Mxss. Universe

From TheResurgent, by Stacey Lennox:

“After winning the 2018 Miss Universe Spain pageant, Angela Ponce, a biological male who has undergone gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy, has not only become the first trans contestant in the Miss Universe competition, but the odds makers’ hands-down favorite.”

“Now, in a global contest, a biological man is favored to walk away with the title. A biological man with a natural ability to maintain a leaner physique. A biological man whose female presentation is the creation of a surgeon’s blade and facility for sculpting. Whose anatomy, if their transition is full, contains a wound that will need to maintained as such and implants for breasts and cheeks. There is absolutely nothing authentic here. Yet Ponce had this to say in her interview:

“Trans women have been persecuted and erased for so long. If they give me the crown, it would show trans women are just as much women as cis women.”

“This is absolutely untrue. Ponce will never ovulate. She will never carry a child to term that was created from her own unique ovum. She will never experience intimacy the way a woman does even if the mechanics look similar. The only thing being erased here is the achievements and opportunities for biological women. And these will continue to be erased if this madness continues.”

Of course this had to happen. Stacey expressed a lot of concern for the women and their families who have spent countless amounts of time and money to prepare for competitions, whether beauty pageants or sports, and how unfair and uncompetitive it is for these biological women to have to directly compete with biological men. She emphasized that men, those of cellular XY chromosomes (my definition), have naturally more muscle mass and less subcutaneous fat, and therefore benefit more relative to biological women from training and exercise athletically. True, but biological truth underscores a much bigger issue. Since the issue I see doesn’t appear to have occurred to society as a whole, let me explain.

When people like “Angela”, or (warning, deadnaming ahead) whatever his name was before the changes, looked in the mirror, what did he see? He saw himself, as God made him–assuming he wasn’t wearing makeup, or a wig at the time. He didn’t like what he saw. Maybe he hated having to shave, or wanted longer hair, maybe he preferred women’s clothing and makeup, or maybe it wasn’t just what was in the mirror. Maybe his body was unmasculine or effeminate, maybe his penis was small and he caught snickers in the locker room. I don’t know what specifically, but something major was not working for him. So far, that’s not uncommon. Lots of people, especially kids, don’t like how they look. I didn’t, until I was around 22. Not liking how you look can be rational. Most people live with it, or improve their diet and exercise habits, or cover up their mirror until they mature. What is not rational is to interpret not liking what you see or how you feel as constituting evidence that you are REALLY the other sex! It is not rational for an XY male to say “I feel like a female.” You aren’t, you cannot know how a biological female feels or thinks, and you never will despite the skillfulness of your surgeon. That wound you decide to replace your penis with is not, and never will be, a healthy vagina, it is a wound and has to be cared for as such. So how is it that so many people accept the irrational idea that a youth can know they are not the sex that their chromosomes, and therefore their appearance, says they are? I mentioned in a recent blog that in one school in Brighton, England, 76 students between ages of 11-16 considered themselves “gender non conforming.” This would be considered child abuse if society was still rational about gender, if not for the propaganda and bullying of the trans-express!

The issue I am flogging here is mass acceptance of delusional thinking, further exacerbated by puberty blocking drugs, hormones that don’t belong and irreversible surgery. Insane! What did “Angela” say? “Trans women have been persecuted and erased for so long ….trans women are just as much woman as cis (biological) women.” I don’t hold with persecution of anyone for any reason, let alone something they can’t help, or a big mistake they made, or what they believe or how they look. If they committed a crime, they should be punished according to the law. But if they are miserable, deformed, a different color, or anything other than a criminal, they should not be persecuted. But I have a problem with the word “persecuted”. Christians and Jews in Islamic countries are persecuted. Muslims in Myanmar are persecuted. Just about everyone in China is persecuted. Was Angela persecuted? In Spain? Then won Miss Spain 2018? I take that word a lot more seriously than Angela. But you are not just as much a woman as a woman, because you aren’t a woman at all. You LOOK like a woman, that’s for sure, but you are saying, in effect, that women are only what they look like. Your body will not do the things a woman’s body can do, your mind will not perceive what a woman’s mind can perceive.

If I have not been clear enough, for a person to insist they know they are not the sex that God made them, they are delusional, they are denying God’s design for them, and elevating their interpretations of their feelings and dislikes above God’s sovereignty, if they even believe in God. If they don’t, so much the worse for them. Do the rest of us, and our children, have to bear the costs of their delusions? Apparently so. Keep it up folks, just don’t express dismay years from now that children have disappeared.

Come on in, the water’s fine…the blood is better.

My recent posts were intended to reveal and revile what I call the LGBT agenda and the propaganda designed to promote it and neuter opposition. This post is, to borrow from Monty Python’s Flying Circus, “something completely different.” There is a shining hope for those struggling with same sex lust, you just have to invite him in. The previous sentence used the word lust, rather than the sanitized word attraction, because lust in that context is sexual. Attraction could mean a variety of things, including friendship. The problematic part is sexual lust, in particular for those who declare themselves or think themselves Christians.

“Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own...” 1 Corinthians 6:18. What is “sexual immorality?” A better question is, “what use of my body grieves and defiles the Holy Spirit within me?” Because that is the issue. Before I accepted the Lordship of Jesus Christ over me, my lust was out of control. Outwardly, I was a model of decorum and restraint. Inwardly, I was a raging dirty young man. I sought pornography, which further inflamed my lust. In the days before the internet, pornography was mainly magazines, videotapes and peepshows. I became sort of a student of furtiveness, as most of those who patronized such places were, like me, ashamed of their behavior but unable to control their desire. I noticed that men who rented heterosexual videos rented one or two at a time, but men who rented homosexual videos rented armloads. My thoughts about them were, “poor bastards, their bondage is worse than mine.” Maybe in quantity, but not quality. Bondage is bondage.

When I dated women, I was outwardly restrained, never aggressive, but always looking for a gesture or word that indicated permission to go farther. Oh, my inner life was a maelstrom of conflict. Lust will do that. I longed to be freed from such impulses. I suppressed any thoughts of an overarching God who might be judging me, or grieved by my behavior. Then, in October of 1986, I met a man with one eye whose face was crisscrossed with scars and whose hands were twisted from burns and who limped painfully along, all from a hand grenade blowing him up in Vietnam. Yet, he was joyous, he radiated peace, and as we shook hands, a voice within me cried out, “I am looking into the eye of the living Christ.” Later that day, I was on my knees, begging that spirit to enter me too.

I would love to say, “everything changed”, that I was freed instantly from my lustful thoughts and habits, but it didn’t work that way. What did happen, gradually, was that my desire to gratify my lust was replaced by a desire to please God and not grieve the Holy Spirit. However, habits of thought lead to habits of behavior, and habits of both become hard wired into neural pathways, which are remarkably persistent. I spent years praying for my habits to be changed, then relying on willpower. I married, but my thought habits interfered with properly loving my wife. I got to know a man who was a virgin when he married a virgin, and they had a bond that I longed for. I so regret premarital sex! Remember that question, “what is sexual immorality?” It is anything that interferes with the total intimacy that the union of a man and woman can be, whether pornography, premarital sex, adultery or homosexuality. Such behaviors defile and grieve the Holy Spirit, and despoil your life and family.

Here’s the hope I referred to at the beginning of this post. By submitting my life to Jesus Christ, I became perfect in God’s sight, because Jesus is perfect. I am still a sinner, my thought habits are considerably weakened but have not gone away, and my struggles are daily, but I am covered by the grace of God, or by Jesus’ blood, as we Christians say, and so I am not worried that God is condemning me. He sees me as belonging to His Son, therefore perfect. We human beings make everything about us, and judge ourselves according to whatever standards we adopted, but once we belong to Jesus Christ, He says “no one can snatch them out of my hands.” What matters is how God sees us, not how other people do nor how we see ourselves.

Does this mean that once we belong to Christ, we are free to sin and not worry? No! It means our old desires to sin are replaced by new desires to please God, and though we fail regularly, as we will because we are wired that way, we can repent and move on. “Then Peter came up and said to him, ‘Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times’.”Matthew 18:21-22. This applies to us as well. We sin, we repent, God forgives, rinse and repeat. Jesus is saying you forgive as often as your brother repents and asks forgiveness. That’s also what God does for us. If you truly belong to Jesus Christ, you will repent and beg forgiveness when you sin, and your Father in heaven will forgive you because you belong to Jesus Christ. If you say you belong to Jesus, but keep sinning pridefully, or think you have nothing to repent of, you have to question who you really belong to. BUT, don’t be an idiot and keep pushing yourself into the face of temptation. That’s what this “Spiritual Friendship” deal is, trying to make yourself okay with God by “proving” you can handle temptation, remaining celibate while fending off homosexual desires. You can’t and you don’t have to. You are perfect because Jesus is perfect, if his blood covers you. The swimming pool of grace is warm and ready for you, come on in, the water is fine.

The power of 3 letters and 1 syllable.

If you’re a regular reader of my blog, all 4 of you, you’re probably getting bored with my harping on this subject. What subject, you ask? If you don’t know, you’re not a regular reader so you can’t accuse me of being tedious, can you? If you are a real regular, then you will understand that the importance of the subject justifies the interest. As you know, I have been writing, some would say railing or ranting or both, about the outrageous success of the LGBT marketing/propaganda machine in changing language, then minds, and finally policy makers’ attitudes towards their, ahem, orientation/desires/lifestyle/choices. It’s all fine, just don’t mention sexual behavior. If not for strong admonitions against things like homosexual acts, dressing like the other sex, and self mutilation in the Bible, probably most heterosexual i.e. “cisgender, straight binary-affirming” people of the United States would be tolerant of LGBT behavior. Naturally, an effective propaganda machine must mount a strong re-education  effort to and in churches.

From The Washington Post, by Michelle Boorstein: “Josh Gonnerman, 29, a theology PhD student at Catholic University, writes for the spiritualfriendship website and speaks easily about embracing his gayness. When he came out in the mid-2000s, Gonnerman says, church leaders weren’t speaking about celibacy because they had ‘sort of thrown their lot in with the Republican Party’ and wouldn’t talk inclusively in any way about LGBT people. The LGBT group he and Tushnet  (Eve, another writer on the same website) are part of at Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle, he said, has gone from more of a “support group” to something more upbeat that organizes social and spiritual activities for members — not all of whom accept church teaching on celibacy.

“The desire of these new celibacy advocates to emphasize the positive and to not have LGBT people defined by their sex lives has left what can look like a gaping hole: Virtual silence on the difficulty of not having sex. Or about sex in general. Many of the essays on the blog tend toward the academic, removed from physical human passions or desires. Some say they are simply hesitant to speak or write publicly about topics, such as whether it’s okay to think about sex, or to masturbate, and whether they find celibacy difficult. 

“Tushnet urges people not to focus so much on the sex they can’t have and instead find other places to pursue intimacy, such as deeper friendships that could be seen as spouselike, co-living arrangements, public service and the arts as ways to express intimacy. More typical is the experience of Charleigh Linde, 24, who said she was sick of “lying all the time” and came out last year to her community at the conservative evangelical megachurch McLean Bible, in Vienna, which she calls incredibly warm — “like family.” Her pastor told her she could remain as a leader of young adult ministry but only if she was celibate. Many at the church told her that they were praying for her to become straight, yet several of her McLean friends went with her last month to a conference called the Reformation Project, where hundreds of gay Christians trained at ways to promote what they see as full equality — not celibacy — at their conservative churches. These are people who aren’t comfortable with the liturgy or theology of liberal churches.Maybe it’s the service, or that they don’t put as much emphasis on the Bible. I wouldn’t want to go to a gay church because I don’t want that to be the focus. It’s about Jesus,” Linde said of affirming churches. The theology around celibacy doesn’t make sense to her either, and Linde now says she believes gay relationships are okay. She expects this will eventually force her to leave McLean. Yet she considers it progress that she remains — for now — in leadership as an openly gay person.”

There was a lot more in the WaPo article but for the sake of brevity, I will leave the rest of the article out and focus on the significance of passages I put in bold print. “Embracing his gayness.” What, exactly, is gayness if homosexual sex isn’t on the table? Gonnerman and Tushnet are among the 12 writers on the spiritualfriendship website, which is named after the title of a book by another of those writers, Wesley Hill. The book is Spiritual Friendship: Finding love in the church as a celibate, gay Christian. I have made this point before, but will beat it to death if need be: If two or more people of the same sex have no desire for sex with each other, but just want to be friends, what’s the problem? It’s just a friendship, perfectly fine with even us Bible thumpers. What is the need for a website devoted to the idea of “celibate gay Christians”, with 12 writers, some of whom also write books on the subject. What about that subject necessitates hundreds of thousands of words? I will get to that.

“Sort of thrown their lot in with the Republican Party.” Huh? What does that have to do with church leaders speaking about celibacy? “Not all of whom accept church teaching on celibacy.” In other words, some of the members of their intimate group believe that homosexual and lesbian sex is okay for Christians. Josh and Eve, if you have a group made up of Christians who are struggling with unbiblical sexual desires, and some of the members resolve to be celibate and others think acting on their desires are okay, and they all socialize together, what is inevitable? Everyone will embrace celibacy? No, try again. The temptation for sex will grow? Getting warmer! Having trouble with this. Okay, I will say it, many of the celibate will fall. Just like a social group of alcoholics who meet in a bar, and some belong to AA and are sober, and others still imbibe. How long before the sober numbers decline!

“Not have LGBT people defined by their sex lives has left what can look like a gaping hole.” If you are homosexual or lesbian and are not engaging in and have no desire for sex with your sex, then how is homosexuality or “gayness ” a part of your identity? I go back to what Josh said about “embracing his gayness” What the heck is that? I am open to being educated, but I have to believe that homosexual desires play a big part. The author of the WaPo article says the gaping hole is sex, having or not having, even discussing it or celibacy. That’s my point about this “gay Christian celibacy” movement. In the Victorian Era in England, people covered more of their bodies than ever before, but more people were sex obsessed than before or even now. The Muslims who insist women wear burquas are actually more sex obsessed than the French men who see lots of female skin.  Sexual lust is NOT diminished by covering the body or trying to be celibate, it is inflamed!

“See as full equality–not celibacy–in their conservative churches.” Here’s the issue that makes “Spiritual Friendship” so problematic. The SF people are forming social groups within their churches with LGBT people who regard unbiblical sex as equality! Under those conditions, celibacy is doomed, lust wins in the end. Why? That’s how human neuroscience works. When we try to deny, or overcome our temptation, especially lust, on our own willpower or with our own affirmations, we have to visualize the very thing we want to avoid. “I am not going to think about sex with that sexy whomever” causes you to keep seeing the image of whomever. Your subconscious doesn’t know that you are trying to avoid that, because it’s operating mechanism is designed to go after what you visualize. Look at the example of Charleigh Linde, above. She embraced the idea of celibacy, but went to the Reformation Project, and now says “The theology around celibacy doesn’t make sense to her either, and Linde now says she believes gay relationships are okay.”

So now to summarize three points. 1. I titled this post the power three letters and one syllable. I refer to gay, which became the replacement for homosexual, because gay was a positive word, had no prior negative connotations, is short and easy to say, and to fit on signs. 2. I said that I would get to the answer to What about that subject necessitates hundreds of thousands of words? The subject of spiritual friendship is really trying to unlink the word “gay” from homosexual acts, and such contortions require mucho words. But it won’t work. 3. The power of converting “gay” from happy to homo was that it could refer to homosexuality in a vague way, but actually meant nothing. It was a successful way of sanitizing homosexual acts. It was marketing an agenda, and obviously worked. LGBT propaganda seduced even the church, and the damage is hardly done. I just read today about one school in Britain where LGBT, emphasis on the T, propaganda damage breaks my heart. Peter Heck, writing for The Resurgent:

Dorothy Stringer School, in Brighton, has had 40 pupils between the ages of eleven and 16 who do not identify with their biological sex. A further 36 pupils identify as ‘gender-fluid’…..Think about that: 76 gender-confused students in one school. The LGBT sexual revolution breeds the confusion; they provoke it, encourage it, then thrive on it and use it to their advantage. And in a decade’s time, when mutilated, infertile, depressed and suicidal young adults look back with regret and ask us, “Why did you let me do this to myself?” it will be too late.” It all started with gay.

In the sky, it’s leftism, no it’s progressive-ism, no it’s socialism, no it’s Scrooge-ism! Yeah!

What do you call the philosophy of someone who is almost: never grateful, never satisfied, always offended by something, hates to see others get ahead, whose normal expression is either a frown or a smirk, and whose debating style is spouting slogans and shouting down any disagreement? The usual terms-leftist, progressive, socialist-really are not descriptive enough. Let me suggest a better moniker. Nearly everyone, even members of our techno generation who would only read a book at gun point or when their smartphone went dumb, is familiar with the famous character in the Dickens novel A Christmas Carol. His name became synonymous with miserly, it’s Scrooge! That constellation of sour attributes I listed is perfectly described by Scrooge-ism. Of course, not every person who leans left or progressive is a Scrooge. Are you? Look in the mirror. If your default expression is a frown or a smirk, or you can’t decide between them, you are a Scrooge-ist.

What does this mean in every day, practical terms? Let’s assign some numbers to determine where you fit on the Scrooge scale. The more points, the Scroogier you are. Do you comb the news, internet, social media looking for examples of how bad things are? When you read about devastating wildfires, or category 5 hurricanes, or a heatwave somewhere, do you immediately think “climate change”, do you reject other explanations, do you automatically condemn the usual suspects–oil companies, Republicans, greedy SUV owners? Give yourself 5 points if you checked all the boxes. If you are hiding a Hummer, Tahoe, Expedition or Dodge Ram pickup, or similar vehicle in your garage, and only drive the Prius when someone is looking, double your points for hypocrisy.

Do you inspect traditional or worship music, or only tune into Christian radio listening for any whiff of racism, sexism, homophobia, trans-exclusion or binary gender pronoun? If so, give yourself another 5 points. If you then accuse the music of whatever prejudice you think you found, and protest and rail against use of that music, give yourself another 5 points. Do you gratuitously mention (President) Trump at least a dozen times a day? Give yourself 1 point for every mention of his name, double the points if you use pejorative slurs each time. Do you accuse someone of racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, misgendering, deadnaming or trans-exclusionary daily, even if it’s shouting at the TV? That’s another 10 points, for attempted mind reading.

Now here’s the hard truth to face. You (and I) are privileged to be citizens of the United States. If you are not grateful for your privilege but spread guilt instead of gratitude, give yourself 10 points, and slap yourself upside the head. What percentage of your income do you give to charities that serve the causes or people you admire and trumpet? Subtract 1 point for each percent of income given, from your point total so far. If your total charitable giving is less than 10% of your after-tax income, add 1 point for every percent below 10 back to your point total. If you don’t give anything but spare change to charity, give yourself another 10 hypocrisy points. Do you vote in every election, including local elections, and study the voter guide to educate yourself on candidates, issues, and initiatives? If it’s no, give yourself 5 points for laziness and ignorance. Wait a second, uncle curmudgeon, I occasionally vote. Does it have to be all or none? What if I’m out of the country? I always vote via mail because I have trouble getting around, due to a stroke. What’s your excuse? Mail it in!

This was just a test sample, not the whole test, but let’s review how much of a Scrooge you are. The maximum number of points someone could get on the sample test is 87, and that’s if they mention Trump a dozen times daily, pejoratively every time, give nothing to charity, are hiding a gas guzzler in their garage, don’t vote, protest innocuous song lyrics, and aren’t grateful for their status as citizen. Wow, not someone you might want to have a beer with, especially if it isn’t a European import. Unless you are cut from the same cloth. I could easily compile another list of the foibles of conservatives. In fact, conservatives who don’t conserve what is good about our country and traditions, but seek the approval of Scrooge-ists, deserve the whole 87 points too.

So how did you do? If you scored near 87, you may adjust your attitude, rigorously examine your assumptions, and re-test. If you’d rather not, buy a white wig, a top hat, a long black coat and gather up your gold doubloons. Let your inner Scrooge out.

A blizzard of words covers up an issue like a blizzard of snow.

it’s too cold for jockstraps

Just moments after I published my Camel in the tent post, I read a very long blog post by Ron Belgau, a writer on the SpiritualFriendship website. The title of his post was “What is ‘gay’?” From what I could glean just from the post, he is “gay”, as in homosexual, but homosexual in the sense of seeking deep friendships with other men. It was not clear to me whether sex was part of these friendships. He is a very good writer, and very precise with his terms and definitions. He also apologized for the length of the post, more than once, explaining that the degree of precision he was seeking necessitated the length. You may wonder, “is the word ‘gay’ that complicated?” He seems to think so. I do not. I followed a link in his blog to Denny Burke, whose website is subtitled A Commentary on Theology, Politics, and Culture. Lovely, I’m surprised that he doesn’t have a meme of an exploding hand grenade as his masthead. Seriously though, I think he is right on. If you want, here’s the link. http://www.dennyburk.com/the-celibate-gay-christian-movement-what-do-we-think-about-it/

If you don’t want to read the entire post-and it isn’t long-here’s the main point: “I still think, however, that there is confusion about same-sex attraction. What I have been writing about in recent posts is in large part a response to the Christian affirmations of same-sex attraction that are on display in this article. Once the sinful elements of lust and fornication are removed, same-sex attraction is no longer same-sex attraction—at least not the way SSA has been defined clinically. The defining element of same-sex attraction is desire for a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Once that desire is removed, it is no longer SSA. It is just friendship. In that sense, same-sex attraction is not a means to better, more holy friendships. It is an impediment to them. When one feels himself desiring a sexual relationship with a person of the same-sex, the only appropriate response is repentance from sin (2 Tim. 2:22). It is not right or helpful to think of that sinful attraction as the foundation for building holy friendships. It is not.” How much clearer can you be? I can be yet more brief: The very existence of an alternative meaning of the word “gay”, which through hundreds of years meant happy and carefree (exactly what homosexuals are not), is evidence of something being covered up in order to market it to those who would find the truth unsavory. See my previous post, The camel in the tent, right after the word “desensitization”.

Mr. Belgau does not agree, but quotes another blogger, Chris Damian, who appears to be one of the Spiritual Friendship writers: “There are those who would say that identifying with the word ‘gay’ is a distortion of human identity, that it is reductionistic and confines someone’s entire identity to just one aspect. This is a danger, but this is hardly what I (and my celibate gay friends) are doing. Human language can only work in broad categories. We create words for things, even though words have a danger of confining things. People will always be bigger than the words we use to describe them, and words will always have the tendency to give us narrow views. But this danger shouldn’t keep us from using words. I am a man; I am American; I am single; I am 5’10”; I am hungry; I am tired: I am happy: I am sad; I am studious; I am foolish; I am fallen; I am sinful; I am hopeful; I am inquisitive; and I am gay. I’m not just any one of these things, but I am all of these things. You could ask me to not categorize myself in terms of my sexual identity because I am not just my sexuality; but if you’re going to do that, you might as well not ask me to categorize myself at all.”

That sounds oh so reasonable, but whenever I see “reductionistic” used in this context, it smacks of trying to avoid being pinned down. Belgau goes into a lengthy explanation of how being gay differs from being homosexual, and defends gay as the broader term, which includes celibate same sex friendships. Not so fast my friend. 1. If sex is not desired, no special term like gay needs to be even part of the discussion. 2. If homosexual sex was not unsavory to most people, and if sexual desire were not lurking in the background, the original meaning of the word gay would have been left alone, instead of being used to replace the word homosexual. Yes, the one syllable word DID replace the five syllable word. 3. When you see gay pride parades, do you ever see a sign that says homosexual pride? No, and not because it’s more difficult to fit it on a sign. What do you see? What is on parade? Celibate friendships? Or homosexual acts, both simulated and actual. Can you say “unsavory”? 4. The very idea you can remain celibate in the presence of someone you are sexually attracted to is ludicrous. How do you do it? Willpower? Not enough. Or is the Holy Spirit protecting you? If so, you would “flee temptation”, as Paul advised.

Like I said, Belgau and Damian have to use so many words to sanitize the word gay. Why even write about it, if not to make it more palatable? I think it’s pretty simple. Gay was the first word alteration, the opening salvo, of a new lexicon of desensitization.

The camel in the tent.

compassion, tolerance, then eviction

There’s an Arabian parable that most of us have heard in one form or another about the camel and the tent. I am going to retell it more or less as I heard, with some fillips of my own just to make it more interesting. A wandering desert nomad named Abdul decided to bed down for the night. Deserts, as you might know, tend to be hot during the day, and to cool down rapidly once the sun sets. This particular night, it got unusually cold, and Abdul was grateful for his little tent. His faithful camel, as usual, was sleeping outside. Well, not really sleeping, he was restless and cold, and decided to share the tent with Abdul. Since sharing was not in his job description, camel had to be subtle, and adopted the strategy of gradualism.

Abdul was suddenly awakened by a wet nose and bad breath in his face. Camel was poking his nose in the tent, and as sweetly as possible, asked, “master Abdul, my nose is so cold, I beg you to be compassionate and allow me to warm my nose inside the tent.” Abdul, remembering camel’s years of faithful service, thought “what harm can it do to share my tent with my camel’s nose?” So he let the camel keep his nose inside the tent. Abdul fell asleep quickly, but in moments was awakened by a nudge. Camel’s nose was followed by his big head and long neck, such things being attached. “Compassionate master, the night is yet colder and my ears are freezing. Please allow my head and neck to share the tent, along with my nose and you.” Camel asked, while looking at Abdul with those big, liquid eyes. Once again, Abdul showed his mercy. “Can I refuse such a reasonable request from my faithful companion? No, I will allow it.”

Camel, though an animal, understood the strategy of gradualism better than compassionate Abdul. Soon the nose, head and neck were followed by the forelegs, and with each request granted, Abdul found it harder to deny the next request. If he could share his tent with camel’s nose, why not his head and neck, and then why not his forelegs, then his thorax, then his back legs? Soon, Abdul woke up shivering. He found that camel had his entire body inside the tent, leaving no room for Abdul. I never found out what happened after Abdul was completely outside and camel was completely inside. I believe the tale ends there. However, the lesson does not.

A 1909 essay by John B. West, founder of the West legal classification system, used the metaphor to describe the difficulty of trying to insert an otherwise innocuous set of facts into a rigid legal system: “it is the old story of the camel’s head in the tent. What seems at first a plausible pretense for forcing some novel case or new principle into a topic or subdivision to which it does not naturally belong, leads to hopeless confusion.” In a 1915 book of fables by Horace Scudder, the story titled The Arab and His Camel ends with the moral: “It is a wise rule to resist the beginnings of evil.”

I will let that last statement digest awhile. Evil usually begins innocuously, be it any dictator, movement, or legal and political strategies. If the true aims of a dictator or a movement of domination were recognized in the beginning, it would be easy and effective to resist. The bombastic people are rarely the most fearsome in the end, rather it’s those who conceal their aims under the cloaks (cliches?) of compassion, fairness, inclusiveness, and equality who are able to steal the tent before you know it. The strategy I called gradualism aims to overthrow the existing order, whatever it may be, by subversive “education”, taking the form of: introduction of new words into the common vocabulary or changing the definitions of words; endless beating of the drums of those four words in bold as the rationale for changing perceptions.

A Scottish pastor/blogger I follow, David Robertson, recommended a book called That Hideous Strength, by Melvin Tinker, from which I quote:

“A manual of sorts for this kind of campaign was a book, Kirk and Madsen’s After the ball: How America Will Conquer It’s Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s. Kirk and Madsen combined psychiatry and public relations expertise to set out their strategy.    They advocated a gradualist approach (getting the nose in the tent) before going on to use three ploys.

1. Desensitization – Create a flood of pro-homosexual advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion.

2. Jamming – More active and aggressive than desensitisation.   Aim to produce ’emotional dissonance’.  Portray those who are traditional in their stance as KKK type right-wing homophobes.  Make sure that anyone who dares to disagree with your agenda is automatically labelled in this way.  Ensure that a reasonable case against your position is never presented – always ensure it is the extremes.

3. Conversion – Desensitization lets the watch run down; jamming throws sand in the works, but conversion reverses the spring so that the hands run backwards. In advocating this approach they actually taught that it was okay to lie (because they had been lied about).   ‘It makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us because we are using them to ethically good effect. to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much.’

“As Goebbels knew there were three characteristics to propaganda  – rely on emotional manipulation, use lies and be subjective and one-sided.’ Kirk and Marsden saw the church as the major obstacle and so should be attacked and undermined in every way possible (although I would suggest that the church had already been undermined by the presence of false teachers who were only too happy to go along with the worlds agenda).”

Sound familiar? It should, it’s exactly what happened. Desensitization always begins with a plea for understanding and tolerance; it usually ends with the camel in the tent that used to be Abdul’s. Shame on the church, by which I mean everyone who accepts the Bible as the word of God. Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:18, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Gates are purely defensive, to repel invaders. When Jesus says they “shall not prevail”, he is saying that his church will not be repelled by the gates of hell. That means the church is expected to attack, not defend. Since Jesus’ words WILL prevail, the camel had better not celebrate victory yet.

What if feelings trumped truth?

I have been writing a lot lately about the trans express, or maybe it’s a bulldozer. It seems that a new lexicon has been thrust on us with astounding rapidity and emotion: misgendering, cisgender, deadnaming, trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), gender dysphoria. The following definitions were taken from Trans students educational resources. My comments are underlined. But know this: VOCABULARY IS THE PRE-EMPTIVE “FIRST Strike” WEAPON IN A WAR OF WORLDVIEWS! The LGBTQ/Whatever activist corps is not satisfied with mere acceptance. The end game is applause and total accommodation.

Sex Assigned At Birth: The assignment and classification of people as male, female, intersex, or another sex assigned at birth often based on physical anatomy at birth and/or karyotyping. Is sex “assigned”? If so, by whom? The operant principle behind this contention is that your sex is not only arbitrary, but foisted on you by whomever supposedly does the assigning. What about cause-effect? Your cells normally have either XX or XY chromosomes; they determine your physical anatomy, hormones and brain chemistry. Who, then, assigned your chromosomes?

Gender Identity: One’s internal sense of being male, female, neither of these, both, or other gender(s). Everyone has a gender identity, including you. For transgender people, their sex assigned at birth and their gender identity are not necessarily the same. Internal sense? If you have been born a certain sex, and that’s all you know, how can you have a “sense”of something you have no experience of? The tipoff that this is utter confusion is “neither of these or ‘other genders’.” What other genders? A true hermaphrodite, someone born with sexual apparatus of both sexes, may have both female chromosomes, XX, and male, XY. Is that what they mean?

Cis(gender): Adjective that means “identifies as their sex assigned at birth” derived from the Latin word meaning “on the same side.” A cisgender/cis person is not transgender. “Cisgender” does not indicate biology, gender expression, or sexuality/sexual orientation. In discussions regarding trans issues, one would differentiate between women who are trans and women who aren’t by saying trans women and cis women. Cis is not a “fake” word and is not a slur. Note that cisgender does not have an “ed” at the end. Just the creation of the prefix “cis” is meant to normalize birth characteristics with chosen characteristics. If someone is “transgender”, that’s their decision based on their interpretation of feelings. There is no need for the word “cisgender” except to water down the concept of normality.

Transgender/Trans: An umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. The term transgender is not indicative of gender expression, sexual orientation, hormonal makeup, physical anatomy, or how one is perceived in daily life. Note that transgender does not have an “ed” at the end. Then what the heck is it indicative of?

Transsexual: A deprecated term that is often considered pejorative similar to transgender in that it indicates a difference between one’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth. Transsexual often – though not always – implicates hormonal/surgical transition from one binary gender (male or female) to the other. Unlike transgender/trans, transsexual is not an umbrella term, as many transgender people do not identify as transsexual. When speaking/writing about trans people, please avoid the word transsexual unless asked to use it by a transsexual person. Everything I read, see or hear in the media indicates that transgendered persons want, even demand, hormonal/surgical “transition.” I would like to know what proportion of transgendered folks don’t want their appearance altered to look like the sex they identify with.

Binary: Used as an adjective to describe the genders female/male or woman/man. Since the binary genders are the only ones recognized by general society as being legitimate, they enjoy an (unfairly) privileged status. Ah, the now familiar privilege canard!  Are you privileged to identify with your biological God-given sex/gender? Notice I resist the false distinction between sex and gender being foisted upon the majority. By calling gender a social construct, they make it sound arbitrary. If indeed you are privileged, you can be grateful, or you can feel guilty. These definers want you to feel guilty. If binary genders are a “privilege”,  what is having your privacy in the bathroom invaded by someone who feels like your sex, but isn’t, and who considers a unisex bathroom option as “exclusionary”?

Bigender: Refers to those who identify as two genders. Can also identify as multigender (identifying as two or more genders). Do not confuse this term with Two-Spirit, which is specifically associated with Native American and First Nations cultures. Two or more genders? How many? How ridiculous is this getting?

Cissexism: Systemic prejudice in the favor of cisgender people. Prejudice, by whom? Is not wanting to share a bathroom with someone who looks like the opposite sex prejudice? If you mistakenly use the “deadname” or wrong pronoun for  trans person, and can be blocked from social media or fired from your job because, is that not prejudice?

It’s like I said, this is a war of lexicons and concepts. I never wanted LGBTQ’ers to be denied a job or promotion, or bullied or assaulted  because of who they are. Today, however, that’s less of a systemic problem than individuals, politicians and employers being harassed or threatened because they won’t accept special privileges for the LGBTQ posse.