Rants, can'ts, shan'ts, dance…

Posts tagged “social commentary

The Battle of The Bathroom: Political Correctness Run Amok

Recently I got into a… not really an argument or debate but just a small thing with someone on social media regarding whether or not transgender folks should be able to use the bathroom they choose, rather than the one dictated by their anatomy. My position is that they should use the one dictated by their anatomy, simply because it has become too much of a grey area and a line has to be drawn or a distinction made somewhere. It’s going to have to be there. That’s the simplest and most obvious resolution to the problem, and for me it is a problem. Not because people are trans, though. I have a problem with the whole transgender bathroom thing because for someone to feel uncomfortable if an opposite sex person is in the bathroom with them would be a pretty common thing. Most people don’t want that. If nobody cared, that would be something totally different. But they do care, so why do 500 people have to be made uncomfortable just so one person is not? I’m all for equality as everybody knows, but that isn’t equality – at all. It’s special rules for special people, which is the antithesis of equality.

If someone can say, “My rights are being violated by forcing me to use the bathroom for my anatomic gender because I don’t personally feel that gender is correct. I feel I’m in the wrong bathroom which makes me uncomfortable,” why is it not OK for someone to say, “My rights are being violated by forcing me to use the bathroom with someone who is not anatomically the same gender as myself even if they think that gender is incorrect. I feel they are in the wrong bathroom which makes me uncomfortable”? Isn’t it the same thing?

Transgender person: “I am uncomfortable using the bathroom around people I feel are the opposite gender from myself, even if they don’t think they are.” The narrative says OK. You don’t have to. This is a big deal and we will do everything we can to ensure you are not uncomfortable.

Non-transgender person: “I am uncomfortable using the bathroom around people I feel are the opposite gender from myself, even if they don’t think they are.” The narrative says You’re a bigot. Suck it up. It’s not a big deal and if you say it is, you’re just overreacting. 

How is that fair? It’s the exact same thing. This is where it bothers me. For me, it’s not a transgender issue. It’s the unfairness of the narrative. The person I got into the thing with asked the folks in the thread, “And what do you actually think they’re going to be doing with thier [sic] penises in the bathroom? Chase you around and say “ooga-booga”? Rape you?” That right there is bullshit. It’s stating that if someone is uncomfortable by having to use the bathroom with someone they feel is the opposite gender, they’re being needlessly fearful and overreacting. That translates into: Your feelings about this don’t matter. Yes, it affects you personally but they still don’t matter. Your privacy doesn’t matter. Nothing matters, except how this one person feels. She went on quite a bit about how it was no big deal and people who had a problem with it are just overreacting. If that’s the case and it’s no big deal to use the bathroom around people who you feel are the opposite gender, why can’t our hypothetical transgender friend just use the bathroom dictated by their anatomy? Oh, right. Because it is a big deal – for them. The hypocrisy of that argument just absolutely astounds me. It really does. “I’m doing the same thing you are, but you doing it is bigoted.” What the hell, man? I’m hateful and bigoted for saying the same thing you’re saying? I’m hateful and bigoted because I don’t want to go to the bathroom with people of the opposite gender – the exact same thing transgender folks don’t want? Why? Why is it OK for them to feel that way but not for me?

It isn’t just with this issue, of course. This issue is just a perfect example of the hypocrisy and absurdity of political correctness run amok. In an attempt to appease the few, the many are sacrificed. This in the end appeases nobody. It breeds anger and creates a feeling of being marginalized and disrespected. Of course, it’s supposed to. Divide and conquer and all that.

As an aside, I find it amazing that so many people claim to be against “rape culture” and state ridiculous things like, “The penis is by default an object of violence” but somehow are able to reconcile the penis as inoffensive and impotent (sorry) when the bearer of said penis believes he is a female, and further, that they insist that girls and women who don’t want a person who is anatomically male in their bathroom need to simply put up with it.


“Chemical Imbalance” Is A Real Thing — Right?

*Originally posted on my other blog, Modern Pioneer Magazine*

You often hear someone who takes psychiatric medications say they have a chemical imbalance, or that they’ve been told they have one. Literally billions of dollars have been made selling psycho-pharmacological drugs to cure this imbalance. Millions of people take them. The problem with this is that there is really no such thing as a chemical imbalance. It doesn’t exist. You see, if it were a real thing, it could be measured. You could have a test and see which chemicals are not balanced. If someone has diabetes and their pancreas does not make enough insulin, this can be measured and proven. If someone’s body does not make enough red blood cells, this can be measured and proven. It should theoretically be the same for a chemical imbalance. However, this test does not exist.

It should also be true that if chemical imbalance were a real thing, the same medication to correct an imbalance would work for everybody. Insulin doesn’t just sometimes not work for some people with diabetes who need insulin. It always works because the problem is quantifiable. This is not so with psychiatric medications. Not only do psychiatric medications not work the same for everybody, it is very often not known how psychiatric medications work inside the body at all. For example, many doctors – and patients – believe boosting serotonin levels helps fight depression. This is a very commonly-accepted medical theory. It was conceived in the 50’s and rose in popularity in the 80’s with the invention of Prozac and other medications like it. But regardless of what you’ve been told, this is not a fact. In fact, even after all this time there is still no proof of it at all and studies show that 60-70% of depressed patients do not respond to Prozac or similar drugs that boost serotonin. People are simply prescribed these medications – and ingest them – based on vogue theories, with no hard science to back them up, no idea how the drugs work, what the side- or long-term effects will be or anything else. This is dangerous and with many people on multiple medications now (often to counteract side-effects), it is no wonder that people have so many problems. This is especially true when you consider the fact that when a medication is found not to work, instead of discontinuing that medication, doctors will often just add more medication(s) to the medication(s) the person is already on.

Part of the reason the chemical imbalance theory became so popular is because doctors essentially made it up to sell drugs. Psycho-phamacological drugs to treat mental illness became much more popular and “mainstream” in the 80’s and 90’s, but people were still leery of labels due to the stigma attached to it and they were certainly unaccustomed to taking pills for something that was thought of as “all in their head.” So in order to demystify, de-stigmatize and put people at ease with taking a pill for a mental problem, doctors began making it sound as if the patient had a physical problem. Enter the chemical imbalance. This is not to say that many doctors did not wholeheartedly believe in the veracity of the chemical imbalance claim; undoubtedly many did and still do. This theory not only demystified mental illness for the patient, it demystified mental illness for doctors, too. It is supported by nothing, though.

Good health care should be about elimination first, not accession. The truth is that many so-called mental illness symptoms are caused by improper nutrition, chemical toxicity in the body, hormonal problems, reactions to environmental toxins, stress and many other things. Before any medication is prescribed, these things should be eliminated but they are generally never even mentioned to the patient at all. The patient is simply given pills and told to “call if there are problems.” This is very vague; patients often do not realize what these “problems” could be, or do not recognize them when they arise. Patients are not educated about side-effects or health risks when they are given prescriptions. They are certainly not told that no one (including their doctor) understands fully how these drugs interact with their bodies, and that they may do more harm than good, if they even do anything at all.

The major downside to the chemical imbalance theory and the resulting popularity of treating mental problems with drugs is that psychiatrists and even family doctors have become little more than pill pushers and other therapies which actually do work and which address the root of the problem rather than just the symptoms of the problem (such as the so-called “talking cure”) have fallen by the wayside. It has become about convenience rather than cure. Doctors gain much from this. Pharmaceutical companies gain much from this. The government gains much from this. Only the patient loses.


Damaged. But Is It An Excuse?

As I have said in other posts on this blog, the world is becoming overrun with narcissists and sociopaths. These empty vessels are frighteningly easy to create and impossible to deconstruct. It is not their fault they are this way; they do not become such empty vessels by accident. It is almost always the result of childhood abuse, neglect or other repetitive childhood trauma. The question that then comes to mind is, “Are they to blame for their behavior?” After all, they are victims. At what point do they stop being victims and become perpetrators? Do they ever stop being victims?

These broken people walking around cannot help what they are. They cannot help the way they see the world, or the fact that they can only view other people as objects. They cannot help the fact that they are incapable of love or empathy. They were utterly failed in a very real, very sad way by whoever raised them. They are fundamentally broken, flawed and empty beings. It is not even precisely right to call them human beings; the internal landscape of the narcissist and the sociopath is barren. Alien. It is obvious to many people. Many who come in contact with these vacant containers feel right away that something is off or wrong about them. And it is. They walk around mirroring and pretending for their entire lives, trying to mimic normal, integrated human behavior and listening to an incessant, sadistic and vicious superego that tells them how disgusting, awful and terrible they are 24 hours a day. The pressure of this is crushing. The stress is unrelenting and there is no escape from it. So are they to blame for doing things that give them relief from this torment?

Yes. They absolutely are.

Narcissists and sociopaths know that what they are doing is wrong. Maybe not morally, maybe not personally but they know that this is not how normal people behave because society does not condone or approve of it. If they thought it was OK, they would not conceal their behavior or go to such lengths to ensure that people never find out who and what they really are. Because of this, they can and should be held responsible for their behavior and their actions. Hiding or excusing what they’ve done only permits them to continue to wreak havoc, destroy lives and hurt people. Hold them up to the light. Bring their behavior out where people can see it. They are afraid of being exposed and it is your only hope of stopping them.


Woman Punched In Nordstrom’s Parking Lot… and She Deserved It

On November 6th, it was reported that a lady was punched in the face in the Nordstrom’s parking lot for asking another woman to quiet her child. The child was throwing a tantrum in the checkout line. Video of the assault was captured on security cams and can be seen here.

Upon viewing it, my first thought was “DAMN, that’s a hell of a punch! Just goes to show you, you should not talk smack to strangers. You have no idea what they will do.” My second thought was that we’ve all been annoyed by crying kids in stores but if you have kids then you know that all kids throw tantrums — at least for a little while; it’s how they test limits and sometimes there is nothing you can do to shut them up. They are not robots. There’s no “OFF” button. The child started throwing the tantrum in the checkout line. What was the mother supposed to do? She was already leaving the store, which is the considerate thing to do if your child is throwing a fit. This girl really could not just be cool for like 2 minutes? I can understand getting frustrated with a crying child, but I can only be understanding up to the part where this snotty little girl tells the mother to go to hell. There’s no reason for that, first of all and second of all, there is nothing the mother can do to make the child be quiet, so really it’s unfair to say something in the first place.

I will just never understand the people who ask that kind of thing. “Isn’t there a way you could keep your child quieter?” Do you honestly think if there was, the mother would not do it? Do you think she wants her child to scream bloody murder in the middle of a store? That’s how you can tell the people with no kids, though: people who have kids don’t ask those kinds of questions because they know the answer. People who do not have children do not understand, so people with no kids, let me let me clue you in to something that you don’t seem to know: tantrums are not always the result of bad parenting. All children of a certain age throw tantrums, and sometimes they do it for years. There is no way around it. You cannot stop it. It’s part of normal child development and absolutely every child on the planet does it. It has nothing to do with discipline or spoiling or anything else. It has to do with the child’s struggle with learning to be independent and testing the limits of that independence. I’m a tough, strict parent; I will take absolutely no shit from a kid, trust me. I kept a house of 5 and sometimes 7 kids (on the weekends) ranging in ages from 13 to 3 running clean, quiet and orderly, and even I concede that with tantrums at that age, sometimes there’s nothing you can do.

The other thing that really bothers me here is this stupid little girl’s attitude about the whole thing. She was like “[The tantrum] hurt my ears.” And… what? Do you think you live on this planet by yourself?? Other people can’t live their lives because it’s bothering you? Who the hell do you think you are, anyway? It was the checkout line at Nordstrom’s. How long could the line have been? She could have just minded her own for the 5 minutes it takes to get out the door and then been on her way, but she just couldn’t do it. This is just another self-righteous, elitist asshole who thinks everyone has to tiptoe around them.

We all have to be on this planet together, lady. It’s not just you and the people you like, or who all do, think, feel, breathe and exist the same way as you. If you can’t get behind that, may I suggest you start looking for another place to live? People have made exceptions and concessions for you and your behavior throughout your life. You just don’t realize it. And you could have made one here but no, mah righteous indignation. You may lose three teeth from all this. Maybe next time you’ll think twice before starting shit with someone you don’t know at all. Life’s a little rougher when you’re all grown up, isn’t it, sweetheart? Hopefully you learned your lesson.

In fact, let this be a lesson to us all: Mind your own business.