Barack on non-binary
Barack on non-binary...
The video clip at bottom of page is of a podcast type show of Michelle Obama's where controversial topic was skirted by (in)conveniently editing it out.
The end of Barack's (guided) monologue was cropped off — must've been patriarchal (or whitey) hubris (or whatever) — but he went on talking about a gay professor of his who was influential for him.
Author's note:
Note (2026 Jul 27): I am redirecting the domain (I own now) "farronbalanced.org" to this page since that liberal commentator decided to mock & ridicule the current president, to a greater extent now, but there is the trauma experienced by the president to consider and it's an issue for me since the self-proclaimed pundit would just a soon ridicule me. He'd probably just go ahead with the standard shoulder-grabbing me, then "oh, oops..." inevitably grinding his groin against me, dry-humping my leg to prove to me he can get away with such acts. That is always priority for pedos like Farron Cousins, to degrade a trauma'd person since it can be done with impunity.
Anyway... I suddenly realized in Barack's including the anecdote about his gay professor he made an association with homosexuality and non-binary, and the latter also has no exact definition. It occurred to me that the term could even have different meanings to different people where some may think of it as akin to no preference and some may consider it to be synonymous with asexual or even incel. Granted that whether the term is used to describe a person who is a minor or adult has bearing on the issue as well. My point is that when discussing human beings the same rules should apply where if the topic were racial issues it wouldn't be an appropriate comparison, or it'd be a strawman argument fallacy (simply put), because the association is only made due to marginalized sexuality aspect although non-binary might be void of it all together since that part still hasn't been determined in this context. (I'm not about to go searching for that exact definition to see if it exists either.) As to my example of similar racial issue comparison I offer no further details since it'd only be rhetorical here. My point is made, in other words.
It's presumed that Mr. Obama's professor was at peace with his lifestyle. People who are patients or recipients of treatments for "gender affirmation" are not so much at peace and it's obvious that for the most part they never will be since they effectively take that risk by nature of the procedures. There is the patient confidentiality privacy rights to be considered where "no news is good news" is mere platitude. People up and vanish. People die jumping in front of metro light rail trains and there's not even updates about who the person was. The tragedy is disheartening. All the other people involved, parent(s), medical personnel, etc., go on with their lives. Where's the justice for the crime? Charlize Theron adopted a boy and a girl and now has two daughters. What are the odds? Wealthy person's novelty trophy child.
Original content...
If the (remaining) argument made that maybe some people have advanced beyond the human need for feeling acceptance in that way (or whatever) then maybe time to re-examin human ambition, motivation, inspiration, incentive, impetus, etc. to do anything at all. Quite simply I could point out that there have been lots of people who were ambiguous in this context, or could be in the range of the marginalized, who achieved great things and to whom humankind is indebted.
This is a "guest commentary" for this page. I'm the author of this website which is a homage (of sorts) to my old counselor. In any event, I took issue with Donald Trump with his use of word lynching and so I wouldn't vote for him. That was prior to the time when transgender experimentation surgeries were more in public attention. President Trump hasn't waivered on his stance on the latter issue and he's realistic on that point.
It's asinine to continue speaking about ideas like "non-binary people" and colonization of Mars (there, Barack — people ain't living in underwater colonies in the ocean & why not? hmmm...).
I have to take the positions I do for my own personal integrity, regardless of possible stigma. I have a website that is documenting evidence of life-threatening abuse of a young woman who was caught up in that entrapment of sadistic liberalism and she suffered as result! (Ignorance is bliss.)
What's important here too is the overall message that if a parent says something that doesn't make sense, and even if regarding a subject that is effectively life & death level of seriousness, then they can pretend like it was never said. All the stigma surrounding "mental illness" & nobody stops to think that a child's parents (or family) may be so complicit in their role that the child is abused (by somebody) and they can flat out act like it's all in the child's head. & then the family (as well as others) can laugh and ridicule the child to teach them that is how this world supposedly works.
A relatable short article I posted to independent.academia.edu/ErfahrenReyndur
By the Religious Society of Friends basic tenet, that everyone has "Spirit of Light" and associated with the axiom is understanding that a person's socioeconomic circumstances they're born into isn't up to them. For brevity I'd point out that parents, on average, are doing what they've been taught that they're supposed to do. Of course the "Spirit of Light" thing can be interpreted subjectively and then there's the philosophy involved and metaphysical debate, etc. to whether or not there even is such a thing. David Hume mentioned human spirit and he was atheist, so ?
In this context though, there's the question that could be asked in regards to gender affirmation as to what exactly is the subconscious force behind such decision making? If the results worked out for a person one hundred percent of the time then maybe this wouldn't be a valid point but I'd also need to include here (for sake of argument) that maybe a person misinterprets whatever messages emits from their inner self. Of course the possibility exists where a person is influenced or coerced into assuming the role of victim of circumstance in which only mutilation can modify.
I've pointed out elsewhere that my interpretation of Roscoe Pound's point that "The negligence is established by the liability, not the liability by the negligence". ~ An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law — He also states "But note that the negligence here is a dogmatic fiction." — but my interpretation is that there's a kind of math formula in the midst of his statement in which if there is "dogmatic fiction", or controversy which entails anecdotal evidence, deliberate omission of relevant facts and exaggeration, etc. in continuous public debate then the answer is that "the negligence is established by the liability" and to clarify in this context that there is the question is of "negligence", not "responsibility" (or similar to assign blame), so the posit is not about "blaming society". The reality is, in short, that the whoever is actually to blame may not be alive or unable to offer any assistance. The reality still exists for victims.
A related issue brought up in local city Meta post.
The controversy of what's known as "gender affirmation" or transgender experimentation (as I phrase the topic) has the associated activism on the behalf of the victims (as I'll describe them here) to inform the public of the difficulties of stigma, discrimination and violence the people encounter. I don't doubt or really disagree with any of that but my point is that at same time there exists the ongoing atheist agenda to promote continued experimentation. The idealogy is that with increased population in the demographic and puplic awareness the people can become more accepted and as result, there'd be decreased violence against them. The issue is now, however, that there's also tendancy by activists to insist that any unexplained death of a transgender person, where the person is found alone somewhere for example, has got to be as result of someone else's involvement. The narrative is that the transgender person was happy and outgoing and fun, etc., and anyone who'd believe there was self-harm involved, or circumstances where the transgender person provoked attack against them then the dissenters are labeled as transphobic ("ad hominem", or kafka-trapped; or scapegoated. There becomes an obvious desire of activists to engage anybody in discussion who isn't in complete agreement with them. The "complete agreement" is the true issue since a) There is really underlying misandrism present and noticeable (which in and of itself isn't such an issue since it can be understandable) but b) There is defensiveness of parents and practicians too and sympathy for the former isn't entirely unwarranted (don't get me wrong), but defensiveness of medical personnel who make money from destroying people's lives isn't so palatable.
In regards to parents of transgender people though, defending them isn't acceptable since they are the first and most critical influence for a person in regards to a child's physicological health. I'm not out here to imply that there is some standard that can always be relied on to resolve the issue once and for all since myriad individual circumstances exist but when activists won't acknowledge the parental abuse, insisting that they were completely innocent, and then labeling anyone who doesn't go with the idealogy as "transphobic" and implication is that the dissenters are capable of the very violence that is subject of discussion when in reality there's misdirection, scapegoating, since there was violence committed against the transgender person when they were first operated on or administered medicine to facilitate gender modification. There is goal to silence any opposition and then (of course) the lack of outcry is construed as consensus.
The debate on the local city's post and subsequent argument with me when I pointed out that Charlize Theron adopted a boy and a girl and now she as two daughters made me realize though that the example given is perfect since I was insulted and condescended, patronized (enough to prove the point, anyway) but here I am who, by people's accounts who are college educated and work in human services field themselves, I've been a victim of violent crime in myself. The trauma I experienced prior to meeting those people were the reason I was there and I appreciated their help. My reputation in regards to my advocacy is important and it extends to other areas. I'm insightful and respectful and all that (so I've been told). I have information about my advocacy work in my profile on Facebook but it's ignored and people will troll me with quips implying that I'm just stupid, bigoted, or what-have-you depending on topic. The point is here that in most cases, or subjects (like immigration), I mainly consider that as irritating and often people will let up. In this particular topic though, the badgering me is really hypocritical since if the discussion is about stigma and discrimination, etc. against people then the example set is dismissing a person's experience (mine), ignoring it in the midst of accusing me of ignoring the plight of transgender people. I presented (only) one example to be brief and that was used against me and then of course when I provide more I'm ignored and there's hundreds of comments at that point.
The goal gets to be about luring others in and throwing them under the bus, so to speak. Many people understand that and the agenda is ongoing to destroy people's lives who might off-chance be in proximity of someone who is distressed due to jealously because of their lack of intimacy with other people. Everybody is responsible for themselves (their physical self), as I'll put that here, but with the idealogy I'm describing there is implication that other people are (going to be held) responsible for a transgender person's acceptance of their own physical self. Again, what I'm stating here isn't anything new or unknown. The annoyance gets to be that there is more to this world but people want to get others wrapped up in the most rudimentary controversy there is.
This is a reply to a comment I made on a local official city group on social media. The person is local to me and celebrates a wealthy woman who destroyed a child's life.
The plain text and screencapture(s):
Suzie McMillian
The actress. Charlize Theron, adopted a boy and a girl, Ashley Stires, now she has two daughters. What are the odds of that? If there is high mortality rate with people receiving "gender affirming care" then it's society's fault, right? How exactly?
Shari Glassgow
Suzie McMillian so a single example proves there's no mortality in any other population? Seriously? I'm happy that Charlize Theron is trans-positive with her kids, but that does not negate the rate at which trans kids are disowned, bullied, and murdered. Let's not deflect.
The negligence is established by the liability, not the liability by the negligence. ~ An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law - Roscoe Pound He also states (which is pertinent too since it's discussion of nihilism philosophy): "But note that the negligence here is a dogmatic fiction."