News Weakly - 6/23/18

Self-Refuting Argument
Okay, so last week Robert De Niro let out a tirade of f-bombs against President Trump at the Tony Awards (to a standing ovation). This week an audience member at a De Niro Broadway play put up a "Trump 2020" banner and then a "Keep America Great" sign during the curtain calls. The audience member was removed. Fine. Whatever. What struck me as completely bizarre was the comment posted by the hair and makeup supervisor: "Whoever the low life scum bag who thinks it's ok to post their political views at a Broadway show and disrespect everyone there who paid to watch a show that is ALL ABOUT INCLUSION was thankfully removed from the theater Saturday night." (The all-caps was in the original.) How is it that you can speak of "all about inclusion" while applauding the exclusion of someone? And why is De Niro applauded for his coarse expression of his political views in a similar setting but this guy is excluded for them? Why is it that no one seems to see that "all about inclusion" while excluding those with whom they disagree is a self-refuting argument?

Can Anybody Tell Me?
Why is it that people who cannot tell what gender they are have been reclassified as not having a mental health condition, but people who do "too much" video gaming have a mental health disorder? It begs the question, "Who's watching those watching our mental health?" Worse, the three diagnostic features they used to come to this conclusion were how the behavior takes precedence over other activities, how the behavior produces a persistent or recurrent behavior pattern, and how it impacts personal, social, educational or occupational functioning. Does "gender dysphoria" not do all of that? Roman poet Juvenal wrote, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" It means "Who is guarding the guardians?" When our "mental health experts" can't see it, who's going to point it out?

Yeah, Science!
Back in 2016 the World Health Organization declared transgender a mental illness. This week they changed their minds. Because ... you know ... Science. Dr. Lale Say, coordinator of WHO's Adolescents and at-Risk Populations team, said it was "because we had a better understanding that this wasn't actually a mental health condition and leaving it there was causing stigma." Or, to put it another way (read "truthfully") it's not because of science. It's to make them feel better.

So, keeping score here:
Playing games -- mental disorder
Can't tell what gender biology says you are -- not a mental disorder

Got it.

(As a side note, this week I came across an interesting new technology the medical field is working with called CRISPR Cas9 that, they claim, can cut and replace pieces of DNA to fix genetic errors. According to the briefing I got, they hope to be able to fix things like sickle cell anemia and Klinefelter Syndrome, the XXY gender condition that, apparently, is not now a problem.)

Choosing Sides
Canada's Supreme Court has opted to reject religious conviction in favor of "the rights of the LGBT." The country's only Christian law school has lost its accreditation (for those doing the math, that means zero Christian law schools in Canada) because the Christian university includes Christian rules including abstinence from sex outside of marriage. The court declared that such a rule would mean that LGBT students "would be at risk of significant harm." They found "the public interest of the law profession gives it the right to promote equality by ensuring equal access, support diversity within the bar and prevent harm to LGBT students." Clearly, then, some (like LGBT) are more equal than others (like Christian values), diversity does not include certain groups (like people with religious convictions that run counter to the current view), and the court is ruling that Christian values cause harm. And they couldn't give the school accreditation because Christian beliefs prevent learning the law? Thanks, Canada. We know which side you're on.

That's What I'm Talking About
Samantha Bee goes off on Ivanka Trump in the rudest and crudest of ways and suffers no real ill effects from it, even defended by her peers. Robert De Niro complains about the president with loud and foul language at the Tony's and gets a standing ovation. So when Peter Fonda tweets about the family separation policy in a "highly inappropriate and vulgar" manner (his words), who's surprised or upset? No one. Except, as it turns out, Peter Fonda. That Hollywood, nay, anyone might disagree with the president or anyone else in a position of authority is perfectly fine. I've just always asked that we do it with respect for the office. Fonda did not, but apologized for it, apparently because he thought it was wrong of him and not because he expected further consequences. Too bad you made the remarks in the first place, Mr. Fonda, but I'm impressed that you saw that it was wrong and apologized.