Proper Regard for the Body - 2
When we examine nature, especially the reproductive process, the binary nature of life is self-evident. While there is the odd plant or animal that reproduces asexually, the norm is that it takes a male/female, a sperm/egg, a donor/receptor to bring about new life. This is one of the most basic, observable truths in nature and is verified by physiology, hormonal chemistry, brain structure and function and other fundamental differences that comprise males and females of various species.
Yet we are now witnessing a denial of these factual, objective truths. On the one hand, it is now in vogue to deny that sexuality is an inborn, fixed, biological reality and a core determiner of one’s sexual identity. From the national spotlight on Bruce (aka “Caitlyn”) Jenner to the young person I saw in MOD Pizza recently whose gender identity was uncertain, it is all the rage to “come out” as non-binary, fluid, genderqueer, etc.
As one parent wrote: “As a parent living the nightmare of having a teen who suddenly announces she’s transgender, I can tell you there are NO doctors who will do anything but agree. There is NO science behind this. There is NO way to medically ‘diagnose’ her … Three of her closest friends have already had full transition, paid for by their parents, so it is difficult for her to understand why we won’t do the same. It is no different than having your child captured by a cult” (quoted in Pearcey, Love Thy Body 198-199).
This leads to our “on the other hand” observation: The problem is not just a bunch of confused teens; it is greatly exacerbated by adults – parents, school administrators, medical professionals, counselors, state and federal legislators, etc. – who have bought into the big lie. Of course, the “adults” who are complicit in this movement are children and grandchildren of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s who are now judges, doctors, professors, authors, social activists, actors, columnists and other influential voices.
The result is a tidal wave of irrationality, of science and scripture being shouted down by those wallowing in emotional pain and confusion (or their advocates) who insist that sexuality is NOT biological but psychological. That is, if I feel female I’m female no matter what my biology says. Sexual identity is now a matter of self-perception or choice rather than objective reality. And this does not trickle down to everyday life but floods it with gender ambiguity:
P During the Obama Administration FAFSA forms were revised from Father/ Mother to Parent 1/Parent 2. Many other examples could be cited of institutional eradication of gender and family terminology (such as birth certificates; bathroom signs; children’s clothing and toys, etc.).
P “A few years ago Facebook announced that its users could now choose from fifty different genders. The company explained that its goal was to give people a chance to express ‘your true, authentic self.’ But there were not fifty biological sexes. So what was the assumption? That ‘your true, authentic self’ has nothing to do with your biology” (ibid 203).
P In school districts countrywide teachers and administrators are forbidden to address a student by their biological sex; they must use the pronoun or name the student chooses. Other institutions have outlawed all references to gender, and in Canada a debate has been raging for a while on government mandated speech and prohibition of unapproved terminology.
Pearcey asks: “But if gender has nothing to do with biology, then what is it based on? No one knows. In a book titled Omnigender, former evangelical Virginia Mollenkott says all sexual identities now up for grabs. A review of the book in a theology journal concluded (and this was written in all seriousness), ‘Arguments against women’s ordination need wholesale revamping since we do not know for sure now what a woman is’” (ibid 204).
How does an entire society lose its collective mind in such a short period of time? What is the driving force behind such insanity? It’s not as complicated as you might think: “Why do postmodernists want the freedom to change sexual morality? Many prominent postmodern gender theorists, including Foucault and (Judith) Butler, have identified as homosexual. Thus their real ‘enemy,’ in Butler’s words, is ‘the naturalization and reification of heterosexist norms.’ That is, their real enemy is heterosexual morality. [Butler] writes of her ‘dogged effort to “denaturalize” gender … and to uproot the pervasive assumptions about natural … heterosexuality.’ Her goal is to undermine ‘any and all’ moral discourse that would ‘delegitimate minority gendered and sexual practices’” (ibid 207).
This leads to the assumption that sexual identity is not based on biology or fixed moral standards but culture. Cultural norms have “made” males and females, and culture can unmake or remake them. This is all an outgrowth of evolutionary philosophy:
“(Evolution) implies that everything is in flux; there are no firm guideposts telling us who we are or how we should act. You see, the very possibility of morality is based on the conviction that there is a human nature, created by God, and therefore there are enduring norms telling us how to fulfill our nature, how to be fully human. But if evolution is true, then there is no stable, universal human nature – and therefore no stable, universal morality” (ibid 206).
This, folks, is how far mankind will go to please himself and deny the existence of God and His moral standards: “[They] became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man … Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator …” (Rom 1:21-25).
We are headed down a dark, treacherous path, and if left unchecked our future as a nation is bleak. If we can en masse reject the truth of sexual distinction, what other objective realities will we deny? Societies will not long survive when they lose their rationality (more on this next week), for how will we make sense of threats or opportunities? If you are under 40, gird your loins: You have a mighty battle looming on the horizon.