This week I received an email from a reporter at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Here’s what she wrote:
I’m a reporter with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
I’m working on a story about transgender students pegged to the appeal of an 11th Circuit Court ruling that allows transgender students to use a bathroom not associated with their birth gender. I’m seeking a diversity of opinions about the topic. I’m hoping you are willing to talk to me about your take on the issue or at least send me a statement.
I’ve been interviewed before. The results aren’t always pleasant or accurate. See my article originally titled “My Experience With Red Meat Journalism.” This isn’t to say that this AJC reporter will turn out to misrepresent my views. Even so, I’m protecting myself by writing out my opinions.
If people want to claim that they are a different sex (there are just two sexes not more than 100 that the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) is telling primary schoolchildren) from what their DNA identifies them as and their sex organs indicate (it’s called science), they can do that. But when their personal claims are imposed on other people by the force of law, they are engaged in a form of moral, scientific, and political tyranny.
In the famous scene from George Orwell’s 1984, Inner Party member O’Brien tests Winston Smith’s allegiance to Party truth by demanding that Winston see five fingers even though Smith is only holding up four fingers. There were negative sanctions for not joining in the irrational charade.
Judges who rule that boys who claim to be girls and want to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of girls have lost the ability to make moral distinctions. This has been a long time coming. The legal field has given up on acknowledging that there are fixed moral standards. While it may be unpopular to say it, the courts no longer acknowledge a transcendent God, the God who created man – male and female – in His image.
This does not mean for them that there is no longer a god. Man has become god declaring evolved beings as the new gods. They now determine what’s right and wrong even though they don’t have any basis for determining what’s ultimately right and right.
The title of Catherine Drinker Bowen’s biography of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes – The Yankee From Olympus – is spot on. In Buck v. Bell (1927), Holmes declared, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” (USA Today) As a result, forced sterilizations became a common practice in the United States. Get this. “Nazis on trial at Nuremberg after World War II cited the influence of American eugenics programs on their policies and mentioned Buck v. Bell in their testimony.” Buck v. Bell was not repealed until 1974. The gods from Olympus had spoken just as they had in the 1857 Dred Scott case.
As a result, they have become a law unto themselves. If judges really believe that transgenderism is rational, scientific, and a moral imperative to be imposed on our nation through the threat of legal sanctions, then we as a nation are in trouble. Given the operating assumptions if such legal decisions, what other truths will be overturned in the name of some medical and legal fiction forced on us by outside special interest groups? “Vote our way or else…” It wasn’t that long ago that black men and women were deemed to be non-persons and property by similar court decisions. How was this possible? Because a fixed moral standard had been rejected and rational thought had been abandoned.
The tyranny has begun. Express the reality that there are only two sexes (“gender” is best left to foreign language study), and you may lose your job. This has already happened.
A lawsuit has been filed against a recently signed California law that inflicts fines and/or jail time on employees who “misgender” a patient within a senior care facility.
Take a look at New York’s “Gender Identity/Gender Expression: Legal Enforcement Guidance” law:
The NYCHRL prohibits discrimination by most employers, housing providers, and public accommodations on the basis of gender. The term gender “shall include actual or perceived sex, gender identity, and gender expression including a person’s actual or perceived gender-related self-image, appearance, behavior, expression, or other gender-related characteristic, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth.”
Notice the last phrase: “regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth.” “Assigned”? Neither I nor anyone else “assigns” a person’s sex. I thought we were all about science. For thousands of years, people understood the sexual differences between men and women. Only women can get pregnant. It is downright irrational and immoral to claim that men can get pregnant and have babies. But this is what the ACLU claims … the ACLU! On International Men’s Day, the ACLU sent out this tweet:
There’s no one way to be a man.
Men who get their periods are men.
Men who get pregnant and give birth are men.
Trans and non-binary men belong.#InternationalMensDay
Anyone falling for and advocating this nonsense has no right to be a lawyer or a judge. They deny the obvious. If a judge can’t make a distinction between a boy and a girl, then what other distinctions can’t he or she make?
Consider the following:
A female who transitioned to male as a teenager is speaking out about transgender regret. Twenty-eight-year-old Charlie Evans told Sky News in a recent interview that she’s spoken to “hundreds” of young people, mostly same-sex attracted women, who regret their gender transition. She also encountered an “online community of 5,000 in a similar position,” according to the network. (Daily Wire)
There’s a case of a mother trying to transition her seven-year-old son. This is insanity.
I’ll close with the case of “Dr. David Mackereth, a devout Christian who had worked as an emergency doctor for the National Health Service for 26 years. He said he was fired from his job because he refused to call a biological man a woman.”
He’s a doctor. He’s had anatomy and physiology classes. He knows the difference between a man and a woman. He’s also a Christian who understands that there are only two options. We are here by the sovereign act of the Creator and thereby have meaning and purpose or we evolved over millions of years from a warm pond of elements from the Periodic Table.
The court made its choice:
The court’s ruling stated: “Belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals.” The court added. “… in so far as those beliefs form part of his wider faith, his wider faith also does not satisfy the requirement of being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.” (Daily Wire)
There is no such thing as “human dignity” or “rights” given the operating assumptions of today’s secular religion of evolution. As Richard Dawkins put it, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”1 Now it seems that even DNA is suspect because judges say so. These judges will now determine how we will dance to their music.
God help us!
- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: HarperCollins/BasicBooks, 1995), 133. [↩]