CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Family Wars, Tennis, and Culture Shift

Dec 23, 2018

How the times have changed. What a difference a few decades can make. Massive social and cultural change used to take a long time – often extending over centuries. But now we can observe and measure the speed at which cultural change – often, cultural decline – takes place in just a matter of years. To illustrate all this, consider the seemingly disparate items found in my title.

Let me explain all this by taking you back in time some 25 years. It was not just another time but really a different culture back then. While it all transpired in one place, Australia, as this story clearly illustrates, the world of the early 1990s is today totally unrecognisable.

To be precise, let me focus on something that happened on July 4, 1994 – something that would never happen today. Allow me to explain. 1994 happened to be the International Year of the Family (IYF), and at the time I was the National Secretary of the Australian Family Association. Back then one could still somewhat easily promote pro-family sentiments, even in the mainstream media.

Indeed – to offer more autobiographical information here – in the 1990s and 2000s I had a dream run with the media. All up I actually had thousands of media appearances. This included many hundreds of interviews on radio, television and the newspapers; hundreds of printed letters to the editor; and even many dozens of published full-length articles.

By way of contrast, today it is almost impossible to get conservative, pro-family commentary into the media. It is now almost impossible to say anything critical of the homosexual agenda. But 25 years ago that was not quite the case. Yes, I and others who did make it into the MSM were in the minority back then, but at least we did get some sort of hearing.

But let me return to 1994. Partly because it was the IYF, I had a constant run of media appearances at the time. Probably over half were in fact initiated by the media, along with those that I initiated, such as the letters and articles that I submitted. Moreover, in July of 1994 we held a week-long conference on the family at Melbourne University.

Can I suggest that such a conference today could never be held there? It would be deemed to be hate speech and we would be fiercely denied permission to hold it there, or in similar venues. Anyway, in the midst of this busy conference that I was heavily involved in, a noted tennis player and lesbian came out with a public comment about wanting to have children.

As was the norm, I immediately jumped on my keyboard and wrote a reply. In this case I sent a 600-word article to the Melbourne Age in response to the remarks of Martina Navratilova. Incredibly – at least from today’s vantage point – the Age readily and immediately printed my piece.

They gave my article a prominent spot on their opinion page, using this title: “Martina: how would she rank as a mum?” As I recall, they basically ran with my entire piece, with no changes – at least any substantial changes – made at all. Amazing. So what did I say in my piece? I began with these words:

It cannot be denied that Martina Navratilova is a great tennis player. But can she be as successful at motherhood? The tennis star and up-front lesbian has recently declared that she would like to be a mother. The desire for any woman to have a child is, of course, normal, but critics queried whether lesbian parenting is desirable. Martina hit back at her critics, claiming that there is no reason why she should not raise a child.

Others agree, claiming that sexual preference has nothing to do with the issue of good parenting. But does the evidence bear this out? Initial research is beginning to show that children do suffer from being raised by same-sex parents. Before turning to this evidence, let me say that obviously many traditional families have poor parenting skills. But exceptions do not make the rule. The point is, in most cases, a child will do better with a mother and father, and in most cases, a child will suffer as a result of being raised by same-sex parents.

One person who has spent a lot of time looking into this question is Harvard psychologist Joe Nicolosi. He argues that kids raised by homosexuals are traumatised, emotionally and socially.

Children, he argues, are profoundly affected by parental behavior. For example, children of smokers often become smokers. “Homosexuality,” says Nicolosi, “is primarily an identity problem, not a sexual problem, and it begins in childhood. The process begins when a child realises that the world is divided between male and female and that he is not equipped to be identified as male. His father fails to sufficiently encourage male-gender identity. Because he is not fully male-gender identified, he is not psychologically prepared to feel heterosexual attractions. In order to be attracted to women, a male must feel sufficiently masculine. Faced with this predicament, he goes into a world of fantasy and denies the imperative of being either male or female.”

The lack of a strong father figure seems to be a major factor in those who become homosexuals. Another researcher, Dr Paul Cameron, says the admittedly scant data on the subject confirms Nicolosi’s findings. These studies show that eight per cent and 33 per cent of adult respondents raised by homosexuals said they considered themselves homosexual or bisexual, far above the national (US) norm of two per cent of the adult population.

I went on to offer more of the social science research on this matter. And I even quoted from one woman who was raised by lesbians who now clearly bemoaned her upbringing. I then concluded with these words:

Children need to see how men and women interact together. A homosexual or lesbian union cannot provide that role model. Children deserve better. But the interests of the child is the last thing being considered in this debate. Indeed, today everyone is demanding rights to do this and that, but very few seem to realise that rights must be balanced by responsibilities. The right to have a child must be balanced by the rights of the child. Children should be given the first priority, and not be allowed to be used as a political football by the homosexual lobby in their efforts to seek legitimacy for their lifestyle. If the data is still not all in yet, then for the sake of children, we should not rush headlong into gay adoption and marriage.

Wow. I am still gobsmacked that such an article managed to make it into the Age. This was, and still is, one of the most left-wing newspapers in the country. But in 1994 I managed to get my piece in, along with other articles, plenty of letters, and numerous interviews.

Just what are the odds of me getting anything like this into the Age or most other mainstream papers today? I would say zippo. It just ain’t gonna happen. The days of actually getting a non-PC piece into the opinion pages of most of the lamestream media outlets is all but over.

And by the way, the mountain of social science studies on the vital role that fathers play in the development of their children has mushroomed since then. We now have over a half century of research demonstrating conclusively that children do best – by every indicator – when raised by their biological mothers and fathers – preferably cemented by marriage.

But the story does not end there. In addition to illustrating just how radically our culture has shifted in the past few decades, I wish to add one more update to all of this. The radical homosexual agenda has of course now spawned a whole new militant offspring: the radical gender bender agenda.

Just a few short years ago no one was talking about the trans movement – now everyone is. And a few years ago there was no such thing as transphobia. Well, there sure is now. And to demonstrate the rapid rise of the trans madness, let me return again to Martina.

Several days ago this lesbian icon and former tennis great actually tweeted some decidedly non-PC messages. In one of them she dared to say this: “Clearly that can’t be right. You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards, and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.”

Oh dear. All hell broke loose over that one. Trans activists lashed out at her big time. So much so that at first Martina deleted her tweets and said this: “I am sorry if I said anything anywhere near transphobic – certainly I meant no harm. I will educate myself better on this issue but meantime I will be quiet about it.”

But as the attacks continued to ramp up, and she was further savagely lambasted by folks like transgender activist Rachel McKinnon, she started to dig in her heels and get some of that fighting spirit back which served her so well on the courts.

She said this to her: “Rachel, you might be an expert on all things trans but you are one nasty human being … it seems to be my decades of speaking out against unfairness and inequality just don’t count with you at all”. Way to go Martina. You can see more on this heated battle here:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/21/martina-navratilova-transphobic-row-comments-womens-sport/

But my point remains. A quarter of a century ago no one heard of trans radicalism, although the homosexual agenda was already charging full steam ahead by then. Nonetheless one could still enter into the debate, and some folks could actually get articles affirming traditional marriage and family structure printed in the MSM.

Those days are of course now long gone. Not only has the homosexual juggernaut swept everything in its path, but its wicked stepsister, the moonbat trans movement has now fully emerged on centre stage. And now to affirm what Martina rightly stated – that a man has a penis and a woman does not – means you will be attacked mercilessly as a transphobic bigot and hater.

Transphobic? Such language did not even exist a few short years ago. But now it has come in like a tsunami, and the trans hegemony seems almost complete. Even Bob Dylan, when he sang about the “times they are a changing” back in 1964, could not have guessed just how quickly and how devastating all that would be.

[1772 words]

21 Responses to Family Wars, Tennis, and Culture Shift

  • Rather ironic really. Navratilova was highly critical of fellow tennis great Margaret Courts resistance to same sex marriage. Now Navratilova is experiencing vitriol comparable to what she dished out on Court when she called Court racist and homophobe for opposing SSM.

  • Yes quite right Robert.

  • I have been expecting an article from you on this very subject. I truly sympathise with you Bill about have difficulties with “the times they are a changing” concept that those of our era remember ever so clearly.
    The changers are actually much too rapid for me, I am reaching a stage where I cannot keep up, and literally give up but going back into my shell.
    Last Wednesday while doing a delivery run to Perth, I listened to a program on what moral issues in this year has had the greatest effect on you. A visiting professor from Sydney University presented her case of her understanding of immoral behaviour, it’s procreation. Forming a family and having children in her opinion was now totally immoral.
    Trust you may enjoy a Blessed Christmas Day celebration with your family.
    Bill Heggers

  • Exactly right Bill. It is so hard to have any letter printed in a state paper. And there is now more open talk about trans, homo, abort, euth, but no one talks about ADULTERY.
    The children from a divided family are almost the same as what you have described above.
    Children from a divided and trans ‘family’ suffer socially, psychologically, physically and financially than children whose parents stay together. These are lifelong consequences that stay forever.

  • A good listen as to what happens to children from divorced parents.
    https://www.facebook.com/Daniel-R-Jennings-308162309949806/

  • Hmm, I daresay those two would not want to debate the internal inconsistency of homosexuality with rigid (even born-into) gender-typing vs gender fluidity, would they?

  • It really is simple:

    Your status as a man or a woman is based on your biology.

    It astounds me to no end that such common sense notions are treated by some as being virtually unworthy of belonging in polite society. And while we should always be respectful, we should never apologise for something we haven’t done wrong. If some people kick up a tantrum then that is their problem – we should never back down from speaking truth.

    One may be profoundly uncomfortable with their biological sex and really strongly identify as a man (when they are in fact female) or a woman (when they are in fact male). However, unless a convincing scientific and philosophical case can be made that such a person is in fact a boy born into a girl’s body or a girl born into a boy’s body – indeed unless someone can even first of all articulate that the concept of a ‘man’ being born into a woman’s body or a ‘woman’ being born into a man’s body are even meaningful analysable concepts to begin with, then all we have are cases in which people feel extreme discomfort with their own biological sex and/or strongly identify as the opposite gender – strong discomfort with ones body or strong identification with the opposite gender does not say anything about the actual ontology of a person.

    Now, yes, the differences between Men and Women extend beyond our biology – clearly men and women tend to be psychologically different as well. However that does not mean ones status as a Man or a Woman is defined by their psychology – it is defined by our biology. Just the same as the differences between cats and dogs clearly extend beyond biology. However that does not mean that a dog with a catlike personality is a cat.

    We are living in strange and scary times when commonsense notions such as a person being a Man or a Woman is defined by their biology is considered a notion to be shouted down and driven out of polite society by some. However throwing a tantrum does not make one right – we must still boldly speak the truth. If we don’t exercise then our fitness will decline, and if we don’t exercise our freedoms – if we don’t respectfully and kindly but boldly speak the truth in face of opposition that wants us silenced (whether silenced by the law or silenced by our views being driven out of polite discussion) – then our freedoms will continue to decline, or at the very least, mainstream common sense views will increasingly be shouted down and driven from the mainstream to the margins of society.

  • Greetings Bill, servant to the Most High.

    Your articles are always interesting and informative. Years ago I heard the 3 things that brought down the Roman Empire were:
    #1) Incest
    #2) Pedophilia
    #3) & homosexuality

    It’s frightening to say the least where Australia and America are headed. And I really don’t believe most Christians are concerned. If they were they’d be rallying around you and putting an end to this abomination through prayer, petitions, etc.
    There are so few . . . like you.
    How much time do you think we have before they legalize incest & pedophilia?

    Lord, Jesus please not only forgive our wicked past but also our wicked future.
    Thank you & God bless all you do for Him and for us.

    Louise
    “God’s Not Silent” partner in prayer [greatly grieved]

  • I have made this point before, but I believe it so fundamental, it is worth repeating.

    There are 37.2 trillion cells in your body.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/there-are-372-trillion-cells-in-your-body-4941473/

    In humans, each cell normally contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46. Twenty-two of these pairs, called autosomes, look the same in both males and females. The 23rd pair, the sex chromosomes, differ between males and females. Females have two copies of the X chromosome, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.

    http://www.ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/howmanychromosomes

    * This (37.2 trillion) objective reality will trump any subjective concept of who a person decides/thinks, he/she is.
    * This objective reality will trump any amount of ‘reassignment’ surgery.

    Happy Christmas Bill to you and your family. May God continue to bless both you and your valuable ministry.

  • CultureWatch readers may, or may not agree, with the following analysis. However, it does raise a number of significant issues.

    Five Biblical Reasons Homosexuality is Worse than Most Other Sins

    The myth, that “all sins are equal,” is one born out of ignorance of the Bible. And the myth has found legs in recent days, as evangelical Christians have shied away from prophetically pronouncing the wickedness of sodomy.

    Christians are, whether we like it or not, susceptible to the current zeitgeist of public opinion. The struggle for Bible believers is that we act more like children of God than children of our age. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an especially wicked sin that especially highlights human depravity and it’s a sin that God especially hates.

    https://pulpitandpen.org/2018/12/21/five-biblical-reasons-homosexuality-is-worse-than-most-other-sins/

  • Many lesbians bringing up children are women who deceitfully married good men only to “come out” later in life and steal the husband’s children away from them to be raised in the same-sex lifestyle.

    Cuckservatives are the problem here.

    Cuckservatives are happy to have people like Christine Forster as their elected representatives. Pity her children folks who are now denied a mother-and-father and get raised by two mothers instead. Pity her ex-husband who has lost his children to Gomorrah. And remember this woman represents the Liberal Party in politics.

    Even Tony Abbott is a cuck on this issue with his full support of that bloke known as “Cate” McGregor.

  • Many things that were once taboo, especially among celebrities are now considered no big deal, and to say otherwise is to be banned before even being heard on the matter.

    Loretta Young became pregnant by Clark Gable and was forced to go overseas and adopt a child in order for her fans to continue supporting and accepting her. The little girl was actually her and CG’s daughter. That may have duped the American public, but it made for a most bitter child. Then there’s Ingrid Bergman who had an extramarital affair with director, Roberto Rossellini. The magnitude of that scandal forced IB to live in Europe for several years before being able to come back to the USA and resume her acting career.

    Today, this would be so trivial as to barely make headlines. What headlines might surface would all be praise of the parties involved for being so cool and contemporary. But, unwilling to settle for such tame scenarios, now we are bombarded with all sort of LGBTQ, etc. affairs and expected to keep quiet and just “suck it up.” If not, WE are the outcasts.

  • Michael Taouk – two years later

    Cate McGregor ends friendship with Tony Abbott over ‘selfish and expedient’ campaigning

    Former prime minister Tony Abbott’s aggressive campaigning against marriage equality has claimed a valuable friendship – that of transgender advocate Cate McGregor

    https://amp.smh.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/cate-mcgregor-ends-friendship-with-tony-abbott-over-selfish-and-expedient-campaigning-20171002-gysmqk.html

    BTW Malcolm (aka Cate) McGregor has also fallen out with his/her old boss David Morrison. LGBTIs are easily offended.

  • Very interesting and informative article, thanks Bill.
    Maybe it should be LGBTQIWGH+ The “WGH” standing for World’s Greatest Hypocrites.

  • Same-sex opens the door for polygamy, paedophilia and other radical sexual agenda, such as trans, to be legalised.
    We must be alert to the dangers and long-term consequences of sin.

  • Hi Bill- Well said. You know the old saying “The revolution devours its own.” This is simply another case in point. Of course the same thing happened to the radical feminist icon Germaine Greer when she was “deplatformed” (denied the right to speak) in a U.K. university for saying much the same thing as Navratilova. I’m sure you know there is even a term for such feminists now- TERFs, or Trans Excluding Radical Feminists. Some of my radical feminist friends are beginning to be quite concerned about it all.

  • Dear John,

    Sadly that means Tony Abbott is still a cuck because McGregor dumped Abbott as a friend instead of Abbott growing a spine and saying he won’t support his friend’s trans delusions.

    I think they are now friends again anyway. Probably part of McGregor’s stated plan to convert Abbott on SSM. Tony went to a homosexual “wedding” this year so it might be working.

    I’m worried about just how weak normally reliable conservatives are when it comes to trans people.

    McGregor claims the great Christian hope for the Liberal Party Andrew Hastie as a loyal friend.

    How is this possible???

  • In one sense it’s funny to see the likes of Navratilova in a war with feminists over homosexuality/transgender issues. The left are going to be at war with themselves more and more though, and this is going to get very ugly. This just shows how crazy and non sensical the world gets once it abandons the absolutes which God has established for all time for man to follow.

  • Thanks for this article Bill, and thanks to the above commenters for their insights.

    Writing the word ‘male’ instead of ‘female’ on your birth certificate doesn’t change what’s written in your cells. Your biological sex of male or female is literally written all over you. Male or female body parts are the result of your biological sex, not the cause of it. There is no surgery that can change your chromosomes.

    Re the word “transphobia”, the police in Tasmania are now talking about “prejudice-motivated crimes”, including “homophobic, biphobic and transphobic offences“. But this is surely illegal. Tasmania Police can call something a crime, only if it is named as a summary or indictable offence in an Act of the Tasmanian Parliament. There is no Act of Parliament defining “transphobia” as a criminal offence.

  • Dear Bill,
    Thank you for your informative article. There is NO way that an organisation as traditional and successful as the AFA which I am familiar with, would EVER get a mention in the MSM.

    We have to be thankful for small mercies like my letter to local newspapers about my comments about the media referring to Harry and Meghan’s expected baby being referred to as a baby whilst most unborn babies are referred to as foetuses presumably because that makes it easier to have them killed if the parents want that. It was a point I picked up from Lifesite website.

    However,the West Australian wasn’t letting its readers know that Andrew Bolt has too many readers who read his articles and agree with most of them,They don’t want people to know that some Catholics know their history and know that if you want to bring down the Catholic Church [something they will never do] you have to discredit its priests first because they are needed to say Mass. I wrote this in response to an article he wrote about there being a Catholic witchhunt over the South Australian archbishop’s conviction and house arrest for covering up child abuse.Whilst the MSM may not be hanging, drawing and quartering priests these days there is more than one way to skin a cat as Gareth Evans once said.

Leave a Reply