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.
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
·
“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.
