Doctors, Psychotherapists, Liars and Butchers

Doctors, Psychotherapists, Liars and Butchers is the name of a YouTube video posted by Jordan Peterson, this week, in which he bemoans the tragedy of sex-change surgeries on children and adolescents.

Yes, it is criminal. Doctors are doing irreversible harm. We would consider it barbaric to do to animals what we allow to be done to our children.

As a God-fearing woman I believe that what we are witnessing around us is not climate change as a consequence of carbon emissions. It is the volatility of nature in distress. We are desecrating God’s design. The earth is not unresponsive. There is a reference in the Bible that says “all of creation groans in anticipation of the revelation of the sons of God.” In another place we read, “If these lips would not praise then the rocks would cry out” (my paraphrase). Nature can be affected by the attitudes and actions of humans. It can groan and be distressed by the evil in the world. The Bible says God will “heal their land” if people humble themselves and turn from their wicked ways.

Peterson is outraged at the American Psychological Association and the medical doctors and psychologists–those in whom we once placed our trust–who now endorse the mutilation–for that is what it is–of not yet fully developed youth. These specialists are knowingly complicit in ruining the future of young people who are 85% likely to change their mind, given time.

Make no mistake, removing sexual organs comes with no guarantee to improve quality of life or reduce suicide ideation. On a purely physical level, the procedures cause scarring, reduce circulation and increase vulnerability to a multitude of inflammatory diseases. Recovery is painful and there may be nerve damage. Anaesthetics administered during surgery or multiple surgeries are not without their immediate and long term risks.

Doctors are experimenting. Forgive my explicitness, here, but I am appalled by the insanity of the removal of skin from a forearm for the formation of an appendage that has the appearance, but not the function of a penis.

In addition, the prescription of ongoing hormone therapy has risks which are well known.

The “buyer’s remorse” which is sure to happen for many cannot be legally addressed in Canada, since the acceptance of an anti-conversion therapy bill. Of course we must note that reversal of hormonal changes cannot be guaranteed, not to mention surgical alterations.

The transitioned remain in a category of their own. It is a male who simulates a female or a female who simulates a male. Simulate, in the American Heritage Dictionary is:

1. Made in resemblance of or as a substitute for another.

2. Performed or staged in imitation of a real event or activity

3. Made to imitate something else, artificial

4. Not genuine or real, being an imitation of the genuine article

5. Reproduced or made to resemble; imitative in character

American Heritage dictionary

Transgenderism is an attempt at simulating the opposite gender in externals. It is an “in-between” and sub-optimal human existence. It is no wonder the suicide rate is high among those who have transitioned.

Here is a graph from the following study: Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

Those who transition rely on the support of advocates of transition, or “allies” in the trans community. They count on, or should I say insist, on the continuous celebration of their change as we are witness to with Pride marches and the celebration of Pride month and all the other visible public displays of symbolic merchandise, including flags, banners and crosswalks painted in symbolic colors.

Sadly, the desire for this attention is enough to lure an increasing number of vulnerable youth into a dangerous lifestyle similar to how children are lured into gangs and into taking harmful and addictive drugs.

Somehow, the United Nations has succumbed to the influence and pressure from lobbying members of the IGLA–the International Gay and Lesbian Association–an umbrella organization for over 1000 gay and lesbian groups–to integrate the psychologically invasive Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, also known as SOGI, into all subjects of our school curriculum, beginning in kindergarten.

I fear a day of judgment for those who knowingly participated and promoted this distortion.

Adults who are so eager to comply with children–I’m talking about parents, medical teams, social services, educators and even attorneys–should take some time to seriously consider the reality that next time a transitioned child pleads to make a change, there will be no option left for you to offer them. The high ideal of offering choice will not be open to them. There will be a serious reality check at that point.

What will you tell a child or young adult? What words will you use? Because you need to prepare a response in advance. There is a very good chance that a youth or child who is not of a steady mind about their gender, will want to change again. When they discover there is no one to support their desire to revert, that is when there will be a high likelihood of suicide.

In Canada our government has further complicated matters of “help” in this case by making any assistance illegal. Here is a quote from a CTV article concerning the new anti-conversion therapy law that came into effect on January 7 of this year:

That means that now anyone who looks to subject someone of any age, consenting or not, to so-called conversion therapy  could face up to five years in prison.

As well, if someone is found to be promoting, advertising, or profiting from providing the practice, they could face up to two years in prison.

Conversion “therapy,” as it has been called, seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender.

CTV NEWS

Cisgender is the gender one is born with.

I cannot begin to express my incredulity over the short-sightedness of the anti-conversion therapy laws. All I can conclude is that this never was about the right of the child to begin with.

Sex change surgery seeks to solve a problem of unhappiness with one’s self. Like the saying goes, the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence. But the real issue is what you do with the grass.

As a child I wanted, as badly as a child can, to be a boy. I thank God that there was no influence in my life pulling me in that direction. I wanted my father to view me with the same pride that he held for my brothers. However, I was observant and insightful enough to know that no outward change could ever convince him to consider me a boy. Should I penalize him for that? Should I force him to change? He knew my birth gender. He fathered me as a girl. I would never fool him. Like the saying goes, you can fool some people all of the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Our chromosomes tell the truth about our nature in every cell of our bodies. To think we can change our sex is an illusion. We do not “discern” that we are male or female. We are not “trapped” in the wrong body. However, it is possible for this concept to take root in our minds and sometimes the deception is complete.

There are some who have transitioned “successfully” to the point that they actually live as though they are a different gender than they were at birth. By successful I mean, from outward appearances. This is, after all, about appearance. They want so badly to be the other gender that it brings them pleasure to continue with this appearance and to play the role. I am not one to refuse an adult this “privilege”, for that is what it is in a twisted sort of way. But I am strongly opposed to assisting or encouraging children, adolescents and teens in this direction. I believe what we should really have is an anti transition therapy law for those still in the development stage of life.

Those who label people as transphobic, who want to protect children, had better take heed to themselves and their not so noble motives.

At this young age those who contemplate transitioning have no possible way of knowing all the relevant information on risk and long term outcomes. It is on the shoulders of wiser adults to take the responsibility to prevent serious harm and to discourage sex change before adulthood. Just as Canada has made it illegal to counsel reverting back to heterosexual or cisgender identity, it should be illegal to counsel transition away from heterosexual or cisgender identity.

Activist groups who advocate for the rights of the child over the rights of parents are really advocating for their rights over your child.

We want our youth to be comfortable in their own skin and able to flourish. We do this by nurturing their spirits, not injuring their bodies.

SDG’s -Sustainable Development Goals

For first hand information on global Sustainable Development Goals, watch the video and read the info here. I am presenting a summary along with my personal views. The video premiered September 19, 2020.

The video, interestingly, opens with an Andrea Bocelli Amazing Grace rendition on Easter Sunday ,April 12, 2020, “by invitation of the City and of the Duomo cathedral of Milan.” This was in the middle of lockdown and I remember watching the performance and being moved by it, as were millions of others.

The SGD video concludes with some disturbing video footage during a solo performance by Beyonce. You can watch the song with footage on its own here.

This article gives the following summary of the video, Nations United-Urgent Solutions for Urgent Times:

“Nations United-Urgent Solutions for Urgent Times” sets out what must be done to tackle the world’s biggest issues, from COVID-19 to poverty, inequality, gender discrimination, climate change, justice and human rights. The broadcast will also mark the UN’s 75th anniversary, as well as the 5th anniversary of the Sustainable Development Goals.

The film is directed by UN Sustainable Development Goals Advocate Richard Curtis. It features leading activists such as education advocate and UN Messenger of Peace, Malala Yousafzai, Professor of Educational Technology, Sugata Mitra, UNESCO Special Envoy for Peace, Forest Whitaker, actor and women’s rights activist Thandie Newton OBE, as well as UN Goodwill Ambassadors, Don Cheadle (UNEP) and Michelle Yeoh (UNDP), and UN Secretary-General António Guterres and UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed.

On 25 September 2015, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, 193 world leaders committed to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (or Global Goals). These are a series of ambitious objectives and targets to end extreme poverty and hunger, fight inequality and injustice, and tackle climate change, by 2030.

United Nations releases special 2020 broadcast calling for collective action

Here is a screenshot of the 17 sustainable goals.

The Sustainable Development Goals

The primary focus of the video appears to be on addressing inequality and climate change. It speaks positively of climate changes that resulted from lockdowns, such as air pollution lifting over Punjab and the water in Venice canals becoming clear. This is the utopian world imagined where people do not live. The slippery slope is the devaluing of human life as being hazardous to the climate. I see this as a danger greater than the supposed climate change threat.

In the video we hear, “People showed enormous capacity to adapt, change the way they live, work, organize themselves….Change is possible, the problem is political will.”

The Sept 25, 2015 Sustainable Development Goals were considered “a set of solutions to the biggest problems the world faces.” Although I am skeptical, I must say that I’m sure there were good intentions. The key areas addressed were Climate, Poverty and Inequality, and Gender Inequality.

There is an excerpt from an essay in Arundhati Roy’s book, Azadi: Freedom. Fascism. Fiction, entitled, “The Pandemic Is a Portal” in which she says, rightfully, the pandemic brought the world to a halt when nothing else could. “In the midst of this terrible despair it offers us an opportunity to rethink the doomsday machine we have built for ourselves. Nothing could be worse than a return to normality. Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.” The quote is found here.

Regarding climate change have seen what I would say is no less than an attack on the fossil fuel industry without proposing a feasible and affordable alternative. Even banks are now being brought on board and pressured not to lend to these industries. Francis Menton points out the problem in his June 6, 2022 article, More On Energy Fantasy Versus Reality In Woke-Land, “When the demand is there and the product works, it takes off. Not so for wind and solar for energy generation, nor for that matter for electric vehicles. Nobody buys these things unless subsidized, and as soon as government subsidies are reduced or go away, they disappear.” In other words, if the government keeps putting money into alternative energy then the constructing of solar panels and wind turbines will continue.

It is noteworthy that the SDG agreement followed closely on the heals of the December 12, 2015 Paris Agreement. Incidentally, a 10 day meeting of world leaders on the subject of Climate Change just concluded in Bohn Germany. This follows on the heels of the WEF meeting of world leaders in Davos. Whenever world leaders meet, there is no shortage of private jets and limos, not to mention other evidence of excess. My whole problem with the Climate Change agenda is the total inconsistency from the leaders who promote it. In the end it makes me wonder if there is really more interest in wealth and power than climate. Investments merely shift to countries that have no climate controls, such as China.

In this article, Open Borders Must Be Part of Any Response to the Climate Crisis we read, “Over the last hundred years, borders have come to function much as serfdom did until the 19th century: as a means of restricting the movements of the poor.” This is one of the solutions proposed for the problem of poverty and inequality, but it is lacking a lot of context. Ultimately it implies a world without borders which means no more sovereign nations and anyone can come and “colonize.”

When one looks at who is involved in these world leadership meetings we see the United Nations and its subsidiary entities, such the World Economic Forum (WEF). The SDG’s are under the umbrella of the United Nations as well. I’m relatively new to this understanding of how the UN influences countries, or should I say imposes on the sovereignty of nations, because this is what we have seen in education. IGLA has been very active, lobbying the UN and following up on gender equality and education compliance in all countries.

Between 2014 and 2019, 7 Treaty Bodies selected 33 SOGIESC recommendations for their follow-up review.

17 decisions on Individual Communications were adopted by three Committees in 2014–2019, with a violation found in 9. Two of the cases were brought by trans persons, however, have been no intersex cases so far.

Out of 27 General Comments adopted by Treaty Bodies, 20 (77%) contained references to SOGIESC.

These achievements would not have been possible without the active and consistent participation of LGBTI defenders from around the world, who collected data, drafted and submitted shadow reports, travelled to Geneva, and engaged with Committee members….

United Nations Treaty Bodies: References to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics

So, what we have here is powerful lobbying entities, backed by a lot of money, to be sure. There is little that is democratic about this.

I am in favor of many of the Sustainable Development Goals, however, I do not see the value in swallowing the proposals whole, without a careful analysis. For instance, perhaps we cannot get behind the plan to halve global emissions by 2030, or putting an end to building new coal power stations and subsidizing of fossil fuels, or implementing carbon taxes, but I can support reducing pollution of waters, putting limits on deforestation, and providing affordable education and health care. Many goals are not clear like the reference to need to “fix the financial system.” What does that involve? We give up our personal privacy as digital currencies are introduced?

Investing in “global peace” and “a global ceasefire” sounds good, but we have seen how impotent the UN is when faced with a real situation. The same applies to the lofty ideal to “break the vicious cycle of systemic corruption.” What systems are corrupted? How does a world governing body get involved? By creating little activists in our schools?

I nearly laughed at the proposal of a “free, independent media” seeing how we have not had this freedom throughout covid, to discuss alternate views. And “responsible social media platforms that encourage healthy debate,” after vaccine injury reports were repeatedly ignored and removed and doctors were threatened if they spoke out. “Free and fair elections” and “the right to protest.” I get the sense these were slipped in as a token to appeal to a certain audience, the Amazing Grace audience, versus the Beyonce one.

“Increase the power of the people to keep check on the people in power” stumped me as well, since this is the opposite of what we see happening. The rich get richer and the world leaders unite to become more powerful.

“Gender equality” of representation is not a good idea for reasons I don’t have time or space to discuss here. Equal access is good, but equal representation is not. It results in the less competent leading and I would say this is already becoming an apparent consequence, evidence being some of the poorly thought out proposals presented above.

I found the following on the Manhattan Contrarian website, which incidentally is a very comprehensive source for credible information on Climate Change by someone who has the knowledge to speak on the subject:

One of my intellectual heroes is Milton Friedman. In 1964 he spent a year as a visiting professor at Columbia University in Manhattan. In 1974 Friedman wrote an essay titled “Schools at Chicago” that includes the following passage:

 

In 1964–to the disgust and dismay of most of my academic friends–I served as an economic adviser to Barry Goldwater during his quest for the Presidency. That year also, I was a Visiting Professor at Columbia University. The two together gave me a rare entree into the New York intellectual community. I talked to and argued with groups from academia, from the media, from the financial community, from the foundation world, from you name it. I was appalled at what I found. There was an unbelievable degree of intellectual homogeneity, of acceptance of a standard set of views complete with cliche answers to every objection, of smug self-satisfaction at belonging to an in-group. The closest similar experience I have ever had was at Cambridge, England, and even that was a distant second.
The homogeneity and provincialism of the New York intellectual community made them pushovers in discussions about Goldwater’s views. They had cliche answers but only to their self-created straw-men. To exaggerate only slightly, they had never talked to anyone who really believed, and had thought deeply about, views drastically different from their own. As a result, when they heard real arguments instead of caricatures, they had no answers, only amazement that such views could be expressed by someone who had the external characteristics of being a member of the intellectual community, and that such views could be defended with apparent cogency. Never have I been more impressed with the advice I once received: “You cannot be sure that you are right unless you understand the arguments against your views better than your opponents do.

Are We Serious About Protecting the Environment Or Not?

Has anyone besides me noticed how much wood is being used to “protect” trees?

New Development

See the boxes surrounding single trees on the boulevard? As far as I can tell these trees are in no danger from the development going on behind the banners on the right.

Here is another local example.

School Playground Upgrades

There is a metal fence up against the trees surrounding the school baseball field getting an upgrade, however an additional fence was built to protect the trees. Look at all that lumber.

We are seeing this kind of ‘over the top’ protection more and more while at the same time I have seen multiple trees cut down in local parks, some with log ends draped with Weyerhaeuser (Timber, Land and Forest Products) tarp. I don’t know the reason.

Prime Minister Trudeau promises to plant 2 billion trees but in the meantime developers are allowed to destroy natural habitat and loggers continue to cut old growth trees. Here is an article form the Surrey Now Leader: Stream of consciousness – stewards worry over fate of Little Campbell River – Surrey Now-Leader. It’s a sad story. Below is an excerpt from the following Vancouver is Awesome article regarding the approved 245-hectare South Campbell Heights industrial park: Metro Vancouver board votes to industrialize Surrey’s Little Campbell River area.

Local scientists and environmentalists argued paving over the greenspace will cause not just pollution but unnaturally high stream flows that will threaten baby salmon and create a higher risk of floods at the bay, especially as stronger storms appear to be more frequent from a changing climate in B.C. Many pointed out that by removing the green space it also creates higher urban temperatures during heat waves (67 Surrey residents died in the unprecedented 2021 “heat dome”). The proposed development also sits atop a large aquifer serving homes in the region. 

The City of Surrey just OK’d a road through Bear Creek Park and not everybody is happy. Read about it here: “Road Rage: Opposition mounts anew to Surrey’s Bear Creek traffic plan – Agassiz Harrison Observer” 

“On 84th Avenue at the east side, that road will definitely go through the park, actually going through a stand of old cottonwood, for about 250 metres, that is within the park boundary,” Werring said. “The issue is here the mayor is saying it’s not going through the park, well it is going through the park. It is a park. It’s signed everywhere, everywhere you look at this, there’s a sign ‘Welcome to your park.’ There’s park trails, park trails that will be intersected, and cut off.”

Someone has put a little bit of thought into the PM’s tree planting project, which, incidentally still does not appear to have begun: “Planting trees “doesn’t make any sense” in the fight against climate change”

“Forests need to have a permanence of 100 years to be effective”

“You plant the forest but you don’t start seeing carbon retention and sequestration happening for at least 10 years after they’re planted, so there’s a long lag time in doing that,” explained Gambill, whose company allows people who capture atmospheric carbon to sell it to people who want to offset their emissions.

“And then you have to maintain that forest and make sure it isn’t burned or cut down.”Forests need to have a permanence of 100 years to be effective carbon stores”, he said.

“So you plant your saplings and then you have to maintain the forest for 100 years. That’s multiple generations of people. How many companies last 100 years these days? How on earth is anyone going to afford to maintain that forest, hiring the team of people you need to do that? It doesn’t make any sense.”

We are definitely using a lot of wood to protect the trees on our boulevards, not to mention the less than environmentally friendly plastic waste. If we are getting rid of plastic bags, why not take a look at this?

To me this just doesn’t add up or support the climate change hype.