You’re liberated, now what?

Ah, liberation, what a sweet word. Who wouldn’t want to be set free? What if you aren’t in bondage? Adam and Eve wanted to be liberated, even though God put them in the lushest garden, with abundant food, the purest water that ever flowed, no enemies. The perfect environment. Then the serpent offered something they didn’t have, autonomy and special knowledge (“you will be like God”), all they had to do is disobey God’s simple commands. They wanted liberation from the boss, they got liberation from beauty, purity, purpose, safety. The serpent couldn’t deliver on his false promises. there is no true autonomy from the Creator for the created, and you and I will never have the knowledge of God. The serpent has never stopped promising, though.

“You need to be liberated, from the burden of others, from your responsibilities, from unpleasant feelings, from unequal pay, from your national borders, from sexual limits, from your gender and your chromosomes,” whispers the serpent. “You deserve, you have the right to, liberation. No one is the boss of you.” You don’t want rules, but you still need to be taken care of, in other words, nanarchy. No, I didn’t misspell anarchy, I added N for nanny. The cry for liberation means you are a prisoner, you are in bondage, you live under limits. What are you a prisoner of? What are you in bondage to? What limits do you live under?

Well, I’m in bondage to racism, sexism, homophobia, unequal pay, the wrong gender, transphobia, my marriage, my children, my spouse, my weight, my responsibilities. What about starvation, is that a condition of your life? How about war, getting blown up or shot? Or being threatened by drug cartels or criminal gangs? No? You probably live in the United States. Just maybe, you’re liberated and don’t know it. Or, your own mind and attitude is is keeping you in bondage. That’s a lot more difficult to get liberated from.

Why can’t I just be neutral?

Neutrality is mostly a myth. In WWII, many countries tried to maintain neutrality, but virtually all were either invaded or bombed anyway, including Switzerland, which suffered some bombings by both sides. What about WWIII? “No such thing” you say. My previous post mentioned the LGBTQ narrative. The foundational presupposition of that narrative is: “We were born this way, or god made us this way, we shouldn’t be discriminated against for something innate, it isn’t just feelings.” Nowhere in their agenda is this argument weaker than in so-called “gender dysphoria.” That is why “trans’ rights” are being pushed so aggressively. If society at large can be forced, yes forced, to accept the reality, rather than the subjectivity, of “gender dysphoria”, the LGBTQ express–acknowledgement, to acquiescence, to acceptance, to applause–will have added another engine to the train. What they will never add is a caboose. There will always be demands for more. That’s WWIII.

As always, the radicals eat their own. The dynamics are illustrated by Twitter’s banning last week of Canadian feminist writer Meghan Murphy. Murphy violated a new rule forbidding users from “misgendering” trans people—when she referred to a transitioning person who goes by both Jonathan and Jessica as “him.” It was this latest violation that precipitated her permanent ban. The previous generation of radical feminists are fighting their war with the new generation of trans activists, who call them Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, or TERFs. This subset of the sexual culture war is being fought, as usual, with acronyms, invented pronouns, Twitter policing, social media mobs, courts and legislatures. Everyone will be caught up in the mess.

Quoting Ben Shapiro, in National Review: “Can subjective perception trump objective observation? If the answer is yes, tyranny of the individual becomes the order of the day. We all must bow before the subjective wants, needs, and desires of people who require special protection from life’s realities. We must reeducate generations of people to ignore science in favor of feelings. We must strong-arm individuals into abandoning central planks of their morality in the name of sensitivity.

“Meanwhile, Twitter announced this week that it would seek to ban those who ‘misgender’ or ‘deadname’ transgender people. In other words, if you note that Chelsea Manning or Caitlyn Jenner is a man, or if you use the names ‘Bradley’ or ‘Bruce’ with regard to the aforementioned transgender people, Twitter could ban you for ‘repeated and/or non-consensual slurs.’ So you will abide by subjective self-definition, or you will be censored. Twitter recently banned a leftist feminist for merely noting that sex is biological and that men cannot become women (Murphy).

“There are real-world consequences to the deliberate rewriting of basic biology, and the substitution of subjectivity for objectivity. It means rewriting business operation, school curricula, medical treatment standards, censorship rules, and even parenting. But sympathy for a mental disorder should not trump either objective reality or competing priorities based on those objective realities. Falsehood crumbles in the light of day, no matter how sympathetic we are to those who wish to perpetuate it — unless force becomes the order of the day.” Which it has!!

From The Daily Wire: A Texas father is fighting for his son in court after pushing back on his ex-wife’s claim that their six-year-old is a transgender girl. According to court documents, the young boy only dresses as a girl when he’s with his mother, who has enrolled him in first-grade as a female named “Luna.” The father, however, contends that his son consistently chooses to wear boy’s clothes, “violently refuses to wear girl’s clothes at my home,” and identifies as a boy when he is with him.

“The Federalist reports that the mother has accused the father of child abuse in their divorce proceedings “for not affirming James as transgender” and is looking to strip the dad of his parental rights. “She is also seeking to require him to pay for the child’s visits to a transgender-affirming therapist and transgender medical alterations, which may include hormonal sterilization starting at age eight,” the report adds. The father has been legally barred from speaking to his child about sexuality and gender from a scientific or religious perspective and from dressing his son in boys’ clothes; instead, he has to offer both girls’ and boys’ outfits. The boy consistently refuses to wear dresses, according to the father.

“The boy was diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a gender transition therapist the mother, a pediatrician, chose for her son to see. According to the therapist’s notes, the boy chose to identify as a girl when he was in sessions alone with his mother; alternatively, he chose to identify as a boy when he was in sessions alone with his father. The Federalist reports: A dossier filed with the Dallas court says that, under the skilled eyes of the therapist, the child was presented two pieces of paper, one with the word ‘James’ and one with the word ‘Luna,’ and asked to pick the name he preferred. When the appointment only included his mother, James selected Luna, the name and gender he uses at his mother’s home and in his first-grade classroom. When the appointment was only with his father, however, James pointed to the boy name James, not the girl name.

“Walt Heyer, author of Trans Life Survivors and former transgender female, warns that the potential diagnosis could ruin the boy’s life, similar to what he went through after he was secretly cross-dressed by this grandmother for two-and-a-half years as a young boy. ‘The diagnosis is critical, because labeling a child with gender dysphoria can trigger a series of physical and mental consequences for the child and has legal ramifications in the ongoing custody case. Get it wrong,’ Heyer writes at The Federalist, the boy’s ‘life is irrevocably harmed.’ The boy’s ‘precious young life hinges purely on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria by a therapist who wraps herself in rainbow colors, affirms the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and dismisses evidence to the contrary,’ argues Heyer. The author warned, ‘If we do not save [the boy] from a misdiagnosis, his next step is chemical castration at age eight, only two years away’.”

We are justifiably horrified at sex selection abortions, like in China under the “one child” policy, where female babies were killed in favor of males. Now it appears that in our enlightened country, sex selection can be done with drugs and surgery after birth. Is that progress, or pathology? I could have been that six year old boy had I been born 70 years later, because I spent a few minutes dressing my sister’s dolls. Some people still wonder, “how did we get here?” First aberrant desires were “in the closet”, and we wanted to be tolerant, so those desires “came out” and accommodations were made, often voluntarily, because we don’t want to be bigoted, and thought it was possible to be neutral. The LGBTQ activists then pushed for legislation that would define their behavior as equivalent to skin color and gender for enforcement of their “equality”. Equality of or for what? Their rights, first under the law, but clearly beyond that, to forced compliance with their desires, pronouns, gender selection, bathroom preferences, until, inevitably, experts like a gender transition specialist show up to push their vested interests into family struggles. You thought you could be neutral! Are you starting to see the agenda of this long war?

Are you lulled to unconsciousness by cliches like “war on terror” (which is really the tip of the 1400 year jihad to establish a worldwide caliphate), or “anti-equality extremists” (anyone who objects to remaking the world according to lgbtq propaganda), “tolerance” (applaud or else), “misgendering and deadnaming” (calling someone by their birth gender or name). Didn’t you realize, changing minds begins with changing language. Every time you used gay in place of homosexual, you were validating an agenda that was inexorably moving towards the new vocabulary and the tyranny of the subjective.

I played with my sister’s dolls, so what!

True confession time. When I was about ten years old, I my father got angrier than ever before, or since, at me. What did I do to provoke that? I dressed up one of my sister’s dolls! No particular reason, I was bored, saw her dolls and a bunch of doll clothes, and with nothing useful to do in that moment, I started changing outfits on her dolls. No biggy, except my poor father thought that if such behavior went unpunished, I would become a flaming homosexual, or in his words, a queer. Of course, that’s before queer theory was a cultural thing, and gay meant lighthearted. Don’t pine for me, dear readers, I turned into a flaming heterosexual, or is the modern term “cisgender “? It’s all so confusing. But my parents were worried for a long time, because I didn’t get married until I was 41. The only thing I lament was my promiscuity during the intervening years. My wife and I had three wonderful daughters, and I never got another woman pregnant nor ever transmitted a venereal disease. That’s not to say I was normal, according to the culture.

Ah, now you start to wonder. When I got to the teenage years, my father gave me the talk, the one that used to be about where babies came from, but these days the teenagers are giving their parents the talk, and I wonder what they talk about, or if they talk at all. Anyway, he kept it very simple, and I took it to heart. “Son, respect women and always do the responsible thing. If you ever get a girl pregnant, you will either marry her, or provide for her and your child (there was no third alternative) as long as they need. Therefore, don’t get a girl pregnant unless you are married!” The end. It helped that I saw him walking the walk, by caring for my mom, who suffered mightily from manic depressive psychosis, i.e. bipolar disorder, before lithium carbonate was discovered.

The brief incident of playing with dolls was ultimately meaningless, as such things tend to be. Not anymore. If my parents had been under the sway of transgender ideology, they might have encouraged me to “be myself ” by having my own dolls to play with. Harmless enough in itself, but imagine they were having a regular parent-teacher conference, and they offhandedly mentioned “Steve was sort of into dressing up dolls.” In many, if not most government schools today, the trans recruitment mechanism would go into high gear. That might include intimate conversations with me, generally without my parents present, with such questions as: They, “is being a boy being true to yourself?” “Would you like help transitioning?” Me, “I am confused, what are you talking about? I like being a boy.” They, “Sometimes, boys feel like girls, and girls feel like boys. What do you feel like?” Me, “I am a boy, I feel like what I am.” They, “Have your parents, especially your dad, ever punished you for acting like a girl (do we need to protect you)?” If I didn’t tell them about the doll incident, since my father had mentioned it in conference, they would keep pressing me to confess.

If that conversation got this far, what would happen today? I shudder to think. Possibilities include their suggesting puberty blocking drugs, threatening my parents or pressuring them to support my exploring my real gender, eventually gender reassignment surgery? Ugh, all of which amplifies a child’s natural curiosity about what the other sex is like, or confuses the more suggestive kids, and often puts alien thoughts into their heads. The trans lobby has even convinced major corporations that there are millions of transsexuals screaming to get out of the prison of their chromosomal bodies. News flash: I don’t have to wonder. A few hours after writing this, I read about a case in Texas which provides a cautionary tale about what can happen when the mom and dad don’t agree with each other about how their child should be taught about gender. Since this is a long post, I will introduce that case in the next post. Hint: A six year old biological boy who wants to remain a boy is being dressed in girl’s clothing against his will. Now let your imagination run with it.

The Chicago Tribune did a piece on a transitioned male to female named Josie Lynn Paul: “A consultant gave a presentation on what it means to be transgender and in transition. Paul, a social worker, delivered a statement explaining that the pain of not being true to herself had grown too great to bear. Even in Illinois, which has laws that protect against discrimination on the basis of gender identity, the office transition can be fraught with stumbling blocks if a company doesn’t work ahead to anticipate employees’ needs, said Jillian Weiss, a lawyer and consultant who works with companies on transgender issues. “By the time someone comes into your office and says, ‘I have to tell you something,’ you’re behind the eight ball,” Weiss said. “You should have a policy in a glass case that says, ‘Break here in case of transition.’

“Corporate America has recently made progress toward transgender-inclusive workplaces. Three-quarters of Fortune 500 companies have gender identity protections, according to the Human Rights Campaign’s latest Corporate Equality Index, released in November, compared with just 3 percent when it started the report in 2002. Forty percent of employers have at least one plan that covers hormone replacement therapy; in 2002, it was zero.” Ms. Paul joined Hobby Lobby initially when he was Mr. Paul because of his Christian values, and after the transition, admitted that most other employees were supportive or neutral, until it came to bathroom time. Xe insisted on using the women’s bathroom, even though all the employees knew that the female appearance masked a biological male, whom they had gotten used to, and the biological women objected. I imagine the men weren’t too excited either about their bathroom privacy in the presence of a female-looking person. So Hobby Lobby built unisex bathrooms for individuals in that situation. But that’s not good enough for Josie or trans activists. Xe insists on being allowed to use the female bathroom, so that “xe” isn’t excluded by having the privacy of xer on bathroom. Who says other employees are not affected by one person’s decision?

Their pocketbooks are also affected. Since employer-provided group health insurance is re-rated annually based on claims experience of the entire group, rather than individuals, and the price initially is based on both age and gender of employees and what kinds of coverages are included, transition drugs and surgeries and hormone replacement increase the price both the companies and the employees pay. The national average of the cost of group health insurance is $18,412 per family or $6,435 per individual. Even in cases where the employer pays 100% of the cost, price increases hurt the company’s bottom line and may reduce the workforce. For most companies, health insurance is their second biggest expense, after wages.

But leave it to the Trump administration to stand in the gap. The Human Rights Campaign, HRC, President Chad Griffin, sounds the alarm. “Defining ‘sex’ in this narrow language tailored to the talking points of anti-equality extremists is part of a deliberate strategy to eliminate federal protections for LGBTQ people. This is a direct attack on the fundamental equality of LGBTQ people and, if this administration refuses to reverse course, Congress must immediately take action by advancing the Equality Act to ensure that LGBTQ people are explicitly protected by our nation’s civil rights laws.” What is this dastardly plan of “anti-equality extremists”, i.e. you and I and anyone who believes that chromosomes, God’s creation, define gender?

It is a memo that enforcement of a certain law necessitates a more explicit definition of gender, one determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The memo calls for the Departments of Education, Justice, Labor, and Health and Human Services — the four agencies that are most responsible for enforcing Title IX — to embrace the definition. The notion is that if these four agencies come together around a uniform definition, courts will be more likely to accept it. Title IX, for anyone who needs a brief history lesson is actually just one piece of a larger law, the Education Amendments Act of 1972. It states, quite plainly:

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

The newly proposed narrower definition would view gender identity in binary terms, making it an unchangeable designation based on the genitalia a person is born with. In situations where there’s some dispute over gender, genetic testing would be employed.” What a nerve!

Well, enough about the law, health insurance, and my ten minute doll phase, let’s get to the REAL issue: Whether you call it gender dysphoria or being “true to yourself ” (your feelings, that is), we live in a feelings first age, in which people define themselves by what they are attracted to: same sex attraction = gay, bi or lesbian; being a different sex than you were born = transsexual; boy who wants to use girls’ bathroom = voyeur; want to have it all = LGBTQ. Notice I didn’t say feelings, rather attraction. I was born male, with male plumbing and characteristics, therefore always treated as such, dressed as such, used male bathrooms and pronouns. I couldn’t have the feelings of being female, with no experience of such. But like any young, naive, confused child, I could have been steered in a direction I had no understanding of. The LBGTQ lobby allows only one narrative, that of discrimination against them, and the success of gender transitions, as if the majority of transsexuals are happy with their new bodies. What happens to the legions of souls who are miserable about the transition, who would take it back if they could? You don’t hear much about them, not that plenty don’t exist, but any professional working with them who disputes the dominant narrative, any politician or corporate leader who questions it, might soon be out of their job, and certainly confronted at home or in public. Same goes double for the victims of the narrative.

There was a time that I was more “tolerant” of “lifestyle choices”, before such individual neuroses and choices started becoming “holy writ.” But now it is abundantly clear that there cannot be neutrality. You bow before the LGBTQ narrative or face the wrath of their Gestapo. If you desire to bring your feelings into alignment with how God made you, I will support you. But if you desire to bring society into alignment with your feelings, I oppose you.

Untruth cannot abide truth in a feelings-first environment. If my feelings are publicly advertised, then accepted, then applauded, and finally applied…. to the workplace, the bathroom, the law, to you, try to be neutral. But In the end, there is only one narrative that matters, and everyone will bow the knee when the time comes to face their creator. Those who hate how God made them, hate God. They have only a short time on earth to dispute the truth, to deny that they were created, to slap the face of the father on whose knee they sit.