"When Amazon erased my book"

As many know, conservative Catholic political philosopher and ethicist Ryan Anderson (PhD, Notre Dame) had his book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment removed from Amazon mere days ago. This represents the latest battle in the culture wars. A battle which is all the more pressing in light of Biden's Equality Act. The left and its sympathizers will seek to cancel even the most reasonable, informed, and charitable voices if the voices dissent from leftist convictions or commitments. Anderson writes about all this and more in his First Things article "When Amazon erased my book". I don't agree with everything, but it's still worth a read.

For now, people can still purchase Anderson's book on Encounter Books (the book's publisher), Christian Book, Barnes and Noble, and other bookstores.

Update. From Ryan Anderson:

Update 2. From Abigail Shrier:

Read the rest of the thread.

The modern self and the sexual revolution

"A conversation with Dr. Carl Trueman on the modern self and the sexual revolution"

An excerpt from the interview to whet your appetite:

[Charles] Taylor is one of those enviably polymathic people. He’s been a politician. He’s a political philosopher. He’s a straight down the line philosopher. He’s a scholar of the German philosopher Hegel. He’s a historian. I found him particularly useful on two fronts. One, Taylor correctly identifies Romanticism as the key move in Western society where inner feelings become constitutive of who we are. He sees that as leading to the formation of a particular notion of the self which he calls the expressive individual. Essentially, what he means by that is that the self comes to be thought of as that which we feel inside, and the self manifests itself when it’s able to behave outwardly in accordance with those inner desires. That’s where we get the language of authenticity. Today in society, we often use the language of authenticity when we’re talking about people. A good example is Bruce, now Caitlyn, Jenner in his interview with Diane Sawyer when he was talking about transitioning. He made the point that ‘finally I’m going to be able to be who I always have been.’ Essentially saying, ‘finally, I can be authentic. Finally, I’m not going to be living a lie anymore.’ Now, you don’t have to be a transgender person to identify with the notion that ‘I want to be outwardly that which I feel to be inwardly.’

Second is Taylor’s notion of what he calls the social imaginary. I found this extremely helpful. The social imaginary points to the fact that most of us don’t relate to the world around us in terms of first principles. Life is not a syllogism. I don’t get up from my chair and think, ‘Okay, where do I need to exit the room from? Oh, there’s a door over there. I’ll go through the door.’ I get up and instinctively leave through the door. The social imaginary gets to the idea that that’s how we think about an awful lot of things. It’s how we think about morality. We tend to pick up the intuitions of the world around us, internalize them, and make them our own. We don’t alway think in terms of first principles when we think about morality. A good example might be provided by the gay marriage issue. Most people have not come to find gay marriage acceptable by reading heavy tomes of sexual ethics or sociology. Most people have gay friends or have seen attractive images of gay couples and things like the sitcom “Will and Grace.” It’s not that they’ve been convinced by argument. It’s that their intuitions have been shaped by broader cultural patterns. I found that very helpful in approaching this notion of the modern self. It’s not that we get up one morning and decide ‘Let’s be expressive individuals.’ The very air we breathe shapes, tilts, and bends our intuitions towards that result.

Beyond binary

A friend asked me to comment on this:

https://sundayschoolanswers.wixsite.com/kalebgraves/post/a-christianity-beyond-binary

A Christianity Beyond Binary

God is beyond gender binary, so why can't our faith be too?

I’m a Christian, training to be a minister, and LGBTQ affirming. I was affirming of gender non-conforming and transgender people before I supported people seeking same-sex relationships. This may seem like a bigger step than just acceptance of same-sex marriage, but this affirmation is backed up by medicine, scripture, and praxis that has only gotten stronger since I took this position a few years ago.

For a couple of reasons I'm skipping over the "medical evidence:

Is homosexuality genetic or learned?

Someone at Apologetics Academy asked "Is homosexuality genetic or learned?". My response:

1. So a more technical answer is it's multifactorial and polygenic. At the same time, the same could be said for any sexuality (e.g. heterosexuality, bisexuality).

2. Moreover, sexuality (in the way it's used in the post) isn't limited to physical properties alone. There are also significant psychological elements in sexuality. It's the distinction between biological male/female (which is physical and physiological) vs. what does it mean to be masculine/feminine (which is more psychological), even though the one can influence the other.

3. In fact, homosexuals and transgendered persons debate this. Many people aren't aware, but there's an internecine battle waged within the LGBTQ umbrella. In general, homosexuals want to argue biological sex is fixed, whereas sexuality is fluid. (I think I use "sexuality" differently from the way it's used in the post.) So one is a biological male since our genes are fixed, but sexual orientation, behavior, attraction, and so on are e fluid (e.g. butch, femme, dyke, boi, stud, top/bottom).

By contrast, in general, transgendered persons want to argue biological sex is fluid, while sexuality is (usually) fixed. So, for example, a biological man can have sex reassignment surgery and become a biological woman. This would mean biological sex is fluid. However, though they are now a (transgendered) woman, they will argue they continue to have sexual desires for women, hence they are akin to lesbians.

This, of course, angers the homosexual community in general. Such as lesbians. Lesbians don't wish to have sexual relations with a transgendered woman who used to be a man but now believes they are akin to a lesbian.

4. Finally, it depends on one's underlying worldview. If one is an atheist materialist (naturalism), then they might argue we can reduce everything to the physical. That presumably includes psychological properties being reducible to physical properties. Like how the mind is reducible to the brain.

The potter and the clay

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (Rom 9:20)

Some poorly formed musings on a few separable topics which (hopefully) become more closely tied together at the end:

I think a fundamental issue at stake in the debate over LGBTQ issues is whether humans have a nature. Specifically a male and female nature. Is there some fixed core essential(s) that makes us human? Is there some fixed core essential(s) that makes us male and female? Or is human nature malleable or changeable?

If, let us say, atheism and neo-Darwinism are true, then it appears we have no fundamental human nature. Indeed, it appears neither does any other animal. Rather it would seem all living things are on a single ever-evolving spectrum of life.

Take whales and hippos. These are considered by neo-Darwinists to be close living relatives to one another. Yet they appear to be starkly different from one another. How can there be a fundamental whale nature or a fundamental hippo nature in such disparate animals which evolved from a common ancestor, which in turn evolved from another common ancestor, and so on?

Indeed, if we push it back far enough, all life on this planet shares a universal common ancestor. How could each organism's nature be fundamental to the organism when life presumably originated in a single kind of organism? Is the whole panoply of life of the same kind, only differing by degrees? Or is it different kinds - which, if so, how do different kinds differ at a fundamental level when they all originated from a universal common ancestor?

In addition, how could a fundamental nature exist before its corpus existed? We humans didn't exist at the beginning of life on Earth, according to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. So how could our natures have existed at this point in time?

Rather it would seem more likely there is no fixed point in terms of a whale or hippo or any other creature's fundamental nature. An organism's fundamental nature itself seems subject to evolutionary forces.

If it's true, though, that humans have no fundamental nature, then it would seem anything goes. Males and females may as well be interchangeable. Transgenderism wins.

In general, many if not most homosexuals oppose this, because they believe we have a fixed or fundamental nature, but a non-fixed sexual orientation. The former is immutable, but the latter is mutable. However, if the homosexual accepts atheism and neo-Darwinism, then on what basis would they argue we have fundamental male and female natures?

What's more, if we have no fundamental human nature, then why can't we mold humans into whatever we wish? Why shouldn't we mold humans into whatever we wish? Indeed, in atheistic totalitarian regimes, that's precisely what they do to their citizens. The state decides what people will be. The clay has become its own potter; the molded its own molder.

Transgenderism enables pedophiles

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2020/01/16/felon-no-longer-deemed-threat-after-sex-reassignment-treatment/4479275002/

Puberty blockers

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/01/59422/

"Pronoun hospitality"

https://jdgreear.com/askmeanything/when-talking-with-a-transgender-person-which-pronoun-should-you-use/

i) Bracketing other issues, a basic problem with "pronoun hospitality" is that many trans feign gender dysphoria as a political wedge tactic. Consider drag queens at public libraries. They don't suffer from gender dysphoria. They are pedophiles using transgenderism as a ruse.

ii) Another example is biological male athletes feigning transgender identity to beat girls or women in female sports. They don't suffer from gender dysphoria. Rather, it's easier for male athletes to compete with female athletes. A calculated ploy. 

iii) Another problem with "pronoun hospitality" is that it dishonors real men and women. It's like comparing your mother to a drag queen.

iv) Another example is people like Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill who indulge in resume inflation to game the system. Does Christian hospitality require us to play along with their bogus minority status? That dishonors bona fide minorities.

v) Or what about political candidates and job applicants who lie about military service. Should they be accorded the same respect as actual servicemen?

vi) Shifting to people with genuine gender dysphoria, compare that to someone on an acid trip who believes he's invulnerable to harm because he's a superhero. If everyone plays along with his delusion, he will get himself killed.

Chick-Fil-A chickens out

The irony of the Chick-Fil-A capitulation is that Chick-Fil-A was under no meaningful pressure to chicken out. When the LGBT thugs went after it the first time around, and Chick-Fil-A stood its ground, it won the standoff. Sticking up to the social justice bullies was good for business. So we have the ironic spectacle of Chick-Fil-A capitulating after it won the confrontation. By caving in now, it has nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

By initially standing its ground, Chick-Fil-A demonstrated the weakness of the LGBT thugs. They only have power when people cede them power. They pick on the weak. When, however, they go after something big and popular, their tactics are ineffectual. 

Popular or powerful companies have a particular civic duty to stand up to social justice bullies because they have the clout to beat the bullies. What's especially craven about the Chick-Fil-A cave-in is to compare that to the courage of a persecuted elderly florist. In contrast to Chick-Fil-A, which had nothing to lose by holding firm, she has everything to lose. The Chick-Fil-A Quislings have betrayed her. They threw her over the back of the sled. 

But as I've said before, we live in a winnowing time. This is a test of faith. And God notices which side people take. On judgement day, there will be a reversal of fortunes. 

Drag queen patriarchalism

Transgenderism is the new misogyny. We've come full circle from historic discrimination against women through the woman's lib movement and equality laws to the oppression of women under the guise of transgenderism. Drag queen patriarchalism.

Civil war in the LGBT "community"

https://www.proginosko.com/2019/10/lgbs-are-kissing-t-goodbye/

How to destroy a child's mind

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/10/24/video-surfaces-trans-child-texas-custody-battle-telling-father-mother-tells-hes-girl/

Anne Georgulas

(Anne Georgulas, above, is James Younger's mother.)

We've already made a few posts on James Younger: first post, second post, third post, fourth post. I believe this is our fifth post on the case.

James Younger update

BREAKING: the judge in the #ProtectJamesYounger case has ruled that the father will have a say over medical decisions, including the "transition" of his son. This is the best outcome we could hope for in a horrible situation all around. I think our outcry made a real difference.

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) October 24, 2019

I'm less sanguine about this development. It may well be that the judge was caught off-guard by the scale of the backlash, both popular and by other segments of the TX political establishment. But the judge has the final say, and to my knowledge the judge has consistently sided with the mother.

My suspicion is that the judge's action is a ruse to preempt the state investigation (by the TX Attorney General's office and the Texas dept. of Family & Protective Services). It takes some pressure off the judge. The story dies down. The judge might then side with the mother on puberty blocks and cross-hormone "therapy". While that would instigate a new campaign and might launch a new state investigation, it buys the mother time to press ahead with her plans to chemically castrate the boy. 

Keep in mind, too, that you can't count on having social conservatives in the TX political establishment in years to come. The balance of power might shift. 

BTW, the judge is up for reelection. Hopefully voters will turn her out of office.  

So I'm inclined to be cynical about the judge's latest ruling. The only outcome that matters is what actually happens to the boy. It would be fatally naive for social conservatives to assume we "won", that's safely behind us, and it's time to move on to other issues. Don't take your eyes of this case. Keep monitoring developments. 

Waking up from wokeness

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/a-pastors-awakening-transgender/

Transgenderism is breaking up some traditional Democrat voting blocks.

Sign petition to protect James Younger

https://lifepetitions.com/petition/i-support-the-father-of-6-year-old-boy-being-forced-to-live-as-a-girl

Dad tries to save son from transgenderism

If we’re hearing all the relevant information about this story (and I urge “if,” because I haven’t seen the full trial transcripts circulated), it’s one of the worst state abuses of power I have ever heard of -- an act of child abuse encouraged and facilitated by the state. https://t.co/LqBFRUfWD2

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) October 23, 2019

And to piggyback on Steve's post as well:

1. If all the reports are accurate, then I couldn't agree more. It's maddening, infuriating, lamentable. The kid has no more hope for a happy childhood.

2. Not to mention by all accounts I've read the 7 year old boy doesn't want to be a girl but his mother is forcing her choice onto the boy. Does this set a precedence for parents to transition their children into a different sex against their children's wills? At this point, it looks like progressives are arguing women should be able to abort their child even as newborns no longer in the womb and women should be able to turn their children into whatever sex they wish their children to be despite biological realities. Is there anything women can't do to their children according to progressives?

3. The mother is a pediatrician who should know better. However she's a terrible and evil person. Indeed, it seems to me there are many women like her.

4. Women have had a loud and clear voice for generations, but who will speak on behalf of men? Men seem to be increasingly unfairly discriminated against in our society. Boys and men are increasingly tyrannized by third wave feminists and progressives in general. For example, Christina Hoff Sommers has documented a lot of this.

5. I don't know if there's any more hope for the father to win a court case. I don't know if he can appeal. Or even take it to the Supreme Court.

6. However, if there are no more legal options open to the father, and assuming most people bow to the evil judicial decision, then if it were me I think I'd consider trying to "kidnap" my son (in fact both of my sons since they're twins) and fleeing to another state or even another nation. I realize this is desperate, but I don't know what else the father can do. It seems he's only left with hard choices for his sons: a choice between state-sponsored child abuse under an evil mother in the US vs. a more normal childhood under a good father but living life on the run. But I think this kind of "kidnapping" is arguably justifiable on Christian ethics.

7. Remember this case whenever you hear liberals and progressives say things like "transgenderism doesn't harm anyone", "transgenderism is not a mental illness", "everyone should get a choice", "it's their choice, not yours", "you're bigoted against transgendered peoples", etc. The truth is liberals and progressives are always pushing their abnormal values onto normal people, but acting like they're the victims when normal people dissent.

Judicial child abuse

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-jury-rules-against-dad-trying-to-save-his-7-year-old-from-gender-transition

Because human beings are social creatures, there's an inbuilt tendency to submissively follow orders. No one should enforce the judge's ruling. The time is long past due for Americans to defy judicial tyranny. 

And what does it say about the moral blindness of the jury. A Texas jury, no less. 

The new emasculinity

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gq-emasculates-itself-masculinity/

Jerry Falwell, Jr.

Truth. Corruption and sin inside the church are far, far more damaging to the church than the conduct of those who don't believe.

We not only often forget 1 Cor. 9-13, we reverse it -- focusing on the sin outside the church while excusing and rationalizing sin within. https://t.co/sh2cOi5oCd

— David French (@DavidAFrench) September 9, 2019

i) False dichotomy: while internal corruption is often more damaging to the church than outsiders, that doesn't mean the conduct of unbelievers can't be equally damaging to people outside the church. No, Jerry Falwell, Jr. isn't a bigger problem than drag queen story hour. Nice diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from the fact that the war on normal boys and girls is enormously destructive to the physical and psychological wellbeing of boys and girls. 

ii) Moreover, we live in the world, not in the church. What happens inside the church isn't hermeneutically sealed off from what happens to Christians, as well as innocent children, in the world. 

iii) Furthermore, regimes hostile to Christianity have decimated the church in many parts of the world. 

iv) Finally Falwell isn't the church. Not remotely. He's just one guy. A creep who inherited a Christian college from his dad. Most Christians have zero leverage where he's concerned. That's up to the board of directors, the donor base, and prospective students. 

He's not the voice of evangelicalism. The evangelical movement has thousands of spokesmen across the globe. It's good to condemn him, but that's all most of us can do.