Search Results

“What is a Woman?” is the title of a very recent feature about transgenderism in New Yorker Magazine. It focuses on a bitter debate going on between transgender activists and radical feminists. The trans activists would have you believe that being a woman is something you can define for yourself. They’d say a man is a woman if he believes himself to be so. “Not so!” retort the radical feminists who reject that idea pretty much as just another example — quirky but more insidious than ever — of male chauvinism. The latter call themselves “rad fems” and seem to be a remnant of the feminism of the 60’s. Rank and file feminists of today have marginalized and abandoned them, choosing to fall in line with the trans agenda. If you have the chance to read the New Yorker piece at the link above, you’ll want to ask yourselves these questions: What do the trans activists want? What do the rad fems want? What exactly is going on here? And what has it got to do with me? On the last point I would say it has everything to do with you. This is not a debate we can chuckle about on the sidelines. For those not tuned into the gender wars, this may seem amusing. But I personally see nothing amusing about it. There’s something seismic going on beneath the surface and we ought to be very aware of it. What is really at stake here is not merely a matter of defining what a woman is. There is a hidden and much bigger question at stake: “What is a Human?” And that’s the question the trans agenda really intends to settle for each and every one of us. It’s intended to define all of us and all of our personal relationships. Let’s pay attention . . . to be continued tomorrow.

The New Yorker piece I discussed yesterday — “What is a Woman?” — has gotten quite a bit of attention. I noticed in my news feed that even Rush Limbaugh picked up on it during his show yesterday. You can read the transcript here, in which Limbaugh talks about what he calls “The Feminazis vs. the Transgenders.” Limbaugh confessed little understanding. (And, boy, he sure doesn’t get it.) The transcript reveals that the caller was likely a transgender activist. He seemed to use quite a bit of humor and ingratiating wile to promote the trans agenda and steer Limbaugh’s listeners into dismissing the radical feminists. (Rush should give rad fems equal time.) So, what is the agenda of the transgender activists? On the surface, it’s supposed to be about non-discrimination. About allowing people to present to society whichever gender they say they are, and not suffer any negative consequences in employment, housing, business, or anything. But the underlying premise of transgender rights is that our sex is “assigned” to us at birth. This is key to understanding how it affects each and every one of us in law. The insidious term “assigned” has been sneaked into legislation as a given, and is not even up for debate. And so the trans agenda’s first order of business to shove their laws through and silence anyone who questions them. Which brings us to a thorn in their side — the rad fems. What is the agenda of the Radical Feminists? Transgender activists have dubbed them: “Transgender Exclusionary Radical Feminists” and use the acronym “TERF” as a slur. (This is partly because rad fems believe women have a right to ban male-to-female transgenders from women-only facilities and venues, and refuse to use trans “preferred pronouns.”) Rad fems argue that being born male is a privilege and any man carries that privilege with him even if he “transitions” to female. The act of transitioning only accentuates gender, and perpetuates and promotes a patriarchal society, according to rad fems. I will add one more important thing about the radical feminists. In my view, they’re doing a great service by lending their voice against the transgender push to transition and sterilize children based on a child’s perceived “gender identity dysphoria.” We all should be glad and grateful that they are speaking out against this barbaric practice. The transgender route to power is strewn with evasion, deception, and dysfunction. It uses a lot of strong arm tactics (which we might even call patriarchal) of silencing all opponents, especially a vocal minority who stands for a much purer version of their purported agenda of equality. The trans agenda also has a lot of influence and huge sums of money behind its agenda, including the full support of the Obama Administration. Trans activists have pushed very hard through their window of opportunity which remains open only so long as enough people stay ignorant of their real aim: which is to redefine the humanity of us all. To be continued . . .

If you’re a reasonable person, you probably don’t mind engaging on a topic that involves the reality of things. Facts are within this realm. Observable truth, is, for example, that Boston is north of Washington. Of course, we must all agree on the definition of the word “North” in order to arrive at any agreement. And we must all agree on the relative locations of Washington and Boston. If everyone in the room were suddenly to challenge this fact, and say that Boston is south of Washington, you’d be taken aback. When a fact is challenged loudly, it’s destabilizing because that takes us to a place of unreality. If we’re stuck in that realm long enough we can lose our compass, our anchor. And things start looking very surrealistic as we enter that Twilight Zone. Exchanging opinions, beliefs and various dogmas are a different story. If you believe something very strongly, but it’s not part of the realm of universally observable fact, you should expect some skepticism when you express it publicly. UFOs fall into this category. And I would say transgenderism does as well. The problem is that transgender law is hellbent on challenging essential facts about human reality. One observable fact about humanity — defined in science as well as biblically and in the plaque of the Pioneer spacecraft illustrated above – is that it comes in two kinds. Males and females are the same in all of their biological systems, except for the reproductive system. In that they are absolutely distinct. The question transgenderism raises for us is: Can a person who rejects the sex they were “assigned” at birth become the other sex because he or she believes it to be so? If you say the answer is “Yes,” then pray tell: what does that mean for our sense of reality? It means some seismic things. If we no longer agree on the definition of terms “male” and “female” that has vast implications for everything else in the landscape. When the terms are corrupted, when the map is compromised, people easily become displaced and disoriented, without direction — which means ripe for manipulation. This changes the whole experience of being human, placing us in a trap of ambiguity as to who and what we are. If that’s where transgenderism leads us, what does it bode for human relationships? And power and freedom? To be continued . . . .

The Borg's stated goal is utopian: to "achieve perfection."  It greets its victims by saying "Resistance is futile."  Sounds a little bit like how bureaucracies work.   My point is that whenever power gets too unchecked, too unbalanced, too centralized, it's on a trajectory to abuse that power.  And the ultimate destination if left unchecked seems always to be imposition of death.  That's just a fact of history and a fact of life. I wish everyone would become familiar with two fascinating studies that have been done on the dangers of centralized power.  The first is the book Death by Government, by R J Rummel (d. 2014) His central point -- echoing Lord Acton's famous quote that  "power corrupts" -- is that power kills and absolute power kills absolutely.  Rummel spent much of his career compiling statistics of 20th century death tolls from government abuses of power.  The bottom line?  169 million lives lost through government killing of its own people.  How does this compare with all the casualties -- both military and civilian -- of all the wars and conflicts of the 20th century? 38 million.   Death by government was more than four times more lethal than all the wars of the 20th century combined. The second study is a course entitled "Utopia and Terror in the 20th Century" in which University of Tennessee Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius draws the direct connection between master plans for Utopian societies and the terror that is always required to push those utopian programs forward. (You can obtain this series of  very engaging lectures from thegreatcourses.com.) Seems utopian dreamers have no patience or tolerance for any kind of resistance whether active or passive. I think the best defense is for everyone to champion their own individuality with the understanding that other people matter.  That's the whole basis of de-centralized power. Speak your mind thoughtfully, with the understanding that free speech is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. Cultivate friendships. Reach out in goodwill, one on one and face to face.  And be of good cheer.  Solid relationships are the best bulwark against state power.  A sense of humor always comes in very handy, too. In the end, it is not resistance that is futile.  Submission is what really kills us all in the end.  Submission is futile. The Borg's stated goal is utopian: to "achieve perfection."  It greets its victims by saying "Resistance is futile."  Sounds a little bit like how bureaucracies work.   My point is that whenever power gets too unchecked, too unbalanced, too centralized, it's on a trajectory to abuse that power.  And the ultimate destination if left unchecked seems always to be imposition of death.  That's just a fact of history and a fact of life. I wish everyone would become familiar with two fascinating studies that have been done on the dangers of centralized power.  The first is the book Death by Government, by R J Rummel (d. 2014) His central point -- echoing Lord Acton's famous quote that  "power corrupts" -- is that power kills and absolute power kills absolutely.  Rummel spent much of his career compiling statistics of 20th century death tolls from government abuses of power.  The bottom line?  169 million lives lost through government killing of its own people.  How does this compare with all the casualties -- both military and civilian -- of all the wars and conflicts of the 20th century? 38 million.   Death by government was more than four times more lethal than all the wars of the 20th century combined. The second study is a course entitled "Utopia and Terror in the 20th Century" in which University of Tennessee Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius draws the direct connection between master plans for Utopian societies and the terror that is always required to push those utopian programs forward. (You can obtain this series of  very engaging lectures from thegreatcourses.com.) Seems utopian dreamers have no patience or tolerance for any kind of resistance whether active or passive. I think the best defense is for everyone to champion their own individuality with the understanding that other people matter.  That's the whole basis of de-centralized power. Speak your mind thoughtfully, with the understanding that free speech is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. Cultivate friendships. Reach out in goodwill, one on one and face to face.  And be of good cheer.  Solid relationships are the best bulwark against state power.  A sense of humor always comes in very handy, too. In the end, it is not resistance that is futile.  Submission is what really kills us all in the end.  Submission is futile.

Contemplate this: a Slate article entitled “Don’t Let the Doctor Do this to Your Newborn.” According to the author, obstetricians all perform a “procedure” that is very harmful: Announcing whether the baby is a boy or a girl. Yes, that’s the “procedure.” Pointing out the obvious. It seems truth-telling is getting to be more of a crime with every passing day. And you thought that your son or daughter was your son or daughter. The Slate piece tells you “Not so fast!” You have no right to call your newborn a son or daughter. Doing so is committing the offense of “infant gender assignment.” It’s deemed “harmful” to the transsgender population who say all children should decide on their own, usually as pre-schoolers. Anyway, here’s a short excerpt: Obstetricians, doctors, and midwives commit this procedure on infants every single day, in every single country. In reality, this treatment is performed almost universally  without even asking for the parents' consent , making this practice all the more insidious. It's called infant gender assignment: When the doctor holds your child up to the harsh light of the delivery room, looks between its legs, and declares  his opinion: It's a boy or  a girl, based on nothing more than a cursory assessment of your offspring's genitals. The article ends by stating "infant gender assignment" is like playing "Russian Roulette" with your child's life. You may have seen a related piece on this propaganda campaign in the story of Ryland Wittington, a girl being raised as a boy by her parents.  Ryland's parents are pretty much acting as an arm of the LGBT lobby. Click here for the manipulative Youtube video they produced about Ryland.  Also, click here for a compelling rebuttal to it:  "I am Ryland: The Story of a Male-Identifying Little Girl Who Didn't Transition." It's unsettling to me how many folks still underestimate the reach of the transgender lobby. Its tentacles are long, and it has huge implications for growing state power.  The insanity grows with articles like that one in Slate, essentially intended to engineer how each and every one of us sees ourselves. When a group demands that everybody -- particularly the 99+ percent who do not identify as transgender -- stop identifying any infant at all as either male or female, it's time to wake up.  Transgenderism is an assault on truth.  It requires us to deny the obvious, to deny biological reality.  For everybody. And it won't end there.

To answer to the question “What is a human?” for the purpose of this blog series, we need only refer to the simple and existential question of the child: “Where did I come from?” A human being is a creature who is born out of the union of one male human being and one female human being. This is true for every man, woman or child who has ever been conceived, whether male, female, or ambiguous/intersex. Transgender persons may wish to deny this, but their own humanity is based in their origins of one male united with one female. Whether we know our biological parents or not, they are how we came into being. Whether it happens in a bed or a petri dish doesn’t matter. A human being may present as the opposite sex or as a sexless being or both sexes or genders or as many as they imagine, but it doesn’t change the reality of their humanity. Nor anybody else’s. The transgender activists’ idea that a person may identify as male or female regardless of biological sex is nothing new. There are plenty of famous cases in history and literature. The idea of androgyny — the male/female being — is an old concept that goes back to ancient times. Here’s what’s new: The attempt to force onto everybody the transgender idea of human identity, and the push to codify it as quickly as possible into law under the guise of “non-discrimination.” The key phrase slipped into these laws is that our sex is merely “assigned” to us at birth. If we accept that premise, then we will certainly reach a point at which nobody can be legally identified as either male or female. Eventually, we all become “other” in the eyes of the state. How are we supposed to understand our origins in this scheme? Answer: It looks like we’re not intended to understand our origins. Nor, ironically, are we supposed to chart our own destiny in this vacuum of ambiguity. It’s a destabilizing prospect, but that’s where we’re headed with this. The transgender movement has less to do with equal rights than it has to do with a war on language, aimed directly at destabilizing our sense of human identity.

I hope you’ll look at my blog post over at The Human Life Review today:  Unborn Child at Forty.  It's about an amazing choice made by the famous 1970's rock duo Seals and Crofts.  They released a pro-life song right in the wake of the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision to legalize abortion.  We may view this as a courageous decision, but they viewed it simply as the right thing to do. In so many ways abortion serves as machinery for destroying and poisoning all human relationships.  The abortion culture not only kills children, but it drives a wedge between mother and child, which I think is the most fundamental of human relationships. And, of course, between man and woman.  The implications for all other relationships are vast. In 1974 when James Seals and Dash Crofts released "Unborn Child" as an album under the Warner Brothers label, they were at the pinnacle of their fame and success.  You may remember their gold hits, which included "Summer Breeze" and "We May Never Pass this Way Again." Those songs are still played frequently on oldies radio stations.  But you probably don't remember "Unborn Child," because it was boycotted. Warner Brothers strongly advised Seals and Crofts against releasing "Unborn Child," but they proceeded as a matter of conscience, and it damaged their careers.  You can imagine.  Roe vs. Wade was already sowing very deep seeds of division and bitterness in American society and culture. They could have chosen risk-free career advancement.  Instead, they chose an act of mercy.  A glorious choice.

Last week in The Federalist I wrote at length about the conflict between radical feminists – or “radfems” — and transgender activists. I was especially pleased to see Catholic Culture author Phil Lawler take this up in his recent article “The Rising, Dangerous Influence of ‘Transgender’ Ideology.” I hope you’ll read both. I think the dissension among leftist factions here is fascinating. The radical feminists are true purists in their beliefs, so much so that they are not at all willing to conform with the political correctness of the Transgender Project. They stand firm even as so many in America – including the vast majority of their liberal feminist sisters – comply. And even though this puts radical feminists in the same camp as conservatives on that particular issue, they do not waver. They believe that the female experience cannot be impersonated or counterfeited by a male who decides to transition to female, and they are fearless in saying so. They cede no ground, So whether or not you agree with them on other issues, it’s gratifying to see such courage of conviction by a minority so shunned and smeared by erstwhile allies. The trend to normalize transgenderism in our society has all the hallmarks of a cult. We’re beyond the phase of Hollywood and the media softening the ground for the transgender movement. We are now in the phase of enforced compliance, complete with smear tactics and social punishment – labels of “bigot” or “transphobia” — for those who dare to resist. Everyone is getting with the program: the medical community, schools, and even churches. It’s reached the point that children are being prepared – by their parents — to have sex reassignment surgery when they turn 18. So I’m encouraged by radical feminists who resist all of this. And not simply because they take a stand on transgenderism that I happen to agree with. It’s far, far more than that. The radfems’ display exceptional resistance the pressures of the cult mindset, impressive to behold. And they are front lines in this war right now. If the trans activists succeed in shutting them down, everyone else is next. More power to the radfems in their resistance.

"Imagine you cannot raise your own child without special permission from the state. In this matrix, getting permission means getting a license. And getting a license means the state performs psychological evaluations and background checks and passes judgment on your fitness to be a parent." The above is an excerpt  from my Federalist essay today:  "Licensing Parents: A Statist Idea in Libertarian Drag."   In it I focus on an article I read recently, entitled "Licensing Parents," which was written by an academic named Andrew Cohen and appeared on a website that claims to be libertarian and run by several pretty well established academics whose slogan is "free markets and social justice."   Though it ran a couple of years ago, I thought it noteworthy to see the whole concept of children as state property dressed up as a libertarian idea. My article today did not discuss a piece on the same topic which ran last month in Wired:  "It's Time to Reconsider Restricting Human Breeding," by Zoltan Istvan.   I hope to get to that later. I expect to see more of a drumbeat on the idea of licensing parents as the government takes over more and more functions of the family.  (The best friends these programs have may be folks who claim to be for limited government.) Along with those policies comes a watering down -- and basically a takeover -- of all of our personal relationships by the State.  Naturally, it starts with the takeover of the family.  We can no longer write off such ideas as "wacky" since we live in an era of particularly implausible and wacky government policies now coming to fruition. So please read, digest, and fight on. "Imagine you cannot raise your own child without special permission from the state. In this matrix, getting permission means getting a license. And getting a license means the state performs psychological evaluations and background checks and passes judgment on your fitness to be a parent." The above is an excerpt  from my Federalist essay today:  "Licensing Parents: A Statist Idea in Libertarian Drag."   In it I focus on an article I read recently, entitled "Licensing Parents," which was written by an academic named Andrew Cohen and appeared on a website that claims to be libertarian and run by several pretty well established academics whose slogan is "free markets and social justice."   Though it ran a couple of years ago, I thought it noteworthy to see the whole concept of children as state property dressed up as a libertarian idea. My article today did not discuss a piece on the same topic which ran last month in Wired:  "It's Time to Reconsider Restricting Human Breeding," by Zoltan Istvan.   I hope to get to that later. I expect to see more of a drumbeat on the idea of licensing parents as the government takes over more and more functions of the family.  (The best friends these programs have may be folks who claim to be for limited government.) Along with those policies comes a watering down -- and basically a takeover -- of all of our personal relationships by the State.  Naturally, it starts with the takeover of the family.  We can no longer write off such ideas as "wacky" since we live in an era of particularly implausible and wacky government policies now coming to fruition. So please read, digest, and fight on. "Imagine you cannot raise your own child without special permission from the state. In this matrix, getting permission means getting a license. And getting a license means the state performs psychological evaluations and background checks and passes judgment on your fitness to be a parent." The above is an excerpt  from my Federalist essay today:  "Licensing Parents: A Statist Idea in Libertarian Drag."   In it I focus on an article I read recently, entitled "Licensing Parents," which was written by an academic named Andrew Cohen and appeared on a website that claims to be libertarian and run by several pretty well established academics whose slogan is "free markets and social justice."   Though it ran a couple of years ago, I thought it noteworthy to see the whole concept of children as state property dressed up as a libertarian idea. My article today did not discuss a piece on the same topic which ran last month in Wired:  "It's Time to Reconsider Restricting Human Breeding," by Zoltan Istvan.   I hope to get to that later. I expect to see more of a drumbeat on the idea of licensing parents as the government takes over more and more functions of the family.  (The best friends these programs have may be folks who claim to be for limited government.) Along with those policies comes a watering down -- and basically a takeover -- of all of our personal relationships by the State.  Naturally, it starts with the takeover of the family.  We can no longer write off such ideas as "wacky" since we live in an era of particularly implausible and wacky government policies now coming to fruition. So please read, digest, and fight on.

Play the trailer below to get a faint idea as to how Lois Lowry’s novel The Giver was adapted for the screen. The setting is a dystopian society, which, of course thinks of itself as utopian. The perfect “community.” Children are assigned to family “units” and everyone lives an illusion of peace and harmony because they’ve been anesthetized not to feel any strong emotions. All memory of human history was wiped out in order to protect them from pain and suffering. Everyone lives a sort of outwardly pleasant robotic existence. They practice “precision of language” and apologize to one another a lot. There’s no real personal choice. One’s life — just like the economy — is planned from on high. And it all leads to blind cruelty. In the story, one person designated as “The Giver” (played by Jeff Bridges) serves as a keeper of the memories. It is a covert position that was established in the event the elders of the society ever needed to consult on a question requiring that knowledge. (Meryl Streep plays the chief elder.) A boy named Jonas (played by Brenton Thwaites) has to try to make sense of it all. If you’re going to the movies this weekend, I definitely recommend The Giver. Despite any flaws, it’s a rare and welcome message in these painfully politically correct times. To learn more, click on Jack Fowler’s review of The Giver in National Review: “Take Someone to The Giver.”

Check out the above chart that was published last week in a Bloomberg News article about a growing trend among Americans to stay single rather than marry. For the first time ever, a majority of the adult US population is single. The Bureau of Labor Statistics — which supplies the figures in its monthly jobs report — calculates the percentage of “selfies” as 50.2 percent, or 124.6 million adult Americans. That’s up from 37.4 percent in 1976. I see this shift as an indicator that the individual in our society is becoming more “atomized,” with individuals less connected to others in strong relationships. Fewer marriages mean fewer children in marriages and more detachment from a sense of family. This in turn can lead to a strong feeling of displacement, a feeling that there are no community bonds either. In fact, only natural families can build natural communities that nurture young and old alike: communities of faith and voluntary associations that include deep friendships based on trust. When a sense of belonging is gone and trust in others is diminished, people look for comfort in other places: shallow relationships, gangs, the anesthesia of drugs, and government programs. It all makes for the perfect vacuum for the State to fill. The State is always promoting its own brand of artificial community that can’t substitute for intimate bonds of love. It’s been taking over the functions of family in policies like state-run childcare, elder care, health, and education. People who feel isolated naturally look to these programs when there’s no place else to go. But the silver lining is that 75 percent of adult Americans are either married or say they want to get married, according to a 2013 Gallup poll. And when high school seniors were asked how important a good marriage was to them, the results were even more encouraging: 84.5 percent of girls and 77 percent of boys replied that it was “extremely important.” So people still desire strong relationships, and they still say that they do. We should remember that because it’s cause for optimism and offers a window of opportunity. It means people really do believe in their hearts that strong family ties are the best way to defeat alienation and loneliness. We need to reach out and find new and effective ways to convey the obvious truth that strong marriages make happy communities.

In yesterday’s Federalist, I have a piece called “Love in the time of Terrorism.” I focus on the case of “Black September” the most feared terrorist group of the 1970’s. They were the scourge of the 1972 Munich Olympics, where they kidnapped and killed 11 Israeli athletes and a German police officer. Maybe you’re familiar with this iconic photo. In the essay I explore how and why some men become so violent and single-minded about pushing their will on others. I can’t say anything that you don’t already know in your gut: Without strong family ties and without a sense of purpose, many young men have a tendency to channel their natural aggressive instincts in destructive ways. They easily sow chaos. So great is their need to be viewed with awe by others, especially other men. But you must read the story of the taming of Black September to see how utterly true this is. I believe it closes the case entirely on any other “theory” about the causes of such violence. It all stems from being cut off from relationships. People need strong and healthy relationships, particularly a sense of family to feel grounded and at peace. This proved very true in the case of Black September. Please read the story of how the members of that terrorist organization were tamed by PLO intelligence operatives after the PLO, led by Yasser Arafat, saw their behavior as a political liability. Arafat told them to basically “switch it off.” What did the PLO do? They found a way to marry the men off to the most beautiful Palestinian women they could find, and then they provided the men with non-violent jobs, nice apartments, and a huge cash incentives to start families. The men became so content with their new lives that they refused all offers to go abroad on official PLO business for fear of being arrested and hence separated from their families. It’s an amazing story with huge lessons for understanding hierarchies, human motives, and the utter need we all have for strong relationships. The story also flies in the face of modern feminism and gender theory. I hope you’ll read it.aa