In ‘Morning After The Revolution,’ Nellie Bowles Can’t Pick A Side
Cancel culture pack leader Nellie Bowles' new persona is a 'hemming-and-hawing moderate' willing to poke fun at anyone.Cancel culture pack leader Nellie Bowles' new persona is a 'hemming-and-hawing moderate' willing to poke fun at anyone.Rutgers professor claims anyone pointing out that gay people are harshly persecuted in Palestine are the 'homophobic' ones
A Rutgers University professor went to great lengths to attempt to fabricate a paper-thin defense of Palestine being extremely harsh towards LGBTQ individuals.
In the name of intersectionality, Maya Mikdashi attempted to deflect any criticism towards Palestine's proven agenda against any and all LGBTQ rights. The progressive professor instead cried that anyone pointing out the fact that gay people are persecuted in Palestine are the actual ones who are "homophobic."
Mikdashi is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
The professor has a focus on "law, citizenship, secularity, religious conversion, sexual difference, and the war on terror."
Mikdashi has absolutely no issue with bashing the United States for transphobia and a slew of other issues.
Mikdashi wrote in 2016: "The United States is in the midst of an election cycle where bigotry, racism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-immigration, Islamophobia, gun-love, imperial hubris, and sexism are political platforms — and political and national culture is not something one can 'opt out' or into depending on ethnicity, race, religion, sex, gender, or even 'free will.'"
However, Mikdashi will devotedly defend Hamas against anyone who points out the fact that Palestine is fanatically against LGBTQ rights.
According to Equaldex, Palestine ranks 192 out of 197 countries in public opinion about legal rights and freedoms for LGBTQ+ people.
The Williams Institute – a UCLA think tank devoted to gender studies – ranked Palestine 130 out of 175 countries in regards to "social acceptance of LGBTQIA people."
On March 20, Mikdashi spoke at an event titled: "Palestine is a Feminist and Queer Anti-Imperialist Abolition Struggle."
Mikdashi co-hosted the event at the University of Illinois with Dr. Nadine Naber – a professor in the Gender and Women's Studies Program, the Global Asian Studies Program, and the Department of Anthropology at the University of Illinois Chicago.
Naber claimed, "The gender binary is foundational to colonization. And also like that the gender binary – like all borders – are mare possible through state violence."
Mikdashi said during the event, "So I've been at protests where I'm then told, 'Don't you know what Hamas would do to you if you were in Palestine.'"
The woke professor proclaimed, "We have to start naming this as actually as homophobic. You cannot rehearse violence to queer people."
She declared, "It's violent."
Mikdashi claimed that noting that Palestine has a horrendous record on LGBTQ rights is the same as "pinkwashing," which she said was a "form of homophobia."
Pinkwashing is defined as an "appropriation of the LGBTQIA+ movement to promote a particular corporate or political agenda."
Naber added, "If you were to say you were experiencing sexism in the SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] they would say, 'There goes those Palestinian's again, silencing women in their communities.'"
She continued, "So no one is going to say it. And if you do say it [others] will say you're a 'traitor and collaborating with Zionism.'"
Naber contended that "rape and sexual assault" are embedded in the founding of Israel.
"Indeed the practices of rape and sexual assault that have been well-documented during the founding of Israel and continued today are not an exception or a secondary impact of colonial violence," Naber said as she read from a paper.
"[They] are part of the settler, colonial white supremacist logics and practices of Israel that conflate colonized women with the land and nature and assume that therefore to dominate the land necessitates dominating Palestinian women's bodies and their reproductive capacities from 1948 until today," Naber said, according to the Daily Mail.
'Handmaid's Tale' California! 'Fertility equality'
While many had assumed that Christian conservatives would be the ones to recreate the dystopian novel "The Handmaid's Tale," Lauren Chen believes it’s the other way around.
Under California Bill SB 729, the term “infertility” is being redefined as a status rather than a medical condition.
“We see this from the left all the time. They are trying to manipulate language in order to further their own worldview,” Chen says.
“Obviously,” she continues, “someone who actually has infertility, something up with their body that prevents them from being able to reproduce — that is not the same, nor should it be treated the same, as someone who just chooses to have same-sex relations.”
The bill passed the Senate last month and would force insurance companies to cover in-vitro fertilization for anyone experiencing “infertility.”
The Post Millennial writes that because of the change in definition, “this would also include forcing the firms to cover surrogacy for gay males.”
Senator Caroline Menjivar (D) co-authored the bill and explained that the bill “will ensure that queer couples no longer have to pay more out of pocket to start families than non-queer families.”
She said the bill is “critical to achieving full-lived equality for LGBTQ+ people.”
“I don’t know why I even have to say this,” Chen responds, “but you do not have a right to a child. Children are not commodities.”
Chen believes this is much closer to “Handmaid’s Tale” than what the leftists who used the premise of the book to protest the overturning of Roe v. Wade believed.
She says this is like “renting a womb from some woman and treating women’s bodies” as if “they’re state property.”
Chen warns that this bill “basically gives same-sex couples the right to rent out either a woman’s womb, or have taxpayers in some cases fund surrogacy with male donors.”
Want more from Lauren Chen?
To enjoy more of Lauren’s pro-liberty, pro-logic and pro-market commentary on social and political issues, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Church of England won't support gay 'marriage' in its churches
Church of England bishops will not recommend that gays partake in the sacrament of marriage, "a solemn, public and life-long covenant between a man and a woman, declared and celebrated in the presence of God and before witnesses."
The BBC reported that Anglican bishops finalized their recommendations after several years of debate on the CE's stance on sexuality. These recommendations will be factored in at the CE's general synod in February, where the decision will be formalized.
What are the details?
After a "six-year period of listening, learning and discernment known as Living in Love and Faith," CE bishops noted in a statement Wednesday that they are resolved to preserve the "Church's doctrine of Holy Matrimony."
Rhys Laverty, managing editor at the Davenant Institute, noted that "an organisation concluding that Holy Matrimony is between one man and one woman should not, in fact, be surprising," granted "'matrimony' literally means 'state of motherhood' (from Latin mater).
Notwithstanding the church's stance on this issue — the very issue that first distinguished the CE — the bishops nevertheless resolved to offer gays "the fullest possible pastoral provision": "prayers of dedication, thanksgiving or for God’s blessing on the couple in church following a civil marriage or partnership."
Extra to making these concessions, new pastoral guidance in relation to the discernment of vocation will eventually be produced, "to which all clergy currently are asked to assent."
This prospective document would replace the December 1991 "Issues in Human Sexuality" statement from the CE general synod, which claims, among other things: "There is ... in Scripture an evolving convergence on the ideal of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual union as the setting intended by God for the proper development of men and women as sexual beings. Sexual activity of any kind outside marriage comes to be seen as sinful, and homosexual practice as especially dishonourable."
The document also states that there is a "mismatch between [gays'] sexuality and their physical and often also their emotional capacity for parenthood. There may be for some a mismatch between their bodies and the ways in which they wish to express their mutual self-giving. Their sexuality can be a barrier rather than a help toward full man-woman complementarity."
The CE's "Issues in Human Sexuality," which declares clergy cannot enter into active gay relationships, further condemns as "bogus" the "philosophies of erotic freedom which have ... marked twentieth century European culture, and which have sought to justify every excess or deviation," for having advanced "chaos and misery, disease and death."
It is clear from the CE bishops' latest statement that much of the language and argumentation in this church document will be abrogated – no doubt favorable news for the church's "non-binary" Anglican priest and those clergymen driven to LGBT activism.
Apologies and 'breadcrumbs'
The church will reportedly be issuing an apology later this week to "LGBTQI+ people for the 'rejection, exclusion and hostility' they have faced in churches and the impact this has had on their lives."
Furthermore, the church will call on all congregations to welcome gay couples "unreservedly and joyfully" as they reaffirm their commitment to a "radical new Christian inclusion founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology and the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it — based on good, healthy, flourishing relationships, and in a proper 21st Century understanding of being human and of being sexual."
Various CE bishops commented on the proposals and the apparent balancing act between a prohibition on gay "marriages" and gay blessings.
Sarah Mullally, the bishop of London, said, "I know that this has been costly and painful for many on all sides of the debate and has touched on deeply personal matters and strongly held beliefs."
Stephen Cottrell of York said, "This is not the end of that journey but we have reached a milestone and I hope that these prayers of love and faith can provide a way for us all to celebrate and affirm same-sex relationship."
Justin Welby, the bishop of Canterbury, stated, "I am under no illusions that what we are proposing today will appear to go too far for some and not nearly far enough for others, but it is my hope that what we have agreed will be received in a spirit of generosity, seeking the common good."
Peter Tatchell, an LGBT activist, did not appear to receive the news in a "spirit of generosity."
Tatchell tweeted that the CE's decision is "like the southern US churches that refused inter-racial marriages 60+ years ago. Anglican leaders are the ENEMY of human rights & LGBT+ equality!"
The Times noted that Jayne Ozanne, an LGBT activist on the synod, similarly denounced the bishops for not accommodating the zeitgeist, saying the proposals were "breadcrumbs from bishops."
"Therefore we are still second class and discriminated against, even with this really small concession," Ozanne added.
Penny Mordaunt, a senior Tory minister who failed in her recent bid to become prime minister, wrote to the bishop of Portsmouth, suggesting that the CE's refusal to marry gays has left many "feeling that they are treated as second-class citizens within our society."
NBC News noted that the CE is at the heart of the Anglican communion, accounting for over 85 million people in over 165 countries.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
FDA 'will likely support' ending ban on blood donation from sexually active homosexuals despite blood banks' difficulty testing for HIV
In 1983, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, the Food and Drug Administration instituted a lifetime ban on homosexuals who had engaged in gay sex since 1977. According to a new report in the Wall Street Journal, the FDA may soon allow certain homosexuals to share their vital fluids.
What are the details?
People said to be familiar with the FDA's plans told the Wall Street Journal that homosexuals in monogamous relationships will soon be allowed to donate blood without having to abstain from sex. The new rules and guidance, which have yet to be finalized, will reportedly be issued sometime in the coming months.
The FDA's forthcoming decision to turn the spigot on a new source of blood reportedly comes after an agency-funded study of approximately 1,600 sexually active homosexuals was launched to "determine if a blood donor history questionnaire based on individual risk would be an acceptable alternative to a time-based deferral in reducing the risk of HIV among gay and bisexual men who present to donate blood."
Although the study conducted by the FDA and three of the largest nonprofit blood centers in the U.S. has not been resolved, it has, according to Brian Custer, director of the Vitalant Research Institute, generated "highly relevant information to envision what an individual risk-based approach would look like.”
All donors, irrespective of their disproportionate likelihood to carry HIV, will have to complete a comparable individualized risk assessment.
An FDA official indicated that the questionnaire, still being drafted, will ask prospective blood donors if they have had any new sexual partners in the past three months. Those who answer in the negative will be able to donate blood.
Those who indicate they have been promiscuous will be prompted to answer to whether they have had anal sex.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV." Although both participants involved in this particular act of sodomy are at risk, the recipient is at greater risk.
The CDC also noted that normal sex "is less risky for getting HIV than receptive anal sex."
Those who answer in the negative about having anal sex will be able to donate blood. Those who answered in the affirmative will simply have to wait three months before donating blood.
The significance of the three-month window is that an HIV infection would reportedly become apparent in that time.
Risky business
The Wall Street Journal noted that the FDA's likely new change won't necessarily come without risks.
While HIV testing has improved over the years — enabling blood banks to toss out bad blood taken from people long-infected — no available test can presently detect HIV immediately after infection.
Dr. Bruce Walker, an infectious-diseases specialist, told the Wall Street Journal that "with the latest HIV tests, that window is probably no greater than 10 days from the time of exposure."
The CDC noted that antibody tests, which look for antibodies to HIV in a person's blood or oral fluid, can take 23 to 90 days to detect HIV after exposure.
Antigen/body tests, which look for both HIV antibodies and antigens, can take anywhere from 18 to 90 days after exposure.
Nucleic acid tests (NATs), which look for the actual virus in the blood, "can usually detect HIV 10 to 33 days after exposure." Although highly sensitive, there have been incidents documented where NATs have failed to detect infected blood.
Life-saving 'discrimination'
Gay activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign have long suggested that the policy prohibiting homosexuals from donating blood was discriminatory, even if it prevented healthy homosexuals from receiving bad blood.
Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, said, "It is a completely outdated policy that doesn't reflect our current ability to test blood for HIV or the medical science around HIV."
When the initial blood ban was first instituted, the purpose was not to discriminate but to save lives.
Marguerita Lightfoot, director of the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, told Men's Health that in the early 1980s, "We were still trying to figure out the transmission of the virus, and all we knew was that this population was disproportionately impacted."
That remains the case today.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, as of 2018, 13,000 people die from AIDS in the U.S. every year, and over 700,000 have died nationwide since the beginning of the HIV epidemic. AIDS is the late stage of HIV infection.
Like the recent rash of monkeypox cases, homosexuals were disproportionately impacted by the spread of the disease.
According to the CDC, in 2019, homosexuals made up nearly 70% of all new HIV diagnoses in the U.S.
Notwithstanding the higher incidence of HIV infections in the demographic, in 2015, the FDA lifted its lifetime ban on homosexuals donating blood, "changing its recommendation that men who have sex with men (MSM) be indefinitely deferred ... to 12 months since the last sexual contact with another man."
Despite its apparent significance, this change was met by derision from gay activists.
The LGBT activist organization GLAAD posted a video of script-reader Alan Cumming to YouTube, wherein he mocked the idea that gay men could abstain from sex for an entire year.
Kelsey Louie, the former CEO of the AIDS service organization Gay Men's Health Crisis, lauded the 2015 decision, saying, "The United States government has to stop reacting to HIV like it is the early 1980s. ... It is time for the FDA to implement a policy that is truly based on science, not blanket bans on certain groups of people."
That 12-month waiting time will likely soon be cut down to 3 months and only apply to non-monogamous homosexual donors.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com