Secularists who subscribe to gender fluidity: Is this new science or just a feeling?

Serious question.

After watching these two videos of seemingly intelligent university students saying things that seem utterly irrational (we would almost want to say crazy), my brain craves a clear answer from you, dear secularists who believe in "gender fluidity".

First, please watch the videos. If you don't watch the videos all the way through, please do not bother to comment on this post.



College Kids Say the Darndest Things








Okay, when I watched those video interviews, my jaw literally was hanging open, and my mind was crying out, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no.... I cannot be seeing and hearing this. We cannot be here. This is a joke."

But, I understand that my position is not the "enlightened" nor "educated" nor "acceptable" one today. The college students in the videos are the ones who stand for the vision and view of the secular elite, our ruling class, so to speak: Academia, government, Hollywood, the arts, the media.

Before my main question, some context:

This rejection of "the gender binary" -- the idea that there are two sexes, male and female -- was not even a thing just a few short years ago. Oh, I'm sure it was always there way out on the fringes, but it was not a part of mainstream thought, not even approaching the radar screen of most Americans, conservative or liberal (or most human beings in general, for the history of mankind).

The concept of "gender fluidity" has blazed onto the scene in a fury, a frenzy, and one might even say faddishly. The very same high-minded folk who champion gender identity ideology today had neither thought about it nor believed in it just a few short years ago. How do I know? Well, I've been a citizen of this planet for 49 years, and I've been politically, socially, and intellectually active for at least the past 35 years. Even having been plugged in for all that time, I am bewildered at the speed of this new line of "gender" thought as it burns through every aspect of our lives and culture -- a line of thought that we all now must agree to, lest we expose ourselves as bigots or troglodytes.

Now my question:

You who are secular pride yourselves on being firmly on the side of science and the material, not believing in nebulous, emotions-based things like religion, God, metaphysics, the supernatural, the transcendent. So: What is the new gender science, the science that no one understood or saw before, that has been uncovered recently and requires the overthrow of men and women? 

Where did this science come from? Can you cite it? How did this new science capture the imagination and sweep the nation so quickly? How is it that the populace never before understood that there is no actual distinction between men and women, and why did most secular Americans miss it as well, until very recently? Why did you previously believe that there were men and there were women? Because I think you would agree with me that in the recent past, within all of our memories, we never would have heard the answers we just heard on those videos.

Or, could it be that there is no breakthrough science to which you can point? Maybe this new ideology sweeping the nation is just that: an ideology. Maybe it's based in people's feelings more than in any science or in the understanding of biology/human nature? Perhaps gender ideology is no more than a socio-political movement that seeks to undo sexual norms and constraints so that we are all "free" to do what we want, when we want, with no judgement or opposition?

I guess I'm wanting to know if you changed your mind so suddenly because something concrete and empirical convinced you away from everything you (and everyone else) had previously known, or if you are simply going with the zeitgeist, which has sprung up from feelings and desires?

And why is there suddenly (again, like a flash) such a steep social, political, and even financial price to pay for those of us who hold to the axiomatic idea of male and female, the same one you yourself held, until your very recent "conversion"?

Thanks for considering jumping in the discussion. I want to understand the principle behind your stance, and how it came about so quickly.

Quick Takes: About that slippery slope...

Yikes, as I go to hit "publish", I realize that this is a terribly depressing Quick Takes! You might want to skip this one if you are having a bad day. (Although you shouldn't miss #6 and #7!)

1)  Sexual "progressives" have no natural stop, no identifiable point at which sexual "progress" is complete. Despite this fact, we are told that there is surely no slippery slope leading from gay "marriage" to the acceptance of other types of disordered sexual relationships. Yet amidst these denials, other minority sexual orientations are busy walking the legal and social trail that's been blazed for them by gay activists:

Consider three articles that I ran into on the same day.

First, Slate runs a serious plea for the acceptance of polygamous marriage:

Legalize Polygamy!

(Polygamy, by the way, is more naturally ordered than any gay sexual pairing; I'm not sure why gay unions are embraced while polygamous marriages are vilified? I think polygamy stands a good chance of winning approval, eventually, especially if folks are serious about "marriage equality for all". I mean, why not?)

Next, German proponents of bestiality protest a law that they claim discriminates against zoophiles:

German Zoophiles Protest Law Banning Bestiality

The zoophiles claim that they are "born with" their sexual orientation and that their sexual expression should be seen as normal, acceptable behavior that can be exercised responsibly. These particular zoophiles are advocating in progressive Europe, but American zoophiles are looking to follow the course that gay "marriage" proponents have taken here in the United States.

The third article opens a path for human/animal "marriage" someday, the way I see it. Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer is to be featured at a Yale conference promoting -- I kid you not -- "non-human personhood":

Yale conference to promote ‘non-human personhood’: will feature infanticide advocate Peter Singer

Hey, if animals can be declared persons (a designation denied human beings in the womb), then couldn't (and shouldn't) marriage rights follow? After all, Peter Singer and others see some forms of bestiality as a positive good, and we are told that it is much more common than we know (I believe that). Yale recently held a conference at which students were taught to be more sensitive to "sexual diversity", including sex with animals.

As to pedophilia, we've talked about the ripening conditions for its acceptance here, and pedophile advocacy groups continue to operate both here in American and in progressive nations. 

If it all seems too far-fetched, just remember that gay "marriage" used to be unthinkable -- even a few years ago. I actually hope we slip down the slope quickly enough to shock all the boiling frogs and snap us back to reality. Nothing is inevitable, and any society can right itself again if it chooses.


2) This is one of the saddest stories I've ever read, and we as a nation are guilty:

My Hardest Night: A Nurse’s Story

This is the very situation -- leaving babies who survive abortion to die without medical care -- that Barack Obama voted more than once to legally allow. Oh, to hear one Obama supporter, or one abortion supporter, denounce Obama's votes as evil. And today comes word that as Obama stood before an adoring Planned Parenthood crowd, he invoked God's blessing upon them. The bloody, broken bodies of the millions of God's children Planned Parenthood has killed were the proverbial elephant in the room.

And the irony of invoking God's blessing continues: Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, established her organization under the motto of "no gods, no masters". So, exactly which god should bless PP's work?

Interesting that Obama never once used the word "abortion" in his fawning speech to the nation's largest abortion provider.

Yeah, I'm rambling, but since we are talking about the evils of Planned Parenthood, how's this:

Planned Parenthood Sex-Ed for Children "Too Graphic" to Show Adults

The leftist New York Times and Washington Post rejected this ad as being "too graphic" and "shocking" for their adult readers, yet Planned Parenthood endorses these materials for children as young as ten years old. Why are we giving hundreds of millions of dollars a year in taxpayer money to this corrupt and violent organization that sexualizes our kids, and why is our president its biggest champion?


3) Logic, logic, logic:

Why Gosnell’s ‘house of horrors’ is the logical result of legalized abortion

It is not hard to understand. It is not "complex". It is simple truth.

There are not different degrees of humanity. Either we are all human, or none of us is. And no one member of the human family gets to determine the humanity of any other member of the human family. Not allowed.


4) Oh, my goodness. I had no idea until today:

At Boston's bombing scene: Catholic priests need not apply

As dozens of victims were sprawled across Boylston Street, many of them in danger of death, Catholic priests came running to the scene—and were turned away. 

Doctors and nurses were welcome at the bombing scene. Firefighters and police officers were welcome. But Catholic priests, who might have offered the solace of the sacraments, were not.

... 

Jennifer Graham captures the problem well: 

"But it is a poignant irony that Martin Richard, the 8-year-old boy who died on Boylston Street, was a Catholic who had received his first Communion just last year. As Martin lay dying, priests were only yards away, beyond the police tape, unable to reach him to administer last rites…" 

Where are we? What have we become?


5) Some more interesting reading I've done this week:

A Catholic Response to Utopian Modernity

Columbus Diocese Remains Resolute, Lesbian Teacher Basks in Spotlight

Gay Marriage: A Case Study in Conformism 

Where Masturbation and Homosexuality Do Not Exist  

(Hat tip to Dr. Stacy!)

Giving the Addict His Due
(This really convicted me!)

And, finally, perhaps the most disturbing and inspiring thing I have seen in a while:

Naked Feminist Protesters Drench Catholic Archbishop as He Prays Quietly
(With a great analysis here: Girls Gone Witless)

6) I have been meaning for so long to tell you about my friend Marcus Daly, who is a master craftsman, a devout Catholic, and owner of Marian Caskets, a family company which has so incredibly impressed me! Marcus and his wife Kelly live a life of beautiful simplicity with their six children on Vashon Island, WA, and his handcrafted natural wood caskets, inspired by the life and death of Pope John Paul II, are carved with the prayers of the Divine Mercy and inlaid with a Marian Cross. Truly awesome!

I never thought that caskets could bring supernatural comfort, but these do. Check them out.

Oh, and a bonus! Because of the family's commitment to the sacredness of life, a portion of all proceeds goes toward the purchase of ultrasound machines for pregnancy care centers, "so that pregnant women in crisis can make informed choices about the futures of their babies".


7) Won't someone go and scoop up Justin and take him home forever? He has been waiting so long. And his grant just jumped by several thousand dollars, all of which can be used toward the cost of his adoption. I know a very special advocate who would be thrilled to work with any family who commits to bring him home. ;)

Justin as an infant

Getting to be a big boy!

Click here for more info on this precious little guy!


Thank you, wonderful Jen, for hosting!

And next time I will try to be more upbeat! :) :)


.

Progressives, when is your progress complete?

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."  -- C.S. Lewis

Progressives, this post is for you. I have a question for you that is real and weighty I hope you can answer with clarity, so that I can understand what it means to be a progressive today. None of these are trick questions; they are asked sincerely.

The label "progressive" was chosen purposefully, I am sure. It is meant to convey that you are forward-thinking people, making progress in society.

Progress is defined as "advancement, or movement toward a goal", so I ask…

In the realm of sexuality (since that's the pivot point of the current culture wars), toward what final goal are you advancing?

If there is no specific goal, then where are you going? Are you simply wandering? And if you are wandering, do you wander indefinitely? How do you know when your progression has ended, or do you believe that it never ends and never should end?

But going back to the definition of "progress": If you believe there is a goal and you progress to it, do you then stop there?

And if you stop at the goal, what of the others, those who keep moving on past the goal, progressing to the next place? Aren't they then the true progressives, the ones who boldly break the taboos and dismantle societal constructs? And won't you be seen as hindering progress, and repressing or oppressing those moving forward (maybe even seen as a hater)? Or will it be bad to be a "progressive" then, and will you switch to proudly wearing the label of "conservative"?

Let's get more specific.

I think it's fair to say that when it comes to sex, progressives champion the right of consenting adults to use their sexuality in any way they desire. In the past that meant working to end the stigma of contraception, masturbation, divorce, pre-marital sex, and human abortion, and today it means the normalization or mainstreaming of pornography, hook-ups, group sex, homosexual acts and most recently gay "marriage".

So, what next? When all these things are acceptable and enshrined, where do the progressives go? Who will the progressives be?

I would offer that we all already know, but when I dare to bring it up, I am shouted down. "How could you equate homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality??!!" (I do not equate them.) "I don't see great hordes of people clamoring for those things to be accepted!!" (Neither did anyone used to clamor for the acceptance of pornography, fornication, or homosexual "marriage".)

I do know that respectable progressive psychologists, academics, and activists have been quietly working to destigmitize pedophilia and lower ages of consent, and I do know that the respectable, beloved progressive, Princeton professor Peter Singer, sees nothing wrong with certain occasions of bestiality.

These are forerunners of progressive thought in our culture. Distasteful now, but as we continue to "morally progress", it's just a matter of time before these ideas gain greater acceptance.

For the progressives reading who are disgusted by such ideas, what are your natural "stops"? Can there be any? As far as I can tell, you deny the natural law (i.e., the universal moral law that can be known by the light of reason). You don't believe in natural boundaries for sex, nor the concept of "order" and "disorder" in morality. So, where are the brakes? What are your principles for dismissing these other uber-progressives out of hand?

Because they're right behind you, out-progressing you as we speak.

Thanks for any answers you are able to provide.



.