This weeks Quantum Last weeks part 1 looked at how the Trans ideology has taken over our cultural elites and gatekeepers. This week we look at the consequences when Trans ideology takes hold in the culture. It is a new religion…we look at women in prison, J K Rowling; changing crime statistics; abuse in hospitals; Kathleen Stock; enabling child abuse and grooming; teenage suicides; girl guides; Brisbane girls think they are cats; destruction of language; pronouns and the Soho House; women in sport – Lia Thomas; Robert Winston; Homosexuality; Lorna Slater and the Scottish Greens; The Australian Election; Californian Discrimination; Father Ted; Julie Bindel; Sharron Davies; Jamie Wallis; including music from Shania Twain, Faye, Madonna, Helen Reddy, the Beach Boys and Olivia Lane.
Part 1 here – Quantum 194 – Transgender Special – Part 1 – How Did We Get Here?
Support Quantum here – https://patron.podbean.com/theweeflea
AS well as the links above there are some others:
This video is well worth looking at –
Kathleen Stock – Material Girls – “Now many of the fictions in which we immerse ourselves are harmless. But that isn’t the case with trans fictions, when disseminated at industrial scale and coercively maintained by the progressive establishment. At the other end of this particular story arc are unhappily infertile young adults; women prisoners made to share facilities with male rapists; sportswomen crowded out of competition by men they can’t hope to beat; young lesbians guilted into dating males; wives being coerced into participation in the cross-dressing fantasies of their husbands; and trans people with wholly inadequate healthcare relative to their well-being.”
And here is the music used:
My greatest fear is where will this all lead to? What it has already led to is bad enough …..but what is the final outcome. I saw a ‘funny’ but useful youtube video skit by Noel Kolhatkor on ‘equality’and how the western world will look (sound like) on 2025. It is hilarious but frighteningly prophetic. How do we protect our children from this madness? and does anyone have a list of words of how the woke left is changing vocab? Perhaps David we will meet one day in a future re-education camp.
Here’s Simon Webb talking about a man calling himself Kali Gills. Simon says, “This person only declared his or her gender dysphoria when facing prison”. S/he was taken to court for biting off a woman’s nose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cosN2RLNznQ
Simon’s YouTube channel is called ‘History Debunked’ and has lots of videos which might be of interest to readers of the Wee Flea.
Many years back we took a very young cousin from a farming background out for a run. She wanted to try fishing and there was tackle in the car boot. So we pulled in to a picnic site by a river, rigged up the rod and found half a dozen worms from under stones. My tiny cousin fired out the bait and a nice trout obliged. At the time I was amazed how the wriggling trout, plus the netting and the dispatching of the fish, caused her no visible upset. Are suburban people sometimes unrealistic (or just in denial) about the crude biological facts of life? Animals eating each other, prey and predator, sex and death? Is our suburban squeamishness and a quest for everything-‘clean and neat’-sometimes a means of denying the obvious?
Well done I think you have navigated through what is to say the least a difficult subject with ,, skill, biblical truth and sensitivity . I look forward to the final part.
David, if your looking at solutions for next week, surely we have to come back to fundamental truth.
Will we, that is each and everyone of us, including those who wrestle with thoughts and feelings, say along with David;
‘I am fearfully and wonderfully made…’
That is the crux of it. Am I created, or not?
It is the refutation of *creation* that has opened this door, and it is only returning to that issue we (including those who wrestle with this) will find a solution.
If we are created, it puts to bed any idea of self identifying. Can the clay say to the potter I am thus? How can what is created, self determine it’s purpose, design and function? It cannot truthfully! Ever.
To dispute our bodies is to contest with God. It is for God to determine, and for us to align with it as he has determined.
If however we instead deny creation and the creator, and merely embrace nature, then the apparent natural order can be contested, because mere nature of itself establishes no design, function or purpose. Rather existence.
It is like presenting a product, and giving it to someone in a far away country where they have never seen such a device before, with no instructions, denying that it was created by anyone, upon which the recipient can and will do with it as it pleases them! If they want to use a washing machine to store fish, who can say otherwise?
Therefore, validity is given to the arguments over gender and sexuality, because without a creator, there is no external benchmark or reference outside the object. There is no purpose other than what we determine. The object itself, the body, feelings and thoughts dictate, rather than the One who is outside of the thing he has created!
At the moment we have all creation arguing amongst itself, like a workshop full of tools disputing their individual purpose and function.
It’s not for the heavy spanner to say believes it’s purpose is to hammer in nails because it can, and the screwdriver to argue otherwise. Since when can the product determine its purpose and function?
It’s creator alone does that.
Deny the creator, then the created will become futile in its thinking, just as Romans 1 outlines.
The issue is that your question, as presented, lacks nuance. If we consider Christians who struggle with gender dysphoria, you’ll find no dispute that we’re “fearfully and wonderfully made”. You will be confronted with questions about what that means exactly and what the limits of the position are before too much is argued for. This is the case all the more if we acknowledge the reality of sin and its impact on the world and on ourselves.
Which is to say that it’s fine to argue against X, Y, Z formulation of some ‘transgender’ positions on A, B, C, but let’s recognise with the utmost seriousness that gender dysphoria isn’t a simple issue, and questions like, “but God made you isn’t that right?” doesn’t quite do the issue justice.
Tricky teleology, ‘eh? Throw in a maybe-not-the-same ontology, and I think it would be objected to this notion of self-determination. Or maybe the caveats would flow as soon as counterexamples are provided? Hmm.