‘Transphobic’? Who’s Afraid of Bruce Jenner?

fearmongeringIn a recent column outlining the latest flood of insanity from the hijacked-rainbow brigade, with the onslaught of all things Bruce Jenner, Cliff Kincaid mentions a BuzzFeed questionnaire titled, “How Transphobic Are You?”  The subheading is, “We have a lot of work to do.”  Some might assume the headline’s question is legitimate, but in truth, it’s like the faulty premise of a “have you stopped beating your wife?” query.  I reject the foundation of the presumption, just as I reject the bogusly constructed term “transphobic.”

The very idea of “transgenderism,” that a person could really be the opposite sex of his body, is lunacy.  It is impossible.  It is a wicked, degenerate concept that has no truth or reason in it, nor should anyone of sound mind accept it, ever.  And yet, it is the “new frontier” of the sexual anarchists, who are merely pawns of the devil’s plan for tyranny over the people of the United States and the whole world in these last days.

In trying to sell such an outrageous fiction as “transgenderism,” the homofascist activists pushing it have crafted a word weapon in “transphobia” to silence right-minded opposition to the granting of special rights based on this perverse behavior.  It is the same weapon as “homophobia” or “Islamophobia.”  Attach the “phobia” suffix to it—and bam!—you have an instantly derogatory label for anyone who stands against this lunacy.  The “phobia” weapon craze has been fairly successful in silencing people who may lack the courage to stand against the vicious, militant homosexual movement and its various sub-groups.

A phobia is defined at Dictionary.com as, “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.”  While rational people certainly have a “compelling desire to avoid” transgenderism and avoid the company of “transgendered” people, the label falls apart when “irrational” is tacked on to it.  The opposite is true.  It is entirely rational that people would be revolted by not only the fallacy of “transgenderism,” but also by the appearance of a man hopelessly presenting himself as the parody of a woman, and the reverse.

Let’s be real.  Who’s afraid of Bruce Jenner?  I suppose you might have cause to fear if you see him in your rearview mirror on the Pacific Coast Highway, but that has nothing to do with his grotesque appearance.  No.  This is not about an irrational fear of homosexuals or “transgenders.”  This “transphobia” meme is a heavy-handed move to squash the right opposition to this freedom-robbing movement.  It’s a classic Marxist tactic to tag your political opponents as mentally deficient, which is what the bogus “phobia” labels are meant to accomplish.  In our sinister culture, with the accomplice of a lunatic, evil media, these fake words are used prolifically, thus giving them the air of legitimacy, but they are not legitimate, and they never will be.

I do not believe that most Americans will ever accept the false notion that a man could truly be, or become, a woman.  Bruce Jenner is a man, and he always will be.  The same is true of any other person who decides to claim he is what he is not.  But, for now, the prince of the power of the air is running the show, and he is working in the children of disobedience to accomplish his dark will of complete tyranny over all mankind.  He has seen very little resistance from the church.  So, we have the stunning “success” of this “transgender” movement.  As the Bible tells us, in the very last days, Satan will fully prevail globally for a short time, and we are now fast flying into that time, the darkest days ever seen in history and never to be seen again.  The militant homosexual movement is part of the devil’s plan, and is being used to create special “rights” for sexual perverts and lunatics, phony rights that are intended to destroy the real rights of Christians and others opposed to the rise of the phoenix of Sodom and Gomorrah that the United States is quickly becoming.

Do not be intimidated into silence by false labels like “transphobia.”  If we remain silent in the face of this detestable homosexual/“transgender” movement, we will one day soon awake to find that we are no longer free to speak against it.

42 Comments

  1. DCM7 says:

    When people can’t defend their position rationally, they inevitably resort to name-calling. Labeling people as “this-phobic” or “that-phobic” is a perfect example. And it’s ultimately about as rational as calling someone a “poopy-head.”

    • WXRGina says:

      HAHAHAHA!!! Exactly, DCM. 🙂

    • Thisoldspouse says:

      This may be descending to their level, but I call them “perversionphiles.”

    • djbethell says:

      So “sexual perverts and lunatics” isn’t name-calling? It’s still amazes me how Christians continue to cast the first stone, and wonder why things never change their way.

      • WXRGina says:

        Name-calling usually refers to false labels. Sexual perverts and lunatics (i.e. “transgenders”) are exact descriptions.

      • DCM7 says:

        Christians do, unfortunately, sometimes stoop to the level of others and resort to name-calling. Unlike the others, though, they don’t have to because their positions can be defended rationally.
        (Not to mention that it’s usually *not* them casting the first stone.)

      • retiredday says:

        The phrase “cast the first stone” refers to the ancient Jewish sentence of stoning to death transgressors of certain sins. No one here is doing that. Calling a sin what it is is not casting stones. It is a response to the willful and persistent self-justification of sins (in this case, transgenderism).

        • djbethell says:

          Funny, I’ve never seen transgenderism mentioned in the bible even once.

          • Bob Ellis says:

            Apparently you missed (like you seem to “miss” a lot of things) it when God said “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)

            God created human beings male and female (Genesis 1:27), and he created those distinctions for a reason, and he meant for his creations to honor and abide by his design.

            Attempting to deny, pervert or change human sexuality is direct and open rebellion against God.

          • retiredday says:

            “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.” Psalm 51:3-4

            This is a picture of someone who admits their sin. Notice some very important words: “what is evil in your sight”. Sin isn’t what seems evil to you. It’s what is evil in the eyes of God.

            But if you do not see sin as sin, it is because your conscience has been seared (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

            Since God creates humans either as males or females (Genesis 1:27) the attempt to change one’s gender is a rejection of the Creator’s authority. It is rebellion against God because the individual assumes the authority to contravene God’s design.

            God doesn’t make mistakes. Unfortunately, because sin entered the world, all of creation is in a fallen state. Genetic codes are breaking down, producing rare medical conditions in which both genders are present. While surgical intervention may be medically called for in such rare instances, the surgical alteration of a physically healthy person, for the purpose of gender selection is a sin. It goes against God.

      • Thisoldspouse says:

        It’s funny how evil pagans are always trying to tell Christians how to behave.

  2. retiredday says:

    I had to look up the word, “meme”, and I think it explains the way many people today relate to social issues. Not like principled, thinking individuals, but like playful dogs running around, nosing one thing, then the next. Motion without purpose, activity without thought, combative fervor to relish one meme, then mindless darting to the next.

    It’s funny to watch in dogs — pitiful in humans.

  3. AJ says:

    Gina you are so awesome, luv ya my good sister, you speak great truth! -AJ

    • djbethell says:

      She speaks bile and hatred, which is thankfully no reflection on the ideas and love of Jesus.

      • WXRGina says:

        That you regard truth as “bile and hatred” tells me you know nothing about Jesus.

        • retiredday says:

          I love Del Tackett’s definition of truth: Reality from God’s point of view.

          Because they reject God, they have rejected his truth.

        • djbethell says:

          I understand the heart-felt truth of Jesus. Do you?

          • Bob Ellis says:

            You mean the Jesus who, while he walked the earth as a man 2,00 years ago,reaffirmed his design for human sexuality that he laid out in Genesis 2:24: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’”?

            You mean the Jesus (who is the author of the entire Bible) who said “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”?

            You mean the Jesus (who is the author of the entire Bible) who said “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.”?

            You mean the Jesus, of whom his most prolific apostle said of homosexuals: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”?

            You mean the Jesus, of whom one of his greatest apostles said homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God”?

            You mean the Jesus, whom one of his apostles wrote most of the New Testament condemned “men who practice homosexuality”?

            You mean the Jesus who said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments?

            That Jesus?

            Sorry, I’m just not seeing it. Stop lying about God and follow what God has said!

            • retiredday says:

              This fellow thinks the “heart-felt truth” (whatever that means) of Jesus is explained in this “radical revolutionary” poster. He doesn’t care what the Bible says about Jesus.

              I don’t suppose for a moment that Revelation 19:11-16 means a thing to him:

              “Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”

            • djbethell says:

              Is that the Jesus who was aware that for Adam and Eve to have grandchildren, they would have had to procreate with their children. Or did their children just procreate amongst themselves?
              No wonder you’ve got the Duggers on side.

              • Bob Ellis says:

                Yes, that’s the same Jesus who originally created humanity perfect and without genetic defect. And it was Adam and Eve who thought (like you) that they knew more than God and could do a better job than God…only to bring entropy and the curse of sin on themselves and all the creation that was under their dominion.

                There was originally no moral or practical reason why a brother and sister could not marry each other (ironically, you, a liberal, are being ruled by irrational societal assumptions). God eventually prohibited it because of the genetic defects that began to creep into our fallen genetic code, especially after the global flood limited the gene pool even further. The prohibition was issued to help safeguard children from unnecessary suffering from birth defects.

                https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/cain/cains-wife-who-was-she/

                It’s truly amazing how obtuse self-aggrandizing liberals can be.

              • DCM7 says:

                It’s amazing how they have to keep using the same already-refuted arguments over and over. They just don’t listen or learn, apparently.

          • WXRGina says:

            Among the other lies about Jesus in your little meme, He doesn’t have long hair.

            • franklinb23 says:

              How long does a hair have to be before it’s considered “long”? Does it matter if it’s a “comb over” a la Donald Trump? If he let it down it would probably be down to his shoulders!

              😉

              • retiredday says:

                The “radical revolutionary” poster identifies Jesus as “long-haired”, as if that is meaningful. The implied meaning is that Jesus was a “hippie” type, who stood out because his hair was longer than “conservative” Jews of his time.

                The problem is “long hair” is a contemporary concept descriptive of “free-thinking” or “counter-cultural” types of our own times, here in our own culture. But during Jesus’ lifetime, there were different cultural connotations to the length of a person’s hair. Religious Jewish men were not supposed to trim their beards, but Romans were typically clean-shaven.

                If a Jewish man took the vow of a Nazarite, he would not cut the hair of his head for the prescribed time, however, Jewish men typically did trim the hair on their heads. Women, on the other hand, grew their hair long, which was considered a mark of beauty — also chastity, as temple prostitutes of some non-Jewish religions shaved their heads.

                Jesus was not “long-haired”. He lived consistently according to acceptable Jewish customs of his day, which would make him a social “conservative”. The only “revolutionary” thing about Jesus is that, as the Messiah, he introduced the gospel — the good news that all people can be saved from sin by faith in him — by accepting his substitutionary death on the cross as atonement for their sins.

                Your emoticon indicates you think you are being cute and clever. But those of us who know the Bible and know Jesus aren’t amused. All you are conveying is your ignorance.

                You are free to believe or not believe whatever you choose. But ignorance is unsupportable, unworthy of respect, and ineffective — even as a device of mockery.

              • franklinb23 says:

                The question is reasonable: if having long hair is “sinful”, I think there’s an imperative to determine exactly what length a hair has to be before it enters the “sin territory”.

                1 inch? 1.25 inches? 5 inches?

                Of course you can’t answer it because “long” is a comparative description with no objective standard.

                Besides, if men let their hair grow “naturally” (the way God apparently designed it to), it would grow down to our waists at the very least.

              • retiredday says:

                Your question is without reason. The general concept as you state it: (if having long hair is ‘sinful’) was not anyone’s point here. If you know the Bible, you know that Jesus was without sin, regardless of the measured length of his hair. Jesus was not noted for his hair length, because it would have comported with the typical hair length of most Jewish men of his day.

                It was the picture of the poster that djbethell posted that called Jesus “long-haired”, a concept of contemporary conjecture with subjective implications, but without any foundation other than speculation. Biblically speaking, the length of his hair was never an issue. You are so bound up in your non-critical thought that you don’t realize how ridiculous your “argument” sounds.

      • DCM7 says:

        She may speak truth in blunt and harsh terms. But it’s still truth.

      • retiredday says:

        You are obviously unaware of “the ideas and love of Jesus”.

        Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. The gospels show him consistent in his support of Jewish religious regulations, which considered homosexuality a sin. The “new” aspect he brought to the law (the Torah, or teachings of God) is recorded in the sermon on the mount, in which he pointed out that sin isn’t just a matter of breaking rules, but of the condition in a person’s heart. But Jesus did not come to abolish the law. He came to fulfill it. That does not justify or allow for sexual sins.

        The love of Jesus offers forgiveness and eternal life. However, in order to receive those, we must first confess and repent of our sins, not defend them, rationalize them or claim they aren’t sins at all.

        • franklinb23 says:

          Retired writes: “However, in order to receive those, we must first confess and repent of our sins, not defend them, rationalize them or claim they aren’t sins at all.”

          Question: are you aware of every single instance of every thought, word and deed that may have offended God?
          If you aren’t, then you haven’t repented of these actions, correct?

          If you haven’t repented of them, will you be held accountable for them?

          • retiredday says:

            Some people believe that. I don’t. Nor does the New Testament teach that. God’s love covers a multitude of sins. The Bible says we all sin. If for some reason I sin unintentionally or am unaware of some sin in me, by God’s grace I will not be condemned. Because the Spirit of Christ lives in me, he reveals my sins to me, so that I repent. Repent simply means changing your ways because you realize you are going the wrong way. Jesus did not come into the world to condemn anyone. He came to save us. But he won’t save you unless you invite him to.

          • Bob Ellis says:

            There’s a massive difference between a sin committed and then missed specifically in later confession (while the heart is still in a generally repentant state)…and telling your creator–who specifically told you that an act you’re regularly engaging in currently is a sin–“No, my sin isn’t sin.”

            Big, big difference. So big, it’s downright silly, at best, to attempt to defend deliberate rebellion with such a fraudulent comparison.

            • franklinb23 says:

              Alright then, let me try this:

              Suppose a man enters the US military and, in the course of gathering military intelligence, utilizes waterboarding to extract information (or some other form of torture).

              Now, some feel the Bible clearly rejects using physical torture as a means of warfare. Others don’t. Who’s right is irrelevant. I’m assuming God has an actual position one way or the other.

              For right now, let’s assume He rejects it as sinful.

              Now, the military person acted in good conscience. He believes he did what he should have done and that what he did was not only necessary but ethical. He can’t, therefore, “repent” of anything.

              There are a couple possible things that could happen here:
              1) God could hold the man fully accountable for his “sin” of torturing enemy combatants despite the man’s clear conscience
              2) God could look at the man’s intentions and judge accordingly, meaning the man would not be punished for his actions (although he may later be given the opportunity to align his conscience with God’s).

              Which are you saying would be the case? Don’t pick apart the scenario itself: I’m using it only as an example. Fill in the blanks with something else.

              • retiredday says:

                “But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary [Martha’s sister] has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.” — Luke 10:41-42

                You are absorbed in the trail-ways of your own mind, and you won’t leave them. That is a matter of your own will. You aren’t open to the truth. How do you hope to ever hear the truth when you keep fending it off?

              • Bob Ellis says:

                If God did in fact clearly state in the Bible that he considered it a sin to make a bloodthirsty terrorist uncomfortable in the pursuit of life-saving information (which God didn’t, by the way), then the serviceman is guilty of a sin and should repent of that sin. If he believes he did NOT sin, after God clearly said that his actions are sinful, then he needs to humble himself, acknowledge that his creator sets the standard of what is right, and he must come to terms that his creator knows what he’s talking about, even if the created serviceman disagrees.

                In your listed options, #1 is the only one open to a holy God (if God had in fact clearly stated that, which he didn’t). #2 is not an option, because “intentions” are irrelevant, given the human heart’s fallen and predisposed-to-justify-evil propensity (Jeremiah 17:9). God doesn’t give points for creative justification of sin, even if a person is creative enough to fool themselves.

                You can’t do that which is clearly prohibited and then claim you didn’t know (if you did it, knowing ahead of time that God had said it was wrong) or didn’t believe it was wrong (in contradiction to what God had clearly said). The proper response is to, as you put it, adjust one’s conscience to align with God’s and repent.

                And for anyone who is genuinely concerned with upholding God’s standard (as every one of God’s creations should be, especially those who claim to be his followers), the realization that one has transgressed usually follows the action pretty quickly, and the repentance doesn’t need to wait until one has time to get down on their knees next to their bed at night, or for any other special circumstance. When I sin, I usually realize it seconds after I did it (and sometimes I did it knowing it was wrong, and chose to rebel anyway), and when the remorse comes seconds later (if my heart is even remotely right), I confess it and repent of it seconds after that.

                So while your original question/scenario about unrepented sins may happen, it isn’t the norm for someone who is trying to follow God’s standard. And sin remains sin, regardless of whether you took the time to educate yourself about it beforehand, and regardless of whether you made excuses to “justify” it in your own mind (which we’ve all done, and we’re all wrong for doing).