Gender and Sex – Part 5 – Recent Controversies

The Homosexual Revolution

While individuals with homosexual tendencies have been with us for several millennia (see my earlier comments), in the last 20 years the arguments on both sides have gotten increasingly bitter and polemic.

Those who hold to a male/female binary view have engaged in an argument of false attribution by associating anyone with homosexual views as being not only a sexual pervert, but one whose goal in life is to prey on young people. But since most instances of improper sexual advances are with individuals who are heterosexual, why are we so concerned about individuals who are homosexual? There are many stories in the media about not only male school teachers having sexual relations with female students but increasingly female school teachers having sexual relations with male students (see http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-c-easton-teacher-arrested-for-sex-with-teen-20160517-story.html). If that is happening so frequently, why are we so focused on things like having Boy Scout leaders who are homosexual?

On the other hand, there are many in the homosexual community who are increasingly using methods which are guaranteed to fan the flames. First, the argument was only “we want to be able to have the benefits of marriage” (and so civil unions were allowed), then “we want to actually be married”. Also, first the request was for “tolerance”, then for “acceptance”, then “celebration” – so now if you do not celebrate homosexuality then you are classified as a “hater”.

Both extremes are equally at fault. It is wrong to falsely attribute all homosexual individuals with being sexual predators, and it is wrong to falsely attribute those do not celebrate homosexuality with being hateful.

Unfortunately, the LGBT crowd continues to use their newly found political clout to try and suppress anyone who disagrees with their agenda (see http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/19/college-boots-ex-delta-force-hero-after-complaint-from-lgbt-activists.html?intcmp=hpbt3 where it states “There is a concerted effort afoot to silence any American who cherishes traditional American values.”)

Bathroom Bills

In many ways, many of the recent transgender issues are paralleling the homosexual issues from 20 years ago.

As I indicated earlier, it was not that long ago that gender identity disorder was a rare issue of a few men, some of whom sought sex-change surgery to correct it (see http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/ for a lengthy and reasoned discussion). It’s only been over the past 10-15 years that this phenomenon has increased in prevalence. The liberal media have promoted the idea that one’s biological sex is a choice. Alliances with the LGBT movement (see earlier in this blog) have promoted the idea that one’s gender is more of a disposition or a feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons.

John Piper stated recently (see http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/will-you-use-target-s-transgender-bathroom), “The correlation between biological maleness and femaleness and self-identification as male and female [gender identity issue] is rooted in numerous ways in the Bible. It is rooted in God’s creation as male and female [biological aspect]. It is rooted in distinct roles assigned to male and female in marriage [gender expression aspect]. It is rooted in the biblical prohibition of homosexuality [sexual orientation aspect].” (Items in brackets are mine.)

And it’s not like transgendered individuals have suddenly needed to use a bathroom when they didn’t before. While the number of these individuals is not terribly large, you may have shared a bathroom with one and didn’t realize it. But, rather than making it an issue, if they had been using a bathroom that corresponded to their gender expression, i.e. the way they presented themselves in dress, etc. then no one would notice.

Like the homosexual issue, there is much false attribution on both sides. The difference between the transgender argument and the homosexual argument is that while few transgendered individuals are likely sexual predators (I’ve not seen any research on this so I can’t give specific percentages), someone who is a sexual predator can masquerade as being transgendered.

In my international travels I have on occasion been in cultures where public bathrooms have a “bathroom attendant” who has a small table outside the door of the bathroom where you are supposed to drop in a small coin when you enter. This is the “pay” for the person performing the job of cleaning the bathroom. Most of the attendants tend to be female, possibly because that role is assigned to females in that culture. But this also means that you will on occasion enter the men’s bathroom and find the attendant performing her duties, i.e. cleaning the sinks or the toilets. So, as I could recognize that it was culturally appropriate, if I was going to use the urinal I just did so quite normally, even though there was a female attendant in the room. It was no big deal.

There are two competing types of “bathroom bills” currently in the news. Some are based on the male/female binary and require that each person use the bathroom corresponding to the gender they were assigned at birth. Others are based on the current transgender proposition that each person is free to change their gender identity as they desire and they should feel free to use the bathroom corresponding to their current feelings.

While many of the news articles mention the recent policy change at Target, I also ran across the following from Ross.  Ross representative said they do not discriminate against the transgender community; adding, customers may use changing rooms that apply to their gender identity. Customer said she was shocked when the person walked out and “He was in no way dressed as a woman, he had on jeans and a t-shirt, 5 o’clock shadow, very deep voice. He was a man.” (See http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/05/17/shopper-upset-man-allowed-to-use-womens-dressing-room-in-ross/).

The problem is that each side is trying to legislate a particular morality and I’ve heard it said many times that you can’t legislate morality. In addition, the transgender proposition is trying to impose a significant cultural shift rather than allowing it to occur over time (if it ever would occur). It should be no surprise that a majority of people have rather strong reactions to this imposition.

What Should I Call You?

Also related to the recent transgender movement is the issue of what names and pronouns to use for individuals. We have a long history of using names for individuals which are not the same as the names on their birth certificates. My legal first name is “Alan” but I most often go by “Al”; my youngest brother’s legal name is “Edward” but he goes by “Edd” (not the typical spelling); Senator Rafael Edward Cruz goes by the name “Ted”, a diminutive of his middle name. Two of the kindergarten classmates of my grandson are Mehki and Nevaeh – the former pronounced “Meh-Ky” (like Sky”), the latter being “heaven” spelled backwards. I’ll leave it up to you to guess what gender each is.

So why should we object when Bruce Jenner legally changes names to Caitlyn Jenner. Is it because we associate a certain gender with those names. Would we feel any different if the new name was “Alex” or “Dana” which are gender non-specific?

But one of the new “wrinkles” to the naming issue is the use of pronouns. English has three genders – male “he”, female “she” and neutral “it”. But unlike names, which can be very unique, these pronouns are part of our male/female binary heritage and there is no appropriate way to identify someone outside of that binary (unless we use “it” which is otherwise only used for non-human objects). In writing we can use constructs like “he or she,” “s/he,” or the plural “they” even if we are referring to a single individual. But in spoken English this is not practical.

More recently there have been a number of attempts, not always consistent with each other, to introduce gender-neutral pronouns. One of the most recent is the use of ze to replace he or she and hir to replace him or her. But this is only one of the many competing suggested alternatives. (See https://genderneutralpronoun.wordpress.com/).

There are two problems with this. The first is that languages do evolve over time and it’s quite possible that this type of change would eventually come to be common usage (just as it’s now acceptable to say “I graduated college” instead of “I graduated from college” which was the only acceptable method when I was growing up). But to insist that everyone begin using these new pronouns when we are not even yet in agreement on which variations we should use is quite premature.

The second problem is that some have even begun legislating this change. Businesses in New York City face fines under a new law that makes it a violation of someone’s human rights to not use their preferred “gender pronoun”. The article states that “The draconian enforcement of gender pronouns is yet another way in which fringe politics movements (just 0.03 percent of Americans consider themselves to be transgender) are being hijacked to create onerous burdens on free speech” (see http://www.infowars.com/nyc-to-fine-businesses-that-dont-use-correct-gender-pronouns/).

Transgender Regulations in Public Schools

Many of the recent articles I have seen recently have expressed upset about the recent Obama administration “guidance” and have confused it with the “bathroom bills” that I discussed above (see http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/29302 where it calls it “Friday’s bathroom edict from the Obama Administration”). But this “significant guidance” as it calls itself is much more than just a “bathroom bill”. Here are a few statements from this guidance (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=).

·         “treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex” i.e. gender identity trumps the sex assigned at birth

·         “there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that the students must meet as a prerequisite”, i.e. it totally based on the word/feeling of the individual

·         “must allow transgender students access to such [restrooms and locker rooms] consistent with their gender identity” i.e. it’s more than just bathrooms

·         “must allow transgender students to access housing consistent with their gender identity” i.e. to put students with male genitalia in a room with an unsuspecting female student

·         “provide transgender students equal access … even in circumstances in which other students, parents, or community members raise objections or concerns.”  This speaks for itself.

I also find it interesting that the final statement in this guidance mentions making educational programs and activities “welcoming, safe, and inclusive” when there is so much that many would consider anything other than “safe.”

There are problems with this “guidance” on so many levels:

·         Massive government overreach by doing this essentially by “fiat” from the executive branch without any legislative review

·         Once again attempting to legislate morality

·         Threating the loss of federal funds for those who don’t comply, i.e. essentially bullying or blackmailing the schools into complying

·         Allowing feeling to massively trump fact by allowing gender identification without any corroborating information

·         Not allowing for any reasonable objections, even if fact based

Because this “guidance” is so recent, there is still a lot of controversy as to whether it is even legal. Since so many issues with it are still being sorted out – both in people’s reactions and in the various media accounts – I’m not going to try to resolve them here.

I’ll close by noting that in Pennsylvania our governor wants to move this same idea through the legislature, not as “guidance” but as a law. And not just in schools which take federal funding, but through private business, Christian schools, and even churches, i.e. there are no exceptions.

Concluding Remarks

When I started doing the research for this blog about two weeks ago I naively thought that it would be perhaps a couple of pages. But as I got further and further into it I realized that there is far more to this subject than I had thought.

To you, the reader, I hope that this has been informative. I’ve tried to be fair and unbiased both in my research and in my writing (except for part 4 which gives my personal views on these subjects). Because there is so much happening right now with new information seeming to be introduced on a daily basis, some of what I have written may be obsolete even by next week. But I hope that you have been enlightened.

If you have not yet started having discussions on these subjects – then please start. If you have children or grandchildren who will be impacted by these, then discuss it with them to – in an age-appropriate fashion. But don’t ignore it and hope that it will just go away.