Getting to the root of the gender vs. sex theory.

Misgendering = bullet hole

When something that is regarded by almost everyone in almost every culture at almost any time in history as a basic truth, except by a tiny minority of people, and suddenly that truth is attacked emotionally, rather than on the basis of fact, you can know that a strong vested interest is involved. Some powerful interests always WANT a new theory to explain why practically everyone was wrong, and that theory must justify the feelings and choices of a new favored group. Such new theories, during my lifetime, have mostly been in the realm of sexuality, though what is really being attacked is the concept of objective truth itself. That part isn’t new at all.

Augustine taught that man still has freewill, but his will is in bondage to the sinful nature and he cannot do what is godly, only that which fallen man desires, which is never focused God-ward (Romans 8:9; 1 Cor. 2; John 6:44). The Law of God, revealed in the Old Testament, exists to show us that we human beings cannot please God by our own efforts. Opposed to that doctrine was Pelagianism. The monk Pelagius was essentially a legalist and moralist who thought that the teachings of Augustine, which he had heard taught and preached in Rome, cheapened grace and gave men the ability to live a life that they pleased, without much respect for the commands of God. Pelagius believed in the power of the human will, that if God commands us via his law to do something, we must be able to perform as God has commanded–the opposite of what Paul taught in his New Testament letters. Pelagius’ teachings were condemned by a church council in 416 A.D.

What does this have to do with my central topic? Homosexuality was condemned by most cultures and most historical contexts as a sinful choice, but current LGBTQ dogma puts Pelagianism to death. The newest slogan of homosexual activists is “born this way“, meaning I guess that you are not responsible for resisting desires which you were born with, or speaking theologically, it isn’t sinful if you can’t help it, and you can’t help it if you were born with it. It’s an Augustinian doctrine without the possibility of grace. In the New Testament, there are numerous examples of both Jesus Christ and some of his disciples–Paul, Peter, Philip–instantly curing physical conditions which people were born with, when both the curer and the cured had faith in Jesus. So grace through faith can cure anything. The “Augustinian” worldview, with regards to any kind of desire, is that God can give you the grace to eventually conform your desires to a “likeness” of Jesus Christ.

What if you don’t want to? I believe that homosexual acts are unhealthy, guilt producing, and God-separating, and while I personally find the acts, which homosexuals avoid talking about (but are sometimes on display during San Francisco pride marches) distasteful, I don’t dislike nor denigrate homosexuals as individuals. Your sexuality is mainly an issue between you and your Creator….until you start promoting it to children and inflicting your dogma on the larger society. Then you become an enemy. The “born this way” justification used to foist puberty blocking drugs and hormones, and sexual appearance surgery, on confused children, is enemy action. I am going to dissect the very heart of the transgenderism agenda, which lies near the bottom in the muck of the homosexuality slippery slope.

1. Gender is strictly a cultural phenomenon. This contention is the heart of the transgender agenda, and it’s a half truth that is irrelevant. Gender is FIRST established by the pronouns used to describe the newborn child’s sexual organs! If the mother has experienced an ultrasound, the physician and even the technician can tell her what sex the child is well before birth. So yes, gender is a matter of pronoun, but pronoun is a matter of sexual organs! Gender is reinforced through clothing, expectations, pronouns and other hallmarks of living in a culture, and in that sense ONLY is gender cultural; the cultural has first been determined by sex, which is determined by chromosomes.

2. Sex can be “reassigned” by surgery. This is patently stupid. “Sex reassignment” surgery is known by a variety of names, including gender reassignment, sex change, sex affirmation, and genital reconstruction surgery. These procedures are all known clinically as genitoplasty. Nothing is being reassigned, because no human being assigned a person’s sex in the first place. Genitoplasty is accurate, because the genitals are being altered to look like the other sex, which gives lie to another plank in the trans agenda…

3. non-binary means multiple genders are possible, or you are what you identify as, i.e. modern gender theory. When genitoplasty is done, what are the patients’ genitals sculpted to look like? How about the OTHER SEX? Has anyone ever seen “non-binary” genital sculpting? What would it look like? The next time someone says they are “non-binary”, ask, “if you stripped off your clothes, what would I see between your legs?” What would “non-binary” genitoplasty look like? Even if the patient was given add-on genitalia without undoing their natural genitalia, it would still be binary, unless the surgeon was really superwoke. In that case, they might present a catalog of non-binary genitalia, with the patient allowed to choose any variation, appropriately priced, of course. This suggests a brand new field for avant-garde artists to plow.

4. Inclusive is good, exclusive is bad. Remember the kid who first got kicked out of class, and then out of the school entirely, for challenging modern gender theory? The teacher kept reiterating “this is an inclusive school, this is government policy that we want an inclusive society.” What ever happened to the American Express slogan, membership has its privileges? Who wants to be admitted to an inclusive club, if you can be admitted to an exclusive club? Aren’t the dues or tuitions higher for exclusive rather than inclusive? Really, what is good about inclusive? I’m with Groucho Marx. Cue the wagging eyebrows and twirling cigar as he delivers the final word, “I wouldn’t join a club that would have me as a member.”

Author: iamcurmudgeon

When I began this blog, I was a 70 year old man, with a young mind and a body trying to recover from a stroke, and my purpose for this whole blog thing is to provoke thinking, to ridicule reflex reaction, and provide a legacy to my children.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s