Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

Red State

Out to Pasture, Gender Unicorn — the University of Arkansas Serves Sweeter Sex Ed

by Leave a Comment

Run, run, fast as you can — it’s hard to keep up with the culture.

Case in point: Just as you’ve adjusted to the Gender Unicorn, there’s a new symbol of hope in town.

I first covered the unicorn in August of 2019, via the story of a California 7th Grade teacher.

The man gave a graphic to his ready-to-learn girls and boys…about girls and boys.

Also others.

In fact, the teacher informed his class they should call him “Mx” — a designation that’s ditched the land of Mr. and Ms. and struck out on its own.

And he handed the young skulls of mush a Gender Unicorn flyer from Trans Student Educational Resources.

Not all parents were thrilled.

Moreover, given our age of noun-self pronouns referencing animals, one mom on social media evidently thought the teacher identified as a crocodile.

“What a crock of s***!” she wrote.

Regardless, the unicorn’s been here to help.

And it isn’t only the young that need schooling.

In August, I wrote about the University of Hawaii at Manoa’s instructions on what restroom to use.

In centuries past, such direction to 18-year-olds wasn’t required.

But times have changed, so the unicorn assisted anyone yearning to urinate but unsure of precisely how.

The mythical horse seemed a perfect companion to sex instruction — he/she/it was colorful, creative, and horny.

But now comes a competitor, and I assume its directives are delicious.

Ladies and gentlemen, and other folx, I give you the Genderbread Man Person:

Can said individual be sold as the revolution’s new rep?

Well, at the University of Arkansas, they’re biting.

The college has co-opted the sweet snack to explain sexuality.

It seems sensible — per the baked good’s webpage, it “[breaks] a complicated concept into bite-sized, digestible pieces.”

Definitions are supplementally served:

Anatomical Sex

Sex (sometimes campuscalled biological sex, anatomical sex, or physical sex) is comprised of things like genitals, chromosomes, hormones, body hair, and more. But one thing it’s not: gender.

Gender Identity

Your psychological sense of self. Who you, in your head, know yourself to be, based on how much you align (or don’t align) with what you understand to be the options for gender.

Gender Expression

The ways you present gender, through your actions, clothing, demeanor, and more. Your outward-facing self, and how that’s interpreted by others based on gender norms.

Attraction

Like sex, attraction isn’t really a component of gender. However, we often conflate sexual orientation with gender, or categorize the attraction we experience in gendered ways.

The Genderbread Person was employed as part of U of K’s recent two-hour “Safe Zone Allies” training, which — as relayed on the session’s site — addressed “terminology around gender and sexual identities, community cultures and norms, policies that impact the LGBTQ+ community, heteronormativity, oppression and allyship.”

And there was a prize in the box:

After attending the session, participants can self-select to be a University Safe Zone Ally and will receive a window/door Safe Zone Allies sticker recognizing the commitment to being a safe space and place for all and will be added to the Microsoft Teams Community with other University Allies.

The woke workout’s stated goals:

  • An increased awareness of the issues that impact the LGBTQ+ community.
  • A foundational knowledge of terminology and common language.
  • A deeper awareness, understanding and comfort with LGBTQ+ topics.
  • An understanding of advantages society affords non-LGBTQ+ people.
  • An opportunity to be an ally to LGBTQ+ community on campus.

A slide obtained by Campus Reform disseminates the following:

Agreements for Today

  • Respect other lived experience and truths
  • Take responsibility for your own learning
  • Be willing and open to learn, unlearn and relearn
  • Say OOPS and acknowledge when you may unintentionally say something and wish you had not
  • Say OOPS and acknowledge when you may unintentionally say something and wish you had not
  • Say OUCH when someone’s words or actions may hurt you
  • Keep the highest level of confidentiality with private information of others. “Vegas Rule.”

Are they teaching academics in schools anymore? It seems unclear.

But they’re surely trying to create a monolithic society.

If I may say so, if you need someone to tell you what you believe, then you’ve learned nothing from the information.

Secondly — putting wholly aside the notion of allyship — pubic education is coughing up counsel such as that above to students generally. If you need others to teach you about your sexuality, you’re not ready to be sexual.

And if you need information concerning your own identity or the things that attract you, you understand neither identity nor attraction.

Sex and attraction are the most instinctive things in the world.

If I’m wrong, however, the University of Arkansas is cookin’ up something constructive.

Even so, since there appears to be a battle over gender and issues of sex, left-wing leaders may want to consider something other than a Gingerbread Man allusion.

Those waging cultural war might want to remember that the Gingerbread Man dies at the end of that story.

And he meets his demise…in the jaws of a Fox:

-ALEX

See more pieces from me:

Nice and Naked Woman Gets Nabbed at the Airport

Radical Feminism Is Afoot at an Elite University, but You Can Catch a TERFer by the Toe

Scorned: Three Canned Contestants Sue a Beauty Contest for Judging Them

Find all my RedState work here.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

Higher Culture Aside: Daniel Craig Takes a Bow as Bond in 'No Time to Die'

by Leave a Comment

“Essential Viewing” considers the fifth and last James Bond outing for Daniel Craig

(Spoiler-free review)

Unlike some people, I loved “Spectre” (2017). There were more than a few movie goers who described Daniel Craig’s performance in the last film featuring 007 as cold and depressing, but as the first Bond film I’d seen in the theaters in many years, I found it achingly beautiful and profound.

Since hearing that “No Time To Die” would be the fifth and final bow for actor Daniel Craig, I knew I wanted to see it on the big screen, too. It’s hard to fathom that it’s been that long since “Spectre” came out. And even that six-year span includes a pandemic-forced delay (the first of many) to the release date of Warner Brothers’ new entry in the 25-film series — it was originally set to hit theaters last November.

It’s also crazy to realize that Craig has now spent more than 15 years in the role of the master spy. Before anyone even watched a frame of his first film, Casino Royale (2006), Bond fanboy purists were in an uproar about the actor’s blonde hair and blue eyes. But it’s a mistake to fixate on the mold created by years of the “Who’s the better James Bond: Sean Connery or Roger Moore?” argument.

Let me suggest a better comparison. Only once has an actor portrayed James Bond just one time, and in 1969, it was a darker, different take than audiences were used to. “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” starred George Lazenby, as Bond going up against evil mastermind Ernst Stavro Blofeld. I’m going to bet that most people who watch the movies have never heard Lazenby’s name, and that’s part of the problem. I’ll admit I’m one of those people. Growing up, my family watched many Bond movies (on cable and in the theaters), and I don’t remember ever seeing this one. In fact, I first watched it this week.

Fittingly, Blofeld is included in “No Time to Die”s plot, as the character (played by Christoph Waltz) wasn’t killed off during his reappearance in “Spectre.” It isn’t just fan service, either. He’s integral to the path that Craig’s Bond takes at the end of this movie. And as much as I loved Rami Malek’s portrayal of Freddie Mercury in “Bohemian Rhapsody,” he’s just adequate as the villain here.

Something that surprised me about the story were moments when Bond espoused very clear, conservative views. Here’s is a good example. There’s also an obvious point of view expressed in the film that fathers should take an active role in family life. Not something you expect to hear from the former, swinging bachelor character.

Warner Bros, at least for the short term, has announced that it’s releasing its pictures day and date (e.g. streaming online on the same day as the theatrical release). And you’re welcome to do the former, if that’s your thing. But I feel like you’ll be missing out on a few important parts of the experience as the filmmakers intended.

There are two points in the movie when a specific sound effect is important to the plot. It would be a spoiler to be more specific, but I’m fairly sure it can’t be recreated at home.

Streaming viewers would also miss hearing the gorgeous soundtrack by Hans Zimmer how it was meant to be heard, which I cannot get out of my head, even after leaving the theater last night.

In an interview promoting “No Time to Die” with Turner Classic Movies host Ben Mankiewicz, Craig explained when he knew he could pick up the mantle of the James Bond role that had been stamped so heavily by others; As the interviewer put it, Craig wanted to do it “his way: a darker and more sober 007 than the heavyweights who came before him.”

Warning: contains coarse language

“When I got to a line in the script that said — you know, when he ordered a vodka martini, and the guy said, “Shaken, not stirred?”

And it said in the script, ‘Do I look like I give a f***?’ I went, ‘I’m in.’”

Just like he began playing James Bond, Daniel Craig has finished the role on his own terms.

Essential viewing verdict: “No Time to Die” left me with the same impression “Spectre” did as the closing credits rolled — dark and profound and just right. But this is an even better film.

As the trailer for “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” proclaimed, “If you think you know your Bond, think again. This one’s different.” I can’t think of any better way to end this review than that. It applies just as equally to Daniel Craig. Enjoy!

CNN Makes Ridiculous Claim About Powers of COVID Vaccinations

by Leave a Comment

“This… Is CNN,” they boldly proclaim on a daily basis, “The Most Trusted Name in News.” [ROFL emoji]

Aaaand let’s go straight to CNN for this breaking news:

People vaccinated against Covid-19 less likely to die from any cause, study finds

Wait — any cause?

Cool. So if I fall off a 10-story building, what? I just walk it off, because I’ve been vaccinated? Cool. Or if run into a tree while skiing, I just get up and rub it off? Awesome. Sign me up, CNN — I’m in!

Jokes aside — other than CNN itself — as reported by The Most Trusted Name in News under the above headline, COVID-vaccinated people are not only less likely to die from the virus; they are also less likely to die from any cause  (CNN’s wording) over the following months, researchers reported Friday.

The research team was trying to demonstrate (desperately sell the idea) that the three authorized, COVID-19 vaccines are safe, and they say their findings clearly demonstrate that.

The researchers wrote in the weekly report of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that “recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccines had lower non-COVID-19 mortality risk than did the unvaccinated comparison groups.” (Shouldn’t that be a given?)

Stanley Xu, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research and Evaluation, who led the study team, reportedly told CNN by email:

COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States have shown again and again to be safe. (Except when they’re not.) This study also confirms their safety.

In fact, it shows that people vaccinated for COVID-19 had lower death rates than those who were not vaccinated, even when COVID deaths were excluded.

That’s in addition to the mounting evidence from other studies showing that the COVID-19 vaccines are effective against COVID-19 infection, serious illness, and death.

The team studied 6.4 million people who had been vaccinated against COVID and compared them to 4.6 million people who had received flu shots in recent years but who had not been vaccinated against the virus. They filtered out people who had died from COVID or after a recent positive test.

(Stay with me, here — the ending is a letdown.)

And the findings?

During December 2020-July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non-COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site.

The lower mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination suggests substantial healthy vaccinee effects (i.e., vaccinated persons tend to be healthier than unvaccinated persons), which will be explored in future analyses.

This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. All persons aged 12 years and older should receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

Wow. Who knew? Substantially healthy “vaccinee effects” tend to be healthier than unvaccinated people in general. Thanks for that Pulitzer-worthy reporting, CNN. Oh, and the “all persons aged 12 years and older should receive the COVID-19 vaccine.”

According to the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, dated October 22, 2021, by September 21, 2021, an estimated 182 million persons in the United States were “fully vaccinated” (the definition of which will be a moving target until the end of time) against COVID-19.

The report also said daily vaccination rates have declined approximately 78 percent since April 13, 2021, citing vaccine safety concerns leading to vaccine hesitancy as most likely the main reason.

And there you have it.

CNN dutifully steps up to the plate and bats clean-up for the CDC and the Biden administration — all but running a PSA for the vaccine under the guise of a legit news piece.

That’s what “most trusted names in news” outlets do, right?

WATCH: Huge Migrant Caravan Steamrolls Right Over Mexican Forces, on Their Way to the US

by Leave a Comment

We’ve seen an incredible amount of ineptitude when it comes to the border crisis from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

But it would stand to reason that they don’t know how to solve the problem — even if they wanted to — if they haven’t even been to the border to really get to understand the problem. Harris had a four-hour layover visit near the border but not to the actual physical border, and then hasn’t been back.

Joe Biden drove by the border for a few minutes in 2008, and White House Press Secretary tried to sell us on his understanding of the border situation from that brief moment, as though that had any basis in reality.

Biden also said during the CNN town hall that he hasn’t had time to go to the border. Yet, he has had time to go home to Delaware over 20 weekends, including to his beach house, where they’re building fencing to protect him with our money. That sure sounds like a wall. He can have one for protection, on our dime, but we can’t. The crazy spin would be hilarious, if it wasn’t so sad that this is what we’re stuck with in charge now.

There are reports of another massive caravan of some 60,000 Haitian and Central American migrants heading to our border.

A contingent of thousands took off from Tapachula, Mexico, right over the border with Guatemala.

Some 400 Mexican forces in riot gear came out in droves to stop them, and the caravan just pushed their way right through them. This is quite something.

At some point, the Mexican National Guard just gives way, after they were reportedly getting injured.

This is what we’re going to have to deal with shortly, and if we thought the September influx in Del Rio was a lot of people pouring in, this sounds like it’s going to be more. These folks had no compunction about hurting the Mexican guard to get in.

Folks who assembled with the caravan in Tapachula actually had to register with organizers with a QR code or with a web link to participate in the trip.

The organizer explained that many of the people would remain in Mexico, if they could get papers there, but that “the Biden Administration, with this Administration, it’s like pulling them like cattle.” He said throwing money at the problem, as the Biden Administration wants to do, wouldn’t solve the problem.

As you can see, Biden’s border policy failure is also endangering Mexico, as well.

Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Demands Answers From Fauci About 'Cruel' Experiments on Puppies

by Leave a Comment

Welp, guess who’s in trouble with lawmakers, again? Make that still.

Yup, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the emerging and infectious diseases “expert” has been implicated in a series of taxpayer-funded, animal-testing experiments. Beagle puppies, that is. This time, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is demanding answers.

According to the White Coat Waste Project (a watch group committed to stopping taxpayer-funded experiments on dogs, monkeys, cats, and other animals), as reported by Daily Caller, 44 beagles were used in the experiments conducted in a Tunisia, North Africa, laboratory. Some of the dogs reportedly had their vocal cords removed, allegedly so scientists could work without incessant barking.

White Coat Waste noted that the Food and Drug Administration does not require drugs to be tested on dogs, so the group is asking why the need for such testing. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is leading the congressional effort, joined by 14 Republicans and nine Democrats.

The lawmakers sent a letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) saying the cordectomies are “cruel” and a “reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.,”

“We write with grave concerns about reports of costly, cruel, and unnecessary taxpayer-funded experiments on dogs commissioned by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The dogs were all between six and eight months old.

The commissioned tests involved injecting and force-feeding the puppies an experimental drug for several weeks, before killing and dissecting them. Of particular concern is the fact that the invoice to NIAID included a line item for ‘cordectomy.’ As you are likely aware, a cordectomy, also known as ‘devocalization,’ involves slitting a dog’s vocal cords in order to prevent them from barking, howling, or crying.

This cruel procedure – which is opposed with rare exceptions by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, and others – seems to have been performed so that experimenters would not have to listen to the pained cries of the beagle puppies. This is a reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.”

It should be noted that Snopes, the intrepid “fact-checker” of intrepid fact-checkers, rated the claim “Mixture” — a rating Snopes loves to use when it can’t bring itself to rate a claim it hates as “true” — while appearing to confirm the puppy experiments, anyway.

It is true that obligated funds were issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the amount of $424,555 for research conducted at the University of Georgia to test the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle subjects.

However, it is unclear whether Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at NIH, personally approved the project. Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president.

A University of Georgia spokesperson indicated that testing on dogs was, in fact, necessary, and that all humane standards set by applicable agencies were adhered to.

White Coat Waste vice president of advocacy and public policy, Justin Goodman applauded the efforts of Rep. Mace and her House colleagues, as transcribed by Daily Caller.

“De-barking beagles and poisoning puppies in experiments with our tax dollars is a national disgrace that’s uniting Republicans and Democrats, and we applaud Rep. Nancy Mace and her colleagues on both sides of the aisle for holding the NIH accountable this government waste and animal abuse.”

Meanwhile, in other Dr. Mengele Fauci news, as we reported on Thursday, vindicated Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) took a well-deserved victory lap after National Institutes of Health (NIH) documents conclusively proved that the “good” doctor did in fact lie to Paul during Senate testimony about funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Democrats were hardest hit by the revelation.