WHY “TRUTH OR CARE” IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY
By Tom Bartlett
During an interview on October 19, 2019, current U.S. Democrat Vice Presidential candidate, Kamala Harris telegraphed her wokeness by confiding to Chris Cuomo’s CNN viewers that her pronouns were “she, her and hers.” Following this declaration, Cuomo similarly expressed that these were his pronouns also. He was quick to recant and apologise for causing offence after being barraged by numerous leftists for his mockery of Ms. Harris’s solemn act of virtue signalling. I believe that there were very significant takeaways that eluded all sides in the response to this incident.
We are told that gender is a social construct and is fluid. After all, the whole reason that increasing numbers of leftists are announcing their pronouns is because it is entirely possible for there to be an incongruence between one’s biological sex and their chosen gender identity. In the realm of the progressive left, to assume you know another’s gender is the height of transphobia and is profoundly disrespectful. This is the reason that Canadians can now be charged for the crime of misgendering. The scolds who put the screws to Cuomo for this presumed faux pas, however, in fact revealed the feebleness of their own views on gender identity. Consider the following:
Even a “woke” leftist like Cuomo managed to step on the trans-rake since his mocking response showcased that Harris wasn’t disclosing some deep truth but was merely stating the obvious. The self-evident nature of Harris’s “gender reveal” was apparent both to Cuomo and his audience and this was telegraphed in the reaction to Cuomo’s ludicrous riff on what Harris said.
Even those on the progressive left don’t believe their own press and many recognize that this pronoun declaration is a farce – but no one dare mock it. Harris clearly felt compelled to prostrate herself in fealty to this evident charade and those who enforce the rules lack both a sense of humour and a lack of insight into the implications of their own worldview assumptions. We know this because,
Those demanding that Cuomo offer up a mea culpa never considered that Cuomo may have been disclosing something true for himself and assumed he was lying. Based on genuine sensitivity toward the trans ideology, they had no right to jump to the conclusion that Cuomo was engaging in ridicule. The assumption should have been that he was expressing “his truth” in a safe environment. Instead, he was immediately forced into repentance as he was automatically called out as a fraud. This should give pause to anyone hoping to safely express a genuinely felt gender identity at odds with their self-evident biologically established gender. After all, if this process is intended to be anything other than a parroting of self-evident truth, why bother to announce one’s gender at all?
I’m actually being serious here – insofar as paying homage to emotion over reality can be deemed worthy of serious reflection. You see, I don’t have contempt for those who experience gender dysphoria nor assume they are lying when they relate their subjective claim to falling outside of non-traditional gender categories. I know that gender dysphoria is a reality for many and is not a matter that should be treated with derision. In fact, it is my genuine compassion for those experiencing gender dysphoria that causes me to risk offence by attempting to walk through this minefield. What makes me uncomfortable is the way we are dealing with the dissonance between one’s biological sex and felt gender.
The subjective nature undergirding the philosophical treatment of gender renders it to be non-falsifiable and the implications of this can be exceedingly dangerous. Case in point: imagine you are the parent of two girls and are waiting outside the changeroom where your daughters are showering and changing after a swim. A biological male traipses up to the door and is about to enter. Sure, you can question whether the individual has made a mistake and misread the signs, but what do you do if that person says they identify as a female? Is it unreasonable for you to be concerned? How do you know whether they are accurately stating their subjectively felt reality or are just a pervert wanting access to vulnerable females in a state of undress?
The issue is not that transgender people are dangerous, but that allowing reality to be redefined based on untestable claims holds a high risk for abuse. When the state is waiting to pounce on anyone who might in any way challenge (as Cuomo’s audience did) these subjective claims, the risk of a pervert exploiting a situation skyrockets and females are the sacrificial lambs in this social experiment.
The potential costs of submitting to the leftist agenda on gender identity are exceedingly high and the real or potential victims include the members of the group they claim to be protecting. Let’s consider the most significant dangers inherent in this ideology.
Parents can risk losing custody of their children for failing to affirm their child’s gender dysphoric perceptions. This is another in a growing number of roadblocks being thrown up between parents and children by the activist secular left. There have already been several accounts of teachers and representatives from other disciplines working behind the scenes to steer children toward gender confusion. This heterodoxy is promoted through curricula and social pressures that lure in acceptance-starved children to fit in with their peers. Worse yet, feuding parents have used the issue of gender identity to turn their children into pawns in their custody battles. Whichever parent swims against the trans tide is destined to be the loser. The breakdown of the family is one of the most destructive consequences of our post-Christian society and gender identity is one of the most destructive weapons in their arsenal.
The selective application of when the innocence of children will be protected and when it will be torpedoed perpetually favours making our offspring into victims, and this is merely another extension built onto the sexual exploitation of the young. Early introduction into “comprehensive sex-ed” teaching denigrates sex as a merely physical expression of interest in another person. Females are again the primary victims as this mentality comes right out of the “male chauvinist” handbook. Based on the explosion of sexting, porn, and the display of the female body, one might assume that exhibitionism is the favourite pastime of young girls. Statistically we know that early onset and frequent sexual activity happens when a young girl’s father is not involved in her life. There is every reason to believe this same dynamic comes into play with gender dysphoria.
It is now an unassailable fact that the mainstreaming of pedophilia is well under way. The only point of dispute is how deeply we have already waded into these waters. Articles for many years have sought to downplay the notion that there is something psychologically wrong with those who are sexually enticed by children. The recent controversy over the movie “Cuties” is a prime example. Netflix’s stubborn refusal to remove the film and vehement defense of child exploitation to highlight the crime of child exploitation is beyond disturbing. Furthermore, pedophiles are now being increasingly mainstreamed as simply another demographic with the designation of “Minor Attracted Persons” (or MAPs). Such thinking is simply MAD! Groups like NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) have garnered mainstream acceptance and even taken part in the “PRIDE parades” – only to be quietly disinvited after media attention outed their presence. How, after all, can those who claim that children are capable of determining their gender be deemed too young to decide when to have sex with an adult? The question of consent goes out the window and, any dispute between the parties would necessarily be between equally committed sex partners who simply come from different generations.
The de facto presumption that any hint of gender confusion is positive and is an admission of an internally felt reality puts this population on the fast track to be adopted into the “trapped in the wrong body” brigade. There is no nuance or second guessing about the assumed wisdom of embracing the divergence. This means a rush to move forward with hormone blockers and medical mutilation of the body in what is innocuously referred to as “gender reassignment surgery.” I put it to every adult out there: Have any of you ever made a decision in your childhood or youth that you regret and wish you could take back? Don’t you wish that you had had adults looking out for you who would have stood in the gap between you and your bad decision? Isn’t that especially true when the decision is profoundly life altering? This is not mere speculation. Increasing numbers of those who have transitioned are suffering and boldly speaking out to confess to the errors in their thinking. Studies in fact show that the extraordinarily high suicide rates do not evaporate after undergoing gender reassignment surgery.
The inconsistencies in treating some false perceptions as laudable and others as mental illness or simply nonsense reveals an agenda. In addition to the rapid growth in unique gender identities (now over 100), some see themselves as being of a different race, species, age or other distinctives. In one case, a young man (Richard) identified first as a woman and got surgery to that end. He further transitioned into viewing himself as a female dragon – having his ears and nose removed, tongue mutilated, and scales added.
Under our prevailing worldview, his gender dysphoria is reasonable, but his perceived “dragonhood” is a transition too far. While neither his felt gender nor species are accurate reflections of biological reality, how can one justly label one as natural and the other as a delusion? Did the surgery make Richard either a woman or a dragon? Doesn’t the procedure itself provide evidence that there is a dissonance? If Richard clung to these identities and underwent no surgery, would this change his identity or classification as a member of one, both or neither of these categories?
Another apt comparison is the anorexic individual. Should we grant their perceived “fatness” as accurate even while they are starving themselves to death? I took Grade 12 Latin with an anorexic student who spent half the semester in hospital. I am thankful the hospital and her family cared enough not to allow her faulty perception to deny her the treatment she needed because I, too, valued her life and cared for her well-being.
Questions that Christians and society as a whole ought to therefore resolve in responding to those with gender dysphoria include:
What is the compassionate response to gender dysphoria? and;
How should people ground their identity?
The government and the activist left want us to believe that affirming gender dysphoria – even through force of law – is an act of compassion. They understand that if we remain unconvinced, we will necessarily conclude that they are malicious and sadistic in their approach to gender identity through their legal sanctions, academic and social agenda, and the use of chemicals and surgical “corrections” to alter biological reality. One could rightly consider whether the push to gender affirmation and transition is borne of compassion or malice given the statistical evidence that it does nothing to alleviate the staggering rates of depression and suicide among this population. Whatever the real motives, these gender options are distinctions without a difference as the list of casualties sacrificed on the altar of political correctness continues to expand.
There has been a spate of prominent “former Christians” who have “left the faith” because of the seeming lack of compassion for those in the LGBT community. They claim to no longer view those who embrace these lifestyle choices as deviants and objects of disdain. Admittedly, the church has much to answer for with regards to our example and messaging when it comes to offering grace and mercy to sinners; we have done much to arm our critics. Nevertheless, if this is the sincere belief of those who have fallen away, then I can only conclude that the problem has been either in the doctrine of the believers within their circles or in the heart of those who have renounced their faith based on these terms.
While the “progressive church” is rightly called out for unmooring their treatment of sin from scripture and adapting their moral standards to align with the zeitgeist, this is also true in many mainline churches. The only distinction is where the lines of social acceptability are drawn. It is much easier to be swept up into compromising on gender dysphoria and homosexuality when the church has failed to stand firm on premarital sex, cohabitation, and unbiblical excuses for divorce and remarriage. We give ourselves grace in areas that may better align with personal and social tolerance of sinful actions and wonder why we are deemed hypocritical for being unwilling to compromise on same-sex marriage and gender identity. The answer to this conundrum is not to cede ground in the culture wars and adapt our enemies and friends lists in the light of shifting social attitudes, but to return to a right view of scripture.
Any Christ-follower who bases their opposition to the transgender or homosexual agenda on animus, personal discomfort, or any other emotion-based response is guilty of the kind of judgment Christ Himself condemned. Biblically literate Christians know that Matthew 7, in its full context, is not admonishing us not to judge, but to judge rightly. Your visceral reaction to any behaviour is irrelevant in God’s economy. Those who leave the Christian faith because they have developed a heart for those in the LGBT community while judging their former faith community as hateful hypocrites only means they have transitioned from judging one group to judging another.
Given that Matthew 7 opposes hypocrisy, we Christ-followers must be the first to consider our own sins and biases. All of us are guilty of dysphoria in terms of our identity unless we relinquish lies about who we are and find our answers in the person of Christ. Our duty is neither to condemn nor to agree with those who accept a lie, but to show love and invite everyone into relationship with the Source of all Truth. Our approach must be grounded in love for the individual – knowing that none of us deserve the mercy shown to us. We must remember that it is because Christ identified with us in our state of sin that he was able to rescue us and give us a new identity in him. None of us can clearly see who we are apart from God.