The Milk of Human Meanness

Utahns who don't know who Harvey Milk (1930-1978) was, you are lucky. But now you need to know if only because the Salt Lake City council has voted unanimously to name 9th South Street Harvey Milk Boulevard.

Milk is one of the Liberal Left's most revered saints. Naming things after Harvey Milk is something homosexualists do every chance they get. Two years ago our President treated the whole country to a Harvey Milk commemorative postage stamp.

Milk was a gay New Yorker who moved to San Francisco and entered local politics in the 1970s. He became famous for being the first out-of-the-closet homosexual to be elected to a public office. But there's much more. Before that he had become well known for working with at-risk youth in NYC, that's teenage male runaway drug addicts. Troubled, needy, wayward, cold, lonely kids.

"Working" with troubled youth and foster children is something sex activists seem prone to do, most likely because it puts them in close trusted positions of authority with teenagers. It gives them a green light to give lost, immature, inexperienced, confused kids any sort of ideas and experiences regarding sex and sexuality they have a mind to. Think Baden-Powell, Alfred Kinsey, and Jerry Sandusky. They and untold numbers of others put themselves in the same positions as Milk did.

Milk, in his thirties, liked them young and boyish-looking. He seduced them and then dumped them when he found them too grown up for him. He was a predator, a pederast, a statutory rapist, a sodomite---in no uncertain terms.

A revealing book about Milk called The Mayor of Castro Street (1982) was written by a close friend of Milk's and fellow homosexual, Randy Shilts. (Castro Street is San Francisco's gay district.) In this book he relates that Milk sexually seduced and sodomized a 16-year-old addict runaway, Jack McKinley, who moved into his New York City apartment with him. After their breakup and much later, when McKinley threatened suicide, all Milk cared about was that he didn't "make a mess"  (his own words). McKinley ended up indeed killing himself at age 33, the age Milk was when he sodomized him. Another of Milk's sexual partners much younger than himself also committed suicide.  "Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems," wrote Shilts. Apparently age 24 was the oldest man the much older Milk ever had a sexual affair with.

Homosexualists turn a blind eye to Milk's predatory sexual debauchery, heartlessness, and direct connection to gay suicides, at the same time blaming gay suicidality on an unaccepting bigoted public. How's that for the pot calling the kettle black? And they even get streets and schools and stamps named after him. They simply don't care about innocence and goodness and decency and rightness and health and law and order. Case in point: In a blog post called "Should Harvey Milk have been a registered sex offender?" a person made the following comment. (You might want to sit down. Grammar and spelling in context.)

"I don't see anything wrong with Harvey Milk sodomising the 16 year-old teen consensually because the teen will gain valuable sexual and social experience from the act and will turn him into a mature sexually experienced adult. The sexual experience described is no more different or a harmful version of socialisation than going to a football match."

Well, the person this happened to didn't mature much at all. He killed himself first.

Make of that what you should.

The Restroom Revolution

Sex revolutionists never stop. They never leave the rest of us alone. They push every envelope and use every tactic. Having lied and intimidated and threatened and misrepresented and redefined and sued and forced their way into one area they strong-arm their way into yet another and another. They hijacked culture. They hijacked government. They hijacked medicine.  They hijacked schools. They hijacked private businesses.They hijacked marriage and family. They hijacked the courts. They even hijacked the Boy Scouts of America, for heaven's sake. Please note that these tactics are not indicative of tolerance and democracy and liberty. They are evidences of fascism.

Their latest brainstorm is a form of tyranny displayed in the takeover of public restrooms and locker rooms. If the sex activists have their way, anybody will feel free to use any such facility at any time regardless of their biological sex, genitalia, clothing, or appearance. In other words, the current signs on the entrances of such facilities will become outdated and increasingly meaningless icons. We imagine signs on bathrooms will eventually be vandalized and rendered unreadable, or at the very least ignored by everyone; that's what happens to meaningless things. And of course the facilities themselves will become neglected and fall into disrepair. Let's remember that public bathrooms are places where homosexuals meet up for casual sexual encounters. Yes, restrooms mean sex for some people. Mark our words, decent people will increasingly do everything they can to avoid using public restrooms, locker rooms, showers, or if it's an emergency, just go into whatever bathroom is emptier or cleaner. But there won't be many empty or clean restrooms because they will have become places where sick perverts and wicked people hang out and do their thing. Yes, what is encouraged will increase.

Given the direction things are going (the country gave up marriage, for heaven;s sake; who cares about restrooms?), sexually mature males of any ilk (some heterosexuals get off on cross-dressing) may frequent places that have heretofore been exclusively female territory, as in little girls' rooms, powder rooms, the ladies' room. And any person or entity that shows anything short of complete compliance will be targeted and brought down. Case in point: When North Carolina's governor made concessions relative to a new bathroom law (stating that a person must use the facilities that match up with the gender stated on their birth certificate ---who's going to check that?) due to backlash from homosexualists all over the country (read: the Human Rights Campaign), his compromises weren't enough for them. For these people it's my way or the highway.

A local radio host had a transgenderism researcher and counselor named Elizabeth Vliet on his April 18, 2016 program addressing the current events occurring in various states regarding the takeover of public sanitary facilities and intolerance of any resistance being carried out by homosexualists.  She pointed out that this issue is a product of ideology and political correctness and not of common sense. Although she has compassion for transgenders, the efforts to open bathrooms to transgenders has not been thought through. No one is taking into consideration that transvestites, serial rapists, voyeurs, pedophiles, in short, those with a myriad of perverse and dangerous sexual proclivities and disorders, are also being given the green light to use opposite sex facilities for nefarious purposes.

These were essential and true points. But we think she went wrong when she proposed what she considered to be the only solution: to allow only transgenders who have completed sex change surgical procedures to use the opposite sex facilities. There are several problems with this so-called solution. For one thing, you can't change a male into a female or vice versa. It's only cosmetic at best. For another thing, these sexual anomalies are not defined or distinguishable to the pubic. Strangers do not know where the person is in their transitioning process. Also, the fact that a transgender has superficially accomplished "sex change" does not guarantee that he doesn't have dangerous sexual problems or proclivities. Men who have their genitalia removed can still be Peeping Toms or molesters or child abusers, and so forth. Therefore we fail to see how such surgeries are any sort of defining event.  Johns Hopkins agrees. This hospital has ceased to perform "sex change" procedures because it was found that the patients were not helped mentally or emotionally or in any other way.(Postnote: sadly, we heard the Johns Hopkins has reopened a special unit for such monstrous procedures despite evidence that they are destructive.)

Vliet's solution to ensure public safety is: "If your parts are male you use the male facilities, if your parts are female you use the female facilities." She said she can't believe how simple and common sense-based this solution is. But as we said above, it isn't. In addition to the above, she erroneously assumes that throughout their life all transgenders are benign in regards to other people's safety and privacy. She also assumes that all transgenders will keep up all the rigamarole that must be kept up even to vaguely appear to be the opposite sex. This is a lot of work which includes things like continual medications, hormones, costuming, voice altering. She assumes that all transgendered people can actually pass for the opposite sex and will continue to as they age. She assumes that girls and women using the facilities reserved for them will know that this male-looking person, or person they know to be a male but who is dressed and coifed as a female, has had his parts removed. But again, this is not apparent. The state of a person's genitalia is not public knowledge. For all the girls know, this is a pervert dressing up to use the girls' bathroom for nefarious purposes. And what about a woman transitioning to a man? These people seem to start opposite-sex dressing years before they have their genitalia altered. Where do they go in the meantime? We guess there are probably more transgenders who don't have their genitalia altered than do. So where do they go, ever?

Hey, and what about that crazy man in his fifties who dresses as a 6-year-old girl whom the gay community has embraced?  Yes, an obviously middle-aged man (father of several children) in little girls' clothes. Downright scary. Complicates things, doesn't it? There's no end to the complications when you throw basic rules and distinctions out the bathroom window. It's a case of making new general rules for everyone to satisfy the few exceptions. How dumb can this country be?

No matter which restroom transgenders use, to the ordinary person with ordinary eyesight it's going to look like their facilities are being invaded, private parts or no private parts. A male trying to appear female or a female trying to appear male just doesn't fit in either restroom.

But there's more. There is always more. According to the indefatigable sexual activists, an LGBTQI person's birth certificate is meaningless when it comes to the so-called fluidity and flexibility of gender. So is their appearance. According to their narrative, a male does not have to wear anything special or present himself as a female to use women's facilities. He doesn't have to have his parts removed or counseling or hormone therapy or voice training. In fact, anybody can decide from moment to moment which rest room he or she would like to identify with. Or not! Just use any restroom they want for whatever reasons. Like the regular-looking male guy who went into the Women's at Target and stood there leaning against the wall;  when a female came in and looked at him funny he responded that he had every right to be there. So this naive researcher's solution is moot. She isn't up on the narrative. Homosexualism is a free pass for any unconventional gender or sexual identity/behavior/expression no matter who it embarrasses, offends, or damages. Is anybody finally getting this?

As always, statistically there is more danger for females than males when it comes to such situations. Girls and women are more likely to be victims of sexual crimes than males. Women, where are you? You need to stand up for decency and privacy and, if they insist on calling it rights, your rights. Apart from staff/maintenance workers, no mature male of any sort should be allowed in female facilities. And no female or even female-presenting person should use the men's restroom; that's just asking for trouble. The saddest thing is most of us have already been conditioned to accept it. We submit that most people are so afraid of being called names or thought "discriminatory" that they are not even reporting these disturbing incidents. Regular people, unlike LGBTs, don't like to make trouble. Organized boycotts aside, such as the AFA's on Target, people might just naturally start to avoid using public facilities at this or that park or store or gym or school or movie theater or church or or or . . . 

We know of one woman who was brave enough to report she was disturbed to encounter what appeared to be a male patron hanging out in the women's locker room at her long-time gym. She was told that in the future when she came in the manager would have the locker room checked out for her. What? She has to report in every time she comes, and for the whole time she's there somebody's going to follow her around checking every nook and cranny? Is this fair or workable? Doesn't the room say WOMEN on it? Is she the one out of step? Now who is experiencing discrimination? Turned out the person was a transitioning female-to-male, who obviously had had her breasts removed but maybe had not had her genitalia messed with yet (who knows?), so according to Vliet, maybe she was in the right place. Which doesn't solve the problem that the woman felt violated at seeing what looked like a man hanging out in the women's locker room.

People like Vliet are conveniently ignoring the fact that there is more to gender than genitalia (which we hope is not exposed in public places). As far as women are concerned there are things like femininity, perceptions, tender feelings, modesty, menstruation, pregnancy. For instance, should a girl have to buy tampons, crinkle sanitary supplies, and endure menstrual cramps with a male, or even male-appearing, stranger present, known or unknown? These are things girls do in girls' bathrooms and it's hard enough to do it with other girls present. The truth is no transgender male-to-female on earth will ever know anything about real girl stuff.  We've been mostly talking about male-to-females but there are other types of problems when it comes to female-to-males. Sorry, tomboy-transgenders don't know anything about real guy stuff and never will. Makes you wonder why any biological girl, no matter how she presents or identifies herself, would ever want to use the boys' facilities. Again, it's an open invitation to predatory males and/or male homosexuals.

What a mess.

Truth is, these people don't really care at all about solving this problem. If they did, they would be all about making separate individual bathrooms, one-holers for lack of a better term, for those who decide they don't fit into the man or woman mold. But this solution is not even on the table. In fact, the presidential directive specifically states that that solution is not allowable. And it's not a solution anyway. The problem is not what kind of bathrooms we need. Perverts can follow a woman or child into one-holers and lock the door behind them. The problem is that society has declared total interchangeability between male and female. What they want to do is force everybody to give up all notions of the two sexes, especially when the very real differences between the two sexes are directly concerned: health, national security, procreation, family, safety, virtue, propriety, modesty, decency. It makes one wonder what horrible things happened to human beings that would make them abandon all of the above. But however it happened, evil is evil and the latest issue is all  part of the movement which is pushing the acceptance of all sexual behaviors. They want to muddy the lines between the two sexes until they are unrecognizable just like they have done with marriage and family, and therefore open the floodgates for any and all sexual behaviors with any and everybody, all the while thumbing their noses at God and goodness and rightness. This is the path to chaos and tyranny.

And no, Elizabeth Vliet does not have the solution. The only solution to this ridiculous and dangerous  restroom revolution is a return to order, safety, reality, manners, civil society, and God.

One possible silver lining: maybe some of those who have embraced homosexualism (both gays and straights) will wake up to the absurdity and danger of this whole movement. News flash: If you are an open homosexual or homosexualist, you are part of the problem and the chaos it is leading to. The Lord loves you and you can repent. Do it now and become part of the solution!