Editor’s note: The opinions expressed here are those of the authors. View more opinion on ScoonTV.
We’re running head-first off a cliff…and we all know it. We knew it when we first started up this slippery slope that a part of the population didn’t feel the same way as everyone else concerning their sexuality. A small minority said they were attracted to the same sex and, after a long fight for recognition, Americans now mostly just roll their eyes and “live and let live.”
But it didn’t stop there, and you knew it wouldn’t.
This week, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson underwent questioning during her confirmation hearing for a seat on the United States Supreme Court. During a line of questioning from Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn, Jackson was asked a straightforward question; what is a woman?
A simple, rudimentary question. Her answer? “I’m not a biologist.”
Blackburn is being criticized by democrats for asking what they’re describing as a “trap question.” But that’s exactly what it was. It was designed to expose Jackson and not actually render an answer. And expose herself she did.
The thing is, there’s an actual legal definition of what a woman is. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word “woman” as “All the females of the human species. All such females who have arrived at the age of puberty.” Jackson, who is a judge and being vetted on her knowledge of legal practice, could have responded with that definition.
But she didn’t. Instead, she gave the new “woke” definition and deferred her determination of gender over to the “scientists.”
Earlier that day, Republican Senator Josh Hawley questioned Jackson on her record concerning child pornography cases. He pointed out seven cases where Jackson issued the low term to child sex offenders despite higher recommendations by the prosecution.
Jackson’s defense was that she prescribed sentences within the parameters of the law as it was written. Interesting how it’s important to stay within the boundaries of the law in child pornography cases, but when it comes to something as simple as defining a “woman,” the same standards don’t apply.
Ketanji Brown Jackson will be nominated to the United States Supreme Court, but despite her qualifications; she’s no judge. She’s more an activist in the same way Joy Reid is more a Democrat cheerleader than respected “journalist.” She will pick and choose how the law will be applied based on her political agenda. She proved that in these hearings.
Why is this so important? Judges interpret law which sets precedence, the basis for future rulings. If a higher court determines that something is true for one person or persons, then it must be applied equally. In other words, if one group of people gets something then it should be made available for everyone. That’s what worried a lot of people when the issue of gay marriage was brought to the forefront.
The definition of marriage as an institution was questioned and then annihilated faster than you could blink. We had a truth known for ages, that the union that leads to family-building was between a man and a woman. Then, it was challenged and then changed. Men could marry men and women could marry women. If you dared to question this new paradigm you were labeled a bigot homophobe
In order to arrive at this restructuring of cultural norms, we had to accept people’s subjective feelings over objective reality. The institution of marriage only becomes a topic of discussion when we recognize that some people feel differently about sexuality, and these feelings should be held equally alongside common practice.
At this point, let me say what many on this side of the discourse feel: we do not have anything against gay or trans people personally. Just like any other group of people, there are sincere cases and not-so-sincere cases. My issue is the complete changing of society and culture based on the anomaly and not the rule.
Some humans are born with only one arm or one leg. However, most humans have two arms and two legs. Therefore, we have accepted that as the rule based on common sense and logic.
The institution of marriage has been a building block for society for generations. The union of man and woman leads to reproduction and, thus, the proliferation of the human species. No other combination, man/man, woman/woman, leads to our ultimate survival. So, it is common sense that marriage be between a man and a woman.
But “Love is love” we all said in a collective sigh of “not wanting to deal with the problem.” We knew instinctively that this would lead to a chain of events that would completely change society. We knew if we gave priority to subjective feelings, feelings that can change daily, then anyone and everyone could take advantage of it to fit their agenda.
“It was supposed to stop at marriage.” But we knew that was a lie. We knew that if we changed policy and long-standing institutions to accommodate a small minority’s feelings then it would snowball into an avalanche of chaos and confusion. Guess what happened?
“I am a woman. I might have a penis and testicles and grow facial hair and am bigger and stronger than most women, but because I feel like a woman, I am a woman, and you must reconsider everything you once knew and believed in order to accommodate me and my feelings. Also, denial of the science I agree with is literal violence against my person.” Yeah, that’s what happened.
Trans women are women, yet no one can tell you what a woman is. Does it make sense? Of course it doesn’t, because it never did. You knew that when we first started to roll the tiny handful of snow into a ball. We knew where it was going but we didn’t want to inconvenience ourselves by fighting over baked cakes. Now, we’re suffering for it.
The NCAA women’s swimming 500-yard-freestyle champion is a biological male. USA Today’s 2022 “Woman of the Year” is also a biological male. We’re all supposed to act like nothing’s wrong here. In fact, if you’re not fawning over the latest celebrity to transition their kids, you’re a transphobic bigot who wants to take us back to the pre-Civil War days.
It couldn’t be because you see in the not-too-distant future biological women’s place in society will be usurped by men pretending to be women to advance themselves. Why compete against biological men and be mediocre when I can compete against biological women and dominate?
Who can stop someone from doing this? I can walk into any women’s bathroom and say I identify as a “woman” and who can deny this? Who’s going to invalidate my truth?
Who’s going to say to the registered sex offender following women and girls into a public bathroom that he can’t enter when he says he identifies as a “woman?” How will you determine whether a person is sincere, or just taking advantage of stupid people in charge of making stupid policies to fit their agenda? You can’t. That’s the answer. We have to take their word for it and roll the dice on sending our daughters into public bathrooms.
No one is saying that all trans people are child predators. What we are saying is that child predators will use the loophole in this ideology to gain access to their prey. Child predators will position themselves as close to children as possible and be shielded from criticism because everyone is too afraid of the social backlash.
We all see what’s coming. Even the purple haired ones waving the trans flag know what’s on the horizon.
Justice is the foundation of any great civilization. If citizens are given preferential treatment over others, then tension ensues which eventually leads to the destruction of society. Justice is established through precedence. If one group is given something, then it must be made available to everyone. If a person can change their gender identity based on how they feel, what else can they change? Race? Can a white person identify as black and force everyone else to accept this as true? Why not? What differentiates race from gender? Are they not both social constructs? How about age? Can a person change their age based on how they feel? Think about that for a minute and then tell me where you see this going?
“If my subjective feelings hold more weight than objective reality, how can my identifying myself as, say, a 9-year-old boy, be a problem when I genuinely feel like a 9-year-old boy inside? The state and all its institutions should have no problem understanding that I am 9 years-old despite the fact that I have a full-grown beard that’s starting to turn gray.”
What judge is going to go against the precedence already set? Certainly not one who can’t even tell you what a “woman” is and is all in on the agenda.
This is where we’re going, folks. Judges, district attorneys, law enforcement, etc., who are soft on child predators having the authority to interpret the law and the constitution in such a “woke” manner that child molesters could be given legal access to children. Who’s going to stop them? How can you when you already turned a blind eye to these illogical concepts setting the precedent for the dangerous stuff lurking around the corner?
Keep playing along with this charade and the result will be damning. Keep saying “love is love” and “be you” and all the other warm and fuzzy cliches that cloak the presence of evil. Keep denying what you know to be true so as not to offend a small minority of the population holding us all hostage to their nefarious agenda. You know what’s right and wrong.
They want you to accept some illogical positions, so you’ll have to accept them all. “Trans women are women,” “trust the science,” “vaccines work,” “stand with Ukraine,” and whatever other direction they’ll choose to lead you down.
We made this bed. The question now is; are you going to lay in it, or finally stand up?
Subscribe to get early access to podcasts, events, and more!