via autumn’s blog, it has come to my attention that we’re at it again in shrek 3, promoting our gender confusion to the world. just look at this mess:

oh, wait a minute. that’s not it. apparently, there’s a “crossdressing character [who] simply doesn’t make sense, except as a ploy to desensitize children and parents to transgenders.” and this from our friends over at americans for truth, a site that seems obesessed with perversion, leather, infantilism, sadism - the list goes on. the site even has a warning ” CAUTION: This website contains information not suitable for children”. i’d venture to say that the site is not suitable for humans, but that’s just one human’s opinion.

like autumn, i was not involved in the film’s agenda formation. and frankly, it seems to me that the “agenda” agendas are merely an attempt to spin fear and hatred of any group that is even slightly different than the white, middle class, christian conservative template. if i were as hateful as some people, i could say that the “christian agenda” promotes hate, child molestation, bombing of innocent americans, and random acts of war, but i’m more the type that prefers actual truth.

anyway,  the article is written by fran eaton, who is described as being from the illinois review. at first reading, one may think the review is some kind of newspaper. but it’s just a blog, like this one. just some person, like me, who speaks their mind, rightly or wrongly, with no more authority or expertise than, say, me. and only at the end of the article, is the review revealed as a “conservative blog”.

fran writes:

Those confused about their sexual roles are pushing for equal rights to be free to publicly demonstrate their odd sexual behavior. For transgenders, appearing to be a different sex in public is their particular turn on.

let me say, here, and for the record, i am not confused about my sexual role. i just don’t buy into your 5000 year old traditions of rigid, inhumane behaviors dictated by a god who suggests his people smite women and children. and when women stop wearing pants, then we can have a discussion on crossdressing.

and i’ll add that i am not “turned on” by appearing in public. while that may be your particular inclination, please, stop projecting your moral and sexual deviancy upon me.

interesting too, that no mention was made of this guy wearing a dress: