Tag Archives: female
Imagine my surprise when renowned psychiatrist Dr. Paul R. McHugh, formerly the psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins recently claimed that transgenderism is a “mental disorder.” How dare he say such hurtful things. Doesn’t he know that our society doesn’t care about facts and biology? Doesn’t he know that our imaginations and desires are more important that centuries of verifiable, empirical evidence?
About a year ago former president Obama announced that transgender people could serve openly in the military. The decision was criticized by many saying it would affect unit cohesion and military readiness. Others panned the decision as a drain on tax dollars that would be needed to fund hormone treatments and sex-reassignment surgeries. And of course there were plenty of privacy discussions.
One thing to be clear about in our “everything is a right” culture is that serving in the military is not a right. There’s nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says a person has the right to serve in the military. It is a privilege. If serving in the military were a right there would be no entrance requirements and people could not be disqualified based on bad eyesight, diabetes, or any other physical limitation. But, people are disqualified for any number of reasons, which is further evidence that military service is a privilege and not a right.
Let me start by saying I love the differences between men and women. I know that’s probably not a popular thing to say in our culture as we are supposed to downplay the differences between the sexes. Not me, I like the differences and I like celebrating our differences.
Up until about 10 years ago it was normal, popular even, to celebrate the differences between the sexes. Routinely within our culture we praised men for certain things and women for other things. This, despite the growing assault of the feminist movement, was nothing that would capture headlines.
Then things changed.
For those who have not spent much time studying the Bible and the context of these two verses, let’s take a closer look at them and see if they do in fact support transgenderism or not.
In the first verse, Genesis 1:27, is recorded the words of Scripture after the creation of man and woman. The first thing we need to notice is the use of the word “him” and “them” in this verse. The writer of Genesis first says that God decided to man (lit. “mankind,” Heb. adam). So first, God says that He intends to make mankind and will fashion mankind in the image of God. This means, simply that God decided to make mankind in the same image of God, as God’s imago dei (image bearer). In this, both male and female are the image bearers of God and were both made in God’s image.
I’ve seen many posts on social media from friends and acquaintances asking Christians to be supportive and understanding of the trans community. They implore us to show “the love of Christ” to people by supporting their lifestyle. That is a sinful request. It would be the same as asking Christians to support abortionists, or drug addicts in their “lifestyle.” Christians cannot and must not support any sinful behavior, action, or lifestyle. It is neither compassionate nor loving to support sin. We don’t show Christ to people when we encourage their sin. We show people a false Gospel that is not of Jesus Christ and has no power to save people from their sins. If Christians want to be loving and compassionate then we must proclaim the Gospel of Jesus, which is repentance from sins, with grace and truth as we recognize that we are sinners as well.
Can someone point to a place in Scripture where Jesus supported and accepted someone’s sin? As I recall, each and every time Jesus encountered sin He told the person to “sin no more.” He acknowledged their sin, called out their sin, and told them to repent. That is the model and the example Christians must imitate.
I just don’t understand this. This makes no sense.
The University of Toronto is changing its bathroom policy and reducing the number of gender-neutral bathrooms. Why in the world would anyone want to do that? Don’t they want to be “all-inclusive” and make transgender people feel welcome in any bathroom they choose to use?
In fact, the University of Toronto set out to do just that. They eliminated all male and all female bathrooms in order to accommodate transgender students. A move that was praised by everyone that thought making men and women share bathrooms was a good idea. Of course, only people with an incredible lack of common sense would think such an idea was good. And wouldn’t you know it, the people that said it was a terrible idea and warned that incidents of voyeurism and peeping (or worse) could occur, seem to be right.
Yep, you guessed it. Not long after the University of Toronto mandated that men and women share a bathroom and several reports of voyeurism happened.
According to an article at The Star, several women reported seeing cell phones peek above the shower stalls attempting to get images and videos of them showering. The article states:
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to teach impressionable children that gender is just a construct of society and is really as fluid as they want it to be? In fact, we should teach them that there are many genders, perhaps a dozen, and let them pick and choose which they want to be.
That’s what one of the nation’s largest public school systems is preparing to teach its students via a new health and sexuality curriculum.
At a time when gender is suddenly a debatable topic – because apparently we’re not content with just boys and girls – this school system wants to further confuse the situation by affirming that people can be more than just male and female. No longer is your anatomy the definer of your gender identity, now you can choose; you can even choose to be something other than male and female! (Could someone please explain that one to me!?)
The Fairfax County Public School system is preparing to implement changes to their family life curriculum which includes teaching on gender identity that can only be described as disastrous and unscientific. A report describes the curriculum for middle school this way:
Let’s be clear (and honest) about one thing. The primary motivating factor for most of what happens in our society is sex.
You don’t have to agree with me; but good luck refuting that statement. Just consider how advertising would be different if sex wasn’t a factor. How would product marketing be different if sex wasn’t an issue? How would the music industry be different? How would fashion and movies be different?
If sex wasn’t an issue at all it’s very safe to say our society would be vastly different. But because sex is the primary motivating factor in much of what takes place sex is also the goal, or end result for much of what happens. This makes sex a very dangerous weapon in the hands of anyone seeking to recreate the social or political landscape in America.
A recent article at The Week discussed this issue and the implications of sex as the primary difference between traditionalist religious people from others. The question was asked, if sex is removed from the picture, “what are we talking about?” The answer was given:
Do you think only women get pregnant?
Believe marriage is the union of a man and woman?
Hold the position that there are inherent differences between men and women?
You old-fashioned, homophobic, bigoted, discriminatory, sexist person. How dare you believe such things.
How dare you believe that only women can get pregnant. Never-mind the biology, it is absolutely sexist and gender-biased of you to think that only women can get pregnant.
And to think that marriage is the union of only a man and woman. I can’t believe any sane, rational, fair-minded person in this day and age would believe such nonsense.
And don’t get me started on gender distinctions. Anyone believing that the genders are inherently different is a product of their discriminatory environment, not an enlightened culture.
This is the second part of a two-part post. Read part 1 here.
A recent article by TIME magazine gleefully advocates for transgender people and their “struggle” to be accepted. Sharing the story of Cassidy, the first openly transgender Homecoming Queen in the U.S., the TIME article (and video) eagerly exposes people to another world full of confusion.
At one point Cassidy says she “came out” to her parents as a gay man in high school, but now lives as transgender. Yet Cassidy said it was in 5th grade that “she” first acknowledged and knew “she” was transgender. The amount of sexual confusion here is astounding to me. This is a young man that has been confused for a long time and rather than seeking any kind of help he is being encouraged in his confusion by others.
Speaking of confusion, an article at The Federalist details the extreme confusion of a female named Tracey transitioning to male: