Never marry a Social Justice Warrior
( WND )
The nation has been transfixed with horror over this week's court ruling that prevents a father, Jeffrey Younger, from stopping his ex-wife (Dr. Anne Georgulas) from transitioning their 7-year-old son into a daughter.
I mean really, this is the stuff of nightmares. This young boy is getting set to undergo chemical castration, and his lunatic mother "has full authority to start him on puberty blockers and eventually cross-sex hormones." This is a tiny child who isn't even old enough to cross the street by himself.
Even more insane, this was confirmed with a consensus of 11 of the 12 jurors. I don't know by what criteria the jurists were selected, but doesn't it seem a little too convenient that 11 out of 12 turned out to be Social Justice Warriors who think it's fine to harm a child? I smell an activist judge.
(Update: As of Thursday, the father was magnanimously granted a say in his son's medical treatment. However, the judge also blocked the father from speaking publicly about this travesty.)
It appears to be the "mother" – a pediatrician, no less – who is the nutjob here. Apparently, this woman has been on a transgender crusade for a long time. Columnist Matt Walsh tweeted, "Listened to an interview with the father. He says the mother used to lock the boy in his room and tell him there's a monster who only eats little boys. At 3, she started dressing him like a girl. Would withhold affection if he wasn't dressed like a girl."
Dr. Georgulas claims she knew her son wanted to be a girl from the time he was 3 years old. "So the very first thing I saw was in the summer of 2015 when she [James] picked a McDonald's girls' toy instead of a boys' toy."
That's it. A moment when a toddler picked up a toy, and now the raging lunatic of a "mother" can torture her son the rest of his life. Does this sound like a normal, balanced woman to you? Even many in the LGBT community think this is nuts and are supporting Mr. Younger's defense of his son.
Apparently, the divorce between this child's parents happened over the mother's desire to transition the boy. "In the couple's divorce proceedings, the wife … accused Jeff Younger of 'abusive behavior' because the father has engaged in 'non-affirming actions' such as cutting the son's hair short."
In other words, this crazy lunatic activist is using her tiny child as a weapon in her activist war. It seems Mr. Younger's biggest mistake – listen carefully – was to marry a Social Justice Warrior.
SJWs are loose screws. You never know when they'll go off the deep end, embracing some ridiculous cause (cultural appropriation? man-spreading?) with religious fervor. Their world is two-dimensional: everything is either good or evil. They're for the good, of course, and therefore everyone who doesn't agree with them is evil. They are impervious to logic and operate solely on feeeeelings. They shout down all rational explanations of why they're in error with cries of "racism!" or "sexism!" or some other -ism.
Facts are irrelevant. Did you get that? FACTS ARE IRRELEVANT to Social Justice Warriors. In their nutty insane world, a toddler's passing interest in a girlish toy makes him a girl.
Because facts are irrelevant, the usual modus operandi of Social Justice Warriors is to scream insults and threats in an attempt to intimidate others into silence. Often these insults make no sense in the context of the discussion. ("I like burritos." "Shriek! You're a racist! That's cultural appropriation! You want to deport all immigrants! I'll bet you're a Trump supporter! I'm triggered! I need a safe space!" "Huh? All I said is 'I like burritos'!")
Most SJWs "win" through continuous harassment. It's their specialty, what they live for, and why they often don't have time to get a real job (another reason they're impervious to the realities of economics). Even in instances where they DO have a real job – little James Younger's "mother" is a pediatrician – they apparently have no comprehension of how their actions can impact their business (how many parents will now choose Dr. Georgulas as their child's doctor?).
Most of us tend to dismiss SJWs as hysterical but harmless idiots. Hysterical, yes. Harmless, no. Their rantings have long-term serious effects. They end careers, shutter businesses and in the tragic case of little James Younger, abuse children. Their actions, it's been noted, are even hostile to the traditional values of the liberal left.
"There is a word for ideologies, religious or secular, that seek to politicize and control every aspect of human life: totalitarian," notes Cathy Young in the Observer, who terms the ideology of Social Justice Warriors "SocJus." "Unlike most such ideologies, SocJus has no fixed doctrine or clear utopian vision. But in a way, its amorphousness makes it more tyrannical. … Its creed of 'intersectionality' – multiple overlapping oppressions – means that the oppressed are always one misstep away from becoming the oppressor. Your cool feminist T-shirt can become a racist atrocity in a mouse click. And since new 'marginalized' identities can always emerge, no one can tell what currently acceptable words or ideas may be excommunicated tomorrow."
In other words, SJWs can turn on you at the drop of a hat, creating offenses out of thin air where none existed before. Read this story of a former SJW who was viciously attacked by his own crowd for one minor misstep. He later realized how viciously he himself once behaved, admitting "For years, I was blind to my own gleeful savagery" when it came to mobbing others.
But back to little James Younger. Now we learn SJWs don't just turn on each other – they turn on their own children. Because of the social activism of his insane "mother," James will never grow up normal. In fact, his body may be altered without his informed consent, and his name will be changed to some stupid New Age claptrap moniker. Is this "justice"? Of course not. It's lunacy.
Deep down, even the SJWs know this case of James Younger is insane (that's why the mainstream media are silent on the issue). But once they've taken up a cause – such as claiming tiny children can be a different gender – they'll defend it to the end, even if it means abusing a young healthy child in the process. After all, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.