Est. May 2008

28 July, 2014

Flushing Science

What else can this possibly be called:
NEWBERG, Ore. — A growing number of openly transgender students have forced schools around the country to address questions so basic that they were rarely asked just a few years ago, much less answered: What defines a person’s gender, and who gets to decide?

A small Christian college here, George Fox University, has become the latest front in this fight, refusing to recognize as male a student who was born anatomically female. The student calls himself a man, and as of April 11, when a state circuit court legally changed his sex, the State of Oregon agrees.

But George Fox University sees him as a woman, and it prohibits unwed students from living with anyone of the opposite sex. (emphasis in original)
Interestingly, this is a Quaker (read ‘religion-based’) college which is actually adhering to the biological concept of gender; they will not accede to these demands because of the student’s anatomy.

But, as Mr. Graham points out, ‘Forget the science.  The dictatorship of relativism is bearing down.’  The champions of science, who make no bones about their belief that religious people are the ones who deny science, are themselves denying science, aren’t they?

But they have science on their side – or at least they believe they do:
“What we’ve learned in the few cases that have gone forward is that the only humane and consistent way to determine a person’s sex is based on their lived experience as male or female, that any other approach, whether anatomy or chromosomes, will discriminate against some people,” said Jennifer Levi, director of the Transgender Rights Project at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. (emphasis in original)
Well, of course anatomy and chromosomes discriminate against this sort of thing – that’s because it’s against biological science.

If, for instance, this student thought she was a dog, putting a collar and leash on her, making her crawl on all fours and urinate/defecate outside, and making her eat dog food out of a bowl on the floor would be grounds for committal to an institution and, likely, criminal charges of abuse for the person who encouraged her delusion.

It’s also scientifically obvious this student is not male:
“Living in a female dorm means that each day, the first thoughts I have are about my struggles living in a body that never felt right to me,” he said. Living there while undergoing testosterone therapy has been a particular challenge. (emphasis mine)
If she’s actually a ‘he’ – based entirely on her desire to be male, remember – she shouldn’t need testosterone therapy: her body ought to be producing adequate testosterone for her to be male.  Males don’t need testosterone therapy, unless there’s some kind of medical problem.

Back to my earlier example: if she thought she was a dog, would anyone advocate giving her dog hormones to encourage her delusion?  Again, no.  And, again, that would probably land somebody in jail for abuse.

And then there’s this:
Jaycen is supposedly more male because she's into "the video game Call to Duty and listening to R&B and hip hop."
’More male’?  Girls like that used to be called tomboys, and usually they didn’t run into any difficulties until they – and the boys – began looking at the opposite sex as something other than somebody to go out and climb trees and skin knees with.

In fact, weren’t we regaled not too long ago about how it’s okay to let girls play with boy’s toys, and vice versa?  That giving boys toy guns and trucks and giving girls dolls and kitchen play sets was nothing more than gender-stereotyping?  So why is the idea that since this student likes ‘boy’s stuff’ – like video games and hip-hop and rap (Iggy Azalea, Queen Latifa, Missy Elliott, and Lauren Hill are all men inside?  Coulda fooled me) – she ought to be considered a boy?  ‘She likes video games; she must be a boy’ seems to be the thought, yet if that’s not gender-stereotyping, I don’t  know what is.   Yet we aren’t hearing any howls from the peanut gallery on that one, are we?

As we see science swirling down the bowl, Mr. Graham sums it up nicely:
There's not one sliver of space in this politically correct story for the idea that the "LGBTQ" agenda is completely at odds with Christianity and other major global religions, and that to force this sinful agenda on religious institutions is a breach of religious liberty, which seems to be one of the Obama administration's goals.
Well said, sir.  Well said.

No comments: