Thursday, May 22, 2025

Part I

---

Feminism and Transgenderism at Odds: Lesbians Want to Be Liberated from the LBGT Revolution

We are living in times of tension in our society. There are pressures and in the condition of this kind of pressure, sometimes, things become, well, let say revealed or illuminated you otherwise might miss. Furthermore, in the cauldron of all the massive social changes taking place around us, at times, you realize they’re a person speaking the truth and you didn’t expect them to speak the truth. And frankly, in many cases, they don’t even know the truth they’re speaking, but they’re speaking it and that is leading to some very interesting headlines. So, how’s this one? This is coming from The Spectator, which is a major British opinion magazine and is basically conservative, but it’s also basically secular conservative. All that brings me to two articles that recently appeared in The Spectator.

The fact that both of them making the point they make appeared in The Spectator just within a matter of let’s say a couple of weeks separation, that’s also important. So, here’s the first headline, “Why Lesbians Want Out of the LGBT Movement.” Okay, so here is an argument in which a lesbian is saying the future of lesbianism is to get out of the LGBT movement. There’s no Q here, just LGBT. Julie Bindel is the author of the article, she’s a feminist activist and clearly identifies as a lesbian and she’s making a point here. And that is that when you add T to L and G and B, it’s very different than the other letters. And when it comes to lesbianism, one thing that becomes very clear in this article is that it is seen as derivative of feminism. It is, you might say, a radical form of ideological feminism.

And so, the lesbian movement has basically seen itself as at the intersection of two different liberation movements as they have been culturally associated in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. And so, that would be the sexual liberation movement and the feminist movement, particularly second wave feminism that was ideological in the way that first wave feminism say in the effort for women to gain the vote was not ideological. Second wave feminism, Betty Friedan, Ms. Magazine, all the rest, very ideological. So, okay, what we’re told here is that a major lesbian is saying that lesbians should want out of the LGBT movement, and it’s not because of the G, it’s not because of the B in this case, it is because of the T. The article begins, “LGBT+ is an ‘inclusive,’ [that’s in quotation marks, scare quotes,] way to represent all the different identities in the longer acronym, says the BBC.” That’s the British Broadcasting Corporation. This is a British magazine.

She writes on, “What nonsense. The reality is that while lesbians and gay men often get lumped together, we actually have little in common. It’s time for lesbians to break free of the LGBT+ label.” She continues, “As the LGBT+ acronym has expanded in recent years to become more inclusive, many lesbians like me have come to feel less and less included. The umbrella term takes in all manner of sexual and gender identities, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with being same sex attracted. As a result, lesbians have been sidelined.” Okay, this is a very interesting article and in order to really go further in the article, we need to look at a word we used and that’s the word “intersection.” Because modern cultural Marxism Critical Theory comes with a corollary doctrine known as intersectionality, and that is the different forms of oppression often intersect. And lesbian is the perfect example of that.

It is the intersection of the sexual revolution in its ideologies and the feminist revolution in its ideologies. And the argument is that intersectionality explains why all of these groups have different interests and those where you have an overlapping set of interests, you have a particular need for the relief from oppression. And so, in this way, lesbians have been making an interesting argument for years, which is that they’re always or usually as a disadvantage when compared to gay men. The Gay Rights Movement as it was known, the Homosexual Rights Movement as it was once known, it was largely driven by same-sex attracted men who identified as homosexuals, and their main effort at liberation was for themselves. And then the lesbians became also associated because there was also a Lesbian Rights Movement. And again, it came basically out of the feminist movement, you might say, out of the left wing of the feminist movement.

And so, they joined forces in one way, but what you have here is the argument that they’ve never really had the same interests. And so, for instance, I know of one meeting of LGBTQ+ activists in which there were lesbians who made the accusation the gay men had been advantaged for too long in these meetings and that they needed to stay quiet and let only lesbians and well, let’s just say other letters speak. And the gay men who had been advantaged for too long just need to sit back and realize that even though they were oppressed, they are now also oppressors. 

Okay, this is really interesting stuff to watch. So, even years ago, you had someone like a gay male activist like Andrew Sullivan, he came out very clearly basically making the argument that there’s no point being gay unless you know who a man is. And that is almost exactly the argument that is being made by lesbians now. It’s no fun being a lesbian if you don’t know who a woman is, and one of the things she openly complains about is that you have so-called trans women showing up in lesbian spaces and the lesbians are saying, “No, you ain’t.” Bindel writes herself. “When I came out in 1977, there were so few of us that we tended to stick together, but in LGBT groups, gay men dominated in numbers and in other ways, too. That meant the lesbians often got ignored even if others within the gay community didn’t realize it.” The pretense that we were all one happy family was set out in the Gay Liberation Front manifesto of 1970, “We cannot carry out this revolutionary change alone to build this alliance. The brothers and gay liberation will have to be prepared to sacrifice that degree of male chauvinism and male privilege that they still all possess.”

Bindel then writes, “Did these sacrifices happen? Not exactly.” But the really intense part of this article appears with these words, “In recent years, with the LGBTQIA2S+ ‘community'”, she puts community in quotation marks, “Firmly in the grip of gender ideology, sexism has again reared its ugly head. This time, under the guise of transgender inclusion. Lesbians,” she says, “Have been scorned and treated badly. We’ve been accused of bigotry and hatred because we don’t want to share female only spaces with biological males.” Now, that would seem to make sense and yet it’s a very interesting argument and for conservative Christians trying to think in terms of a biblical worldview, this really does represent something we need to watch because we just need to ask some fundamental questions. Is this a cogent argument or not? Well, we can’t put ourselves in the position of arguing for this writer’s version of sexual liberation, but we do recognize that she is cognizant of something that is true and that is that male and female are not malleable categories. They’re not merely states of mind. They’re not merely gender identities. They are biological ontological realities.

Now, here’s where Christians looking at this argument say, “But there’s more to it than that. It’s grounded in creation order and that means that there is a creator who tells us not only that male and female exists, but what it means that we exist, every single one of us made in the image of God and we exist as male and female for a reason which he defines within the structures that he gives.” 

Let’s face it, these really are interesting times because you read an article like this and as an evangelical Christian, as a conservative Christian, you look at these arguments and you go, “Well, go on, say it. You’re absolutely right.” It does matter that there would be biological males in female only spaces and frankly, it’s hard to imagine that we live in a time of such rebellion and such confusion that that wouldn’t be universally acknowledged.

But then, we have to ask another question, and this is not a question that this writer wants to ask. If there is a return to sanity, what would that return to sanity look like? And that’s where we need to be liberated ourselves, liberated from the responsibility to figure out what all these things mean and what the truth is. Here’s where we, as Christians, say these things are present even biologically because of creation order and they should be seen and acknowledged by all. But Romans 1 says, “The human beings, the sinners suppress the truth and unrighteousness.” So, it is not up to us to figure these things out. We are instructed by our creator. Our creator is not only the God who is, he is the God who speaks, and he has spoken in Scripture. It is interesting to say he’s spoken in all of creation, but he speaks definitively on these issues in the Holy Scriptures, a point made by Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word himself.

Bindel goes on to say that even though there is still an awkward relationship between feminists and gay men, the one thing they do have in common is the understanding that male and female are definitive. They really do matter. Bindel continues by saying that maybe, finally, gay men are coming around to appreciate the concerns of gay women in this regard, and then she says, “We have nothing against trans-identified individuals, but it’s high time to recognize that gay men, lesbians, and transgender people are different.” Then she makes her point and I quote, “What’s a solution? I think we need an LGBT breakup. Lesbians like me and gay men should go our own way even if we remain comrade in arms on certain issues to protect the rights we fought long and hard for.” And she cites Dennis Kavanagh, founder of the Gay Men’s Network who told her, “We have come together in a state of emergency.”

Okay, that’s fascinating. If you were to speak about, say, claims about gay rights, about L and G and B years ago and you talked about an emergency, you would think that that’s an emergency coming from what? I don’t know, the right, an oppressive government, et cetera, but no, in this case, the threat is coming from transgender ideologies, the larger category of gender ideologies. She concludes, “Now, both groups can stop pretending we have anything in common other than being saying sex attracted.” So, let’s just stop there. She’s saying that gay men and lesbians can now agree they don’t have anything in common other than the fact that they both represent a same sex attraction. She says, “This doesn’t mean we can’t fight the good fight together. It’s so refreshing to have so many gay men on our side after decades of silence.” Okay, this does also reveal something else.

When you think about this, you haven’t seen many arguments like this coming from the gay male side. You just haven’t had this many arguments about the complications of the transgender movement when it comes to, let’s just say homosexual men, and we’d ask the question, why is it different? Well, again, it actually points to creation order. It is different. You don’t have boys sports teams afraid of girls showing up, biological females showing up on the team and winning all the trophies. It’s not what happens on that side. It’s also a bit different in that, and there’s some sexual theorists who’ve talked about this. When it comes to at least some gay male circles, a certain form of let’s say identification as a woman is something that has been a part of the thing for some time, but there are limits there, too. Again, I point to Andrew Sullivan who said, “There’s basically no point in being a gay man if you don’t know who a man is.”

Okay, so why should Christians seek to think in a biblical worldview and understand the issues around us, find particular interest in this kind of story? First of all, it does tell us how modern ideologies work their way through the culture. We need to be able to recognize this and see what’s happening. Intersectionality, critical theory, these are not just esoteric academic ideological issues. They become actual matters of policy and matters of argument that have to do with what is taught to your children and what are the rules established in your community and who can be in what locker room and who can play on whose team. This is very important. 

Part II

---

Creation Order Asserts Itself: Creation Order Breaks Through Everywhere, Even in the Wake of the Sexual Liberation Movement

It is also, I think, an encouraging reminder to us that creation order asserts itself and even though you’ve had so much in the sexual revolution press so far on the LGBTQ+, I don’t know, IA+ according to this list, you’ve had that go so far, so fast, it is very interesting that something has, well, let’s hit a speed bump when it comes to T, it’s hit a speed bump when it comes to the gender ideologies as related to children and teenagers, it’s hit a speed bump when it’s not just that culture is being told, people are being told you have to change the way you understand about sex. Now, they’re being told you have to lie to yourself about who’s a girl and who’s a boy. 

So, it does tell us something that creation order can be denied only so long. In coming days, we’re going to talk about something else and that is the fact that creation order shows itself and it asserts itself very clearly because there’s basically still only one way to have a baby and that’s what the mother and a father or at least with their cells, but that’s another story for another day.

Part III

---

Decadence and Debauchery: The Absurdity of Gender Ideologies

I mentioned there are two articles in The Spectator. This one appeared days earlier than that Bindel article. This one is by Lionel Shriver. Lionel Shriver is a woman, she’s a very well-known writer. She has won literary awards, is pretty well-known, and she does not identify as LGBTQ, but she sees a big problem. And in particular, what you have here is something like an analogy to what’s happened to JK Rowling and because both are authors and both have made public statements about their understanding that male and female are objective categories and that it’s wrong, for example, to have biological males in female only spaces, they’ve been written out of the literary community in some ways or at least sanctioned. Now, I think when it comes to JK Rowling, frankly, she’s got enough money, she doesn’t care what they say and when it comes to Lionel Shriver, she’s got so much literary respect.

I don’t think she’s really worried about this either, but she does write in this article about what she sees as the larger lesson. The headline is “Why the Trans Debacle Matters.” She writes about the recent decision of the UK Supreme Court saying that sex means gender means biological sex. She writes, “I joined the celebration of last month’s UK Supreme Court decision that sex in law means biological sex. You’ll forgive a fortnightly columnist for being late to the party.” Fortnightly, of course, means publication every two weeks. She goes on to say, “This is a subject about which I feel proprietary.” In other words, she’s got an interest in it. She also writes, “Following Donald Trump’s shocking declaration that there are only two sexes, obviously, the Supreme Court decision is a salutary juncture, but it oughtn’t to be. Why should a legal definition of women that excludes, well, men be controversial? The purple-faced outrage of protesters, literally,” I can’t use the next word, I just say, “In Parliament Square, exemplifies how far we’ve drifted not just from common sense but from physical reality.”

With great clarity, she writes, “Any culture that squanders its efforts on drug regimes and plastic surgery meant to deceive both patients and the world at large that they are the sex that they are not is profoundly decadent if not debauched, we’ve a shortage of neither men nor women and pretending to swap them back and forth is a waste of money, medical expertise, and social aggravation. Private insurance and national health service coverage of this elective ‘treatment’ is a scandal. If people want to play fleshly dress up, they should do it on their own dime.” She goes on further. “This entire fiasco is based on lies and a society that embraces bald falsehoods is eating itself hollow. You can’t change sex. Trans women aren’t women. There’s no such thing as gender identity, brain sex, or being born in the wrong body. Sex is not assigned at birth. It’s observed. Sex is not a feeling, but an external, immutable biological truth. All these mystical notions are medieval and an institutionalizing them across the modern west. We’ve made ourselves ridiculous.”

I’ve got to quote her further. She says, “We’re inflicting those lies on a whole generation of children who are taught that their sex isn’t a fact but a decision. We’re convincing misfits that the solution to their misery is mutilation. We’re enticing both kids and adults into an indefinitely medicalized future and make no mistake, loads of these awful surgeries go wrong. We still no idea how badly adults are damaged by skipping puberty. We’re emotionally imploding whole families.” 

Well, I told you she knows how to use the English language and she uses it to make essential moral points. She makes observations here with piercing language. She makes observations here that anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear should fully understand, but we are living in a time of such deep confusion and the very truths we’re talking about are routinely being denied and thus, we understand at least a Christian responsibility is to celebrate where a little bit of truth breaks through and certainly with the courage represented in these two articles, and we have to hope that at least this clarity will increasingly take hold.

But we also understand that ultimately, if someone’s going to reject the law of God and then reject creation order, there is really no mechanism for return or recovery. I do appreciate that both of these articles appeared in a conservative context from the United Kingdom and let me just say that we can only hope that a similar clarity with a similar courage could appear in the United States more often, as well.

Part IV

---

The Disaster of ‘You are What You Look Like’ — Confronting a Dangerous and Seductive Claim

Well, along similar lines, but on a different front, I want to look at another recent article that caught my eye. I didn’t actually expect to read it, but my eye fell in a certain section and well, I was drawn in. I read it and I didn’t expect to read it because it is a full-page interview.

Basically, it’s an interesting interview format that is undertaken by the Financial Times, which is one of the most influential papers in the world. It’s something like the UK equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. This interview format, by the way, has to do with the conversation over lunch and the newspaper writer always tells us in this lunch what exactly they ate and what took place, who was around them and all the rest. I don’t find that very interesting. I do find interesting that in this case, the conversation was with a prominent influencer in the United Kingdom named Trinny Woodall. 

Trinny Woodall is evidently extremely well-known because she has also been a newscaster in the United Kingdom and now, she has translated herself into a social media influencer, who is also the proprietor and entrepreneur of a wellness brand. In the article, we’re told that now at age 61, Woodall is back in the limelight with a makeup and skin care company known as Trinny London.

“If you want to pay 68 pounds for a cream that promises to lift your sagging neck, you’re not alone. Trinny London’s sales were 70 million pounds last year. The founder isn’t resting on her laurels.” “We’ve got to do this and this and this.” “Indeed, Woodall is now an even more relentless shaper of women’s habits. Once, she grappled with other women’s bodies on camera. Now, she grapples with her own broadcasting on Instagram. Before our lunch, I watch her educating her 1.4 million followers about lipstick, shades, weight training, and how to make tracksuit bottoms part of a smart outfit.”

What initially caught my eye was where I read, “The mainstream is swept along on Botox, Ozempic, and fast fashion. Europe spends more on facial fillers than the world spends on research on emerging infectious diseases.” That’s what caught my eye. We become a society in which the big business is in making yourself look like someone you’re not, and especially as that’s tied to wellness and a certain vague spirituality and personal branding and all the rest, and the closer I looked at the article, the more I found it, well, let me just say interesting. I found things that I didn’t even know before. You may find this interesting. “Her cream for sagging necks is made with a Japanese plant extract. She talks confidently about peptides and their uses. Lift a sagging eyelid? This has not ever been done. Not everyone listens. Her 21-year-old daughter heard on TikTok that beef tallow was brilliant for skin.” “Beef tallow is going to give you spots,” says Woodall. “It’s a molecule that’s so big, it’s going to block your pore.” 

She says that age is just an idea. “Age is irrelevant. It’s about the energy that you bring. You can be 30 and exhausted or 70 and energized. I can sit across the table from somebody and feel the energy and passion that they have for life.” You can’t make this up category. We are told that Trinny Woodall, “Starts the day with lemon water, collagen powder, lion’s mane extract, and turmeric chai, and sometimes, a personal trainer. Her beauty spending including dying her hair from being 90% gray was once estimated at 10,000 pounds a year.” This is her response. “That was the daily mail.” Botox is like 600 pounds twice a year and I quote, “If someone can’t afford our skincare, I will try and offer them things that they can do. Do facial massage. Your fingers are free.”

So, why from a worldview perspective is this interesting? There’s something deeper going on here, and by the way, I have no idea if it’s supposed to be taken seriously that she puts lion’s mane extract in her chai. I don’t know. I guess it’s so, the Financial Times tells us so. But what caught my main moral attention is how the entire article in the Financial Times began. “The premise of lunch with the Financial Times is that you are what you eat or at least how you eat it. Trinny Woodall’s philosophy is different. You are what you look like.” I point to that because I think in moral terms, it’s an absolutely disastrous statement. You are how you look. Now, that’s a very effective way of explaining why she is able to sell the stuff she sells and that means her ideas and her lifestyle and well, all the treatments and everything else. It’s because evidently, there are millions of people who believe they are how they look. Now, let’s face the facts. This is primarily an issue when it comes to girls and women.

It’s not that men are not susceptible to a certain kind of aesthetic narcissism. It is to say that it doesn’t come quite so naturally and you can say in terms of Marxist analysis or some kind of sociology that this is because of the so-called male gaze that women feel themselves under the burden of presenting themselves in such a way. But I want to get to the bottom line theological issue here, which is that what’s missing here is any fundamental understanding of the image of God, any fundamental understanding of the worth of a human being, male or female. If we are truly to live by the worldview that we are how we look, then a great deal of the day, all of us are absolutely wretched all the time. We are worthless when it comes to aesthetic value. And of course, one of the horrors of this is what it says to persons who don’t meet a certain expectation or who can’t spend the 10,000 pounds a year on hair care or by the collagen compounds and other things that are marketed here.

It is also a refutation of the biblical wisdom that age means beauty. When it comes to the biblical world view, a woman whose hands are worn by taking care of children, by changing countless diapers, and by preparing countless meals with love for her family, those hands are much more beautiful than the hands of the models hired to do the advertising. But this is the way of the world and we need to understand this is the result of sin, and sometimes, it is because of the so-called male gaze, it is because of expectations, it is because of cultural trends, and it is because this is the wisdom that is being foisted upon so many girls and women. But at the very least, as Christians, we need to understand this is not only stupid and silly, this is downright dangerous. But at least in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, we recognize that we cannot live in any sense by the motto, “You are what you look like.”

You are not what you look like, and that’s a good thing, by the way. We should see ourselves not in terms of cosmetic appeal, but rather in terms of the glory of God, who created us, every single one of us in his image and for his glory. That’s not to say that honestly, there’s anything wrong with a certain kind of aesthetic concern done out of respect for the image of God rather than at the expense of it. But that’s a complicated factor and more than I can possibly handle on The Briefing. But maybe, it’ll give you something to think about when you have your own lunch.