Since the Obama years when this stuff really began to blow up we have been told by our cultural and intellectual betters that it is not up to us but to individual to define their own gender and that anyone who does not go along with the whole ” Vive L’Empereur” business is a bigot.
Apparently according to our media, social and intellectual betters there is a caveat to this rule.
This new rule is applied if a person, who at one time defined themselves by a gender other than the one indicated by their birth has second thoughts, something that is apparently becoming more common: as they have discovered that hacking pieces of themselves off by professionals has not despite the approval of the right people brought them happiness.
In this eventually such people, rather than being able to self define their gender back to what it once was are now defined by a totally different gender.
Most concerning for Ms Evans, however, is the fact that there appears to be no support network to speak of for people who wish to “detransition”, with one biological woman who approached her saying she had “felt shunned by the LGBT community for being a traitor” when it became known that she wished to return to her birth sex.
Now some might look at this and conclude that the reason for open and tolerant people who have spent the last decade championing the right of people to define their own gender as a fearful reaction by people who are not actually secure in their own decisions and need affirmation of others, particularly society to keep themselves from collapse into a mire of depression and despair and confusion that led to said decisions in the first place.
But I’m sure all of the right people, in society, in media and particularly in the massively tolerant LGBT community will tell you that’s nonsense and that this new gender of “traitor” is simply the proper application of gender to those who are no longer enlightened enough to make such decisions on their own.
Blogger on the left, as broadcast on WGN-TV Chicago during a Blackhawks game in Nashville in 2018
By John Ruberry
Oh, the things the left gets away with…
Unless you are consumer of conservative media, or news sources from Detroit–I’m both of those things—you probably missed a piece of awful offal from US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), a member of “the Squad.”
If you live in the Chicago area, as I do, you probably heard about the “racially insensitive” comments made by longtime Chicago Blackhawks announcer Pat Foley during a preseason game against a German team.
Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman elected to Congress, was touring Detroit’s Real Time Crime center, which utilizes facial recognition technology to identify criminal suspects. Tlaib has her issues with facial recognition forensics, She Tweeted in August, “@detroitpolice You should probably rethink this whole facial recognition bulls**t.”
In a tour last Tuesday of the center with Detroit’s police chief, James Craig, one that the Detroit News described as “tense,” the freshman congresswoman told Craig that only blacks should be employed as facial recognition analysists at the center. Yep. She said that. Her actual comments were, “Analysts need to be African Americans, not people that are not. I think non-African Americans think African Americans all look the same.”
Wow.
Craig, who is black, took the high ground by replying, “I trust people who are trained, regardless of race; regardless of gender. It’s about the training.”
Of course it is.
Craig later condemned Tlaib’s remarks. “If I had made a similar comment people would be outraged,” he told Detroit’s ABC affiliate, “they would be calling for my resignation.”
In short, Tlaib got a pass because she is woke. She’s also a Democratic Socialist.
Not so Pat Foley, the television voice of the Chicago Blackhawks. I don’t know Foley’s politics. Perhaps he’s apolitical. But Foley, who is white, is not woke. He has not spoken of the glories of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. He does not make large contributions to left-wing organizations. He has not apologized for his “white privilege.”
Oh, what did Foley say that got the left so upset? During that ‘Hawks preseason game against Eisbären Berlin, while opposing forward Austin Ortega handled the puck, Foley said, “Ortega, who sounds like he ought to be a shortstop.”
Yep, that’s it. A Chicago Tribune writer deemed Foley’s quip “racially insensitive.” The Blackhawks, in their apology stopped short of that, calling what he said only “insensitive.” Sports Illustrated covered the kerfuffle.
The Blackhawks in that statement noted that Foley, a recipient of the Foster Hewitt Memorial Award by the Hockey Hall of Fame, apologized to the Berlin team.
What appears to have ignited the controversy was a Tweet from an Hispanic hockey fan, Ghostchant, who distorted Foley’s words. “‘Ortega, sounds like he should be a shortstop’ instead of hockey.” Yep, “instead of hockey.”
But there is something else. Foley didn’t say “instead of hockey.” The Tweeter, who, if he has a sense of honor would place himself into his personal penalty box for a spell, added those words.
Here’s the entire Tweet along that “insensitive” comment from Foley.
“Ortega, sounds like he should be a shortstop” instead of hockey
In this split-second-glance-at-my-smartphone world, it’s easy to see why Ghostchant’s dishonest Tweet went viral. Many people look, get outraged, then re-Tweet or post on Facebook, without digging into the veracity of information on that puny screen, or, as I suspect in this instance, bothering to play the accompanying video clip.
Foley’s reputation has taken an undeserved dirty hit.
Tlaib, on the other hand, just keeps going.
What happened to Foley reminds me of a comment made by Nixon White House thug, Charles Colson, who later redeemed himself post-prison. “Anyone who opposes us, we’ll destroy,” he said, “as a matter of fact, anyone who doesn’t support us, we’ll destroy.”
That’s today’s left. Destroy first. Ask questions later. If at all.
There’s a lesson here. If you are a prominent person, unless you are deemed woke, you cannot comment on race or ethnicity, according to the rules of the high priests of the left.
Hate crimes have been rampant under President Trump, amounting to a horrendous rate of 0.005 percent of the incidents tracked by the FBI.
That’s right. Despite the narrative that this administration has ushered in a climate of hate, the number of crimes is almost statistically insignificant.
Although every hate crime is abhorrent, I think it’s important to keep such incidents in perspective.
The most recent statistics from the Department of Justice and the FBI from 2017, an estimated 1,247,321 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 0.2 percent from the 2016 estimate.
Of these incidents, hate crimes represented about 8,000 cases. Murders across the nation were double that. Rapes were 20 times higher. Burglaries were forty times worse.
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
Although anti-Islam/Arab incidents rose after 2001, the numbers are relatively small. Moreover, blacks and Jews faced more attacks. Following are the statistics:
In 2017, law enforcement agencies reported that 4,832 single-bias hate crime offenses were motivated by race/ethnicity/ancestry. Of these offenses:
48.8 percent were motivated by anti-black or African-American bias. 17.5 percent stemmed from anti-white bias. 10.9 percent were classified as anti-Hispanic or Latino bias. 5.8 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian or Alaska Native bias. 4.4 percent were a result of bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race. 3.1 percent resulted from anti-Asian bias. 2.6 percent were classified as anti-Arab bias.
Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,679 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-biased offenses showed:
58.1 percent were anti-Jewish. 18.7 percent were anti-Islamic (Muslim). 4.5 percent were anti-Catholic.
Simply put, the data don’t back up the narrative presented by the media and Democrats that hate is running rampant in the United States, But neither group has ever let the facts stand in the way of a bad story, particularly when the target is Trump.
