Fred Nile’s Family World News newspaper published an article by Terri M. Kelleher about Amanda Stoker’s stand on “transgenderism”. Queensland Senator Amanda Stoker is a 37 year old lawyer, and mother, born in Liverpool, New South Wales. She is a former Commonwealth prosecutor. This monkey thinks she makes it simple to understand why the human construct of “gender bending” is so stupid even a monkey can understand why it is ludicrous.

Here is Amanda’s article in full; may I suggest they you read, mark, learn and inwardly digest it:

Senator Amanda Stoker takes a stand on transgenderism

by Terri M. Kelleher News Weekly, February 22, 2020

Queensland Senator Amanda Stoker, described by Bernard Lane, in The Australian as “a free speech champion and rising star of conservative politics”, has taken a stand against the transgender activist agenda. Senator Stoker says: “The transgender agenda demands that everyday Australians reject objective truth … It forces us to pretend that biology is not real, that gender is somehow fluid.”

The Australian Family Association and the National Civic Council have been saying the same things. A joint submission to the Attorney-General on the Religious Discrimination Bill provides an analysis of the transgender activist agenda; what it demands of everyone; how it is being forced into the culture by “gender identity” laws; and what the consequences are for the vast majority of us. The crux of the transgender activist claim is that feelings determine sexual identity. If you feel you are a male then you are, regardless of your biological sex being female.

Wide conflicts have been created by laws that reflect this fluid gender/transgender worldview, an ideology that erases the biological worldview, the idea that humans are immutably biologically male and female. Such laws create irresolvable, and deep legal and cultural conflicts between the inherent sex-based rights of every citizen (for example, their right to sex-specific sports, private spaces, change rooms, associations, schools, etc) and legally created transgender based rights that say, for example, that a man can self-identify as a woman and claim the legal right to access female sports, private spaces, change rooms, associations, schools, etc.

They redefine sex, thereby redefining human nature and human rights and so create deep legal and cultural conflicts for the vast majority of people, including secular people, who hold that humans are binary male or female.

The AFA/NCC view is that the way to resolve these very real conflicts, which are based on a denial of biological reality, is to define “sex” in law as immutably fixed according to a person’s biology. There should be a parliamentary inquiry into the legal recognition of “gender identity” in the Sex Discrimination Act and in state and territory anti-discrimination acts and births, deaths and marriages registration acts, and the impact of gender-identity laws on inherent sex based rights.

The United States Acts are Recognising that Sex-Based Rights are being erased by Gender-Identity Laws

The United States Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department are looking to establish a legal definition of sex. The object is to have a uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable”. The definition is to be along the lines of “sex” meaning “a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth.” Of course, everyone is at liberty to identify as transgender. This does not impose legal obligations on others. In contrast, gender identity laws create rights that do impose legal obligations on others. As Amanda Stoker says: “Most people agree that adults are free to live their life the way they want.” In their submission to the Attorney-General, the AFA/NCC asked: “Would laws defining ‘sex’ as immutably fixed according to a person’s biology have the effect of erasing the transgender experience? The answer is ‘no’. There are no laws inhibiting the ‘liberty’ of people to self-identify as they choose according to their feelings. Whereas laws defining sex as immutably biological respect the sex-based rights of the vast majority of people, gender-identity laws erase the sex-based rights of the vast majority.

“In Australia, there have been no restrictions on medical and surgical transitioning of transsexuals. There has been the liberty to adopt any gender identity they choose. … “This liberty was preserved in all Australian states and territories … when all these jurisdictions provided for female-to-male sex reassignment surgery to be an exemption in amendments to their respective criminal codes that made it illegal to perform a female genital mutilation operation on a girl or woman. Without this exemption, female-to-male sex reassignment surgery would be illegal.” Which would have been a denial of the liberty of adults to choose their gender. Senator Stoker says: “The transgender agenda demands that everyday Australians reject objective truth.” She is not alone.

Fifty scholars in an Amicus Brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court considering the Definition of “sex” in law.

The scholars set out detailed reasons why biological sex should be the basis of law, not gender identity. They said: “What is at stake … concerns truths about the very nature of things that precede human construction and transcend contingent historical circumstances. What purports to be a decision about rights is, more fundamentally, a metaphysical decision about the very nature of things.” As Senator Stoker says it is about “objective truth”. Australia needs its own inquiry into the legal recognition of “gender identity” in laws and the impact of these gender identity laws on inherent sex-based rights. Senator Stoker is inviting all Australians who are concerned about the transgender activist agenda to sign a petition supporting her stand. This is a very positive move. We need politicians who will state what may be unpopular with the progressives but is common sense and is what most Australians really think.

And that includes Chimps in the zoo and the rset of us animals. Is it really that difficult to grasp? Jesus Christ removed all doubt:

Matthew 19:4-6 

⁴ And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female,

⁵ And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

⁶ Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Gibber! Gibber!

Chugley

The Often-Baffled Chimp