Maggie's response on trans issues to an e-mail
"I do not have any developed views on this question--except I do not believe individuals have a right to expect they can change genders on a whim, or on a daily basis, and expect others to take it seriously. I'm much less concerned about transgenderism that requires permanent and substantive change (including surgery or hormonal treatment and petitioning the court). I may or may not agree with it--I have no clear developed views--but it will not affect the main question.
If it is possible to change gender, then it is possible--in which case it's an opposite sex union.
If it's not really possible, then it should not be possible. I do not have clear views on this"
Wow, so she seems to think that people should be allowed to change sex, that it is just a matter of whatever is possible. I don't think she is talking about mere cosmetic surgery when she says she's not concerned about transgenderism, I think I've alerted her to the possibility of "female sperm" and "male eggs" and she knows that's the real issue. I bet her "I do not have clear views on this" is her way of alluding to her contract with her Libertarian benefactors who have told her never to write about transhumanism or artificial gametes and to keep procreation rights out of the marriage debate. Her high-paying job is to make the public think that marriage is being defended and is still relevant after procreation rights are stripped from it.
It shouldn't be so hard for her to say that she thinks people only have a right to procreate as the sex they are born most likely to procreate as, with someone of the other sex. But she's never been able to come out and say that, I suspect because of a clause in her contract, which I bet Wesley Smith also has.
(I posted a diary about Clownfishgate on RedMassGroup We Are Not Clownfish.)
3 comments:
Little Ms. Fatass ghallager only verbally regurgitates what her catholic/mormon handlers tell her!! Bigots for hire like Ghallager and Brown only have one mission in life Mr. Howard, and that's to make life as miserable for others as they've made it for themselves. Kinda like some other religious bigots I know of who don't think we're human enough to have our own GENETICALLY related offspring! Get the picture Howie baby? LMFAO!! Sincerely from you know whooooo.
Oh my goodness, real.y? I don't at all think this is the case. There's so much misinformation and hate speech out there about Maggie that's just completely incorrect. John Howard, I'm with you about alot of this stuff but I feel confident saying that this is also misunderstanding, misinformation about Maggie. She's really an open book w/very good intentions. Of course ppl like Anonymous enjoy playing that game - but that spin is really transparent to most rational people. Common JH don't you too go that route. Maybe you misunderstood?
I hope it's a misunderstanding, whosedaughter, but if she really said "if it's possible then it's possible" then it's very worrisome that she has given up or rejects the idea of prohibiting it. Like I said, I think she's not talking about merely dressing as the other sex or cosmetic operations or legally changing sex, which are obviously possible and generally accepted, I think she's talking about reproducing as the other sex.
And we know about the Kochtopus of libertarian websites that all hide their real sources and motives. So it makes sense that NOM and Discovery Institute and the Ruth Institute and others are all part of it and under contract to never talk about same-sex reproduction or prohibiting it.
Post a Comment