Normalizing, Part III: Change Is Possible

There’s so much more to cover about the lines that have already been crossed toward normalizing sexual perversion, I’m sure we’ll leave out plenty. But this third post is probably enough for now. (See Part I and Part II.)

For the sake of sanity, let’s start with this clip from Monty Python’s Life of Brian:

So, in 1979 the movie depicted the absurdity of a man suddenly deciding he was a woman, when it was clear to all those around him (who were supposed to be open-minded people of the first century AD) that, of course Stan can’t just “be” a woman; he doesn’t have a womb. He can’t have babies—and that isn’t even the fault of Roman oppression. It’s just a fact of life.

I’d say this basic fact was obvious common sense until about 2 minutes ago, historically speaking. A decade ago, during discussions about same-sex “marriage,” when activists were asked what would be the line that would not be crossed, the line that would be too far, pedophilia and transgenderism were both supposedly beyond the line. No one would ever accept those perversions. It was that recent that the term “transvestite” became politically incorrect and became “transgender,” about the same time T was added to LGB. (The term LGBT was used in the 90s, but not widely. By the way, the terms transgenerderism and transphobic are so new, automatic spell checks still highlight them to alert you that you don't have a word.) Many Ls and Gs still aren’t comfortable with that, since the point of their argument is that it matters to them which sex/gender they’re attracted to. Which sex you are, or which you’re attracted to, is not arbitrary or without meaning.

So now, when we have transgenderism being forced upon our school children, and we’re denigrated as vilely transphobic for stating the obvious, maybe we would be wise to step back and refuse a few already crossed lines before things get worse.

In June, the country’s biggest, and possibly most powerful, teachers’ union, the NEA, met and passed New Business Item 11, requiring that “all state and local affiliates encourage K-12 teachers to view a series of films called Creating Gender Inclusive Schools.” I viewed a two-minute sample. They talk mostly about colors and activity choices, which may be associated with gender, but which are totally cultural and often arbitrary, and have nothing to do with actually being male or female.  And then they slip in the idea that you don’t have to have gender imposed on you; you can just choose your gender.

Just as in the children’s music video I mentioned in Thursday’s post, this is a lie. Liking blue or black or pink or purple does not change whether you are male or female. Liking sports and physical activities when you’re a girl doesn’t mean you’re really a boy in the wrong body; it means you’re a girl who likes sports and physical activities. Liking arts, dance, music, literature, or other pursuits that require a certain aesthetic sensitivity when you’re a boy does not mean you’re really a girl in the wrong body; it means you’re a boy with an aesthetic sense.

These films are not designed, as claimed, to make all children “safe” in schools; they are designed to indoctrinate a radical ideology through lies told over and over, to impressionable children in a setting where they are expected to trust their authority figures.

Michelle Cretella
screen shot from this video

This does not make all children “safe.” This makes no children safe. The 99.97% who are not confused about whether they are male or female are told to reconsider, making them uncertain and confused. And the .03% who are confused about their sex are not given the help that will treat and help them overcome the confusion; they’re encouraged in it. And, against the advice of the American College of Pediatrics, which calls it child abuse, they may be surgically and medically altered in ways that will sterilize them and prevent them from ever living a normal life.

In a piece earlier this year, Ryan T. Anderson reminded us of the negative outcomes of this lie:

The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

You don't lower the risk of suicide by sex-reassignment "therapy"; you increase the risk of suicide.

The concern about preventing suicide is also used as an argument for accepting homosexuality as normal. But we know now, because of several European countries that have long accepted and normalized homosexual behavior, societal acceptance doesn’t improve the long list[i] of mental and physical issues related to having LGBT issues.

If the underlying, and possibly causal, mental issues were addressed and treated, not only would the suicidal tendencies be addressed, but freedom to choose a normal lifestyle might also become more likely.

In Monday’s post, I pointed out that, while there are important differences in degree of evil between pedophilia and homosexuality, I remember—unlike Roaming Millennial and most of her generation—when it was commonly understood that homosexuality was a deviant perversion. Did the behavior change? No. The message that was inculcated through media and academia changed, with the purpose of changing people’s beliefs. That inculcation has been so successful that people of the millennial generation and younger aren’t even aware that they’ve been the target of activist indoctrination. They think their current understanding is simply the decent and compassionate response to scientific “fact.”

Let me be clear that I am in favor of both decency and compassion. I might, however, have a different idea of what that consists of.

I believe some things needed to change. People who mean no harm and do no harm to others should be respected, even if their choices are not what we might call moral. (A person who knowingly spreads HIV or any other sexually transmitted disease is guilty of doing harm, as is a person who gives in to a sexual attraction to children.) A person with same-sex attraction should not be hated for being different. They should be treated with kindness and respect—not because of their sexual orientation, but because of their being human. But tolerance does not require approval.

I approve of my church’s position toward same-sex attraction—which isn’t new or changed; this has always been the case, but has been made clearer and more accessible. A person with same-sex attraction is required to live according to the same moral commandments as everyone else, because God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34, Doctrine & Covenants 1:35, 2 Nephi 26:33).

Behavior matters. Thoughts lead to behavior, but in a civilized world we don’t prosecute or persecute thoughts we disagree with; we communicate—both ways. And persuade when we can.

One reason I approve of my church’s approach regarding behavior, not orientation, is because orientation can change. I’m sympathetic with those who don’t want same-sex attraction. They want to be rid of it. And they struggle, sometimes for years, sometimes not very successfully. They don’t get much help in today’s world, which includes even therapists who think the solution is to accept their condition and try to change the world to accommodate them, rather than help them find ways to change or avoid the unwholesome lifestyle and associated mental and physical illnesses.

I’m disturbed by parents who respond in extreme ways to a child’s announcement of same-sex attraction. Being angry at the child, punishing or ostracizing that young person—that is not the right approach. Even if the young person goes through a long period of appallingly unwholesome lifestyle choices, forcing them to change when the world is telling them they can’t is only going to make them feel unloved. They may already feel unloved.

One young person I know, feeling sympathy for gays—convinced that those she knows are all legally married to their monogamous exclusive partner (see heteromorphism in the last post)—believes the church ought to accept them, because she can’t accept the idea that they should go through life without ever experiencing love.

I understand the care and concern. And I don’t deny that some gay couples love each other. But there’s a huge difference between love and sex. Sex doesn’t express love outside marriage; the commitment must come first. This is just as true for heterosexuals. Have you ever known a gay person who waited until after marriage before having sex? Even since the change in the definition of marriage was forced upon us nationally by the Supreme Court?

If you’re going to encourage acceptance of same-sex “marriage” in order to allow a certain group of people to experience love, you’re saying they have no chance of change, and no chance of self-control. And you’re also putting them above others who never marry—or experience that type of love—for various reasons—a disability that interferes with a love life, a lack of opportunity, or some other life tragedy. Why change the world for homosexuals but not all other individuals?

If you’re being practical (and parents, family, and friends should be), a committed same-sex “marriage” relationship is a better situation than a non-exclusive relationship, or the more typical promiscuous gay lifestyle. But it still doesn’t give them as likely a chance of a healthy, happy life as leaving the lifestyle and possibly changing orientation to the point that a real marriage becomes a possibility—with God’s blessing.

I’m also disturbed by parents who reject church teachings in order to support a child’s homosexuality. That means you’ve bought into the lie that your child was born that way and has no ability to change—or even to refrain from engaging in illicit sexual acts with multiple sex partners. Why would that be moral for your homosexual child but not for your heterosexual child? Why are you suddenly so sure you are right and God—the definer of good—is wrong?

For help as a parent, or as someone with unwanted same-sex attraction, you might try Positive Approaches To Human Sexuality (https://www.pathinfo.org).

I believe we’re all better off with actual truth, rather than gut reactions—many of which are planted in us by a long-term indoctrination program that we haven’t been aware of or had control over.

Yes, be kind to everyone. But civility does not require agreeing with everyone or approving of everyone’s behavior.

Keep pedophiles far away from our children. But also keep indoctrinators of the entire LGBTIQ+ alphabet of treatable mental illnesses away from our children. Because their normalization indoctrination has already done harm to many and brought us dangerously close to allowing pedophiles access to our children.

---

[i] Homosexual conduct has consequences for mental health. There is a well-documented correlation between homosexuality and suicide and mental illness. See, e.g., Theo B. M. Sandfort, De Graaqf, Bilj, and Schable, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders:  Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study,” 85 (Archives of General Psychiatry 85 (January 2001) (“The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders”); Richard Herrell, et al., “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality,” Archives of General Psychiatry 867 (October 1999) (“Same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures” and “is unlikely to be due solely to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity”); David M. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 876 (October 1999) (“Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associates being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.”)  While some may argue that these findings are “caused by society oppression” (J Michael Bailey, “Homosexuality and Mental Illness,” Archives of General Psychiatry 883 and 884 October 1999), this is not the only possible explanation. The survey of findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study found a significant greater risk for psychiatric disorders among homosexuals, even though “the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant” than most of the world. Sandfort, et al, above, at 89. Other possible explanations include hypotheses that “homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness,” and that “increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation.”  J. Michael Bailey, above, at 884. Also, Sandfort et al., above, at 85-91.  (Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, also three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and over six times as likely to have attempted suicide. Additionally, this research originates in the Netherlands where homosexuality is much more mainstream and accepted.)  Substance abuse is an additional health concern of those in the homosexual lifestyle:  Timothy J. Dailey, “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality” and associated notes, Family Research Council “The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reports that lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and I larger amounts, than heterosexual women. Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent)….Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.”

Telling the Truth

Among the relatively few rules necessary for civilization is honoring truth. That means respecting the truth, telling the truth as clearly and accurately as we can perceive it. Truth is good; truth is moral.

There’s another moral imperative that we treat other human beings with dignity and respect. I think we can agree with that. We honor God, life, family, property, and truth. So that comes under life specifically, but also under God, our creator, and family, which gives life and passes along morals such as respecting one another.

A social argument these days is about what is required of respect. We make sure no human beings are considered less than human, subject to the whims of some superior class. We are all equal before the law. That is a founding principle of this nation—perhaps the first nation on earth founded on such an idea.

But the argument is that, if you don’t go along with everything a particular minority group insists on, you are denigrating them. This includes when you refuse to lie for them.

So the dilemma for moral people is: honor truth, or honor individuals by going along with their lie?

Transgender activists protest near the White House in
Washington, D.C., February 22, 2017. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
image found at National Review

I’m talking specifically here about the transgender debate, although the social war is larger than that. But this is instructive about the larger social war as well.

There’s been a debate going on recently at National Review. J. J. McCullough recommends a compromise: He “requires sacrifice on the part of progressives, who are currently overplaying their hand in an effort to strong-arm sweeping social change as a flex of their power.” Note that is what progressives must do, formerly called liberals or leftists—which on the Spherical Model is pro-savagery, poverty, and tyranny.

Of conservatives (the pro-civilization, prosperity, and freedom crowd), he requires “broad tolerance for the reality that transgender men and women exist, and are entitled to basic human dignity, just like everyone else.”

Michael Brendan Dougherty responds to McCullough’s suggested compromise:

The demand to acknowledge someone’s “existence” is a slippery bit of a double-talk. I would be an idiot to deny McCullough’s existence. But if he said that he were a Camaroonian, rather than a Canadian, would it be his existence that I denied by contradicting him?

Dougherty adds the question, “But are we allowed to tell the truth?”

David French adds further commentary concerning that question about whether we’re allowed to tell the truth:

Increasingly, the answer is no. J.J. compares the modern dispute over transgenderism to current and recent fights over homosexuality. The comparison is instructive, but not in the way that he hopes. There has been no “compromise” over homosexuality. Instead, we’re locked in brutal legal fights over whether Christian bakers and florists can be compelled to use their artistic talents to celebrate gay weddings. Christian colleges have had to fend off challenges to their accreditation and funding (and the Obama administration raised the possibility of challenging their tax exemptions) for simply upholding basic standards of Christian sexual morality. And in California, the new sexual orthodoxy now threatens even the sale of books that deliver a disfavored message not just on sexual orientation but also on sexual conduct.

Along that tangent, I just saw a new video with Barronelle Stutzman, the Washington florist, telling the story of her persecution—not for refusing service to anyone, including the homosexual man at the heart of the case, who had been a long-time customer and friend—but for declining to use her artistic skills for an event that celebrated something against her faith. She couldn’t use her skills—which God gave her—in service of something against God’s will. Worth watching.

Back to that compromise discussion. David French concludes with this:

Treating every single human being with dignity and respect means not just defending their constitutional liberties and showing them basic human kindness, it also means telling the truth—even when the truth is hard. Any compromise that requires conservatives to grant the other side’s false and harmful premise is no compromise at all.

The uncompromising Dr. Jordan Peterson, who has been embroiled in this debate, for standing up and stating truth, has a full chapter on truth in his book 12Rules for Life. Rule 8 is “Tell the Truth, or at Least Don’t Lie.” In it he says,

image from Amazon

Taking the easy way out or telling the truth—those are not merely two different choices. They are different pathways through life. They are utterly different ways of existing.

When confronted with the choice to use the pronouns the government requires--which are lies, and are linguistically unnatural--or suffer the consequences, he chose to suffer the consequences. Because it's a way of life to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

For him, this is a free speech issue. It just happens to pertain to the transgender issue. As he points out, we don’t use a particular pronoun to imbue a person with respect; we use a pronoun to identify a person we may not know anything about beyond the visible details. “He did it,” does not imply, “That-person-I-know-so-well-that-I-have-ascertained-that-person’s-chosen-gender-identity did it.” It, rather, implies, “That-male-appearing-person-whose-name-I-might-not-even-know did it.”

What a transgender person who requires a different gender pronoun—or an entirely new made-up but unhelpful-for-identification-purposes pronoun—is requiring is mind-reading. You, the person who may have never interacted with them before, are supposed to use a pronoun in reference to them that you have no way of knowing is their preference. Dr. Peterson has found that the vast majority of transgender persons who have responded in comments support him and do not prefer the weird made-up pronouns.

So what the offended persons are requiring is special consideration, far above and beyond what any of us have the ability to offer one another. They’ve got a lot of nerve. In their interactions with me and with you, what have they done to deserve our submission to the loss of useful pronouns, just because they say they are offended by standard usage? What about how offensive it is to call us offensive for simply using language that has a purpose and works? Should we be pilloried while they are not? We use pronouns when we don't know someone; these people are demanding a special pronoun even when we don't know them. What have they done to earn that special treatment from people with whom they don't even have a relationship?

So, Dr. Peterson tells the truth. He gets attacked for that, quite a lot. But he also gets the respectful attention that allows him to share a great many truths. Probably a good outcome. Telling the truth wins.

Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatrics, put out a short video in December 2017 (full video below) talking about what happens when you deal with the truth and when you don’t.  She offers one case from a number of years ago:

I had one little boy, a patient we’ll call Andy. Between the ages of 3and 5 he increasingly played with girls and stereotypical girl toys, and started saying he was a girl. I referred the parents and Andy to a therapist. Sometimes mental illness of a parent or abuse of the child are factors. But more commonly, the child has misperceived family dynamics and internalized a false belief. In the middle of one session, Andy put down the toy truck, and held onto the Barbie, and said, “Mommy and Daddy, you don’t love me when I’m a boy.” What the therapist learned is that when Andy was 3, his sister with special needs was born. She required significantly more of his parents’ care and attention. Andy misperceived this as, “Mommy and Daddy love girls. If I want them to love me again, I have to be a girl.” With family therapy, Andy got better.

Today, doctors would insist that the parents alter the world to support Andy in his delusion, and give him puberty blockers—which, when used in adults for prostate or gynecological problems, are known to lead to memory loss, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, cancers, and emotional problems such as the one the experts claim to be preventing.

Additionally, doctors might offer surgical interventions such as a double mastectomy or penis removal.

While gender dysphoria is a treatable mental illness, and in many cases disappears by puberty or adulthood even without therapy, the current “treatment” is to permanently disfigure and sterilize—not so that a woman can become a man, or that a man can become a woman, but so that they can impersonate what they are not.

Asking the world to lie for them, and to them, is not going to change reality. Telling them the truth, while also being respectful of their worth as human beings, might actually help far more.