Tuesday, November 26, 2019

They really should drop "gender fluidity" from their jargon

“Throwing around scientific terms with no understanding of what they mean makes people look stupid. In the act, they are stupid.”
The evangelical Christian echo chamber reminds me of radioactivity. Various theories are like the unstable neutrons that multiply and create a self-sustaining chain reaction. As these beliefs bounce around they gain mass and momentum due to increased utilization which fires off more pings to bounce around. Few concepts are tested or verified. None are subjected to expert evaluation. Rev. so-and-so said it so it must be true.

Such is the case with the term “gender fluidity.” We don't know who introduced it to the chamber or when but it has been brought to critical mass absent critical thinking.

Consider the post of one Kendra Semmen: The U.S. Constitution Will Crumble Before Our Eyes if We Don't Stop This Dangerous Trend:
Because America promotes the ideas of gender fluidity, macroevolution and moral relativism, which were not the ideas of the original Founders, we will inevitably run into problems. Evangelist Alex McFarland says that unless we have a "moral revival," our U.S. Constitution will fall.
Morality to Alex McFarland means acceptance of Christian beliefs that he likes. According to him, acceptance must be unequivocal even when the underlying belief is contrary to evidence-based science. Ms. Semmen goes on to quote Mr. McFarland (“…” per original):
"Now let me be very practical: Natural law in our era speaks to things like male and female. There are genetic females; there are genetic males—XX chromosome females, XY chromosome males. ... If it's a baby conceived, that baby is going to be a human being; that baby is not going to be a squirrel or a kitten or a goldfish. ... Nowadays with gender fluidity is the idea that people don't have a gender, that gender is something you choose, rather than something that's biologically determined, that puts us on very dangerous ground."
Sorry Alex but that is not “practical” at all because it is unscientific fiction. We are in accord that the overwhelming majority of us are born with either male or female chromosomes (a minuscule percentage of people have ambiguous chromosomes). We also agree that babies are presumed human beings in contrast to squirrels, kittens or goldfish. No one argues otherwise.

The rest of that quote is crackpottery. If people “don't have a gender” then gender fluidity would not exist. Gender, as a separate construct from natal sex, is a continuum with male and female at the extreme ends. Some people do experience a very small amount of fluidity in their gender but almost everyone (including transgender people) identifies as either male or female. Furthermore, if gender did not exist — as McFarland claims “we” claim — then gender dysphoria would not exist. Ergo, transgender people would not exist.

You really need to think things through Alex because, were gender a choice (as you contend), then everyone would choose the comfort of gender consistent with their natal sex. Again, that would mean that gender dysphoria and transgender people would cease to exist.

The existence of gender identity is a well-established scientific concept that we have known about for a very, very long time. It is the notion that scientific realities “put us on very dangerous ground” that is actually perilous. I cannot fathom how science will cause our Constitution to crumble either “before our eyes” or hidden from view.

Ms. Semmen makes a valiant effort to explain:
If our culture rejects natural law, the very foundations of our country will crumble, McFarland says…
Natural law is defined as a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct. Who gets to decide? Moreover, our mores do change over time. In the 18th century women's rights, for example, were determined by marital status. Unmarried women could pursue a career, enter into contracts and acquire property. On the other hand married women had no autonomy at all. Husband and wife were a unit governed by the will of the husband. That was natural law then.

According to natural law some people were deemed inferior and existed solely to be subjugated as slaves. A couple of centuries later, natural law was the basis for segregation and racial purity laws. A perfect example of natural law is to be found in the pronouncements of the judge hearing the criminal case which became the predicate for Loving v. Virginia:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Furthermore, Alex and Kendra, before you start waving the American flag gratuitously, most of our founders were deists. Franklin, for example, referred to his religion as “my superstition.” Jefferson created a bible without any supernatural content. Mr. Madison included the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause is dependent upon freedom from religion. American society was established as secular and continues to this day as secular.

At the time of our founding 99% of the populace was Christian. Yet our Constitution is free of Christian dogma. There is no mention of a god. Excluding amendments, the only mention of religion is that there is no religious test for public office.

Bottom line is that natural law is whatever someone says it is and it is an unworkable system. Gender fluidity is not an issue for anyone except conservative Christians who do not approve of gender diverse people. Throwing around scientific terms with no understanding of what they mean makes people look stupid. In the act, they are stupid.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.