On Transgenderism and Gender Theory

[Full disclaimer: This one may get me shot!]

After the Supreme Court ruled the legality of Same Sex Marriage[i], it seemed that the opposition to inclusion was settled and the social framework would move forward to a more equal society. However, the battle for equal rights to all social minority groups was only just beginning. As early as 2006, San Francisco held "the largest transgender event of its kind"[ii], leading to more activism in support against Gender bias and transphobic violence. Since then, "LGBTI activism has fought for the rights of people who fall outside of expected binary sex and gender norms"[iii] since adopting the final letter in 2014[iv]. There have been a wide variety of questions, heated debates, ridicules and concerns when it comes to the concept of Transgenderism, leading to many misconceptions all along the way. I hope only to look at both sides of the aisle and make my decision ONLY once I ask around, look up what those who oppose and those who support the idea of Transgenderism believe, the history of the movement and I will reserve my overall opinion until the end of my research. As with all of the Polemics before, I will make the attempt to be as open-minded as I possibly can and make an effort to understand before I make my judgement. I know I have been saying the same thing over and over, but I am trying to sink the words deeply into the heads of those which are highly “triggered” by opinion. Therefore, TO BE CLEAR, I am not going to make an uninformed opinion, so please don’t burn my house down for whatever I am about to write on the matter.

            After swallowing a two-volume set of books, which are taught in Gender Studies as the first books on the concept of Gender Identity, I made a surprising discovery. In 1949, a woman by the name of Simone de Beauvoir wrote “The Second Sex”, a work devoted to the fluidity of traits amongst men and women. Throughout the books Beauvoir describes women's subordination to the species in terms of reproduction, compares the physiology of men and women, concluding elaborating in depth that values cannot be based on physiology. Beauvoir goes further by stating that the facts of biology must be viewed in light of the ontological, economic, social, and physiological context[v]. The second volume contrasts a girl's upbringing with a boy's, who at age 3 or 4 is told he is a "little man"[vi], while the little girl is deemed either a “princess” or “darling”. Beauvoir continues by saying that little girls have not formed a maternal instinct and must be programed to craft a love of a male god and must be obedient, beautiful and be subjected to male lovers[vii]. She wrote in further detail about how women have been programed to be useful for nothing more than to cook, clean and raise children[viii], how women’s clothing defines her role in life[ix] and how she hopes for a future when men and women can live as equals[x]. What Gender Studies professors glean from her work is that socially constructed gender traits are just that: traits for which a society teaches to their youth. Beauvoir essentially believed in what John Locke called the “tabula rasa”, or blank slate. Essentially, one could teach a boy to behave as a girl and vice versa. A few years later, this theory would be put to the test.

             A few decades later, a man named John Money, often revered as the first Sexologist and the founder of the concept known as gender fluidity, burst onto the scene. Quite a progressive man, Money defined in his 1955 paper the seven factors which determined our definition of gender[xi]:

1.      Assigned sex and sex on rearing

2.      external genital morphology

3.      internal reproductive structures

4.      hormonal and secondary sex characteristics

5.      gonadal sex

6.      chromosomal sex

7.      Gender role and orientation as male or female, established while growing up

Money took it another step further by stating that "all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively.”[xii] He got the chance to test his theories on gender when he encountered the case of David Reimer, a newborn who had lost his penis in a botched circumcision. Money approached the parents with the recommendation of sex reassignment surgery as the only option for their son to live a normal life and at only 22 months of age, David underwent an orchidectomy, a surgery in which his testicles were surgically removed, and was renamed Brenda. Further, Money recommended that the parents give Brenda regular hormone injections and even  a surgery to create an artificial vagina. The parents accepted the first recommendation but not the second.

 For the next several years, Money worked close to the twins, encouraging the parents to continue to treat David/Brenda as a girl. In their sessions, Money would further enforce the gender roles by making the twins look at one another’s genital parts and arrange themselves into various male-dominate sex positions (with clothes on, don’t have a stroke!)[xiii] and verbally abuse the twins if they didn’t follow his exact orders. Once he felt sure that his theory became fact, Money and his colleagues touted the procedure as a resounding success, leading to the acceptance of gender fluidity amongst many in the Medical circle, providing justification for thousands of sex reassignment surgeries for children with abnormal genitals.

John Money’s self-proclaimed “success” was flaunted when Brenda told her story to Milton Diamond, another Sexologist, who later persuaded her to tell this story to John Colapinto, who published the story in “Rolling Stone” magazine in 1997[xiv]. The article goes in depth about the trials which incurred Brenda’s life as she and her brother suffered through the psychological trauma incurred through Money’s twelve-year reconditioning. After the age of fifteen, Brenda went back to being known as David and was quoted saying:

“It was like brainwashing,” and

“I’d give just about anything to go to a hypnotist to black out my whole past. Because it’s torture. What they did to you in the body is sometimes not near as bad as what they did to you in the mind – with the psychological warfare in your head.”

Tragically, both brothers committed suicide, Brian in 2002 and David in 2004, their parents blaming Money’s insistence for their sessions and recommendations for the twin’s deaths[xv]. Despite the tragic turn of events, Money was still seen as an iconic character in the intersex community, praised for his views on the fluidity of sexuality[xvi].

            Digging further down the rabbit hole, a woman by the name of Judith Butler emerges. Drawing from Beauvoir, Butler claims that "between sex, as biological facticity, and gender, as the cultural interpretation or signification of that facticity"[xvii], further stating that male and female actions are observed and then copied in order for that person to perform well within their social construct. She doubles down on this thought by stating that “trans individuals are engaged in the process of meaning making—creating coherence both for themselves and for others.”[xviii] By separating the binary lines of masculine and feminine, Butler claims that those which possess a variance of such feelings may not necessarily assimilate into either camp, birthing the concept of gender fluidity[xix].

            Supporters of the Transgender community believe that government has been excessively impeding upon their rights to utilize their identifying gender. From the bathroom bill in North Carolina[xx]    to the retaliation from President Trump opposing Transgender individuals in the military[xxi] to the issue of whether or not Transgenders are suffering from a mental illness[xxii], the community at large feels like they are attacked at all sides. Major groups like the ACLU and the National Organization for Women have come forward to defend these marginalized groups, with some success. For example, a proposal from Finland which required sterilization in order to change one’s gender legally was abolished in 2017[xxiii]. On 13 March 2004, amendments to the Mexico City Civil Code that allow transgender people to change their gender and name on their birth certificates, took effect[xxiv]. Even in places such as China, who are known for their abhorrence to change, the Shanxi province started allowing minors to apply for the change with the additional information of their guardian's identification card[xxv]. It would appear that the Transgender community has made great strides all over the world, crafting acceptance in every major court of the world except the United States and the Middle East in acceptance. Even now, those part of the community are, at the time of writing this, being denied the ability to serve the country which is opposed to their beliefs, accused by the medical community of having a mental illness and not even allowed to utilize the bathroom of their choosing. In their eyes, living as a Trans person is difficult in every which way. They want to be included, not shunned. They make the attempt to be normal. They do one thing which they claim that their opponents don’t even attempt: trying to understand the other side’s point of view.

            On the other hand, gender non-binary ideals are considered by some to be hereditary[xxvi] and most tend to suffer from depression, suicide and self-doubt[xxvii]. Labeled as Gender Dysphoria[xxviii] by the APA, it is treated by both therapy and hormones. The idea is to learn acceptance as their identified gender and support from family members is highly encouraged. However, this form of treatment is statistically ineffective, since their suicide rate is 41.8%[xxix]. Some may claim this as an inaccurate polling, so I’ll extend an olive branch: if the previous poll was off by HALF, the total would still be 1.5 times more than the total for the United State as a whole last year, which INCLUDES the suicide deaths from the previous poll[xxx]. They claim conformity and desire acceptance, but get “triggered” when others say or do something which they regard offensive. A couple examples are as follows:

1.      A Transgender customer freaks out at a man who calls her “sir”[xxxi]

2.      A professor proposed that teens are influenced by peer pressure to mistakenly identify as Trans, only to face ridicule[xxxii]

3.      Claiming that their YouTube channels are being demonetized due to being Pro-Trans[xxxiii]

I could go for hours, but I left it at three. The most popular idea from opposition concerning the Trans community is a simple one: they just want attention.

            This has been a long, long road for me to go down on. So, before I make my conclusion, just remember that I gave both sides a look, took in both sides ideology, analyzed it to the best of my ability and did my best to make the most convincing argument that I could for both sides of the issue. I will say that I do agree with Beauvoir to a point. Men are classified as men based on whether or not they do what their society deems manly. Women do what they do for the same reason. To an extent, gender roles are crafted by society. This is why in some parts of the world a woman has to cover from head to toe in a hijab while others get to lay out in the sun in a string bikini. This is why some communities value strength in their men rather than brilliance. I feel that is all Beauvoir was trying to say: men and women can perform the same task without it being a taboo. In some parts, she even succeeds the point that, just because someone can perform an action generally attributed to the opposite gender does not necessarily mean that they should. I’m with her on that. Where I start to fall off the bandwagon is when Gender Studies professors, like Judith Butler, and members of the LGTBQ community claim John Money had a successful study proving that all gender is a social construct. Keep in mind, one of the twins in the study overdosed due to the trauma of his teachings and the other blew his head off after living as a girl for fifteen years of his life. Back to Judith Butler and her claims of gender fluidity, I will succeed that some people have more masculine traits and others have more feminine traits. This being said, it does not mean that your gender is not connected to your sex. I’ll dumb this down even further: if you have a penis, you are a Male. If you have a vagina, you are a Female. That’s it! There’s nothing else you can conform to (unless you are a Hermaphrodite, which is usually settled through surgery at some point in life).

            It just amazes me that THIS is the history of the Transgender community: a woman who said that a woman can do what a man can, a psychologist who benefited by the manipulation of twins in a horrible tragedy from beginning to end and a woman who claims that feeling like a woman or a man makes you one. This is your history, people! Everything that has been written in support of Transgenderism is based upon these three people who had entirely too much time to think about something which our cave men ancestors figured out a long time ago.  

            And I close with the words which may get me shot, or at the very least assaulted: we are talking about 0.6% of the population[xxxiv]. To put this into perspective, that’s 1,962,000 people in a country of 327,200,000. It took 10% of the population to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that was after decades of government endorsed racism, violence in the streets, the assassination of both Martin Luther King JR and Malcolm X, along with many others who are lost to the sands of time; they bled for their cause against a system which was crafted to hate them. Thank God they won, but it was not an easy fight. It was one which cost thousands of lives, both Black and White, for them to achieve the equality so desired. Since then, we have had Black Judges, Police Chiefs, Mayors, Governors, Senators, Generals and a President. So, if you believe that you are oppressed, look at what it took to create an equal legality for these brave souls. What “sacrifice” did you make for equality? Were you hosed down in the streets recently or were you denied access to a bathroom? Were you told that you couldn’t enter a restaurant because of something you couldn’t change or are you a man wearing a dress and having people look at you in confusion? Were you called a Negro instead of Sir or were you called Sir instead of Ma’am? You were founded by a First-Wave Feminist being taken out of context, an evil SOB who messed with children’s minds and a woman who didn’t want to be called a Tom-Boy, filled with sad people who want to be distinct and identify as one of the 63 genders so they can feel unique and special[xxxv]. The community is filled with professional victims and disheartened people who yearn to be different when they should be placed on anti-depressants. Take a Valium and move on with your life.

[i] "PRRI - American Values Atlas". Public Religion Research Institute. 2017.

[ii] Trans March kicks off Pride weekend Vickie Martin, June 2006, Bay Area Reporter.

[iii] "Intersex for allies". 21 November 2012. Retrieved 18 May 2016.

[iv] Ryan, Hugh (10 January 2014). "What Does Trans* Mean, and Where Did It Come From?'". Slate. Retrieved 21 May 2014.

[v]  de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Pp.46.

[vi] de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 285–286.

[vii] de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 304–305, 306–308.

[viii] de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 644.

[ix] de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 571–581, 584–588, 589–591, 592–598.

[x] de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 760, 766.

[xi] Money, John; Hampson, Joan G; Hampson, John (October 1955). "An Examination of Some Basic Sexual Concepts: The Evidence of Human Hermaphroditism". Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp. Johns Hopkins University. 97 (4): 301–19

[xii] Money, John; Hampson, Joan G; Hampson, John (October 1955). "An Examination of Some Basic Sexual Concepts: The Evidence of Human Hermaphroditism". Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp. Johns Hopkins University. 97 (4): 301–19

[xiii] https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/david-reimer-and-john-money-gender-reassignment-controversy-johnjoan-case

[xiv] Colapinto, John (December 11, 1997). "The True Story of John/Joan". Rolling Stone: 54–97. Archived from the original on 2000-08-15. Retrieved 2014-09-27

[xv] "Born a Boy, Raised as a Girl" Documentary, The Learning Channel

[xvi] Walker, Jesse (24 May 2004). The Death of David Reimer: A tale of sex, science, and abuse. Reason

[xvii] Butler, Judith (1988). "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory". Theatre Journal. 40 (4): 519–531. doi:10.2307/3207893. JSTOR 3207893.

[xviii] https://read.dukeupress.edu/glq/article-abstract/15/1/97/34647

[xix] Butler, Judith (2004). Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge

[xx] Bianco, Marcie (April 2, 2016). "Statistics Show Exactly How Many Times Trans People Have Attacked You in Bathrooms". Archived from the original on December 21, 2016. Retrieved January 11, 2017.

[xxi] https://www.hrc.org/blog/hrc-denounces-transgender-troop-ban-on-eve-of-implemention

[xxii] Hidalgo, Marco A.; Ehrensaft, Diane; Tishelman, Amy C.; Clark, Leslie F.; Garofalo, Robert; Rosenthal, Stephen M.; Spack, Norman P.; Olson, Johanna (2013). "The Gender Affirmative Model: What We Know and What We Aim to Learn". Human Development. 56 (5): 285–290. doi:10.1159/000355235.

[xxiii] Wareham, Jamie (29 August 2017). "Finland will keep sterilizing trans people after it rejects law reform". Gay Star News. Archived from the original on 2 September 2017. Retrieved 1 September 2017.

[xxiv] "Mexico: Mexico City Amends Civil Code to Include Transgender Rights", International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, 15 June 2004

[xxv] Sun, Nancy (9 January 2014). "Shanxi Permits Persons to Change Gender Information". All-China Women's Federation. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Retrieved 17 October 2014.

[xxvi] Friedman, RC (2008). Sexual Orientation and Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Sexual Science and Clinical Practice. Columbia University Press. pp. 53–7. ISBN 978-0-231-12057-9.

[xxvii] Crawford, Nicole (2003). "Understanding children's atypical gender behavior". American Psychological Association.

[xxviii] "Gender Dysphoria Fact Sheet" (PDF). APA. Retrieved September 2, 2013.

[xxix] https://www.hrc.org/blog/new-study-reveals-shocking-rates-of-attempted-suicide-among-trans-adolescen

[xxx] https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

[xxxi] https://neonnettle.com/news/6062-transgender-customer-attacks-gamestop-employee-after-being-called-sir-

[xxxii] https://www.dailywire.com/news/44941/remember-professor-attacked-suggesting-teens-hank-berrien

[xxxiii] https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-has-transgender-become-a-trigger-word-for-youtube

[xxxiv] Flores, Andrew (June 2016). "How Many Adults Identify as Transgender in the United States" (PDF). Williams Institute UCLA School of Law

[xxxv] https://apath.org/63-genders/

On Sanctuary Cities

The term in question refers to municipal jurisdictions, typically in North America and Western Europe, that limit their cooperation with the national government's effort to enforce immigration law. The thought process is that illegal immigrants will be able to comply in reporting crimes without the fear of being deported, utilizing medical services and enrolling their children in school[i]. On some level, this makes sense. On the other hand, it is intolerable for a justice system on a local level can simply ignore laws set in place at a Federal level. I will extend an olive branch on this matter: sometimes what is determined “legal” is not necessarily what is deemed “ethical”. Not a person on the planet would deem a sence of ethical positivity towards taking a child away from their family who face deportation. However, in order to say this, one must place a double-standard on Abortion, where the father not only has no say in this matter, but is not legally required to be informed that the procedure took place. We can’t have it both ways, people. In the same manner as before, we’ll make the attempt to uncover the truth in this matter, way the pros and cons, and make a final judgement only when all the facts are assembled.

Shall we?

            Believe it or not, sanctuary city history goes back thousands of years. In the Book of Numbers, the children of Israel were ordered to establish such cities where those who committed manslaughter could be safe from their families[ii]. In 392 AD, Christian Roman emperor Theodosius I set up sanctuaries under church control. In AD 600 in medieval England, churches were given a general right of sanctuary, and some cities were set up as sanctuaries by Royal charter. Most of those fleeing to these sanctuaries were those who were wrongly committed or were fleeing vigilante justice, quite a commonplace in a time where the idea of “guilty until proven innocent” was the chosen way to perform law. The sanctuary city movement took place in the 1980s to challenge the US government’s refusal to grant asylum to certain Central American refugees. These asylum seekers were arriving from countries in Central America like El Salvador and Guatemala that were politically unstable. The first groups to reach out to those seeking asylum were faith-based groups, who were offering aid throughout the Southwest. A milestone in the U.S. sanctuary city movement occurred in 1985 in San Francisco, which passed the largely symbolic “City of Refuge” resolution. The resolution was followed the same year by an ordinance which prohibited the use of city funds and resources to assist federal immigration enforcement–the defining characteristic of a sanctuary city in the U.S. As of 2018, more than 560 cities, states and counties considered themselves sanctuaries.

            One of the biggest arguments for the Sanctuary movement is that such a policy encourages a better relationship between illegal immigrants and law enforcement, thus eliminating the fear of reporting crime and being turned in themselves. This makes sense, considering that one of the most common reasons illegals are found and sent to ICE is due to a report of a crime. This is further demonstrated due to the fact that 70% of undocumented immigrants and 44% of Latinos surveyed are less likely to report if they were the victim of crime and 45% of Latinos are less likely report crimes or voluntarily offer information about a crime for fear police officers would learn about their immigration status. This statement is crucial, especially considering that The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 would allow minor crimes, such as shoplifting, to be grounds for possible deportation. Section 287(g) of Homeland Security makes it possible for state and local law enforcement personnel to enter into agreements with the federal government to enforce immigration law, it provides no general power for immigration enforcement by state and local authorities. This isn’t helped by the fact that the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution provides for the separation of federal and state powers. According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the Amendment prevents the "federal government from coercing state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program, like immigration," and, thus, Congress cannot compel state or local governments to collect immigration status information in order to share it with the federal government. The final argument for such policy is due to the indiscrimination of such laws deporting children who have lived in this country since birth. Libby Schaaf, Mayor of Oakland, CA, said, "I like to compare this to conscientious objector status. We are not going to use our resources to enforce what we believe are unjust immigration laws”.

            Now, to those who oppose the above. Many, including the President, oppose such matters because they claim Sanctuary status does not aid in the safety of the American populous. For one, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant, had seven felony convictions in the United States and had been deported from the country five times. Yet, the city of San Francisco declined to detain him for ICE officials and released him into the community. In a tragic turn of events, Lopez-Sanchez was charged with the murder of Katie Steinle in San Francisco in 2015. It does not help those which are Pro-Sanctuary that statistics show that, out of 235,413 people detained by ICE in the same year, 138,893 of them had been convicted of a crime[iii]. Some believe that a sanctuary status is giving leniency towards those which are committing a crime of being in our country illegally, making it difficult to justify charging them with any other crime when their very existence is a crime.

            When it comes down to it, like it or not, if one is in this country illegally, they are committing a crime. Some may claim that this is a cruel idea, but I would go further. The Constitution is the law of the American people, a place where our rights are written and the law is crafted to uphold the Constitution for the American people. Notice, however, I said “American People”. If someone is an illegal, they do not have the right to remain silent. They do not have a right to an attorney, do not have the right for a speedy and public trial and do not have a right to not self-incriminate. In truth, they do not have any rights under the law. I do not say this to be cruel, I am simply following what is written. If the Mayors of these cities craft ways for those illegal immigrants to avoid ICE, then they are co-conspirators and should be brought to justice. Those elected to such positions look out for the best interests of the American people, not all people. I close with this: America has become entirely too inclusive. This makes sense to a point, seeing that America is a melting pot of cultures, religions and ideas. However, the inclusiveness is limited to those who are citizens of this country, those who pay taxes and have a Social Security or Green Card. The idea is simple: Not our people, not our problem.

[i] Dallas County sheriff eases immigration holds on minor offenses". The Dallas Morning News. October 11, 2015.

[ii]    Metzger, Bruce M.; Coogan, Michael D., eds. (1993). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford University Press. p. 125. ISBN 978-0-19-504645-8.

[iii] Heather Mac Donald, "The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave," city-journal.org, Winter 2004

The Rise of Spectatoritis

“He can have all of the apperances of earnestness and obedience; but his interests, his thinking can be miles away. It is only by developing want in the workman that we can develop a workmanship that is art.”

-          Jay B. Nash, Spectatoritis

In the year 1932, a Gym teacher by the name of Jay B. Nash published a book which has been lost in the sands of time. This is unfortunate, because he had predicted the sedentary and autonomous lifestyle for which we all find ourselves in. Nash labeled this disease “Spectatoritis”, which is defined as “a blanket description to cover all kinds of passive amusement, an entering into the handiest activity merely to escape boredom”. He further warns us that machines, our slaves, will liberate us from many activities which used to be done by the hands of humans. With this free time, man has reached an existence foreign to our species. Since the dawn of time, man has had to work earnestly to feed himself, clothe himself and protect himself from possible dangers which surround him. Today, we have preferences which have never before been allotted to us. Instead of eating what has been trapped in snares, we turn up our nose to dishes made by chefs which are not to our liking. Instead of clothing ourselves with the skins of game for which we have caught and skinned, we go to the local clothing outlet and spend our time gazing for the “perfect” pair of jeans. Instead of enduring the pains of cold, we open windows to our homes so that we may air it out after the thermostat has been on high for too long. Nash claimed, in 1932, that mankind has risen to an era of convenience never before known to our ancestors. How true does this statement hold in the modern era, where everything you could ever want to know or ever want to purchase is accessible on your phone at the touch of a button?

                  “Play can neither be contrasted with nor used synonymously with work (vocation), recreation (recuperation) or leisure (time for creative arts). It becomes the mainspring of all!”

      Today, what do we do with our time? Do we strive for excellence in our jobs? Do we spend time bettering our lives through our study through our artistic passion? Or, do we spend our time in recreation? Instead of utilizing our time for the betterment of ourselves, too often we spend our time binge watching shows, space out on social media platforms or mindlessly walk through life with no chief aim in life. The truth of the matter is simple: Work, recreation and leisure must be a balanced part of our existence. What many of these individuals do not realize is that, by supporting the short term and immediate gratification which the idleness of life we now live, we are raising a generation of human beings which believe that everything must be instantaneous, believe that their lives have meaning when they have done nothing to be remembered and will eventually hold the reigns of the world which does not function in this manner. According to the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project Post-Election Survey, eighty three percent of those aged eighteen to twenty-nine utilize social media. Of those, sixty-six percent are a part of what is now known as the IGEN, meaning those who have never known a life without the internet. This would not be an issue if the average level of literacy in America is at an eight-grade reading level, ProLiteracy has claimed that more than thirty million adults in the United States cannot read, write, or do basic math above a third-grade level. The obesity rate is thirty-five percent and in children it is twenty-percent in children aged twelve to nineteen. What is the cause of such a pandemic? The answer goes back to Nash and his philosophy of Spectatoritis, the blanket of passive amusement done merely to escape boredom.

      “A whetstone is dull, but it serves to sharpen Damascus blades”

-          Elbert Hubbard

What can be done to change this descent into the abyss? Some have claimed that the fault is to be lain at the feet of the Educational system for not providing instruction within such a matter. Others blame the parents of other children which petitioned for the leniency of instruction of their children on life. Hell, some have even pointed the finger at those who took prayer out of school and do not punish children for not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. No, there is only one which is responsible for the descent into complacency, only one who can be convicted over such a matter. The fiend which has crafted this society is ourselves. In every sect of nature, the aggressive and curious, experimental organism lives; the other dies. In our complacency, we have developed generation after generation of men and women who desire something for nothing, are expectant of awards and praise for meaningless matters, do not allow children to fail and do not educate them on how to live a proper life. Ever since the Baby Boomers, generation after generation has been enveloped within a digital age. Slowly but surely, life became easier and easier. We do not chop wood to warm our homes. We do not have to transcribe upon a typewriter, correcting the errors by starting over on that page. Newspapers are only a touch away on our phone. We have electric cars and homes whose electricity is crafted by solar panels on the roof. The author is not saying that these advancements are bad for the world, quite the contrary. What the author is claiming is that there have been five generations, from the Baby Boomers to the IGEN, who have been brought into a world where gratification has become more accessible, where people are connected to others all over the world and have developed an idleness never before known in this world. Never before 1921 when White Castle, the first fast food restaurant in America, has this country had access to food so open to them. McDonalds feeds roughly sixty-eight million people, nearly one percent of the world’s population, every single day. There is no incentive for people to be active because we have crafted a world for which everything is autonomous, where effort is seen as a useless endeavor and where everyone is appreciated for nearly everything.

            “The value of an education lies in the struggle to get it. Do too much for people, and thehy will do nothing for themselves.”

-          Elbert Hubbard

What can be done about the issue which plagues this world? Do we strip away the conveniences for which this world has now, and revert back to the days of cavemen? Certainly not! This is a glorious place for humanity to be, a time when we have more time than ever before to focus on the improvement of the self. The very nature of such inventions cries out for universal truth, grants us a place where science, reason and progress will lead to all mankind’s happiness. However, we have lost this way. In the technological age, greed has poisoned our souls. We have created speed but have shut ourselves in. Machines which create abundance still leaves us in want. This lifestyle has granted us the privilege of being cynical and brutish of all the great and marvelous achievement for which humanity has undergone. The chilling warning of the quote above is that, unless there is some drive for a better future, and everything is done for us, all will be lost. We will become just like the very computers we have crafted: cold, soulless and isolated. Therefore, the author implores the reader to change their mindset and begin crafting a life on Health, Wealth, Love and Happiness.

It has been shown by the MedicinePlus clinic of the United States government that a focus upon your health that you will live longer, your mental clarity will increase and, most importantly, your weight will decrease. This does not mean that you must join a Zumba class or a P90X regime, go on a crash diet and feel miserable to accomplish this. It is recommended that one hundred and fifty minutes of exercise is sufficient. If you say “I haven’t the time for such a thing”, consider this: statistics show that, on average, people spend 135 minutes a day on social media, consumers in the US are averaged nearly four hours a day watching television, gamers spend roughly six hours a week on video games and in North America, the consumption commutatively of YouTube is almost three billion hours a month. A thirty-minute walk five times a week doesn’t seem to strenuous now, does it? The Mayo Clinic recommends a two-thousand calorie a day diet, while the average American consumes thirty-six hundred a day. To put this simply, for a person who does little to no exercise, they will be gaining roughly 3.2 pounds of fat a week; if continuing on this trend, one could possibly gain 166.2 pounds of fat in a year! Luckily, the prescription for this illness is clear: stay to the Mayo clinic recommendation and go for a thirty-minute walk, swim or bike ride five days a week. The results may surprise you.

People suck when it comes to money. The average for America when it comes to credit card debt is a staggering 16,425 dollars, while almost thirty-percent of households have only 1,000 in savings and the median in retirement accounts is 63,000 dollars. To put this into perspective, if you drew Social Security and drew five percent annually off your retirement account at this amount, you would be living off of 20,150 dollars a year. To place this into even more realistic numbers, the average cost of living for a single person per year is 13,200. Keep in mind, this only includes bare necessities: rent, food and clothing. This does not factor in the television, the nice watches or the amazing shoes. What can be done about this? The answer is simple: pay off all debts before you spend that money on anything else, place ten percent of your check every month into an interest-bearing account and STOP WASTING YOUR MONEY! This is not to say that you cannot enjoy the present but it does mean that you have an obligation to yourself to prepare for the future. This may come as a shock to some, but you will grow old. There will come a time where you simply cannot perform the work which you once did and you will have to rely upon someone to keep you alive in old age. Who do you trust with providing for you more, the government or yourself? Who knows you better? What kind of lifestyle do you want to have when you reach this portion of your life? These are the questions which need answers if you want fulfillment in old age.

 Love is a peculiar thing. People fall in and out of it all the time. In addition, they get divorced just as easily. Many people have avoided such a commitment to others and live together as a couple, but never have the nuptials. In truth, one must be wary of such a matter. If they do not wish to be bound to you in such a manner, then what stops them from seeing you as simply another face in the masquerade? Commitment is key for any relationship and it is the tie that binds people towards one another. For love to work, both parties must put forth the effort. This is done by simply acknowledging your partners loves, fears, thoughts and ideas. It is not simply a physical action, but it is an emotional action. What too many people do is attempt to bond simply at the physical level before connecting through the emotional. The role has to be reversed. If there is a strong emotional connection, then the physical will be even more passionate. You will begin to care about the person, not simply what you can glean from them. You will begin to express longing to see that person, feel that intense passion for that person alone and will feel more fulfilled in the relationship. When they feel lonely, do not hesitate to comfort them. When you see that something you can do will make their lives easier or will please them for you to do for them, do it; they will, in turn, begin to do the same for you, causing a snowball effect which will bind you closer to that person. When we neglect our partner, they will neglect us. A flower cannot grow without sunlight, water and shelter from harmful elements. In the same way, one must nurture their relationship with their other if they ever want it to last. If not, you would have wasted a portion of your life for which you can never get back and long for what could have been.

The final pillar is happiness. Much like love, this is a strange category, mostly because it is rather subjective. However, that is the beauty of it. In our ever-increasing leisure, we are given the chance to express our love for something more frequently. The suggestion for this pillar is also quite simple: do something which not only brings joy to yourself, but also to others. In this manner, you will learn how to spot and to give gratitude to others. You will learn the value of a helping hand, a friendly smile or a dinner at home with your family. The insight will cause you to be more open with the world around you, causing you to want to pass on the happiness for which you received to others. This simple action of granting happiness to others will also craft bonds which are difficult to break, causing you to feel more fulfilled and will cause everlasting friendships. The greatest killer of happiness is loneliness. By performing this action, you are ensuring yourself that, no matter what happens to you in life, you will never be alone.

The author concludes with this: he already knows that most people will not follow this advice. Most say that they want a fulfilled life, but are too lazy to do anything about it. Most say that they want health, wealth, love and happiness; sadly, they want it delivered to them on a silver platter, with no effort from themselves. Most mimic the modes of happiness in their unfulfilled lives, hoping that by copying a great life, the forgery will hold up for just a little while. Instead of embracing others, most will embrace the autonomous world for which we live in, oblivious to what they are missing just outside their front door. Without companionship in reality, they turn to social media, speak to people which they have never met about their problems, will tout to the world that they have ten thousand followers and call it living. By building a life based on such a philosophy, hoping for the best, they do not realize that, brick by brick, they have sealed their own tomb in the digital age. A single companion in the real world is worth a million online. The author hopes that someone will take this advice and change for the better. If so, they will be amazed at just how much they will grow in the process.

On Abortion

         We start off on one of the most debated topics in America and probably the world. In truth, abortion has existed since the Egyptian era in 1550 BC [1].  I was as surprised as you probably are now to discover that this practice has gone on since the time of Alexander the Great. Many of the methods were non-surgical, utilizing techniques such as strenuous labor, paddling, weightlifting or diving. Other methods were the utilization of leaves, bloodletting and the utilization of hot water being poured upon the abdomen to expel the unborn child[2]. These practices were especially common among Greek and Roman circles, where it was believed that the child was not human until they breathed life; therefore, the concept of utilizing such methods were deemed acceptable by a majority of the culture[3]. In later years, surgical aspects were added by the Maori in New Zealand by the addition of a belt around the abdomen which would be gradually tightened[4]. I’m not an expert in female anatomy, but I’m pretty sure that this method would be more effective than the leaves or the bloodletting. If you ARE an expert, please let me know. Most of these methods were unsuccessful and led to the death of the mother. When the Nineteenth Century rolled around, even with a greater knowledge of surgical precision, the death rate among abortion in New York was 30%[5]. Believe it or not, the surgical ability of this time to perform an abortion was so bad that the Doctors actually recommended abstinence as a better alternative! As time went on and knowledge of surgical proceeding continued, the mortality rate of the mother has declined to a mere .0006% for the woman[6]. As a side note, despite my personal beliefs on this matter, I am glad that one has a better chance of being struck by lightning than dying from an abortion.

            Now for the pros concerning this matter, and believe it or not, I agree with the ones that I am going to point out. To start off, the Supreme Court decided, by a 7-2 vote, that a woman has the right to decide what does and does not happen to her body[7]. We all are aware of the belly and breast changes that occur during pregnancy, and I won’t dare claim to be an expert in this area but it’s absolutely terrifying to know just how much the body and the life of a woman can change forever when a child is growing inside of her! We as men are aware of some of these but did you know that her spine curves to make room for the baby to have room in the womb[8]? I didn’t. Did you know that the pelvis actually expands and reshapes itself in order to prepare for birth[9]? I didn’t know that one either. Not to mention, if the woman isn’t prepared to handle that kind of responsibility, why should she be forced to handle it? It has been shown that women who are denied the ability to gain access to abortion are more likely to live on welfare and lead lives of domestic violence due to the fact that they typically stay in the relationship with the father of an unwanted child[10]. And this is the final support that I agree with when it comes to this subject: no child should come into this world unwanted. When children are brought into this world in this manner, they are subjugated to low birth weight, domestic violence, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding[11]. The sad part of this story is that nearly forty-nine percent of pregnancies in America are unintended[12].

            Now we get into the stuff that might get me into trouble, the antithesis. I won’t tackle this debate the way that most people do it by bashing people over the head with a Bible and damning them to Hell. Rather, I will do it by looking at the matter in a more rational way. There are so many contraceptives out there, ranging from condoms to injections to implants that prevent pregnancy in the first place. Why is this an issue? Now, I know that there is ALWAYS a chance to conceive, but overlooking Divine Intervention, you cannot tell me that if you utilize an implant, he uses a condom and he pulls out, you are going to get pregnant. I suppose what I am saying here is this: if you find yourself with an unplanned pregnancy in a situation where you are not capable of taking care of a child and it is not a criminal act which caused you to conceive such as rape or incest, then you are utilizing either unsafe sex or having what I like to call SWS: Sex While Stupid. Should you find yourself in a situation of SWS, I find no real sympathy for you. I feel that, if you don’t want the child, there are so many good people out there who want to have children who will gladly raise that kid as if they were their own. Give the child to them! In 2002, there were over two million women who were wanting to adopt children in America[13]. There’s one problem: 854,122 children were aborted that same year[14]. Let’s put that into perspective for you: 854,122 potential adoptions will never happen. 854,122 birthdays won’t be celebrated. 854,122 children won’t be tucked into bed at night, won’t get an opportunity to celebrate Christmas, hear their parents say “I love you”. I won’t debate whether or not a life begins at conception or birth with anyone, I really don’t care. I do believe that no one can escape this tragic truth: these lives won’t be lived because of 854,122 women who decided that their lives, their comfort, was more important than the potential lives of their unborn children.

            In conclusion, I find myself unstayed in my belief, which is this: I do not believe in abortion. Let me explain before you light the torches and grab the pitchforks! I personally do not believe in abortion. I am not an expert in pregnancy, nor do I believe that any male, even a Gynecologist who is a male can be. It’s just like how I believe a woman can’t be an expert in Masculinity. However, I do believe that a woman should either own up to a pregnancy or hand the unwanted child off at birth to someone else who does want them. However, we do live in a country where freedom is our greatest ally. As such, I feel that my beliefs shouldn’t overshadow the thoughts of others and history tells us that abortions will continue to happen. I would feel more comfortable if they were performed in a clean environment where the chance of dying is virtually non-existent rather than in a back-alley clinic or at home with a coat hanger. As much as I loath the thought of throwing away a life, that’s my personal belief and I cannot fault a woman based upon a decision which she made based upon her own body. I can only hope that she will either make the decision to put the child up for adoption at some point or will only subject herself for one abortion, the trauma of the incident reminding her of just what is going on concerning her body. I hope that she understands that the potential life that was lost, while it could have been dismal, could at the same time have been exceptional in capable hands. So, I end with this: if you don’t want to have a baby, don’t have Sex While Stupid, at the very least consider adoption as an alternative before committing to abortion and if you are Hell-bent on getting one, understand that the argument of life at conception is irrelevant; what IS relevant is the potential life that the child could live if it has the chance.

[1] Brodie, Janet Farrell (1997). Contraception and abortion in nineteenth-century America.

[2] Devereux, G (1967). "A typological study of abortion in 350 primitive, ancient, and pre-industrial societies". In Harold Rosen. Abortion in America: Medical, psychiatric, legal, anthropological, and religious considerations.

[3] Sallares, J. Robert (2003), "abortion", in Hornblower, Simon; Spawforth, Anthony, The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed.), Oxford: OxfordUP, p. 1, ISBN 978-0-19-860641-3

[4] Gluckman LK (June 1981). "Abortion in the nineteenth century Maori: a historical and ethnopsychiatric review". The New Zealand Medical Journal. 93 (685): 384–6. PMID 7019788.

[5] Doan 2007, p. 47.

[6] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-tang/5-things-that-are-more-le_b_8630572.html

[7] Roe v. Wade,US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Jan. 22, 1973

[8] https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/body-changes-infographic#6

[9] https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/body-changes-infographic#6

[10] Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California at San Francisco, "Turnaway Study," ansirh.org (accessed Apr. 22, 2014)

[11] Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, "Family Planning Program," colorado.gov (accessed Apr. 21, 2014)

[12] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Unintended Pregnancy Prevention: Home" , cdc.gov (accessed Oct. 20, 2010)

[13] Child Welfare Information Gateway, US Department of Health and Human Services, "Persons Seeking to Adopt," childwelfare.gov, Feb. 2011

[14] https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm

An Explanation for the Future Polemic

            At first, I didn’t want to even try to write something like this. Not because I felt that I couldn’t but because there are so many individuals out there who a better job has done than I at making cases for and against heated topics. However, the more I read about such “hot topic” issues, I feel that people are shouting over one another rather than presenting facts about such issues in a logical way and discerning belief based on rhetoric. As such, I have decided to break my silence on such topics, awakening my voice and allowing myself to be wide open for scrutiny and targeting from others who shout against anything which they deem is incorrect rather than display an understanding of argumentative understanding. I desire to give my Polemics in a different light than my predecessors. Unlike the bashings of the anarchist Leo Tolstoy, the Marxist idioms Fredrich Engels and the satire of George Orwell, I would like to present my writing in a distinct way, so that the reader my better understand my juxtaposition and be better able to come up with their ideology for themselves.

            I will first discuss at length the history of whatever topic at hand, giving at the very least five references from reliable sources. I shall discuss their significance and how they shaped the very essence of the movement. From there, I shall move into the support of the topic, again referencing at the very least three reliable sources and discussing them at length. The same shall be done with any antithesis, delving deep into the very marrow of hatred for whatever the subject may be. Only then will I draw my conclusion, giving a solution as I see it, based on the information I have gleaned from what I have read and researched. I believe this to be the only way for myself and for others to understand and absorb whatever information is necessary to formulate a proper cognitive thought from such subjects and craft a logical opinion.

            I believe that too many people formulate thoughts and opinions on things without first gathering information in such a manner, post it on social media, enflame others, establish a Domino Effect and allow such discord among society to occur in the first place concerning such heated topics. If individuals would only take the time to study and understand what they are attempting to understand, much of the world’s problems would be solved. Instead, many seek to spread their message without being properly informed, creating a tidal wave of misinformation. My hope is to remedy this and to hopefully generate a message where others will take the time necessary to understand the world around them before diving head first into a topic before understanding what it means.

            Alas! We in the twenty-first century live within a dominion where we are surrounded with all the world’s information at our fingertips and yet are shrouded in a veil of ignorance. What shall save us from this bitterness and despair? Will it be the rise of those who will recognize that, yes, there are concepts which require more than intuition for our minds to wrap around? Will it be a movement of mentalities that will subject themselves to the mutual agreement that ignorance is not bliss, but is simply ignorance for its name’s sake? Or will we continue to fall from grace, continuing to troll one another on internet forums, praise meaningless protests on campuses around the world based upon the obstruction of Social Justice? Is this a culture that we as the future of the world, the Millennials, the Genxers and so forth desire to create? If so, maybe it is time for Mankind to come to an abrupt end after all.

            I say all these things not to scare anyone but to shock the senses, to bring to the forefront of the mind the reality of it all that something is missing in the modern era. What is missing is the ability to think logically. What is missing is to construct cognitive thought. What is missing is the aptitude to erect abstract ideas and formulate a conclusion based on fact and not upon emotion alone. Instead of drawing my conclusions on these heated ideas based exclusively on passion, I will demonstrate how to do so based on both emotion and logic. By doing so, I shall prove unequivocally that it is an achievable feat, demonstrating the steps every step of the way. Formulating an opinion or a belief is an algorithm: one must first gather the information, way the pros and the cons of the sentiment and decide based on what they believe is truly the best outcome. I believe whole heartedly that this system is the only way that one may properly generate a sincere and concrete ideology on any idea on any concept. I pray that you, the reader, shall learn this system and that it will aid you in your search for decision in these concepts.