On Replacement Theory

This post is a week late. Most other people are talking about the tragedy in Texas where a shooter killed 19 school children and 2 teachers. Enough people are talking about that – I don’t need to add my voice to that discussion.

Instead, I’m going to go back a week and discuss Replacement Theory which was all the rage at the time.

The Left’s View of Replacement Theory

From what I can gather from my exposure to some limited Leftist media, the Left believes that the Right, being predominantly white-skinned, is afraid that people with darker skin tones are immigrating to this country in large enough numbers that they (the darker-skinned people) will eventually grow to numbers sufficient to supplant the white-skinned folk as the largest demographic in the country.

When that happens, the predominantly white male power-structure of the U.S. will be forever diminished. Whites will lose their control of the country. And, so the narrative goes, the whites are hell-bent on making sure that does not happen.

And so, you get the notion that Replacement Theory expresses the deepest fears of the White Supremacist Movement in the United States.

The Right’s View of Replacement Theory

I listen primarily to Glenn Beck and Dan Bongino. I occasionally listen to Dana Loesche, too. Not one of these Right Wing heavyweights espouses Replacement Theory as described by the Left. Not one of them supports White Supremacy or the White Supremacist Movement at all. In fact, they have said, and I agree with them, that there really is no significant White Supremacist Movement in the country at all.

There may be a few skinheads or Nazis floating around here and there, but nothing to be alarmed about. Although they have the right to free speech, they don’t garner much of a following these days. Besides, the Nazis were socialists in their day. And that’s a Leftist movement.

Skin Color vs. Knowledge

Anyway, getting back to Replacement Theory … there is a kind of Replacement Theory that Glenn Beck, Dan Bongino, Dana Loesche, and other Right Wingers (including myself) espouse. It’s not the skin color of the immigrants that I or anyone else on the Right worry about. It’s their knowledge of our Founding Documents and our System of Government.

If we want our nation to survive, we need to make sure that the immigrating population has a firm knowledge of the Declaration of Independence, The U. S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, and everything else that our country is founded on. They need to understand these things through and through: what are their philosophical roots, etc…

The Role of Education in Legal Immigration

Once upon a time, both parties in this country supported legal immigration because that pathway guaranteed that we had some control over who could enter our country. We, like other countries, want the opportunity to educate immigrants about our ways, culture, and most importantly our Founding Documents and philosophy.

After all, we want our population to believe that, although not perfect, a democratic Republic such as ours, is pretty darn good and worth preserving. Which it is.

It’s got nothing to do with skin color.

If a black man is well-versed in our Founding Documents and our founding philosophy, he should have preference in the immigration system over a white man who does not. And vice versa. It’s really that simple.

Where the Left Goes Wrong

I honestly think the Left means well, but they are mistaken. I think the mistake can be traced back to the Left’s embrace of relativism in all its various forms – in this case cultural relativism. Of course, books have been written supporting and refuting cultural relativism. It’s a pretty extensive topic. So, I’m just going to touch on it here.

My philosophy brain may be a little rusty, but from what I recall, cultural relativism espouses that all belief systems arise from particular cultures and all cultures are equal, therefore, all belief systems are equal.

Are All Governments Equal?

According to the Left, there is no such thing as a superior form of government because government is a product of a belief system, which we’ve already established as being equal to all other belief systems. Or something like that.

For the record, I don’t support cultural relativism or the belief that all governments (belief systems, or even cultures) are equal.

Cultures, like, say, Nazi Germany, can make mistakes, sometimes very horrible mistakes. Other cultures might make fewer mistakes. Yeah … I’m not going to convince a hard-core relativist in a paragraph or two. Let me just dissect how I think the Left goes wrong when it comes to Replacement Theory and the Southern Border.

Dice, D&D, and Replacement Theory

I play Dungeons and Dragons a lot. The game uses lots of dice with varying numbers of sides. There are d4’s (a die with four sides), d6’s, d8’s, d10’s, d12’s, and d20’s. Imagine you are rolling 40 dice: twenty d4’s and twenty d20’s. All the d4’s are red in color, and all the d20’s are blue in color.

You are going to roll both sets of dice and collect all the dice that read a “1”, “2”, or a “3”. You roll the twenty d4’s and roll an astounding fifteen “1’s”, “2’s”, or “3’s.” You roll the twenty d20’s and roll a mere three “1’s”, “2’s”, or “3’s”.

Now, you collect the dice and notice that you have collected 15 red dice and 3 blue dice. Did you sort the dice on the basis of color? Are you being “racist” toward the dice?

Numbers and Knowledge

I would say “No,” to both those questions. The dice were “pre-sorted” by their shape, a factor beyond your control (like where the person was born on the globe, perhaps?). As for you, you are looking at a property that is totally different than color.

In fact, you are looking at a legitimate meaningful property. In the case of the dice, it is a numerical value. In the case of an immigrant, it is the “knowledge” they possess about your country.

Color vs. Content

I think the Left is looking at the collection of dice at the end and assuming that the human “dice-roller” sorted the dice by color. And they did not. If we were sorting by color (with respect to Immigration – not dice-rolling, obviously), I would agree that that is wrong. It’s more than wrong. It’s just stupid, short-sighted, and harmful to your own country.

Rather, we are sorting by a different mechanism. In this case, “knowledge.” In particular, “knowledge of the American Founding Principles.” If you want to reject the “American Founding Principles” and declare them as racist (which, I think, many in the Left actually do – and that totally makes my above argument futile (futile, but not untrue)) be my guest.

The Fate of the Country and the World

Once upon a time, I was an arrogant snot who thought he was better than everyone else. That didn’t work out well for me. So, all you Lefties, if you succeed in destroying the U.S., you may not like what you end up with. Global economic collapse, starvation, and a world controlled by China … soon to be enslaved by AI, I’m sure.

Anyway, I want to go on record and say that I think the “American Founding Philosophy and Documents,” to the limited extent I understand them, are pretty darn good. If you want to live in a country where the government can censure your speech, please move. I don’t want you voting here.

I happen to like “Freedom of Speech” and all the other freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We may not always live up to them, but they are a pretty darn good goal to strive for.

Flirting with Satanism

Satanism in My Hometown

I got some bloodwork done the other day. On the way home, I saw a car with a number of bumperstickers on the back. One read, “Reason is my religion.” And another read, “Just your friendly neighborhood Satanist.” And several more that came out in support of Satanism and the Church of Satan.

In my hometown. Joy, oh, joy. Where do I begin?

Satanism and Reason

How about – how do you go from enshrining Reason as supreme to the worship of Satan? I really find making that connection nothing short of baffling.

Possibility 1) You believe Reason is supreme. You believe in neither God nor Satan. And you only “worship” Satan as a farce in order to mock the religious and their beliefs (I find this to be the most likely explanation). If so, you really have no business making claims or filing lawsuits in the name of your “religious freedom” (like that B.S. about your abortion ritual) – but I digress.  

Possibility 2) you really do worship Satan. In which case, you are infatuated with evil and are actually a threat to society. I’m not making any connection with “Reason is my religion” here, though. How is it somehow more “rational” to believe in and worship a being that is, by definition, totally Evil than worshiping something else which is believed to be Good or to not worship anything at all? I don’t get it.

Are you just evil, yourself? If so, shouldn’t we … uh … maybe consider imprisoning you or doing something to keep you from doing something truly horrible? (The irony here, that I claim to be the antichrist, is not lost on me).

Why Become a Satanist?

Are there any other options other than those two? There may be. Honestly, though, I just find the “Satanic religion” utterly baffling. Why does someone become a Satanist? I don’t know.

I remember once hearing an ex-Satanist being interviewed on the radio. He had converted to Christianity and he wanted to describe his experience with Satanism and his change of heart. He said something like he had embraced Satanism because he was “angry with the world.”

His development of his whole Satanic worldview was a way of lashing out against society to vent the bitter frustration he found in life. One day, though, he woke up and realized that that was why he was a Satanist. He was just profoundly angry.

His next realization was that anger didn’t provide a very stable ground upon which to build a worldview to live your life by. From there, he did some serious soul-searching and wound up converting to Christianity. Which is kind of a surprising turn, but, I think a positive one, all things considered.

Satanism as a Phase

I guess that Ex-Satanist’s description of Satanism makes some sense. It’s kind of a “phase” that some people go through because they have certain problems – like poor anger management skills or some difficulty with certain emotions. And Satanism provides an outlet, a way to vent, and just lash out.

You get the whole schtick of the sinister loner or just hover in an air of dark mystery and stand in an unapproachable aura of ominous power– I mean you delve into magic and the dark arts. Indeed, you are on the path to becoming a “real life Lord Voldemort.” I can see how that can be an appeal. If I’m honest, I get some of that from my antichrist issues (although, in my case, that is not the whole story).

Satanism and Me

Although one might think that, since I claim to be the antichrist, I would have an affiliation with or an attraction to Satanism, I don’t. I have never seriously considered converting to Satanism. The closest I ever came was in college. I actually purchased a copy of the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey the founder of the Church of Satan.

I read about half of it.

Philosophy and Me

But, of course, I got an excuse. I was a philosophy major. Which is part of the reason why I read the book. Philosophy was my schtick. I was reading all sorts of things in those days. I did a term paper on Aristotle’s “De Anima” (translation: “On the Soul”). I went to a symposium on Plato’s “Symposium.” I was familiar with Epicureanism, and Stoicism, and all sorts of other belief systems. And that was just in my classes.

Religion and Me

In my spare time, I developed a fondness for religions of all sorts. I read both the Bhagavad Gita, and the Upanishads – although in all honesty, as I look back, I don’t think I absorbed enough truly essential information about Hinduism to make many judgements about that particular religion. I think the religion of Hinduism, at least, requires a broader literary diet as background before one can really digest and understand those two books.

Still, it was kind of “edgy” that I had read the Bhagavad Gita. “I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.” Ooh! How cool! I got a look into the original quote from Shiva (most famously borrowed by Robert Oppenheimer). I mean, you want to talk sinister and edgy? How much more sinister can you get than the Hindu God of Destruction?

Satanism and Philosophy

Well, I guess Satanism is making a run for that goal – if it is to be taken seriously. For me, at that time, it was just another “edgy” belief system to “study” so objectively and seriously so as to beef up my philosophy persona. I’m just so cool, I read all this deep stuff about the cosmos and what-have-you.

Fortunately, though, I never felt inclined to actually run off and join a Satanic cult. I was too enthralled with Plato – who has his own weaknesses, but is still a tough act to follow.

Satanism and Its Bible

As for the Satanic Bible, as I said, I read about half of it. From what I could gather, it was basically a full-throated embrace of hedonism, sexual indulgence, and all the pleasures of the flesh denied to followers of its despised religion of Christianity.

Anton LaVey emphatically stated that the Church of Satan didn’t endorse human sacrifice. Apparently, modern adherents don’t consider ritual abortion to be human sacrifice. I kind of think it is. But that’s a discussion for another time.

Philosophical Alternatives to Satanism

Regardless, if you want to embrace hedonism, well, you could go the slighter saner route of Epicureanism which is really a hedonism described as the “pleasant life” as opposed to the massive over-indulgence normally associated with that term (and with Satanism).

Once upon a time, I wrote an open letter to the Church of Satan on this blog here. It makes many of the above points and maybe a few others. Regardless, I felt inclined to comment on Satanism again, because, well, I saw that car. I don’t live in a big city. And yet, not only is Satanism here, it is proudly and openly here. Joy, oh, joy. What’s next?

On Hell

Looks like I’m in the mood for another post on hell. Why, you might ask? Well, I feel particularly qualified.

Near Death Experiences

I’ve heard of a number of people who have had NDE’s or Near Death Experiences. Most people who have an NDE and share it with the world describe a supremely positive experience. They describe an encounter with a “Being of Light” that is the essence of pure joy, total acceptance, and absolute love.

 Occasionally, though, there are a smaller number of NDE experiencers who describe an alternate, darker destination after death. They describe a place of darkness and suffering. Naturally, most people associate the “Being of Light” with heaven, and sometimes even God. At the same time, most people associate the place of darkness with hell.

My Two NDE’s

As I know of no other person who has experienced both the “Being of Light” and something completely opposite which I would call “hell”, I feel uniquely qualified to discuss this.

My experience of the “Being of Light” occurred when I was 3 or 4 years old, and I still remember the intensity and power of the emotions behind that experience. It was immensely beautiful beyond description although I tied it once the first time I fell in love.

My experience of “hell” was equally as powerful, but in the opposite direction and terrible beyond comprehension.

I feel confident that other people have had the same “Being of Light” experience that I have had just going by the descriptions of this more common NDE. I am not necessarily convinced that other people have had the same experience of “hell” that I have had.

Why?

Hell as an NDE

Some people have described their experience of hell as a place of utter darkness. That wasn’t my experience. Other people describe their experience of hell as being a witness to various acts of torture being inflicted upon helpless “souls” as, supposedly, punishment for sins committed in a prior life or what-have-you. That was not my experience, either.

I’m not sure if people who visit hell as “witnesses” experience the tortures they witness – I haven’t read a book on the darker side of NDE’s in some time – or that they simple witness the horror from afar. I’m fairly certain I’ve read of Christians who have gone to hell with Jesus as a guide that protects them and they witness the tortures from afar. Let’s just assume, though, there are some that experience the tortures firsthand.

Physical Tortures

These tortures include such things as running/dancing/whatever to the point of utter exhaustion without stop, being dismembered, being burned alive, and a litany of other physical horrors that are somehow inflicted upon supposedly spiritual beings. I’m going to assume that these horrors are the equivalent to the same horrors being inflicted in physical reality. That is, having your hand cut off in hell feels exactly like having your hand cut off in real life.

I have, I think, read about people witnessing all those things occurring in hell. If there are people who have experienced those things in a “visit” to hell and then returned, that is truly horrible, but I’m not sure that anyone has ever claimed that. Like I said, I haven’t read a book about NDE’s recently.

The Three Known Types of Dark NDEs

Okay … that’s a lame excuse as I am writing a post for the Internet and the Internet is bursting with information. So, I should probable read at least one other online post about NDE’s. Here is one: https://blog.magiscenter.com/blog/negative-near-death-experiences-and-hell .

This article lists three typos of dark NDE’s:

1. An inversion: where the “Being of Light” comes across as threatening.
2. A void: an experience of isolation
3. Hellish: an experience of the usual conceptions of hell – torture and such.

If all other NDE’s fall into those three categories, then my “hell” experience is unique to me.

Inversion

But before we discuss my experience, let’s briefly talk about the above 3 categories. 1) makes sense, I guess, and is probably the least traumatic of the three, although it is also probably likely to lead to some kind of turnaround in how one lives one’s life. I think all dark NDE’s can share that last feature.

Isolation

2), I think, kind of dovetails with the teaching of the Catholic Church that hell is the absence of God. In this view of hell, the sinner is condemned to an Eternity of utter loneliness completely cut off from any connection to God.

Punishment

3) is the usual conception of hell where sinners are endlessly tortured as punishment for their sins. There is plenty of “religious evidence” for this view of hell, like, say, the visions of the children at Fatima. My inclination is that 3) is a worse destination than 2) but we don’t have full information – big surprise. Is the isolation truly Eternal? Is the (physical) torture truly Eternal?

I can’t be sure without experiencing both of those, but my inclination is that loneliness would really suck, but being continuously flayed would be worse. I think.

My Experience

My experience wasn’t any one of those above. It was closest to 3) in the sense that it was torture, but it wasn’t physical torture. It was entirely internal torture of my soul/spirit (so, actually, in a way, that may be closer to 2) as it was spiritual and not physical)) and I was a full participant in it – I wasn’t just a spectator.

I felt the fires of hell in my chest and they seemed to be on the brink of annihilating out of existence my entire self. My personality, my very being felt like it was about to be erased from existence. It lasted somewhere between 10 seconds and 3 minutes and it totally wrecked my life (that’s an understatement). Of course, it was kind of self-inflicted, so maybe I deserved it, but that’s a topic for another post at another time.

Gehenna, the Lake of Fire, and the 2^nd Death

Does my experience have any “religious evidence” to support it? I think so. There are references in the New Testament, at least, to the “second death.” What is the “second death?” I think I just described it. The annihilation of one’s soul. There is even a direct quote from Jesus (Matthew 10:28) “… Fear him who has the power to destroy both body and soul in Gehenna.”

From my understanding, Gehenna is the deepest layer of hell. That, I think, is from the Catholic tradition. But really, that seems kind of self-evident. I mean what else can be done to an individual beyond destroying (annihilating) his/ her soul?

As hell is supposed to have different layers, of which Gehenna is the lowest and worst, my inclination is that the dark NDE’s give us a kind of sketch of the different layers in terms of severity. Leaving the inverted encounter with the “Being of Light” aside, we have the topmost layer being isolation, followed in turn by the layer of physical tortures, and finally followed by Gehenna, the layer of spiritual annihilation. I think it is also referred to in the Bible as the “Lake of Fire.”

Hell and God

Just so we are clear, having experienced the fires of Gehenna (I think) myself, I would prefer (provided the lengths of time experienced were equal) ANY form of physical torture (this includes crucifixion, immolation, or being flayed alive) to a recurrence of the fires of Gehenna. I’m not trying to brag in some demented fashion. I’m only relaying my response to my experience.

In fact, it is the absolute horrible torture that the fires of Gehenna inflicted on me that convinced and convinces me that God cannot be responsible for said torture. If He is, we are all beyond screwed. If it were up to me, I wouldn’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or some amalgamation of all three to Gehenna. It is just TOO TERRIBLE!

The Nature of Hell, Heaven, and Satan’s Role

I do not know if anyone else has ever had the Gehenna experience that I had, but it is more horrible than anyone need to experience. It is the polar opposite of the “Being of Light.” Where the “Being of Light” consists of joy and love ramped up to an incredible degree, the fires of Gehenna consist of anger and wrath ramped up to an equally incredible degree. One is “divine” love, the other is “divine” wrath.

That’s where my “Satan can tell the truth and lie at the same time” combined with the “Yin and yang” theory comes in. Of course, I have spoken on that many times in the past so I’m not going to dwell on that here.

Conclusion

Anyway, that’s my thoughts on hell for today. As always, unless Jesus of Nazareth backs me up, ignore everything I say. Because I am the antichrist and I don’t know if Satan is successfully manipulating me or not. Fortunately, I have no political power. So, we’ve got that going for us. Yeah!

Another Post on Transgenderism

A Look at Transgenderism

As Roe v Wade and abortion are in the news this week, I considered writing about that topic. However, I looked back at an earlier post I wrote some time ago about abortion and decided I’d pretty much said all I wanted to say on the topic there.

I’ve gone over the abortion issue time and time again in my head. And I always end up in the same place. I would be pro-choice if we abolished all law and embraced complete anarchy. And I suspect that would be a disaster of epic proportions.

On the other hand, if we accept that there are going to be some laws governing our society, then my position is basically the pro-life one with exceptions for rape and danger to the mother, plus a concerted effort to develop an artificial womb so that even those instances of abortion can have other alternatives. I cover all of this in this post on abortion here.

So, since I’m not going to talk about abortion, I figure I will revisit the topic of Transgenderism.

Transgenderism

Courtesy of my antichrist issues, I recently enjoyed a fine stay in the mental health ward of our local hospital. It was an … enlightening experience. Ten days of my life flushed down the toilet. Again.

Anyway, while I was there, I met a younger person who was a patient and transgender. He … nope, sorry, I can’t do it. She was … I’m not even sure. Transgender labels always confuse me. Did a transwoman start as a woman or end as a woman? I never know.

Transgenderism, Biology, and Psychology

Let me be a little clearer and make a distinction (I even tried to make this distinction to the aforementioned patient, but I was a little clumsy about it). Let’s distinguish between biological gender and psychological gender.

We can say biological gender is determined by x and y chromosomes and the respective genitalia. This is the normal … well, forgive me … the “pre-woke enlightened” definition of gender. You can determine this pretty much from visual inspection.

But the discussion doesn’t end there.

Transgenderism, Relativism, and the Paranormal

Thanks to the advent of “relativism” in all its hideous forms, there is a strong strain of … um, downright absurd silliness pushing common-sense into a rapidly diminishing corner. Basically, we are all supposed to believe that our minds control everything. What we think, what we believe is capable of morphing reality to our whims.

At one level, this may be true to a certain degree … if you buy into the possibility of psychic phenomena and things like psychokinesis, etc… Even though I personally have some limited experience with psi-phenomena, using such to support a full-blown relativism is a stretch, I think, at best.

Is it logically possible that I could change my biological gender by simply thinking it (or forcefully thinking it)? Yes, that is logically possible. It might not be (and as far as my experience tells me, is not) causally possible, but causality and logic don’t necessarily agree all the time. Anyway, this universe may contain wonders we have yet to discover (even if it is sentient and evil 😊).

Defining Transgenderism

Anyway, the only way I can make sense of transgenderism is that “normal” cis-gendered individuals like myself have a biological gender that matches their psychological gender. Whereas a transgender individual has a biological gender and a psychological gender that do not match.

The transgender movement actually recognizes this, but I think they go out of their way to be clumsy in their distinction. They call “biological gender” sex assigned at birth and psychological gender simply gender. I don’t know why they insist on obfuscating their position, but I want to point out a few problems their position has.

The Definition of Gender/Sex

First, saying sex is assigned at birth implies that sex is some sort of social construct where it is determined by some kind of artificial group consensus that has no objective ground. I don’t agree with that. At all.

Sex isn’t assigned at birth, it is recognized at birth (or even sooner), and is actually determined, if I remember my high school biology correctly, at conception when an X and a Y cell or two X cells join together to form the human zygote.

I mean if you want to go down the route where everything everywhere is just a construct of society and you can’t enunciate words that have actual meaning … I’ll do you one better and deny the existence of the external world. I will wallow in solipsism and pretend that that will allow me to live a sane life.

In that situation I will have no compunction against ignoring you and your side and, if I’m a particularly rebellious mood, the lawfully elected government entirely. Generally speaking, we probably shouldn’t encourage people to embrace that attitude.

Two Types of Gender or More?

Anyway, like I said, I can make sense of transgenderism if you stipulate an additional gender type like psychological gender in addition to the “normal” biological gender. It complicates the concept of gender, but at least it is coherent.

Two different concepts of gender. When both concepts match, you fall into one of the two “traditional” genders. When they don’t match, you don’t.

The problem here is that mathematically speaking if there are only two types of genders each with two possibilities, there are only four possible outcomes. And anyone familiar with the LGBTQ+ position knows that they recognize far more possibilities for gender-identity than four. I’ve lost count. 30+ if not significantly more.

The Complete Overhaul of the Concept of Gender

You can accommodate this if you divorce the concept of psychological gender from biological gender to the extent that they are concepts that are totally alien to each other. One, biological gender has only two options (three if you allow for hermaphrodites), whereas the other, psychological gender is a continuum and is therefore fluid and far more versatile.

When you do this, though, why should the two concepts be related at all? Why are you using a term like gender – which has a history of a particular discrete meaning stretching back thousands of years into the past – to delineate a fluid concept that has only just recently become popular?

Really, the problem with the transgender movement is that they are using the wrong word: gender. If you must, invent your own new word to delineate the concept you have created. That’s a small ask.

Like I said, gender has a meaning with a history stretching back thousands of years. I, personally, am not opposed to there being some new term like “psychological gender” to give us a way to talk about transgender individuals without creating confusion.

However, I don’t like the notion that the LGBTQ+ community thinks it can use gender to delineate a meaning it never had before, thus creating a wellspring of confusion that serves all of us ill.

LGBTQ+, Gender Labels, Sexual Preference, and Lycanthrope

Really. The LGBTQ+ labels abound with confusion. For example, if we use the aforementioned psychological gender for transgender individuals, then lesbians, gays, and bisexuals all fall out of the category because none of those terms have anything to do with gender but instead revolve around sexual preference.

Sexual preference and gender are not the same concept at all. Trying to mash them together doesn’t help the situation. Then there is the problem of lycanthrope which I discussed in this post on transgenderism and lycanthrope.

At one point, all these things, including both homosexuality and transgenderism were considered mental illnesses. Lycanthrope, I believe, is still considered a mental illness. But for how long? The way things are going, I’m not entirely certain there will be such a thing as “mental illness” in the future.

Transgenderism and the AntiChrist

Of course, I’m convinced I’m the antichrist. Isn’t my claim as equally valid as a transgender’s or a lycanthrope’s? Does that mean I really am the antichrist? What do you make of that?

Anyway, I have absolutely no training in psychology or psychiatry. Bear that in mind. However, I have written the above in a good faith effort to understand transgenderism and its relationship to reality and mental health. I am not sure if I succeeded.

How Should We Deal with a Transgender Person?

With respect to the transgender person who was a biological woman that I met in the hospital … she seemed like a nice, decent person, but I found it somewhat disconcerting and confusing to hear her talk about her “girlfriend” who was a biological man and mention things like her deadname and what-have-you.

I have no ill-will towards that person, in fact, I can honestly say I did like her; however, I want to reiterate a point that I tried to make to her, but in retrospect, I was not emphatic enough about. She may think she is a man, but her body is biologically a woman.

I am not a doctor, but despite liberal loonies’ cries to the contrary, there are definite physical differences between biological men and biological women. Medical treatment of these two biological genders isn’t necessarily identical or compatible in all situations.

A biological woman treated as a biological man by a medical professional may suffer ill effects from that treatment. And vice versa for a biological man treated like a biological woman.

Conclusion

So, all you Lefties, be aware that your frenzied enthusiasm to obliterate and reverse gender differences could potentially lead to real harmful problems in a medical situation. Let’s not go there, shall we?