JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rubystars on February 02, 2014, 03:45:58 AM
-
I'm almost reluctant to post this because learning liberal terminology might get you into their mode of thinking which I don't think is necessarily healthy.
The purpose of speaking is to transfer thoughts from one mind into another mind, and words are the vehicle that is achieved with. However, learning the language
of your enemy can also help you decode the messages they are sending to each other. So guard your heart and proceed if you want to learn more about liberal
terminology.
I'll be dealing with gender issues for the next several posts so I think it's important to note that there may be triggers for those who are affected by triggers, so read with caution.
I'll start with 3 terms to get started, more to be posted later.
1.Gender
Conservatives generally think of gender and sex as the same thing. If you see a woman and you are asked what her gender is, you'd say female. If you see her and are asked what her sex is, you'd say female.
That's because you have a conservative mindset.
To liberals, it's not the same. Gender refers to how someone "feels" according to liberals. If you feel you're a man then it doesn't matter to liberals if you have female anatomy. To them you have a "male gender".
This is why you see the current push to have boys being allowed to go into girl's bathrooms and girls being allowed to change in boy's locker rooms, etc. Whatever they feel they are inside is what they
are according to liberals, regardless of their physical form.
2. Sex
Sex is someone's physical form. If they have male anatomy, their physical sex is male. if they have female anatomy, their physical sex is female. This can get confusing because it's not always the same
as the sex someone is born with. For example if Robert had a sex change operation and transitioned to Roberta, then he would have female anatomy and his physical sex would be female even though that's not
what he was born with.
3. Heteronormativity
Usually, conservatives think of heterosexuality (When men are sexually attracted to women and women are sexually attracted to men) as being the "norm", or "normal".
Liberals see being heterosexual as being on the same level of normalcy as being homosexual (men being sexually attracted to men or women being sexually attracted to women).
They would also see other sexual orientations besides these two to be just as normal. Basically they don't believe in normalcy or being normal at all. They believe that the idea that heterosexuals are normal and homosexuals (and other orientations) aren't normal, is wrong. They believe that the idea of heteronormativity (that heterosexuals are normal), is a dangerous idea because they feel it promotes discrimination against and hatred toward other orientations. Therefore you might see a liberal say something like:
"Bob only said homosexuality was a sin because he was influenced by the philosophy of heteronormativity".
Liberals don't see homosexuality or other orientations as being deviant from heterosexuality. They see them as being on the same level. They feel that heterosexuality isn't more normal, just more
"common" than other orientations.
The conservative point of view is that heterosexuality is what's most natural and normal to human beings and that's WHY it's more common. Liberals seem to think that it is pretty much by chance that
heterosexuals are more common.
I'm not advocating a liberal point of view. This is to help conservatives learn the liberal terminology so we can better debate with them. I'll post more terms later.
-
:::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D
-
This is serious stuff though. It's not meant to be funny, although I suppose liberalism is by definition funny/stupid, when they're not killing people.
-
Why then do they prefer to use "trans-gender" to "transsexual"? Apparently one can not have the wrong gender, the only problem is that the physicality doesn't much, hence it should be even by this terminology transsexual.
-
Why then do they prefer to use "trans-gender" to "transsexual"? Apparently one can not have the wrong gender, the only problem is that the physicality doesn't much, hence it should be even by this terminology transsexual.
That's a great question. I think they prefer transgender because some people in transition choose not to have the physical surgery to change their sex but still identify as their preferred gender.
Some people only partially transition (having breast implants, for example) but not fully.
For example a man called Mark Jones believes that inside he's a female. He prefers to be referred to as "she" and puts on makeup and dresses and tells people his name is Mary Jones. He may or may not be taking hormones to soften his features. He can't afford the surgery or has not been approved for it yet, but he still feels that he has a female gender. Therefore he's transgendered but not yet transsexual.
-
4. Gender or sex assigned at birth.
Someone's gender assigned at birth is what the parents and/or medical professionals decide the child's gender is when they are born. Since the baby can't talk yet, this is basically the same thing as "Sex assigned at birth". Notice that the liberals don't say that someone's gender or sex at birth simply is their gender or sex at birth. They say that's their "assigned"gender or sex.
They believe that gender or even sex can change throughout a person's life or be re-assigned.
So let's say that you or your wife gives birth to a baby boy. Liberals would say that the boy is assigned a male sex (based on his anatomy) and male gender (his birth certificate will say male). When the boy gets older, he may continue to identify as a male, or, according to liberals, his gender identity might change. If he later gets surgery to re-assign his sex to female, then his sex will have a different assignment.
Conservatives think of gender and sex as being inherent to the person and set the moment someone is born. So a baby girl will always be female sex and female gendered, and a baby boy will always be male sex and male gendered.
Liberals think of human beings as basically being blank, like dolls. The gender and sex is "assigned" to this otherwise genderless/sexless person, and subject to change over the course of a person's life.
Sometimes liberals too can make the argument that there's something inherent about gender identity or the person's sexual identity or sexual orientations, but only when they are defending transgendered people or people with deviant sexual orientations.
5. Gender identity
This is the gender that the person identifies himself or herself as, regardless of physical anatomy. There are several different gender identities someone can have, but the most common are male or female.
I'll try to explain others in later posts.
6. Sexual orientation
This indicates the type of person or other entity that the person is sexually attracted to. The most common of these would be heterosexuals (attracted to the opposite sex), homosexuals (attracted to the same sex), and bisexuals (attracted to both sexes). There are other types of sexual orientations too that I'll try to explain later.
Important NOTE: Gender identity and sexual orientation are two separate things.
A person who has a male sex assigned at birth might have a female gender identity but be sexually attracted to women. Conservatives would say he has a straight sexual orientation because he's sexually attracted to women and he's a man physically. He would be described by liberals as having a homosexual orientation because of his female gender identity even though he's got a physically male body.
Liberal terminology quiz:
1. Someone who is physically male, self-identifies as female, and is attracted to other people who are physically male is:
A. Homosexual female
B. Homosexual male
C. Heterosexual female
D. Heterosexual male
Conservatives are likely to say that he's B, a homosexual male. This would be based on the fact that he's physically male and he's attracted to other people who are physically male.
Liberals on the other hand, would say just the opposite. They'd say he's C, a heterosexual female. They would say this because his gender identity is female, which to them means he is female. So as a female attracted to males, he (or she, as they would say)
Would be a heterosexual female.
Believe me, it only gets more confusing from here on out, but if you want to be able to debate with liberals, this stuff is important to try to understand. They often define things in exactly the opposite way that conservatives would. This is a great example of that.
-
On a something related note, if you type "Is Michael Jackson g" on Google, it doesn't suggest gay. I'm sure many people type that. I tried it and it doesn't. I guess Google is now trying to promote homosexuality. If you type in "Is Justin Bieber h" it suggests homosexual or the new "politically correct" word homophobic.
-
On a something related note, if you type "Is Michael Jackson g" on Google, it doesn't suggest gay. I'm sure many people type that. I tried it and it doesn't. I guess Google is now trying to promote homosexuality. If you type in "Is Justin Bieber h" it suggests homosexual or the new "politically correct" word homophobic.
Michael Jackson would be considered to fall under another category. That of "Intergenerational Intimacy" or a "Minor attracted person". These are the liberal buzzwords for pedophiles. Pedophiles are going to be normalized next after homosexual marriage and the adoption of children by homosexuals is more fully accepted by society.
Even a lot of regular liberals will say that's gross and isn't true, but the liberal elite and some LGBT activists and left wing politicians are pushing this agenda. The liberal rank and file will come into line given time enough to be brainwashed by their elites.
-
Will they also push for legitimizing adult men with pre-teen girls? Or would the feminists among them say that's sexist? Or what about adult women with pre-teen boys?
I say pre-teen because it's not abnormal for an adult to be attracted to a teenager. Under Jewish Law, someone is considered an adult at the age of Bar and Bat Mitzvah. Obviously, someone a young teenager should only be with someone over 18 in marriage. But Secular Law prohibits marriage for people under 18 without parental consent and under Judaism we have to follow the Secular Law unless Secular Law tells us to brake Halacha. But it is normal for men to be attracted to teenage girls (Maybe not 13-15 year olds but at least from 16, teenage girls would be attractive for adult men.).
-
Will they also push for legitimizing adult men without pre-teen girls? Or would the feminists among them say that's sexist? Or what about adult women with pre-teen boys?
I say pre-teen because it's not abnormal for an adult to be attracted to a teenager. Under Jewish Law, someone is considered an adult at the age of Bar and Bat Mitzvah. Obviously, someone a young teenager should only be with someone over 18 in marriage. But Secular Law prohibits marriage for people under 18 without parental consent and under Judaism we have to follow the Secular Law unless Secular Law tells us to brake Halacha. But it is normal for men to be attracted to teenage girls (Maybe not 13-15 year olds but at least from 16, teenage girls would be attractive for adult men.).
The first step will be pushes to lower the age of consent, whatever that currently is. Some areas do have an age of consent that's 16 but pedophile advocates are pushing to lower this number. Any particular number might seem arbitrary but if it's allowed to get too low then the pedophiles can always argue for it to be just one year lower. This is why it should be a relatively high number.
Feminists don't care about women's rights. Remember that sex and gender are fluid to them and not something inherent to the person.
They care about pushing the left wing agenda. If they cared about women's rights they would be anti-Islam.
-
The definitions today will be about different types of Gender identities according to liberal defintion. This is not the same thing as sexual orientation. Someone can be any gender and be considered as straight, homosexual, etc. This is also not the same thing as physical sex. The gender identity doesn't always match someone's physical anatomy.
7. Female
This applies to someone who believes that they are female, regardless of physical anatomy. This can apply to a woman who self-identifies as female, as well as a man who self-identfies as female, etc.
8. Male
this applies to someone who believes they are male, regardless of physical anatomy. This can apply to a woman who self-identifies as male, as well as a man who self-identifies as male, etc.
9. Genderqueer
This applies to someone who is somewhere in between the male/female "binary". They may identify as 50% male and 50% female, or some other combination.
Genderqueer people might also change their identity from time to time, feeling more male on some days and more female on others. Genderqueer is an umbrella term for every gender identity that doesn't neatly fit into male or female, so many of the following definitions will also fall under genderqueer.
10. Agender
An agendered person feels they have no gender. They may try to look androgynous. They don't really identify as either male or female but simply as a human person without a gender assignment.
11. Neutrois
This is a person who is agendered and doesn't want to display the physical traits of the sex they were born with. For example a neutrois woman might want to have her breasts reduced because it is a sign of her being female to have larger breasts.
12. Bigender
A bigendered person feels they have two different genders. They might switch from being male to female depending on the situation they're in. For example they may be a man at work but a female at home, or some friends may know them as a woman while others know them as a man.
13. Trigender
This is very similar to Bigender except that there are three genders involved and the behavior may switch around more. Sometimes they may feel between male and female, sometimes they will be male, and sometimes they will be female.
14. Pangender- Pangendered people feel they are all genders at the same time. They feel male and female and everything in between.
15. Transgender - This is someone whose gender assigned at birth does not match their current gender identity. A woman who feels that she is a man inside is transgender even if she never has any kind of external surgery to change her physical sex. Some genderqueer people who feel in between the sexes also consider themselves to be transgender because they were assigned either male or female at birth and they don't feel that assignment describes them how they are now even though they don't feel completely male or female.
16. Third gender
Some societies recognize a third gender in addition to male or female. For example the hijras of India are considered part of a third gender.
17. Cisgender- Someone who is cisgendered has the same physical anatomy as their gender identity. For example, a woman who has a female gender identity, or a man who has a male gender identity. This is what most conservatives would call "normal people". Most people reading
this will be cisgendered as are most people in the world.
18. Cisnormativity
This is the idea that conservatives have that cisgendered people are normal and other gender identities are abnormal. Much like "heteronormativity" described in an earlier post.
Liberals use this word to say that the philosophy of cisnormativity leads to discrimination against people of other gender identities. They believe there is no such thing as normal and that cisgendered people are just more common.
Conservatives believe that cisgendered people are the normal, natural default position of humans and that's why they are more common.
I think this is a strange term because it ends up making the normal people the "sissies".
-
Some people believe that they are birds, others believe they are rocks or trees...
This makes them crazy, it doesn't make them birds, rocks, or trees...
-
Some people believe that they are birds, others believe they are rocks or trees...
This makes them crazy, it doesn't make them birds, rocks, or trees...
Great point! You're absolutely right Muman. One of the points brought up when the subject of transgender children is raised is that children like to pretend to be all kinds of things, including animals and fantasy creatures too.
Conservatives like us believe that if someone is female, they are a female, and if someone is male, they are a male, but liberals see gender as fluid and subject to change.
I'm sharing this information because I want JTFers and other conservatives to be informed about liberal terminology so they can understand these terms when they run across them and be able to debate more effectively.
It's very possible that you may be one day debating with a "Genderqueer" person who accuses you of being biased toward cisnormativity and heteronormativity. If you don't know what these terms mean it will be hard to respond to them in any meaningful way.
-
Isn't queer supposed to be a slur? Or is it like they can say it and it's okay but if we say it, it's "homophobic" just like blacks and the N word?
The first time I saw the word "LGBT" was in college where some professors' offices would have a sticker on the door that said "LGBT Safe Zone". Notice how they put L first because they are feminists and think the female part goes first even though generally, people list a man first, like Mr. and Mrs. or male/female. It also works that way in grammar in languages like Hebrew or French. A male and a female in the plural would be the plural male form. The plural female form would only be for a group of females and no males.
Didn't people usually say "gay and lesbians"? I guess since they are feminists, they think female gays need a separate word. It also works the same in slurs. Faggot and dyke are separate words.
Either way they hijacked an English adjective and a Greek island. The latter part can be like Al Sharpton called all Greeks homos.
-
Isn't queer supposed to be a slur? Or is it like they can see it and it's okay but if we say it, it's "homophobic" just like blacks and the N word?
Queer means a lot of things to them. It can be a slur meaning they are weird/abnormal if used against someone of a non-heterosexual orientation.
Example: "I don't like queers!"
The liberals have reclaimed this term though and it can also be used as a mark of pride by them. "Queer pride" is sometimes used in a similar way to the phrase "gay pride" but is more inclusive because it includes all deviant sexual orientations.
Since a genderqueer person considers themselves to be neither completely male nor completely female, they really are "queer".
The first time I saw the word "LGBT" was in college where some professors offices would have a sticker on the door that said "LGBT Safe Zone". Notice how they put L first because they are feminists and think the female part goes first even though generally, people list a man first, like Mr. and Mrs. or male/female. It also works that way in grammar in languages like Hebrew or French. A male and a female in the plural would be the plural male form. The plural female form would only be for a group of females and no males.
Usually that's true. I actually got into a debate with one of my instructors a few years ago about the fact that male pronouns can be gender-neutral when referring to a group. For example "Everyone in the class must bring his book on trigonometry to math class tomorrow." There could be both male and female students in the trig class, but there is no need to add on the wordy/unnecessary "or her". Now English instructors are teaching that you must say "his or her" or "her or his" in a sentence like that rather than the females being included by simply using a more efficient wording. When I was younger to use phrasing like that would get points taken off your paper for wordiness. Now they say to leave those extra words out is to be sexist. I explained to my instructor that females were already included but she didn't seem to understand this. She said what I learned in the past was the old way of doing things and they have a new set of rules for English now.
Didn't people usually say "gay and lesbians"? I guess since they are feminists, they think female gays need a separate word. It also works the same in slurs. Faggot and dyke a separate words.
Technically they're not really the same though. Obviously due to the different anatomy two gay men will be doing different acts with each other than two lesbian women. The lesbians might have tools to compensate but it will never actually be the same as what two men do with each other. So I can see why they might want a separate term or why a separate term might be more accurate.
The word "homosexual" is more neutral and includes both gay men and lesbian women.
Either way they hijacked an English adjective and a Greek island. The latter part can be like Al Sharpton called all Greeks homos.
I think the reason Al Sharpton said that is that ancient Greece is known for having artwork that displays the beauty of young men/boys and also had a culture in which homosexual acts were accepted. Of course that doesn't mean that back then all Greek people were homosexuals and it certainly doesn't mean that all of them are now.
-
Al Sharpton supports homosexuality. I remember that when he spoke at the Michael Jackson memorial, he told Jackson's "kids" not to listen to what people say because "there was nothing weird about your father". I say Sharpton himself is weird. I remember seeing a picture of him on a JTF video on ZooTube where he in some hair salon with his head in one of those things that women put their hair inside. I remember Chaim saying Sharpton uses hair straighteners and that white tax payers shouldn't pay for it but he actually goes to the hair salon and puts his head inside.
-
Al Sharpton supports homosexuality. I remember that when he spoke at the Michael Jackson memorial, he told Jackson's "kids" not to listen to what people say because "there was nothing weird about your father". I say Sharpton himself is weird. I remember seeing a picture of him on a JTF video on ZooTube where he in some hair salon with his head in one of those things that women put their hair inside. I remember Chaim saying Sharpton uses hair straighteners and that white tax payers shouldn't pay for it but he actually goes to the hair salon and puts his head inside.
That's pretty funny!
Remember though that liberals don't see anything weird about any deviant sexual activities, no matter how depraved. So Al Sharpton would also likely see Michael Jackson's pedophile activities as not being "weird".
-
The definitions today will be about sexual identities. This is the physical form rather than the gender identity. Both liberals and conservatives would recognize the first three as being valid.
19. Male sex assigned at birth.
This means that the person has male anatomy, and usually male secondary characteristics. They will have male genitalia, and after puberty they will have a deeper voice, more muscles, more facial hair, and other male characteristics.
20. Female sex assigned at birth.
This means that the person has female anatomy, and usually female secondary characteristics. They will have female genitalia, and after puberty they will have enlarged breasts, a menstrual cycle, a higher pitched voice than males, less facial hair than males, and other female characteristics.
21. Intersex
This one is more tricky. Some people are born with what's called "ambiguous genitalia". What this means is that it's hard for the doctors to tell right away if the baby is a boy or a girl. This can be caused by a very small penis or a very large clitoris that's hard to differentiate. Some people have organs that are somewhere in between ovaries and testicles. Some people have genetic or other conditions that cause them to be somewhere in between male and female. This is a real physical thing that liberals didn't make up and there are various conditions that can cause people to be somewhere in between physically.
22. Transsexual
This is someone who wants to transition away from their "Sex assigned at birth" to another physical sex. For example a man might want to physically transition to a woman and this would be called a MtF (male to female) transsexual. If a woman wants to physically transition to a man, they are called an FtM (female to male) transsexual.
23. Transman
This is a woman who is transitionining or has transitioned to be physically male.
24. Transwoman
This is a man who is transitioning or has transitioned to be physically female.
Note: The above two definitions are the opposite of what you might expect them to be. A transman is not a man and a transwoman is not a woman. A transman is someone who was born female and a transwoman is someone who was born male.
The transman is called that because they are now physically male and the transwoman is called that because they are now physically female.
25. Top surgery
This involves breast reduction for women to create a more male appearance. It can also involve breast implants for men, but usually men will develop female looking breasts if they are given female hormones. They might get implants if the hormones don't create large enough breasts for their preference.
26. Bottom surgery.
This involves surgery on the genitalia to create the appearance of male or female anatomy.
27. Other transitional tools: hormone therapies, laser hair removal for men, plastic surgery to make the face look more masculine or feminine, implants around the body to change the shape of of the hips, etc.
Some men will have a dangerous surgery done to shorten their vocal chords so they don't have to speak in a falsetto to sound female.
28. Neuter
These are people who have had external signs of being male or female removed from their bodies. This may or may not involve genital surgery. Some men for whatever reason desire castration without wanting to transition into a female form for a variety of reasons ranging from gender identity issues to wanting it for other reasons. Some people have also been sentenced to such alterations by their government's justice system.
It should be important to note that some people have been genitally altered when this was not an attempt to transition them from male to female or female to male. Examples of this type of altering would be male and female circumscision. Male circumscision is very different from what is often called female circumscision (female circumcision is always abusive and mutilation) but both are types of genital-altering surgery which are not linked to trying to transition to a different gender identity. These are not the same thing as altering the genitals to change someone's gender or sexual identity.
-
Do the people that have what they call "sex changes" have sexual feelings after their sex organs were removed? Specifically, do the males have such feelings from their deviant sexual attractions after their genitals were removed? I can understand how females may have such a feeling after becoming what they consider to be a "man" because the female reproductive organs are internal while the male organs are external. I always thought that a man with no testicles couldn't have a sexual feeling so wouldn't that be the case with a man that becomes what he considers to be a "woman"?
-
We should call it Homosexual Mythology.
Just like there is pagan mythology, there is also "Biblical Criticism" mythology [Where mythological beings such as the Elokist (They write h rather than k.) and the Hashemist (What they call J as in J witness.) that are mythological writers of the Bible in their mythology and yet they have the nerve to call the Bible mythology.], PLO mythology (With terms like Palestine, Palestinian, West Bank, Al-Quds, and Nablus.), there is no a whole homosexual mythology with their own belief system. This is their own religion that they created since they reject G-d. Out of the above three mythologies, the first is polytheistic, the second is atheist, the third is monotheistic (Islam), and the fourth is another form of atheism.
-
Do the people that have what they call "sex changes" have sexual feelings after their sex organs were removed? Specifically, do the males have such feelings from their deviant sexual attractions after their genitals were removed? I can understand how females may have such a feeling after becoming what they consider to be a "man" because the female reproductive organs are internal while the male organs are external. I always thought that a man with no testicles couldn't have a sexual feeling so wouldn't that be the case with a man that becomes what he considers to be a "woman"?
I'm going to try to be tactful as much as possible here. Sensation is preserved most of the time.
Here's a link with some more information. It is written by a liberal and uses a lot of the words I've defined in this thread:
http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/gender-reassignment-surgery
-
We should call it Homosexual Mythology.
Just like there is pagan mythology, there is also "Biblical Criticism" mythology [Where mythological beings such as the Elokist (They write h rather than k.) and the Hashemist (What they call J as in J witness.) that are mythological writers of the Bible in their mythology and yet they have the nerve to call the Bible mythology.], PLO mythology (With terms like Palestine, Palestinian, West Bank, Al-Quds, and Nablus.), there is no a whole homosexual mythology with their own belief system. This is their own religion that they created since they reject G-d. Out of the above three mythologies, the first is polytheistic, the second is atheist, the third is monotheistic (Islam), and the fourth is another form of atheism.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Liberals seem to make a religion out of liberalism in general. Certainly all these gender and sexuality topics are very important to them, but some of the others are also important.
One of the major reasons people need God is that they need God to guide them morally. Liberals don't want morality, normalcy, or any kind of standard of behavior to exist. Some individual liberals would argue with this, as they certainly have their own ideas of ethics, social justice, etc. but they will not line up with what we as conservatives think is moral, ethical, or just.
-
I would not get into such depth arguing with a liberal.
Why legitimize words and ideas they choose, co-opt, or make up in an attempt to legitimize deviant behavior?
You are never going to convince them of your beliefs.
We better concentrate on educating our young...before they do.
And talking to children does not have to include educating them on every deviant behavior there is.
That is what is being done to them. With clubs in schools like the Straight and Gay Friendship Clubs. Propaganda.
You have to try to remind them what is expected of them from G-d (based on the religious upbringing they have) and from you.
You can be decent to others...that doesn't mean you have to accept their lifestyle. That is what I try to tell my child.
We must prepare children to have a backbone and not follow the herd.
-
I would not get into such depth arguing with a liberal.
Why legitimize words and ideas they choose, co-opt, or make up in an attempt to legitimize deviant behavior?
You are never going to convince them of your beliefs.
We better concentrate on educating our young...before they do.
And talking to children does not have to include educating them on every deviant behavior there is.
That is what is being done to them. With clubs in schools like the Straight and Gay Friendship Clubs. Propaganda.
You have to try to remind them what is expected of them from G-d (based on the religious upbringing they have) and from you.
You can be decent to others...that doesn't mean you have to accept their lifestyle. That is what I try to tell my child.
We must prepare children to have a backbone and not follow the herd.
I know that this thread might make some people uncomfortable. These are terms that come up on a daily basis in news stories, politicians speeches, liberal propaganda, etc.
We had to learn some of their code words already to be able to understand that.
For example, most conservatives are aware that "Pro choice" and "A woman's right to choose" means abortion. That might seem to be an obvious example but a lot of these other terms/code words are just as important to understand and decode but are not as well known by conservatives.
Another example would be how "illegal aliens" have turned into "Undocumented immigrants" or "undocumented workers". The latter phrases change the game in a sneaky way. Gone is the negative connotation of "illegal", because according to liberals "No human is illegal". It also puts the focus on the fact that these people don't have legal documents. Giving illegal aliens documents doesn't fix the problem. That's called amnesty. However if all you have to do to change an "undocumented worker" to a "documented worker" is to give them amnesty, this tricks people into thinking amnesty is the solution, simply by a change in words.
Ask people if they are for making illegal aliens legal and many people will say no. Ask people if they are for giving documents to undocumented workers and many of those same people will say yes. Words like this are important to understand for this reason.
I noticed a lot of conservatives have no idea what these terms mean when it comes to gender identity/sexual orientation, etc. especially when they mean the opposite of what they seem to mean. So I am trying to help decode these terms. I spent time researching this and I'm trying to make the liberal's word game crap not work as well since we will not be confused by them but will know what they are actually saying.
I'm not legitimizing these terms. I'm teaching what these terms mean because we need to be able to decode the stuff that liberals are saying and some of it has completely opposite definitions to what we think they might mean.
Young people will learn the liberal definition of these words.
Imagine that a conservative has a teen son who is having a gender identity problem. The conservative parent tells the child that being heterosexual is the right way to be according to the Bible. The child might respond that they ARE heterosexual.
If the parent then sees the son acting in a romantic way with other males then the parent might not understand why their child just claimed to be heterosexual. This puts the parent a disadvantage because the parent and son are quite literally speaking two different languages.
Whenever possible I try to give both the conservative and liberal definitions so that people can see how they are different.
-
Let me take one of the terms that I am going to post about tonight and expand on it a little more as another example. The term "Allies".
Young people, especially in liberal anti-bullying campaigns, are being encouraged to be "LGBT allies". What this means is that these straight people are being recruited to serve the left wing cause of disrupting society through promoting and normalizing homosexuality and other deviancies.
They may think that what they are doing is simply being a sympathetic ear to someone who is being bullied but in reality they are being recruited to serve the left wing's agenda.
Now think about the choice of the word "Allies". What's the opposite of allies? Enemies. So basically if you're not declaring yourself an "Ally" then to the liberals you must be an "enemy" of anyone with a different sexual orientation. This makes for a very black and white stance.
Take this article for example
http://www.nationofchange.org/exclusive-rubio-says-it-should-be-legal-fire-someone-being-gay-1371216610
In the article, relatively liberal Republican, Rubio, is basically made out to be a KKK member because he doesn't believe that "LGBT" people should have special protections. He's not an "ally", therefore he's an "enemy".
Most of the words are tricky like this. They are dangerous and destructive. They have power to manipulate the way people think and warp people's worldviews.
That's why we need to understand them so we can counter them.
-
I don't know what kind of world we live in.
It is all very sad.
The thread doesn't really make me uncomfortable, Rubystars.
As much as I will not get down in the dirt and argue with a liberal on their level.
G-d meant for a man and a woman to be together. Period.
After awhile I think people are smart enough to know if their child is gay, bi, or blah, blah, blah ...
No matter what denial or deviousness ( using code words) comes out of their mouth.
People need to stand behind thier beliefs with conviction...especially, in front of thier children.
For me that doesn't mean ostracizing a child that is confused about their sexuality. It is attempting to guide them in the ways G-d expects us to live our lives.
I , and I'm sure most JTFers, appreciate your efforts though. And they will put your hard work to good use.
-
I would not get into such depth arguing with a liberal.
Why legitimize words and ideas they choose, co-opt, or make up in an attempt to legitimize deviant behavior?
You are never going to convince them of your beliefs.
We better concentrate on educating our young...before they do.
And talking to children does not have to include educating them on every deviant behavior there is.
That is what is being done to them. With clubs in schools like the Straight and Gay Friendship Clubs. Propaganda.
You have to try to remind them what is expected of them from G-d (based on the religious upbringing they have) and from you.
You can be decent to others...that doesn't mean you have to accept their lifestyle. That is what I try to tell my child.
We must prepare children to have a backbone and not follow the herd.
Bravo.
-
I don't know what kind of world we live in.
It is all very sad.
The thread doesn't really make me uncomfortable, Rubystars.
As much as I will not get down in the dirt and argue with a liberal on their level.
G-d meant for a man and a woman to be together. Period.
After awhile I think people are smart enough to know if their child is gay, bi, or blah, blah, blah ...
No matter what denial or deviousness ( using code words) comes out of their mouth.
People need to stand behind thier beliefs with conviction...especially, in front of thier children.
For me that doesn't mean ostracizing a child that is confused about their sexuality. It is attempting to guide them in the ways G-d expects us to live our lives.
I , and I'm sure most JTFers, appreciate your efforts though. And they will put your hard work to good use.
I agree with you that people need to stand up for their conservative beliefs. I'm trying to help people be able to do that. I only have a few more posts to go on this particular subset of liberal terminology, then I will move onto another set of liberal terminologies. Those will usually be less gross/disgusting/squicky. I don't like this stuff either.
I also believe that you can treat someone decently without agreeing with their lifestyle choices. I try to be kind to just about everyone I meet.
However the liberals believe that if you're not an ally, you're an enemy, so they make enemies out of conservatives. They set one person against another. The conservatives are not causing this problem. We didn't start this fight but we may have to finish it.
-
Here's my plan for the rest of this topic before I move on to another one:
1. A list of definitions of sexual orientations with notes
2. A list of romantic orientations and an explanation of how this is different from sexual orientation
3. A terminology "Quiz" with both the liberal and conservative answers to show how they are different.
I plan to post these over the next three days.
Then I will begin to post terminology from another topic.
Please be patient and understand this is being posted with the best intentions and I hope it is helping people to be able to decode the liberal speak.
Please feel free to ask questions along the way as some JTFers have been doing. It really helps if someone is confused about something if they ask a question, then I can clarify and it might help another reader to understand things better too.
-
I wonder if an average Liberal actually believes in the sexual deviancy nonsense. Many Liberals may be Liberals by default since they don't know any better or have not been exposed to the truth. Many Leftists probably don't approve of homosexuality. I know in Israel even many Leftists who are Left Wing on Israeli politics probably can't stand homosexuality. Political correctness has not taken over in Israel. Only the hardcore Peace Now type Leftists promote homosexuality there. Many Secular Jews there are Leftist by default because they don't know any better. They probably are Leftists because they want to do whatever they feel like even if it's against Judaism but at the same time, they can't stand homosexuality nonsense.
-
I wonder if an average Liberal actually believes in the sexual deviancy nonsense. Many Liberals may be Liberals by default since they don't know any better or have not been exposed to the truth. Many Leftists probably don't approve of homosexuality. I know in Israel even many Leftists who are Left Wing on Israeli politics probably can't stand homosexuality. Political correctness has not taken over in Israel. Only the hardcore Peace Now type Leftists promote homosexuality there. Many Secular Jews there are Leftist by default because they don't know any better. They probably are Leftists because they want to do whatever they feel like even if it's against Judaism but at the same time, they can't stand homosexuality nonsense.
If they vote for left wing politicians they support the homosexual agenda as a package deal. So, regardless of their personal feelings on homosexuality, they are still supporting the homosexual political agenda.
Many black people for example do not approve of homosexuality,same sex marriage, or many of the deviant things I've been discussing so far. However that doesn't matter one bit if they voted for Obama because he's black. They just supported the homosexual agenda in a meaningful way.
A lot of these black people go to church on Sunday and sing Amazing Grace, praise Jesus, and give testimonies about how Christianity is important to them and changed their life. However if they went to the voting booth and cast their vote for Obama, they just supported discrimination against Christians and Christian values. All their personal beliefs don't matter because their actions have supported the evil agenda.
So if leftist Jews declare themselves to be leftists and support the leftist agenda, they support the whole leftist agenda whether they realize it or not. This is particularly true if they support the UN in any way. The UN is notorious for pushing the left wing agenda world wide.
-
I had an affirmative action teacher in college in a seminar called "White Culture" which she basically defined as being racist against blacks. I wrote my final paper on real white culture and how whites are diverse and there are many kinds of white culture. I wrote about Chabad as an example of a sect of a white ethnic group (Jews). That teacher said there was no white culture in Europe and it only came to be when whites were around non-whites. She also made us buy a book called "How the Irish became white". I looked up the author and it was by some Left Wing Anti-Israel animal.
Well the AA teacher said that as a religious Jew, she doesn't understand why I wouldn't vote for Obama. She also claimed that black Jews had the "purest" form of Judaism, I because she is against the real [Rabbinic] Judaism. She also said everyone was black and said the Garden of Eden was in Ethiopia and used Left Wing archeology for that even though the archeologists were talking about evolution. She said the Bible is mostly in the Middle East and Africa. Africa does not play a large role in the Bible other than Egypt.
She seemed to be a confused Christian as well because she thought Obama was a religious Christian and she was opposed to abortion and said abortion is a form of eugenics if used to abort unhealthy babies.
I actually showed her JTF's page with a picture of Obama dressed up in Muslim garb in Kenya and she said "Dat's not Muslim grab, dat's African grab.". This was during the Fall 2008 Election season. She didn't believe Obama was a Muslim.
So the teacher thought that what I wrote about the ideology and origins of Chabad was irrelevant. Also, in the part she thought was relevant like the Crown Heights Pogrom, she said "Why call the man racist?" when I called Dinkins and Sharpton racist. She also thought I should have focused more on the clash of Chabad and white rural America in Iowa at the kosher slaughterhouse in Postville.
The reason I had to take that class was because I needed a seminar to graduate and there were only two offered and only 15 people could be a class and the other one was full. The other one was probably nonsense also. It was a by a white teacher who taught African History and it focused on something about economics and the Third World. I don't remember exactly. My dad thought it was funny that the white teacher taught Africa and the black teacher taught "white culture". But the "white culture" class was basically black nonsense anyway.
-
Instructors/professors tend to be the looniest of leftists. They are put in a position of authority and use that to try to indoctrinate other people into their leftist ideology which is often much stranger and more left wing than that of the average liberal on the street.
I had an affirmative action teacher in college in a seminar called "White Culture" which she basically defined as being racist against blacks.
Liberals believe that whites should not identify with their own culture or cultures. Instead whites are taught that they should consider themselves to be raceless in most circumstances. The only time a white person should self-identify as white is when it's time to feel bad or guilty about it, or to take on the blame and shame of everything bad any white person has ever done in history. White people are said to be "privileged" even though affirmative action and other race-based programs do not benefit whites.
To liberals, white people as a whole are seen as bloodthirsty racist barbarians who only made any progress at all because they were taught everything by smart black people and other "people of color". If it weren't for people of color, according to liberals, whites would still be banging rocks together as a main profession and talking in grunts and eeks.
The fact that this doesn't fit reality or true history doesn't matter to the liberals. They see reality as flexible and don't believe in absolute truth.
I wrote my final paper on real white culture and how whites are diverse and there are many kinds of white culture. I wrote about Chabad as an example of a sect of a white ethnic group (Jews). That teacher said there was no white culture in Europe and it only came to be when whites were around non-whites. She also made us buy a book called "How the Irish became white". I looked up the author and it was by some Left Wing Anti-Israel animal.
There was hatred and discrimination that was intra-racial. Some groups of whites enslaved other whites and some groups of whites were looked down upon by other groups of whites. This doesn't make Irish people Asian or African though simply because they faced discrimination or hatred in the past by other groups of white people.
Liberals would tell you that the definition of "white" has changed. This may be true for the social aspects, but there are also biological and physical differences between the races which most liberals refuse to acknowledge that show in general who belongs to what racial group.
Well the AA teacher said that as a religious Jew, she doesn't understand why I wouldn't vote for Obama.
That's because most "religious Jews" she's encountered have been extreme leftists. She probably considers Reform and Conservative Judaism to be religious Judaism on the same level as Orthodox Judaism.
She also claimed that black Jews had the "purest" form of Judaism, I because she is against the real [Rabbinic] Judaism. She also said everyone was black and said the Garden of Eden was in Ethiopia and used Left Wing archeology for that even though the archeologists were talking about evolution. She said the Bible is mostly in the Middle East and Africa. Africa does not play a large role in the Bible other than Egypt.
That's the standard liberal fantasy.
She seemed to be a confused Christian as well because she thought Obama was a religious Christian and she was opposed to abortion and said abortion is a form of eugenics if used to abort unhealthy babies.
It doesn't matter. She supports Obama, she supports abortion. She supports eugenics and the extermination of many black babies especially who would otherwise have been born. She may not think she supports these things, but when she chooses to vote for liberals, she is choosing to support abortion.
I actually showed her JTF's page with a picture of Obama dressed up in Muslim garb in Kenya and she said "Dat's not Muslim grab, dat's African grab.". This was during the Fall 2008 Election season. She didn't believe Obama was a Muslim.
It's African Muslim garb.
So the teacher thought that what I wrote about the ideology and origins of Chabab was irrelevant. Also, in the part she thought was relevant like the Crown Heights Pogrom, she said "Why call the man racist?" when I called Dinkins and Sharpton racist.
I am going to get to this in a later post, but basically racist only applies to white people (unless a nonwhite attacks someone higher on the liberal totem pole). Liberals argue that a "person of color" can't be racist because they are not part of the "White heterosexual patriarchal power structure". Therefore they don't, according to liberals, have any power to wield against other races. Therefore people of color can't be "Racist". Only whites can be "racist" because whites have a place in the "power structure" and have "white privilege".
It doesn't seem to matter that Obama holds the most powerful position (in theory) in our government right now. This kind of cognitive dissonance is normal for liberals.
-
That's because most "religious Jews" she's encountered have been extreme leftists. She probably considers Reform and Conservative Judaism to be religious Judaism on the same level as Orthodox Judaism.
She might have said "as an Orthodox Jew", she doesn't understand why I wouldn't vote for Obama.
-
http://www.tonyathamestaylor.com
I found her webpage.
Her name be LaTonya, UMM HMM!
She also doesn't capitalize her name. I asked her why and she said she never did. But the university capitalized her name. I think she ended up being chair of the History Department after I left. I graduated in Decmeber, 2008, so when I was in her class, it was my last semester (Fall, 2008). She gave me a C. The grades don't matter anyway because if you are a white person in this country, you can't get a job if you are college educated. They'd rather hire uneducated simple people "dat be talkin' like dis". The whole system when applying for a job is based upon them. You usually apply on a computer and the computer rejects people automatically. It also give silly quizzes that have nothng to do with the job. They'd rather hire blacks who enter their race as black than whites that are smart. If it asks race, I would usually decline to answer.
-
Here is an article I found about her. I saw her on the local news a few months ago acting like Jesse Jackson (Accusing people of being racist.).
By Michaelle Bond, Inquirer Staff Writer
Posted: October 02, 2013
COATESVILLE With the highly offensive text messages in hand, the two employees of the Coatesville Area school board reached out to the one person they thought could be trusted to do the right thing: Tonya Thames Taylor.
The choice made sense. Taylor was both president of the local chapter of the NAACP and a member of the school board. She would become a key figure in the drama that led to the resignations of Superintendent Richard Como and athletic director Donato.
Taylor, however, has not escaped unscathed. During a contentious meeting of the school board last week that culminated in the board's accepting Como's and Donato's resignations, Taylor faced criticism from some in the audience who accused her of not moving quickly enough once she had the texts in hand Aug. 18.
The board has said it acted as swiftly as possible, given the circumstances. Taylor said the fact that the two employees entrusted the sensitive information to her shows how well regarded she is in the community, as an activist and member of the school board.
"It was a reflection that, in the face of this enormous betrayal, I was the one person they could reach out to and talk to," Taylor, a history professor at West Chester University, said in an interview.
Still, some in Coatesville argue that Taylor cannot be both a civil rights activist and a member of a board that some say might have been inclined to cover up the texting scandal. "That's nonsense," Taylor said. "Then you can never work in America if you work in civil rights." She noted that she was already a member of the school board when the local NAACP chapter elected her president.
Sylvia Washington, a member of the local NAACP, disagreed with Taylor's detractors and said she acted appropriately.
"It would have been a conflict if she had gone to the NAACP. From a legal point of view, she did the right thing," Washington said. "To use this as a platform to target her while the real issues aren't being addressed is a disservice to the community."
As to criticism that there was a delay in acting on the text messages, Taylor said the board first had to confirm that they were authentic and were exchanged between Como and Donato. Not doing so could have exposed the board to legal action.
Criticism of Taylor has also come from some members of the local chapter of the NAACP, whose executive board met last night at Taylor's request. Hank Hamilton, a vice president of the local chapter, said some members questioned Taylor's leadership and her decision to hold the meeting, given her role on the school board.
"I didn't want to jeopardize the local chapter's authenticity and reputation," Hamilton said. "The public has their eye on us. . . . The right thing is not to have a conflict of interest."
Elwood Dixon, an executive board member of the NAACP's local branch, said Taylor should have told the local chapter about the text messages before members heard about them in the news media. In his view, Taylor put the good of the school board before the good of the NAACP and the community.
"I, myself, would like to see her go," he said. "I really don't think we have any leadership. And it's because of the conflict of interest."
Taylor is vehement in her defense. "I know that my actions through this entire process show I operated with integrity and fidelity in a way that was best for the district," she said.
The local chapter last night voted to accept a role in an inquiry by the NAACP's Pennsylvania chapter. It will set up any public meetings and collect any complaints filed against the school district.
-
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1192968
I found people exposing her.
-
My experience in the Software Engineering field is that without the requisite skills, you are not even considered for the position. I work in a field where what you know is way more important than who you know. There are no affirmative action workers in my field. They would not be able to survive.
Currently there are no african american software engineers in my company. And most of my company is composed of ethnic Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc) and then with several Europeans (French, Romanian, Hungarian, Moldavian, etc)... I am one of about four natural born Americans working here...
-
My experience in the Software Engineering field is that without the requisite skills, you are not even considered for the position. I work in a field where what you know is way more important than who you know. There are no affirmative action workers in my field. They would not be able to survive.
Currently there are no african american software engineers in my company. And most of my company is composed of ethnic Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc) and then with several Europeans (French, Romanian, Hungarian, Moldavian, etc)... I am one of about four natural born Americans working here...
Well obviously a true AA person could not work in that type of job. Only an intelligent person could do that. I'm talking about simple jobs like working in a supermarket. They think I'm overly qualified. Only in Israel do college degree people get lower jobs. Many Jews from Russia were doctors but in Israel they got lower jobs because there was less of a demand in Israel because there is not room for everyone to have a high paying job. The real problem in the US for Jews is that Jewish restaurants and other Jewish businesses don't hire enough Jews. They hire other people that could work at non-kosher places. Non-Jews shouldn't get a job at the expense of Jews if it's a Jewish business. If you work in a Jewish store, it's easier to take off for holidays and you don't have to explain why you can't work certain days and have to go home early.
Most people can forget about it if they want to work at a large corporate owned store such as a supermarket or pharmacy (Like CVS). The easiest way to get a job is if the application is handwritten and if the store is locally owned with only one location. But there are not enough people in those jobs. I don't even bother looking for a job because they would never hire me. When I graduated college, I thought the next step in life is to get a job and get married. It's way easier to get a college degree than to find a job. I'm sure working once you have a job, is easier to work than getting a college degree but finding a job is very hard. In this country it's not a RIGHT to have a job. It's a PRIVILEGE of the select few. Members of the ruling class (the blacks) have the easiest time finding a job. Some whites have specialized skills at jobs that involve Science or being a lawyer. But if you are a white person who doesn't have those skills but are intelligent and interested in different subjects, you will never find a job in this country.
-
My experience in the Software Engineering field is that without the requisite skills, you are not even considered for the position. I work in a field where what you know is way more important than who you know. There are no affirmative action workers in my field. They would not be able to survive.
Currently there are no african american software engineers in my company. And most of my company is composed of ethnic Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc) and then with several Europeans (French, Romanian, Hungarian, Moldavian, etc)... I am one of about four natural born Americans working here...
It must be good to work in an industry like that where your skill matters more than your background. Some highly skilled jobs like that will have very few to zero blacks in them because they actually need to be done right. I'm sure that some black activist somewhere like that instructor that was mentioned in this thread may one day find out about your company and others like it and accuse them of institutional racism. For the liberals to acknowledge that blacks are in general less likely to be qualified for such a job would be for them to be ejected from the liberal community.
-
The definitions today will be about sexual orientations.
You might think I've already covered this, but I have not covered it in-depth yet. I've covered gender identity, the difference between gender and sex, and sexual identities. Sexual orientations are something different.
Some of this material might be disturbing but I feel that it is necessary to define many of these terms.
Many conservatives are not familiar with most of these terms and that's why I'm trying to help teach what they mean.
TRIGGER WARNING! I will warn again that this material might have triggers for people who are sensitive to triggers.
29. Heterosexual
To conservatives, this means that a man is sexually attracted to women or a woman is sexually attracted to men. To liberals, it means someone with a male gender identity is sexually attracted to people with a female gender identity or someone with a female gender identity is sexually attracted to people with a male gender identity.
The difference is important because to a liberal, a man who is sexually attracted to other men isn't necessarily a homosexual. If the man has a female gender identity and is sexually attracted to men, liberals would consider him to be a heterosexual woman. Conservatives would see him as a homosexual man.
30. Straight
This usually refers to heterosexuals by the conservative definition, but can apply to the wider liberal definition of heterosexual depending on how it's used. For example I was once told by a transwoman that "Lots of straight men would be interested in marrying a transwoman." When I argued that they wouldn't be straight "she" got offended and said that "she" would be a woman after transition and many "straight men" would recognize her as such.
31. Homosexual
Conservatives would define this as a man that is sexually attracted to other men or a woman that is sexually attracted to other women. Liberals would define this as someone with a male gender identity being sexually attracted to other people with a male gender identity or someone with a female gender identity being sexually attracted to other people with a female gender identity.
If a woman with a male gender identity is sexually attracted to other women who have a female gender identity, conservatives would say she is homosexual. Liberals would say she is heterosexual.
32. Gay
Someone with a male gender identity who is sexually attracted to other people with a male gender identity is said to be gay. Most of the time this is a man that is sexually attracted to other men but by liberal definition a "man" is not always a man.
Occasionally liberals will also include lesbians under this term. A "gay pride parade" for example is for both male and female homosexuals, whether they be gay or lesbian.
33. Lesbian
Someone with a female gender identity who is sexually attracted to other people with a female gender identity. Most of the time this is a woman who is sexually attracted to other women but by liberal definition a "woman" is not always a woman.
Gay men are never included under this term unless they have a female gender identity. A man with a female gender identity who is sexually attracted to another man with a female gender identity would be considered to be a lesbian, not a gay man by liberals. A man with a female gender identity who is sexually attracted to women would also be considered to be a lesbian by liberals.
Also a transwoman who is attracted to women, other transwomen, or males with a female gender identity would be considered to be a lesbian.
34. Queer
In terms of sexual orientation, queer can mean anything that's not straight or heterosexual. "Queer pride" is a more inclusive term than "Gay pride".
35. Bisexual
This involves people who have both heterosexual and homosexual sexual attraction. They may prefer one over the other but be open to both, or they may have sexual attraction to men and women equally.
36.Asexual or Ace
This is a person who is not sexually attracted to other people. They may or may not have sex. Some asexual people choose to have sex to please a romantic partner or for the purpose of having children but they have no true sexual attraction to other people.
37. Hyposexual, Gray-A, or Gray Asexual
These are people who do sometimes experience sexual attraction to other people, but not as often or as strongly as most people do, or they have a low sex drive.
38. Demisexual
These are people who only feel sexually attracted to someone else after they form an emotional bond or attachment with that person.
39. Pansexual or Omnisexual
This is a person who is sexually attracted to all genders.
40. Heteroflexibility
A person who is heteroflexible usually is heterosexually attracted but occasionally has homosexual attraction or is open to occasional homosexual sex even though they primarily prefer heterosexual sex.
Important Note: This is part of what Alfred Kinsey followers use to claim that 10% of the population is homosexual.
41. Homoflexibility
A person who is homoflexible usually is homosexually attracted but occasionally has heterosexual attraction or is open to occasional heterosexual sex even though they primarily prefer homosexual sex.
42. Bicurious
A bicurious person is someone who is predominately heterosexual or homosexual but is curious about exploring a sexual relationship with the type of person they are not usually attracted to. They have no or very little experience with this type of sexual relationship but are curious about trying it.
43. Questioning
A questioning person is someone who is not yet sure what their sexual orientation is, but is open to different options.
Important Note: Children in sexual education programs in public school are often encouraged to question their own sexual orientation. They are told that they might be gay, or straight. This plants a seed in the mind for them to think that way then they otherwise might not have considered themselves anything but normal. This is especially damaging if it is done in younger aged classes.
44. Skoliosexual
Someone who is skoliosexual is primarily attracted to people who are of non-binary gender identity. They would be primarily attracted to people who identify as genderqueer. Even many liberals don't know what this one means so by knowing a term like this you can trip them up when they try to call you "ignorant" or "uneducated" for being conservative.
45. LGBT
An acronym meaning Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender.
46. Allies
These are people who are not of a particular sexual orientation but choose to be supportive of those who are or of the gay rights/queer rights agenda as a whole. Usually this is meant to refer to straight or heterosexual allies of the "LGBT" community but can also refer to people of any sexual orientation who are allies of non-standard orientations. Liberal anti-bullying campaigns usually encourage straight people to be "allies". When someone declares that they are "straight but not narrow", they are declaring themselves as an LGBT ally.
47. LGBTQIA or LGBTQQIAA
An acronym meaning Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (or Questioning), Intersex, Allies (or Asexual)
48. Intergenerational intimacy/minor attracted people - These are pedophiles. Liberals want to normalize pedophilia.
Important Note: Look at how Michael Jackson continues to be put up on a pedestal even though he was known to have victimized young boys sexually. This is because the liberal establishment sees nothing wrong with this behavior.
49. Sadomasochism or S&M
This involves being turned on by particpating in various acivities involving physical pain, injury, and/or being tied up/caged, either as the dominant or the submissive role.
50. Dom/Top - The dominant partner in a sadomasochistic relationship
51. Sub/Bottom - The submissive partner in a sadomasochistic relationship
There are many deviant practices that fall under the S&M banner. What is important to know is that this kind of deviancy is being promoted as normal and healthy by liberals when it is certainly not.
Important note: One of the complaints from people attending Disney world during an un-announced "Gay Day" is that they and their children were subjected to seeing Doms leading their Subs around on leashes and ordering the Subs around. This is an important part of the larger gay subculture even though not all homosexual people engage in it and sadomasochism is also practiced by heterosexuals. Normal people may run across these practices in public (such as the people who went to Disneyworld not knowing it was one of their gay days) and be shocked by it, especially if they don't know what's going on.
I know that some of the material in this post is very disturbing but keep in mind that liberals want to make all of these things completely acceptable in society, including the most horribe such as pedophilia.
They will do disgusting things in public in order to shock conservatives and then accuse the conservatives of hatred and bigotry for not embracing it. They may go out and act hateful/obscene/disgusting, but then they will accuse you of hatred/bigotry for considering their behavior wrong. They will say you, the normal person, is in the wrong and that you need to accept their behavior as normal and healthy no matter how disgusting or destructive it is.
-
Isn't sexual orientation itself a madeup nonsense word? It's like politically correct and affirmative action which are words that mean nothing together and were put together by Leftists for made for their madeup words. Even religious preference is a madeup words. I remember once on Yom Kippur when the rabbi was talking about Yonah who said "I'm a Hebrew who fears Hashem Who created the seas and the dry lands.", he mentioned how people talk about "religious preference". It's not a choice. If you are Jewish, that's it. There is no choice. Jews must be Jews. I guess other religions would say the same about their own religions as well.
-
It's also silly how sometimes on online surverys, they sometimes (rarely) ask about "sexual orientations". First it says heterosexual and the other choices are all homosexual choices (Homo, bi, and trans.). I guess they don't ask gay or lesbian because they already ask if you are male or female.
It's also silly when they ask if you are Hispanic. Sometimes they ask it on the same screen where in a different question they ask race. But what if when someone puts in Hispanic they don't ask them their race separately? They try to deny whites from Latin America from being white. They also give a ton of chocies of what kind of Hispanic [Meaning countries but not the relevant racial choices (White, black, Amerindian, Mestizo, or Multatto.).] but no sub-choices choices under white. But then under "Asian" they give a choice of many countries and they include Indian under Asian even though Indians are not of the same race as Orientals.
Sometimes they list Middle Eastern separate from white. If they do that I click on white because Middle Eastern is not my race. It's my ethnicity. In a question where white and black are choices, they shouldn't list non-race names. If they asked ethnicity and the choices were European, Middle Eastern, African, East Asian..., then I would put Middle Eastern. People act like only Europeans are white. All those Liberals make me angry with their "politically correct" language. It reminds me of when I was younger and get mad and yell at people and call Nazis and say Yimach Shemo, etc....
Besides Jews and Arabs, there are many other white Asian groups, some of whom would be considered European culturally such as Georgia and Armenia. I think those countries are actually in Asia but they are culturally like Greeks and other Southeastern Europeans. Some people are just so stupid and don't understand basic map skills so they dumb down everything and all the definitions.
-
This usually refers to heterosexuals by the conservative definition, but can apply to the wider liberal definition of heterosexual depending on how it's used. For example I was once told by a transwoman that "Lots of straight men would be interested in marrying a transwoman." When I argued that they wouldn't be straight "she" got offended and said that "she" would be a woman after transition and many "straight men" would recognize her as such.
I heard of a man marrying such a "woman". He said it didn't bother him because "she" was just like any woman he's ever been with. I might have seen it from a post on the forum. Well they were both ugly anyway.
Do they get offended when we say we're straight and they're crooked? What is the origin of the term straight to refer to normal people? Was it made up normal people? I remember the Boy Scouts had the word straight in their oath or whatever it was called and because of that, they didn't allow homosexuals in the organization until they were sued.
-
I had an affirmative action teacher in college in a seminar called "White Culture" which she basically defined as being racist against blacks. I wrote my final paper on real white culture and how whites are diverse and there are many kinds of white culture. I wrote about Chabad as an example of a sect of a white ethnic group (Jews). That teacher said there was no white culture in Europe and it only came to be when whites were around non-whites. She also made us buy a book called "How the Irish became white". I looked up the author and it was by some Left Wing Anti-Israel animal.
Well the AA teacher said that as a religious Jew, she doesn't understand why I wouldn't vote for Obama. She also claimed that black Jews had the "purest" form of Judaism, I because she is against the real [Rabbinic] Judaism. She also said everyone was black and said the Garden of Eden was in Ethiopia and used Left Wing archeology for that even though the archeologists were talking about evolution. She said the Bible is mostly in the Middle East and Africa. Africa does not play a large role in the Bible other than Egypt.
She seemed to be a confused Christian as well because she thought Obama was a religious Christian and she was opposed to abortion and said abortion is a form of eugenics if used to abort unhealthy babies.
I actually showed her JTF's page with a picture of Obama dressed up in Muslim garb in Kenya and she said "Dat's not Muslim grab, dat's African grab.". This was during the Fall 2008 Election season. She didn't believe Obama was a Muslim.
So the teacher thought that what I wrote about the ideology and origins of Chabad was irrelevant. Also, in the part she thought was relevant like the Crown Heights Pogrom, she said "Why call the man racist?" when I called Dinkins and Sharpton racist. She also thought I should have focused more on the clash of Chabad and white rural American in Iowa at the kosher slaughterhouse in Postville.
The reason I had to take that class was because I needed a seminar to graduate and there were only two offered and only 15 people could be a class and the other one was full. The other one was probably nonsense also. It was a by a white teacher who taught African History and it focused on something about economics and the Third World. I don't remember exactly. My dad thought it was funny that the white teacher taught Africa and the black teacher taught "white culture". But the "white culture" class was basically black nonsense anyway.
That is so funny! I was talking to a lady today that is married to a Russian Jew from Postville...
And I hear there may be a Kosher company reopening the packing house in my hometown. My hometown has pretty much rotted away, this would be great for the locals, as long as they don't bring in illegals.
-
Isn't sexual orientation itself a madeup nonsense word? It's like politically correct and affirmative action which are words that mean nothing together and were put together by Leftists for made for their madeup words.
They're definitely socially constructed. Basically people's behavior used to be considered to be their behavior. Now someone's sexual preferences and how they act on them define what they are, as a type of person to be.
Homosexual used to refer to homosexual actions (a man having sex with a man, a woman having sex with a woman). Now it refers to some aspect of a person's identity. They are said to be "a" homosexual rather than simply to be engaging in homosexual actions.
On the other hand if someone has an exclusive preference toward one type of person then I can see how it might be descriptive of the person as well, but the whole gay identity/gay culture/homosexual identity/queer identity stuff is fake for the most part.
Even religious preference is a madeup words. I remember once on Yom Kippur when the rabbi was talking about Yonah who said "I'm a Hebrew who fears Hashem Who created the seas and the dry lands.", he mentioned how people talk about "religious preference". It's not a choice. If you are Jewish, that's it. There is no choice. Jews must be Jews. I guess other religions would say the same about their own religions as well.
Words like that are used in very sneaky ways to manipulate how people think.
I heard of a man marrying such a "woman". He said it didn't bother him because "she" was just like any woman he's ever been with. I might have seen it from a post on the forum. Well they were both ugly anyway.
We wouldn't really consider him to be straight but liberals would.
Do they get offended when we say we're straight and they're crooked? What is the origin of the term straight to refer to normal people? Was it made up normal people? I remember the Boy Scouts had the word straight in their oath or whatever it was called and because of that, they didn't allow homosexuals in the organization until they were sued.
They don't believe anyone is crooked because there's no standards of normalcy. They don't believe they are deviants because there's no standard to deviate from. They don't believe that heterosexuality is normal and they are abnormal. Liberals put all sexual preferences on equal footing and say they are all equally normal and part of the human experience.
We on the other hand would say that heterosexuality is the normal, natural state of human beings, and homosexuality and other orientations that aren't heterosexuality are deviant.
I don't know the origins of the word straight as it applies to a sexual orientation, but the boy scouts oath saying to be straight in all their ways wasn't talking about it in terms of that. It just meant they were supposed to act in an honorable, truthful manner.
-
I left out a couple of definitions from the earlier post:
52. Gynosexual -
These are people who feel sexually attracted to people with a female gender identity or to femininity. This would include straight men, lesbians, bisexuals, and anyone else who has an attraction to females.
53. Androsexual -
These are people who feel sexually attracted to people with a male gender identity or to masculinity. This would incldue straight women, gay men, bisexuals, and anyone else who has an attraction to males.
A romantic orientation is different from a sexual orientation because they don't always match. Someone might be sexually attracted to one group of people but be romantically attracted to another. Someone who has no interest in sex might still want a romantic partner to spend their life with.
A liberal woman said on tv "I don't mind going to bed with a man but I want to wake up to a woman". This would be an example of someone who is at least sometimes heterosexually attracted but is also homoromantic.
A man who commits fornication as often as possible but has no emotional attachment to the women he has sex with could be considered an aromantic heterosexual.
54. Heteroromantic
A person with a male gender identity who is romantically attracted to people of female gender identity, or a person with a female gender identity who is romantically attracted to people with a male gender identity.
55. Homoromantic
A person with a male gender identity who is romantically attracted to people of a male gender identity, or a person with a female gender identity who is romantically attracted to people with a female gender identity.
56. Biromantic
A person who is romantically attracted to people with a male or a female gender identity. They might prefer one over the other or be romantically attracted to both equally.
57. Aromantic
A person who has no interest in romantic relationships.
58. Panromantic
A person who is interested in romantic relationships with people of any gender identity.
59. Skolioromantic
A person who is interested in romantic relationships with non-binary or genderqueer people.
60. Gray romantic
A person who only occasionally experiences romantic attraction or experiences it but not strongly enough to want to actually follow through on forming a romantic relationship.
61. Demiromantic
A person who is only interested in a romantic relationship with someone they've already developed an emotional bond with. They are not romantically attracted to people they don't have that connection with already.
Now that I've defined all these terms then you can see all the pieces of the puzzle that fit together.
Most conservatives on this board would probably fit the following profile:
Male (or female) sex, Male (or female) gender, Cisgendered, Heterosexual, Heteroromantic.
This means that you fit the gender "binary" (you are either male or female), your gender identity is the same as your physical sex that you were born with, you are sexually attracted and romantically attracted to the opposite sex.
Most people in the world fit that profile. That's the normal and default position of humanity.
Liberals like things to be as far from that as possible so this is why they push for the normalization and acceptance of anything that is different from that profile.
Liberals like to exploit Intersexed individuals and try to recruit them into the LGBT cause simply because these individuals do not fit the gender binary of male and female. Some people really are born intersexed but liberals see this as an opportunity to exploit these people for their own causes rather than trying to help them fit into a mostly binary society.
Liberals promote transgender ideas because it is different from the normal, cisgender people. Anyone who might be insecure about their gender identity is exploited by liberals, and rather than trying to help them feel more secure in their bodies, liberals tell them to embrace the deviant or disordered feelings and even alter the body to suit the mind rather than the other way around.
Liberals promote all deviant sexual identities because they don't want heterosexuals to be seen as normal and healthy. They want to normalize all sexual orientations no matter how sick or destructive.
Liberals promote homoromanticism for the same reason they promote homosexuality.
The different pieces to the puzzle that are shifted around to create a personal Gender/Sexual identity are
1. Sex
2. Gender Identity
3. Whether the above two match or not (cisgendered or transgendered)
4. Sexual orientation
5. Romantic Orientation
It is interesting to note that liberals generally see sex and gender as fluid and subject to change over the course of someone's life, but they see sexual orientation as being fixed and unchangeable.
Laws are being passed now to prevent reparative therapy from being conducted to help change someone's sexual orientation because liberals see this as abusive and ineffective. It's also not helpful to the liberal cause if someone does change.
Liberals are not above using the law to get their way and will do it as often as possible.
There are some different attempts by liberals to create gender-neutral pronouns. This would be a pronoun that someone who self-identifies as genderqueer or otherwise prefers a gender-neutral pronoun might want to be used to refer to them. They would also be more "politically correct".
Some of the ones that have been used more often have been ones based on Z.
Instead of he or she, Ze is used.
Instead of himself or herself, zirself is used.
Here's an example of a shirt design with this "gender neutral" language on it:
http://snaptee.co/t/nvf6m?r=cl
I've seen this ze/zirself terminology around somewhat but I don't think it's gotten super popular yet. I expect to see this in more mainstream sources within the next few years though like news articles, so now the first time you see this, you won't be confused by it.
-
They're definitely socially constructed. Basically people's behavior used to be considered to be their behavior. Now someone's sexual preferences and how they act on them define what they are, as a type of person to be.
In college they tell you that race is a social construct.
All these terms remind me of how in Colonial Latin America, they had terms to describe every possible racial identity. Besides from white, black, and Amerindian, and Mestizo, there were lots of names for any combination of the above. Someone who is half white, and half Mestizo would be called Castizo (Basically someone who is 3/4 white and 1/4 Amerindian.). The teacher in that class said the Spanish wouldn't consider her to be white even though she is lighter skinned than most of the 100% European Spaniards. Maybe they meant white as in pure, rather than the color. I guess Spaniards thought they were superior. That was the same time as the Spanish Inquisition.
The AA teacher I mentioned earlier also said race is a social construct. I told her that you can tell if someone is white or not regardless if they have white or dark skin. So she asked if I meant by phenotype. I told her that there are Middle Eastern Jews that are white but darker than she is. White doesn't have to do with the skin tone. It has to do with physical features. Most Europeans are light skinned so that's why they chose the color white for the race. People may have said it to mean white is pure and clean as opposed to dark. Politically correct people would say it's because they thought whites were superior.
-
In college they tell you that race is a social construct.
All these terms remind me of how in Colonial Latin America, they had terms to describe every possible racial identity. Besides from white, black, and Amerindian, and Mestizo, there were lots of names for any combination of the above. Someone who is half white, and half Mestizo would be called Castizo (Basically someone who is 3/4 white and 1/4 Amerindian.). The teacher in that class said the Spanish wouldn't consider her to be white even though she is lighter skinned than most of the 100% European Spaniards. Maybe they meant white as in pure, rather than the color. I guess Spaniards thought they were superior. That was the same time as the Spanish Inquisition.
The AA teacher I mentioned earlier also said race is a social construct. I told her that you can tell if someone is white or not regardless if they have white or dark skin. So she asked if I meant by phenotype. I told her that there are Middle Eastern Jews that are white but darker than she is. White doesn't have to do with the skin tone. It has to do with physical features. Most Europeans are light skinned so that's why they chose the color white for the race. People may have said it to mean white is pure and clean as opposed to dark. Politically correct people would say it's because they thought whites were superior.
Someone's racial background is based on their heritage. Cultures are socially constructed but race is not.
Personally I only consider people of European descent to be white, but there is a larger Caucasian race. White people are a sub-set of that larger grouping.
-
So that means you would consider Jews not to be white?
-
So that means you would consider Jews not to be white?
There are Jews of all races.
-
There are Jews of all races.
All Jews who don't have any admixture are completely Non-European. Chaim said European goyim raped Jewish women. Jews are NOT ethnic European. Jews are only European if a European converts to Judaism or if a European man has kids with a Jewish woman.
Just like Jews who don't have any admixture are completely Non-European, at the same time they are completely white and completely Asian since whites are also native to half of Asia and all of North Africa. Even the Bolshevik census bureau will say so although now they claim that all Indians are the same race as Orientals. India is on the border so it is mixed but it is complete nonsense to say all Indians have to call themselves "Asian" when Asian is used as a race and people will think they are Oriental.
-
Some people might be wondering at this point, why do we need to know all this?
Liberals don't like to be straightforward when they are speaking. Humans in general like to use symbols, but liberals are very sneaky in the way they slip words into the culture.
For example notice the progression of how racial terms were handled. In the past, "negro" was simply a reference to black skin. It had no pejorative meaning whatsoever. Now liberals say the word "negro"
is unacceptable and racist. "Black" is still tolerated, even though it means the same thing, although even that is sometimes frowned on. "African American" is considered acceptable right now,
but the equivalent "European American" to refer to white people is not.
Let's look at immigration. Illegal immigrants used to be called illegal aliens. Now this is considered to be a pejorative term rather than a descriptive term by liberals. There was a shift toward calling them illegal immigrants.
This was slightly better for the liberals because then they could make arguments like "We are a nation of immigrants." This word served them better. Now even that's considered pejorative. Illegal aliens now must be referred to as undocumented workers or undocumented immigrants.
This very phrasing implies that the only thing they are lacking to be legitimate is some kind of paperwork. It ignores the reason why we have immigration laws and why we want to control the flood of immigration, especially from the third world. It ignores the devastating effects of importing millions of third world people into a first world nation and how that can affect quality of life, the economy, and the culture.
So by liberals using the word "undocumented immigrants", they are implying that if you give them amnesty and green cards, then everything will be ok. It implies that illegal aliens never did anything wrong.
Marriage in our culture was understood to be between a man and a woman. Then the concept of "gay marriage" was introduced. Now the homosexual activists find that to be offensive and say things like
"I'm not gay married, I'm just married." Now the terminology has shifted to "marriage equality". Every time you say the phrase marriage equality, you are repeating their propaganda.
Abortion has code words too. "Choice" and "A woman's right to choose", and "reproductive health", are usually code words for abortion. There are others as well, but those three are very common. None of those terms seem to directly address the fact that living babies are being killed. None of those words force people to face the extremely harsh reality that is behind them. Now, when you oppose abortion, you are called "anti-choice", "anti-women's rights", "against women's reproductive health". So you see the devious and destructive nature of liberal phrasing.
The whole gender identity/sexual orientation topic has been one of the most transformative and devastating to Western culture. Pride parades are held in the open, some of which NAMBLA has taken part in. It was one thing when LGBT people simply wanted to avoid discrimination for jobs in which their status was not relevant, or to live without fear of being hurt or killed by others who disagreed with them. What they want now though is really stepping over the line. They have begun to transform society in very important ways. They are changing the definitions of marriage, parenthood, and family. They are telling children in schools that they have to share restrooms and locker rooms with the opposite sex regardless of how embarassing or dangerous that might be. They have begun to corrupt important societal institutions such as the military, the public school system, private organizations such as the boy scouts, etc.
They are subjecting women to danger by insisting that pre-surgical transwomen be allowed into women's public restrooms. They are subjecting children to danger by insisting that homosexuals be allowed to lead a group of young teen boy scouts out into the woods for a camping trip. They invade popular places such as Disney World and commit deviant acts in front of crowds of parents and children and then cry discrimination and bigotry when their audience doesn't approve.
The terminology I've discussed so far is important to understanding their agenda. Liberals will recognize many of the terms I listed and will be able to keep up to date with news articles on the subject. I want conservatives to be as well-informed for the current terminologies liberals are using, regardless of whether or not they disgust you. This is a topic that is going to be very important and is currently transforming society into something that most of us will not recognize.
It is vitally important that we understand what they are saying to each other. There's no way to fight against this if we remain in the dark and continue to simply think of this issue in simple ways.
It's really not that complicated even if it seems like it is, but it can seem extremely complicated if you feel overwhelmed by the long list of definitions.
Take your time and read through them and understand them. That will help to be able to understand the liberal speech.
I am writing a quiz now. It's not ready yet. It will help to test whether or not you learned the terminology in the previous posts. It might seem technical but it's really not. It just uses words I've already defined.
-
LGBT Terminology Quiz
Choose the letter which best fits the answer you think is right, then look below the question to find the answer(s).
1.What are the parts of a person's gender and sexual identity according to liberals?
a. sex, gender identity, cisgendered or transgendered, sexual orientation, and romantic orientation
b. sex, transgender, homoromanticism, zirself
c. sexual orientation, cisgender, transgender, romantic orientation
Answer: a
2. When a person's sex assigned at birth and their gender identity don't match, the person is:
a. Transsexual
b. Transgendered
c. Gay
d. Cisgendered
Answer: b
3. An adult woman who was born female, has a female gender identity, is sexually attracted to men and is romantically attracted to men would be:
a. A cisgendered lesbian homoromantic
b. A transgendered heterosexual heteroromantic
c. A cisgendered heterosexual heteroromantic
Answer: c
4. An adult woman who was born female, has a male gender identity, is sexually attracted to men and is romantically attracted to men would be:
a. A cisgendered lesbian homoromantic
b. A transgendered heterosexual heteromantic
c. A transgendered homosexual homoromantic
Answer: Conservatives would say b, Liberals would say c
5. When someone's sex assigned at birth and their gender identity are the same, they are:
a. transsexual
b. cisgendered
c. transgendered
Answer: b
6. A transwoman (male assigned at birth, surgically transitioned to female sex), is:
a. a mutilated man
b. a genuine woman
Conservative answer: a
Liberal answer: b
7. A transman (female assigned at birth, surgically transitioned to a male sex), is:
a. a mutilated woman
b. a genuine man
Conservative answer: a
Liberal answer: b
8. A man goes to a bar with the intent of picking up a woman to have sex with. He has no intentions of having any kind of relationship with this woman after the sexual act. He goes back on the bar
scene to do this frequently, and has no intentions of ever "settling down" and having a family. He would best be described as:
a. homoromantic heterosexual
b. aromantic homosexual
c. aromantic heterosexual
Answer: c
9. A man enjoys sexual relationships with both men and women, but has ever only felt an emotional connection to other men. He intends to go to a state that allows homosexual "marriage" to marry
his boyfriend. He would best be described as:
a. homoromantic heterosexual
b. homoromantic bisexual
c. heteroromantic bisexual
Answer: b
10. Liberals will be offended if you call a transman:
a. she
b. he
c. it
Answer: a and c
Liberals will be offended if you call a transman "she" even though the person was born female because the current gender identity is male and the person may have surgically transitioned to have male-appearing genitalia.
Calling a transman "it" offends liberals because that word is usually applied to objects or animals, and occasionally to children. The word "it" is not generally applied to adult humans. The liberals feel that calling a transman or a transwoman an "it" is dehumanizing.
11. A non-binary or genderqueer person might not want to be referred to by male or female pronouns. If they say that they only want to be referred to by gender-neutral pronouns, which would be the equivalent of he or she to use?
a. it
b. zit
c. ze
Conservative answer: a (caution, this might get you accused of a hate crime)
Liberal answer: c
In the same scenario, what would be the gender neutral equivalent of himself or herself?
a. itself
b. zitself
c. zirself
Conservative answer: a (caution, this might get you accused of a hate crime)
Liberal answer: c
12. Chaz Bono (born female, transitioned to a male) would best be described as:
a. a transman
b. a transwoman
c. a mutilated woman
d. a mutilated man
Conservative answer: c
Liberal answer: a
13. If someone declares that they are straight but not narrow, what are they declaring themselves as?
a. bisexual
b. transgendered
c. an LGBT ally
Answer: c
14. What term is more inclusive?
a. gay rights
b. queer rights
Answer: b
"Queer" can refer to many different sexual orientations besides just homosexuality. It includes things like bisexuality, pansexuality, skoliosexuality, pedophilia, etc.
15. If someone is primarily sexually attracted to people who are non-binary (considering themselves neither male or female), what is their sexual orientation?
a. homosexual
b. transsexual
c. skoliosexual
Answer: c
16. A person who feels they have no gender identity, and chooses to have surgery to remove secondary sexual characteristics would best be described as:
a. agendered and neutrois
b. someone in need of serious psychiatric help
c. skoliosexual
Conservative answer: b
Liberal answer: a
17. Which of the following do liberals see as subject to change over the course of a person's life?
a. sexual orientation
b. Physical sex
c. gender identity
Answer: b and possibly c under some circumstances
At the very least liberals see physical sex as something subject to change through hormones and surgery.
However the fact that there are people who claim to be genderfluid, that is, their gender identity switches or changes from time to time, indicates that to some degree gender identity is also fluid to a liberal.
However they will be very contradictory about this and claim at the same time that a transgender person cannot change their mind to be more in tune with their body. They say that trying to help a transgender person
to accept their birth sex and become cisgendered is to be evil and abusive toward them.
So liberals are not very consistent on this. A genderqueer or genderfluid person is somehow ok to them but a woman who claims she is a man apparently has no choice but to be a man and a man who claims he is a woman apparently has no choice but to be a woman.
Liberals don't always make sense but this is the way they seem to think.
18. People who get pleasure from either receiving or causing pain, or dominating their partner or being submissive to their partner in a slave-like way are in the following lifestyle:
a. sadomasochism,
b. skoliosexuality
c. homosexuality
Answer: a
19. Someone whose sex assigned at birth and gender identity match (for example, they were born female, and have a female gender identity, or were born male and have a male gender identity) would best be described as:
a. transgendered
b. genderqueer
c. cisgendered
Answer: c
20. Someone who was born between male and female physically, because of a birth defect or genetic condition that causes this, is called:
a. Binary
b. Transsexual
c. Intersex
Answer: c
They would also be considered to be non-binary and are referred to as intersex because they do not fit male or female. It is important to know that these people do not CHOOSE to be in between male and female because intersex is a physical condition. Some people really are born that way physically. However these people are often exploited or recruited by the LGBT activists.
Scenario Questions:
21. Your twenty something son tells you that he feels like a woman inside and wants to transition physically into a woman. This upsets you very much and you tell him that he needs to be heterosexual because of what the Bible teaches. The son declares to you that he IS heterosexual and that you don't have to worry about him being homosexual. Later on, you see him kissing another man and holding hands with them.
You go to confront him about this and he insists that he IS heterosexual. Why is he saying this?
a. He's being dishonest with you and lying to your face
b. He believes he is a woman inside, and therefore having a romantic relationship with a man would be heterosexual behavior according to his understanding
Answer: b
22. Under the same scenario, why might the son be confused by your telling him to be heterosexual?
a. He thinks he is a heterosexual woman, and what he declared to you was a gender identity, not a sexual orientation
b. He's just really stupid not to understand why you would say that
Answer: a
23. Your daughter in 3rd grade comes home crying one day and says that boys were allowed to go into the girl's restroom and they were peeking at her in the stall while she tried to pee. You go to the school and ask the teacher about what happened and they tell you that there are transgender children in your daughters class that even though they were assigned male at birth, they have a right to use the girl's restroom just like any other girl. Of course you argue that the restroom should be for girls and that this upset your daughter. The teacher is likely to believe that:
a. Your daughter is transphobic and needs to be taught that the boys she sees are really girls
b. You are a bad parent for teaching your child transphobia and CPS might need to be called to keep you from teaching your daughter to hate other people.
c. You are right and from now on the girl's bathroom will be for girls
Answer: a and b
The teacher in this case is a liberal and will see your traditional views of the world as being bad. Your daughter's feelings of fear and embarrassment don't matter to the teacher because this is only seen as evidence of your daughter being the hateful/transphobic person. The boy's actions are not seen as inappropriate because your daughter will be accused of making it up because of her "hate", and you will be blamed as a bad parent for teaching her "hate".
24. Your teen son has joined a boy's football team. He does really well. He's big, fast, and pretty strong too. It is understood that this team will only play against other boy's teams. One night a competition is held and a team from another school comes. You are looking forward to the game. Once you get to the stands however, you notice something very odd. There's a woman playing on the opposite team. Your son is reluctant to be aggressive with her in the same way or to tackle her, and doesn't perform as well as a result. Other boys also feel like they have to hold back around this girl and their performance also suffers. The opposing team wins. When you complain about this, you are likely to be told that:
a. you are being sexist and old-fashioned and the girl's team won fair and square
b. you are right that the girl shouldn't be subjected to a contact sport like that playing against men who could injure her
c. you are right that it's not fair for your son to have to play against a woman when he is a gentleman who would hold back from being rough with her
Answer: a
Liberals don't really care about women's rights, but they will use that as a platform to try to disrupt any institution. In places like Texas, football is a very popular sport. If liberals can disrupt this game or cause problems with their agenda, they'll do it.
If you have any questions or comments feel free to post them.