First of all, there is no such “ideology” as transgenderism. It is a diagnosable disorder that a significant number of people suffer from. “According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, transgenderism refers to the broad spectrum of people who transiently or persistently identify with a gender different from their natal sex (DSM 5, APA, 2013).” (https://tinyurl.com/ydmmftje).
It is not an ideology, but do not try to tell a “conservative.” To then it IS an ideology – a pernicious one out to “groom”, seduce, and transmogrify your children. But don’t worry, MAGA-Republicans have a solution and they used the annual CPAC conference to tell us what it is. Eradication.
We do not normally speak of “eradication” when discussing groups of people, but then most of us are not morons and Nazis.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen this is the modern conservative movement. Find someone to demonize and let ’em have it.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Perhaps we should eradicate Trumpism, a false ideology based on mendacity.
Seeing a young radical calling for eradication of a tiny minority of people reminds me of the joke when the German pope was elected.
“When I see a German leader on a balcony (St. Peter’s Square), I get nervous”.
Of course, this is no joke. This is Putinesque “purification”.
Sigh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Seeing a young radical calling for eradication of a tiny minority of people reminds me of the joke when the German pope was elected.”
Michael Knowles didn’t speak about eradicating any people. He spoke about eradicating an ideology, as you do.
This is the “Nazis are good people” hoax all over again.
LikeLike
So, how do you eradicate an “ideology” without harming people? Violate most of the Bill of Rights to suppress this “ideology?” Lock ’em up. Remove them from their jobs. Smash the glass windows of their shops? Move them to holding camps where they cannot spread it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “So, how do you eradicate an “ideology” without harming people?”
Easy. You use persuasion. In this case, by making it clear that men can’t be women and women can’t be men.
LikeLike
LOL!
The CPAC speech was not about persuasion. Duh!
And, call me a practitioner of “transgenderism” if you must but what you are trying to persuade them of is a gross oversimplification of the nature of gender.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We could call for eradication of American conservatism and listen to the outrage accompanied by copious spittle.
But MAGA has already accomplished that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it is both.
Transgenderism is a psychiatric diagnosis when applied to an individual, but it is also an ideology that seeks to force that diagnosis as a protected class to be awarded advantages in employment and legally.
It is also a hate group that seeks to cancel anyone who does not accept their delusion as normal and safe around children.
We can certainly tolerate those who suffer from that diagnosis, but the ideology must be defeated.
LikeLike
RE: “It is also a hate group that seeks to cancel anyone who does not accept their delusion as normal and safe around children.”
Exactly right. Here, in fact, is an example of what a member of such a hate group might say: “Find someone to demonize and let ’em have it.”
LikeLike
“normal and safe around children”
I will stipulate that there is nothing particularly “normal” about intense gender dysphoria. In fact, it would not be treated by the APA manual of diagnosis as a diagnosable disorder if it were.
But what about “safe around children?” There is no actual evidence that transgender adults are a greater threat to children than supposedly “normal” adult men. Virtually all the thousands of child molestations covered up by the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention were committed by “normal” adult men. The uncounted thousands of rapes committed against teenaged girls are committed by “normal” men. But you people want to single out the transgendered as a dangerous group? Based on nothing but your bigotry? It is disgusting and shameful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “There is no actual evidence that transgender adults are a greater threat to children than supposedly ‘normal’ adult men.”
Is that a fact? I have posted separately on this question.
LikeLike
Yes it is a fact.
I read your post. It does not support what you are claiming. I commented on its nonsensical nature on that thread.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…ideology that seeks to force that diagnosis as a protected class to be awarded advantages in employment and legally.”
I guess that means before 1965, all White Christians were a protected class? I think so. Laws and culture were enforced to insure advantages for them.
Karma? Or just that the “long arc of justice” takes time?
This is the view through the other end of the binoculars and it shows a much wider field.
LikeLiked by 2 people
For purposes of his commentary, Michael Knowles defined transgenderism as the belief that men can be women and women can be men. Do you mean to suggest that this particular belief is a valid basis for civil rights?
LikeLike
So making up a definition to assign fear of one group is the new “Conservative” ideal? Like “woke” ,it is just another buzzword used to gin up fake outrage at a small group of people. Hitler used it well in planning and attempting to execute his “Final Solution.”
Interesting how people today do not see the corollary. Infact, some here are cheering the idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you want society at large to make laws, establish compensation and define privileges on the basis of the idea that men can be women and women can be men?
LikeLike
I want a society where all are created and treated equally. Where individuals or groups are not demonized in some idiotic attempt at attaining or holding political power. Where the true demons, those that are out to vilify any group, are called out for their hatred.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I want a society where all are created and treated equally.”
Does that mean that society at large must pretend that men can be women and women can be men?
LikeLike
Your lack of a psychology background makes your question idiotic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First, that transgender is is an ideology is, to me, is a version of “being gay is a choice”.
If you are going to demonize a small segment of society, giving an ideological reason rather than a biological one is so much easier to condemn.
If you are going to vilify Jews, then it is easier to attack their supposed financial greed and subsequent power as an ideology to fleece Christians rather than as Christ killers.
Knowles speech was pernicious in that it encourages, even demands, retribution against individuals rather than ideas. How so? Simple, the “troops” of a real ideology, like MAGA, are not going to debate the nuances of ideology v. biology as they beat the crap out of someone different.
Or, more succinctly, if you want to eradicate the supposed ideology, then what better way than to eradicate the “believers”. Terror is still a potent weapon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Knowles speech was pernicious in that it encourages, even demands, retribution against individuals rather than ideas. ”
No, it doesn’t. You just want it to so you can demonize others, like a Brown Shirt.
LikeLike
Hey, why so personal. No need to call me a Nazi, thank you very much.
My opinion about the speech was just that.
That speech was, in my opinion, just pure red meat tossed to a hyper partisan crowd. It played to the fears of the perceived influence of an almost infinitesimal minority that has been under attack for a long, long time.
Couched in word choice to sound “reasonable”, it was a rabble rouser.
Reminiscent of “Take this country back”, “1776 moment”, “stolen election”…uh, go peacefully now.
So insult me if you must, and it seems you do, but my opinion stands.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Hey, why so personal.”
I want you to see the error of your ways in terms of the consequences. Your error begins with misinterpreting Knowles and goes on to promulgating a falsehood. The very thing you accuse Knowles of doing.
LikeLike
The error of my ways? Your opinion is noted, condescension included.
So how do we go about eradicating “transgenderism”? Is it like eradicating “gayism”? Or “Jewism”. How about “conservatism” and “liberalism”, both have been declared dangerous to society depending on one’s personal position.
Knowles was using an incendiary speech to appeal to the crowd. Eradication was tried many times in history. Check Mao, Stalin, Hitler for starters. More recent examples include Rwanda, Myanmar and Putin.
The good news is that CPAC is all but inconsequential since it has been taken over by the truly reactionary right. The better news is that we get to see who the loonies are still fighting the 2020 election. Then we can sort of keep them entertained with some kibble and Chavez chips, (with dip…American onion flavor), while the nation goes about its business on healthcare, jobs, economic concerns, immigration, Ukraine…the stuff that counts.
IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Do you mean to suggest that this particular belief is a valid basis for civil rights?”
Why is it different than other diseases and conditions which cannot be used as a basis of discrimination? Because YOU say it is an ideology and not a diagnosable disorder?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Why is it different than other diseases and conditions which cannot be used as a basis of discrimination?”
The belief is that men can be women and women can be men. Do you want that belief to be the basis for civil rights?
LikeLike
“The belief is that men can be women and women can be men. Do you want that belief to be the basis for civil rights?”
No, but I believe that a recognized diagnosable disorder should be handled by anti-discrimination law no differently than other medical conditions just because some people – like you it seems – find the disorder icky.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How is that relevant?
Even so, you are confusing justice with tribal justice.
Does past discrimination make it justice to take vengeance on the grandchildren of people long dead who did what we see today as wrong 100 years ago?
Next time you fly away on vacation, do you want a former military pilot with 10,000 hours experience in jets at the control. or a transgender pilot rushed through a training program he/she got into not based on skill but a quota?
Is it justice that female athletes have no chance of reaching the top of their sport because now they must compete with biological males?
No, transgenderism as an ideology must be defeated.
LikeLike
Your answer was predictable. Your fear mongering admirable to many.
Jesse Helms ad a few elections back election comes to mind.
(“A minority got the job you were qualified for.”)
Your airline comparison is just that. “I could have gotten that pilot’s license if I wore a dress”…not fair.
And there are thousand, nay millions, of boys who want to cut off their balls to get a medal in women’s sports. “I coulda been a contender…if I had tits.”
OK, enough sarcasm. We need to get a grip rather than go after ghosts “grooming” our future generations.
That speech was as pernicious as the Pizzagate fiasco. There is stuff going on that is un-American, and I want us to eradicate it…meaning, of course, them.
Words have meaning, and in todays hyper partisan political right wing, violence is an acceptable solution. That has been demonstrated quite well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “There is stuff going on that is un-American, and I want us to eradicate it…meaning, of course, them.”
You have become your own enemy.
LikeLike
You are telling I am wrong, a Nazi, my own enemy…do you have a reasonable response to my assertions?
OK, before we go on, it is apparent that CPAC is a shadow of its former self. Reagan started his campaign at a CPAC convention. Today, it is a farce.
Even most serious Republicans passed it up. And two, Haley and Pompeo, got a tepid response, even booed. Conspiracies, election denialism and fear were on the menu and the crowd ate it up.
Again, my opinion stands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, didn’t you just say eradication was OK!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Egad. You are too literal for me.
I was role playing sarcastically. My out of context words will come back to haunt me now!
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “do you have a reasonable response to my assertions?”
Yes. I asked you whether you want the belief that men can be women and women can be men to be used as a basis for civil rights.
LikeLike
No perspective in the liberal world.
It is not the unfairness to the potential male pilot that is the problem, as wrong s that is. It is who you want in the pilot’s seat when a circuit breaker pops on final approach. I want the guy who has dealt with malfunctions while being shot at.
And the number one US womens’ swimmer is a transgender whatever.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/28/official-transgender-swimmer-lia-thomas-is-destroying-the-sport/
Yes, words have meaning, ‘Woman’ is one of those words
LikeLike
“I want the guy who has dealt with malfunctions while being shot at.”
Right. No woman could ever have faced that. Seist commentary as a basis for your idiotic defense of condemning people for who they are.
By the way, there are quite a few former military members that are transgender.
And unless you are looking for good Sports info or lining for the bottom of your birdcage, avoid the NY Post as a source.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you want all commercial airline pilots to be combat veterans? We need more wars because they are getting older.
If you fly commercially at all and are in one of those feeder lines like Republic you would not be in the hands of a “Sully”. More likely a low paid, tired pilot with minimal hours for a transport license. Transgender or not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I want the guy who has dealt with malfunctions while being shot at.”
Then you are out of luck. There are fewer and fewer military pilots in the cockpit of commercial airliners – less than 1/3 – and even fewer who have flown in combat.
Your whole screed is based on the false idea that women and minorities NOT being discriminated against amounts to discrimination against white men.
I do not inhabit the cesspools of internet as you do, but I am not aware of any law, regulation or policy that promotes women or transgendered pilots over other candidates. That is one of your patented straw men to be pummelled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, people wanting no more than to be treated no differently from other people is an “ideology” and a hate group? And needs to be “eradicated.” Have I understood you?
You care about children? Bullshit! The “trauma” of going to the ballet and seeing a man dressed up as a woman in the role of Mother Ginger does not compare to the trauma of a gunshot to the face. Somewhere north of 4,000 children and teens die of gunshot wounds in this country every year. Many thousands more maimed. But you people want to use the force of law to “eradicate” transgenderism but are unwilling to do ANYTHING to curb the gun massacre going on every day. It is not the children. Maybe some inner demons clawing to get out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nice deflection.
LikeLike
No, just putting priorities where they belong.
More guns, fewer non-White Christians and no gays are not solutions to anything but a few million votes and more shootings.
IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not a deflection. It is the truth. All this hand-wringing about children who are NOT being harmed versus the countless thousands who are actually being killed and maimed because of the loose gun controls that you support.
I raise this OBVIOUS hypocrisy to make the point that the drooling hatred of the transgendered is not about children. It is something else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“ It is something else.”
Votes from the perpetually aggrieved.
Try libs of “Tic Tac”…a breath of fresh air as opposed to TikTok😇
LikeLiked by 1 person
Though it is an irrelevant deflection, those 4000 deaths are on your head, not mine. It is your policies that destroyed the urban family with adverse incentives to marriage and your “social justice” Soros prosecutors who let dangerous criminals go free to kill each other and everyone in the crossfire.
Those deaths are the foreseeable consequences of the liberal policies you push.
LikeLike
Total self-serving bullshit with a dash of racism for good measure.
It’s the guns stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have plenty of guns. Not one of them has gone downtown and shot anyone.
Democrats have had control of Congress nearly all of our adult lives, and the few times the GOP has had nominal control, the entitlements put in place while the Dems had it could not be unfunded,
The bulk of the murders are in cities governed by Democrats with their “social justice” fantasies and unwillingness to prosecute dangerous juveniles.
You can weasel around all you want, Democrats created the urban decline and feral thugs that make Democrat cities places people move away from when they can.
If every gun evaporated tomorrow, they’d kill each other with clubs.
And it is your policies and YOUR FAULT.
LikeLike
“Not one of them has gone downtown and shot anyone.”
Right. You are waiting to use them to shoot the mailman. 😇
“The bulk of the murders are in cities governed by Democrats “…
Yet the RATE of murders in rural areas is much higher. O did you forget that little tidbit of information that has been shared on this forum previously?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even more self-serving bullshit.
It’s the guns stupid. Even if you haven’t shot anyone. Yet.
Helping the poor survive in a devil-take-the-hindmost economy causes gun deaths. It does not get much more bizarre than that.
The veil you try to draw over racial hatred is getting pretty thin. Who is the “they” who will kill each other with clubs if somehow we got guns under control? Never mind. It is a rhetorical question. We all know who you are referring to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are all familiar with your dark fantasy world and your bizarre economic and social theories. Shouting them does not cause them to be anything but what they are – racial stereotyping under a nearly transparent veil.
Whatever the causes of gun violence and gun death, with better control of guns – like civilized countries have – we would have fewer dead children every year. You and your ilk block every attempt to get better control for stupid and/or selfish reasons. You do not give a shit about dead kids – especially those urban “thugs” – so you can quit posturing as a protector of children when you bigotry boils to the surface as it does when you second the idea of “eradicating” the non-existent ideology of transgenderism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In 2019, less than half of children shot and killed were Black (43%). Sure, that is outsized compared to the population.
So who shot and killed all the non-Black children? That number alone puts us to shame compared to the rest of the developed countries.
Nope, I think you are grasping at blowing dandelion seeds to avoid the obvious. Guns, guns and more guns. It is the national church of Smith and Wesson than runs the policy, and the altar of death for all too many Americans from 1 on up. I believe it is the number one killer of children under 18. And less than half are offspring of “welfare queens driving Cadillacs”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you look back you will see I wrote Urban families, not just Black.
What is the source of your numbers? Are suicides included?
Suicides are tragedies too, but they have different causes than murders.
Your hoplophobia is blinding you to the real coases of violence.
LikeLike
You are forgetting White flight. As soon as they left, so did support for inner city services, schools, even policing. Even highways and interstates ether destroyed any sense of community as they either displaced or cut long standing Black communities in half.
These are issue with long reaching consequences. It was not just welfare.
Every country has crime, hooligans, drugs, gangs, mental illness, immigration issues. Every country. But we are the one that adds easily available high powered weapons into the social fabric.
There lies the blindness, Don. It ain’t fear of guns, it is the lack of control as to who, how, when and where to get them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Len we live in the country Democrats created, At most, Republicans have been able to slow the slide, but they have never succeeded in changing the direction.
Social programs are entitlements that increase automatically. There is no appropriation process for them, they are automatic.
To repeal them would require overcoming a filibuster and the GOP has never had that.
So, the welfare policies that destroy families are yours. The leniency programs that let juvenile criminals graduate to worse crimes are yours. You created this. Good intentions are no excuse for catastrophic outcomes.
Crying guns’ guns guns is just cowardice. Your party created this country, take responsibility for what you have done
LikeLike
So what programs are splitting families today? I believe those were ditched in the 90’s.
Crime has many parents, including conservatives. The appalling state of our criminal justice system is one of them. Private prisons depend upon high incarceration, bad food and little medical care to make money. No adverse incentive there, right?
The splitting of families in recent decades is much more about high incarceration rates of minorities for the same crimes as others.
Add in the lack of legal representation or ability to make bail, and we end up like LA with folks locked up for months, years even, because of refusal to fund legal aid.
Toss in our aversion to good, affordable and accessible mental health funding for good measure. Our mental hospitals are jails and prisons.
Google how Omaha has brought crime down. In a nutshell, heavy emphasis on coordination among police, churches, community leaders, mental health, etc.
Remember Darryl Gates, the police chief in Los Angeles? He developed the failed policing of an “occupying army” and it failed miserably ending in riots.
When a country abandons the inner cities to the poorest because they are Black, then neglects them, things don’t improve.
Yes, there is merit to the single parent causes of problems. After WW2 we had gang problems because mothers were working and fathers were fighting in war. But it was muted as the education, housing and wealth improved through GI bill and jobs. Yet Black veterans were shunted aside. You don’t think that affected generations.
Add in the problems of White flight, private segregation schools, arrest rates and you can see we are all responsible for where we are today.
So adding guns to the mix, like 400 million, is going to help how?
Bob wants to wall off ghettos like the Nazis did to the Jews. You might issue warclubs to the residents. No end to good ideas, eh?😇
But keep the guns flowing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The worst of the programs, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, was cut in the 90s. It explicitly required no husband in the home. But it has been replaced by a web of subsidies, like food stamps, rent free appts, and stipends while taking job training courses. I interviewed women who were sent to apply for a job as a dental assistant who clearly had no intention of taking the job, Many already had certificates as paralegals, beauticians, and medical assistants. They were effectively professional students as as long as they were taking courses, the got the stipend.
If lack of health care coverage were the problem, the poor are covered by Medicaid, so they should not be affected, the violence should be coming from the middle class. It’s not, so that’s not the problem.
When a teen has clearly become a violent sociopath, what else can you do other than incarcerate him? Let him roam free beating and even killing people?
Your prosecutor in Norfolk is one of the anti-incarceration kind, how is that working out for you?
The left needs to take responsibility for its policies and stop deflecting from the real problems with gun bans that only affect those who are not the problem.
LikeLike
Ok, so it’s all the fault of Americans who want affordable, accessible healthcare, education and decent housing.
None of the lacking of justice, lopsided incarceration, drugs, etc.,
Got all that.
So let’s just say there are a lot more issues than welfare queens involved.
Like many other countries.
So why are we different?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I wrote Urban families, not just Black.”
LOL! We know the code words you people use.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It explicitly required no husband in the home.”
Yes, that was a very damaging part of the program. And it was put there to mollify people like you who are more concerned about somebody getting something for nothing than they are about actually helping those in need. It was a manifestation of the “conservative” idea that only the “deserving poor” should be helped. We probably spent more money trying to figure out who those were with a small army of snoops than we did on the help dispensed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have seen the responses of our “conservative” posters eager to accept and defend Mr. Knowles’s CPAC declaration of war on “transgenderism.” I think my original observation was spot on.
“We do not normally speak of “eradication” when discussing groups of people, but then most of us are not morons and Nazis.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Please quote Mr. Knowles’ words by which he advocates eradicating people.
LikeLike
Why? His speech is what it is. Ugly and vicious. His dancing around what “eradicating” an imaginary “ideology” would actually entail does not change its import.
Hitler never promised to murder all the Jews. Even within their inner circles they were coy about it. It was the “final solution” not mass murder. Nothing to see here. Move along.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t know of anyone who claimed it was an ideology but instead a mental illness that apparently the article and you agree with. Illnesses are meant to be treated not indulged. Men dressing as women, cutting off their penises and violating women’s right to privacy is a major mental illness. Parents putting their children on puberty blockers to prevent nature running its course and pretending they are the opposite sex is a crime.
LikeLike