If you are anti-vaccines, you are wrong. In fact, your opinion is not only wrong, but severely dangerous to yourself, and your children. Vaccines are a fantastic medical discovery, and we should be grateful that, thanks to the work of Edward Jenner (who used cowpox as a vaccine to prevent smallpox), we are mostly protected against some diseases that would otherwise be very common. The myth that they can cause autism is exactly that: a myth. It was initiated by fabricated results, and proper studies have shown that they do not cause autism. Unless the person is allergic to the vaccine, any side effects are so minimal that there is not even a discussion to be had about risks vs benefits, because the benefit of immunization crushes the risks completely.
In most areas (religion, politics, sports etc) it is great that people have a wide range of opposing and contrasting opinions, but when it comes to vaccines, there are those who are right, and those who are wrong. Don’t allow people to be anti-vaccine, especially if there is a child who will miss out on immunization as a result of its parent’s idiocy. If you have friends who are anti-vaccine, don’t let them continue being so, convince them otherwise.
Discard it; it is worthless.
A token of greed, a machine-crafted weapon,
Utilised for destruction, construction, and all that
Exists in the void between;
Its value assigned is arbitrary, imaginary:
A virtual tool rules the Earth.
Preyed on by humans, the terrible parents,
A brain-child lies defeated,
Yet its life-support never expires,
Breathing despite being devoid of air,
Fictional atmospheres for an entity
Struggling for survival.
Defiler of dreams, assassin of aspiration,
Usually silent, but the clinking invades the mind,
Overwhelming as a mere dagger in the pocket,
Orchestrating wars from the safest position of all:
The state of non-existence;
Now spiralled beyond our control,
The coin will seldom be destroyed.
Does it annoy anyone else when people put their success down to God? People who do that are basically saying that they are the ones chosen to be great, and that God helped them while ignoring everyone else. More importantly though, if you achieved something good, why undermine all the hard work and talent it took to manage it by suggesting that you had super-human help?
The LGBT acronym seems to be constantly expanding. It was originally simply Lesbian, Gay, and Bi-sexual and Transgender, but others were added, such as Asexual and Questioning, and now there are so many various sexualities and genders that it would be useless as an acronym if all were included. So, in that sense, it is barely fit for purpose anyway, but I have another key objection to it: transgenderism is an issue of gender, while the other three in the initial acronym are issues of sexuality.
It may sound obvious, but it is a distinction that gets lost when all these various complex aspects of human nature are just thrown into one bundle. Gender is whether someone identifies as male or female (or neither, or something in-between) while sexuality is which genders (and sexes) someone is attracted to. Naturally this means that one can be both transgender and gay (for example).
I think that there should be two different acronyms to help these issues, one that encompasses the various sexuality issues, and one for the various genders. I am not sure what the gender one would include, because I don’t know many of the newly identified genders, but for sexuality I would suggest that it should include:
Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, asexual, questioning. So something along the lines of LGBAQ. There are numerous other sexualities, so this is just an example based on the ones I know enough about. I opted not to include pansexual, because I am not convinced that it is different to bi-sexual, both mean that one is attracted to multiple genders (your own + others, which is two things, if you want to justify it with etymology). Demi-sexual is arguably another important one to include, but I am yet to be convinced that it is a sexuality rather than a personal preference, but I am open to being persuaded otherwise on that one.
Ultimately, the point of this post is to highlight that the LGBT acronym does no favours to transgender people, and creates the misconception that it is an issue of sexuality. Gender and sexuality are two very different issues, and should be treated as such.
Note: Apologies if you are reading this and notice that I have not mentioned the sexuality that you identify as, like I said I am aware that there are lots, but I am unfamiliar with the details. If you are thinking that, tell me of some others and I will go and educate myself about them. If anyone who reads this identifies as pansexual rather than bi-sexual, please tell me why, I am interested, is it for cultural perception reasons, or do you feel that my definitions are wrong and that your chosen word describes you better?