This week, the Portland, Maine School District adopted a comprehensive transgender policy for their students. But in an attempt to welcome and create a safe haven for all, the left-leaning city has ended up crafting an overreaching debacle that tramples upon parental rights.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2017, the Portland Board of Education unanimously approved a motion that requires all Portland, ME schools implement annual staff training on gender issues, “use a student’s preferred name and personal pronoun, and take the student’s side at school if there is disagreement with a parent’s wishes.”
The intent is to create a space welcoming for transgender individuals and pupils questioning their identity. The main purpose is so teachers and students now respect whatever their peers choose to identify as. The policy is consistent with state law, which since 2014 has allowed boys and and girls to use whatever bathroom they please based on their identity.
In theory, it sounds noble. Who doesn’t want a student to feel welcomed at school? The problem is that it strips away parental control and allows children to make serious, life altering decisions about their identity.
Under the Portland School District’s new policy, if a 7-year-old wanted to be called King Tut after learning about Egypt in first grade world history, the teachers would have to abide. They would even have to call him “your majesty” if he chose that as his new personal pro-noun. If the parents said, “This is absurd, he’s an imaginative young boy, let’s not feed his fancy by calling him King Tut anymore,” the teachers would have to ignore their requests.
But, this opens some serious questions about the role of a parent in their child’s upbringing. If students can determine their gender and name at any age, why bother having any parental oversight at all? Can’t a young girl under the age of 18 who decides she is a boy then also have the same mental capacity to see an R rated movie? And if a young man can identify as a genderless being and prefer the pro-noun Xe, then why can’t he sign his own approval slip to attend a field trip? Or, if a high school student wants to take the basic level math class, but her mom wants her to take the AP Calculus, who gets the final say? Why should the mom be allowed to force her daughter to take a higher level math class, but not have any say in what teachers call her?
Yet again, in the left’s seemingly earnest desire to make a welcoming and inclusive society, they have opened a Pandora’s box stripped of any logical or reasoned thinking.
Oddly enough, the Portland Superintendent puts-forth a rather Conservative case for the district’s decision. Xavier Botana advocated for local control and state’s rights.
“You know, mostly we’ve heard really positive — you saw really positive comments today,” Botana said. “You know, we’ve gotten some not so positive comments — not, frankly, from people from Portland, but from people in other parts of the country who’ve heard about it and have chosen to react in ways that suggest they know what we should do better than the people in Portland do.”
In a sense he is right. It is doubtful the people of Springfield, Illinois are too concerned with Portland, Maine’s school district teachings on Maine’s lobster and fishing community. That’s why Conservatives for years have advocated for a small federal government that allows parents and local communities to make educational decisions, not Washington, DC. Obviously, there are cases of abusive parents where they should be stripped of custody and decision making responsibility for their child. We need laws to protect those kids. But shouldn’t parents across the nation be wary of the left’s attempt to wrangle away parental rights through the guise of transgender advocacy?
Despite losing the 2016 election largely because the Democrat Party refused to move away from divisive identity based politics they have apparently not learned their lesson, with at least one powerful female Democrat deciding to piggyback off the wave of sexual assault allegations sweeping the country by openly telling Michigan voters to vote for her because she is a women.
Democratic candidate for Michigan’s Attorney General, Dana Nessel, has released an ad for her campaign that directly implies that voters should choose her simply because she does not have a penis and therefore cannot sexually assault someone she works with like many male politicians (on both sides of the aisle) have been accused of over the past month.
“Who can you trust most not to show you their penis in a professional setting? That would be the candidate who doesn’t have one,” Nessel says with a straight face as headlines of male sexual harassment play across the screen.
Nessel attempted to explain the fact that she is now attempting to guilt voters into voting for her as a way to show that they are against sexual harassment in an interview with a local news outlet.
“If you get more women in office, if you get more women in positions of authority, you’re less likely to have issues where someone is pulling out their penis at an inappropriate time in the the workplace,” she told WWJ’s Charlie Langton.
“I’m not saying that all men harass and I’m certainly not saying that women are incapable of sexually harassing, but I know from many years serving as an assistant prosecutor prosecuting sex crimes, honestly, the vast, vast majority of those cases do involve men. So I thought that point needed to be made.”
So there you have it. The Democrats apparently plan to run on a platform that uses guilt to force Americans to vote for them or risk making it look as if they do not care about the issue of sexual harassment.
Jeremiah 19:9 “And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.”
This story is REAL. A website that published it got so many hits they took it down. Here is an archive of the original
I think the reason it was taken down is HE may have copied it from this website which was published 4 days earlier on November 27, 2017. It seems from said website that “In Japan since 2014 a law was approved that allows the consumption of human flesh, ….”
Anyway, no matter who wrote about first it as it is sickening and just a sign of the times!
Govind Dhiman High Tech Gazette December 1, 2017 – First of all, you won’t believe it. But, I am really confused to write it or not. A new restaurant hosted in the city of Tokyo, in Japan has announced it’s special menus which include Human Flesh. Eww, but true. Even the government has confirmed the restaurant’s legality. It sounds disturbing but is really true.
This totally shows the fierceness and unspeakable human nature which is not tolerable in this community. But the restaurant named “The Resoto ototo no shoku ryohin”, which means “Edible Brother” in English has proven so.
The meal menus vary in a range of 100 up to 1000 euros along with other dishes. Recently International News sources confirmed that a tourist from Argentina is confirmed being the first person eating human meat in the “Edible Brother” restaurant.
To be frank, the meat may taste like any of pork dishes, but the taste may disappear due to excessive spice and beverages. Yet, it is legal to eat Human flesh in Japan, but 99% of the world population would fail for eating human meat if offered.
Even some peoples don’t get the idea of what are the sources from where the meats are coming. The humans before dying determine to promote their bodies to the peculiar eating place, about for approximately 30 thousand euros or 35,799 bucks, leaving the full amount of cash to their families.
Young people who die younger can have a mutual contract with the restaurant, wherein they’re available for a whole squad to eat, but the beef would be just Sh*t to eat.
So, here is the catch. Can you follow up the line who are willing to die for a significant amount of money, especially for to be eaten???
The medical establishment is losing its bearings. Caught in the twilight zone of transgender alt-reality, where hurt feelings matter more than hard science, America’s pediatricians see a new threat on the horizon.
In the November 2017 issue of Pediatrics, Dr. Leena Nahata, a pediatric endocrinologist at the highly ranked Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, sounds the alarm about the “gender reveal” phenomenon. She warns that a sonogram posted to Facebook, or a party to announce the unborn child’s sex, is a hazard to “pediatric health.” So is the traditional delivery room cry of “It’s a girl!” or “It’s a boy!” Why? Because “there are scenarios in which a sex assignment may later be questioned or reversed, leading to a significant amount of distress.”
Nahata isn’t concerned about blurry sonograms that fail to capture anatomical details. She’s also not really talking about infants born with “atypical” genitals, requiring further tests to determine if the baby is a boy or a girl. (She acknowledges that those cases are so “rare” that they occur just once among “4500 to 5500 infants”—i.e., in about 0.02 percent of newborns.) No, Nahata wants parents to embrace a trans-friendly world premised on the idea that “[r]egardless of gender assignment at birth, some kids may later identify as the opposite gender.”
Only Your Baby Can Decide Reality
Note that Nahata sidesteps biological sex—a puzzling move for a doctor—and focuses on gender identity. A peek at a newborn’s genitals, by ultrasound or at birth, merely helps doctors “predict” a child’s future gender identity and “assign” the child a gender, Nahata says.
Although she says that in “the vast majority of cases, an infant predicted to be a boy or girl on prenatal ultrasound will identify that way for life,” she parrots the now-familiar transgender talking point that sometimes the “right” gender assignment is actually wrong. According to transgender lore, only the child can say for sure whether the assigned gender fits (regardless of what those pesky genitals, hormones, chromosomes, and reproductive organs purport to suggest).
The problem is that if the child eventually decides to trade the “assigned gender” for one that seems a better fit, there will likely be pain and awkwardness all around, at least for awhile. However, it clearly troubles Nahata to hear a parent say, “I have to mourn the loss of the daughter I have raised before I can move forward with my son.” Note: she’s not troubled by the unscientific assertion that the daughter turned into a “son,” but by the fact that the parent isn’t celebrating her transgender child’s newly discovered self.
Nahata blames parental distress on “harmful” traditions that celebrate a child’s sex and spur parents to invest in “a particular vision and a set of stereotypes” based on “sex and implied gender.” Already adept at manipulating hormones to sculpt the bodies and mold the minds of her young transgender patients, Nahata now wants to reverse-engineer the emotional distress their parents feel.
Fit Bodies to Feelings, Not Vice Versa?
It’s really a rather remarkable thought process for a doctor. Healthy children who develop confused feelings need their bodies fixed so those confused feelings can be affirmed as normal. And healthy parents who experience natural joy at realizing a profound truth about their child’s human identity (the child’s creation as male or female) need to tamp it down and get some re-education. Parents need to forget what their experiences—and biology—are telling them, and realize that their feelings are the problem.
In Nahata’s perfectly constructed, trans-friendly world, parents apparently would never feel that wrenching sadness when a child repudiates his or her male or female identity. All it takes is for the medical profession to get it right in the first place, saysNahata:
We should educate obstetricians and the delivery room and newborn nursery staff about the implications of overemphasizing the importance of sex of the infant during pregnancy…and after birth. Perhaps, instead of, ‘It’s a boy,’ the first proclamation after delivery should be, ‘Congratulations, you have a beautiful infant!’…Physicians, nurses, and staff in general pediatrics clinics, as well as teachers and staff at schools, should be aware that gender is just 1 [one] aspect of a child’s identity, and not the defining aspect; particular attention should be given to preferred names and pronouns.
Of course, these experts neglect to say exactly how a child goes from being a generic infant to a supposedly self-defining child capable of declaring a “preferred name and pronoun.” Imagine the confusion of a toddler, and later a young child, whose parents never make sense of why he or she has male or female genitals—as if having a penis, for example, were as irrelevant to one’s identity as having freckles.
And imagine the child’s new burden: choosing a gender from the ever-changing LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP menu. Little kids have a hard enough time making meaningless choices about which ice cream flavor to try.
And parents? The doc’s advice is to squelch those normal human feelings—joy at the birth of a son or daughter—and dismantle those normal human expectations. After all, who says an anatomical boy is better off if he actually identifies as a boy? Parents should envision a generic “baby” and take a deep dive into the world of gender-neutral parenting, because Nahata and her colleagues “recommend that all children are raised as gender neutral as possible.”
Want some better advice? Find a new pediatrician.