What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Recent Comments

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Lydia on May 24, 16:16:

Dave Perry, nice to hear from you! I certainly agree that the totalitarian impulse manifested in "everything not forbidden is compulsory" should be anathema to any self-respecting libertarian. That's one reason why it has been, to put it mildly, ironic and interesting to see the official libertarian party supporting various aspects of the gay agenda such as homosexual "marriage" which are _obvious_ attacks upon personal liberty. I've often said that every self-respecting conservative should have a strong ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Lydia on May 24, 16:01:

Step2, dysphoric behavior, as we all know from actually running into transvestites and other "transgender people," doesn't remotely come close to being the same as really appearing realistically to be a member of the opposite sex. "Dysphoric" behavior includes transvestitism, wearing makeup, asking to be called by a name of the opposite sex, and the like, but that is not even *close* to "passing" as a member of the opposite sex. That's (part of) why they ask "doctors" to help them by giving them surgery and ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Step2 on May 24, 14:48:

The medical diagnosis would be that the person has this condition of dysphoria. What the person then appears to be to the public is an entirely separable question. I see virtually no relation of probability here at all. Anorexia is another body image disorder but according to you it could be easily fixed by telling them all they need to do is not starve themselves and exercise less, what a thought. If someone comes in who is in fact morbidly obese and says they are anorexic, a clinician is going to offici ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Lydia on May 24, 14:12:

C. Matt, sorry, but I am not thrilled at all about a guy walking around with just a towel around his waist in a locker room with my daughters, while they are dressing and undressing as well. Your mileage may vary. (Said with a heavy dose of irony.) In any event, in shower rooms if people don't shower in a swim suit, which some prefer not to, it is _very_ hard to maintain full privacy. My experience at the Y is that I'm often seeing naked women getting in and out of the showers. Some of us prefer more priva ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by David Perry on May 24, 14:07:

Great piece Lydia! I think the idea that what is not forbidden becomes compulsory, follows from a false conception of liberty that is prevalent in society today. The correct conception of liberty is to believe that you have a right to live your life as you please, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others to live as they please. That is all, and that is it! Unfortunately, our society has lumped in a whole lot of other conceptions into its definition of liberty, like: discrimination, fairness, eq ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Mike T on May 23, 11:45:

More people have been shot by dogs than have been assaulted in bathrooms by transgender people. So I reject your "very real possibilities" as a justifiable premise. The threat isn't a full on tranny raping your daughter, but a child molester who claims to identify as a woman following her into the bathroom and raping her. The left created this issue for both us and people like Bruce Jenner by going the totally non-judgmental "you are what you feel like you are" on this issue. Ironically, this overreach is ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by c matt on May 23, 10:56:

When I joined a gym, I used the properly assigned locker room, and even then, I felt no need to "expose" myself to anyone. Geez, use a dang towel! ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Lydia on May 23, 09:46:

Most of that would be solved by having an official diagnosis required; they would be much more likely to pass as the gender they identify with. False. The medical diagnosis would be that the person has this condition of dysphoria. What the person then appears to be to the public is an entirely separable question. I see virtually no relation of probability here at all. they should also worry about how dangerously cavalier it is to send a close mimic of a teenage girl into a public restroom of his biologic ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Step2 on May 23, 09:38:

Lydia, This creates a feeling of lack of privacy in a public bathroom, and it's legitimate not to want to extend that lack of privacy to people who are _biologically_ of the opposite gender. I honestly don't understand that when referring to the stalls. Either you are nakedly exposed or you aren't. Second, I don't know what other uses men make of bathrooms, but women often do things like adjusting under-clothing and nylons, breast feeding, breastmilk pumping, and even crying (when upset) in the women's b ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Tony on May 23, 08:10:

Since it is officially classified as a dysphoria it also should require an official diagnosis by a clinician or social worker. Step2, although I appreciate your recognition that a person feeling like he ought to be a female even if he has male organs is a "dysphoria", you should realize that this notional category as a dysfunctional condition, this characterization, is not internally consistent with the rationale that the leftist trans community uses to claim a right to be treated as "how they feel". Now ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by DR84 on May 23, 01:58:

Does the NY law allow people to just not use pronouns at all? I'd like to think if nothing else, someone could just use the person's name to refer to a man who insists that he be referred to as a "she". Maybe even just their last name if one does not want to use their feminine sounding preferred name. I'm not at all suggesting this solves the problem of that despicable "law". I am just wondering if there is a loophole of sorts for sane people. ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Lydia on May 22, 18:02:

Step2, first of all, whether you like it or not, non-discrimination laws in public accommodations *do* apply to showers, bathrooms with visible urinals, changing rooms, dormitories, including dorms for women's shelters, and locker rooms. I realize that you want to propose something more moderate, but you need to realize that your political co-belligerents have *never* proposed any halfway house for accommodation where there is normally less and more modesty in the type of facility. Never. And never will. S ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Step2 on May 22, 17:33:

Terry, Who said anything about assault? If you are assuming predatory motives (which you are) it isn't a big stretch, especially after you brought up the security of stall doors. ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Terry Morris on May 22, 16:18:

Who said anything about assault? I was responding the "full on nudity" issue Lydia raised and you said you object to. But as I've also pointed out under a related post, we have never been in this situation before when perverts who say they identify as the oppoaite gender are practically invited into public bathrooms to prey on unsuspecting child victims. "Oops!, I'm sorry little girl, Iforgot to lock the door." ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Step2 on May 22, 15:49:

Terry, And the doors on public bathroom stalls typically provide less than adequate privacy, and little to no actual security. More people have been shot by dogs than have been assaulted in bathrooms by transgender people. So I reject your "very real possibilities" as a justifiable premise. ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Terry Morris on May 22, 15:23:

No one objects to them using bathrooms. What we do object to is males using female bathrooms and vice versa. And the doors on public bathroom stalls typically provide less than adequate privacy, and little to no actual security. They're not designed that way. Besides, it's easy to imagine a man (who "thinks he's a woman") posting himself in a bathroom stall waiting for his next unsuspecting victim, who might easily be a six year-old little girl. Those are the kinds very real possibilities that concern us. ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Step2 on May 22, 13:12:

I have to wonder how many leftists would object to a "transgender man" appearing in full frontal nudity in front of little girls. I do object to that. On the other hand I don't object to them using bathrooms because bathroom stalls have doors. I don't know who came up with the phrase "bathroom bills" but it doesn't normally suggest consideration about showers. As for stopping this, I would pursue judicial acknowledgement that a reasonable accommodation (such as a private shower and dressing area) is vas ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by DeGaulle on May 22, 04:47:

Lydia, if your leftist interlocutor thinks that male frontal nudity in front of little girls is merely equivalent to artistic nudity, how far is he from supporting interactive 'art'? We have slid down the slippery slope so far and so quickly that anything seems possible now. May the Lord God have mercy on us all. ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Lydia on May 21, 21:46:

You're being too logical. The left wants power. Leftists want to do what they want to do, and force upon the rest of the world what they want to force upon it, as quickly as possible. If law enforcement and the courts will let them get away with simply grabbing power by saying that "sex" now means "gender identity," then they will do that. Why not? Changing the meaning of texts is old hat for the left, which has been doing it with the Constitution for many decades. Now they're just getting started on laws, ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Tim on May 21, 19:53:

I thought that the non-discrimination ordinances that include "sex" as a protected class interpreted this category in biological terms (as with race, ethnicity, and age) and not according to some non-biological concept of gender, in which one can identify as having a female gender even though their biological sex is male. The whole point of this controversy, I thought, is that the left has some non-biological concept of gender that they want to label as a protected class along with the biological category o ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Mike T on May 21, 13:39:

On what grounds do you reject these findings? It is not a rejection of the findings as stated in the article, but on what they mean. It is very obvious that the article is just a politicized take on various disorders of the reproductive system. Even down to the issue with the mice we find, shockingly, that if you alter the DNA of an animal the genes will express in very different ways like making the gonads produce the gamete of the opposite sex. ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Lydia on May 21, 09:35:

But do they at the very least show that humans aren't either male or female? No. Or is this conclusion unwarranted? Yes. People with intersex conditions are people with a privation. They are biologically disabled. Do we say that, because some people are paralyzed, nobody objectively has the use of his legs? If someone is born without one arm, do we say that clearly there is a "spectrum" of armed-ness among human beings and that whether or not you have an arm is a matter of how you mentally "identify"? ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Lydia on May 21, 09:19:

Shouldnt simple trespassing laws be sufficient? Good question. The answer is, it depends. If the jurisdiction has no non-discrimination laws that mention "gender identity," then prima facie, yes, simple trespassing laws would support the business. That's clearly what the security guard at the grocery store in D.C. thought was the legal situation. It looks like maybe she (the security guard) was wrong, though, and D.C. maybe does have a non-discrimination ordinance concerning "public accommodations" tha ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by DR84 on May 21, 02:57:

"The most recent examples of a similar attitude arise in the insane context of the "transgender" debate. The assumption is that, if some law cannot successfully be passed by a government entity legislating on the matter of whether biological males must use separate bathroom facilities from biological females, business have zero freedom in this matter and must "not discriminate" against people claiming to be the opposite sex." Shouldnt simple trespassing laws be sufficient? Granted that would take some com ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Anonymous on May 20, 23:01:

I agree that we should reject the politicized interpretation of these findings. But do they at the very least show that humans aren't either male or female? Or is this conclusion unwarranted? Perhaps we could argue that intersex people are male (or female), but this would require defining 'male' and 'female', which is difficult to do - should we define it based on chromosomes? on genitalia? on gonads? on reproductive capacities? On what basis do we decide what the criteria is here? I'm not saying there's ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by Paul Cella on May 20, 22:42:

Alright, here's a more elevating link on the subject: http://www.mmisi.org/ma/25_04/kirk.pdf ... [More]

Everything not forbidden is compulsory II

Comment posted by DR84 on May 20, 16:21:

Just as a point of reference,this person (https://twanzphobic.wordpress.com/2016/04/27/the-miracle-of-twanzition-the-before-and-after-photos/) is a transgender woman. ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Lydia on May 20, 11:58:

I reject the utterly, obviously, stupid, programmatic, politicized interpretation of the findings, all of which concern rare genetic anomalies causing *misdevelopment* of the normal sex differentiation in humans. Or, in mice, researchers deliberately screwing up the mice's normal sexual organs by injecting things into them. That a small proportion of unfortunate people exist who have genetic problems affecting their reproductive organ development and sex development does not support the transgender agenda e ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Anonymous on May 20, 11:08:

On what grounds do you reject these findings? ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Lydia on May 20, 09:16:

Oh, gosh, my whole worldview is shattered. Now we just can't tell whether someone is a man or a woman! We must immediately abolish all references to and policy based on the assumption of binary biological sex because of these "findings"! Okay, maybe not. ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Anonymous on May 20, 09:01:

What should conservatives make of the fact that science has shown that biological sex isn't binary? See this 2015 article from Nature for a survey of the scientific findings: http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Anonymous on May 20, 09:01:

What should conservatives make of the fact that science has shown that biological sex isn't binary? See this 2015 article from Nature for a survey of the scientific findings: http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 ... [More]

What’s The Matter With Garbutt?

Comment posted by Joshua on May 18, 20:07:

Hi Jeffrey S, Andrew E, Thank you for your responses. There's only one other question I have for Jeffrey: In your response to Andrew E, you state: "But you and Ian Fletcher are crazy to think bureaucrats know how to direct private capital better than Wall Street, hedge funds, venture capitalists, etc. I mean, it's not like we have experience with all of the governments failures in trying to figure out where to spend money and on what (Solyndra, the F-35, Clinch River Nuclear Reactor, hydrogen vehicle dev ... [More]

Tie Score, with Little Sisters In the Lead, So Far

Comment posted by Tony on May 17, 16:14:

Thanks for the clarification. I just went with the dictionary definition. Which was, of course, un-nuanced. So it would be more like "by general consent", the sort of thing you would confirm by a voice vote and move along? ... [More]

Tie Score, with Little Sisters In the Lead, So Far

Comment posted by Titus on May 17, 12:46:

One small nit, "per curiam" is not really the same as "unanimous." It really means more along the lines of "we think this is pretty uncontroversial, but also not the sort of opinion that yields valuable precedent, so nobody is signing his name to it, but it's the order of the court." Every once in a blue moon you'll see a dissent from a per curiam opinion. ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Beth Impson on May 16, 11:57:

Concerning Christian schools and colleges, California is on it: http://www.californiafamily.org/2016/attack-on-california-religious-colleges-sb-1146/ ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Mike T on May 16, 05:47:

Sure, but that was last week's definition. Since "gender" is fluid now, you can experience gender alteration WITHOUT "dysphoria", and simply assert variance from a previous stance about your gender. ("Oh, I am feeling more aggressive today: I am experiencing 'male' today.") That only makes it easier for men fed up with this nonsense to troll the left. And make no mistake, Tony. They won't back off until they can't escape the consequences of their actions. ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Tony on May 15, 18:14:

Technically someone is transgender the moment they experience gender dysphoria and claim they're something they're not. Everything between that and the full surgery is included in the standard definition now. Sure, but that was last week's definition. Since "gender" is fluid now, you can experience gender alteration WITHOUT "dysphoria", and simply assert variance from a previous stance about your gender. ("Oh, I am feeling more aggressive today: I am experiencing 'male' today.") Remember: since it's a ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Mike T on May 15, 15:26:

There is no objective basis to determine if someone is "transgender". Technically someone is transgender the moment they experience gender dysphoria and claim they're something they're not. Everything between that and the full surgery is included in the standard definition now. It is simply their rules and we are just going along with them. So, wreck their system by getting as many people to identify as "transgender" as possible. Get a bunch of people to stand in opposite sex bathrooms in liberal areas ... [More]

The Real War on Women

Comment posted by Tony on May 15, 07:42:

I apologize for even have brought it up. Anyway, I'm an ideas person, I have good ones and bad ones. It can be difficult to sort out which is which without going through them. Blowing up this incoherent system before it ever gets fully off the ground appeals to me, but I won't pursue this idea further. The second is right, no need to apologize. The idea doesn't work, but you can't know it doesn't work until you work through the details, and that means considering the idea. Nothing wrong with considering ... [More]