Social sadism

http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2019/08/social_sadism.html

Transgenderism, Human Ontology, and the Metaphysics of Properties

https://www.epsociety.org/userfiles/Arbour%20and%20Gilhooly_Transgenderism%20(Final2019-1).pdf

House of Wax

Here's a story that's getting lots of buzz, in the latest frontier in transgender rights:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/accusations-fly-at-human-rights-hearing-into-transgender-womans-brazilian-wax-complaint

As the progressive minded guy that I am, the obvious solution is to open more beauty salons catering to transgender women, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbCfuFJ30t4

If they want a wax job, give them the deluxe treatment. Anything less would be chintzy and transphobic!

Puberty blockers

Testosterone is important for normal male brain maturation. Here is a report of an 11 y/o boy on puberty blockers: IQ dropped 11% (80 to 71) after 17 mo.

As the EIC of the BMJ has said, PB are being used in a state of “profound scientific ignorance.”https://t.co/Cb23bBYHye

— William J. Malone, MD (@will_malone) July 17, 2019

Thanks to Steve for sending this my way.

The study mentioned in the tweet is sad, but useful:

1. The so-called "puberty blocker" is Lupron. That's an off-label drug. It's normally used in chemotherapies against prostate cancer in men and breast and ovarian cancers in women. It can cause significant side effects even in adults. Granted, most drugs aren't safe in large enough doses, or in certain populations, but giving Lupron to a little boy seems to be asking for trouble.
2. Of course, the critic might reply "n=1", i.e., you can't generalize from one case to the rest of the population. However, this isn't the only study where PBs have been shown to harm a child's (still developing) brain/IQ. For example, see here, here, here, and here.
3. Likewise, good overviews on puberty blockers in treating gender dysphoria here (Ryan T. Anderson) and here (Paul Hruz, Lawrence Mayer, Paul McHugh).
4. It really should be common sense not to give these kinds of drugs to little kids. A 10 year old boy at the time. Especially to a little kid with an already low IQ. A low IQ of 80 which dropped even further to 71. 80 is classified as "low average" in terms of IQ. 71 is classified as "borderline mental disability". 69 is where the mental disability classification begins. If a mentally deficient little boy thinks he might be a girl, then that might well be explained by the fact that he's a mentally deficient little boy rather than because he has "gender dysphoria". Isn't that common sense? You don't need a medical degree to know that.
5. Sure, this boy gave "consent", but he could easily have been persuaded by an adult to give consent. It's just taking advantage of a mentally deficient little kid. He's a guinea pig for experimental medicine based on a trendy social theory du jour.

   To be frank, it seems almost like a Nazi medical experiment where mentally deficient little kids are tricked into taking this or that drug to see what happens. I suppose a key distinction is the Nazi doesn't care about the kid, but the parents and doctors who advocate for puberty blockers believe it's in the kid's best interest (though there are some shady doctors out there). At best, that might make the latter less culpable if they're ignorant (particularly the parent, but one could argue physicians should know better), but I would think they're still complicit to some degree. Perhaps negligence?

6. This might have already done irreparable damage to the boy's cognitive development. Of course, progressives don't really care for kids with low IQs anyway. That's in evidence by the fact that the majority of abortions are performed on babies who have Down syndrome.

Gender dissenter

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/allen-josephson-gender-dissenter-gets-fired/

Wokesperson

https://www.proginosko.com/2019/07/wen-ya-gotta-go-ya-gotta-go/

The Incoherence of LGBT

https://www.proginosko.com/2019/07/the-incoherence-of-lgbt/

How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated Pediatrics and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/im-pediatrician-how-transgender-ideology-has-infiltrated-my-field-and-produced-large-scale

US women's soccer

The US women's team won the Women's World Cup today. Apparently this is the US women's fourth World Cup victory since the dawn of the Women's World Cup. That's the most titles of any nation.

Riding this wave, it appears women are demanding equal pay in soccer because apparently women make significantly less than their male counterparts in soccer.

I admit I haven't followed the equal pay issues in women's soccer in significant depth so I don't know if what I'm about to say is on target. Here are my remarks:

1. First, congrats to the women's team. Megan Rapinoe is the media darling and MVP, but Rose Lavelle looks like the real breakout star of the team in terms of athleticism.

2. Do women in soccer deserve to make the same money as men in soccer? I don't know that "deserve" has anything to do with it. I don't know that it's an ethical issue. Rather I presume salary largely reflects viewership, sponsorship, and advertising. If a sport can get tons of viewers, sponsors, and advertisers interested, then the sport will have more money, and I presume players can get paid more. Isn't that normally how it works in sports? Why should it be different for women's soccer?

3. If we're judging simply by athleticism, I imagine it's not as fun to watch women play soccer as it is to watch men play soccer. To be frank, as good as our women's professional soccer team is, and I don't wish to take anything away from them, nevertheless they look more like amateurs playing soccer in comparison to a low tier male professional soccer team let alone a world class team like Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, England, Portugal, etc. I imagine that's the case for most men's vs. women's sports, not only soccer.

4. I presume sports like women's tennis and volleyball are popular at least as much (if not more so) for the female athletes' appearances as for their athleticism. That's not to suggest it's fair.

5. I don't have a problem if women are paid equally or even more than men in the same sport. Perhaps women's soccer can bring in as much if not more viewership, sponsorship, and advertising than men's soccer in the US. Especially in light of this latest World Cup victory. If so, then women could very well be paid on par with or even more than men. I don't have a problem with that.

6. My problem is if women are paid on par with men by dictum presumably due to political, social, or cultural pressure to pay women more simply because they're women. That seems sexist. And women shouldn't wish to get paid more simply because they're women any more than men should wish to get paid more simply because they're men. How is that empowering?

7. Take men's soccer in the US vs. England. To my knowledge, the English Premier League (EPL) tends to pay their players more than the Major League Soccer (MLS) pays their players. I presume that's because the EPL has more viewers, sponsors, and advertisers involved than the MLS does. However it'd be laughable if someone argued men's soccer players in the MLS should get paid on par with men's soccer players in the EPL, not because the MLS is bringing in the same viewership and money and so on as the EPL, but simply because they're paid lower and deserve to be paid more, or perhaps because the "potential" for viewers in the MLS is greater than the "potential" in the EPL.

8. I don't know if it would help or hurt if transgendered "women" make it onto the women's national soccer teams. I guess it'd improve the athleticism, but won't many viewers find that unfair or offputting in some way? At best, wouldn't it be like watching a low-rent men's soccer team? Who would want to watch that?

Progress in the culture wars

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/24/lgbtq-acceptance-millennials-decline-glaad-survey/1503758001/

The transgendered brain

I recently saw this on Facebook:

The brains of trans people more strongly resemble the brains of the opposite/desired sex than their own sex. Their gender dysphoria is grounded in biology. My own knowledge of gender psychobiology (evolutionary psychology was my interest at university) is against the recent societal shift to de-pathologise trans people (for example, removing gender dysphoria as a requirement to access treatment), although I understand the desire to push for acceptance. This article acknowledge that trans people are marginalised. They have the highest suicide rates of any subgroup and yet the Church seems so focused on justifying why we believe what we believe. I’m not sure that’s the important conversation here. Jesus has the answers for trans people. We need to show them that.

Some research regarding the brains of trans people behaving more like the brains of the desired sex:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763415002432

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X17301885

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453017305590

1. How many of the children included in these studies have come from families with gender dysphoria? If enough, that could significantly skew the results to say the least. For example, if nothing else, that can be seen in the power of suggestion adults have on children.

2. The studies are based on MRIs. What can MRIs tell us about fundamental human psychology? For example, an assumption in these studies is certain brain activities could be gendered.

a. On the one hand, it's true there's sexual dimorphism in areas of the brain associated with language production and/or reception (e.g. Broca, Wernicke). On the other hand, we know this because we can correlate language-associated areas of the brain with language production and/or reception between males and females (e.g. compare average spoken words per minute in males vs. females).

b. However, when it comes to human psychology, especially if the assumption is human psychology isn't necessarily correlated with human biology, then what's the static or non-moving standard by which we can correlate the two?

3. Indeed, interpretations of these MRIs are based on stereotypes about what a male brain should do/not do and what a female brain should do/not do. However, if male and female psychology aren't necessarily associated with male and female biology in the ways and/or to the extent transgender proponents argue, then is there a certain way a male and/or female brain should and/or should not function?

4. If (as these studies argue) it's possible for a brain scan to diagnose people with gender dysphoria or transgendered individuals, then physicians can use brain scans to detect people with gender dysphoria or transgendered persons. In fact, in theory, it's possible physicians can detect transgendered persons before they themselves are aware. It'd sort of be like detecting cancer before cancer becomes clinically detectable (e.g. weight loss, palpable lump). In that case, physicians could be required to inform the transgendered persons and (debatably) intervene for their benefit.

However, this would come into tension if not conflict with the goal among some or many trans proponents to delegitimize gender dysphoria as a bona fide medical or psychiatric diagnosis.

5. All this seems to exclude a class of transgendered persons, i.e., transgendered persons who don't have the requisite differences in brain structure and/or function. I'm referring to non-dysphoric transgendered persons, non-binaries, fetishistic cross-dressers, and so on.

6. Interestingly, here is another study published in Nature which shows that the MRI scans of people with gender dysphoria and people with homosexuality were not significantly dissimilar. Minimally this would seem to suggest there's no detectable difference between (say) transgendered persons and homosexuals. In that case, how are they different? In that case, aren't these brain scans really detecting homosexuality? That's what the homosexual community argues.

Love & marriage

An evangelical Christian publicly solicits advice about whether he should break off his engagement to a woman who believes abortion and homosexuality are morally licit. My response, though I'm sure others can do better:

1. I'm assuming you and others (e.g. friends, family, pastors) have already attempted to reason with her, but she still won't change her mind. If you haven't, of course, then this is something you should try to do if you wish to salvage the relationship. Try to graciously win her over to the truth. If you have tried, time and time again, but she remains unconvinced, then what more can you do? You can't reason with her if she doesn't wish to listen to reason.

2. Romantic love that motivates people toward marriage is wonderful. However, a good marriage can't be built solely out of romantic love. If romantic love is all there is, a marriage simply won't last. It'll be like fireworks fizzling out after all the champagne, toasts, kisses, and celebrations are finished. After the honeymoon period, there needs to be something that will give a marriage staying power. Staying power to last a lifetime. In short, what's most needed is fundamentally shared beliefs and values about the most important things in life. And nothing is more important in life than God. The God of the Bible, who is the one, true, and living God.

3. There are central issues and peripheral issues in Christianity. There are issues which Christians can agree to disagree on and issues which they can't or else it'd undermine what it means to be a Christian. Abortion and homosexuality are central issues.

a. Abortion is, at heart, about life, about neighbor-love, about loving and protecting life in the weakest and most vulnerable, i.e., babies. This reflects the character of the God of the Bible who protects the helpless, the weak, and so on. If she's willing to put her "right to choose" over and against the baby's "right to live", to prioritize personal autonomy over what's moral, then is that the kind of person you want to be your wife and the mother of your children? For example, wouldn't you be concerned she might abort your child behind your back if she decides it's inconvenient for her?

(By the way, I can cite medical and scientific literature demonstrating a zygote-embryo-fetus is a human life. All these terms are different stages of development but the same baby. It's like saying newborn, infant, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, adult, elderly. Just different terms for different stages in life but the same human being.)

b. As for homosexuality, as well as transgenderism and other related issues, the problem is this dives deeply into what it means to be human. To be male and female. To have been created in the image of God.

That's something secular society is confused about because they don't really believe in God. Of course, if God doesn't exist, then there's no objective universal foundation for "being" a human being. Not that I can see. If God doesn't exist, or at least if God's thoughts don't matter, then humans don't have a fixed fundamental nature of what it means to be a human being. We can decide for ourselves who or what it means to be human if we don't need to hear from God what it means to be human.

Hence, in essence, almost anything goes. You're a man who wants to have sex with other men? You're a woman who wants to have sex with other women? You're a man, but you want to be a woman? You're a woman, but you want to be a man? No problem, do whatever makes you happy. That's the basic mantra in secular society.

However, one need only look at the lives of homosexuals who have had plenty of sex with other homosexuals. Not to mention the lives of transgendered men and women who have become what they always wanted. Sure, like everyone, they put on a happy front, but their lives are often hollow and miserable on closer inspection.

And read what Rob Gagnon, Rosaria Butterfield, Vaughan Roberts, Christopher Yuan, and Jackie Hill-Perry have to say about homosexuality. Some of them were former homosexuals who became Christians.

4. You're already doubting yourself, asking if you're a "silly fundamentalist", and so on. As such, it seems to me if you marry her, then it's far more likely she'll have a liberalizing effect on your beliefs and values than the other way around. It's a story I've seen more than once with my own eyes. A husband gradually accommodates to his wife. He believes whatever she wants him to believe. He does whatever she wants him to do. He lets her be the boss. He thinks she'll be pleased. However, in the end, how much does she really respect him for believing or doing whatever she thinks best?

5. By contrast, if you do break off the engagement, it might make her see that you really do have beliefs and values you're willing to stand up for, even at great personal cost to you. It shows her, as heart-breaking as this would be for you and her, and as much as you love her, that you have a higher love and duty to God. This may or may not make her reconsider her own beliefs. That's not something you can or should count on. However, she won't be able to disrespect you for living up to your beliefs and values. If anything, it'll likely be the opposite: she may be sad, angry, upset, or worse, but she'll have good reason to respect you.

The modern-day imperial cult

I've been getting some inquiries about Gene Bridges. I believe that's prompted by James White's 5/21 DL riposte. A few preliminaries before I talk specifics:

i) I don't have the original statement by Gene. A friend of mine transcribed what White read on the DL. So I'm going to be commenting on (most of) the excerpts from the DL. Some of Gene's remarks seem to be directed at White in particular. I don't know the original context. I'm guessing that he's miffed by White's role in The Statement on the Gospel and Social Justice–among other things. 

ii) Gene used to be a guest blogger at Triablogue. His posts are still up. He stopped posting 10 years ago. He wasn't asked to leave. He just dropped out, of his own accord, for whatever reason. I never asked. Somewhat later, for reasons I won't discuss, his connections with Triablogue were formally severed. That was a team decision. 

iii) If memory serves, Gene used to work at a gay health hotline. If so, I think his background in the gay community is skewering his analysis of the culture wars.

Capt. Marvel and gender equality

http://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2019/03/captain-marvel-and-admission-that.html

“Don’t Force Your Sexual Ideology on Me and My Children”

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/04/51308/

When a child says she's trans

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/when-a-child-says-shes-trans/561749/

Hands off my rights

https://fairplayforwomen.com/

It will be interesting to see how much traction this gets.

TERF wars

Steve sends along this article: "Lesbians Accused Of Hate Crimes For Objecting To Transgenderism At London Pride Festival".

The article was penned by a homosexual man.

If I understand correctly (the difference in "attraction" is less clear to me), here is how it plays out:

Homosexuals: sexuality is fixed.
Transgenders: sexuality is fluid.

Homosexuals: identity is fixed.
Transgenders: identity is fluid.

Homosexuals: attraction is fluid.
Transgenders: attraction is fixed.

If so:

1. Witness how homosexuals and transgenders are fighting among themselves. How it has devolved into such bitter and hostile internecine warfare. How both attempt to devour one another.

2. LGBTQ supporters want everyone to regard both homosexuals and transgenders as normal or within what's normal. However, judging by the above, both homosexuals and transgenders don't regard one another as "normal". Both vehemently disagree on fundamentals about identity, sexuality, and (it seems) attraction.

3. A telling quotation from the article:

When a heterosexual man identifies as a woman, he often expects to fully enter the lesbian world and be embraced, even if he is still physically male. Many lesbians view this as a demand for them to engage in sex with a man under social pressure.