Monday, July 20, 2020

Ryan T. Anderson on Religious Liberty and "Gender Ideology"

“All this fuss over an issue involving 0.5% of the population while overlooking just how much damage Trump has already inflicted upon the nation. Not to mention Trump's complete lack of morality.”
Ryan T. Anderson
via YouTube
On Friday, Ryan T. Anderson took to Heritage Foundation's blog to opine on wins and losses at the Supreme Court regarding Religious Liberty©. In all things, Anderson strives to defend the teachings of the Catholic Church. According to doctrine, the very existence of transgender people insults scripture.

Ryan T. Anderson is of the opinion that he is a great deal smarter than he really is. Anderson simply repeats the same moronic, Vatican inspired, taking points which have become his personal catechism.

The end result of such an effort is inevitable. Drivel:
We must do more politically to protect human flourishing and the authentic common good. This is particularly true with respect to the Court’s Bostock ruling, which read progressive gender ideology into our nation’s civil rights laws. A good ruling on the ministerial exception in Our Lady of Guadalupe, while important, does not even begin to address the many concerns there.
The paragraph, above, says absolutely nothing. It becomes gibberish when you realize that Anderson's definition of “common good” is found in Catholic dogma. Common good does not seem to include the mental health of people with a certain medical condition that causes anguish for Anderson.

Anderson's quest for society to “do more politically” means imposing Catholic doctrine on public policy. The fact that doing so is impermissible according to the Establishment Clause is immaterial to religious fanatics; modern Knights Templar.

That paragraph means even less when we realize that there is no such thing as gender ideology. Pope Francis initially expressed this as “gender theory” but it evolved from theory to ideology because ideology is less tangible than theory.

Gender, according to Anderson, presents an ideology in competition with established theology. It is a given that the theology prevails in that contest which means that they are setting up a straw man to provide the illusion of a compelling argument.

The illusion is necessary because there does not exist a compelling logical argument in opposition to medical science. Science is based on evidence. To pretend that evidence does not exist in defense of religious purity should be obvious as pretense. That is not always the case for the true believers who eat up this nonsense.

Gender is neither a theory nor an ideology. The existence of gender as a separate construct from natal sex is a scientific reality.

Anderson and the palace eunuchs want people to believe that gender dysphoria can be resolved with talk therapy which is not the view of medical science. Anderson and the palace eunuchs are determined to prevent people from transitioning. How those people fare is less important than preventing the presence of a transgender person.

Anderson seems frustrated that people are not subscribing to his views. He never took into consideration the simple fact that his agenda is not based upon the best interests of people with a medical condition. Anderson creates his odd world in which people are less relevant than a religious principle.

Human suffering, according to the theology, is a gateway to resurrection and an imitation of Christ. Taken to extremes in pursuit of immortality we can possibly grasp why concern for the distress of a child with gender dysphoria is diminished.

“Many concerns” in the above-quoted text does not include concerns for people with an inconvenient medical condition. Those concerns are strictly dogmatic. When viewed through a lens of the best medical care of a child, Anderson — as sanctimonious moralist — is, in reality, a sociopath.

Anderson will never stop. He cannot stop lest he accept certain realities (emphasis per original text):
Religious liberty, after all, doesn’t protect people who aren’t religious but reject progressive gender ideology. It doesn’t protect other goods and interests threatened by progressive gender ideology. And it doesn’t respond on the merits to the underlying disputed questions of truth.
“Truth” for Mr. Anderson is a set of principles that are promoted as incontrovertible truth without any consideration for noncompliant evidence or competing opinions. Anderson's “truth” requires a complete rejection of intellectual curiosity and intellectual honesty.

“[U]nderlying disputed questions” means a dispute between evidence-based science vs. faith-based doctrine. Gender dysphoria is a medical issue. An intellectually honest dispute involves the competing opinions of scientists published to peer-reviewed academic journals. That eliminates fellow dogmatists like Dr. Paul R. McHugh.

Anderson cannot help himself:
We need a more holistic response in terms of legislation and litigation to protect all people and all the various goods and interests at stake. We need to contend about the truth of the matter.
Which definition do you think Ryan T. Anderson subscribes to?

More important than the definition of holistic is the simple fact that “all people” does not include people with a medical condition that causes a great deal of distress for Ryan T. Anderson. Since truth <> truth “legislation and litigation” means the imposition of Catholic dogma on public policy.

Anderson provides ample proof of the above:
Why Aren’t These Wins Enough?

Take, for example, the school choice victory. As important as protecting equal access to government funding for religious schools is, it does nothing to address what is going on at the government-run schools we call “public.”
No need to repeat myself. Anderson continues to provide even more proof of his intended malevolence:
If the public schools are indoctrinating students with the “Gender Unicorn,” allowing access to single-sex facilities based on “gender identity,” and forcing girls to compete athletically against boys who identify as girls, equal access to government funding (when it exists) isn’t enough. It’s not enough for the vast majority of American children–including the majority of religious children–who are trapped in our public school system.
By putting gender identity in quotes Anderson is saying that it doesn't really exist. He is also making pronouncements without evidence. Teachers have told me that the kids get it. An imbecilic parent is required for a kid to become transphobic.

Ten year old research confirms that a model exists for peer acceptance of gender-diverse kids. Anderson sees that as a threat. Anderson does not want children to accept their gender-diverse peers. Anderson wants public schools to act in accordance with the theology that Anderson advocates.

Will it now be employment discrimination in benefits if the health care plan that the religious owners of a retail arts and crafts store offer to employees does not cover testosterone therapy for their female employees who identify as men but does cover it for male employees with low testosterone? Will we need a lengthy and costly Religious Freedom Restoration Act battle to find out?
You could rip out Anderson's toenails, one by one, and he would be incapable of writing “transgender men.” They do not exist according to the faith.

Anderson is correct about one thing:
Furthermore, activists are likely to sue to extend the logic of Bostock to other areas of law that forbid discrimination on the basis of sex, such as education, housing, and health care. And in all of these areas, religious liberty isn’t the only–or even the primary–concern.
If we all do what we are supposed to do in November it might not be necessary to litigate the matter. The Equality Act is a better solution. It will need to be re-introduced in the next session of Congress.
The first thing to note is that Gorsuch’s test “if changing the patient’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the doctor” doesn’t apply. Change the patient’s sex and there are no breasts to remove. Indeed, as I point out in “[reference to idiotic book promotion deleted]” recognizing differences between the sexes is increasingly regarded as vitally important for good medical practice, because scientists have found that male and female bodies tend to be susceptible to certain diseases in different ways, to differing degrees, and that they respond to treatments differently.
No one should give a shit about what Anderson wrote in a book. He is a catechist without any medical training or experience. And, yes, Mr. Anderson, doctors are fully aware of chromosomal realities. They are competent at differentiating treatment based on gender from medical treatment requiring consideration of natal sex.

Anderson goes on for four or five paragraphs on the premise that clinicians are confused by transgender people. Eventually he lands upon —
Thus, we’ll need litigation and legislation not solely on religious liberty, but on the substantive issues at stake: privacy and safety in single-sex facilities, equality and fairness in single-sex sports, and good medicine based on the realities of our biological make up as male or female human beings.
I will resist the explanation of unconstitutional impositions on public policy. What I have not commented upon are all of Anderson's political references supporting Trump over Joe Biden as in:
…the Trump administration’s recent Department of Housing and Urban Development rule on sex-based housing is eminently defensible.

All of these administrative actions, of course, can be readily undone by a future hostile administration. Just look at what Joe Biden has already promised.
I find it astonishing that the self-righteous set can support the candidacy of an utterly incompetent sociopath and pathological liar on his third marriage (which will likely end in divorce) and with five “fuck-you” bankruptcies in his past.

All this fuss over an issue involving 0.5% of the population while overlooking just how much damage Trump has already inflicted upon the nation. Not to mention Trump's complete lack of morality.

Ryan T. Anderson first needs a cult deprogrammer. Then talk therapy along with medication. Anderson should be irrelevant but he is a cynic. He knows that many people consider him to a be a “deep thinker” in spite of his many intellectual deficits.

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.