Are we eliminating ‘transgenders’ from our society?

It seems that ‘transgender news’ has been through the roof lately. Whether that’s because there is growing number of people actually switching genders or just an increase in folks publicly discussing their journey, it really doesn’t matter. What we’re facing is a moral standoff that is causing a great divide while dealing with a governmental structure that is well behind what has become somewhat of a societal norm.

With all due respect, this isn’t about whether your faith commands you to tolerate these “types” of people and it isn’t about your personal beliefs. No, we are far past that. With a government that regulates and controls just about everything we do, we find ourselves in a great predicament. It’s becoming extremely litigious as well. Businesses without policies find themselves at the center of discrimination suits, like Barnes & Noble and a blood bank.

This is about the fact the transgender people, regardless of how you feel, are now a part of our society and we have to address the realities of that. For decades, we have ignored the shift and turned our backs.

To many, it seems cut and dry. I’ve heard countless people say that transgender – or even cross-dressers – should use the restroom based on ‘what they were at birth.’ But those statements have consequences.

While the Bruce Jenner jokes have been in abundance, the issue has touched home plate in our states more than once, recently. Just last week, Rutgers announced they would be adding additional mascots to the team to be more inclusive and story after story highlights parents allowing their children to be vocal about changing genders – which trickles into public school operations. The crux of the issue has arrived.

In Virginia, parents and pastors are vehemently opposing a public school policy change to be more accepting of transgender students. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Education is threatening to pull funding if a change is not made.

And Georgia has had to sort out a very complicated situation which forced the U.S. Justice Department to intervene. A young man, who was in the process of changing sexes but was already living life as a female named Ashley Diamond, was arrested for robbery and sentenced to several years in prison. Ashley Diamond was transferred to a mens prison facility where she was disallowed from receiving her hormone therapy medications despite the fact that Georgia has a ‘freeze frame’ policy, meaning, hormone therapy can be continued while in the Georgia Department of Corrections but not increased or progressed while in custody. Ultimately, the Justice Department strong armed Georgia into administering the drugs and Diamond is now up for a transfer to a woman’s facility.

These concerns aren’t just in the public restrooms or the gym locker rooms or the high school prom. They’ve expanded to our tax code, our jails, our court systems, our schools, and so much more. It is no longer something we can ignore. We don’t live in a bubble where some people can operate under one guise and the rest of us under another.

No one should ask you to sweep your beliefs under the rug, but in the same vein, can you ask society to omit an entire group of people from classification? We can continue to resist, but it will only put off the inevitable. It’s already here.

14 thoughts on “Are we eliminating ‘transgenders’ from our society?”

Ron McClellan May 13, 2015 at 3:24 AM

Yes, I can in fact ask society to omit an entire group of people from classification. Here is a cold, stark reality: There is no such thing as elective transgenders. Total myth. If you are a male, you are a male, if you are a female, you are a female, simple as that. No controversy. You can cut hings off, grow things on . . .and yer still what you were born as. I can pluck all the feathers off a chicken, attach a bunch of turkey feathers . . .still a chicken. Just a chicken with turkey feathers.
I have no problem with attempting to put off the so-called inevitable. Somebody has to do it. The only reason it’s “inevitable” is because when sane people say nothing, the inmates take over the asylum. Men . . .mens room, Women . . .womens room . . .pretty simple, really.

Reply ↓

eburkedisciple May 15, 2015 at 10:50 AM

Ron is quite right. However, the fact remains that the train seems to be headed into the darkness with the full support of the riders and we must face reality if we are to have any impact. We have to find a way to talk to each other while we yet disagree and always will. We have to find a way to live at peace yet disagree. It seems that the gay agenda is especially opposed to finding a way to live together in peace. They brook no disagreement. If you do not allow disagreement then you eliminate the chance of peace. It seems the ball is in their court. As long as there is an attempt to prevent me from having a contrary conviction on what is natural and right or you try to shove a particular perspective down my children’s throat then there cannot be peace. Having the discussion means that TWO sides can be presented equally – not just one.

Reply ↓

Ron McClellan May 15, 2015 at 3:00 PM

There are a few fallacies that actually hinder discussion. At least one of them, counter-intuitive.

This is the myth that “Calm discussion where all parties are respectful of others viewpoints is a good thing” Sorry, but that generally isn’t productive. When we afford respect a faulty viewpoint, we lend it credibility. The problem with “the conservative viewpoint” . . .is that conservatives tend to suck at persuasive argument.

Another fallacy is that productive discussion about apposing viewpoints “isn’t about winning or losing a debate” Reality check . . .Yes, it is. Those who hold this viewpoint tend to lose a lot of arguments. Conservatives HAVE to get more assertive. They HAVE to get bolder.

If someone tells me that where we go to pee should be determined by what sex we choose to identify with rather than what sex we actually are . . . we need to in no uncertain terms let them this “ain’t gonna happen. What next, Throw species into the mix? I suppose I could “identify” with a Raccoon, but should that mean my employer or a restaurant, etc. should be mandated to provide me with a creek or pond to wash my food in? Naaaa.

Reply ↓