« Challenge Response: We Don’t Have Those Original "Inerrant" Manuscripts | Main | Amazing Grace: A New Musical about John Newton »

July 03, 2015

Comments

Well written article. Thank you

It might be worth clarifying that the quotation from Thomas More (one of my favorites since high school) is actually a line from the play, "A Man for All Seasons", meaning that it is fiction placed in his mouth, not a real quotation (I can't comment as to how well it might represent something More would really have said, though it's interesting that a new work of fiction, "Wolf Hall", has a much different take on More's character).

It's not relativism. People like Caitlyn Jenner claim they really are women, as an objective fact. Gay people might very well wish they were straight, but they can't keep struggling against the objective fact that they are gay. These people aren't choosing their preferred realities like some relativist. That's too facile an explanation. It's like a strawman that Christians love to keep knocking down. But you're missing the real foe.

I came across the following statement from a 'doctor' the other day which pretty much sums up the relativistic worldview that even the medical profession has adopted--it would be interesting to ask this doctor what research she is referring too in regards to the 'actual physical, chromosomal, genetic identity elements'--a slight of hand to slip in the 'gay gene' 'I was born gay' claim:

"But Hernandez-Ramdwar says being transethnic and being transgender is not the same thing.
“They do not choose to be transgender – they just are,” she says pointing out that transgender people are often dealing with actual physical, chromosomal, genetic identity elements. “On the other hand, if someone claims that they are ‘transracial’, in my opinion, they are choosing to ‘perform’ what they assume to be an ethnicity that is attached to a certain race in a certain context.” Complete article here: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/is-it-really-possible-to-be-transethnic-190115424.html

It's not relativism. People like Caitlyn Jenner claim they really are women, as an objective fact.

Interesting claim John, but how can Jenner's claim be "objective" in the normally accepted sense of the term? When we say something is truly objective, we measure the objectivity of the claim in light of a standard outside of ourselves NOT by how we perceive our claim to be. What does Jenner appeal to outside of his own subjective perceptions that is in any way objective?

The idea is that womanhood is something more than genitalia or chromosomes. Womanhood also includes something in the brain, according to this thinking. And there is an objective fact about neurons and connections in Caitlyn Jenner's brain. This physical brain structure could be something that Jenner cannot change.

No one thinks being a woman is nothing more than subjectively thinking you're a woman. If you have a particular set of physical structures in your brain, then you really are a woman, even if you might wish you weren't.

John, do you disagree with feminists that there are no male or female minds? And if so, do you believe like the naturalists, that we are merely chemicals in motion, devoid of Free will?

If you have a particular set of physical structures in your brain, then you really are a woman, even if you might wish you weren't.

Doesn’t this all get so confusing? I mean, first we’re told that little girls and boys are the same. That boys don’t generally like trucks and girls dolls – it’s about environment, parenting, expectations, blah, blah, blah.

Then we’re told about “physical structures in your brain” that dictate whether we are male or female (i.e. determine whether or not we have correct genitalia or incorrect genitalia).

The agenda is quite obvious. Destroy structure. Rip it down.

The problem with that strategy is that you really can’t keep your story straight.

The comments to this entry are closed.