Norway Parliament Extends ‘Hate Speech’ Legislation to Include Transgender

Norway’s parliament has voted to extend “Hate Speech” legislation against criticism of homosexuals—who have been “protected” since 1981—to “transgender” people. This means that a violent crime will be more harshly punished if it is considered to be motivated by hatred of transsexuals, and that it will be an offence to incite violence against them or use “dehumanizing” language against them both in public and in private [Norway outlaws hate speech against trans people, By Rachel Savage, Reuters, November 25, 2020].

“In private” would seem to imply something utterly Orwellian, making it an offense to “dehumanize” i.e. criticize transsexuals in conversations in your own home with your family, as some commentators have suggested [Norway Criminalizes Hate Speech Against Transgender People . . . In Private Homes or Conversationsby Jonathan Turley, JonathanTurley.com, November 29, 2020].

Not coincidentally, this soft totalitarianism is exactly what seems to be envisaged in the pro-immigration Scottish Nationalist Party’s very similar proposed legislation [SNP’s new hate crime law could see people prosecuted for expressing views in OWN HOMES. by Richard Percival, Express.co.uk, October 27, 2020] The bill is spearheaded by Scottish Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf (right) the son of Pakistani immigrants, and it is tempting to assume he is merely importing traditional Islamic intolerance of blasphemy. But I think it is really just the religion of multiculturalism becoming more extreme.

Having consulted a Norwegian lawyer, who naturally wishes to remain anonymous, I can tell you that, according to the law, you can receive up to three years in prison if you “incite against” or “dehumanize” a transsexual “in public.” This is broadly defined to include in publications, online, or in public places.

However, up to one year in prison can be handed down to “a person who in the presence of others purposefully or with extreme carelessness expresses something that afflicts someone present.” [The legislation can be found, in Norwegian, here or as translated by Google here].

In other words, if you have upset a transsexual in a private—such as in someone’s house or at a private party, in front of witnesses who will testify that you did this—then you can receive one year in prison in Norway. If you upset a transsexual in public, you can get three years.

Anine Kierulf, an assistant professor of law at the University of Oslo, told the Reuters news agency that the bar for prosecution is high and that “There are a lot of very hateful things you can say about the protected groups” [Norway outlaws hate speech against trans people, by Rachel Savage, Reuters, November 25, 2020].

But what “dehumanizes” is extremely subjective and this law is dangerous, more so than similar laws with regard to homosexuals or ethnic minorities, because almost all transsexuals, with the exception of the minority who experience their feelings for as long as they can remember, have very serious psychological problems.

In other words, they’re nuts. And in Norway today—and in the West in general? —they call the shots.

A tiny minority of transsexuals literally do seem to have the “wrong body.” They will feel that they are girls for as long as they can remember. But, in most cases, these feelings manifest at adolescence, as sex researcher Ray Blanchard has shown [Varieties of autogynephilia and their relationship to gender dysphoria, by Ray Blanchard, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1993].

Prominent academics have garnered a large amount of evidence indicating that late onset transsexuality, especially to male-to-female late onset transsexuality, is a sexual fetish in which the transsexual is, in effect, sexually aroused by the idea of himself as a member of the opposite sex. In this sense, the transsexual is literally a Narcissist.

Indeed, it has been shown that “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”—in which you develop a bloated sense of self importance to cover up a fundamental sense of emptiness and despair—is very high among those who suffer from what is technically called “Gender Dysphoria.”

Consistent with this, it has been argued by one academic that the extraordinarily hostile and even violent reaction of transsexuals to scientists who do not accept that transsexuals are “born into the wrong body” is a classic example of “Narcissistic Rage”—when the Narcissist attempts to totally destroy anybody who forces him to question his own perfection; this self-perception being the only thing that stops him from sinking into the abyss of his own psychological emptiness [Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism, by Anne Lawrence, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2008].

Is this “dehumanizing”? Surely, a case could at least be made that it is: “You are saying we are Narcissists. This will make people hate and exclude us. It is implying we are immoral.”

Considering the documented Narcissistic Rage of transsexuals, one can imagine Norwegian prosecutors being pressured to take someone to court for stating such obvious scientific facts.

Thus Norway and Scotland’s laws will prevent people from having reasonable discussions about social issues where those discussions might lead them to question the current dominant Narrative. In fact, this seems to be the point of such laws.

But it gets worse. There is large body of evidence that male-to-female transsexuals are highly masculinized. They are more likely to be autistic, to have a hand shape that betokens high testosterone, to be male, and to heterosexual (rendering them “lesbians” once they “transition”).

This is because being highly masculinized is associated with autism, which is associated with focusing on objects, and thus with fetishism.

Autism is also associated with a weak understanding of who you are. Sufferers perceive the world as huge, swirling mass of detail without clear “boundaries” and this extends to how they see themselves, resulting in a weak sense of self, changes in identity, and an intense need for control [Sense of Self in Autism, by Michael Jawer, Psychology Today, August 7, 2014].

This is why autism correlates with anorexia, as the sufferer feels they at least “control” their body [Gender Dysphoria and Transgender Identity Is Associated with Physiological and Psychological Masculinization, by Edward Dutton & Guy Madison, Sexual Research and Social Policy, 2020].

Add Narcissism, also much higher among males, into the brew and you have transsexuality.

Could pointing these things out be “dehumanizing”?

Probably not, but it has, it seems, resulted in a highly emotional response claiming that the research “risk(s) causing serious harm to already-marginalized groups” by an academic called “Reubs J. Walsh” [“Masculine” Describes Gender Expressions, Not Neurobiologies: Response to Dutton and Madison (2020), by Reubs J. Walsh, Sexual Research and Social Policy, 2020] who is, of course, a male-to-female transsexual.

But what if we add that transsexuals seem to be genetically sick—more likely that “cis” people to develop cancer, arthritis, and even deafness? [Global health burden and needs of transgender populations: a review, by Sari Reisner et al., The Lancet, 2016].

This all implies that they are high in what scientists call “mutational load” . . . compared to “cis” people, in other words, they are “mutants.”

Arguably this is “dehumanizing,” but it remains a scientific fact. It probably wouldn’t lead to prosecution—but how can you be sure?

So, just when transsexuals come to prominence, Norway passes a law which potentially interferes with rational discussion of their nature. Worse still, it passes a law that potentially makes it a crime to make this point to a transsexual in private, or even to say them within earshot of a transsexual in private.

Transsexuals must be protected from hearing the scientific truth about themselves, lest it puncture the Narcissism which allows them to get through life.

Hopefully, the Norway which has stood so valiantly against globalism, in contrast to its anti-democratic neighbour Sweden, will wake up to the danger of this law and do something about it.

Charges Filed Against Trans Elections Judge ‘Erika’ Bickford in Allentown, PA — Including Tampering with Ballots

Charges were filed against the election judge in Allentown’s 3rd ward on October 5th. Everett “Erika” Bickford was charged with two election code violations including prying into ballots.

The Morning Call reports the following:

Lehigh County District Attorney Jim Martin on Monday announced charges against an elections judge in Allentown’s 3rd Ward who was accused of tampering with ballots during the Democratic primary race for state representative between Enid Santiago and Peter Schweyer.

Everett “Erika” Bickford was charged with two election code violations: insertion and alteration of entries in documents, and prying into ballots, both misdemeanors.

Allentown, in Lehigh County in Pennsylvania is the focus of the song from Billy Joel in 1982, “Allentown“.  The song was about the unemployed steel workers in the area.  It looks like the city has changed over time.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary Adds to Definition of Female: ‘Having a Gender Identity That Is the Opposite of Male’

The dictionary appeared to add to its primary definition of female, which is defined as, “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.”

However, while the primary definition overtly acknowledges the biological reality of the female sex, which makes it distinct from the male sex, the U.S. dictionary effectively negated its own definition by adding additional explanations to seemingly submit to the radical transgender movement.

Merriam-Webster’s sub-definitions, which seemingly erase the reality of biological sex, include:

  • having a gender identity that is the opposite of male
  • made up of usually adult members of the female sex
  • designed for or typically used by girls or women
  • having a quality (such as small size or delicacy of sound) sometimes associated with the female sex

This would not be the first time Merriam-Webster has moved to satisfy the mounting demands of transgender activists. As Breitbart News reported in July, Merriam-Webster updated its definition of “trans woman” to “woman who was identified as male at birth,” once again taking another step in erasing the biological reality of women.

As reported at the time:

Notably, the new definition conflicts with the dictionary’s official description of “woman,” which is defined as “an adult female person.” Merriam-Webster defines “female” as “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs” — a function a trans woman is, biologically, incapable of.

 Similarly, “trans man” is currently defined by Merriam-Webster as “a man who was identified as female at birth,” and the same logical sequence prevails. A “man” is defined as “an adult male human,” and “male” is defined as “an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female” — another function biological females, or those who would identify as a “trans man” —  are not able to do biologically.

Some feminists have remained at odds with transgender activists, who they contend are gradually erasing women to bend to the “woke” mob.

Continue Reading at Breitbart News…

Cambridge Trandgender Study: Psychiatrists Pressured to Accept Transgender Narrative or Remain Silent

Psychiatry sits on this knife-edge: running the risk of being accused of transphobia or, alternatively, remaining silent throughout this uncontrolled experiment

Abstract

Summary

In the past decade there has been a rapid increase in gender diversity, particularly in children and young people, with referrals to specialist gender clinics rising. In this article, the evolving terminology around transgender health is considered and the role of psychiatry is explored now that this condition is no longer classified as a mental illness. The concept of conversion therapy with reference to alternative gender identities is examined critically and with reference to psychiatry’s historical relationship with conversion therapy for homosexuality. The authors consider the uncertainties that clinicians face when dealing with something that is no longer a disorder nor a mental condition and yet for which medical interventions are frequently sought and in which mental health comorbidities are common.

In 2018 the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) issued a position statement to promote good care when dealing with transgender and gender-diverse people that relates to ‘conversion therapy’.1 In this article we reappraise the phenomenology of gender identity, contrast ‘treatments’ for homosexuality with those for gender non-conformity, analyse the relationship between gender dysphoria and mental disorders with particular reference to the younger cohort of transgender patients, and ask how psychiatrists can address distress related to gender while upholding the central tenet of ‘first do no harm’.

Homosexuality and conversion therapy

Male homosexuality was outlawed in the UK in 1865 until the Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised sexual acts between men. During that time, homosexuality was shameful, stigmatised and conceptualised as a mental disorder. Psychiatry was instrumental in its treatment, which continued even after the legal change.2

Attempts to ‘cure’ same-sex desire included psychotherapy, hormone treatment and various behavioural interventions. These interventions are now considered ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapy.3 One high-profile failure for such ‘treatments’ was Alan Turing. After being found guilty of gross indecency in 1951, he was prescribed oestrogen, which rendered him impotent and caused gynaecomastia. He died by suicide in 1954.4

Conversion therapies lost popularity as evidence emerged of their ineffectiveness,5 coupled with more tolerant social attitudes. Homosexuality was removed from the World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-10 classification in 1992. In 2014, the RCPsych published a position statement explicitly rejecting conversion therapy and supporting a ban.6 Same-sex orientation is regarded as a normal, acceptable variation of human sexuality.

Enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, lesbians and gay men in the UK now enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexuals in terms of healthcare, marriage and raising of children, and equal employment. Although they enjoy equal status and increased visibility in most Western societies, there remain countries and cultures where same-sex practice is taboo or criminal, and where people still seek treatment.

Beyond sexual orientation

In recent years, increasing links have been forged between lesbian and gay communities and those representing other gender identities. Stonewall describes ‘any person whose gender expression does not conform to conventional ideas of male or female’ as falling under the umbrella term ‘trans’.7

Definitions have evolved beyond those included in the 1992 ICD-10 under ‘gender identity disorders’, with which psychiatrists might be familiar.8 Transsexualism was widely understood to mean ‘a desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, and an accompanied discomfort of one’s anatomic sex’.8 Underlying mechanisms are poorly understood, although there are similarities and overlaps with both body dysmorphia and body integrity identity disorder.9,10 Sufferers might embark on social and medical intervention to help them ‘pass’ as the opposite sex. Historically, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria would have been required for doctors to intervene in this group.11

Transgender, however, has become a much broader category (Fig. 1). New terminology reflects a conceptual shift from clinical disorder to personal identity.12 Crucially, gender dysphoria is no longer integral to the condition. The World Health Organization has renamed ‘gender identity disorder’ as ‘gender incongruence’ and reclassified it as a ‘condition related to sexual health’ rather than retaining it in the chapter pertaining to ‘mental and behavioural disorders’,13 a somewhat discrepant placement, reflecting a political rather than scientific decision-making process.

Read more…

Supreme Court Hijacks Congress’s Power to Legislate by Redefining “Sex” to “Sexual Orientation”

The Supreme Court hijacked Congress’s power to legislate and redefined “sex” to “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” The highest court of the land decided by a 6-3 vote to essentially rewrite a federal civil right’s law. For years the left has been fighting to change this federal law, and on Monday, 6 unelected judges rewrote the law.

Associated Press reported:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against LGBT workers.

Conservative justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, sided with the liberal justices.

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Justice Alito fired a warning shot and said Monday’s ruling could destroy women’s sports, weaken religious freedom, weaken freedom of speech and personal privacy.

The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous,” Alito wrote in the dissent. “Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’

There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.” Alito added.

Constitutional lawyer Mark Levin weighed in.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision will be lauded and celebrated in the media as “historic.” There will be little or any criticism of the Court’s complete disregard for the actual law and its legislative activism in violation of separation of powers,” Levin said in a tweet.

Levin blasted Gorsuch. “These things used to matter. Not so much anymore. Roberts no longer pretends to be a judge; now Gorsuch has left his robe behind as well (and it’s not the first time).” he said.

Judicial Watch boss Tom Fitton fired a warning shot.

Source: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/justice-alito-fires-warning-shot-supreme-court-hijacks-congresss-power-legislate-redefining-sex-sexual-orientation/