Adams-Family-Values

The Adams Family Values

By Sophia Siedlberg.

According to Dr. Adams, a gun totin rootin tootin criminologist who is known for his right wing views. Like a few of his ilk you can visit his website and see his photos of his gun collection and read his views. anyway he has this interesting theory about "Three types of People" In this scheme there are "Sheep" who are the general and innocent population of America. there are the "Sheepdogs", who are sort of people who "Stand up" for the rights of the sheep and protect them from the wolves, by killing if needed. Then there are the "Wolves" who are your communists and Muslim extremists and feminists and LGBT lobby.

Putting the usual arguments and terms that would be aimed at the likes of Dr. Adams (Bigot, Redneck etc) and those he does not like (Liberals, Reds etc). I actually find his theory a little interesting, his schema which is actually quite elegant in its simplicity. Especially the bit about Sheepdogs and Wolves. But there is a flaw. You see here there is an old adage that says one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Now a debate recently that blew up on his blog about Transgender laws was interesting because he regarded some of the liberal laws that allow transgender folks to be treated as their adopted gender as evil and saw transgender folks as "Wolves" Presumably Dr. Adams the criminologist is thinking of a wolf (man) in sheep's (Woman's) clothing. It is clear how this schema works. It is elegant in it's simplicity as I say but a bit odd. When on his blog we read him and his little band of followers talking about "Killing transgenders who use female restrooms" because "they make the ladies uncomfortable".

Well it gets a bit weird really. I sort of don't mind this so much because it does not affect me (I know this sounds cynical but I am using the Adams way of thinking here, that is I am using his logic).

I am intersexed and not transgender, I tend to avoid restrooms or toilets (in the UK) that are segregated into male and female like the plague. The reason being that thanks to childhood surgery I still have to use a catheter so emptying the bag down a drain is not an issue, it keeps me from entering the rather ironic "Temples of normal sacredness where normborns dump bodily waste". I mean I just consider myself sexless, it is just a biological fact, I was born that way, and despite surgery that was forced on me as a child, I am still sexless, that's life. But I get the distinct feeling that when Adams talks about "Transgender" he is talking about "intersex" as well. And he would still regard me as a threat to women in restrooms. In fact in his universe the surgery that was inflicted was basically society making sure women have the freedom to piss and shit in comfort. Here is the logic, my being born with ambiguous genitalia, was a "problem" so having been hacked, chopped, sliced and diced, left with a physically agonizing prospect when it comes to pissing in particular thanks to repeated bladder and kidney infections, despite yet more surgery to reduce this risk later on in life, all the horror I endured and endure is so norm born females can piss and shit painlessly. I never actually had a penis, and externally I appear female, it was the best that could be done when trying to undo years of careless hacking and slicing on the part of mad surgeons. so I could hardly be described as a "man in a dress" (The basic image Adams presents when describing his version of "Transgender") I was never phenotypically male, and never really female either, just, intersexed.

But According to Adams, I, someone who has to date only fought for the rights of intersex children to be protected from surgical intervention that can clearly cause harm am a "Wolf" and I should have my brains blown out. and this is would seem have little to do with my wanting to simply protect a few children, but my having been born in the first place. How else can I see it? Unless Dr. Adams would wish to enlighten me about this and tell me I am not reading his opinions correctly. But then I suspect he hasn't got the balls to do that.

In his commentary about transgender folks he did say that surgery does not make a man into a woman, (Or presumably a woman into a man). But hang on by the self same logic that would not make an intersex child into either sex right? Ah no it does not work like that, it does not happen, in Adams land such a child when born is a fully grown man in a dress out to terrorize women with his 20 foot penis. In fact this just born fully grown male who had a dress on when he was born was terrorizing the female only maternity ward so needs to be eliminated straight away. (We are applying the Adams logic remember) Of course the obvious question would be "Yes but what about the surgery being carried out on an intersexed child, (Child not adult), does it make them a boy or a girl or does it change nothing" Well the answer would I suspect be the same speech about men in dresses. (This is the real issue, isn't it, avoid the question and focus on men in dresses, Adams has no balls if that is the case.)

You see I read a lot about "The delusional thinking of men who think they are women or women who think they are men" But nothing abut the implied barking mad thinking that suggests that it is physically possible for a foetus to develop into a fully grown adult in utero, and also for a wardrobe of slinky little numbers to develop in utero as well and then to be born as an evil transvestite with a penis that is also a machine gun to terrorize the maternity ward. While Adams has not actually said this, logically this is what he says by shifting the focus back to men in dresses and avoiding the real questions about how sex differentiation is not quite as he would tell you it is. But to illustrate his lack of consistency despite the elegant simplicity of his ideas, read the following (It is a corker).

"I think a young boy who thinks he's a girl needs a serious a@@ whipping. Parents who hear a child whining that he feels like a girl trapped in a boy's body should attend to his needs by whipping his a@@ immediately."

Now Adams has a real problem with "Deviancy" and "Perversion" and as a criminologist he knows his stuff. Like on the face of it, it is not perverted to fantasize about whipping a boy who so much as picks up his sisters Barbie doll. Oh yes whipping a child to within an inch of his life is not downright perverted child abuse, (The use of a whip seems to suggest a few strange sexual thought processes going on) No you see that child transitioned from a sheep to a wolf and is no longer a child but a fully grown man in a dress with a penis that also fires 7.62mm High velocity rounds.

Now I am a liberal if I question this and "Transgendered" because I was born intersexed. What a load of bollocks.

The Adams Family (His Minions) are even stranger, like "mother of 4" who is the resident expert on "Gender confusion" who is allegedly the big expert on intersex. Presumably because she gave birth to four normal children. (???). She says XX for girls XY for boys and XY girls and XX boys are "Gender confused". And "Such rare individuals should be treated with compassion" (Strangled at birth perhaps? because that is the only option she has when using Adams logic). Then some other poster congratulates her on her caring and compassionate posting (Don't make me laugh). No the reality is more brutal, she is clearly some breeding mare and proud of it, "Mother of 4" like yes her identity is being a breeder "Mother of 4" and she can sit, Salome-Esther style with the the Antipas hit squad of strong young men, waiting to slaughter any newborn baby who's genitals do not fit the standard, Well she must be able to piss in comfort. We are using this logic that Adams seems to use, you see "Sheepdogs" and "Wolves" are relative terms that can be applied at will to redefine a helpless child as some sort of gender terrorist.

We have people who would be regarded as "inbred trailer trash" by the liberals. I find that incredibly disturbing. What if there is a grain of truth in it and it is not another form of logic similar to that of Adams. My intersex condition is a "Double recessive genetic condition", technically that makes me an inbred. So logically that would mean that "Inbred trailer trash and rednecks" would spawn a higher number of children with 5 alpha reductase deficiency than the general population, and I dread what would happen to a child born to such people. I really hope the left wing propaganda is as off base as that of the Adams family. I mean it seems clear that one of them would empty a Mac10 magazine into the head of a baby born like this.

This is my problem with Mike Adams, it is not that he is some bigot, redneck or whatever, it is the plain and simple fact that by birth I am a threat to something that he wants to preserve. but what? His "Family Values". Aside from writing a few choice words about people of his ilk which again have not focused on bigotry but the plain lack of logic and (This is the real killer) the lack of human decency? Like these people are "Anti abortion" but would drop that when tests reveal that the child may be born intersexed, or even gay (To them this is one in the same thing) then that "fully grown pervert" (Actually a fetus) in the womb is ripped out and cast in the hospital furnace hopefully still gasping for breath according to Adams logic.

If Mike Adams thinks I am making a caricature of his views a little or reading something evil into his writings. I would argue that I am simply applying his known logic to the wider debate about sex and gender. (Not that I am interested in sex and gender, just self

preservation and stopping children suffering).

Of course I am damned by this Adams logic for having some protective instinct when it comes to children, that is a "woman thang" and I am intersexed not a fully fledged female. I should be whipped to death for even showing the slightest bit of concern for the safety of children.

Is this conservative values? I don't think so. Apply the logic that Adams comes out with and all you get are bizarre, infanticidal, psychotic and deranged ideas that seem to describe some community of Americans that are so paranoid they would probably kill each other out within two generations. I always thought conservative values were about human decency but not pandering to social whims. I actually agree with some of the core logic about things like restrooms, and I avoid them myself, not because I am one sex or the other going into the opposite sex space, I am biologically neither sex, so for me it is either disabled toilets/restrooms or squatting behind a tree if the catheter is not being used. Personally I would not want to go into any restroom because they are one of the cited reasons I was butchered in the first place, it is not some objection to "Gender oppression" either, I just do not want anything to do with impractical stupidity.

To me conservative values are about things like preventing legislators from doing stupid things like banning the ten commandments from schools or infant classes being made to stuffy "Social skills" by being brainwashed by some parts of the LGBT lobby. (I can see some of the conservative objections there, I get grief from some quarters of the LGBT lobby myself). Conservative values are NOT about taking paranoia to ridiculous extremes where things like beating children to death or defining everything as the enemy. I mean the delusional quality that can be found in the Adams logic is as barmy as some of the logic from the people they clearly despise.

I am an ethic Zealot and I cannot figure out where this stuff is coming from, the only thing I can suggest is that Adams explains himself on all this. He does not have to denounce some of his minions and their opinions or renounce his beliefs, just answer the few questions about some things he comes out with that make Fred Phelps look like a screaming LGBT liberal.

I also suspect that one day he will pick on the wrong people, OK this is my stock warning to paranoid creeds, but Adams' thinking when taken to it's logical conclusion will inevitably result in a very violent backlash from somewhere. Take:

Dr. Adams is a professor of criminology and here we find him talking about the cause of some very nasty situations. Let's face it, Thomas Harris describes this sort of thing really well, I have said it before and will say it again. What happens if the kid grows up feeling an intense rage about this, (If the kid survives). Do we get the fictional Buffalo Bill or real life Ed Gein? Well Dr. Adams should know being a professional criminologist. It is like watching a vulcanologist standing naked in front of pyroplastic surge knowing full well what is going to happen next. "Barking mad" is an appropriate term.

I think Dr. Adams needs to explain himself before he ends up looking like a deranged lunatic. It is not his politics either but his logic, is he a Sheepdog or a Wolf?

This article is being revised. Check back later.