Tag Archive for: Transgender

A Wolf in Women’s Clothing: The One Question Trans-Activists Can’t Answer

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
Matthew 7:15 (ESV)

 

The bathroom debate has resurrected some very old questions about women’s rights.[1] Once upon a time, women fought for separate bathrooms from men. The reasons were obvious. Privacy, modesty, prudence, and the unfortunate fact that men have a worse record for physical and sexual violence. It’s not in women’s best interests to get stuck in a bathroom with a strange man, if she can help it. But in recent years, the common-sense solution of “separate bathrooms” has come under fire. The Trump administration has introduced a new level of pushback, but the bathroom debate is still far from settled. I have to wonder, however, if we could let the air out of this inflated debate by asking one simple question.

The Question Trans-Activists Can’t Answer

If we ask the right question, we can show that trans-activists aren’t very serious in proposing trans-inclusive bathrooms. Of course, trans-activists probably think they’re serious. We don’t have to question their intentions here either. Good intentions can’t redeem bad policy anyway. So, for the sake of argument, we can grant good intentions – compassion for marginalized people, commitment to justice, loving your neighbor, human rights, etc. But when activists push for trans-inclusive bathrooms they have to answer this important question. Otherwise, they haven’t really thought through the issue. So  they aren’t very serious. That question is simply this:

How do you police against the predators?

When I say “predators” I’m not talking about all LGBTQ folks or “trans-women” generally. I’m talking about would-be sex criminals: the voyeurs, rapists, pedophiles, criminal opportunists, and even “autogynephilic” men (males who derive sexual arousal from imagining themselves as women). Predators really exist. We can expect some predators to trespass into women’s restrooms as long as naïve policy allows them to. Predators are liable to spawn as long as the systems in place give mischievous males unfettered access to potential victims. In this way, predators are a reliable “test case” for progressive bathroom policies.

Trans vs. Trans-Acting?

We cannot rationally assume that every man who would use a women’s bathroom is a “trans-woman” (biological male who ‘identifies’ as female). Sure, he might be a classic transgender case who poses no real threat to women. But, he could instead be a cross-dresser who likes to sneak a peek at the ladies. He could be a flasher or a sexual harasser he gets a kick out of exposing himself or behaving rudely with women in the restroom. He could be a pedophile, taking mental pics of naked girls, to fantasize about them later. Or he could be a rapist who’d gladly wear a dress if it means open access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Or he could be a clinically sick teen boy using performative gender to corner his “girl crush”, alone, so  she can’t reject him if she tried. History, criminal psychology, and a healthy dose of realism, attest that these are all live possibilities as long as biological males are legally allowed in women’s restrooms.

Maintaining separate bathrooms has, traditionally, been the common-sense solution for reducing those threats. No solution is 100% perfect here. But, realistically, keeping biological males out of women’s restrooms and locker rooms is a good start for policing against perverts and predators. Dropping that wall of separation means reducing our practical ability to protect women from predators. Bear in mind, we still have active laws against flashers, sexual harassers, and peeping toms. But, if it’s legal to do all of that now, as long as you “trans-act”, then our bathroom policies have given perverts and predators an escape clause in our legal code.

Sheep, Goats and Wolves

It would be nice if every “trans-woman” was just an innocent, lost sheep. Maybe they just need a little care, understanding, and a little guidance, to bring them into the fold. Then God could redeem their own unique gender-expression and sexual identity however He sees fit. Perhaps if the church did a better job caring for “widows and orphans,” i.e., fatherlessness, we wouldn’t have as much transgenderism going around (James 1:27; Exod. 22:22; 1 Tim. 5:5). Undoubtedly, there are some lost sheep out there that fit this profile.

The debate over trans-inclusive bathrooms would be a lot simpler if we were only dealing with the proverbial lost sheep. But, realistically, our policies must also account for goats (fakes and frauds). And we especially need to watch out for the wolves (predators and criminal opportunists). We cannot reasonably assume every “trans-woman” is a “lost sheep.” Instead, we have every reason to expect some of them to be wolves in women’s clothing.

The next time someone offers a policy proposal where trans-women can use the women’s restroom, you can ask them how that policy will police against predators? It’s a fair question. We used to police against them by, first, separating bathrooms according to sex. But, if biological males are now allowed into women’s restrooms, how do we expect to replace that policing power now that the perimeter defenses are down?

Remember the Wisdom of Separate Bathrooms

The ugly answer seems to be that trans-inclusive bathroom policy was never intended for women’s safety, but rather for men’s convenience. Males who identify as female are the target audience here, even if biological women are left in the lurch because of it. When inclusive-bathroom policies unwittingly carry a pack of savvy predators, as stow-aways, then as soon as they’re dropped on women’s restrooms, that’s like airdropping a pack of wolves into the sheep pen. Women deserve better. Moreover, it doesn’t do trans-activists any favors when their own policy is readily hijacked by criminals and predators. We do well to preserve separate bathrooms.

References: 

[1] A “quick fix” solution here is to make only “single-stall” bathrooms. That option can work in some cases, but it’s often impractical for stadiums, locker rooms, health clubs, large businesses, and so forth. The bathroom debate isn’t that easily solved.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set) 

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

/by

The Surprising Way Tinkerbell Shows the Flaw in the Transgender Identity Crisis

,

I know what you might be thinking. “Tinkerbell, Melissa? Seriously?” But stay with me here. The pre-woke movie era had some good stuff in it that’s surprisingly relevant and counter-cultural by 2023 standards.

Tinkerbell (2008)

So first, here is a brief movie synopsis for those who may not have seen the movie: The first Tinkerbell movie was made in 2008. The story starts with Tinkerbell as a new fairy. She was a fairy who was born a certain way, as what’s called a tinker fairy, where she “tinkers” with things to build them. But she hates it. The main setting is in a magical place in Neverland called Pixie Hollow where there are other “talents” that other fairies have, such as water, animal, light, wind, or flower fairies. She struggles with who she is as a tinker fairy and who she wants to be, especially after finding out that tinker fairies don’t get to go to the Mainland for spring. She wants to be anything but a tinker fairy. She refused to accept the truth that this was actually who she was and instead stubbornly embraced her truth.

The entire movie is about her trying to be every other fairy type, anything other than who she was born to be. Her supportive friends knew she was a tinker and tried to tell her many times that this was who she was. Good for them. At the end of the movie, she finally accepts that she shouldn’t deny her true identity by trying to be something she’s not. She ends up happily embracing being a tinker fairy.

The Truth About Tinkerbell

I’m sure you already know what I’m getting at. The parallel to today’s identity crisis are clear, and quite the opposite message from this movie: you can’t change the truth to your truth.

Let me say this. First, I feel for those who struggle with their identity. There’s a deep and intense struggle to change who we are to be accepted by others or seen how we want to be seen. But there’s freedom in loving how God made you. And I mean how he actually made you. What I mean by that is some people might say, “But God made me with this identity! I didn’t choose to be a man in a woman’s body, or this race, or even this species!” I want to lovingly counter this idea with these questions:

  1. Says who?
  2. Where did you get that idea from?
  3. By what standard are you measuring that this is God’s will for your life and how He made you?

If God has revealed Himself, He did so in the person of Jesus. I didn’t make this claim. Jesus did. If Jesus is who He says He is, then how would we find out information about Him? Here’s the answer: The Bible. People that walked and talked with Jesus and witnessed His life, resurrection, and miracles recorded them, then died horrendous deaths, never denying any of it was false. In other words, if Jesus is everything He says He is, I trust the Book that tells me who He is and what He taught, and what He commanded His disciples to do and teach.

Identity in Christ

And what He says about how you are made matters when it comes to this topic: you were born one way, but He says to be born another way. He says to be born again.

“Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.’” John 3:3 (NIV)

He wants you to find your identity in Him, not yourself. He wants you to love who He is and how He made you, not make a God in your own image that likes what you like and loves what you love. Jesus came for you too and says that He is the bread of life. What He’s saying is that this world will not satisfy, and looking within isn’t sustainable. He’s the standard for what’s good, true, and fulfilling.

A Lesson from American Idol

On a harder-to-accept level, people living “their truth” can sometimes look forced and awkward. Like someone trying to be something we all know they aren’t. It reminds me of one of those American Idol auditions where someone goes in thinking they’re a fantastic singer because everyone around them was telling them they were a great singer. But they open their mouth, and it’s total cringe. What’s stunning is their denying the fact that they are an objectively bad singer. Perhaps the people around them were afraid to tell the truth because the person was too sensitive or emotionally fragile to handle tough feedback. Everyone knew they weren’t a star. But everyone went along with it, perhaps out of fear. I see the same principle when it comes to today’s identity crisis.

Now isn’t it interesting, and rather ironic, that we live in a world that says self-love is the battle cry of the day but then the same instigators want you to deny everything about who you are for a fleeting feeling that changes? There’s wisdom in accepting yourself for who you are, not denying it to fill a void.

Recommended Resources Related to this Topic

Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, PPT)
Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God by Frank Turek & Zach Turek (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)
Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek
Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She also has a bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

 

/by

5 Fatal Flaws in Transgender Ideology

,

Many people who support transgender surgery and cross-sex hormones may be well-intentioned, but the transgender ideology behind those intentions is fraught with fatal flaws. Here are just five of many. Contrary to transgender ideology:

1. The Design of the Body Proves There are Only Two Genders

Transgender advocates insist there are multiple genders. However, the design of the human body shows there are only two genders. Humans can either produce sperm or eggs. There is no third reproductive output in humans or mammals. Of course, there are humans who cannot produce either due to biological deficiencies, but that is an incapacity, not a thirdcapacity to produce something else. Thus, the claim that there are more than two genders can only be entertained if one detaches the concept of gender from biological sex.

However, insisting that gender is completely different from someone’s biological sex doesn’t work either. If gender and biology were completely different things — if there’s no relationship between the two — then why would anyone advocate for cross-sex hormones or sex change operations? Which leads us to flaw two.

2. Transgenderism Must Presuppose Fixed Genders

While transgender advocates deny that there are only two genders, they must unwittingly presuppose two genders for transgenderism to be possible. Why? Because if I’m a biological man but think I’m a woman, I must have some idea of what a man and woman are to recognize my problem. I must also know what a man and woman are to make the so-called “transition.” If genders are completely fluid with no fixed reference points, there would be no way to recognize the mismatch between my biology and psychology and no destination for my transition. In other words, “gender dysphoria” could not exist without two known, fixed genders.

The denial of fixed genders has sparked a bit of a civil war among some identifying as LGBTQ, because if the T’s get their way, the L’s, G’s, and B’s don’t exist (search for #LGBminustheT). How can one be lesbian, gay, or bisexual if there are no fixed genders? Each of those identities rely on fixed genders. Likewise, some feminists are unhappy because, without fixed genders, there are no women and therefore no women’s rights.

This is one reason why Matt Walsh’s documentary, “What is a Woman?,” has so many transgender advocates and Leftwing academics stumped by the question, “What is a woman?” They are caught in a dilemma. If they say a woman is a biological female, then transgender ideology is false. If they refuse to define a woman, transgenderism is not possible. Who is transitioning to what? And what happened to women’s rights?

3. You Can Change Your Mind But Not Your Biology

When biology and psychology are mismatched, why do we think changing the body instead of changing the mind is the way to fix the problem? We don’t do this for other conditions.

When anorexics falsely think they are overweight, we don’t say, “You’re right. Let me get you some liposuction.” For people who honestly believe they should have healthy limbs cut off (a condition known as “trans-abled”), we don’t say, “You’re right. If you think you should not have a right arm, we will cut if off for you.” When your daughter insists she’s a mermaid, you don’t take her off the coast and drop her in the ocean. So, why do we think we should cut off healthy sex organs instead of helping people change their minds?

While you can change your mind, it is literally impossible to change your biology. You can mutilate your body, but you cannot change the DNA of your 100 trillion cells or the many thousands of biological differences between men and women.

Any attempt to “transition” between the sexes implicitly admits these differences and affirms the binary nature of gender. Otherwise, there would be no use for hormones or puberty blockers. In fact, if there were no differences in the physical and biological designs of men and women, transgenderism would not only be impossible but unnecessary. If men and women were the same, there would be no need or desire to transition. So instead of me thinking I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body, why not think I’m a man with a woman’s mind? That way I can actually fix my problem with good mental health care.

4. Sex Is Not Assigned At Birth

For transgender ideology to succeed, people must come to believe that gender is arbitrary and is “assigned” at birth. But everyone knows that gender is not “assigned” at birth — it is discovered at birth (or sometimes before). It’s not like people vote at gender-reveal parties, or that doctors arbitrarily decide the sex of a newborn. No, they discover and state the baby’s sex because there is no ambiguity.

In the extremely rare cases where genitals are ambiguous (intersex), tests are done and choices are made to correct the problem. Most patients end up male or female rather than assuming a non-binary status. This is not the same as transgenderism where people with fully formed and healthy sexual organs attempt to transition to the opposite sex. Intersex is a biological condition; gender dysphoria is a psychological condition. The existence of intersex conditions does nothing to support the claim that sex is “assigned” at birth. Birth defects do not disprove the norm. In fact, they would be impossible to identify without the norm.

We live in a fallen world. All of us are born with deficiencies and defects. That doesn’t mean we are less human or less worthy of respect.  But that also doesn’t mean we should mandate that everyone else live according to such deficiencies or defects.  When someone is born deaf, we don’t tell the rest of the world they can never speak or listen to music because it might offend the deaf. Yet that is precisely what transgender activists and the rest of the woke world are trying to impose on our entire society.

5. There is No Basis for Transgender Rights

We seem to be inventing new “rights” in America every 10 minutes. But where do rights come from? They can’t come from the government because a right is something you have regardless of what anyone else says about it (including your government). Rights can only come from God (“our Creator” as the Declaration of Independence puts it). Without God, every moral issue is reduced to a matter of opinion.

What evidence do we have that God wants anyone to amputate perfectly healthy sex organs? There is none from natural law, the Bible, or any other supposed revelation that claims to come from God.

People can demand that their government legislate or declare certain behaviors as “rights,” but that doesn’t make them rights any more than a government can legislate that a biological man is a woman. That doesn’t make him a woman. Instead of trying to change reality to fit our thoughts, we should be trying to change our thoughts to fit reality. As I document in the new third edition of Correct Not Politically Correct (from which this column is adapted), there are several more fatal flaws in transgender ideology, including the evidence showing that transitioning doesn’t fix the underlying problem. But that’s for the next column.


Recommended resources related to the topic:

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) pdf, PowerPoint by Frank Turek
Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case, and is co-author of the new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God. 

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/436g5Yq

/by

Reality Rules: The Transgender War on Women

By Bob Perry

Back in the good ‘ole days of 2015, the fight over allowing transgender women to use the women’s bathroom in Charlotte, North Carolina, took center stage in the national political debate. At the time, only a Chicken Little would suggest that mixing gender preference and sexual identity could lead to harmful outcomes. In an article titled, “‘Transgender’ Needs A Legal Definition Right Now or Women Will Get Hurt,” David Marcus pointed out that trans advocates:

… insisted that the idea anyone would use the law to dress as a woman and invade women’s private spaces [was] a myth. [But that November] Richard Rodriguez was arrested for dressing as a woman and peeking in stalls in the women’s room at Virginia’s Potomac Mills Mall … [Further, they claimed that] Charlotte’s law was never intended to allow someone like Rodriguez to put on a dress and enter women’s facilities.[1]

David Marcus’s fear that women would get hurt was far more than a myth. It was an understatement. Today, transgender women are invading more than women’s restrooms.

Beyond the Bathroom

The move from spying on girls in the ladies’ room to the cases of sexual assault in schools we saw highlighted in last November’s Virginia Governor’s race is, by definition, an escalating threat to women.[2] But the ramifications of transgender ideology are even more far-reaching than that.

  • Last summer, New Zealand’s Laurel Hubbard made history as the first transgender woman to compete in Olympic weightlifting.[3]
  • In Australia, 6’2”, 220-pound Hannah Mouncey overpowered other women in both Australian rules football and on the national handball team.[4]
  • Caitlyn Jenner not only graced the cover of Vanity Fair magazine in seductive lingerie but was also named Glamour magazine’s “Woman of the Year” in 2015.
  • In October 2021, Rachel Levine became the first woman ever promoted to the rank of four-star admiral in the U. S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.[5]

And what about women’s collegiate swimming? Traditionally, swimmers give us electrifying moments where they break records by tenths or even hundredths of a second. But recently, the University of Pennsylvania’s transgender swimmer, Lia Thomas, won the 200-meter freestyle by nearly 8 seconds, the 500-meter by over 12 seconds, and the 1,650-meter freestyle by 38 seconds. Two of those were the best times in the nation.[6]

But the reaction to Lia’s victories hasn’t been electrifying at all. Her teammates have noted that:

The crowd is unusually silent when Thomas crosses the finish line, cheering for the second-place finisher instead … the team feels obligated to pretend they are happy for Thomas when they really feel demoralized and frustrated.[7]

Women Strike Back

For all their successes, these “women” don’t seem to be getting much love from their fellow females. In fact, there has been a backlash against every one of them. And the backlash has been led by women. Take Rose McGowan, for instance, who:

launched a blistering attack on the world’s most famous trans woman – former Olympic athlete Caitlyn Jenner … “You’re a woman now? Well, [expletive deleted] learn that we have had a VERY different experience than your life of male privilege,” McGowan said in a Facebook post she later deleted after facing accusations of transphobia. “Being a woman comes with a lot of baggage. The weight of unequal history. You’d do well to learn it. You’d do well to wake up. Woman of the year? Not by a long [expletive deleted] shot.”[8]

Suddenly, feminism and transgenderism – both darlings of Leftist ideology – have created a new aphorism as it applies to the Patriarchy: “The enemy of my enemy … is my enemy.”

The snake, it seems, is eating its own tail.

Reality Bites

Behind Rose McGowan’s tirade is the tacit admission that transgender women are actually men. It’s the same reality that drove Cynthia Millen, a three-decade USA Swimming official, to resign her position in the wake of Lia Thomas’s record-setting achievements:

Everything fair about swimming is being destroyed … The fact is that swimming is a sport in which bodies compete against bodies. Identities do not compete against identities … Men are different from women, men swimmers are different from women, and they will always be faster than women … While Lia Thomas is a child of God, he is a biological male who is competing against women and no matter how much testosterone suppression drugs he takes, he will always be a biological male and have the advantage [of having a] larger lung capacity, larger heart, greater circulation, a bigger skeleton, and less fat … I can no longer participate in a sport that allows biological men to compete against women.[9]

Don’t miss Cynthia Millen’s words: “Lia Thomas is a child of God.” Therein lies the transcendent reality in which the solution to all this mayhem must be grounded. Lia is a human being made in the image of God. For that, she deserves our love and respect. But that doesn’t oblige us to patronize her delusion. The stakes are too high for that.

The ascendancy of transgender ideology is harming women in more ways than even its critics could have imagined. But it is doing more than that. It’s a torpedo aimed at the foundations of a stable, healthy society. Whether it’s in the pool, on the playing field, in the boardroom, or in the sanctuary, denying reality is always destructive to those who practice it.

Footnotes

[1] David Marcus, “‘Transgender’ Needs a Legal Definition Right Now or Women Will Get Hurt,” The Federalist,

[2] Kaylee McGhee White, “Loudoun County Schools Covered Up Rape, Prosecuted a Concerned Father to Protect Transgender Agenda,” Washington Examiner,

[3] James Ellingworth & Sally Ho, “Transgender Weightlifter Hubbard Makes History at Olympics,” AP News

[4] Warner Todd Huston, “Aussie Trans Athlete Hannah Mouncey Towers Above Opponents,” Breitbart News

[5] Matt Lavietes, “Rachel Levine Becomes Nation’s First Transgender Four-Star Admiral,” NBC News

[6] Charmaine Patterson, “Swimmer Lia Thomas, Who is Transgender, Continues to Shatter Women’s Records,” People

[7] “The Week,” National Review, December 27, 2021, p. 10.

[8] Jill Stark, “Call Yourself a Woman? Feminists Take on Trans Community in Bitter Debate,” The Sydney Morning Herald

[9] Yaron Steinbuch, “Transgender Swimmer Lia Thomas is ‘Destroying’ Sport, Official Says,” New York Post

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

/by

Exposing More Contradictions

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

In this brief podcast, Frank tackles some of the inconsistencies of adhering to a worldview that claims we can choose our own gender. He also educates those who claim that one can be “racist” against Islam (Muslims).

Listen also to Exposing Atheists Contradictions (Part 1)

Contradictions

/by
What The Fighting Over Gender Issues Is Really About

What The Fighting Over Gender Issues Is Really About

By Michael Sherrard

Do you have a hard time understanding how rational people can really think that genderless bathrooms are a good idea? Are you confused about what is happening culturally? Does it make any sense to you that corporations are applying political and economic pressure to reform our social sexuality? Well, here’s what’s going on.

The cultural battle over sexuality and gender comes down to one thing: a meaningful life. That is what all of the fighting is about, and it is why the battle contains such fury and vitriol. Each fight is part of a larger fight: How does one have a meaningful life? And this is what you must understand, the answer to the previous question is determined by your worldview.

A worldview is a set of beliefs that cause you to view life a certain way. We all have one. You cannot escape it. We each have beliefs that affect how we see life, form conclusions, and interpret our experiences.

I have a Christian worldview. I possess beliefs about reality. Among other things, I believe that God exists, the world is rational (i.e. knowable), and life has objective meaning and inherent value. My existence is the source of my meaning and value. Because I am made in God’s image, I have inestimable worth.

I live in a society, though, where nearly everyone else has a naturalistic worldview. Naturalism is a set of beliefs about reality. Naturalism holds, among other things, that God does not exist, the world is rational (though they cannot justify its rationality), and life has no inherent meaning or value. And that is a big deal. Did you catch it? Life has no inherent meaning or value. So what makes you and your life worth anything? That’s the big problem for the naturalist.

Naturalists have long recognized the consequences and problems that stem from their worldview. George Orwell noted this some time ago in his essay Notes on the Way. In it he writes about the necessity of cutting away the soul. You see according to naturalism, the self or soul does not exist. Put simply, you do not exist. “Man is not an individual, he is only a cell in an everlasting body” as Orwell says. The problem, though, is when you cut away the soul you find yourself in a very desolate world: existence void of meaning and value. Orwell saw this.

“For two hundred years we had sawed and sawed and sawed at the branch we were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than anyone had foreseen, our efforts were rewarded, and down we came. But unfortunately there had been a little mistake. The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses after all, it was a cesspool full of barbed wire.”

So how do Naturalists rescue themselves from this bleak dystopia? How do they find meaning in life? They manufacture it. French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was a pioneer in helping the naturalist out of their predicament. He espoused that existence preceded essence. This basically means that you are a blank slate, so make your life whatever you want. Because your existence has no inherent meaning or value, you can do whatever you want with it. Be a dragon. Become a woman. Marry your mother or computer. Define your life as you see fit. Your autonomous will is what gives your existence value and meaning. It is your dignity.

This is what the fight is over. In order to have a meaningful existence, you must have the complete freedom to form yourself according to your will and your will alone. So a threat to, say, the freedom of choosing your gender is a threat to the society that has embraced naturalism and needs to manufacture meaning and value through unfettered freedom of choice. For if you remove the ability to form your essence through choice, you remove any hope of a meaningful life.

Lets be clear about what is taking place here. Our society is collectively acting on the assumption that God does not exist and naturalism is true. They are fighting to form a society that reflects this belief. This is again why the fighting is so intense. It is a radical shift in our society. But I wonder if people are really aware of this. I wonder if we are prepared to declare in such a fashion that God is dead. Are we ready to officially replace the Christian worldview with a naturalistic one?

Well, here’s the thing, and this may shock you, we should be ready. We should abandon the Christian worldview if naturalism is true. But it’s not. Naturalism is a very weak worldview in terms of its explanatory power for reality, and it actually doesn’t offer a rational justification for believing in it. But that’s an article all by itself. Even so, I think we can examine just one aspect of the naturalist’s position and see why it’s something we can’t embrace.

According to naturalism, God does not exist. Therefore, form your own essence to give your existence meaning and value. But because God does not exist, the self cannot exist as the naturalist would readily concede. But if the self doesn’t exist, free will can’t exist. According to naturalists, I am a “cell in an everlasting body.” I am merely molecules in motion. Chemistry and physics dictate how I act, feel, and respond to this world. I am nothing more than a machine. Worse, I am a slave to my nature. Free moral agency is a huge problem for the naturalist. It is the very thing needed to have a meaningful existence, but it is the very thing that cannot exist if naturalism is true.

How anyone can hold to naturalism and a belief in free will is beyond me. It is the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. And for that, I cannot imagine how anyone can be a Naturalist. The most important thing about their worldview is not possible according to their worldview. And isn’t this the greatest form of irony. Because of their worldview, Naturalists must go to great lengths to manufacture freedom so that they can give meaning to their existence instead of embracing the Christian worldview that naturally contains both freedom and meaning.

To be clear, naturalism is the worldview that has brought us this battle. From it follows the fight we are currently in. Because God does not exist, life has no meaning other than what you manufacture through your autonomous will. A meaningful life is what hangs in the balance here. It is why the battle rages.

So what does this mean for us? Foremost, it means we must engage the root issue. We cannot merely address symptoms. We easily get sucked into arguments over bathroom policies and what not. And that is fine. We should engage in those conversations. But our efforts will not be fruitful if we are not addressing the heart of the issue. Genderless bathrooms flow from the naturalistic worldview.

Unfortunately, most people haven’t really thought about gender issues and such in a meaningful way. They haven’t recognized how naturalism is the worldview behind the fighting. They haven’t connected the dots. They’ve merely connected with sound bites.

You can help, though. You can help people think meaningfully about this important issue as you engage them in respectful conversation. As I’ve written in my book Relational Apologetics, I believe the best approach in most cases is to ask questions, listen, learn how to stay on topic, practice humility and point people at the right time toward a true understanding. Be gentle and respectful in your conversations, and many will come to see that Christianity still speaks reason in an age of naturalistic nonsense.

_____________________________

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

/by

Six Reasons North Carolina Got It Right

,

Lies are born the moment someone thinks the truth is dangerous. Apparently, a good number of business and sports executives think the truth about North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” (HB2) is dangerous, that’s why they are lying about it. Well, perhaps I should be a bit more charitable: some may not be overtly lying about it, but they are expressing their disapproval without knowing what the bill actually does.

On Monday Lt. Governor Dan Forest, who helped call the special session to pass HB2, called the executive in charge at one large protesting company and simply asked if him if he or anyone there had a actually read the bill.

He admitted they had not. They just labeled it “discriminatory” without even reading it.

Who needs the truth when you make so much “progress” by ignoring the truth and engaging in the very bigotry and name-calling you claim to oppose?

The truth is they, like other companies who haven’t bothered to read the bill, are simply taking their marching orders from the misnamed “Human Rights Campaign,” who have the audacity to claim that men have a human right to have access to women and girls in public bathrooms, and that any acknowledgement of the biological differences between men and women is somehow discrimination against people who prefer same-sex relationships.

In the name of diversity, I’d like to offer a different view in six points:

1. All good laws discriminate against behaviors not people. No one is being discriminated against with HB2, which discriminates against the behaviorof a man using the women’s restroom. If any law is wrongly discriminatory it is the bad law passed by the Charlotte City council to create this controversy. It actually discriminates against women and children by making public restrooms unsafe for them. (The ACLU has already filed a lawsuit alleging HB2 does not provide “equal protection” to some folks. Ironically, it’s only because of HB2 that women and children get “equal protection” from predators in public bathrooms!)

2. People are equal, but their behaviors are not. Good laws treat all peopleequally, but not all of their behaviors equally. In fact, the very reason laws exist at all is because all behaviors are not equal and must be treated differently for the benefit of individuals and society. HB2 discriminates against no one who identifies as LGBT. The law merely sets a safe public bathroom use (behavior) for everyone, and keeps employment law consistent across the state (more on this below).

3. Your identity is not in your feelings but your biology. I can’t believe there is actually a need to say this, but many on the Left are living in their own invented reality and they are demanding that we live in it too. The reason we’ve always had separate bathrooms is because of biological sexual differences, not because of feelings or “gender identity.” HB2 simply says that people will use public bathrooms that align with their biological sex as found on their birth certificate.

How could this possibly be controversial? Are we to risk the safety of millions of women and children in public restrooms because an extremely small number of people are experiencing a mismatch between their psychology and their biology? Good public policy does not risk the physical safety of women and children because an extreme few have a preference for a different bathroom.

Moreover, HB2 actually accommodates people who have had so-called “sex change” operations. They can use the bathroom of their choice provided they’ve had their birth certificate changed. It also affects only public restrooms. Companies and other private organizations can adopt any policy they want for their workplace. Does the NBA and the NFL allow men in women’s bathrooms? Does Apple? Cisco? Marriott? Lowes? Then why are they insisting the government force everyone to do so? Why do they think North Carolina is wrongly discriminating when they are doing exactly the same thing in their businesses?

And why aren’t these holier-than-thou folks threatening to pull their business from Iran and Saudi Arabia where they are actually murdering homosexuals? Their moral outrage is not only misdirected, it shows that they’re willing to put women and children at risk by kowtowing to a deceptive special interest group, but they’ll sacrifice nothing to save the people they say they care about by confronting real evil abroad.

4. The danger is real from sexual predators in women’s restrooms. If you don’t think so, then watch this video. Just the first six minutes are chilling enough.

5. Race and LGBT are not the same: Race is not a behavior and race has no impact on someone’s behavior. But homosexuality is a behavior and LGBT political goals are all about imposing certain leftist behaviors on others, from forcing people to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies to allowing men in women’s restrooms.

The Human Rights Campaign also wants to use the strong arm of government to force companies to give employment preference to a long list of sexual orientations. This would mean that someone who claimed a homosexual orientation—or someone who exhibited the behavior of cross-dressing at work for example—would have more job security than John or Jane Doe. How so? Because if a company has to downsize, who are they going to let go—one of the helpless Does, or the person who can bring a costly lawsuit alleging “discrimination”?

6. Opposition to harmful behavior is not bigotry. It is wise. Unfortunately, some on the Left and in business falsely equate opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument the Human Rights Campaign puts out—if you don’t agree with every aspect of LGBT behavior or their political goals, you are somehow bigoted against people who identify that way. If political opposition is bigotry, then the activists at the Human Rights Campaign are bigots for opposing conservatives. The truth is conservatives have good reasons based in public health and safety for not wanting to advocate same-sex marriage or men in women’s bathrooms. But it’s much easier for the Human Rights Campaign to ignore those arguments and call people names.

The truth is just too dangerous.

 

 

Six Reasons North Carolina Got It Right is also featured at TownHall.com

/by
Do Ideas Have Consequences? Indeed They Do!
, , ,

In 1948 an English professor at the University of Chicago penned a book whose main idea resonates well into the modern world and into today’s news headlines. The professor was Richard Weaver and his book was Ideas Have Consequences.

The main thesis of Weaver’s book is that philosophy undergirds all of society. What we believe about reality matters. What we say or think is real matters. Language, and how we use it is important.

In 1948 many intellectuals in Europe and America were left dumbfounded as to how such atrocities could have been committed by Germany in WWII. In the 1930’s, Germany was one of THE most literate nations in the world, so it wasn’t that Germans were ill-informed or unintelligent. After all, Germany had produced such brilliant musical luminaries as Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and hugely influential philosophers like Hegel, Kant, etc…

The problem, as Weaver saw it, wasn’t literacy or education per se, it was the KIND of philosophy that was informing the German view of reality.

Weaver believed that the root problem was the philosophy of nominalism. What is nominalism?

Read more

/by