First They Change the Definition, and Then They Claim the Right

The other day, I retweeted Brian Seagraves’ tweet: “The transgender community wants a right no one has had: the right to use a bathroom that doesn’t match your sex.” Someone replied that transgender people are just looking for the same right that everyone has already had – to use a bathroom that matches their gender identity.

This sleight of hand has been used before. Redefine marriage as a union of two people who love each other rather than as a lifelong union of one man and one woman. The sleight of hand is to change the terms of a right and then claim it or reapply it in a way that has never been thought of before. Like any trick, sometimes it’s easy to miss what happened. Christians sometimes don’t know how to respond because they missed the substitution.

The definition of marriage was usually not specified as a man and a woman, but that’s because it was taken for granted. It also took for granted one of each sex. But things began to change decades ago when people began to vow “as long as we both shall love.” The initial sleight of hand meant marriage wasn’t for life any longer. That was the first change of definition—to be able to end a marriage easily (at least legally; divorce is never easy). A few decades down the road, the change of definition allows the further substitution of definition for male and female and the number of people. Now we have rights no one has ever had even though they claim it’s equal rights. No one of the same sex and no group of more than two fit the definition of marriage. Change the definition, and then claim the right.

That’s what’s going on with transgender access to bathrooms. Bathroom use was never ever divvied up according to gender identity. Gender identity is a new category as distinct from sex. Bathrooms have been assigned to sex, not gender identity. Thus, literally and figuratively, the plumbing matters. But change the definition, and then claim the right.

Look, we can and should continue to point out the erroneous thinking and resist changes in the law that have no rational or ethical foundation. But since that isn’t currently having much affect in these policy changes, the main point of this post is to encourage you to not be duped to change your mind, even when you don’t quite notice the sleight of hand. Watch for it. But don’t be dissuaded in your convictions.

Comments

[John B. Moore]

Some people are getting rights they never had before - that sounds like progress. Some things that were taken for granted are now being questioned - hooray for progress! If religion had its way, nothing would ever change - that's what your post seems to suggest. Can there ever be progress of any sort if we follow Christianity?

[Brian Collins]

John, How do you know that the changes are progress and not a regress without a standard to evaluate the changes by? And how do you know if the multiplication of rights is progress unless you know what those rights are and the impact of that multiplication on culture and society? As to your last question, God created a world that needed to be filled and stewarded--plenty of room for progress even in an unfallen world. In a fallen world much progress can be made in resisting the effects of sin. Which leads us back to the necessity of a standard by which to judge whether changes are progress or regress.

[Make Fascism Great Again, 2016]

John B. Moore,

This post points out that leftists often use a sleight of hand in definitions to try and obfuscate and win debates.

Interesting that your post does EXACTLY that! You use rhetorical sleight of hand to pretend as if inventing rights = progress.

Just another piece of data which shows leftists aren't willing to argue for their positions straightforwardly. Instead, they have to try and rig the game by defining their position as the winner.

[doug sachs]

Perhaps, as Christians, we should be looking at ways to demonstrate Christ's love for sinners where they are without compromising our witness. This may mean that our current ways are not the best ones. In this case, the real problem may be that we have separate men's and women's restrooms in the first place. In much of the rest of the world, the norm is individual private stalls - a cleaner version of the line of porta-potties at an event. Wouldn't advocating a solution like this in the building codes that doesn't say "my way or the highway" be more loving?

[Make Fascism Great Again, 2016]

Doug,

I think single-occupancy restrooms are a great idea. But I would assume that they cost a lot more money and require more space. And we already have millions of bathrooms in private businesses and public places that are not single-occupancy. What are we to do about those? The cost of rebuilding these already existing bathrooms would be enormous.

To cast the maintenance of our current bathroom policy, where bathrooms are designed for a persons biological sex, as unloving seems to be overreacting. Once we go down that road things can get pretty ridiculous pretty quick. For instance, would it really demonstrate the love of Christ to force Chick-fil-A to remodel all of its 1,000+ bathrooms into single-occupancy bathrooms?

[Steve Cornell]

Thank you for bringing attention to this important point! Controlling the vocabulary is essential to controlling people. So watch closely when meanings of words change.

This is exactly what the gay rights activists did.

Homosexuals once spoke of “sexual preference” regarding their lifestyle. They now reject the term “preference” and replace it with “orientation” to remove homosexuality from the category of choice.

Tolerance also has a new meaning - The actual definition of tolerance is treating others with respect when you disagree with them. These activists demand what they call tolerance but they're actually supporting intolerance by telling people they’re not permitted to disagree about certain moral lifestyles. This is coercion, not tolerance.

For a more in-depth look at the strategy, consider, "7 tactics for promoting gay marriage" https://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/7-tactics-for-promoting-gay-marriage/

[Jeremy]

Doug Sachs,

I think your falling into the misunderstanding that, due to slight of hand, most other people currently have. I think mostly due to how this issue is reported by media and how most people talk about it. The fact is bathrooms are only one part of issue. Locker rooms, showers, spas, changing rooms, etc., even in schools, are never discussed by supporters of this these laws.

What argument would you give as to why grown men should be allowed to shower with girls, at will.

[Damian]

The biggest problem I have with whole thing and I think it's something many are missing, is not so much that someone believes they are a sex they are not, it's that that law is forcing everyone else to behave as if this false belief were true. This doesn't hold for anything else in our culture. It's one thing if some guy believes himself to be female, but when he enters a women's restroom the women in there are required to behave as if that belief were true. This is very troubling. If I sincerely believe myself to be Napoleon, I need help, but if I believe myself to be female I get affirmation and applause.

[RonH]

The definition of marriage was usually not specified as a man and a woman, but that’s because it was taken for granted. It also took for granted one of each sex.

What does taking something granted say about that thing?

[Make Fascism Great Again, 2016]

Nothing specifically, Ron. If you think it does lay out an argument.

[RonH]

Make Fascism Great Again, 2016,

What does taking something for granted say about that thing?

... was was how I chose to say...

Taking something for granted says something about the taker and nothing the something.

[kpolo]

John B. Moore,

Progress if we follow Christianity:

From history:
1. Eradication of slavery
2. Eradication of widow-burning
3. Eradication of superstitious beliefs
4. Promotion of science, medicine and hygiene

Contemporary society would:
1. Be more stable and have more stable families.
2. Children would be spared sorrow and grief from broken families.
3. Babies would not be killed in the womb.
4. Diseases, especially STD would be drastically cut.
5. Thousands of people would not commit suicide, especially in the LGBTQ communities as most wouldn't be lgbtq. Research the link between growing up in broken homes with an absentee or abusive father and ending up lgbtq. Its enlightening.

[Make Fascism Great Again, 2016]

Taking something for granted says something about the taker and nothing the something.

Not necessarily. How do you know it's not the other way around?

[B.E. Hunt]

RonH

Taking something for granted may say something about the taker, but it may just as likely say something about the thing. For example, most adults take breathing for granted, because it is controlled by the autonomic nervous system, and even small decrements have little impact on activities of daily living. However, when one has pulmonary disease, they no longer take it for granted. Does this mean that most adults should really spend much more time and energy understanding, thinking about, and discussing pulmonary function? No, I don't think so. What does this example identify? That taking something for granted, such as normal pulmonary function, says nothing about the person, rather it says that due to the design of the pulmonary system, as well as the buffering capacity of the body, that there is no need to spend much effort on this biological function.

[RonH]

Make Fascism Great Again, 2016 & B.E. Hunt,

Seriously?

Maybe I can make this easier for you two.

The mere fact that something is taken for granted is not, by itself, evidence of the thing

Maybe we take breathing for granted because it is necessary.

It's neither here nor there.

Breathing is not necessary because we take it to be so.