Charlie Kirk and chaos

I believe what we have witnessed in Charlie Kirk's assassination by an LGBTQ+ and specifically trans-friendly killer and continue to witness in its wake is ultimately a spiritual war.

Please let me take a step or two back. Here's what I mean.

The God of the Bible is a God of order, not chaos. Arguably distinctions are necessary for there to be order. At least the God of the Bible orders creation by making distinctions.

So, for instance, God separates light from darkness, day from night, water from land. He distinguishes between the greater light (sun) to rule the day and the lesser light (moon) to rule the night.

He distinguishes between creatures of the sea, land, and air. He distinguishes among land creatures - livestock, crawling things, wild animals.

He distinguishes between humans made in his image from animals. And he distinguishes between male and female.

Such distinctions and separations help order creation. Indeed, creation started out as "formless and empty". Roughly speaking, the first 3 days of creation God forms the formless, while the last 3 days of creation God fills the empty.

However, when we blur or erase distinctions, such as when we blur or erase the distinction between male and female by saying saying men can be women and women can be men, that there are no inherent differences between male and female, then we attempt to unravel the created order. We attempt to introduce chaos into the created order. This wreaks havoc. Like intentionally slashing a knife several times across Van Gogh's Starry Night to mar it beyond recognition.

I think that may be one reason why the apostle Paul in Romans 1 uses idolatry and homosexuality as emblematic or paradigmatic examples of human rebellion, for idolatry attempts to blur or blot out the distinction between the Creator and the creature, while homosexuality attempts to blur or blot out the distinction between male and female.

As such, idolatry and homosexuality represent paradigmatic examples or perhaps even the epitome of the creature rebelling against the Creator by attempting to turn the created order into chaos.

And, not coincidentally, that's precisely what Satan and his fallen hordes would love to see happen to creation. They can't hurt God directly, but they can destroy what he has made. They can turn his entire creation including his creatures - most of all the creatures which bear his own image - into chaos. By disordering the ordered, they can unmake what God has made, they can uncreate creation.

Satan and his ilk know there's no redemption for them. Yet, if they must burn, then they want the world to burn with them. They want to take down as many as they can - deep down, down to the fiery pits of hell.

Charlie Kirk's killer is cut from the same cloth in terms of motivation and endgame. Not only him, but there seems to be a destructive and even self-destructive nihilism animating much if not most of the left today. (I won't bothsides this, which would be like comparing the LA wildfires to a solitary matchstick.)

If the killer is guilty and receives the death penalty, then I hope he repents before he is executed. If he remains impenitent at death, then he will join the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning and the primeval demons in the lake of fire.

I realize all this is at best an inchoate sketch. Nevertheless I hope it conveys something of why I think it's ultimately a spiritual war.

Handing orphans over to sodomites

"Major Evangelical Adoption Agency Will Now Serve Gay Parents Nationwide"

"When Amazon erased my book"

As many know, conservative Catholic political philosopher and ethicist Ryan Anderson (PhD, Notre Dame) had his book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment removed from Amazon mere days ago. This represents the latest battle in the culture wars. A battle which is all the more pressing in light of Biden's Equality Act. The left and its sympathizers will seek to cancel even the most reasonable, informed, and charitable voices if the voices dissent from leftist convictions or commitments. Anderson writes about all this and more in his First Things article "When Amazon erased my book". I don't agree with everything, but it's still worth a read.

For now, people can still purchase Anderson's book on Encounter Books (the book's publisher), Christian Book, Barnes and Noble, and other bookstores.

Update. From Ryan Anderson:

Update 2. From Abigail Shrier:

Read the rest of the thread.

Natural law arguments against same-sex marriage

Jason Engwer and Lydia McGrew, among others, recently made several helpful comments about same-sex marriage and related issues. Their comments are well worth reading and taking to heart.

Lydia alluded to natural law arguments against same-sex marriage. Here's Tim Hsiao outlining the general argument:

The modern self and the sexual revolution

"A conversation with Dr. Carl Trueman on the modern self and the sexual revolution"

An excerpt from the interview to whet your appetite:

[Charles] Taylor is one of those enviably polymathic people. He’s been a politician. He’s a political philosopher. He’s a straight down the line philosopher. He’s a scholar of the German philosopher Hegel. He’s a historian. I found him particularly useful on two fronts. One, Taylor correctly identifies Romanticism as the key move in Western society where inner feelings become constitutive of who we are. He sees that as leading to the formation of a particular notion of the self which he calls the expressive individual. Essentially, what he means by that is that the self comes to be thought of as that which we feel inside, and the self manifests itself when it’s able to behave outwardly in accordance with those inner desires. That’s where we get the language of authenticity. Today in society, we often use the language of authenticity when we’re talking about people. A good example is Bruce, now Caitlyn, Jenner in his interview with Diane Sawyer when he was talking about transitioning. He made the point that ‘finally I’m going to be able to be who I always have been.’ Essentially saying, ‘finally, I can be authentic. Finally, I’m not going to be living a lie anymore.’ Now, you don’t have to be a transgender person to identify with the notion that ‘I want to be outwardly that which I feel to be inwardly.’

Second is Taylor’s notion of what he calls the social imaginary. I found this extremely helpful. The social imaginary points to the fact that most of us don’t relate to the world around us in terms of first principles. Life is not a syllogism. I don’t get up from my chair and think, ‘Okay, where do I need to exit the room from? Oh, there’s a door over there. I’ll go through the door.’ I get up and instinctively leave through the door. The social imaginary gets to the idea that that’s how we think about an awful lot of things. It’s how we think about morality. We tend to pick up the intuitions of the world around us, internalize them, and make them our own. We don’t alway think in terms of first principles when we think about morality. A good example might be provided by the gay marriage issue. Most people have not come to find gay marriage acceptable by reading heavy tomes of sexual ethics or sociology. Most people have gay friends or have seen attractive images of gay couples and things like the sitcom “Will and Grace.” It’s not that they’ve been convinced by argument. It’s that their intuitions have been shaped by broader cultural patterns. I found that very helpful in approaching this notion of the modern self. It’s not that we get up one morning and decide ‘Let’s be expressive individuals.’ The very air we breathe shapes, tilts, and bends our intuitions towards that result.

Is homosexuality genetic or learned?

Someone at Apologetics Academy asked "Is homosexuality genetic or learned?". My response:

1. So a more technical answer is it's multifactorial and polygenic. At the same time, the same could be said for any sexuality (e.g. heterosexuality, bisexuality).

2. Moreover, sexuality (in the way it's used in the post) isn't limited to physical properties alone. There are also significant psychological elements in sexuality. It's the distinction between biological male/female (which is physical and physiological) vs. what does it mean to be masculine/feminine (which is more psychological), even though the one can influence the other.

3. In fact, homosexuals and transgendered persons debate this. Many people aren't aware, but there's an internecine battle waged within the LGBTQ umbrella. In general, homosexuals want to argue biological sex is fixed, whereas sexuality is fluid. (I think I use "sexuality" differently from the way it's used in the post.) So one is a biological male since our genes are fixed, but sexual orientation, behavior, attraction, and so on are e fluid (e.g. butch, femme, dyke, boi, stud, top/bottom).

By contrast, in general, transgendered persons want to argue biological sex is fluid, while sexuality is (usually) fixed. So, for example, a biological man can have sex reassignment surgery and become a biological woman. This would mean biological sex is fluid. However, though they are now a (transgendered) woman, they will argue they continue to have sexual desires for women, hence they are akin to lesbians.

This, of course, angers the homosexual community in general. Such as lesbians. Lesbians don't wish to have sexual relations with a transgendered woman who used to be a man but now believes they are akin to a lesbian.

4. Finally, it depends on one's underlying worldview. If one is an atheist materialist (naturalism), then they might argue we can reduce everything to the physical. That presumably includes psychological properties being reducible to physical properties. Like how the mind is reducible to the brain.

Holy sexuality

"'Holy Sexuality' – Solas in Conversation with Christopher Yuan"

I never fail to enjoy reading people's testimonies about how they became Christian and how they remain Christian "through many dangers, toils, and snares" over the years. Here's an excerpt:

Meanwhile my parents prayed for a miracle. My mother prayed that God would do “whatever it takes” for me to come to surrender my life to Jesus. She prayed and fasted every Monday for seven years, she fasted once for 39 days, and enlisted over a hundred prayer warriors to pray and fast for me. However I remained totally resistant, to the point that once, when my parents came to visit me I kicked them out! As they left, my Dad gave me his Bible, but I immediately threw it in the trash.

[...]

In prison, I was diagnosed with HIV, and hit a personal low-point. A few days after that I was walking around the cell block and I passed by a rubbish bin, and what I found on top of the trash was a Gideon’s New Testament! I took it to my cell and began reading it...

Mayor Pete's LGBTQ agenda if elected president

Robert Gagnon:

In case you thought that President Buttigieg wasn't going to compel embrace of the entire "LGBTQ" agenda on the nation "just because" he has a "husband," this 17-page list (!) of executive, legislative, and judicial goals will divest you of your naivete. It will be "All Gay" and "All Trans" 24/7 with his administration. Of course, top of the list is the passing of the Get-the-Transphobic-and-Homophobic-Bigots "Equality Act." And oh so much more.

Prepare to lose your free speech and free exercise of religion in every venue of human existence, including in your home with your own children. The White House and Executive Branch will become the main propaganda outlet and enforcer arm for the SPLC and HRC -- as if the MSM, academia, and the entertainment industry is not already enough. Even apart from draconian policy commitments, every SOTU address (and nearly all other speeches), indeed, every public appearance of the President with his "husband" will become an occasion for attacking your views as virulent bigotry that must be stamped out as the moral equivalent of extreme racism.

I suppose that we should thank Buttigieg for disclosing in detail all the terrible things that a Dem President could do to us, our spouses, and most of all our children, grandchildren, and all future generations. But remember, boys and girls, zes and zirs and everything in between, the reelection of Trump poses the greatest danger to the country and to the church (kindly remove tongue from cheek).

I'm in the process of going through the list but here are some starters:

(1) "End 'conversion therapy' nationwide." No one will be able to provide counseling for "trans"-identified or "gay"-identified persons that affirms the client's wish not to live a trans- or homosexually active life.

Remember that draconian California bill that was at the last moment withdrawn, that would put at risk even pastors who counseled people out of a "gay" or "trans" life, if an exchange of funds was involved, including the sale of literature? Well, Buttigieg wants such a law to be passed nationally. "Pete will work to pass the Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act, which will require the Federal Trade Commission to . . . prohibit, 'conversion therapy' as consumer fraud, and end the dangerous practice across the country."

Be aware that in the California bill, "conversion therapy" included any attempt to change the behavior (not just impulses and feelings) associated with the "gay" or "transgender" life. Publishers will not be able to sell books critical of "LGBTQ+" thinking and behavior because, by the definition of such a bill, any attempt to "change" this mantra will be treated as an act of "consumer fraud." The same applies to any conference that charges a fee for attending, church-related or otherwise.

(2) Regarding "LGBTQ" students:

(a) "Empower the Office of Civil Rights at the federal Department of Education to . . . investigate complaints of discrimination by LGBTQ+ students and families. . . . Reverse the backsliding under the Trump administration, and make sure LGBTQ+ civil rights cases, and in particular, increase efforts to protect transgender students." Translation: Have the federal government breathing down the necks of every school in the country to promote celebration of the "trans" and "gay" life. Any criticism or even questioning will lead to the full weight of the federal government dropping on the alleged offender.

(b) "Support the Student Nondiscrimination Act and the Safe Schools Improvement Act, and correctly interpret Title IX to include protection of transgender students." No teacher in the country will be able to stop a male from entering female bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and sports program. All he has to do is say, "I currently identify as a woman."

(c) Provide federal funding for (i) all states to impose "training programs" on all teachers, who will be held responsible for stopping any "lack of acceptance" of "LGBTQ+" students; (ii) for school mental and physical "health centers" and staffing to promote full acceptance of the trans and gay life (since any criticism would damage their mental health); (iii) developing "LGBTQ+ inclusive" curricula "such as including LGBTQ+ people in history curricula."

(d) "Require every school across the country to teach [pro-LGBTQ+] Mental Health First Aid courses."

More to come as time permits.

In addition, consider what has happened in other nations with regard to the LGBTQ agenda. For example, see the following article: "Switzerland votes to make ‘homophobia’ a crime punishable by up to THREE years in prison". Could something like this ever happen in the US? Ultimately it's up to voters to decide. Ultimately it's up to voters to vote for people they want to represent them.

And keep in mind all of the above (as well as consider articles like "Understanding why religious conservatives would vote for Trump") whenever liberals criticize conservative Christians for voting for Trump even though Trump has a blunderbuss for a personality and even though he's an immoral person in many ways. There's far more at stake than just Trump as a person: the bigger picture is it's about stopping the liberal-progressive juggernaut that's attempting to steamroll our political and religious liberties.

The potter and the clay

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (Rom 9:20)

Some poorly formed musings on a few separable topics which (hopefully) become more closely tied together at the end:

I think a fundamental issue at stake in the debate over LGBTQ issues is whether humans have a nature. Specifically a male and female nature. Is there some fixed core essential(s) that makes us human? Is there some fixed core essential(s) that makes us male and female? Or is human nature malleable or changeable?

If, let us say, atheism and neo-Darwinism are true, then it appears we have no fundamental human nature. Indeed, it appears neither does any other animal. Rather it would seem all living things are on a single ever-evolving spectrum of life.

Take whales and hippos. These are considered by neo-Darwinists to be close living relatives to one another. Yet they appear to be starkly different from one another. How can there be a fundamental whale nature or a fundamental hippo nature in such disparate animals which evolved from a common ancestor, which in turn evolved from another common ancestor, and so on?

Indeed, if we push it back far enough, all life on this planet shares a universal common ancestor. How could each organism's nature be fundamental to the organism when life presumably originated in a single kind of organism? Is the whole panoply of life of the same kind, only differing by degrees? Or is it different kinds - which, if so, how do different kinds differ at a fundamental level when they all originated from a universal common ancestor?

In addition, how could a fundamental nature exist before its corpus existed? We humans didn't exist at the beginning of life on Earth, according to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. So how could our natures have existed at this point in time?

Rather it would seem more likely there is no fixed point in terms of a whale or hippo or any other creature's fundamental nature. An organism's fundamental nature itself seems subject to evolutionary forces.

If it's true, though, that humans have no fundamental nature, then it would seem anything goes. Males and females may as well be interchangeable. Transgenderism wins.

In general, many if not most homosexuals oppose this, because they believe we have a fixed or fundamental nature, but a non-fixed sexual orientation. The former is immutable, but the latter is mutable. However, if the homosexual accepts atheism and neo-Darwinism, then on what basis would they argue we have fundamental male and female natures?

What's more, if we have no fundamental human nature, then why can't we mold humans into whatever we wish? Why shouldn't we mold humans into whatever we wish? Indeed, in atheistic totalitarian regimes, that's precisely what they do to their citizens. The state decides what people will be. The clay has become its own potter; the molded its own molder.

Brown isn't a bigoted homophobe

Some (lightly edited) comments I left on Randal Rauser's post "Is Michael Brown a Bigoted Homophobe? You Decide.":

Rauser is so myopic. He misses the forest for the trees. He can't see beyond the personal character contests or grudge matches to see there are far bigger stakes involved. Heterosexual sexual sins violate the moral standard, but homosexuality seeks to destroy the moral standard itself and raise up an entirely new standard. Homosexuality is fundamentally worse in that respect. It's never solely been about Trump and Mayor Pete as persons but their policies as well.

[The Atheist Missionary:] Homosexuality is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom and I submit that science will soon allow us to predict a child's sexual orientation with a remarkable degree of accuracy while a child is in the womb.

1. This runs into the is-ought problem on atheism and neo-Darwinism.

2. However my reply wasn't predicated on atheism, or even a debate between atheism and Christianity, but it was predicated on conservative Christianity inasmuch as Rauser is attempting to call the conservative Christian Michael Brown a hypocrite given Brown's beliefs. I'm responding as a like-minded conservative Christian as Brown. Rauser needs to put himself into the conservative Christian's shoes if he wants to understand our beliefs and values rather than constantly imputing his own beliefs and values onto Brown and acting like Brown violated his own beliefs and values when at worst Brown violated Rauser's beliefs and values.

Understanding why religious conservatives would vote for Trump

"Understanding Why Religious Conservatives Would Vote for Trump" by Andrew T. Walker.

Walker is a Southern Baptist professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

I don't necessarily agree with everything, but it's a more nuanced reply than someone like Randal Rauser is willing to give conservative Christians like Michael Brown credit for.

Mayor Pete is no moderate

The media says he's a political moderate, but he's not:

"The Myth Of Pete Buttigieg, 'Moderate'"

Dracula without Christ

I suppose vampire flicks are interesting in large part because of their associations with Christianity (often Catholicism). Symbolisms involving blood and (holy) water. Children of the light vs. children of darkness. Dracula as a Cain or antichrist figure. And so on.

However the new BBC/Netflix Dracula series seems to be attempting to subvert this relation to Christianity. To secularize Dracula. To background the Christian themes and symbols in Dracula and to foreground secular elements. The series suggests that traditional Dracula tropes (e.g. fear of crosses or crucifixes, sunlight burning vampires to a crisp) are in Dracula's head. Dracula doesn't actually get burned by sunlight. Crosses don't in fact harm him. He simply fears sunlight and crosses. So it's more like a person with an irrational phobia. This in turn (the episode suggests) is because what Dracula really fears is death so he's turned his fear of death into superstitious rituals or the like in the hopes that these will keep death at bay. It's like someone afraid to walk under a ladder because he thinks it'll mean bad luck for him.

If this is the case, then it's further interesting to note the creators and showrunners are Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. Both men are known for their work on the BBC's Doctor Who as well as the BBC's Sherlock. Both are vocal secularists as well as LGBTQ supporters. Indeed, Gatiss is homosexual. As such, I wonder if perhaps Dracula is meant to mirror what most secular homosexual men fear - getting old, losing their youth, a slackening in their sexual vitality, death? Sure, many non-secularists and many non-homosexuals share these fears as well, but it seems to me it's particularly acute among homosexual men. For example, Prof. Christopher Hajek at the University of Texas-San Antonio has concluded based on his research that gay men are "scared of aging more than a lot of other people would be".

At the very least, even if it's not true of homosexual men, or no more so than the general population, it seems quite true of secular atheist or agnostic types. See this 97 year old professor for instance. He "grieves" as those "who have no hope" (1 Thes 4:13) over the death of his wife. He wrote a book arguing not to fear death when he was much younger, but at 97 years old he candidly admits he was wrong in his book. He confesses he's scared of death.

In any case, there's no ultimate hope outside Christ. That's why it's good for us to remember and be thankful that God saved us, for we too "were at that time separated from Christ...having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12). God gave us hope who had no hope. And God continues to give hope to the hopeless if only they will forsake the darkness and come into the light.

Some Reactions To The Chick-Fil-A Situation

- It's early, but it looks to me like Chick-Fil-A is being intentionally ambiguous about much of what's going on. In the stories I've read, I've noticed a suspicious lack of quotations when the alleged comments of Chick-Fil-A representatives are being discussed. I wonder how many of them agreed to talk to the media only if they wouldn't be quoted. That allows them more opportunity to revise their comments, claim that they were misunderstood, etc. We'll see what develops. But the ambiguity so far and the lack of a quick clarification in support of what Chick-Fil-A has traditionally been associated with is telling.

- I don't involve myself in boycotts much. I'm highly selective about them. Even when I participate in one, as I have against Target on transgenderism issues, I don't give much attention to it. It's not a high priority. There are more important things to be occupied with. But I think there's merit in boycotting to some extent, especially in cases that have a lot of potential for optimal impact. My sense at this point, and it's still early, is that boycotting Chick-Fil-A would be a good idea. I don't intend to put a lot of time and effort into figuring out all of the details and trying to maximize the situation, but I'll probably try to avoid supporting Chick-Fil-A in the future to some extent, depending on how the circumstances develop.

- The Salvation Army's response is problematic. They told Bisnow:

"We serve more than 23 million individuals a year, including those in the LGBTQ+ community. In fact, we believe we are the largest provider of poverty relief to the LGBTQ+ population."

By the same reasoning, they're probably also the biggest provider of poverty relief for adulterers and polyamorists. I doubt they'd mention that in a statement to the media, frame it the way they've framed their help for LGBTQ people, and do some equivalent to adding the ridiculous "+" to the end of "LGBTQ". Like Chick-Fil-A and so many others, the Salvation Army is far too defensive. That sort of weakness is part of the reason why they're in such a bad situation. They're digging themselves deeper in the hole.

- There's some merit to helping the poor, supporting educational efforts, and other such activities that Chick-Fil-A, Salvation Army, and others are highlighting in this context, but I want to remind people of something I've said many times before. Poverty is far less of a problem in the world today than it was in Biblical times and even just several decades ago. (See, for example, here and here.) That's largely because of Christianity's positive impact on the world. It's also because of the advancement of technology, medicine, democracy, and capitalism, for example. Rates of poverty have plummeted in recent decades. In many contexts, our standard of living and standards in other parts of the world have gotten much better in recent years. To be as concerned about something like poverty today as the Biblical authors were in their day is irresponsible. It would be like being as concerned as Biblical authors were about diseases that either no longer exist or exist to a much lesser degree. That wouldn't make sense. The fact that disease X was prominent to degree Y during the Biblical era doesn't prove that disease X has the same significance today. The amount of attention that's given to issues like poverty today is inexcusable. Governments, charities, businesses, churches, individuals, etc. are spending oceans upon oceans upon oceans of money and other resources on such issues in the modern world. There's a widespread cultural consensus in many parts of the world that we should be helping the poor, educating people about secular and trivial subjects, improving people's health, and so on. Christians should be more focused on supporting missions, evangelism, apologetics, theology, the study of the paranormal, work on ethical issues, philosophical work, and other such endeavors. The world is overly focused on helping people in physical, short-term ways. Christians should work on benefiting people in a physical and short-term manner to some extent, but we shouldn't follow the world's lead in being as imbalanced as they are on these matters (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).

- The biggest problem related to LGBTQ issues isn't with the organizations that promote the LGBTQ movement or organizations that are too accommodating to them, like Chick-Fil-A. It's not with political leaders, pastors, etc. Rather, the biggest problem is with the average person. As in so many other contexts, there's too much of a focus on leaders and not enough focus on laymen. The latter bear far more responsibility for where we are in this culture. LGBTQ organizations wouldn't be as influential as they are, and organizations like Chick-Fil-A and Salvation Army wouldn't be as weak as they are, if the average American (and the average person in many other nations) weren't so corrupt. Even in conservative Evangelical circles, how many people provided objective, verifiable arguments against same-sex marriage when the controversy over that subject was at its height? How many, instead, either stayed silent or just did something like state their view without supporting it or supported it inadequately, such as by merely quoting the Bible? My estimate is that only a small percentage of conservative Evangelicals, probably a single-digit percentage at best, handled the same-sex marriage controversy in anything even close to a responsible manner. The large majority either were silent or spoke up in a highly inadequate way. How many Christians are putting much effort into doing research and reasoning with people in a mature way, whether on LGBTQ matters or other issues? See my article here about the neglect of apologetics and the neglect of intellectual maturity more broadly in modern Christianity. Non-Christians deserve the primary blame for the absurd situation with LGBTQ issues in modern America. But some of the blame also goes to American Christians, who are so intellectually immature, among other problems. That's part of the reason why the Chick-Fil-A story stings them so much. They've been overly focused on such organizations, activities like eating at restaurants are too big a part of their lives, they're overly focused on what their leaders (such as the people running Chick-Fil-A) are doing and not focused enough on their own responsibilities and opportunities, etc.

- There's been a lot of focus on how the LGBTQ movement won't be satisfied with Chick-Fil-A's concession. That's largely true. But don't underestimate how much some people will respond positively, will enjoy seeing Chick-Fil-A compromise, and will want to encourage more of it.

Dad tries to save son from transgenderism

If we’re hearing all the relevant information about this story (and I urge “if,” because I haven’t seen the full trial transcripts circulated), it’s one of the worst state abuses of power I have ever heard of -- an act of child abuse encouraged and facilitated by the state. https://t.co/LqBFRUfWD2

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) October 23, 2019

And to piggyback on Steve's post as well:

1. If all the reports are accurate, then I couldn't agree more. It's maddening, infuriating, lamentable. The kid has no more hope for a happy childhood.

2. Not to mention by all accounts I've read the 7 year old boy doesn't want to be a girl but his mother is forcing her choice onto the boy. Does this set a precedence for parents to transition their children into a different sex against their children's wills? At this point, it looks like progressives are arguing women should be able to abort their child even as newborns no longer in the womb and women should be able to turn their children into whatever sex they wish their children to be despite biological realities. Is there anything women can't do to their children according to progressives?

3. The mother is a pediatrician who should know better. However she's a terrible and evil person. Indeed, it seems to me there are many women like her.

4. Women have had a loud and clear voice for generations, but who will speak on behalf of men? Men seem to be increasingly unfairly discriminated against in our society. Boys and men are increasingly tyrannized by third wave feminists and progressives in general. For example, Christina Hoff Sommers has documented a lot of this.

5. I don't know if there's any more hope for the father to win a court case. I don't know if he can appeal. Or even take it to the Supreme Court.

6. However, if there are no more legal options open to the father, and assuming most people bow to the evil judicial decision, then if it were me I think I'd consider trying to "kidnap" my son (in fact both of my sons since they're twins) and fleeing to another state or even another nation. I realize this is desperate, but I don't know what else the father can do. It seems he's only left with hard choices for his sons: a choice between state-sponsored child abuse under an evil mother in the US vs. a more normal childhood under a good father but living life on the run. But I think this kind of "kidnapping" is arguably justifiable on Christian ethics.

7. Remember this case whenever you hear liberals and progressives say things like "transgenderism doesn't harm anyone", "transgenderism is not a mental illness", "everyone should get a choice", "it's their choice, not yours", "you're bigoted against transgendered peoples", etc. The truth is liberals and progressives are always pushing their abnormal values onto normal people, but acting like they're the victims when normal people dissent.

Education begins at home

Sure, that's true. However, if so, then why are so many public school educators vehemently against parents having more say in their children's education? Why do so many public school educators oppose, say, school vouchers? Why are so many public school educators against taxpaying parents using their taxes in ways they deem more beneficial to their children? Why do so many public school educators oppose alternative choices including private Christian schools and homeschooling? Why do so many public school educators attempt to promote if not indoctrinate public school kids with worldviews disagreeable to many parents such as Christian parents (e.g. LGBTQ agenda)? Why do so many public school educators stand against Christian parents instilling Christian beliefs and values in their children? Why do so many public school educators regard secular values as the default if not standard? We the people are one nation under God, are we not?

Puberty blockers

Testosterone is important for normal male brain maturation. Here is a report of an 11 y/o boy on puberty blockers: IQ dropped 11% (80 to 71) after 17 mo.

As the EIC of the BMJ has said, PB are being used in a state of “profound scientific ignorance.”https://t.co/Cb23bBYHye

— William J. Malone, MD (@will_malone) July 17, 2019

Thanks to Steve for sending this my way.

The study mentioned in the tweet is sad, but useful:

1. The so-called "puberty blocker" is Lupron. That's an off-label drug. It's normally used in chemotherapies against prostate cancer in men and breast and ovarian cancers in women. It can cause significant side effects even in adults. Granted, most drugs aren't safe in large enough doses, or in certain populations, but giving Lupron to a little boy seems to be asking for trouble.
2. Of course, the critic might reply "n=1", i.e., you can't generalize from one case to the rest of the population. However, this isn't the only study where PBs have been shown to harm a child's (still developing) brain/IQ. For example, see here, here, here, and here.
3. Likewise, good overviews on puberty blockers in treating gender dysphoria here (Ryan T. Anderson) and here (Paul Hruz, Lawrence Mayer, Paul McHugh).
4. It really should be common sense not to give these kinds of drugs to little kids. A 10 year old boy at the time. Especially to a little kid with an already low IQ. A low IQ of 80 which dropped even further to 71. 80 is classified as "low average" in terms of IQ. 71 is classified as "borderline mental disability". 69 is where the mental disability classification begins. If a mentally deficient little boy thinks he might be a girl, then that might well be explained by the fact that he's a mentally deficient little boy rather than because he has "gender dysphoria". Isn't that common sense? You don't need a medical degree to know that.
5. Sure, this boy gave "consent", but he could easily have been persuaded by an adult to give consent. It's just taking advantage of a mentally deficient little kid. He's a guinea pig for experimental medicine based on a trendy social theory du jour.

   To be frank, it seems almost like a Nazi medical experiment where mentally deficient little kids are tricked into taking this or that drug to see what happens. I suppose a key distinction is the Nazi doesn't care about the kid, but the parents and doctors who advocate for puberty blockers believe it's in the kid's best interest (though there are some shady doctors out there). At best, that might make the latter less culpable if they're ignorant (particularly the parent, but one could argue physicians should know better), but I would think they're still complicit to some degree. Perhaps negligence?

6. This might have already done irreparable damage to the boy's cognitive development. Of course, progressives don't really care for kids with low IQs anyway. That's in evidence by the fact that the majority of abortions are performed on babies who have Down syndrome.

US women's soccer

The US women's team won the Women's World Cup today. Apparently this is the US women's fourth World Cup victory since the dawn of the Women's World Cup. That's the most titles of any nation.

Riding this wave, it appears women are demanding equal pay in soccer because apparently women make significantly less than their male counterparts in soccer.

I admit I haven't followed the equal pay issues in women's soccer in significant depth so I don't know if what I'm about to say is on target. Here are my remarks:

1. First, congrats to the women's team. Megan Rapinoe is the media darling and MVP, but Rose Lavelle looks like the real breakout star of the team in terms of athleticism.

2. Do women in soccer deserve to make the same money as men in soccer? I don't know that "deserve" has anything to do with it. I don't know that it's an ethical issue. Rather I presume salary largely reflects viewership, sponsorship, and advertising. If a sport can get tons of viewers, sponsors, and advertisers interested, then the sport will have more money, and I presume players can get paid more. Isn't that normally how it works in sports? Why should it be different for women's soccer?

3. If we're judging simply by athleticism, I imagine it's not as fun to watch women play soccer as it is to watch men play soccer. To be frank, as good as our women's professional soccer team is, and I don't wish to take anything away from them, nevertheless they look more like amateurs playing soccer in comparison to a low tier male professional soccer team let alone a world class team like Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, England, Portugal, etc. I imagine that's the case for most men's vs. women's sports, not only soccer.

4. I presume sports like women's tennis and volleyball are popular at least as much (if not more so) for the female athletes' appearances as for their athleticism. That's not to suggest it's fair.

5. I don't have a problem if women are paid equally or even more than men in the same sport. Perhaps women's soccer can bring in as much if not more viewership, sponsorship, and advertising than men's soccer in the US. Especially in light of this latest World Cup victory. If so, then women could very well be paid on par with or even more than men. I don't have a problem with that.

6. My problem is if women are paid on par with men by dictum presumably due to political, social, or cultural pressure to pay women more simply because they're women. That seems sexist. And women shouldn't wish to get paid more simply because they're women any more than men should wish to get paid more simply because they're men. How is that empowering?

7. Take men's soccer in the US vs. England. To my knowledge, the English Premier League (EPL) tends to pay their players more than the Major League Soccer (MLS) pays their players. I presume that's because the EPL has more viewers, sponsors, and advertisers involved than the MLS does. However it'd be laughable if someone argued men's soccer players in the MLS should get paid on par with men's soccer players in the EPL, not because the MLS is bringing in the same viewership and money and so on as the EPL, but simply because they're paid lower and deserve to be paid more, or perhaps because the "potential" for viewers in the MLS is greater than the "potential" in the EPL.

8. I don't know if it would help or hurt if transgendered "women" make it onto the women's national soccer teams. I guess it'd improve the athleticism, but won't many viewers find that unfair or offputting in some way? At best, wouldn't it be like watching a low-rent men's soccer team? Who would want to watch that?

The transgendered brain

I recently saw this on Facebook:

The brains of trans people more strongly resemble the brains of the opposite/desired sex than their own sex. Their gender dysphoria is grounded in biology. My own knowledge of gender psychobiology (evolutionary psychology was my interest at university) is against the recent societal shift to de-pathologise trans people (for example, removing gender dysphoria as a requirement to access treatment), although I understand the desire to push for acceptance. This article acknowledge that trans people are marginalised. They have the highest suicide rates of any subgroup and yet the Church seems so focused on justifying why we believe what we believe. I’m not sure that’s the important conversation here. Jesus has the answers for trans people. We need to show them that.

Some research regarding the brains of trans people behaving more like the brains of the desired sex:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763415002432

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X17301885

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453017305590

1. How many of the children included in these studies have come from families with gender dysphoria? If enough, that could significantly skew the results to say the least. For example, if nothing else, that can be seen in the power of suggestion adults have on children.

2. The studies are based on MRIs. What can MRIs tell us about fundamental human psychology? For example, an assumption in these studies is certain brain activities could be gendered.

a. On the one hand, it's true there's sexual dimorphism in areas of the brain associated with language production and/or reception (e.g. Broca, Wernicke). On the other hand, we know this because we can correlate language-associated areas of the brain with language production and/or reception between males and females (e.g. compare average spoken words per minute in males vs. females).

b. However, when it comes to human psychology, especially if the assumption is human psychology isn't necessarily correlated with human biology, then what's the static or non-moving standard by which we can correlate the two?

3. Indeed, interpretations of these MRIs are based on stereotypes about what a male brain should do/not do and what a female brain should do/not do. However, if male and female psychology aren't necessarily associated with male and female biology in the ways and/or to the extent transgender proponents argue, then is there a certain way a male and/or female brain should and/or should not function?

4. If (as these studies argue) it's possible for a brain scan to diagnose people with gender dysphoria or transgendered individuals, then physicians can use brain scans to detect people with gender dysphoria or transgendered persons. In fact, in theory, it's possible physicians can detect transgendered persons before they themselves are aware. It'd sort of be like detecting cancer before cancer becomes clinically detectable (e.g. weight loss, palpable lump). In that case, physicians could be required to inform the transgendered persons and (debatably) intervene for their benefit.

However, this would come into tension if not conflict with the goal among some or many trans proponents to delegitimize gender dysphoria as a bona fide medical or psychiatric diagnosis.

5. All this seems to exclude a class of transgendered persons, i.e., transgendered persons who don't have the requisite differences in brain structure and/or function. I'm referring to non-dysphoric transgendered persons, non-binaries, fetishistic cross-dressers, and so on.

6. Interestingly, here is another study published in Nature which shows that the MRI scans of people with gender dysphoria and people with homosexuality were not significantly dissimilar. Minimally this would seem to suggest there's no detectable difference between (say) transgendered persons and homosexuals. In that case, how are they different? In that case, aren't these brain scans really detecting homosexuality? That's what the homosexual community argues.

The dark side of Avalon

"Daughter of famed sci-fi author reveals sexual horrors she suffered growing up in LGBT home"

"Review: The Last Closet"

"Book Review: The Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon by Moira Greyland"