Professing Ourselves to Be Wise, We’ve Become Fools

For the last several decades conservative Christians have been warning that each successive step in the ladder of the sexual revolution was just that – a step, not a destination.

  • No-fault divorce
  • Tolerance of obscenity and mainstreaming of soft-core porn
  • Promotion of pre-marital cohabitation
  • Acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships
  • Subsequent celebration and promotion of those relationships
  • The un-defining of marriage
  • Lowering of age-of-consent laws
  • And now a transgender mania that is exploding around the country

Each has been both predictable and predicted as nothing but the next logical step up this ladder to sexual anarchy. And each time conservative Christians have predicted it, the left has countered by rolling their eyes and screaming “slippery slope fallacy.” But it’s never been a fallacy. It’s been a revolution.

And it’s not just a revolution against sexual mores. It’s a revolution against God’s moral order for mankind. And just like if we walk off the edge of a building proclaiming we aren’t bound by God’s natural laws, there will be severe consequences for any society that breaks God’s moral laws whether we claim to believe in them or not.

And it seems fairly obvious that the first consequence is the death of reason and science. Last week I pointed out that even the conservative-supported Trump administration is threatening teachers in America’s schools that they have to play the “pick your own gender” game with their students. That invitation to chaos in our schools is beyond unkind; it’s criminal. But Trump is just following the winds of culture.

Right there in the city where he lives, the District of Columbia is issuing “genderless driver’s licenses.” Meanwhile, some left-wing website called Refinery29 has started running a video called “Trans 102.” The entire video is self-imploding illogic, but this is what now passes for reason in a culture like ours.

This is what is now celebrated by our media as forward thinking, compassionate, progressive, and enlightened. It’s not. It’s dumb. It’s all dumb. But in our rebellion to God, we have become a dumb people. Which is why you can’t help but hear the echoes of Paul’s words to the Romans (“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”) in your mind as you watch nonsense like Trans 102 and realize that American lawmakers in New York are actually moving towards making it against the law to “mis-gender someone.”

Yes, if you dare call a man “he” without finding out first that he prefers to call himself some asinine term like “xe” or “zir,” you get fined or worse.

I’d say “God help us,” but we don’t want Him to. We’re too enlightened for Him these days. I’ll give you one guess how that’s going to turn out for us.

Canadian Mother Wants Baby’s Gender To Be ‘Unknown’

This is liberalism in the 21st century.

Kori Doty of British Columbia gave birth to a baby girl last November. Despite the baby (named Searyl Atli) having female genitalia, Doty is determined to make the government recognize her as gender unidentified. The mother is fighting for the birth certificate to read “gender unknown” until the baby is old enough to make the decision on her own.

She spoke to CBC News about the purpose in what she’s doing (note: Doty refers to herself and her baby with the “they” pronoun):

“I’m raising Searyl in such a way that until they have the sense of self and command of vocabulary to tell me who they are, I’m recognizing them as a baby and trying to give them all the love and support to be the most whole person that they can be outside of the restrictions that come with the boy box and the girl box.”

Doty – who identifies as a non-binary transgender person and maintains a spotty beard – argues it’s a human rights issue. She believes it’s injustice for the government to force people to choose between only two genders. Strongly believing in her baby’s right to gender self-determination, she is currently lobbying the Human Rights Tribunal in British Columbia for the omission of gender identification in all government documents.

Currently, local government officials have allowed Searly to carry a health card with “U” for sex identification (meaning “unidentified”), but British Columbia is refusing to issue the family a gender-less birth certificate.

The mother explained her upbringing as transgender and how it lead her to make this fight:

“When I was born, doctors looked at my genitals and made assumptions about who I would be, and those assignments followed me and followed my identification throughout my life,” Doty stated. “Those assumptions were incorrect, and I ended up having to do a lot of adjustments since then.”

Doty has applied for a judicial review to exclude gender identification on birth certificates.

 

 

 

WATCH: When Liberal Lesbian Pagan Feminists are Right

There are just some things that we all know don’t go together.

  • Nuts and gum
  • Kanye West and dignity
  • Taylor Swift and relationships
  • Beyonce and anything that isn’t sexual
  • LeBron and a hairline

And by all outward appearances, Camille Paglia and I would fit on that list. After all, she’s a pagan, I’m a Christian. She’s a lesbian, I regard homosexuality as sinful. She’s a liberal, I’m a conservative.  She’s a feminist, I’m a white male.

And yet we are on the same page when it comes to our unfolding crisis over transgenderism and gender confusion in America.  Take a look at this week’s riveting 414 Project video…

California Lawmakers Propose Alternate Reality Gender Classifications for Official Documents

Because… California.

And Democrats.

SB 179 is a bill proposed by California state Senator Toni Atkins, with the purpose of adding a “third gender” option to California drivers licenses, ID cards, and even birth certificates. Atkins maintains this will make it simpler for those who want to change their gender on those documents, at some point.

Should something so deeply steeped in a person’s mental state be made “easier,” or should there be an impetus for them to seek mental health counseling, first?

From Fox News:

Transgender people face discrimination in their everyday lives when they use IDs that do not match the gender they appear to be, Atkins said. The legislation would help transgender people and those who do not identify as either male or female to obtain official documents that match their gender identity, she said.

SB 179 would end the requirements that a person get a doctor’s sworn statement and appear in court even if no objections have been filed when petitioning to change their gender on official documents. The bill would also allow minors to apply for a gender change on their birth certificate.

Several things jump out at me about this.

For starters, legal documents should contain fact, not the fictions manufactured by social justice warriors. The prime reason being, if we start putting our “feelings” on official documents, where does it end?

It’s a slippery slope, in an age when you have fringe groups claiming myriad “realities” to reflect their mental or emotional whims.

We’ve seen reports of 50-year old men who want to be 6-year old girls. That is neither sane, rational, nor possible, on any level.

Time doesn’t care about your feelings, and I don’t want a 50-year old man sitting in my 6-year old niece’s elementary school classroom, or walking in a line with she and the other little girls to the restroom.

Secondly, any law that would take the parents’ rights out of the equation is a bad law.

Minors are not allowed to drink alcohol, marry (although in some states, with parental consent, they can), or vote for a reason.

They’re not mentally or emotionally ready for the consequences.

But allowing them to eenie-meenie-minie-mo a gender is acceptable?

A parent that would allow this is a parent with their own mental limitations, and also, a parent who doesn’t really want the responsibility of being a parent.

The LGBT advocacy group, Equality California is co-sponsoring SB 179. Jo Michaels, who works with the group, points out that this legislation would be the first of its kind in the nation.

“As a person who identifies as transgender and is non-binary, this piece of legislation is important to me on a personal level,” Michael said during a press conference on the bill. “For the first time, Californians could have accurate gender markers that truly reflect who we are.”

Accuracy is a DNA test. Get one, then go with that.

Jonathan Keller is a member of the California Family Counsel, a conservative Christian group opposing the bill.

“We believe government documents need to reflect biological facts for identification and medical purposes,” Keller said in a statement on SB 179. “Laws like this will simply erase any meaningful gender definitions, if being male or female is completely divorced from biological facts.”

Sanity and commonsense.

Senator Scott Wiener co-authored the bill and had something really dumb to say about it.

“The trans community is under assault in this country. California needs to go in the opposite direction,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “When they go backwards, we go forwards.”

Sadly, there are pockets of leftists all through the nation who are just as directionally challenged as Senators Wiener and Atkins, and for the rest of us, the battle is to keep our nation on a straight path, moving as far away from what California Democrats want for us as we possibly can get.

Oxford University: He, She, They … Ze?

If you happen to use the wrong pronoun when referencing a transgender person at Oxford University, you could be violating the behavior code.

How could you possibly know which pronoun a transgender person prefers? You can’t be sure without asking – and if you don’t know, Oxford University Students’ Union Council recommends sticking to something genderless (not to be confused with gender neutral), like “they.”

Better yet – in an attempt to make sure everyone is aware of everyone else’s preferences, the students’ union council recommends people introduce themselves with their preferred pronoun.

“Hi, my name is Elizabeth Greenaway and today my preferred pronoun is ‘she.’”

OK – now that we’ve got that out of the way –

The original story published by several sources referred to a leaflet the Oxford University Students’ Union Council had supposedly distributed encouraging the use of “ze,” a gender neutral pronoun, instead of “he” or “she,” to avoid offending transgenders. But a recent statement from the students’ union website says otherwise:

“We would also like to clearly state that we would never tell anyone to use ‘ze’ pronouns instead of ‘he’ or ‘she’ if ‘he’ or ‘she’ is the pronoun someone wishes to use. That would be misgendering and would likely have the biggest impact on individuals (ie, some trans students) who may already be struggling to get people to use ‘he’ or ‘she’ for them. It would be totally counterproductive.”

And you thought using a gender neutral pronoun for transgenders saved you from violating Oxford’s behavior code? Oh you silly conservative, of course not – because what if someone is offended by the use of that pronoun?

So what is Oxford’s behavior code and what happens if you “misgender” or offend someone with you choice of pronoun?

It all starts with Oxford’s very own Transgender Policy, which states:

“Transphobic bullying and harassment could be regarded as grounds for disciplinary action, which may include expulsion or dismissal. Such behaviour will be dealt with under the University Policy on Harassment and Bullying.”

How could using the wrong pronoun possibly be considered harassment or bullying? Because according to Oxford’s Policy on Harassment and Bullying, all it takes is “unwanted conduct”:

“A person subjects another to harassment where s/he engages in unwanted and unwarranted conduct which has the purpose or effect of: (a) violating that other’s dignity, or (b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that other. Harassment may involve repeated forms of unwanted and unwarranted behaviour, but a one-off incident can also amount to harassment.”

Note: Oxford needs to amend this policy quickly, as they’re still using “s/he.” The sight of that could offend a transgender that doesn’t identify with “she” or “he” and put Oxford in violation of its own policy.

If the thought of all of this makes you want to pull your hair out, relax. An LGBT rights activist, Peter Tatchell, notes “It is a positive thing to not always emphasize gender divisions and barriers.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated case – not only are individuals at Cambridge University interested in embracing a similar policy, but it’s also becoming more prevalent all the way down to elementary schools.

A guidebook called “Can I Tell You About Gender Diversity?” for teachers, parents and students is being circulated to schools in Britain, discouraging the use of the words “boys” and “girls” to – you guessed it – avoid discrimination against transgenders. The book also provides the story of a 12-year-old – dare I say “girl”? – who is using hormone blockers through puberty as she transitions from female to male.

Full disclosure: I’m a woman who’s comfortable in her own skin (although I must admit I have often envied the opposite sex’s ability to pee standing up). But when I have kids, we’re going to stick to the basics and identify our genders by our genitals. And no, that doesn’t mean I won’t encourage them to use their imaginations in fantasy/pretend play (a very normal part of child development) and dress up as the opposite sex, it just means we’re not going to implement hormone blockers afterwards.

DR Radio

DR Radio: Transgenders, Political Hooliganism & Stranger Things

This week’s show includes discussion on the challenging topic of transgenderism, whether or not the Presidential debate had any meaningful impact on the presidential race, and for Expand Your Horizons, we’ll be talking about Stranger Things and the dawn of a new film format! As usual, we have two games of wit and whimsy, specifically Nerd v. Nerd and #JesusJuke.

You can read the full show notes  or subscribe to the podcast at our website.