I forgot that Tuesday was “Vile Affections” Day! Yes, ‘31 years ago – on May 17, 1990 – the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from the Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.
International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Interphobia & Transphobia (IDAHOBIT) celebrates LGBTQIA+ people globally, and raises awareness for the work still needed to combat discrimination.’https://www.idahobit.org.au/index.php/get-active/the-stats
Transexuals
All posts tagged Transexuals
In the Australian state of New South Wales ‘The new commemorative birth certificates issued in NSW are missing one thing – and one NSW MP is not happy.
A new “genderless” commemorative birth certificate issued by the NSW Births Deaths and Marriages Registry — which removes information about the sex of a baby — has been slammed as “woke nonsense”.
The colourful certificate — featuring specially designed “genderless” cartoon animals — was launched to help “empower” LGBQIA people, the agency says.
NSW Registrar Amanda Ianna said the rainbow certificate was: a “special way for people to celebrate the birth a new family member”.
Anyone can apply for the certificate, which depicts “genderless native animals” to give “rainbow families the freedom to be seen as they wish to be”.
It comes amid a growing push by the transgender community to remove information about the sex of babies on official certificates, with the Tasmanian parliament recently passing a bill to make gender optional.
But One Nation MP Mark Latham — who asked questions about the new $41 NSW certificate in state parliament — says only 12 people have bothered to apply for one and questions why public servants are “wasting time” on “gender politics”.
The agency spent $9257 on commissioning the artwork, producing it and launching the certificates. The agency already has a number of commemorative birth certificates celebrating football teams but they can’t be used as official proof of identity.
“All this virtue signalling in the public sector ends up being a waste of time, a waste of money and for what?” Mr Latham said.
“Twelve people out of 7.5 million people in the state?
“We just want the public sector to do its day job.
“It defies what most people would regard as the point of a birth certificate, to identify the individual, their date of birth and gender.”
Binary spokeswoman Kirralie Smith raised concerns about harms to children over time with gender being erased.
“This is another step in the appropriation of sex and it will cause harm and confusion for our children,” she said.
“Gender ideology is being imposed in all areas of society and ultimately activists want birth certificates, official documents of identity that rely on facts, to be documents that express feelings rather than fact.
“Gender the way activists use the term, is more like personality expression. It has nothing to do with biological reality, it is grounded in a political ideology.”
In NSW, anyone wanting to change the sex listed on their official NSW Birth Certificate must show proof of a medical change of sex.’https://www.facebook.com/MarkLathamsOutsiders/?ref=page_internal
Has God written Ichabod on the West?
QUESTION: ‘MAN & WOMAN: Is there a real definition of man and woman in a world that wants fluid gender?
Answer by John Mackay and Diane Eager
The easy bit is that the word “man” refers to an adult human male, and a “woman” is an adult female human. But can we actually give a testable, provable meaning to the traditional words “male” and “female”, or are they just roles allocated for convenience which can be abandoned as life evolves?
This is a battle being fought hardest in school classrooms to conquer the minds of the next generation. Consider the following actual events:
A woman teacher was caught up in a staff room debate about who could use the girls’ toilets and change rooms at her schools. A transgender supporter claimed ‘We can be whatever gender we choose and therefore we must be allowed to use whichever toilet suits our choice’. The frustrated lady teacher retorted: “Why don’t we just look between their legs – that should settle it!”
Second event – November – 2020! Two Christian parents spend several frustrating hours with a Government school principal and deputy. What’s the problem? Their daughter has reported to them that their school class has been ordered to call one boy she.
Mum and dad ask why the school is forcing their child to lie. ‘But that’s just your opinion’ retorts the deputy. ‘If the boy feels he’s a girl we have to accept that. It’s the law!’
But my wife and I are both scientists, state the parents. We can give you a testable definition of what a male or female is. All the creatures we work with have very observable features of male and female. The boy is the one with the testicles who makes sperm. And in every case they are provably different from the females who make ova and babies. And we humans are the same.
So why are you teaching my daughter to lie? And why are you lying about this yourselves? Did you intend to tell us as parents that you had ordered the class to call this boy a girl?
“No,” replied the increasingly embarrassed principal, while a very emphatic “NO!” was uttered by an obvious radical feminist deputy. Government policy is that we must accept whatever gender the students feel they are, and this student feels they are female no matter what your opinion is.
The result? Despite being long-term participants and active supporters on school councils, both parents advise the Principal that because you’re teaching our children to lie and you are lying about it, our children are out of here today – not this afternoon, but right now!
Of course, the school authorities are rightly concerned about what they should tell students’ parents, especially other Christian parents in the school.
How should we react when atheist governments and education are actually lying about gender and sex? How do we define boy or girl, male or female, man or woman? And can we go deeper than that and have a meaningful scientific and legally enforceable definition?
Male and Female
Let’s start with the obvious differences between what we traditionally call gender. Being male or female, whether infant or adult, is provably determined by a person’s chromosomes, and indicated by the resulting reproductive systems and naturally produced hormones. At different stages of a person’s life reproductive systems and related hormonally induced changes to body structures will go through maturation and degenerative processes, but an individual remains either male or female throughout his or her life, from conception, through childhood and adulthood, to death.
The chromosomes that determine whether a person is male and female are named X and Y. A male has an X and a Y, usually written as XY, a female has two Xs, usually written as XX. These are inherited at conception and remain in every cell in the body, with one notable exception for each sex* (see below) for the rest of a person’s life.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter what manipulation is done to the body or mind after conception – a person is male or female throughout life. It doesn’t matter what bits they may get cut off or added on, or any alterations caused by the chosen addition of alternative sex hormones or by blocking their own hormones. In spite of efforts by transgender activists to drive a wedge between gender and sex, neither gender nor sex are determined by an individual’s choice, or by feelings, by externally administered drugs or hormones, or by social acceptance of someone’s choice.
*The only cells in the body that do not have the XY or XX chromosome identity are the reproductive cells, i.e. sperm in a male and ova (eggs) in a female. When these cells are formed the chromosomes are separated and each sex cell gets one of the sex chromosomes. Therefore, sperm will have either an X or a Y, ova will have one of two X’s. But such cells are still male or female, as only males can produce sperm and only females can produce ova?
Where Did Male and Female Come From?
Each human being is formed from the union of one sperm, carrying an X or a Y chromosome, and one ovum, carrying an X chromosome. An X carrying sperm will give rise to a female when its X combines with the X in the ovum. Y carrying sperm give rise to a male when it combines with the X in the ovum. This process can be traced back through the generations to the first human beings – Adam and Eve. Sex is not something you can evolve. It has to be right first time or you die out!
Adam was created male. Therefore, he had an X and a Y chromosome. Eve was created from tissue taken from Adam. All the components needed to make a woman were already in Adam. To make a female from male tissue God took out the Y chromosome and duplicated an X. From then on human beings have reproduced by the process described above.
Adam and Eve were created individually by God. Adam was made from “dust of the ground” i.e. raw materials, and Eve was made from tissue taken from Adam. They were not derived from any other living creature. Human beings are unique and separate creations, and therefore it is irrelevant if other living things, such as fish or plants, can change sex in certain circumstances.
So, theistic evolutionists take note: Those who want to believe in evolution but defend God’s word on men and women, and marriage, will find themselves on shaky ground. If evolution is true, human ancestry goes back to creatures with no distinct sexes and/or interchangeable sexes, and those who oppose God’s rules can claim that blurring the sexes is just part of the natural world, and Christians should not impose their views on it.
It is time to humbly accept that in the beginning God created humans male and female just like He said He did.’https://askjohnmackay.com/mand-woman-is-there-a-real-definition-of-man-and-woman-in-a-world-that-wants-fluid-gender/
Here’s what Gordon College states on their website saying ‘Gordon is a vibrant community of believers, a place where Christian faith frames all aspects of the experience—from residence life to athletics to academics. We want students to think deeply and holistically about how their faith informs their influence in society—now and well into the future. Intentional programming and organic relationships propel students to grow in Christian character and deepen their trust in Jesus.’
However, what they state and what they do is different for ‘Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts, this week cancelled three speaking engagements with a speaker who sparked student protests for his alleged “misogynist” and “transphobic” comments.
The speaker, Marvin Daniels—an ordained minister and executive director of The Hope Center—spoke in chapel at the evangelical school on Monday. According to Gordon’s student publication, The Gordon Review, Daniels was scheduled to address the school in three more sessions as part of “Deep Faith Week.” But those were cancelled after students objected to Daniels’ chapel address on social media and announced a walkout.
During his chapel talk, Daniels addressed issues of gender and sexuality, affirming the categories of male and female. Then, speaking about what he called “a culture in chaos,” Daniels added, “We got individuals that say, ‘I feel like I’m a female,’ and they get a chance to participate in female activities. Back in the day I wish that would work. I would have been saying ‘I feel like a female,’ so I can get into girls’ locker room. Come on now.”
Daniels also addressed issues related to dating and premarital sex, stating: “It’s amazing to see that even in the church, my Christian brothers (are) out there treating young ladies like they’re urinals and I am concerned about that.”
He added: “And I’m concerned about my Christian sisters who dress like they desserts on a menu and then they get upset when a brother wants to place an order.”
During the service, students began to react via social posts. “Who does he think he is?” asked one student on Instagram with the moniker ‘Gordon Gossip Girl.’
Another account, @AlanaGordonCollege, posted details of a student rally in solidarity with women and the LGBTQA+ community “traumatized by the degrading statements made in chapel this morning.” It was planned for after Daniels’ session that evening.
A student account stated: “We believe the words Daniels chose to make his point were hateful to both women and the trans community as well as many others . . . We want to show Gordon that they cannot continue inviting someone who will spread more hate than love.”
Shortly after the chapel address, Gordon College president Michael Hammond e-mailed the student body to say he would “personally address” them in a session that evening but Daniels would not.
Billed as a “closed-door meeting,” details of Hammond’s evening talk have not been reported. However, Daniels did not return to the chapel platform the rest of the week.’https://julieroys.com/gordon-college-cancels-speaker-students-protest-misogynist-transphobic-talk/?mc_cid=41f981e31f&mc_eid=b13d34ad49
‘Christian parents Nigel and Sally Rowe have been fighting their case since 2017. Now, finally, a High Court judge has ruled that they can take their case to a judicial review of transgender affirming policies in English primary schools. The evidence of harm that these policies do in schools is overwhelming. Nigel and Sally spoke to LBC Radio about how the 500+ pages of expert evidence is being ignored by the government. Sally explained: “We can see the evidence in front of us now, up and down the country in schools where these policies have been embedded into primary schools; where there has been an actual promotion of this ideology, there has also been a massive escalate of child referrals to the gender clinic – 3000% in a decade.” Nigel explained further: “The problem is that the evidence isn’t really being looked at – firstly by the government, but also most parents and staff are actually ignorant of the evidence, too … they’re just told this is the ideology, we must embrace it.” One such expert, Mr Rogers, a consultant psychologist with 30 years experience in the field of psychology, warned in his report that the Cornwall Guidelines “showed little or no appreciation for the safety and welfare of children.” In his 140-page report, Mr Rogers also made the crucial point that 88% who experience gender dysphoria as children will no longer suffer from gender dysphoria by their mid-30s.’
‘A “canard” is an unfounded story or accusation, often repeated enough that it is preceded by the adjective “old canard,” meaning that it has been fully debunked by all those but people with an impenetrable disinterest in making better arguments.
I was approached by a young person from my congregation who wanted to know how to best handle being called “homophobic” by certain of his peers. I did my best from my phone to explain the apologetic approach to debunk this canard and counter it with science, religion, and reason. But from the moment he asked, I felt compelled to put my arguments in writing to best convey them for the reader because (A) he is surely not the only person who is bullied with the canard and (B) therefore, others might benefit from it.
As a polemicist-pastor, I’m not averse to argumentation nor opposed to it. We are instructed, after all, to give a defense for our beliefs when asked (1 Peter 3:15). This is the part of “disputation” that St. Paul engaged in time after time in the New Testament, and is simply a part of living in world of unfathomably dumb people when our minds have been renewed by the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5).
THE ANTI-ARGUMENT
Bigot. Homophobe. Transphobe. Misogynist. Sexist. Fundamentalist.
APOLOGETIC 1
The first thing a Christian must do when called such terms is to realize that these are insults, designed into bullying one to silence. An insult is meant to shame; it is meant to embarrass, to silence. There are certain cases that name-calling is not insulting, but only when used as a descriptor. For example, if I call the director of the Montana Public Employees Union a communist I’m not insulting her. I’m describing her (she’s an actual Wobbly). If I call a schismatic man a heretic (αἵρεσις), I’m not insulting him – I’m describing him. If I describe a man who just robbed a convenience store as black, it is not an insult; it is a description.
The words, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, misogynist, sexist, etc., are not descriptors the vast majority of the time. They are insults. And, APOLOGETIC 1, insults are not arguments.
For example, if protestors call Ben Shapiro a “fascist” at a university speaking event – shouting down his words so he cannot speak – they are not describing him. They’re insulting him. He’s using his First Amendment rights on public property and politely takes opposing views from the microphone. Those stopping his speech are by definition the actual fascists. Antifa is a group of fascists because they fit the definition of “forcibly silencing the opposition.”
Let’s look at the word “homophobia” for a moment. The suffix of the word, phobia, is Latin, and originates in the Greek, φόβος. While it’s quite possible that online dictionaries may change the definition of this word before I’m done writing the article, the suffix means fear.
I do not fear homosexuals. Online dictionaries have already changed the definition from “fear” or “terror” to “aversion,” but I am using the 1954 Webster’s Dictionary sitting on my desk.* But even that looser definition does not fit. I do not have an aversion to homosexuals. I’ve never changed my seat on a bus, for example, because a homosexual sat next to me.
I do have aversions, however. Even phobias. I am afraid of snakes. I would not sit next to one on the bus. I am ophiophobic. Yet I am not, in any way, homophobic. That is unless one is bleeding, considering their exponentially higher rates of being disease-ridden. But that’s called hemophobia, not homophobia.
APOLOGETIC 2
The notion of individuals name-calling and insulting others is bigoted in and of itself. I am guilty of this. I am bigoted against men in skinny jeans, men with man-buns, people who rely on public transportation, and unkind people. I recently called a woman, “the rhinoceros lesbian” because, thrice my girth, she got into my face and told me to go to hell. I’m human, with feet of clay. I told her, “You are ugly, and your behavior is making yourself uglier.”
My insult was not an argument and fell short of making a salient point. Living on gas station food and a sedentary lifestyle had nothing to do with her spittle sprinkling across my brow, nor did it refute any points she felt that she was making with her screaming insults.
The truth is that many lesbians are ugly women. Knowing they cannot compete aesthetically – and being of shallow character – they refuse to invest in qualifies like work ethic, parenting, cooking, or a sense of humor (things appealing to a man) and instead settle for being rhinoceros lesbians. Yet I’ll be the first to admit my insult made no point.
Those who use the term “homophobia” need to understand the insult, that it doesn’t apply, and that even if it did it would fail to make a salient point. It makes no more a point than the term “rhinoceros lesbian.” The Christian should explain that they fear God, and do not fear people different from them.
*The term phobia comes from Latin in the 1800s, originated in Greek nearly three thousand years ago, and will probably be changed by digital dictionaries to mean, “dislike.” Ignore fake dictionaries. Use ones printed on paper. Words are representations of immutable things or ideas – they don’t change.
WHAT’S YOUR POINT?
This is where the argument gets fun if your opponent stops screaming. It goes like this:
Worldling: “You’re a homophobe.”
Christian: “What’s your point?”
It usually results either in silence, astonishment that you admitted to being a homophobe (notice, you did not), or celebration that you admitted to being a homophobe (again, you did not).
Once their shock or celebration is over, explain that you did not admit to anything but simply asked, “What is your point?” hoping they had a point other than an insult. The point of the exercise is to make them think (and that’s no easy task) what is wrong with being a homophobe, exactly?
In order to admit something is wrong, they must subscribe to a set of moral values or ethics determined by someone (themselves or someone else). After all, the concepts of “right and wrong” are not derived from a naturalistic worldview. They are fundamentally metaphysical, religious ideas.
“Why is it wrong to be a homophobe?” will invoke ponderance (that’s what we’re after). Ultimately, the only answer is that it’s wrong to tell people how to live their lives. This answer is Satanic, but Satan is the basis of their morality (or lack thereof).
The Christian then asks, “Why is it wrong to tell people how to live their lives?“ or “Why is it wrong to judge?” Again, from the worldling will come more ponderance (or screaming, it depends).
The Christian follows with, “Is it wrong to live my life as a homophobe?”
The answer will be immediate, guffawing “YES! Of course!”
The Christian should then ask them for a few moments – a breather – to consider their words and think it through to see if they are right. The worldling will be perplexed and perhaps enthused, possibly thinking they won a convert.
When the time is right, respond, “Here’s the thing. You just told me how to live my life and you judged me.” Follow this up with this phrase, “Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. Your argument, logically, seems to fail.“
At this point, the worldling will either completely disengage (knowing they’ve been bested by a better mind), or they will argue against their original point…it’s wrong to judge homosexuality as wrong, but it’s not wrong to judge your judging as wrong. This is usually followed by a string of invectives. Hang in there.
This is the lesson. They judge just as much as you do, but they judge homosexuality as moral and you judge homosexuality as immoral. Congratulations, you both judge. Now, ask them (since they quoted the Bible) if they would be interested in hearing the Bible. They will say no. Ignore them.
As you prepare to cite your standard for judgment, you must ask them what their standard of judgment is. You might run across someone particularly stupid enough (that’s a description) to cite a partial Bible verse, “thou shalt not judge” (Matthew 7:1) and you must ask them – since they quoted the Bible (for fun, ask them what verse that is) – if they would be interested in hearing the Bible. They will say no. Again – ignore them.
Bombard them with Matthew 7:1-5, John 7:24, Romans 16:17-18, and 1 Corinthians 6:5. Point out that Jesus is the ultimate judge (2 Timothy 4:1) and has condemned homosexuality already. You, therefore, are not judging. You are merely repeating God’s judgment.
TABLES TURNED…
Should the conversation continue, you must now ask them for empathy. Place them in your shoes. Surely hating me for my religious convictions is religion-phobia (theophobia), and makes them a bigot. If their argument is that it’s okay to have a belief but not share it; this makes them a fascist. Ask them to consider for a moment that (A) hell is real (2) homosexuality is a sign one is headed there. Would it not be – at least hypothetically – loving to persuade them away from it? Ask them, “What if I am wrong? Does it make me any less loving? Don’t my intentions matter?”
SHEER BLUNTNESS
If you have come thus far without progress, the Holy Spirit is likely not at work. So get blunt. Homosexuality is a disease-ridden, child-molesting, scat-smothering, disgusting and gross habit. You, as a human being have a right to preferences. You can choose Coke over Pepsi, Chevy over Ford, and the correct orifice over the wrong one. Only a bigot would say otherwise. You believe gayness is grossness. Do you have a right to that opinion? Absolutely.
So say it.’https://fbcsidney.org/2022/01/05/the-canard-of-homophobia-and-how-to-combat-it/
Yep, ‘This is what happens when the self-appointed preachers of tolerance and respect don’t get their way.
LGBTQ activists have covered Citipointe Christian College in foul graffiti.
The school, which made national headlines this month for asking parents to agree to a Christian view of sexuality as a condition of enrolment, has been forced to remove signage to prevent further vandalism.
Staff have received a barrage of abuse, including death threats.
‘Be more respectful, or we’ll destroy your property.’
‘Be tolerant like us, or we’ll kill you.’
It’s a hell of an argument against people exercising their religious freedom.
Speaking of argument, everyone knows opponents of the Religious Discrimination Bill are not really trying to stop children being expelled from Christian schools for being gay. We know this because there’s not a single example of it ever happening. Not one.
What opponents of the Religious Discrimination Bill really want to stop is the LGBTQ worldview ever being criticised in a Christian School. We know this because they have said so. Repeatedly.
It is telling that critics of Citipointe Christian College’s enrolment contract were not satisfied when it was rescinded.
That’s because critics were less outraged by the contract than by the Christian worldview that informed the contract; specifically that homosexuality is a sin, and that gender is a fixed biological reality.
What activists really want is for Christians to agree that Christian beliefs on sexuality and gender are wrong. In short, activists are demanding Christians be less Christian.
A gay former Citipointe Christian College student told SBS that ‘language condemning homosexuality was very damaging to himself and other young people’.
It was so damaging that he completed 12 years at the school. And he wasn’t expelled for being gay. He graduated.
But, you know, the ‘language’!
A Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PLAG) spokeswoman said Citipointe Christian College needed to do more than scrap the enrolment contract and remove the principal, they needed to ‘show that they have changed their thinking’.
‘They need to come out publicly stating that there has been an error in their judgment and their thinking, and they agree that they were wrong,’ she said.
Well sure. But why stop there? Perhaps PLAG could do a full audit of Christian doctrines and advise the Citipointe community which ones they should change. Whatever’s left, after the gays and lesbians have redacted the bits and pieces they don’t like, could be called the Bible.
Just days after the Citipointe College contact became public, The Guardian pointed out that Penrith Christian College had a statement of faith that listed homosexuality and transgenderism as ‘not acceptable to God’.
How this is news, I am not quite sure.
There’s an old adage in journalism that news is not a dog biting a man; news is a man biting a dog. Similarly, one would think news is not a Christian school promoting a Christian worldview; news would be a Christian school promoting the LGBTQ worldview.
The Guardian reported breathlessly that Penrith school’s statement of faith is attached to enrolment forms and parents are asked if they have ‘read and understood’ it.
Rationalist Society of Australia president Dr Meredith Doig described the school’s beliefs as ‘appalling’ and warned that ‘schools like Penrith and Citipointe are just the tip of the iceberg’.
‘Their biblically-based anti-LGBTI views will become much more commonly seen if the Religious Discrimination Bill is passed,’ she said.
In other words, Christian views will become much more commonly seen if Christian schools are allowed to freely express their Christian views. This, rather than the imagined gay child expelled by hateful Christian teachers, is the real problem opponents of the Religious Discrimination Bill have.
Psychologist Paul Martin agreed the problem at Citipointe was not just the controversial enrolment contract but that ‘many people in evangelical Christian communities and even in evangelical conservative Protestant families still hold on to outdated beliefs about homosexuality’.
So, Dr Martin believes the problem with many Christians is that they still hold Christian beliefs.
Dr Martin insists that Christianity needs to move with the times, ‘the times’ being a euphemism for ‘fashion’. The problem for Dr Martin is that Christians aren’t trying to be fashionable, they are trying to be true to what they believe is the word of God, which puts their views beyond the times.
The psychologist continued: ‘What has happened at the school is so harmful that it could – for some people – be the trigger for suicidality.’
Speaking of psychology, it would be interesting to study the merits of the ‘change your views to mine, or people will die’ debating tactic. I suspect it is intended to work much the same as the ‘don’t let children be expelled for being gay’ tactic works – as a Trojan horse for banning suddenly unfashionable Christian doctrine altogether.’https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/02/man-bites-dog/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FLAT%20%2020220211%20%20SG&utm_content=FLAT%20%2020220211%20%20SG+CID_d9f9fea3798d992c6b19b0e8d40ce03c&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Australia&utm_term=Man%20bites%20dog
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
‘A large crowd of rowdy students at the University of North Carolina Greensboro on Friday demanded the conservative Young Americans for Freedom chapter at the school be shut down after it posted a quote by Ben Shapiro on its Instagram page.
The post stated: “Men cannot become women. Women cannot become men. Men who believe they are women are not real women.” This is a quote by the firebrand pundit Shapiro who is known for his “facts don’t care about your feelings” mantra.
“On Wednesday, we decided to post a Ben Shapiro quote and tagged it #wednesdaywisdom — we didn’t think anything was going to come of it,” the group told The College Fix in a direct message Friday. “We just thought it would be a nice addition to our page.”
“Almost immediately we triggered the school’s leftists and they began to spread the post and spam comment personal attacks against us and our members.”
More than 100 students gathered in the quad for a protest, accusing the club of being “transphobic” and violating the college’s anti-discrimination policy, according to videos of the event.’https://www.thecollegefix.com/profanity-laced-protest-students-at-uncg-demand-yaf-chapter-be-banned-after-posting-ben-shapiro-quote/
whatyareckon 