Go Back   SZONE.US Forums > Current Events > News > Personal Liberty

Personal Liberty Bob Livingston provides you with a conservative, Christian view on life. Helping you live free in an unfree world. Delivering news on improving you health, boosting your wealth, and protecting your civil liberties."

Personal Liberty

Discriminating nondiscrimination policies

Views:435
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread
  #1  
Unread 12.13.18, 03:52 AM
@PersonalLiberty @PersonalLiberty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 05.09
Posts: 21,850
Discriminating nondiscrimination policies

12.12.18 10:01 PM

Whenever government establishes special “rights” or “privileges” for a perceived aggrieved class (also called a minority class), it does so at the expense of the rights of others. It inevitably leads to law, logic and reason being tied into undecipherable knots, contributes to the power and collectivism of government, and is anathema to human liberty.

Benjamin Franklin warned about this in his Emblematic Representations, published in 1774. He wrote:
History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy… These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened.

It also leads to absurdities, doublethink and the death of common sense, and we see this with growing frequency in any discussion over transgender “rights.”

A Virginia high school teacher was recently fired for refusing to use male pronouns to refer to a biological girl who decided over the summer that she wanted to be a boy. Teacher Peter Vlaming agreed to call the student by her new male name, but said his Christian faith prevented him from using male pronouns for a student he knew was a female. Vlaming knew the student from having taught her the previous year.

Vlaming tried to reach a compromise, saying he wouldn’t use pronouns when addressing the girl and would instead just call her by her preferred name. School administrators said that using the student’s name singled her out and made her feel uncomfortable.

Administrators at West Point High School determined this violated the school’s nondiscrimination and harassment policies, so after a hearing they recommended he be fired. This even though there were no claims that Vlaming deliberately used female pronouns to the refer to the student in her presence.

Vlaming posits that he’s being fired for what he didn’t say; i.e., not using certain prescribed words that are the opposite of reality. But school employees claimed he did use female pronouns to refer to her in the presence of others on occasion. One such “mispronouning” offense occurred during a class activity when the student was using a virtual reality headset and was about to run into a wall. Seeing this, Vlaming told students to “stop her.” So in essence, Vlaming would have been better off if he’d just let the girl bang into a wall and possibly harm herself.

During testimony at the hearing, school principal Jonathan Hochman said that after the “mispronouncing” incident he told Vlaming, “You need to say sorry for that. And refer to her by the male pronoun,” indicating that the principal realizes that the girl is operating in some self-created non-reality and is indeed a female. (Emphasis mine.) Hochman also implicated himself in the same offense for which Vlaming was fired.

The school’s nondiscrimination policy was ostensibly designed to ensure that all students are treated equally. But Vlaming was fired because he tried to treat the girl as he did all other girls. It’s the school administrators who were treating the girl differently by granting her special privileges with no basis in reality or science.

Vlaming told local media he loves and respects all his students, but when a solution he tried to reach based on “mutual tolerance” was rejected, he was at risk of losing his job for having views held by “most of the world for most of human history.”

“That is not tolerance,” Vlaming said. “That is coercion.”

It’s also religious discrimination.

Vlaming is not alone in being discriminated against via nondiscrimination policies that discriminate in favor of transgenders.

A Florida physical education teacher was recently punished when he refused to oversee a biologically female middle schooler who claims to be male and wanted to dress in the boy’s locker room. When he refused to watch while the girl undressed, he was reprimanded, threatened with being put on administrative leave and told he would be transferred to another school. In an email, school administrators told him refusal to watch the girl undress in the locker room “would not be tolerated.”

In other words, the teacher was being ordered by the school to do something that would get him fired and charged as sexual criminal if the girl was changing in the girl’s locker room rather than the boy’s. The process of moving from a locker room assigned to girls to a locker room assigned to boys does not make a girl any less physically and biological a girl, regardless of that girl’s – and the school administrators’ – altered reality.

The erasing of traditional sexual norms began many years ago and has been unofficial public policy in America for a long time.

It has been a gradual, almost imperceptible process that began when change agents began substituting the word “gender” – a grammatical term – for the word “sex” – a biological term – as a descriptor for male or female. The effect is to program the mind. It removes the biological component that distinguishes male from female and inserts an esoteric component that allows for the denial of reality and creation of an alternate reality.

When one suffers from anorexia, she (odds are it’s a female) looks in the mirror and sees herself as fat. It doesn’t matter what reality is; whether she is normal weight or rail thin. That person creates an alternate reality in her mind.

Anorexia is a mental disorder. One seeking to help that person shrug off this false sense of self would not reinforce that unreality by telling her she is fat. Rather, one would help her seek treatment for it so she could begin to recognize she is not fat and is destroying her health.

Likewise, one who looks in the mirror and sees himself or herself as opposite of his or her biological sex is creating an alternate reality. No amount of chemical or surgical alteration or treatment will change a biological female to a biological male and vice versa. It is a mental disorder and should not be coddled or reinforced. Nor should anyone else be forced into accepting that person’s alternate reality as reality.

But change agents understand that the people will accept almost anything, no matter how immoral or absurd, if it is instituted gradually, first as unofficial public policy and then as official public policy. People accept their conditioning over time no matter what it is. Even the most absurd of notions come to be accepted over a long enough time frame. Gradualism is the key to defining deviancy down.

The post Discriminating nondiscrimination policies appeared first on Personal Liberty®.



https://personalliberty.com/discrimi...tion-policies/
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 - 20017 SZONE.US All rights reserved