I agree.

To separate or dismiss biology from gender is ludicrous. It is sheer madness this notion that if you identify - in your mind - with a different gender than you are biologically and merely declare it, you are immediately considered to be of that gender. And, you can switch back and forth or jump to a new gender. They literally don't have to change a thing about their physical appearance. You merely proclaim, and you are now of a new gender.

And, this craziness has resulted in new genders emerging every fortnight that one can't even keep track, anymore. And, it's not stopping. Someone just imagines they are something, conjures up a gender, gives it a name and vague characteristics, and you have a new gender! There's "polygender" and even "two-spirit person"! Two-spirit person?

UK Facebook users can now choose between 71 gender options. In Canada, one parent is fighting the state and demanding that 'its' baby be issued a gender-neutral birth certificate. This parent wants the child to decide what gender it is when it is old enough.

In the US, there is a demand for transgenders to be allowed to use the restrooms of their choice. If successful, it will literally allow an adult male who has declared that he is now a female - without having to alter a single thing about himself physiologically or appearance-wise - the legal right to use the the female restroom and take a leak next to a 6 year old girl. There is also a move to introduce legislation that would give the state the authority to remove a child from the parents if the parents don't recognise the child's declaration of a new gender identify and provide the means - including hormone therapy - for that child to transition into this new gender. In other words, if your 7 year old daughter announces that she identifies as a boy and wants to be a boy, and you don't give her hormone therapy, the state can legally step in to ensure that she does get every available resource to transition into a boy.

This is the monster that has emerged from the transgender movement in the West. It is cleverly being labelled as a civil rights movement in order to use the government as a club against those who do not comply.

The demand that I MUST pretend that a man is now, magically, a woman, overnight, and lie to my kids and tell them that that man is actually a woman although he looks just like daddy, is totally unacceptable to me.

Good.

Can the road in front of this beautiful MRT station - that is in horrible condition - be repaved, now?

What is the censorship board for if not to censor? As far as I know, one of the criteria in their censorship guidelines is evaluating content from a moral and cultural perspective.

Let me make it clear that I am against censorship, in general. But, I find it strange that a government agency set up specifically to vet and censor film content based on approved guidelines and criteria is being criticised for moral policing.

Hogwash! He was just pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to censuring or action by the authorities.

I’m a firm believer in Voltaire’s quote. The best way to decimate bad ideas is to let them play alongside the good ones and get its behind kicked up and down the jungle gym. Let the people see for themselves what each group is all about, based on their ideas, thoughts, speech and action. I’m not perturbed by Jamal’s antics because, really, what pertinent or worthy ideas does he have? None.

However, disagreeing in opinions or differing in ideas through civil, intelligent discourse is one thing but threatening physical violence is a whole different story.

I see a point about “twisting” in Mr_Melvin’s comment. Hafidz said “Yes, I have my reservations against Bersih, and I’ve been very vocal about my issues with their agenda.” But the author of this article says “Hafidz, you are perfectly entitled to your position that Bersih’s aims are legitimate and are limited to demanding free and fair elections, even if many others do not share this view.”

Interesting.

I have met all kinds, my friend. The standards by which a Christian is expected to live by is clearly defined in the Bible. It's easy to profess. It's much harder to abide.

No red herrings, please. You digress. Defining a Christian isn't all that difficult. However, merely professing to being a Christian does not make one a Christian.

The KKK, G. Bush and Trump - even if we were to consider them Christians - wouldn't really be bothered about your satirical article, being in a country where the religion is often parodied, satirised and even mocked, in the media, arts, music, literature...etc. In a nation where - as Voltaire famously said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” - holds true. Actually, he didn’t say that, apparently. What he really said was: “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too”.

I meant the general Christian populace at large. Ain't no mob gathered outside your office, I'm sure. And, neither has the CCM sent your office a letter demanding a retraction and apology.

Wrong, in so far as it coming from the Christian world, my friend. And, for satire, parodies or literature? Nope.

And, I seriously doubt you've taken extra precautions, just in case. :)

The religion is mocked and parodied quite frequently. Even renowned anti-religion and atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have often described the Christian world "benign", in the context of what we are talking about.

"...so that we won’t have #AllMalePanels featuring a bunch of middle-aged men who only like to hear the sound of their own voices."? As opposed to a bunch of middle-aged, out-of-shape women who only like to hear the sound of their own shrill-like voices?

Oops! I'm sorry, was that sexist and derogatory?

Death threats will not be forthcoming, and, you know it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have created this piece of satire. We do have a sense of humour, you know? :) Even when some of the content is inaccurate.

Wow...seems to me like Christianity is a very powerful religion.