The Future is Now



In 1987, Alex Murphy was taking criminals "dead or alive" in "Robocop". I remember watching it for the first time (oh yeah, many times over the years) and seeing the scene in the Detroit police department locker room where both men and women were in various stages of undress (and no, I'm NOT posting a pic). The reason the scene got my attention, outside of the women in various stages of undress (I admit, I AM a straight male), was that both sexes were oblivious to the fact that the opposite sex was there in various stages of undress. I'll say that again: they were oblivious to the fact. It was normal. Just another day. And I wondered: what would it take to get us from "here" to "there"?

What I mean by "here" is a society that still has difficulty with male and female equality in all of its various forms (think "equal pay", for example), dress codes that determine the length of a woman's skirt and whether or not a man wears a necktie, and what gender "Pat" is.

Then one day it hit me. I finally figured out that unknown bridge: transgenderism.

Transgender people are throwing all kinds of confusion into "normal" society. Recently, an elementary school hit the news because a boy, who has determined himself to be a girl, has decided that she didn't want to use the teachers' or unisex bathroom, but decided to use the girls' bathroom. Both students and parents were up in arms, and the school made the statement that students are to use bathrooms that match their "plumbing" (my word, not theirs). I know of a business where an employee who presents himself as female, wants to use the ladies restroom as well. That business determined that if the employee is presenting himself/herself as a certain gender, they are able to use the bathroom that coincides with said gender. Part of the decision was based on the fact that the toilets are in stalls with doors, and the urinals have dividers (and I have never seen, in all my 49+ years, another male attempt to look past the divider - ever!): no one sees anyone in any form of undress. And does anyone really care the gender of the person at the next sink washing their hands? Hell, I'm just happy when people wash their hands. Of course, that business hasn't determined locker room/shower room use, but they will have to address it soon.

Having the opposite sex "invade" your bathroom is nothing new. Anyone who has been to a concert at the former Richfield Coliseum (I saw my first concert, Billy Joel - from A Piano Man to An Innocent Man - at that coliseum) has seen women skip the long lines for the ladies' room and grab a stall in the men's room. We guys noticed, but again, the stalls had doors. But now, that "invasion" is starting to become the "norm". (I noticed that I use a lot of quotation marks in my blogs. I wonder what the significance of "that" is . . . )

So for good or ill, trans genders are here to stay, so society needs to adjust.

According to an article by Jocelyne Zablit, "a California elementary school has become one of the first in the country to phase out gendered bathrooms". They are not adding a unisex bathroom; they are getting rid of those male and female silhouette-signed bathrooms.

Society is beginning to adjust.

Ally McBeal was the first to address a unisex bathroom (that I'm aware of), and that was back in the late 1990s. It was a novel idea that became a mainstay in the course of the series. And as has been said, good fiction soon becomes fact.

So, the future is now. We are slowly setting aside our long-held "hang ups" (there are those damn quotation marks again) and are beginning to allow the natural progression of society to become whatever it decides to be. And I think that is a good thing.

First unisex bathrooms, and next: silver jumpsuits!

  

(The above video is a clip from the 2002 Simon Wells film, "The Time Machine". That's right, Simon Wells: the great-grandson of H.G. Wells, the author of the book of the same name.)

© Emittravel 2015

If the Stiletto Fits . . .

A few weeks prior to this writing, Bruce Jenner "came out" publicly as Caitlyn Jenner.

First off, I think it interesting that we still use the expression "came out", as it is directly reminiscent of when those outside the socially-accepted "norm" were IN the so-called closet, and, when going public with the truth concerning themselves, would come OUT of said closet.

Secondly, I think it interesting that the term "closet" is used to describe both the place for those outside of the socially-accepted "norm", AND as the place Christians are encouraged to enter when praying (Matthew 6:6 - KJV). Curious. Ever think that for some people, the very "closet" one spends time in prayer becomes the very place they discover their true selves?

(Yeah, that last thing may upset a few folks . . . )

As I mentioned in my last blog post, one of the difficulties I have with the Christian church is the focus on the depravity of the world, and how those in the church have "overcome" and are separate from, even superior to, it. I was part of that belief structure for many years, and I know how entrenched that attitude can be in one's life. And it is sometimes given from the pulpit with sly humor, all the while reinforcing an intolerance for the very people the church is supposed to be reaching out to.

If you, as a person with such an attitude, find that you have difficulty with folks like Caitlyn Jenner, I want to know something: Is God the author of birth defects?

Think about that for a minute. And no, I'm not calling Caitlyn Jenner someone with a birth defect. Though, in a sense, maybe I am.

We Christians like to say that God doesn't make junk. For example, using the (re)creation account in Genesis chapter one, everything God made was "good". The bible also says that sickness and disease are from the Devil. So, where do birth defects come from? I've already argued that children aren't born with them because of their sins or the sins of their parents (see "Hey Babe: Take a Walk on the Quiet Side"), so where do they come from?

(One way I understand it is, the longer we have been here, reproducing and reproducing, errors in our genetic make-up keep getting passed down, and even transfigured, from one generation to the next. I was born, for instance, without a sense of smell. For me each breath is the same. My mom's sense of smell is normal. My dad's is beyond normal: he's smelled an underground gas leak that the technician couldn't detect with his meter until he had dug two-feet below ground! Yet, MY shnoz is basically useless. With sinus issues, it is sometimes beyond useless! Radiation is known to be a source of some cancers, because of the way it affects cells. I believe that in some cases, cancer can be a genetic disorder.)

Now, if someone is born with a birth defect, and science has come to the point where they can "fix" it, should the person with the defect take advantage of that technology? Or, since God made them that way, should they embrace the way they are and not seek "wholeness"? If one is born without arms or legs, prosthetics today have come a long way to providing someone a higher level of independence than they would have ever experienced otherwise. Would it be wrong to embrace such technology? What about corrective lenses (glasses or contacts), or even LASIC surgery? Would those be abominations because they go to "fix" what God had deemed "good"? Of course not.

Okay, let's not limit birth defects. Since sex is only determined by a couple of X's and Y's (and no, I'm not getting into the whole sex vs. gender argument), what if what one is born with is NOT what they, inside, determine themselves to be? Isn't that a form of birth defect too? And since science has come to the point where they can "fix" that as well, is it wrong for a person to embrace that either?

You have to think, if all wisdom and inventiveness ultimately comes from God, is it so wrong for medical technology to give people a way to live a more "normal" life?

As the title says, "If the stiletto fits . . . "

© Emittravel 2015

Stuff My Brain Says #26

If you vote for or against a candidate because of race, sex, or whatever, you have PROVEN that we have not progressed as a people. I just heard commentary where the Republicans are alienating the Hispanic base. You know what? I'd LOVE to hear a candidate say that they don't give a FLIP about race, sex, or whatever, and that we are ONE American family, and they want what is best for America. THAT candidate will get my attention.

If you voted AGAINST President Obama because he is black you are a RACIST. If you voted FOR President Obama because he is black you are a RACIST.

We will not have progressed as a people until we look past race, sex, or whatever, and have actually listened to what comes out of a person's mouth. In other words, and I'm dating myself here, the ideal candidate will be the Unknown Comic!

© Emittravel 2011

Morality? It's Open Season!

In recent history, New York made gay marriage legal. This prompted much conversation in the Facebook realm, with sides taken and arguments for and against made.

For me, I was on the side that disagreed with New York's move. Not necessarily from a legal standpoint, though I disagree with the way it was done, but more from a moral standpoint.

My argument was that if you openly acknowledge specific immorality as "normal", logically, you open up the floodgates to permit all immorality as "normal". That point was fought with various points, but it didn't deter my argument. But why not? If you say homosexuality is normal, why not things like pedophilia, or wining and dining Rover with hopes for some romp at the end of the night?

Ted Turner is famous for stating that all you have to do is push the line, and after awhile it becomes the new normal. You push the line again and THAT becomes the new normal. Remember when the word "damn" was not permitted on television because it was considered vulgar? Heck, I remember when commercials would whisper "toilet paper" . . . Yeah, I'm showing my age . . .

One point that was made to me was that children and Rover are not willing participants and therefore victims. There is not victimization with homosexuality. There are plenty of victims in homosexuality, but this article is not a treatise on that. This article is to state that I was right! Yup. I'm tooting my own horn here folks! My Humble But Accurate Opinion was heavy on the Accurate! And here is my reason why:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/after-hhs-says-children-are-sexual-beings-psychologists-push-to-decriminalize-pedophilia/

In case the link stops working (which is why I rarely use them in my blog), I am quoting the article in it's entirety:

In a push that seeks to sexualize young children while condoning homosexual “experimentation” among teens, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is offering up pearls of wisdom to parents on the sexuality of children.  But if that were not disturbing enough, this comes at a time when a group of psychologists are allegedly pushing for the decriminalization of pedophilia.

The HHS information, located on a “Questions and Answers About Sex” link on the “Quick Guide to Healthy Living” section of the government website even describes children and infants as “sexual beings.”

The site also includes information on sexual experimentation, including homosexuality.

Under the section “When Do Kids Start Becoming Curious About Sex?” the answer notes that infants and toddlers are curious about their own bodies. CNSNews adds:

“Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings,” the Q&A Web page says. “It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this, just as it’s hard for kids to think of their parents as sexually active. But even infants have curiosity about their own bodies, which is healthy and normal.”

As for masturbation and “what sort of ‘sexual’ behavior do young kids exhibit?” the page says, “Parents should only be concerned about masturbation if a child seems preoccupied with it to the exclusion of other activities. Victims of sexual abuse sometimes become preoccupied with self-stimulation.”

A link at the bottom of the Q&A page, entitled “Sexual Attraction and Orientation,” includes information on sexual experimentation, including homosexuality.

“Thinking sexually about both the same sex and the opposite sex is quite common as teens sort through their emerging sexual feelings,” the page says. “This type of imagining about people of the same or opposite sex doesn’t necessarily mean that a person fits into a particular type of sexual orientation.”

“Some teens may also experiment with sexual experiences, including those with members of the same sex, during the years they are exploring their own sexuality,” the page reads. “These experiences, by themselves, do not necessarily mean that a teen is gay or straight.” 

While much of the information provided does raise questions about HHS’ motivation, Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council, pointed out HHS did clarify that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

While he considers the promotion of abstinence to be a good thing, Sprigg also believes the federal government has no place weighing in on the sexuality of infants and young children:

“The idea that ‘children are human beings and therefore sexual beings’ is one of the most destructive myths of the sexual revolution,” Sprigg told CNSNews.com. “To a large extent, this myth may be traced to the ‘research’ conducted by Alfred Kinsey, including the infamous ‘Children of Table 34’ experiments, which involved the deliberate sexual abuse of children as young as 6 months old under ‘experimental’ conditions.”

“The fact that young children are aware that their bodies include genitalia hardly makes them ‘sexual beings,’ and it is improper (and potentially dangerous) to treat them as such before puberty,” he said.

 Which makes the following Fox News report all the more troubling. According to Shannon Bream, a group of mental health professionals, dubbed “B4U-ACT,” are arguing that pedophiles are simply misunderstood and therefore, should not be criminalized.

A partial statement by the group reads:

“Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people of the issue of child sexual abuse.” 

B4U-ACT’s aim is allegedly to create “tolerance” for people who are sexually attracted to children. Are members of the psychiatric community now attempting to treat pedophilia in the same way they would alcoholism or depression? If so, this could likely increase the danger pedophiles present to children across the country.

This means the floodgates have been opened as predicted. It's open season on morality. If you argue one form of immorality is normal, you CANNOT discriminate against any other form. And this is just one example. I guarantee you there will be more! And if you are in prison for child pornography, don't worry! You will soon have a legal argument for false imprisonment. You can't punish someone for what is "normal".

And before you comment that homosexuality doesn't fit this argument, remember that at one time it was defined as a mental illness by the psychiatric community. The very psychiatric community that wants to now decriminalize pedophilia.

Stick that in your diversity pipe and smoke it!

© Emittravel 2011