Hatred of Nature: Hatred of Sex

The state legislature of California has passed a bill to protect self-identification in matters of class and race.  If a child in a public school identifies himself as the Prince of Pasadena, and dresses and behaves accordingly, then he must be addressed as such by the teachers and his fellow students.  Special care is to be taken in the use of deferent pronouns:

“Might your Lordship be pleased to read the paragraph beginning on page five?”

“Jenny, take this box of crayons to his Lordship.”

“Their Lordships will not eat pate de foie gras without Camembert and mineral water.  Kindly see to it.”

Since class really is a social construct, the state solons wish to encourage its deconstruction, so that any person may adopt the social role that he feels will fulfill his desires.  Some people may self-identify as peasants, or indentured servants, or merchants.  The thing to remember is that there is a difference between peasantry as a mere political fact, and self-made peasantry.  No one should be compelled to occupy any class because of economic or political happenstance.  Freedom of choice is all.

Or not quite all.  For the legislators warn all people engaged in business that they too must comply with the self-identification of their customers.  If a Queen of San Quentin (there may be several Queens of San Quentin; queenship, again, is no mere political office, but is the crafting of a royal identity) visits a baker’s shop and orders a cake, reading, “Congratulations on Your Coronation,” the baker must comply, or be sued for lese majeste.  If a woman identifies as a slave and finds a master, and if she wishes to memorialize the happy occasion by ordering photographs portraying her in fetters and manacles, or tossing a spiked collar over her shoulder to be caught by an expectant slavesmaid, then that photographer had damned well better go along with it and do his job, or be fined so heavily as to put his business in jeopardy.

The legislators stipulate that no differences may be drawn between an actually existent class and a class contrived by the imagination, or between present and past.  Someone may insist that he is Napoleon reincarnate, and strut about with the tricorner hat, muttering, “It was that subtle Talleyrand!  It was that beef-eating Wellington!”  He is to be addressed as Emperor or First Citizen.  Another man may brandish a Jedi light sabre bought at the local dollar store; he is to be addressed as Sir Knight.

And then there’s race.  What is race, after all?  If a student checks “White” as his racial identity, then he will be regarded as white.  If a student checks “Black,” then he will be regarded as black.  If he checks “Native American,” as did Senator Elizabeth Warren, back when she was a student, in order to snatch a bit of an advantage when she was applying to law school, then we should get out the feather headdress and dance along with her in the sun.  Some students, by mere genetic inheritance, may be of African descent, but may wish to distance themselves from their cousins.  That is their choice.  They may check “Other,” and designate themselves as “black and white,” or “trans-black,” or “trans-white,” as they please.  Another student may be of Norwegian heritage, with tow-colored hair and fair skin and blue eyes, but, because he feels he is not essentially Norwegian, he may instead identify with his ancestors on the steppes a hundred generations back, and check “Asian” as his race.  That is his choice.

Admissions officers in the state colleges must take note.  They’ve done a good job ensuring racial diversity in their enrollments, but this has been diversity of the first degree only.  The next degree is meta-diversity, or diversity beyond diversity.  Among the “blacks” at Fullerton, there should be a certain percentage of trans-whites, that is, blacks who are blacks by self-identification and not by genotype or phenotype.  Among the “wealthy” at Fullerton, there should be a certain percentage of trans-royals, that is, children of plumbers or housemaids, but who occupy a class of their choosing or invention.  Fullerton should reach out not only to those who suffer pecuniary poverty, but also to those who are poor by self-identification, regardless of their income.  Diversity should not be limited to mere factual differences.

The legislators stopped short of granting legal status to self-identifying amputees.  They will consider it during the next session.  Some people feel they must be amputees.  To be crippled is not just an unfortunate consequence of a genetic anomaly or an accident or an act of violence, but a positive good—so long as it resides in the free choice of the individual.  “Why should I be burdened with this right arm?” they cry.  “Why should a narrow minded society condemn me to walk about on my two feet, when I can stump around on a crutch and a wooden peg?”  “Why must I see out of two eyes, when one eye and a black patch would be so much nicer?”  “I am a pirate—it’s what I am—why should I not be free to hire a doctor to make me look like one?”

The Real Offense Against Nature
Well—the legislators of California did not really do these mad things.  They did something crazier still.  They decreed that children in the schools should be addressed and treated as belonging to the sex of their choice or invention, and that such children should be allowed to participate in team sports, and to use locker rooms and bathrooms, according to their choice.

Why is that even more insane, more evident of a mind determined to hate reality, than what I have described above?  How do they hate us?  Let me count the ways.

First: class really is a social construct.  That’s why the Army was such a democratizing institution in the days of the draft.  Strip fifty men naked, and you can’t tell who came from Harvard and who came from the Bronx.  You can’t tell, because there are no physical differences.  The ancient Athenians understood the principle, and that’s why the gymnasion—athletic complex and school and political hangout all in one—was crucial to their democracy.  But sex is not a social construct.  It is all too real—and don’t bother to refer to me to a hermaphrodite living in Winnipeg.  Sex is the first thing we notice about someone, and the last thing we forget.

A man may or may not be Napoleon, according to circumstance.  If our neighbor thinks he is Napoleon, we rightly regard him as mad, because his thoughts and words and actions are not in accordance with reality.  If he thinks he is a prince and demands that we bow before him and kiss his signet ring, we call the men in white coatsSanity is the adequate response of the mind to the real thing: adaequatio mentis ad rem.  But at least the would-be Prince of Wales might have been the Prince of Wales; and who knows but by some bizarre concatenation of political upheavals, he might yet enjoy that exalted station.  But under no circumstances could he ever be the Princess of Wales.  To believe the first is to believe something that is not true, but is at least conceivable.  To believe the second is to believe what is not even conceivable.  It is not like believing that the moon is made of green cheese.  It is like believing that two and two are seven.

Second: race is epidermal, but sex is not.  A boy from the Congo and a boy from Italy are pretty much alike.  Anybody who travels knows this—boys are boys.  Now, if it’s madness for Lars Larsen to say, “I am really the son of a Congolese fisherman,” when his father was an accountant in Trondheim, then it is utter raving insanity for him to say that his name is really Lara, and demand to join the field hockey team or the softball team.  But as insane as the lad is, how insane must be the legislators who allow him to do it?  It is as if Lars could wave a wand, sprinkle pixie dust, and, ping!—he’s a girl.  He doesn’t have the boy’s torso, the boy’s hands, the boy’s muscles, the boy’s heart-lung capacity, the boy’s heavy bones, and so forth.  There’s a reason why boys are not allowed to compete on girls’ teams.  It is reality.  If they were allowed to compete, there would still be two teams; one called the boys’ varsity, and the other called the boys’ junior varsity.  People who live in reality may notice that the LPGA has never invited a teenage boy (say, Tiger Woods, Matt Kuchar, or Luke Donald at age 16) to compete in any of their golf tournaments—and they never will.

But the third reason is the most damning.  If I say, “I am the Prince of Wales,” I do not imply a rejection of anything healthy and normal.  It’s just that I am not sane.  But if I say that a boy may be a girl or a girl may be a boy, I do in fact reject the healthy and normal.  I do not love boys and girls sufficiently to help them enjoy, and flourish in, the sex with which God has endowed them.  I see two boys arm-wrestling at a party, and I’m moved to disdain or dislike; why should there be such ordinary boyish creatures in the world?  I see a young woman playing with her small child, wholly absorbed in the play, and I’m moved to disdain or dislike: why should there be so girlish a creature in the world?

The legislators, then, resemble most of all those confused souls who determine to lop off healthy limbs, because they feel they must be mutilated in order to be whole.  They cannot endure the normal.  They hate reality.  They are quite mad.

Anthony Esolen


Professor Esolen is a teaching fellow and writer in residence at Thomas More College of the Liberal Arts, in Merrimack, New Hampshire. Dr. Esolen is a regular contributor to Crisis Magazine and the author of many books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization (Regnery Press, 2008); Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child (ISI Books, 2010) and Reflections on the Christian Life (Sophia Institute Press, 2013). His most recent books are Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching (Sophia Institute Press, 2014); Defending Marriage (Tan Books, 2014); Life Under Compulsion (ISI Books, 2015); and Out of the Ashes (Regnery, 2017).

  • Deacon Ed Peitler

    Something special was lost the day my Catholic men’s college (Manhattan) went co-ed. Gone forever was the experience of fraternity. But like so many other things, what was going to be lost was never adequately appreciated. Where can men find it these days?

    • TheodoreSeeber

      In Knights of Columbus.

    • Scott

      Wasn’t having women on campus a net gain? You could still hang out with the guys, but you had the added bonus of hanging out with the girls.

  • Marie Dean

    Superb article. Our identity is in God and people do not want to admit this. We are made in the image and likeness of God, and, as St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote, we have kept the image but lost the likeness, which is grace, God’s own life.

    Once a human being disorients himself or herself from this reality, they can create any reality, which eventually becomes unreality. In a completely relativistic society, reality no longer is objective but subjective, which is why someone can claim to be Tinker Bell and wear green skimpy outfits to school.

    No inner conviction of self makes one create one’s self into something else, which is one of the definitions of idolatry. We become our own false gods.

  • NE-Conservative

    Really, is it worth worrying about this? I mean it’s California; and Massachusetts will be next – with Senator Fauxcahontas (nee Warren) – they are there de facto if not yet de jure. Nothing is going to bring anything approaching logic or sanity to either state. They are lost causes.

  • Jo Joyce

    I was listening to left radio one Sunday (curious or in attempt to understand the insane) and they really acknowledge themselves as utopians. Is there a reason for sanity in a utopia where people MUST believe they are happy? Only pink or purple pills available…with or without glitter…

  • JERD

    Allow me to take issue with Professor Esolen’s broad brush stroke in this article.

    Is it not true that mental health experts are in agreement that there is a psychological, mental or emotional condition that causes a male or female to employ the behaviors and adopt physical features of the opposite sex? In effect, causes a person to “be” the opposite sex? And, if experience shows that treatment to reverse the condition is futile, then ought we not accommodate the person who suffers from the condition? And, to go one step further, doesn’t our Lord’s command to love our neighbor mandate that we make an accommodation?

    • Bucky Inky

      My answers to your questions:

      1. Yes, I suppose it’s not true (there are probably a significant number who are not in agreement), but I don’t myself see why a mental health expert is necessary to judge whether these characteristics are present or not.

      2. Perhaps “be”, but not be.

      3. & 4. Yes, we should accommodate them by charitably not pretending there is nothing the matter with them.

    • sajetreh

      And, to go one step further, doesn’t our Lord’s command to love our neighbor mandate that we make an accommodation?

      The simple answer is NO! The Lord does not accommodate sin.

      • Scott

        Isn’t treating people disrespectfully sinful?

        • James1

          Mmmm… I’m not sure I see any disrespect, here. Please elucidate?

          Should I engage in sinful behavior, should it not be incumbent on another – especially one who cares for me and my soul – to correct my behavior? I would see that as an act of true respect for my well-being, particularly spiritual well-being.

          To merrily allow another to live a sinful life is the greatest disrespect for their immortal soul.

          • Scott

            I think “correcting your behavior” would involve adopting a more sensitive and loving approach to GLBTs. I am sure you would disagree. We can all speak out about what we believe to be good and true, and we hope we get it right. However, we can’t order or forcibly control everyone else’s moral choices.

            • James1

              What is “adopting a more sensitive and loving approach” to correcting one’s behavior? Does that equate to allowing them to continue the behavior? Correcting an error necessarily requires stating something/someone is wrong. If you believe the mere statement of such is insensitive or unloving, you might also consider Jesus’ various rebukes to be insensitive or unloving.

              As for ordering or forcibly controlling everyone else’s moral choices, where does that place California’s law ordering/forcing Californians to believe what another says is their “choice”?

              • Scott

                James, nobody is ordering/forcing Californians to believe what another says is their choice. You are free to disapprove. You will not be ordered into women’s bathrooms. You will not undergo forced gender reassignment. What the state is saying is that is will not legislate people’s choices in this area but will leave them up to those concerned. To address the questions in your first paragraph, yes, you are free to state your opinions and to do your best to persuade others that you are right. If you wish to do so in a degrading manner by claiming these people are “mad”, well, you have First Amendment rights. So does everyone else, however, and increasingly people will speak out against such broad and un-nuanced categorization. As to whether you get to “allow” the behavior to continue, you have no control. You may see it as unethical, but you cannot physically prevent it.

                • James1

                  I understand the law does nothing to “force” these children to chose a gender. That is not the point. The law has other implications more sinister.

                  It is not forcing Californians to believe the others choice, it is forcing them to accept and recognize that choice under penalty of law. By law, as I understand it, it is now illegal to state the truth of certain physical beings. Californians must call a boy a “girl” if that boy so declares. That child’s own pediatrician must now treat him as a girl? Or would that pediatrician treat him as a boy but wink as he does so?

                • justamom

                  We may not be forced to go in bathroom of the opposite sex. But, I WILL be forced to see a male coming into the women’s room! I WILL be forced to lie and say I see a woman when i really see a man. Why do you not see that as an infringement on MY rights??

                  • Ruth Rocker

                    EXACTLY!! What about the rights of the majority? Didn’t this country used to believe that that? We have become a nation of whiners and victims to the point that any nutball with a hangnail can claim injuries inflicted by society. If I wanted to see men performing their elimination functions, I’d go into the men’s room. I don’t and I want them to stay out of my bathroom!!!

                • sajetreh

                  “What the state is saying is that is will not legislate people’s choices in this area but will leave them up to those concerned”

                  Wrong again! Not only is the state legislating morality by imposing on children and their parents the abnormal behavior of a few. The state is also dictating a false science as a meta-physical truth. This is what the founding fathers meant by separation of church and state.

                  “You will not be ordered into women’s bathrooms.”

                  But our children will be forced to accept a boy in their bathroom. Their simply is no reasoning behind your arguments. This is what happens when the premise of your argument is flawed. The flaw is that same sex attraction and acts are both abnormal to the human reproductive system.

            • Steven Jonathan

              My goodness Scott, you must not even know what you are saying. No Catholic would advocate “forcibly controlling” anyone’s moral choices, we understand free will. You seem to be mistaking “loving choice” with acceptance of licentiousness.

            • Ruth Rocker

              Really???!!! Isn’t “forcibly control(ing) everyone else’s moral choices” what the current actions of the homomafia are all about? It is no longer acceptable to hold a differing view of what is “normal” in this country. If you don’t toe the line on the current brand of lunacy floating around, you are immediately labeled a bigot or a racist or a homophobe (a word that doesn’t even exist or would not make sense if it did exist – fear of same???). If the looney left is going to win the day (and it looks like they’re gaining ground) they have to control the discussion. Control the language and you control the society.

              And if you put small boys and girls together and leave them alone to play, they will automatically know who’s who and what’s what without coaching.

              • Bono95


                I like that term.

        • msmischief

          Telling the truth is not disrespect.

        • ColdStanding

          Wouldn’t that depend on what you are treating them for?

        • Facile1

          I agree with Sajetreh. The Lord does not accommodate sin.

          HOWEVER, neither does the Lord desire sin to be criminalized. Please refer to John 8:1-11 A Woman Caught in Adultery. And neither does the Lord desire sin to be legalized. Please refer to Matthew 22:15-22 Paying Taxes to the Emperor.

          What the State of California is doing is a sin. They are taking upon themselves what rightfully belongs to God. In short, the sin is idolatry. It is not the province of the State to legislate morality. And the Californian law is calling all citizens (Catholic and not) to sin against God (ie the TRUTH) under the penalty of the LAW (which is merely a human invention).

          The blood that will flow from this law will be nothing compared to the souls that will be lost in this plane of existence and the next.

      • JERD

        Where is the sin in this case? An analogy with homosexual attraction is appropriate.

        Having the tendencies (attractions) of a homosexual is not a sin. Engaging in a homosexual act is a sin. Likewise, a person who tends (has attractions) to a sexuality that is not consistent with his bodily form is not a sin.

        • Facile1

          I agree with Sajetreh. The Lord does not accommodate sin.

          HOWEVER, neither does the Lord desire sin to be criminalized (re: John 8:1-11 A Woman Caught in Adultery) NOR legalized (re: Matthew 22:15-22 Paying Taxes to the Emperor).

          The real sin here is what the State of California is doing. They are taking upon themselves what rightfully belongs to God. It does not belong to the purview of the State to legislate morality. In short, the sin the State of California is committing is idolatry. And the Californian law is calling all citizens (Catholic and not) to sin against God (ie the TRUTH) under the penalty of the LAW (which is merely a human invention).

          TRUTH begins with GOD and cannot exist outside of GOD (regardless of whatever the State decrees.)

          LOVE GOD FIRST.

    • WRBaker

      Shrinks VOTED in the ’70s to take homosexuality off their list of disorders. That should be enough for anyone to look askance at anything they have to say.

      • Adam__Baum

        Theirs is a dark art, often devoid of Popper’s falsifiability, and the domain of clever stories and invented constructs. I can identify various physical components of the brain, but not the “id” or “superego”. Even if they weren’t operating in an echo chamber, I’d be skeptical of their pronouncements. Perhaps someday, the practice of psychology will be superseded the way alchemy was superseded by chemistry.

    • msmischief

      Most children in this condition, if not encouraged, will grow out of it with no treatment at all.

    • Allamanda

      Is it not true that mental health experts are in agreement that there is
      a psychological, mental or emotional condition that causes a person to employ the behaviors and adopt physical features of animals? In effect, causes a person to “be” the animal? (Yes, they are, and there is.)

      If your neighbour firmly believed he was a chicken, if he felt he had wings, would you treat him as you would a chicken?

  • Pingback: Hatred of Nature: Hatred of Sex | Catholic Canada()

  • Watosh

    Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

    • John

      Thanks, Watosh. That’s the quote that is ALWAYS in my mind these days!

  • Scott

    This article posits a very simplistic interpretation of the extremely complex issue of human sexuality. it underestimates the reality of gender identification for those who believe they were born in the wrong body. To compare belief that one is Napoleon with the sincere conviction that one was born in the wrong body is, and I use these words only after careful thought, cruel, bigoted, and insensitive. It shows deep ignorance of the reality — yes, the reality — that confronts some of our fellows. God’s love commands us to treat these people with respect. To ridicule them as “mad” is … well, I don’t believe it is a truly Christian response.

    • sajetreh

      Extremely complex issue of human sexuality?!! It is statements like this that are the real problem. There is a reason why it is called the human reproductive system. It is not complex and it is basic science.

      God does not require that we respect them, but to treat them with dignity. It is not dignifying to allow people to ignore science for their own selfish desires.

      The simple truth is that male and female are meant to procreate in order to continue the homosapien existence.

      • Scott

        The brain, the organ that entertains the complex issue of human sexuality, is not part of the reproductive system, but it has a much more powerful effect on sexuality than the reproductive system alone. And, no, male and female are not exclusively meant to “procreate”. Many people choose not to have children (hint: the pope), yet lead creative, fulfilling lives that contribute to the betterment of the world. Who is pandering to “selfish desires” here? Transgender people or those who would impose their own view of morality on them?

        • msmischief

          OR? Who is insisting that other people tell lies?

        • Bono95

          You are correct that not everyone is called to marry and procreate, but there’s a difference between taking a vow of celibacy (like the Pope and other men who undergo Holy Orders, Nuns, and consecrated lay people), and using artificial contraception or engaging in disordered and sterile sexual acts. Not all transgendered people engage in sexual disorders, but those who do (as well as heterosexuals behaving likewise) are indeed pandering to selfish desires. Telling them that is not imposing morality (unless perhaps if it’s shouted and preached at gunpoint, which is rarely the case), it is telling them the truth and showing genuine love and concern. Temporal punishment and admonishment does sometimes hurt, but nowhere near as much as eternal punishment, which is given to all (homo or heterosexual) who die in mortal sin (sexual or otherwise). Eternal punishment for sin can only be avoided by repentance and very often temporal punishment.

          • Scott

            I don’t see this sneering, demeaning article, which tells people that their genuinely felt conflicts are crazy and meaningless, as genuinely loving or indicative of concern. It singles out a very small group of people and makes fun of their “madness”.

            • justamom

              I read this article as “sneering” at the lawmakers, not the people with the disorders. You believe we should show “love” toward people with gender confusion issues by humoring them and lying to them?

        • James1

          Procreation requires a male and female. “Go forth and multiply” doesn’t seem to include perversions of sex for the sole purpose of pleasure. Non-procreative, heterosexual sex – solely for the purpose of pleasure – also does not seem to fit. Sex is meant (by the nature of our being male and female human beings) to be procreative.

          Your example of the pope as one who chooses not have children is silly. The (Latin Rite) priesthood chooses *celibacy* as a discipline, not because they “choose not to have children” or are confused about their “sexuality.” They do not have sex outside of marriage (an institution exclusively for the man and woman) as might the “gender-challenged” in some relationships.

          It is not “their own” morality, it is that of Our Lord.

          • Scott

            But there are those who think supporting civil rights for GLBTs is not “our own” morality but that of Our Lord.

            • James1

              Unfortunately, it would appear that certain Californians no longer have the “civil right” to say the truth. That which denies the truth denies Our Lord.

              • Scott

                That’s just not true. Of course they have the right to say what they think and believe. It’s just that other people with different views (including what constitutes “the Truth” and what Our Lord would think) have the same rights. Nobody is having rights taken away. Rights are merely being added.

                • musicacre

                  The more “special” rights that are dolled out, the more imbalance there is, obviously. Some people becomes MORE equal. Which means they can trump the ordinary rights of other people, like the right to having a belief system which isn’t attractive to the person with all the special rights.

              • Scott

                Oh, come on James1. You know that’s not true!!! There are lots of Californians whining as much as some of you about this. It’s just that others are now pushing back because they’re not afraid to say what they believe to be true. What you’re really asking for is for the opposition to just shut up and go away. They won’t because they too believe they are right. You can’t have it all your own way!

                • James1

                  If the bill in question becomes law, and if I was a California citizen: I could not tell my own child he/she could not have any “gender/changing” surgery; I could not tell my child he/she is, by a particular chromosome pair, in fact a he/she and not otherwise; I could not tell my child to even wait to make sure of this “feeling.”

                  Should I do any of the above, my own child, or whoever might represent my child (and *that* doesn’t sound frightening?), may sue me for at least $5000.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Kindly tell me what the difference between a person believing they are somebody that they are obviously not, and a person believing that they are somebody they are obviously not, is.

      • Scott

        It’s obvious. Thinking you are Napoleon Bonaparte and that you live in France 200 odd years ago shows complete loss of touch with reality. For someone to embrace the very real belief that they “feel” like a person of the opposite sex and want to be of the opposite shows incredible honesty and openness to reality. In this case, loss of touch with reality would require these people to tamp down and repress their feelings. These people do not believe that they HAVE the body of someone of the opposite sex. They feel they have the mind, thought, and feelings of someone of the opposite sex and often wish they had the body to go with it. There is nothing wrong with their reality processing. They are being honest with themselves.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          “For someone to embrace the very real belief that they “feel” like a person of the opposite sex and want to be of the opposite shows incredible honesty and openness to reality.”

          If they were open to reality, they’d accept their own gender. Feelings and attitudes are under control of the will, and can be changed.

          Otherwise I’d be a mass murderer by now. If I was being honest with myself in that way, the rage I feel at society would have long ago led me to take pot shots at skyscrapers from two miles away.

          Some “feelings” need to be tamped down and repress their feelings, if we are to stay connected to reality.

    • Gail Finke

      “To compare belief that one is Napoleon with the sincere conviction that one was born in the wrong body is… cruel, bigoted, and insensitive.” And you base this on what? Prof. Esolen is saying — rightly so — that both convictions are equally lacking in sanity, and that to encourage either one is equally cruel. It’s a reality that some people believe they are in the “wrong bodies,” but it’s not a reality that they ARE in the wrong bodies. Their belief, though real, is false. There are no other bodies for them to have. Each of us has one body, and each of is IS that body. To say that one is “really” a disembodied spirit trapped in the “wrong body” is not sane. Gender studies are a sham and troubled people are not helped by encouraging their delusions. What is Christian about telling people to go ahead and mutilate themselves, or to think of themselves as (say) a disembodied female person trapped in a male body? Schizophrenic people have delusions that seem just as real as everything else to them — there is nothing Christian in pretending you can hear their voices or see their visions. And there is nothing Christian in pretending that a little boy is “really” a little girl. It’s a lie.

      • Scott

        Gail, how is it different from wishing that one’s body is different in other ways. Many people would like to be thinner or taller or have a straight nose. These people are not delusional. They are being honest about what they feel. It is demeaning to pretend they are simply insane. It comes down to determining which is the real determinant of sexuality — the mind or the reproductive system.

        • Bucky Inky

          Gail, how is it different from wishing that one’s body is different in other ways.

          The people you described above, however, “believe they were born in the wrong body,” they don’t simply wish they had a different body.

          • Scott

            Bucky, they don’t believe they have the chromosomes or the anatomy of the opposite sex. They are aware that the way they experience their sexuality is out of synch with their physical bodies. Hence they are not delusional.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              If they were not delusional, their mind and their reproductive system would be in sync.

              • Scott

                Telling them what they should be THINKING is … kind of autocratic. I could respect an approach that said they are jeopardizing their immortal souls by acting out their conflicts, but telling them that they are innately flawed is cruel and lacks understanding.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  “Telling them what they should be THINKING is … kind of autocratic. ”

                  Yes, but isn’t that exactly what you are doing with us? Telling us what we should be thinking?

                  “I could respect an approach that said they are jeopardizing their immortal souls by acting out their conflicts, but telling them that they are innately flawed is cruel and lacks understanding.”

                  How so? Once again, I return to the fact, admitted by you, that their mental health and physical condition are not in balance. How is admitting that is a disorder, that it is an innate flaw no different than my own eating disorder (and yes, at 311 lbs, I have an eating disorder), “cruel and lacks understanding”?

                • James1

                  Hmm. Looking, looking…. No I don’t see where anyone advocates telling them what to think. It does appear, however, that informing the person that what they do think/believe is counter to objective truth is a loving thing to do.

                  While this particular article refers in great part to “sexual orientation, this California law is rooted deeper than that. You can argue for loving, caring rights for sexual whim, but prideful denial of Truth is at the heart of this and other ills.

                • Paul Tran

                  By your logic, if someone desires to kill or harm another person he/she must have the right to do so cos we are not allowed to deter him/her to think that way ?

                • sajetreh

                  The truth can be cruel to those who challenge it.

                • Facile1

                  The FORCE of the LAW may break my bones but a poor choice of words may hurt my feelings? Which of the two is bound to be more cruel and lacking in understanding do you think?

            • Bucky Inky

              Yes, but it looks as though you have changed your tune now. Being “aware that the way they experience their sexuality is out synch with their physical bodies,” is different than “[believing] they were born in the wrong body” – both your phrases. I agree that the first is not delusional, but I disagree with you if you assert that the second one is not delusional. To believe one was born in the wrong body is delusional. It is uncharitable to pretend otherwise.

              • sajetreh

                Of course it looks like he has changed his tune. His arguments aren’t based upon sound reasoning so they will be filled with inconsistencies.

                • Scott

                  “Sound reasoning” to you appears to be “what I think is right and must be the norm.” Everyone else is just wrong. You don’t know why, you can’t explain why, but you believe they are. Read up on the science and the biological causes behind the issue. The brains and genetic structure of transsexuals are different. God made them that way.

              • Scott

                No, they are the same thing. They believe they were born in the wrong body BECAUSE the body is out of synch with their true sexuality.

                • Bucky Inky


                  A letter appears on my screen BECAUSE I type a key on my keyboard. Does this mean that typing a key, and a letter appearing on the screen are the same thing?

        • sajetreh

          “It comes down to determining which is the real determinant of sexuality — the mind or the reproductive system.”

          Ah! Here we have the true argument. Ignore the reality of the human reproductive system and replace it with what you feel or think.

          This is the kind of thoughtless reasoning that leads to holocausts and re-education camps.

          • Scott

            You’re too fixated on reproductive systems. Use your brain to learn more about brain variations in others. And oh the irony of claiming it is MY side that is tending toward holocausts and re-education camps. Those evils are the domain of people who fail to respect differences in others!!!

        • Gail Finke

          Wishing one’s body was different is one thing, believing that it is the wrong body is delusional. If I am heavy and I wish I were thin, that’s not delusional. If I am plain and I wish I were beautiful, that’s not delusional. But if I have anorexia and think I’m fat even though I am starving to death, that’s a delusion. And if I’m a nice looking young African-American pop superstar and think I can transform myself into someone of a different race through plastic surgery, I am mentally disturbed. FEELING something doesn’t make it true. Say whatever you like, the mind does not determine what sex you are, biology does.

      • sajetreh

        Go girl! Sound reasoning.

  • Ford Oxaal

    Pretty amusing if not for the specter of the metastisizing meta-state. Sure, the Romans deified Julius Caesar through legislation, but who would have thought of deifying the peeping tom? Only California could have advanced civilization this far, this fast — and all with a few strokes of the pen — encapsulating all the pressing issues of the day.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    I can see difficulties in most social situations, in treating as a man someone who has undergone gender reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy and who, thus, presents the external appearance of being a woman (and vice versa)

    • msmischief

      Do you see difficulties in treating as a commoner someone who has presented herself a Queen?

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        No, but requiring, or even permitting the person I described to use male changing facilities or public lavatories could cause a certain awkwardness.

        • msmischief

          Why are you so concerned about this person and not about the women who are forced to share?

          I add, BTW, that on the face of it, you can’t keep a man out of the woman’s room even when he’s lying and merely looking for a convenient victim to assault.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            I suppose it is a question of whether we privilege sex over gender or vice versa

            • Bono95

              How on earth DOES someone undergo “full” gender reassignment surgery?! Physical gender specific traits don’t stop at the reproductive system. They go all the way down to the chromosomes in every cell in a person’s body. I imagine it’s rather difficult (not to mention expensive and time-consuming) to change or replace every single 2nd X chromosome into a Y chromosome and vice versa in all (give or take) 1 or 2 trillion cells that make up a human body.

            • James1

              From the article, it is not apparent that California’s law addresses any surgeries, simply that all must recognize the *gender choice* of the child. So, a male child could theoretically declare himself to be a girl and proceed to use the female facilities even if there is no means to prove he is not doing so simply to be a voyeur.

              Does the law provide for any proof of the child’s “belief?” Does the law allow a child to change his “sexual choice” as often as he/she desires? After all, this appears to be based solely on what the child declares, with no concrete proof of sincerity.

              How soon might *I* enjoy a law that will make it incumbent on the rest of you to recognize what I believe myself to be without providing proof of the veracity of my claim?

            • msmischief


              You know perfectly well that the law is not limited to such men. And that men who want women to rape will not be ashamed to lie.

              And you ought to know that, yes, such men are perfectly capable of sexually assaulting women, men, and children.

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                But they are not “men” (except to essentialsits)

                According the principle recognized by jurists all around the world and international humanitarian law, “Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.”

  • cloonfush

    I have been trying to get family and friends to call me excellency for years to no avail. Guess I need to move to California where my requests will now have the force of law.

  • windjammer

    Great article. But one must admit it is hard to be shocked, stunned or surprised by anything or anyone coming out of California. They don’t call California “la la land” or “de land of fruits and nuts” for nothing. The moniker is well earned. It’s really the largest outdoor insane asylum in the country disguised as a sovereign State. The legislature is a concentrated representation of it’s patients. California was always considered the trendsetter for the country. Looks like that’s still true. Our country is not far behind in demonstrable insanity.

    “They cannot endure the normal. They hate reality. They are quite mad.”

    Succinct description that is applicable not only to California and the Country but to the USCCB and a large majority of it’s bishops as well.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Why does this remind me of His Imperial Highness Emperor Norton I of San Francisco?

  • ColdStanding

    In other news, Russia has surrendered unconditionally to the demands of the provisional government of Pitcairn Island in the face of a strongly worded diplomatic letter demanding Russia’s total capitulation.

    With this stunning reversal, many in Washington are thinking it is only a matter of time before a raised eye-brow by the janitor in the building next to the government office for parks and recreation in Andorra might bring about the end of the American way of life.

    The French ambassador, when asked to comment, gave only the cryptic reply, “Who’s the surrender monkey now?”

  • Pingback: What will the Catholic Church be like in A. D. 2,978? - BigPulpit.com()

  • Dave

    I think the question is whether it is in the interest of society to allow children to choose which group they wish to be be segregated into. Should children be allowed to decide that they wish to be considered something other than what the reality of their bodies would indicate? I don’t understand why we would allow chlidren (who we admit don’t know everything) to make such a choice.

    Admittedly, I am not a psychologist of educator, but I think the purpose of schooling is to educate children to the realities of the world and to form future productive members of society. I don’t see how allowing a boy to call himself a girl and be included with the girls in sports, etc. advances thoses goals.

    • musicacre

      You’ve hit the nail on the head; it’s about the children. The selfishness of adults continuously pushing to change legislation refuses to take into the account the harm to innocent children once the parameters are in place and considered the new norm.

      The bent thinking that all these loony ideas are fast-tracked on is the idea that emotions are king and thinking is relegated to some locked backroom. Children are conditioned to thinking that their emotions are their guide, which of course can fluctuate wildly, depending on a million factors. Thinking skills and analytic skills are discouraged in the schools and I honestly it’s no longer about the philosophy of the education system, but because the new crop of teachers already grew up without logic. They wouldn’t know it if it hit them on the head.

      Just a side note; I think it’s interesting most people defer so respectfully to teachers and psychologists, as though they are Gods…. I am a psychiatric nurse with 3 years training and I learned mostly about how to administer psychotropic drugs. Very little useful info to actually properly assess or help people in mental distress. And…I decided to not put my children into the local school system, just getting a hint at the time that lots of bad stuff was happening. Not only the propagandizing instead of teaching, but the fact that the teachers here in BC are almost always negotiating for more, more, more! (That seems to be their focus) I decided to take on my children’s education and I don’t think it was a failure. They all still go to church every Sunday, and four of them have degrees in their chosen field, so far. (Well the fourth not quite done…)

  • melanie statom

    Hans Christian Andersen’s fairytale comes to mind: The emperor has no clothes on and we see he is a boy in a girl’s bathroom.!…as accepting as children can be, they are the first to state such evident truth.

  • guest44

    Isn’t this a logical follow on (like homosexual “marriage) of the radical feminist’s demand for “sexual equity”, i.e., men and women are interchangible and not different in any fundamental way. Madness.

  • CharlesOConnell
  • reliogion is evil

    =( homo babys

    • sajetreh

      Learn how to spell. Then bring your argument.

    • Bono95

      There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that people are born homosexual. Nearly all documented cases of homosexuality can be traced to well-established childhood, if not teenage or young adult years.

  • CharlesOConnell

    Fr. C. John McCloskey: male friendship deficit syndrome


  • John_O_Neill

    “now his wars on God begin, at stroke of midnight God shall win.” W.B Yeats

  • JediWonk

    It’s a “disorder” if it’s “reproductive fitness reducing”. The null hypothesis is that gender dysphoria is some pathogen at work (in the sense that the root cause of schizophrenia is infection with *toxoplasma gondii*), affecting the brain.

    Still, if some male wants his genitalia cut off, it is in the interest of his fellow males to pay for that for the same reason that it is in our interest to encourage our fellows to be homosexuals–less competition for the available females!

    Male homosexuality *is* a condition that fits the Cochran Hypothesis–it is “big” (more than 1 in 10000, “old” (as been known since antiquity), and highly reproductive-fitness-impairing. Gender dysphoria is not “big” enough for us to be sure it is not genetic. Does anyone know if it’s “old” (more than a few centuries)?

  • JediWonk

    > photographs portraying her in fetters and manacles

    The author refers to the professional photographer with the pronoun “he”. This means Mr. Esolen believes that there is, somewhere, a male photographer who would have to be coerced by the State of California to take such photographs.

    Now *here* is a denial of (male) human nature! I assume a comely lady would have no trouble getting such photographs taken professionally for free!

  • Pingback: “10 Reasons to Ban Gay Marriage”, and Other Straw Men | Practically Christian()

  • poetcomic1

    Malachi Martin (if I may use his name) in the book HOSTAGE OF THE DEVIL, has a chapter on Richard/Rita a ‘transgender’ possessed man who was exorcised. Martin incidentally explores many of the deep spiritual mysteries of gender in a way I’ve not found elsewhere. The case was tragic and the subject, left mutilated and alone afterwards was obviously the object of great compassion by the officiating priests.

  • Cassandra

    This article is barren of compassion and love. To dismiss the struggles of people who have to deal with this issue as insanity is just cruel. There is no sincere desire to help or to understand or to “feel the wounds of Christ”, as Pope Francis so beautifully puts it. There is only a desire to push these people away. There is an obvious sense that we’d all be better off if they didn’t exist. I am so ashamed of my Church when this unpleasant, inhuman judgmentalism becomes its public face.

    • Tony

      I want you people to stop messing with these kids’ heads. I want, when you have a kid who seems confused, to lead him or her gently and patiently but firmly back to reality. I want you to do the right thing by both the kid with the mental problem AND THE OTHER KIDS who might be swayed by the problem to join it, AND THE KIDS who have a right to enjoy the company of their own sex without confusion. Quit calling your indifference charity.

      • Cassandra

        Tony, these kids know what they feel. You and I do not. You want to tell these children they cannot be who they are, to be invisible, to go underground with their issues, to be even more alone than they already are. You want to say, “No, you cannot be this way. Go away and come back when you conform to MY narcissistic view of what YOU should be.” You are encouraging the real kid to ostracize himself. This hurts the kid AND THE OTHER KIDS who are not learning to love someone who is “different”. They are being taught to love conditionally.

        • Facile1

          Kids do not KNOW what they feel.

          In order to “know” what they feel, children will need to acquire two skillsets FIRST (beginning with their parents). The first is how to discern the TRUTH. The second is how to use language or languages (I grew up in a multilingual family.)

          Discerning the TRUTH is frankly more important than speaking any language. Language after all is a human invention. The TRUTH (ie GOD) is NOT.

          The TRUTH begins with GOD (re: Genesis) and cannot exist outside of GOD.

          So, how can one teach a child about gender and sexuality if one is constrained under the FORCE of LAW to ignore the TRUTH of a child’s own physical reproductive organs (whatever the child’s thoughts and feelings may be on the matter at the moment)?

          If it is a crime to tell the TRUTH, what use is LANGUAGE?

        • Bono95

          When Tony said to lead confused kids back to reality, he meant that to include asking the kid questions and listening closely to his or her answers. In that way, you would know what that kid feels, exactly what kind of help he or she needs, and how to help him or her. And that help would certainly NOT mean stuffing one’s thoughts and feelings down inside oneself, it would mean bringing them out into the open, studying them, understanding them, getting questions answered, and seeking any necessary further outside assistance. Would we tell a kid who suspected or knew that he had chicken pox not to seek medical help but rather to accept the fact that he has or may have chicken pox and just live with it? Of course not. We would give him the best home diagnosis that we were capable of and make him a doctor appointment, and if we found him to indeed have chicken pox, we would give him the proper medicine and make him rest until he recovered. So should we do with gender identity confusion. Most cases don’t require prescription drugs, but all should be addressed (compassionately) and treated accordingly. An untreated case of gender identity crisis, like an untreated case of chicken pox, very often becomes worse for not being treated.

      • Scott

        Tony, “gender reassignment therapy”, often brutal and invasive and always tramping on the right of the individual to be who he or she is, has been tried. It has failed. It does more harm than good. It It is a type of brain washing. Sorry if some people don’t fit your idea of perfection. The question is what to do with them. I say we respect who they are and treat them with love and acceptance. It is the people who are told they don’t belong and that they’ll “get over it” who too often end up committing suicide.

    • James1

      Cassandra, I don’t see dismissal of the children’s struggles, rather a rejection of a law (and principle) that allows these children to choose to deny objective truth. As well, it is implied that anyone who refuses to accept any child’s “choice” could conceivably face penalty(ies) under that law.

      Please do not mistake *correction* for lack of compassion or love. Indeed, it is the opposite. Should a child (or anyone for that matter) believe to their core that they came from the planet Krypton, would you allow – out of compassion and love, of course – that child to attempt flight from a rooftop?

      Please give examples of any commenter’s desire to push away these people. The idea of entertaining falsehood is the target of any “pushing away.” I also struggle to see, in these comments, any obvious sense *anyone* should not exist. A law that enshrines denial of objective fact should not exist, however.

      • Cassandra

        But you are trying to impose your idea of “objective truth” on someone else. We live in a pluralistic society. We are all free to differ. We can and must follow our own consciences. What you see as objective fact to me seems wrong. These people are not hurting anyone or committing any crime. Why can they not be accepted with love and compassion? Why can they not make their OWN choices about something as personal as their own sexuality? They don’t need you to do it for them. And please don’t tell me that this is like allowing them to kill someone or steal something. It is not. It is just about allowing them to be who they are and as they want to be.

        • sajetreh

          So emotional so irrational. Is there ever going to be an argument from one of you that has any reasoning behind it. You can not escape the scientific truth that the reproductive system has but one normal purpose “procreation”. To argue anything else is irrational and without thoughtful reasoning.

          Thank God for the second amendment.

          • Facile1

            I hate to disagree with you because I was happily agreeing with you until now.

            The reproductive system is also a source of pleasure as well as a means of “procreation”. I am not sure what you mean by “scientific truth” when coupled with the words “one normal purpose”. I would use the word “religious” rather “scientific” in describing this truth.

            The scientific fact is all sexual acts are pleasurable. BUT only one is consecrated by God and that is sex between a man and a woman within the bounds of marriage (sacramental or otherwise).

            HOWEVER, the Lord does not desire sin to be criminalized (re: John 8:1-11 A Woman Caught in Adultery) nor does the Lord desire sin to be legalized (re: Matthew 22:15-22 Paying Taxes to the Emperor.)

            What the State of California is doing is a sin. They are taking upon themselves what rightfully belongs to God. It does not belong to the purview of the State to legislate morality. In short, the sin the State of California is committing is idolatry. And the Californian law is calling all citizens (Catholic and not) to sin against God (ie the TRUTH) under the penalty of the LAW (which is merely a human invention).

            TRUTH begins with GOD (re: Genesis) and cannot exist outside of GOD (regardless of whatever the State decrees.)

            Therefore, LOVE GOD FIRST.

          • Scott

            The Second Amendment??? You want to lecture everyone here about morality and then you bring up guns (implication: mow them all down)??? You have revealed yourself. You want to bully everyone who thinks differently from you. Off to the concentration camps with them!

        • James1

          “Objective truth,” is BY DEFINITION no one’s “idea” of something. What you refer to is subjective truth, which is not really truth, in the proper sense. That a child has an XX or XY chromosome pair is observable, confirmable, and entirely objective. It is that pair of chromosomes that determines a person’s sex, not what that person thinks or believes is their sex. Certainly, it is not for the State to legislate that the biological fact of sex means anything otherwise.

          As well, it is not I trying to “impose” subjective truth on anyone, but rather it is the State of California imposing falsehood on the citizens of that state.

          Why can they not make their own choices about such personal things? Because they are *children*, and are ignorant compared to adults http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant (not that some adults are any better).

          You failed to address my analogy (imperfect though it may be) of the one who believed they were from the planet Krypton. Do you not believe such a person requires their error to be addressed? O r would you instead allow that person to attempt flight?

          Error should not be entertained as truth. Period.

          • Scott

            You are entitled to believe you have a hold on “objective truth.” It’s very simple — if you believe it, it’s “objective truth”. This is entirely solipsistic.

            • James1

              “Objective” is independent of what I believe, think, feel or desire. Sodium chloride is not potassium chloride, no matter how much I might want them to be the same.

  • KayKay

    this article and the comments here are just evil. you have no idea what its like to be transgender. this isn’t harming children. you people are harming an already isolated and demonized community of people who are just being who they are. be they trans men, women, or genderqueer, they are human beings. they deserve equal rights to the rest of you. you are all bigots. you judge when the only one who judges us is god. gender identity is a real thing. the gender/sexuality spectrum is a real thing. you all just aren’t willing to try and understand. you are all ignorant and you twist faith in god for wrongdoing. religion is brainwashing. you all fell for it. being close to god and having a relationship doesn’t come from a book written by man or attending a church founded on hatred and not love.

    you all hate what you don’t understand or what is different from you. that is the veil the devil puts over the eyes of the weak.

    • sajetreh

      Look in the mirror, KayKay. You’ll see the veil covering your eyes. Then go back to school and learn how to capitalize the first word of a new sentence. You might also benefit from studying the human reproductive system.

      But, be careful, you might have to think.

    • Bono95

      Let me get this straight, it’s wrong for US to judge, but it’s OK for GOD to judge, even though belief in and worship of God is brainwashing?

      • Scott

        You don’t seem to have understood anything she said!

        • Bono95

          How could I? When she wasn’t contradicting herself, she was hastily typing spur-of-the-moment PC cliches, lies, bigotry and hatred for Catholics, Christians, and all other religious believers who aren’t afraid to speak out against what’s wrong and to help those in the wrong become those in the right, and dangerous and unloving falsehoods and misconceptions about transgendered people.

        • Adam__Baum

          Maybe there was nothing to understand, just an incoherent barrage of clichés.

          • John200

            That’s right, Adam. She/he wasn’t saying anything. KayKay was amusing herself or himself by calling everybody else evil. I volunteer the conclusion that his/her burden of proof remains unmet.

            That is the place to start with her/him. She won’t get far.

        • Randall Ward

          “you have heard it and said it but you do not understand-Jesus”

    • Facile1

      Dear Kay,

      God cannot love us any less for our choices. God loved us first and has forgiven. God will love us always and will not forget.

      Our sins are not news to God. They are only news to us.

      But the question is NOT God’s love for you (because that will never change). The question is about your love for God. Are you treating your body as the temple for the Holy Spirit that God meant it to be? God will not judge you. Judge for yourself.

      St. Teresa of Avila said “Heaven is not for cowards.” Repentance, however painful, is necessary if you are to enter the gates of heaven.

      But rejoice in God’s LOVE always and you will find the courage necessary to repent.

      LOVE GOD FIRST and go in PEACE.

    • Brawler215

      How does disagreement = bigotry? I look at the lifestyle and choices of LGBT people and yes, I reject that lifestyle and think it is wrong. I don’t hate, dislike, or otherwise condemn those who make those choices, however. I know plenty of gay people. I work with a transgender person. I disagree with their choices, but I don’t ridicule them for their decisions. Do you understand the hypocrisy of your argument? I would argue that YOU do not understand Catholics, or any straight person who claims that the LGBT lifestyle is not the way things were meant to be. We don’t share the same view as you, so suddenly every single one of us is evil, weak, ignorant, brainwashed, or bigoted? If your goal is to convince people of your worldview, lashing out at them and throwing out a bunch of insults and blanket statements is a very poor tactic. Calm down and come back to the discussion when you are ready to be civil.

    • Adam__Baum

      First, it was “Katie”, then “Kate”, now “KayKay”, but no matter what the transient variation on Katherine, the prose is the same. There is no normal, any personal idiosyncrasy is valid.

      All religion is brainwashing? How about your xenotheistic one?

    • Randall Ward

      “and they will call evil good and good evil”

  • Jake

    I sadly read through a handful of these comments. I tried to find something loving that these “Christians” may have said or even implied, but my attempt was futile.

    • Facile1

      Why are you looking for LOVE here? Only GOD is love.

      GOD is LOVE and HE created us in HIS image because of LOVE.

      GOD is LOVE and HE lived, died and was raised from the dead because of LOVE.

      GOD is LOVE and HE suffers us to reject HIS perfect LOVE because of LOVE.

      TRUTH begins with GOD and cannot exist outside of GOD. Let’s not pretend we can love in the absence of GOD.


    • John200

      We love the demented. They are our brothers and sisters. We do not want to live like them, and we are glad we are sane. But we certainly have a special love for them. This is the essence of Catholic charity, or love for the other person.

      We are also allowed to pity them. This we do.

    • Randall Ward

      this is the standard statement of the unbeliever; sorry, christians live in the truth. Jesus told the temple royality what he thought of them, and his words were true.

  • Pingback: Our Lady's Seven Sorrows - BigPulpit.com()

  • OneTimothyThreeFifteen

    They are so desperate to prove their worldview is superior – more ‘loving’ and ‘tolerant’ – than the Christian one, they’ll do anything to achieve it.

    At root – like so many bullies – their problem is one of envy. They simply want to destroy the beauty and goodness they don’t have. Evil is the Privation of the Good and they want all of us, including Children, to be deprived of it.

    That’s why it cannot simply to be explained in terms of some sort of personal or social malaise, but something Evil, something Satanic.

  • Tony

    Cassandra says that we live in a “pluralistic” country. Fine; but we do not live in a pluralistic universe. A boy is a boy, and a girl is a girl. To believe anything else is insane.

    • sajetreh

      Not insane, brother, but irrational. What we are seeing now is pluralistic ignorance.

      In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a situation where a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but assume incorrectly that most others accept it,[1]also described as ‘no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes.” In short, pluralistic ignorance is a bias about a social
      group, held by a social group.[2] Lack of public opposition then helps perpetuate a norm that may be, in fact, disliked by most people. A lot of people are wrong about something but because everyone sees this wrong idea as the perceived social norm, no one speaks up against it.

      This is what we are experiencing now in this country. It is becoming social norm to accept same sex behavior even though the majority of people don’t accept it. This is why the legislators and judges are forcing this upon us.

      Same thing happened in Nazi Germany and communist Russia and China.

      • Scott

        In Nazi Germany, transsexuals, along with others considered “defective”, were persecuted and killed! Is that what you want? Or do you think these people should be tolerated as long as they remain invisible?

    • Scott

      That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it is extremely simplistic. Sexuality and gender are far more complex than you would like to pretend.

      • Facile1

        TRUTH is simple. Language, on the other hand, is a human invention (read Genesis); and, therefore, can be complicated by human error and manipulation.

        • Bono95

          Yea, Verily. 😀

  • dover_beach

    It’s amusing that materialists, yes materialists, not merely entertain the notion that one could be ‘born in the wrong body’, but positively traffic in it. Quite incredible in its incoherence.

  • justamom

    Scott, Cassandra, KayKay, et al.

    As with most people on that side of the debate, you are throwing out red herrings everywhere – no one – yes, not even the author of the article is in favor of harming anyone who has gender identification issues. These ARE real problems and people who suffer from them must be treated with compassion, love and empathy. HOWEVER, denying them the TRUTH about sexuality, gender (etc.etc.)is not showing them love! You believe we should show “love” toward people with gender confusion issues by humoring them and lying to them?

    That is the truly harmful and, yes, hateful, response to someone suffering as these people do.

    Would you let an alcoholic drink? Would you let a pedophile indulge his obsession? Would you discourage your manic-depressive sibling from taking medication? Would you allow your angry friend to pull his knife and stab someone because it is what he wants to do??

    I do not HATE anyone, yes, even people who disagree with me! – I speak the truth in charity and love.

    I invite you to have an honest conversation IN PERSON with someone who disagrees with you on this – comments can be easily misconstrued and trolls always bring the discussion down.

    The Peace of the Lord be with you!

    • Bono95


    • Scott

      justamom, you say “no one – yes, not even the author of the article is in favor of harming anyone who has gender identification issues.” Did you see the comment about being grateful for Second Amendment rights? What was that all about? It sounded to me like some nut wanting to shoot up transsexuals. And calling these people insane and out of touch with reality is ridiculing them, not treating them with charity and love. I wish there were more people with your compassion.

      • Facile1

        While I support Justmom, I disagree with you. I will not speculate on what Sajetreh meant by his remark on the second amendment rights. However, do not mistake constitutional “rights” as a “license” granted by the State to its citizenry. (The State cannot be the source of inalienable rights. God is.) Actually the proper understanding of “CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS” is the reverse — limits on State power IMPOSED by its citizenry.

        The “right to bear arms” cannot translate to a license to “shoot up transsexuals”; but to limit the LEGAL use of force by government against its own citizenry (who reserve for themselves the right to use force in self-defense).

        Which begs the question: Is the California Law even constitutional? After all it flies in the face of first amendment rights.

      • justamom

        There are nuts on both sides – remember the Chic-fil-a shooter from southern poverty law in DC? We should be able to assume that the people on BOTH sides of the debate will not bear ill-will toward anyone. Disagreeing is not the same as wishing evil on a person – we all need to stop accusing each other of bigotry and hatred. Scott, I appreciate your trying to avoid name-calling.

  • justamom

    I will also repeat that it is mainly the California LAW that this article takes to task – not individuals with gender identification problems. Allowing a man – no matter what gender he THINKS he is- in the woman’s restroom is an infringement on MY right to privacy and modesty as a woman. Allowing a male who is stronger than a woman because of his natural bone structure to compete against a woman in a sport is not fair to the women.

    As a parent, I do not want my children to be told lies that they can be whatever gender they want to be, have sex with whoever they want to, whenever they want. This is where the gender identification problems are created!!

  • Randall Ward

    there are so many real problems the government of california could tackle, but they continually make headway by passing laws like this one. What is the real agenda of the laws they pass? I believe at the heart of their problem is some kind of hatred. Hatred of what I don’t know, but I know that hatred blinds people to the truth because if the truth was known the hatred would go away?

  • Michele

    Very well written! The funny thing is that toddlers and preschoolers go through phases where they pretend to be all kinds of different people (even sometimes someone of the opposite gender), but they know they are only pretending. The insanity comes in when their parents step in and try to make a game of pretend into a reality by confusing children about gender. Yet, as every toddler and preschooler knows…you can pretend to be someone else, but at the end of the day you have to acknowledge reality!

  • Trumpet Player

    The LPGA removed its “female at birth” requirement in 2010. And the Miss USA pageant removed the requirement in 2012.

  • Maria Christina

    I know I’m a little late to the conversation, but I had to add this link http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/07/17/able-bodied-woman-wants-surgery-to-make-her-paraplegic/?test=latestnews A woman in Salt Lake wants to have her spinal cord cut so she can be a paraplegic. So, so, sad…

  • Eric

    You’re example of the outrageous person who wants to be an amputee was apparently prophetic. God have mercy……


  • Pingback: Steynian 480nth | Free Canuckistan!()

  • Pingback: Anthony Esolen’s Hatred of Nature and of Sex | The Cornerstone Forum Samizdat()

  • Leah

    If the pieces you write are full of this type of logic all the time, I may begin to follow you quite devotedly, and that is rare, for I don’t even know if you wear Polo…
    Wisdom again.

  • Olivia

    when the police report an assailant of a newly committed crime how can they rightly assign gender to their description without knowledge of the self identification of the perpetrator? Lending another judicial loophole to an already absurdist protection of criminals by our swiftly morphing system. Do you think those “knock out ” game perpetrators could use gender confusion or the self identification of being a robot in their defense ? This sounds like an insanity plea. Are our children being taught and encouraged to be insane? Are teachers in college being taught to psychologically manipulate our young vulnerable children to be insane? When you read common core assignments from math to ela to social studies you see the complicit nature of the teacher with the pedagogy and curriculum and wonder if they have been instructed with the same pedagogical insanity. Oh right they are doing it for social justice and to save the planet….see . It’s all insane.

    And is that the intention? Cultural destabilization and confusion….

  • Jason Ramay