. Nor am I maligning homosexuals. Not in the least. All I’m doing is pointing out how the logic used to make homosexuals mainstream is 100% applicable to pedophiles.
Precedence is the slippery slope to other, sometimes undesirable, things.
Once the people in Minnesota can no longer discriminate against pedophiles, it won’t be long before pedophiles are no longer required to be registered as a sex offender. Nor can they be required to notify people when they move into a new neighborhood. Because that would be discriminatory.
We’re not done yet. Mr. Finke is also proposing adding language that would, in the eyes of the State of Minnesota, give men pretending to be women the same protection as actual women.
To do that, he also wants to include a definition of “gender identity”.
Here’s what he wants to add:
“‘Gender identity’ means a person’s inherent sense of being a man, woman, both, or neither. A person’s gender identity may or may not correspond to their assigned sex at birth or to their primary or secondary sex characteristics. A person’s gender identity is not necessarily visible to others.”
And then, he’s proposing adding “gender identity” to all protected classes in Minnesota.
Which is just insane. And it’s a dangerous precedence too.
Just like there’s no discernable difference between a homosexual and a pedophile, there is no discernable difference between a woman pretending to be a man, and a woman pretending to be a horse.
If laws like the one Mr. Finke is proposing go on the books, the precedence will be set. And we’ll find ourselves on a slippery slope to even crazier things.
We should not be reinforcing the delusions of mentally ill people. And we certainly shouldn’t offer body mutilation as an alternative to mental health care.
Because if we continue down the path we’re on, once “gender affirming surgery” is considered socially acceptable and totally sane, then the logical next step is to grant “species affirming surgery” the same status.
And when that happens, tails will become mainstream. And the phrase “I’m gonna get me some tail” will take on a whole new meaning.
