The folks that brought us the terms “preferred pronouns”, “mis-gendering”, and “reproductive rights”, are at it again. Dr. Rachel Levine was questioned by Senator Rand Paul during his nomination hearing for Assistant Secretary of Health a few weeks ago. I include the full exchange in the link below. During the five minute exchange, Senator Paul asked two direct questions. The questions are basically the same; it was asked twice because Dr. Levine refused to answer the question the first time:
- Do you believe minors are capable of making such a life changing decision such as changing one’s sex?
- Will you make a more firm decision on whether or not minors should be involved in these decisions?
Dr. Levine said he would be willing to discuss this issue with Senator Paul after confirmation. Dr. Levine had the opportunity to discuss the issue at that very moment, but it is quite clear in this clip that he did not want to answer the question. Why should we believe that Dr. Levine would take this question any more seriously later when he has an opportunity right now but is unwilling to do so? I’m not going to answer that question for you, but if you give me the power of such decisions in the future, I will discuss it with you then.
The basic question is not difficult nor is it misleading. Do any of us really believe that minors should be making these kinds of life altering decisions before they understand anything about sex and gender and life in general? Senator Paul even provided an example from a woman who made this choice as a child but regrets it years later. I don’t believe changing one’s gender is ever a good idea, but can’t those who do believe it at least agree that a child is not in any position to make such a choice?
Why is there not more outrage that a person who is unwilling to take a stand on a moral issue regarding children? The school my kids attend will not provide them a tylenol to get rid of a headache, yet there are those who say that parents who stand in the way of their children’s desire for a sex change operation should have their parental rights terminated. People believe kids choices on this life changing matter should be affirmed not questioned, and that any questioning of such a choice is inhibiting a child’s expression of oneself. Dr. Levine, who himself is a pediatrician, didn’t say any of this himself, but that view is very common these days and his unwillingness to answer the question demonstrates that he is sympathetic to it.
God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for their practice of homosexuality. America has taken sexual deviancy much further. We have people in our government who think it is normal for boys to be girls and girls to be boys; they think this is a choice that we should be able to make freely and uninhibited. A man who tells his doctor that he wants to cut off his arm (this is associated with an actual mental disorder), will not be obtain help from his doctor, but there are those who tell us now that a child should be allowed to cut off a penis or breasts in order to fulfill a belief that they were born the wrong gender. Does this make any sense? Why do we think God will spare the destruction of America when we have people advocating for this and so many willing to tolerate it?
Search on this topic on the internet and you will find all manner of people who are outraged at Senator Paul for asking the question. They don’t criticize Dr. Levine; they want to make the guy asking a straightforward question the bad guy. What kind of world are we living in? Here are just a couple such articles:
Rand Paul criticized for trans ‘gender mutilation’ remarks in Rachel Levine hearing (nbcnews.com)
This is a time for moral clarity on such issues. I can live and let live on many things. I don’t support Bruce Jenner’s decision to become Caitlyn Jenner, but this is a free country and he can do what he wants with his life and I am in no position to influence him. But the problem with Bruce Jenner is that the decision is lauded and those who don’t laud it are attacked. The progressives are never satisfied with simply obtaining the right for any such deviant behavior; they want to the rest of us to affirm such behavior. This is why Caitlyn Jenner is made “Person of the Year”. This is why Senator Paul is made the villain; he does not accept the notion that transgenderism is a good thing and that makes him very, very bad. He attempts to show how the practice can be taken to extremes and the nominee is able to dodge the question, to give the impression that anything in support of transgenderism is okay and somehow our media (who wants to control how you think), tell us Senator Paul is the bad guy. Senator Paul is providing moral clarity, but that’s not what they want us to hear.
We saw this same thing play out a few years ago with homosexual marriage. The pitch was that homosexuals simply wanted the same rights as heterosexuals. It’s a simple argument and one that does appeal to a lot of folks, but it was not an honest argument. The real pitch is that they want the rest of us to affirm their behavior. I always said I don’t want to limit what you can do in the privacy of your own home; if you want to live a gay lifestyle, that’s your choice. Neither I nor the government should intervene in your choice (nor was anyone ever trying to intervene). I also said when this debate was going on a few years ago, that if you can find someone to marry you, then go right ahead. When the vote came to N.C. in 2008, I voted against gay marriage as did the majority in our state. I did so because I believed it shouldn’t be sanctioned by the state, but if you want to get married and live out your gay life, feel free to do so.
The right to marry was never the issue; it was that affirmation that the advocates on the other side always wanted. Let me illustrate the point. Since 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court determined that there is a “right” to gay marriage found in the Constitution (who knew?). We then see the true colors displayed. The state of Colorado fined Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop, for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The couple was granted the “right” to marry by the Supreme Court, but they believed Mr. Phillips had no right to choose who could employ his services. In my book, compelling someone to work for you without their consent is the definition of slavery, but the state of Colorado saw it differently.
Luckily, this time the Supreme Court upheld Mr. Phillips right to refuse to bake the cake, but we are one vote away from us not having the right to refuse to provide services to which we have a conscientious objection. How long will it be before churches are compelled to marry homosexuals against their own religious objections? By the way, Mr. Phillips has been sued twice since he won his case in the Supreme Court. Do you think he is being targeted because he took a principled stand? Do you think they want to make an example of anyone who does not affirm their behavior? Do you think the Masterpiece Cake shop is the only baker in all of Colorado? Do you think their might be a few other bakers who would be willing to bake a cake for these folks?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-christian-cakeshop-sued-discrimination
Or maybe you think if Masterpiece Cake shop is allowed to get away with this, then gay couples will have no place to turn for their wedding cakes? If you think this, I would like to sell you a bridge. Even if it were true, I don’t see why this should become the defining civil rights case of our era.
We can look also at the case of Jessica Yaniv who is a transgender (biological male) who tried to compel a salon to provide waxing services typically only provided to women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Yaniv
Jessica can ruin his own life and pretend to be a woman, but he should not be able to compel others into believing this charade. But that’s the Progressive’s goal. They want you to believe their fantasy. This is what the fight is about. Transgenders and gays can live their lives as they see fit, but they need to be resisted when they attempt to get the rest of us to affirm their views. They want to normalize their own deviant behavior and demonize anyone who does not agree with their life styles. I can tolerate their life styles, but I cannot accept them. I heard a Catholic priest recently who made this same point. He said to homosexuals who want to join the Church: “You are not accepted, but you belong.” The Church will never tolerate homosexuality, but it will do everything it can to love, respect, and reach out to those who practice it.
More Examples
It is not just Rachel Levine who is advocating these views on behalf of our government.
Julian Castro, former Obama HUD secretary and 2020 presidential candidate apparently believes that men can have periods and can reproduce.
I don’t believe in only reproductive freedom, i believe in reproductive justice. All women — and that includes the trans community — have the right to an abortion. #DemDebate— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) June 27, 2019
“I believe in reproductive justice, and what that means is just because a woman — or, let’s not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female — is poor doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise the right to choose,” Castro said during a presidential debate.
We are supposed to accept this as the new truth? In the novel “1984”, the government official asked: “What does two plus two equal?” The correct answer, he said, was that “it equals whatever we want it to be”. The questions before us today are who can have a baby, who can have an abortion, who can have a period? The answer is whoever we say. Another question is how many genders are there? There have always be two, but today, we say there as many as you would like. Do you think this kind of thinking is just silly and not dangerous? What will you think when you are on the wrong side of the issue and are compelled to accept something you know not to be true?
Merrick Garland, the Biden administration’s new attorney general, testified as well and he didn’t seem to understand differences between men and women. Here is an excerpt from the Federalist regarding his testimony:
During Garland’s confirmation hearing on Monday, Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana pressed the judge on the issue, asking him if he agreed that “allowing biological males to compete in an all-female sport deprives women of the opportunity to participate fully and fairly in sports and is fundamentally unfair to female athletes.”
Garland, however, responded with a non-answer, claiming it is a “very difficult societal question.”
Merrick Garland Won’t Say If He Supports Protecting Female Sports (thefederalist.com)
I will tell you that if a biological male attempts to compete in a sport against my daughter I would be apoplectic.
In 2016, N.C. Governor Pat McCrory took a common sense stand against allowing anyone to decide upon the bathroom of their choice. Again, I would be apoplectic if I caught a biological male attempting to use the ladies bathroom while my wife or my daughter were. Yet, the NBA took a stand against McCrory and withdrew the All Star game from Charlotte because he took this common sense stand: NBA Pulls All-Star Game Out Of Charlotte Over ‘Bathroom Bill’ | HuffPost
The Huffington Post characterized the governor’s position as controversial: “The controversial law, which was passed in March, forces transgender people to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender they were assigned at birth, rather than the gender they now identify as, and bars local governments from protecting the LGBT community through nondiscrimination policies.”
Amazon recently censored a book which engages in a serious discussion of transgenders and gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is an actual medically defined condition, but Amazon has decided upon themselves that the “science is settled” on this matter. Can there be any doubt, they, along with our Progressive media and politicians, want to control what we think? Here is a clue: whenever anyone says the “science is settled”, as is said about so many things today, you can be assured the science is not settled and the point of this phrase is to end all debate on the matter.
Folks, we aren’t just on the edge of the slippery slope with regard to this matter, we are rapidly accelerating down it. Please take notice. Please speak up and push back against the madness. You are not a bigot for believing that men are men and women are women. You are not wrong for thinking there is something odd, something not quite right with the desire to change one’s gender. You are not full of hate for believing that homosexual behavior is a sin. You are not wrong if you are uncomfortable with the notion of gay marriage. You have a right to your opinions and you have the right to have your point of view on these issues heard.
End With a Prayer
At the start of the 117th Congress in January 2021, one of the Representatives ended the opening prayer with: “Amen and A-woman”. This seems more silly than anything, but the silliness is indicative of the more serious debate about what is truth and what is not. They want to change the traditional notions of men and women and make us think that men and women are interchangeable. Men and women are different; they are complementary and each have their own strengths and weaknesses, but to say such an obvious thing is deemed controversial today. What ought to be deemed controversial is all the nonsense they want us to believe. Don’t accept it. Push back on it.
Did Democratic Congressman Add ‘A-Woman’ to Opening Prayer? | Snopes.com
Seek the Truth 
One thought on “What’s a Gender?”