Tuesday, October 15, 2024

Part I

---

The Transgender Issue Collides With the 2024 Election: Clearly, Americans Are Not Sold on the Trans Revolution

There are so many issues facing us, and so many of them frankly, have been pushed to the top of the line at one point or another just in the course, for example, of the 2024 presidential campaign and the larger electoral picture. But the issue of transgender identity and the claims being made by transgender activists and the collision between those transgender claims and reality, not to mention biology, that’s becoming a part of the political and the moral picture as we head towards the election coming in November. First of all, how does this fit into the election? Well, for example, just a matter of days ago, The New York Times ran a front page article, the headline, “Trump and GOP,” that means the Republican’s Grand Old Party, are betting big on trans issues, subhead, “A flood of attack ads,” subhead below that, “Using cultural divisions against vulnerable Democrats.”

Shane Goldmacher is the reporter here, and he tells us, “With just four weeks until the election, Donald J. Trump and Republican candidates nationwide are putting transgender issues at the center of their campaigns, tapping into fears about transgender women and girls in sports and about tax-funded gender transitions in prisons.” Now, let’s work from the last part that has to do with transgender transitions, as they are explained here, gender transitions in prisons. Why are we talking about that? It is because in the past, Vice President Kamala Harris has said that she believes that state taxpayers in California should pay for gender transitions for those who are in prison. As The New York Times concedes in a 2019 interview, “Ms. Harris said she supported gender-affirming surgery for state prison inmates, and she expressed support in an American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire that year for gender transition care, including surgery for federal prisoners and detained migrants.”

Now, President Trump and other Republicans are making much of that on the campaign trail. And you’ll notice that something interesting is taking place here. It’s not so much that it’s the transgender issue in that case that’s making the news, but rather that taxpayers would be forced to pay for so-called gender reassignment or gender affirmation surgeries. And the reason that former President Trump is hitting on that question is simply because the vast majority of Americans, regardless of where they are say in generalized or even confused support or non-support on the LGBTQ array of issues, when it comes to taxpayers being forced to pay for so-called gender reassignment or sex reassignment surgery for prisoners, inmates in state prisons, well, for good reason, a lot of Americans just think that’s a bridge too far.

And what’s really interesting is that this front page article in The New York Times seems, in its own way, to concede that the Republicans have a point, at least the political point, if not a moral point. They point to overwhelming polling data that indicates not only that many Americans, this is an understatement, would have trouble with that kind of sex reassignment surgery being charged to the taxpayer for inmates in the state prisons. But frankly, over time, the T in LGBTQ is actually moving backwards in terms of polling and in terms of public opinion from where the LGBTQ activists were insisting it stood a matter of say, just a few years ago. Which is to say that many Americans, when they think about the T, the transgender claims, they actually don’t support them. And the more they hear about them and know about them, the less they support them.

Now as a Christian, I’m going to say that’s because we are talking about creation order here, and creation order has a way of showing up and insisting on itself. And when it comes to many of the claims related to say, the L, the G, and the B, that is to say gay, and lesbian, and bisexual, a lot of that has to do with behavior. And Americans may be confused about any number of moral questions related to behavior, or at least they say they’re confused. They say they are in support, a large number of Americans, for those sexual behaviors or the right of Americans to participate legally in those kinds of relationships. But the point is that when you add T to L, and G, and B, well everything seems now to change.

One of these things is not like the other. When you’re talking about T, you’re talking about an even more basic rejection of creation order and even the level of personal identity. But the other big point that is made in this front page article in The New York Times, it’s not just about Vice President Kamala Harris and the claims she made. It is also even on a broader scale about Americans not believing that biological males should be competing with biological females in girls and women’s sports. And this New York Times article points out that an increasing number of Americans are evidently quite concerned about this. The more they hear about it, the more they simply say that’s going too far, that’s unfair to girls and women.

Now, I want to point out that there’s a basic inconsistency here on the part of many people. They’re not thinking this through in terms of the rejection of creation order because that means they’d also have to oppose the rejection of creation order with the L, the G, and the B. But it does become concretized with the T. And especially when you start talking about the claims of the transgender activists and for that matter, an awful lot in the medical community and the media, academia and beyond, that this kind of separation of biology and gender should just be taken in stride. The Times tells us “Up and down the ballot, democratic candidates have mostly tried to ignore the onslaught,” that is of criticism, “preferring to pivot toward more favorable policy terrain such as abortion, rather than to be dragged into public debates on transgender issues.” The next sentence, “Privately though democratic strategists concede that the transgender attacks are taking a toll in some races.”

Well, you bet they are. One of the most closely watched races has to do with the race for the United States Senate, incumbent Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown is facing a lot of criticism for his position on these issues, and especially as related to biological males, otherwise known as boys, competing in girls sports. And the article also makes clear that there are now organizations, such as Organizations of Moms, quite concerned about the particular question of their daughters having to compete with boys or males, and the biology simply is something they’re not willing to overlook. And quite honestly, this is one of those places where it’s not just creation order, but it also comes down to just a matter of common sense and common observation. When you look at a team, well, what are you going to believe, someone’s claimed gender identity or what you can see with your own eyes? One of these things is not like the other.

One of most graphic examples of this of course came recently just over the past couple of years, with pictures of the University of Pennsylvania women’s swimming team, when you don’t have to have awesome powers of perception to understand that one of those competitors on the women’s team is not a woman. One GOP strategist quoted in The New York Times article, Jim McLaughlin, who works for President Trump and other Republican campaigns, he said “One of the things you see in the focus groups is the moms get really visibly angry on this issue.” He went on to say “It’s a fairness issue, they don’t want their daughters to lose a scholarship and they don’t want them to get hurt.” The moral clarity in this situation was reflected by one mom quoted in the article, a mom who says in a Republican ad, “It’s just wrong.”

A grandfather with a similar perception who says in a Republican ad in Ohio, “It’s unfair and dangerous.” A Montana mom, who according to The Times says, “Our girls sports are under attack.” Well, the reason they say that’s because those sports are under attack. And in this case you do have the incumbent Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio who’s trapped in his own words of support for the transgender activist ideology. I appreciate the fact that the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal refers to this candidly as progressive transgender coercion. That’s what the Left is attempting. That’s a very good combination of terms. What the Left wants is progressive transgender coercion, which means they want to coerce you through school policies, through athletic policies. They want to coerce you through legal policies, bureaucratic decisions, and all the rest.

Now to the credit of The Wall Street Journal, they also point to the fact that many self-declared fact-checkers in the media on this kind of issue, are anything but checking facts. And so some then come back and say, well, when it comes to Senator Brown, he’s never actually voted in support of requiring teams to allow biological males to play on female teams. But as the editors say, it’s a sloppy take because as it turns out, when it comes to just wording it differently, Senator Brown has taken such action. And The Journal rightly points to the LGBTQ activist group known as GLAAD, which the editors say, “Confirms our point when it says Mr. Brown has ‘consistently opposed attempts to ban transgender athletes from participating in sports aligned with their gender identity.'” This wasn’t necessary, but the editors went on to say “It means this as a compliment.”

The moral clarity, at least seen by the editors of The Wall Street Journal, is also clear when they say “Many people resent having progressive cultural values imposed on them.” Yes, they do. That would be described as right-thinking people who are quite opposed to having progressive cultural values imposed on them. This would include Christians, seeking just to operate on the basis of Christian biblical conviction and frankly just on the basis of creation order who are being told we are a menace to society and we are standing in the way of moral progress, the way the left describes moral progress. But here again, you have evidence of the fact that American public opinion and you have to put an asterisk there and say, for whatever that’s worth, it’s at least very indicative. That is, it tells us something important, it doesn’t tell us what’s right and wrong, but it does tell us where the American people are or where they think they are. But an increasing number of Americans say that boys shouldn’t play on girls teams, that men should not play or compete in women’s athletic events or on such teams.

But we do need to note that the current administration, the Biden-Harris administration, has been seeking to apply Title IX restrictions. And that comes with federal coercion on not only public schools, but any schools that receive scholarship aid, and basically that gets ratcheted through the public schools at every level. Kamala Harris is not going to be able to run away from the fact that she has been entirely supportive of the transgender revolution and quite frankly, quite affirming of the fact that the taxpayer should not only pay for transitions, but regardless of your convictions, you’re going to have to deal with a boy on your daughter’s team. And this really is a big problem. And frankly, it’s not just Christians who recognize it, and that just reminds us that creation order is not given as knowledge to Christians alone, but is given to all human beings made in God’s image who should be able to look at creation and figure this out.

Part II

---

You Can Change the Birth Certificate but You Can’t Change Creation Order: The Transgender Revolution Escape Biology

But that then takes me to another piece of evidence and this came yesterday in The New York Times. Yesterday. On the opinion page just a day ago in The New York Times, an article by a person who presents as a transgender female, well-known to readers of The New York Times, the name is Jennifer Finney Boylan, and the article is entitled My Birth Certificate Finally Fits. Okay, just about everything about this article is upside down. Remember, this person is a biological male writing as a transgender woman who goes by the name of Jennifer and then writes this paragraph, just take it at face value. “My wife was the one who told me that the birth certificate for baby girl Boylan had finally arrived in the mail late this summer. It had been a long time coming, 66 years in fact because baby girl Boylan of course was me.” Now Boylan, remember biological male, transition claim to female, presenting as a female in the editorial section of The New York Times.

Boylan writes, “When I transitioned nearly 25 years ago, changing my birth certificate didn’t seem necessary. I’d been able to have all my other vital records altered, from my driver’s license to my social security card, without that step.” And then Boylan says “I’d also declined to get my birth certificate changed because it seemed like a rewriting of the historical record.” Boylan then writes “To all of the onlookers, the day I arrived, the child they delivered appeared to be male. Everything else came later as I gained consciousness,” the author writes, “and clarity about who I really was.” Okay, there is an amazing affirmation of creation order. It’s accidental, it’s entirely accidental and probably unconscious. But this writer who identifies as transgender has just, in effect given, away the store because the writer acknowledges that when the baby was born, the baby was clearly male. No ambiguity, no question, it’s a boy.

But then notice how the transgender ideology works. Boylan then writes “That it was only later that clarity about gender identity became evident.” And in this case, you have an individual who underwent an entire process of what’s called gender reassignment. And we as Christians just need to recognize that’s one thing that actually can’t happen. That vocabulary doesn’t work because you can’t change biology. And even if you remove certain parts or do other cosmetic things, you could just go down the list, I’m not going to say anything more about that. Even if you take drugs, you can’t change the genetic structure. You can’t change XX into XY. You can’t change XY into XX. It is all a massive experiment in delusion. But the political context of this is also interesting because Jennifer Finney Boylan, as this author is identified, says that it is the specter of a second Trump administration that has led to this decision that the birth certificate must be changed.

Now, there’s something else that the author gives away, and that is that when the author addresses what it would mean to change the birth certificate, the author’s words are these, “It seemed like a rewriting of the historical record.” Well, that’s exactly what it is. It’s a rewriting of the historical record. And that’s one of the reasons why I think the average American would say, you can change all kinds of things, I guess, but you can’t change your birth certificate. And this just presents it, it just injects an awful lot of uncertainty even into the matter of history and the historical record because Boylan’s absolutely right, the birth certificate is an historical record. If you go back and rewrite history that way, what else can you rewrite?

And eventually you’re going to end up with a situation, and I don’t think eventually means long in the future. I think this is pretty much now, where you have persons who say, I am, well, let’s just say male or female, in contradiction to what God said when he said, let there be life. And now that individual’s in the point of saying, my birth certificate must align with my current understanding of myself. But if any historian or genealogist or just about anyone else with an interest in this individual, is going to go back and find a lie, substituting for an authentic birth certificate. But I think as a Christian, there’s something else we need to recognize here, not just the rebellion. It’s not just that. That rebellion is very clear, a rebellion against creation order. And that rebellion is not only on the part of this individual, but on the part of other co-conspirators, so to say, in the larger society, activist communities, medical authorities, all the rest.

I think there’s something else here, and I think this is something we can also understand, and this is the necessity of having a coherent story of our own lives. I think this is something also that’s very human, we need a coherent account of our own lives. And if you are going to join the transgender ideology, I guess it’s a small thing to say, I’m going to go back and rewrite even what my mom and dad thought the day I was born. And that is really radical. It is genuinely radical. I think it points to the deep hunger that is within us in terms of our personal identity. And pastorally, just in terms of love of neighbor, we can be very, very sympathetic to someone who’s confused about something so basic, so foundational, so fundamental. But the one thing Christians can’t do is join in what we know to be an untruth, what we know to be a lie, what we know to be is a giant experiment in self-deception.

That’s what the Left is now demanding of us. And that’s at stake, yes, in the November presidential election, it’s at stake in terms of the congressional elections, both for the House and in the Senate. Yes, the Senate race in Ohio, this issue is in play. And it’s in play because even some of the supporters of Senator Brown point to his support for the transgender agenda. Christians have to look at this and see a direct violation of creation order. But we also see something that brings out a certain sympathy in us, not a sympathy that says we can join the self-delusion, but a sympathy that says human confusion, which is traceable of course to sin, human confusion can reach even this kind of depth. But then again, we also have to insist upon the fact that every culture has to define male and female. Every culture has to define human identity. And every culture has to decide what exactly can and can’t be done, who can and can’t play on a girl’s team, who can and can’t gain access to medical treatments, including hormones and surgery in the name of the transgender agenda.

Part III

---

A SCOTUS Amicus Brief Cites the Bible? The Inescapable Reality That Western Civilization Is Built On a Judeo-Christian Worldview

And this is where we need to be reminded of a case in the current term of the United States Supreme Court. And this case particularly has to do with a law in the state of Tennessee saying that medical procedures, medical treatments on teenagers are not to be undertaken in the state of Tennessee in light of trying to bring about some kind of sex or gender reassignment. The Huffington Post reports it this way, “The High Court is poised to rule this term on the question of whether a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. It will very likely carry major consequences for the transgender community nationwide.” Well, that’s true, and let me just very quickly try to tell you what’s going on in this. You have activists on behalf, and that includes some parents of those who claim to be transgender teenagers, adolescents who claim that they’re being discriminated against because non-transgender identifying teenagers, can have access to those hormonal treatments in order to complete their puberty in alignment with their gender and their biological sex.

So in other words, if you’re a biological male, a boy going through puberty, you may have access to these hormone treatments to make certain that you go through the process of male puberty rightly and on time. And the same thing is true for adolescent girls who may have access to these hormones through appropriate medical treatment in alignment with their biological sex, in order to bring about successful puberty. So turning that on its head, some of these parents of transgender teenagers, they claim, they’re making the argument that it is a violation of the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause to allow some teenagers to have access to these drugs and others not to have access to these drugs. But this is where we note that the medical process here that is invoked by these drugs, it’s absolutely different in terms of its course when it’s applied to say a biological male seeking to go through male puberty, or a biological male seeking to claim a female identity and to use hormones in order to bring that to some degree cosmetically about.

Okay, so I also want to point to something else that makes this really important. It’s not just what’s at stake in this case from Tennessee that will go to the Supreme Court. We have to hope the Supreme Court will affirm the fact that biological sex matters and not to require the coercion of the will of the people of Tennessee, as reflected in this legislation. But it’s also really interesting that The Huffington Post article has the headline, “Conservative Lawmakers Repeatedly Cite the Bible in Supreme Court Filing.” So you know what, I decided I’d go get that Supreme Court filing, and I did. This amicus brief, that is friend of the court brief, is offered in this case by Trey Dellinger, who’s the Counsel of Record and senior legal fellow for the American Family Association, a Christian organization headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi. And indeed, I looked at this document and indeed it does cite the Bible, as well as citing many other court precedents, including some Supreme Court precedents.

But in the authority cited here, it includes Holy Bible, Galatians 5, Holy Bible, Galatians 6, Holy Bible Genesis 1. Well, you just go down the list. I appreciate the fact that this brief also cites the conservative intellectual titan, Russell Kirk, and his book, The Roots of American Order. Now, the very fact that those biblical citations are mentioned in this brief is supposed to make you recoil in horror because after all, why would the Bible be invoked here? But then again, we’re talking about male and female and we’re talking about the only worldview that existed at the time that brought about the American constitutional order. Not to mention the 14th Amendment as well. Let’s just say that Americans had a really clear understanding based in the biblical worldview at that time of what it meant to be male and female. And I’ll just go so far as to say most Americans on the same authority still do.

This brief concludes “Even if the court accepts the medical premise that children are distressed by their natural bodies, it does not follow as a matter of medicine or science that the Constitution guarantees them a right to chemically alter their growing bodies before adulthood. The policy implications of this distress are determinations for legislators and their constitutional implications are questions for this court,” or in other words, the Supreme Court, this brief holds, should uphold the Tennessee law. But again, going back to that article, The Huffington Post, it is elected representatives who dare to sign on to this brief and I say congratulations to them. Even with these biblical citations, it is presented as if they are breaking some kind of metaphysical rule that the Left celebrates in the language they say is the separation of church and state. But just try separating this issue from creation order, as I will argue over and over again, it turns out to be impossible.

So given the fury over the American Family Association’s brief and the lawmakers who signed onto it, I decided to compare it with a brief issued on the other side. In this case, it is by lawyers on behalf of the American Bar Association. So yes, if you’re paying dues to the American Bar Association, this is what you are underwriting. The ABA predictably comes out on the liberal side, arguing that the Supreme Court should strike down the Tennessee legislation. And I just want to read you this, remember the word cisgender here is an invented term which otherwise means straight. So that is to say a biological male who believes himself to be male, a biological female who believes herself to be female, rightly, we would point out. That is what the word cisgender is supposed to mean here.

Here is one of the final statements from the ABA brief, “Under the statute, cisgender individuals may receive treatments like puberty blockers or hormone therapy to conform their express gender to their gender identity. Transgender individuals may not. That bright line classification in the exercise of important rights can satisfy equal protection only if justified by the most compelling state interest.” So the implication of the American Bar Association is that there is no most compelling state interest here. And I’ll just point out if the state doesn’t have a compelling interest in aligning with creation order, then we are in big, big trouble. Given the influence, by the way, of groups like the ABA, that should be translated into the simple formula, we are in big, big trouble.

Once again, in conclusion, I just have to say that what we’re looking at here is the direct collision, the absolute collision between two fundamentally opposed worldviews. The worldview represented by the American Family Association and the worldview represented by the American Bar Association on an issue like this, these aren’t reconcilable. These are absolutely contradictory worldviews. And that sets before us what is at stake, not only on this issue, not only when we think about the future of this society, not only when we think about Christian witness in this increasingly secular age, but quite pointedly what it means to vote in the upcoming election because yes, it is simply a fact that these issues are in their own way on the ballot in 2024.