We must take a stand against this pernicious social ideology:
The trans activism we have been witnessing for the past decade or so is not just a bit of social adjustment, but is a wholesale revolution. It is an all-out war on absolutely everything, including women, children, biology, sanity, and reality itself.
When some of us were warning decades ago about where capitulation to the homosexual activists would lead, we were mocked, scorned and ridiculed. Now we have every reason to say “We told you so.” This will never end well. And when you have woke wonders in high places pushing this, things are guaranteed to go from bad worse.
Consider the moonbattery of Joe Biden who proclaimed March 31, 2023 as Transgender Day of Visibility. He said this: “You make America stronger, and we’re with you.” Um no, those who have mental and emotional issues need to deal with them, and we should not allow our children to be butchered and damaged for life to please adult activists.
This is how America and the West are being destroyed, not strengthened. As one meme making the rounds on the social media rightly said: “‘Privilege’ is having a Trans terrorist shoot little kids in a Christian school and then getting a new Trans holiday created by the White House 4 days later.”
Everywhere we look we find the trans agenda being rammed down our throats. Whether we like it or not, everyone must bow down and worship at the new trans altars. And the number of woke corporations getting on broad has been so very discouraging to see.
Consider all the recent madness of a man dressed up as a woman becoming the face of things like Bud Light and Nike. I refer to Dylan Mulvaney. You will find him all over the place, and plenty of people are getting real sick of it already.
Indeed, the good news is there is a huge backlash already underway. As is so often the case, to go woke means to go broke. As one article states:
Daily Wire host Matt Walsh celebrated the beatdown Bud Light took in the marketplace after the beer brand partnered with self-identified transgender social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney. Various data show that sales for draft beer products produced by Anheuser-Busch, the firm which controls the Bud Light brand, fell as much as 50% over the past week as drinkers chose alternative brews. Distributors and prominent bars across the country reported that consumer interest in Bud Light has plummeted as consumers reacted to the company’s partnership with Mulvaney, a male who says he is transitioning into a female. Share prices for Anheuser-Busch InBev took a considerable hit in the weeks after the partnership went public: the firm was worth $132 billion on March 31, the day before the partnership was revealed, and plummeted to $113 billion as of April 13. https://www.dailywire.com/news/it-was-well-deserved-matt-walsh-reacts-to-bud-light-beatdown-gives-a-key-piece-of-advice
Good! And we must continue to emphasise that all this trans madness is a direct and sustained war on women. Any gains women may have made over the centuries are being wiped out in mere months by the trans zealots. A terrific piece on this that just appeared in the Washington Times by Cheryl Chumley is worth quoting from:
Mulvaney is not female. He’s male. The fact he won’t acknowledge that means he’s living a life of lies. Then came Bud Light and Nike, compounding the lie by enabling the liar and trying to force all of society to embrace the lie. Have you seen Mulvaney’s videos? Heavens to Betsy. This guy is job security for the psychologists of the world. But enough is enough. It’s bad enough that Mulvaney is getting head-patted, rather than head-shrunk.
It’s even worse that real women of the world have to endure this guy’s widely shared video caricatures of female-ness. Mulvaney’s interpretations are nothing short of offensive. His portrayal of women is tripping toward misogyny. Real women don’t really spend their days donning athletic bras and leggings, plastering on grotesque smiles, then aerobically dancing like dolts. Genuine women don’t sit with their fellow fake female friends and wonder aloud, on a YouTube video, for all the world to watch, whether or not “girlhood” is “inspiring.” Enough of the degradation to the fairer sex.
She concludes:
Democrats, socialists, Marxists, collectivists know that with enough chaos comes collapse. And they know that once society collapses — once the family unit is destroyed — once the very foundational truths of humanity are decimated — then the doors open for Democrats, socialist, Marxist, collectivist takeover and seizure of power.
Don’t for a minute think that leftists care about transgenders and transgender rights. The entire LGBTQ community already has equal rights. Leftists are simply exploiting the mental illness of those who populate the LGBTQ world for political purposes. If it destroys womanhood in the process, so be it. But again, enough is enough. Mulvaney is a destructive force and an aberration of womanhood — of humanity itself.
Absolutely. And while plenty of non-Christians are also taking on the trans militants, we can use more Christian leaders to speak out. Carl Truman recently spoke to this. He asks in his title: “Are evangelical leaders as courageous as J.K. Rowling?” He begins:
It is a well-established trope today that evangelical Christians were on the wrong side of cultural debates in the past and that present generations must therefore do public penance, whether the issue is racism or sexism or whatever. That raises the question of what issues the evangelical establishment might be misjudging today that will lead to future disdain towards this generation of evangelical leadership. Here is my suggestion: the issue of transgender ideology.
Why do I say this? Two reasons: first, transgender ideology is leading to the promotion of medical practices that mutilate the bodies and permanently ruin the lives of children too young to elect to have a tattoo. Second, it is destroying women’s rights through its impact on private spaces, safety, and (trivial but true) sports. Given that both the political and the medical establishment are fully on board with this madness, we might say that we are living at a moment when the institutionalized abuse of women and children is not just grotesque. It is also catastrophic.
And if anyone thinks that the politicians pushing this vicious garbage are operating from a position of knowledge and informed nuance, they should read the recent transcript of former Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon explaining why trans women are real women unless they happen to be vicious male rapists. In short, trans women are women unless that identification might prove to be a liability at the ballot box. Sturgeon, like most pro-trans politicos, has merely been reciting a liturgy that plays well to a certain lobby group—a liturgy, however, that has harmful real-life consequences for real women.
Yet, for all of the evil that is being done to confused children and vulnerable women, it is some feminists who are speaking out on this. Kathleen Stock, the feminist philosopher, remains one of the most consistent and vocal opponents of the trans madness, even at the cost of her academic job. Abigail Shrier is another. And most famously author J. K. Rowling continues to speak courageously on the matter, though woe betide any who defend her, as Pamela Paul can now testify. It is right and proper that Christians give thanks for these voices.
Silence in the face of this evil is culpable and, make no mistake, will be noted by future generations.
He finishes his piece with these words:
The trans issue might well collapse in the coming decades. Indeed, I am actually very hopeful that it will. But sadly, if it does so, it will only be after the pile of mutilated children’s bodies, ruined families, and shattered lives has reached a critical mass. That is why it is imperative to speak and act now, to make such damage as minimal as possible. The stakes are very, very high, and, as the case of Nicola Sturgeon demonstrates, the political leadership class is wickedly committed to the most incoherent and evil of policy paths. These people do not really care about helping trans kids or women. They care only about using the trans issue to drive their own careers by imposing their own irrationalism on the rest of us, whatever the cost in innocent lives.
The time for evangelical leaders and institutions to speak is now. The moment to use the platforms we have to protect women and children has come. If J.K. Rowling has the courage to stand for the truth and to call for the protection of children and women, then so should we. Silence in the face of this evil is culpable and, make no mistake, will be noted by future generations.
Yes, it is always easier to apologize for the past than do the right, and costly, thing in the present. But perhaps this time we might pre-empt the need for any future evangelical apologies by doing the right thing at the right time, though it cost us in the short term a light, momentary affliction. https://wng.org/opinions/are-evangelical-leaders-as-courageous-as-j-k-rowling-1677156614
The trans revolution is one of the most pernicious, destructive and diabolical movements being pushed by the secular left. The amount of damage it is doing is incalculable. It is high time for a major push-back. Will you be part of the resistance?
10 Replies to “Time To Resist the Destructive Trans Revolution”
My email to David Pocock
——
Senator David Pocock
Independent Senator for the ACT
David
Thank you for your reply.
I asked you two specific questions.
1 What is your position on men identifying as women competing in women’s sports?
2 What is your position on men identifying as women using women’s change rooms, rest rooms, detention areas etc?
You have not answered those questions.
What is your position?
2 You say, “80% of young trans people have self-harmed and 50% have attempted suicide”. This is tragic
You say, “we need to do better as a society in supporting [trans] people”.
Can you say how – in relation to girls sports – in relation to the inclusion of girls?
3 Can you provide evidence that this self harm is NOT a result of an internal struggle between a delusion and a reality (for starters involving 37.2 trillion Y chromosones)?
4 Why cannot trans people play and have fun – in their own biological category or in a trans competition.
I would appreciate your response to the above 4 questions.
Regards
John Miller
My email to Katy Gallagher
(Her inadequate earlier response, not included here)
—–
Senator Katy Gallagher
Minister for Women
Dear Katy
As a father of 3 daughters and 4 granddaughters, I have asked you the following two questions :
1 What is your position on men identifying as women competing in women’s sports?
2 What is your position on men identifying as women using women’s change rooms, rest rooms, detention areas etc?
You responded on 3 August 2022 – but with due respect – you did not answer the two questions. (Your .pdf response is attached below)
I have subsequently (see below) asked for specific answers to my questions. No response.
I ask again:
1 What is Katy Gallagher’s position on men identifying as women competing in women’s sports?
2 What is Katy Gallagher’s position on men identifying as women using women’s change rooms, rest rooms, detention areas etc?
Kind regards
John Miller
My email to local Greens MLA
———
Jo Clay
Greens Member for Ginninderra
Minister for Women
Dear Jo
As a Belconnen, father of 3 daughters and 4 granddaughters, I have asked you :
1 What is your position on men identifying as women competing in women’s sports?
2 What is your position on men identifying as women using women’s change rooms, rest rooms, detention areas etc?
You responded by providing the ‘Human Rights Commission’ / ‘Sports Australia Guidelines’, outlining protection for trans-athletes, but they say NOTHING in regards the questions I have asked.
Similarly the ‘Common Questions’ within the ‘Guidelines for the inclusion of transgender and gender diverse people in sport’, to which you refer, says nothing on the questions I have asked you.
(Your email response is attached below)
Again, I am asking :
1 What is Jo Clay’s position on men identifying as women competing in women’s sports?
2 What is Jo Clay’s position on men identifying as women using women’s change rooms, rest rooms, detention areas etc?
Kind regards
John Miller
Hillsdale has a brilliant speech by Shrier and worth the listen. On YouTube here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DWbxIFC0Q2oyou
Science, the Transgender Phenomenon, and the Young | Abigail Shrier
Sign me up!
One essential element in resisting this madness is intellectual resources which are “fit for purpose”. The standard, magisterial text is Australia’s own :Transgender: One Shade of Grey: Legal Implications fro Man & Woman, Schools, Sport, Politics, Democracy” [Patrick J Byrne, John Whitehall & another]. It is essential to comprehending the various inherent inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities in gender theory and ‘trans’ ideology, and dealing with the manifold aspects effectively in the public square. In explaining the inherently contradictory and indeed absurd materials, it is clear, concise, erudite and accessible, and has been abridged as “The Little Grey Book on Sex and Transgender”.
And fighting and winning the intellectual campaign is a necessary step towards becoming equipped to fight the political campaign.
Interesting talk from Abigail Shrier but I still see her position as a large compromise. For example Calling Caitlyn Jenner “she” is a lie whether you think so or not and trying to be nice does not stop a lie being a lie.
Yes we do our best to speak the truth in love but if God is love and God is truth then speaking a lie in love is contradictory. How we get around this in the present world is another question.
Secondly, she seems to say some young boys simply are “transgender”. To me the scientific evidence is overwhelming that transgenderism has sociological causes which would suggest, if caught early enough, it could be cured especially in the light of scriptures which say to “raise a child up in the way they should go” and the Apostle Paul’s statement that these things occur because people do not hold God in their thinking. Any link between DNA and this dysphoria really is so small as to only relate to propensity, not causation I would think.
While she clearly speaks of the quite obvious social contagion cause for many young girls, under the present social climate no one dares look at what is causing this thing in very young boys who really should be way too young to remotely understand sex and its implications.
ABC News has reported on the Presbyterian Church, who are responsible for more than 20 schools across Australia, involving 13,000 students and the release of a statement saying that students in “active same-sex relationships” should not take up school leadership positions.
The statement was made in response to the Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws Consultation Paper, “in which it questioned the ability of LGBTQIA+ students to uphold Christian leadership values.”
“If this student were in an active same-sex relationship, they would not be able to give appropriate Christian leadership in a Christian school which requires modelling Christian living,” the submission stated. “This would also be the case for a student in a sexually active unmarried heterosexual relationship.”
Queensland Youth Affairs Minister Meaghan Scanlon said the views had no place in modern Queensland, and sent a message of “hate and division”. The Minister’s response is a worry for those living in “modern Queensland.” Her use of the word “hate” is entirely subjective, given that the school is pursuing its right to hire teaching staff able to not only teach its values, but live them. This is considered hateful and ironically, divisive.
The Minister said, “I do not think that students should be punished for their gender identity or whether they are sexually active, it has no bearing on their leadership ability,” but in the submission the church said, “Our schools do not refuse or terminate enrolment for students on the basis of sexual orientation. The schools aim to deal with these differences sensitively and pastorally, and the vast majority of these students and families appreciate the education and care they receive from our schools.”
It’s “about the freedom that schools should have to determine their policies rather than being constrained by anti-discrimination legislation,” said a spokesperson for the church.
Queensland Education Minister Grace Grace said “she did not believe it was right that students were denied leadership opportunities for the reasons put forward,” but she appears to lack the discernment which has led to the sexual revolution overtaking Western societies, with increasing social dystopia stemming from easy divorce, abortion on demand, sex outside of heterosexual marriage and the total acceptance of transgenderism.
It’s a travesty that political leaders believe that this code of behaviour can produce “the best outcomes” for young people and cite “human rights” as the highest determinant.
Humanist outcomes differ from Christian education, mainly, as I perceive it, in creation belief, e.g., evolutionary atheism is focussed on ‘live and let live’ appeasement, sometimes with a fashionable animistic belief, while Christian creationism determines that the corruption which is manifest in a sinful life is a more discerning approach. Christian schools should be free to pursue it.
Well done, those Presbyterians! God and His angels preserve them!
Mr Russel Guy’s quote above, “the freedom that schools should have to determine their policies rather than being constrained by anti-discrimination legislation” is reflected in the Constitution’s S. 116 which expressly prohibits the Federal Parliament from interfering thus “The Commonwealth shall not make any law … for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion …”.
If the view that humans are empirically and inherently either male or female is [irrationally] categorised in law as a “belief” [ie it is a subjective assessment], then it follows that a State-mandated contrary view that humans are not empirically and inherently either male or female is also a “belief” [incidentally, an at-best irrational belief], and is prohibited by S116 of the Constitution, “beliefs” [as opposed to objective things] being integral to the legal meaning of “religion”.
Statutory mandation of institutions’ both acknowledging, and also transacting their business in treating, transgender “beliefs” as objective fact is highly likely to be determined by the HCA as purporting to ‘establishing any religion’, which is prohibited by the Constitution’s S116, and as such, any such statute is null and void to the extent it mandates behaviour based on transgender beliefs.
But even if the HCA were to eventually invalidate transgender mandates, the meanwhile organisational splintering in the religious, philosophical and social collegiality of some groups [eg. orthodox religious communities, cultural groups and social bonds forged on empirical imperatives] would be not only organisationally catastrophic, those frictions and conflicts would well be truly poisonous to long-standing loyalties and relationships.
Thus, regardless of the despicable opportunism [by wokesters and worse] and laziness [by “conservatives”] of federal parliamentarians enacting pernicious invalid statutes, revolutionary zealots like A-G Dreyfus know that, for faith communities, “the process is the punishment”.
Nil desperandum – we know Who is in charge.
And further, ” … But “intersex” and “transgender” mean entirely different things. Intersex people have rare developmental conditions that result in apparent sex ambiguity. Most transgender people aren’t sexually ambiguous at all but merely “identify” as something other than their biological sex.
Once you’re conscious of this distinction, you will begin to notice gender ideologues attempting to steer discussions away from whether men who identify as women should be allowed to compete in female sports toward prominent intersex athletes like South African runner Caster Semenya. Why? Because so long as they’ve got you on your heels making difficult judgment calls on a slew of complex intersex conditions, they’ve succeeded in drawing your attention away from easy calls on unquestionably male athletes like 2022 NCAA Division I women’s swimming and diving champion Lia Thomas. They shift the focus to intersex to distract from transgender.
Acknowledging the existence of rare difficult cases doesn’t weaken the position or arguments against allowing males in female sports, prisons, rest rooms and other female-only spaces. In fact, it’s a much stronger approach because it makes a crucial distinction that the ideologues are at pains to obscure…” – excerpted from “A biologist explains why sex is binary” Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist, is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. The Australian, April 10, 2023
My email to David Pocock
——
Senator David Pocock
Independent Senator for the ACT
David
Thank you for your reply.
I asked you two specific questions.
1 What is your position on men identifying as women competing in women’s sports?
2 What is your position on men identifying as women using women’s change rooms, rest rooms, detention areas etc?
You have not answered those questions.
What is your position?
2 You say, “80% of young trans people have self-harmed and 50% have attempted suicide”. This is tragic
You say, “we need to do better as a society in supporting [trans] people”.
Can you say how – in relation to girls sports – in relation to the inclusion of girls?
3 Can you provide evidence that this self harm is NOT a result of an internal struggle between a delusion and a reality (for starters involving 37.2 trillion Y chromosones)?
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/basics/howmanychromosomes/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/there-are-372-trillion-cells-in-your-body-4941473/
4 Why cannot trans people play and have fun – in their own biological category or in a trans competition.
I would appreciate your response to the above 4 questions.
Regards
John Miller
My email to Katy Gallagher
(Her inadequate earlier response, not included here)
—–
Senator Katy Gallagher
Minister for Women
Dear Katy
As a father of 3 daughters and 4 granddaughters, I have asked you the following two questions :
1 What is your position on men identifying as women competing in women’s sports?
2 What is your position on men identifying as women using women’s change rooms, rest rooms, detention areas etc?
You responded on 3 August 2022 – but with due respect – you did not answer the two questions. (Your .pdf response is attached below)
I have subsequently (see below) asked for specific answers to my questions. No response.
I ask again:
1 What is Katy Gallagher’s position on men identifying as women competing in women’s sports?
2 What is Katy Gallagher’s position on men identifying as women using women’s change rooms, rest rooms, detention areas etc?
Kind regards
John Miller
My email to local Greens MLA
———
Jo Clay
Greens Member for Ginninderra
Minister for Women
Dear Jo
As a Belconnen, father of 3 daughters and 4 granddaughters, I have asked you :
1 What is your position on men identifying as women competing in women’s sports?
2 What is your position on men identifying as women using women’s change rooms, rest rooms, detention areas etc?
You responded by providing the ‘Human Rights Commission’ / ‘Sports Australia Guidelines’, outlining protection for trans-athletes, but they say NOTHING in regards the questions I have asked.
Similarly the ‘Common Questions’ within the ‘Guidelines for the inclusion of transgender and gender diverse people in sport’, to which you refer, says nothing on the questions I have asked you.
(Your email response is attached below)
Again, I am asking :
1 What is Jo Clay’s position on men identifying as women competing in women’s sports?
2 What is Jo Clay’s position on men identifying as women using women’s change rooms, rest rooms, detention areas etc?
Kind regards
John Miller
Hillsdale has a brilliant speech by Shrier and worth the listen. On YouTube here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DWbxIFC0Q2oyou
Science, the Transgender Phenomenon, and the Young | Abigail Shrier
Sign me up!
One essential element in resisting this madness is intellectual resources which are “fit for purpose”. The standard, magisterial text is Australia’s own :Transgender: One Shade of Grey: Legal Implications fro Man & Woman, Schools, Sport, Politics, Democracy” [Patrick J Byrne, John Whitehall & another]. It is essential to comprehending the various inherent inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities in gender theory and ‘trans’ ideology, and dealing with the manifold aspects effectively in the public square. In explaining the inherently contradictory and indeed absurd materials, it is clear, concise, erudite and accessible, and has been abridged as “The Little Grey Book on Sex and Transgender”.
And fighting and winning the intellectual campaign is a necessary step towards becoming equipped to fight the political campaign.
Interesting talk from Abigail Shrier but I still see her position as a large compromise. For example Calling Caitlyn Jenner “she” is a lie whether you think so or not and trying to be nice does not stop a lie being a lie.
Yes we do our best to speak the truth in love but if God is love and God is truth then speaking a lie in love is contradictory. How we get around this in the present world is another question.
Secondly, she seems to say some young boys simply are “transgender”. To me the scientific evidence is overwhelming that transgenderism has sociological causes which would suggest, if caught early enough, it could be cured especially in the light of scriptures which say to “raise a child up in the way they should go” and the Apostle Paul’s statement that these things occur because people do not hold God in their thinking. Any link between DNA and this dysphoria really is so small as to only relate to propensity, not causation I would think.
While she clearly speaks of the quite obvious social contagion cause for many young girls, under the present social climate no one dares look at what is causing this thing in very young boys who really should be way too young to remotely understand sex and its implications.
ABC News has reported on the Presbyterian Church, who are responsible for more than 20 schools across Australia, involving 13,000 students and the release of a statement saying that students in “active same-sex relationships” should not take up school leadership positions.
The statement was made in response to the Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws Consultation Paper, “in which it questioned the ability of LGBTQIA+ students to uphold Christian leadership values.”
“If this student were in an active same-sex relationship, they would not be able to give appropriate Christian leadership in a Christian school which requires modelling Christian living,” the submission stated. “This would also be the case for a student in a sexually active unmarried heterosexual relationship.”
Queensland Youth Affairs Minister Meaghan Scanlon said the views had no place in modern Queensland, and sent a message of “hate and division”. The Minister’s response is a worry for those living in “modern Queensland.” Her use of the word “hate” is entirely subjective, given that the school is pursuing its right to hire teaching staff able to not only teach its values, but live them. This is considered hateful and ironically, divisive.
The Minister said, “I do not think that students should be punished for their gender identity or whether they are sexually active, it has no bearing on their leadership ability,” but in the submission the church said, “Our schools do not refuse or terminate enrolment for students on the basis of sexual orientation. The schools aim to deal with these differences sensitively and pastorally, and the vast majority of these students and families appreciate the education and care they receive from our schools.”
It’s “about the freedom that schools should have to determine their policies rather than being constrained by anti-discrimination legislation,” said a spokesperson for the church.
Queensland Education Minister Grace Grace said “she did not believe it was right that students were denied leadership opportunities for the reasons put forward,” but she appears to lack the discernment which has led to the sexual revolution overtaking Western societies, with increasing social dystopia stemming from easy divorce, abortion on demand, sex outside of heterosexual marriage and the total acceptance of transgenderism.
It’s a travesty that political leaders believe that this code of behaviour can produce “the best outcomes” for young people and cite “human rights” as the highest determinant.
Humanist outcomes differ from Christian education, mainly, as I perceive it, in creation belief, e.g., evolutionary atheism is focussed on ‘live and let live’ appeasement, sometimes with a fashionable animistic belief, while Christian creationism determines that the corruption which is manifest in a sinful life is a more discerning approach. Christian schools should be free to pursue it.
Well done, those Presbyterians! God and His angels preserve them!
Mr Russel Guy’s quote above, “the freedom that schools should have to determine their policies rather than being constrained by anti-discrimination legislation” is reflected in the Constitution’s S. 116 which expressly prohibits the Federal Parliament from interfering thus “The Commonwealth shall not make any law … for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion …”.
If the view that humans are empirically and inherently either male or female is [irrationally] categorised in law as a “belief” [ie it is a subjective assessment], then it follows that a State-mandated contrary view that humans are not empirically and inherently either male or female is also a “belief” [incidentally, an at-best irrational belief], and is prohibited by S116 of the Constitution, “beliefs” [as opposed to objective things] being integral to the legal meaning of “religion”.
Statutory mandation of institutions’ both acknowledging, and also transacting their business in treating, transgender “beliefs” as objective fact is highly likely to be determined by the HCA as purporting to ‘establishing any religion’, which is prohibited by the Constitution’s S116, and as such, any such statute is null and void to the extent it mandates behaviour based on transgender beliefs.
But even if the HCA were to eventually invalidate transgender mandates, the meanwhile organisational splintering in the religious, philosophical and social collegiality of some groups [eg. orthodox religious communities, cultural groups and social bonds forged on empirical imperatives] would be not only organisationally catastrophic, those frictions and conflicts would well be truly poisonous to long-standing loyalties and relationships.
Thus, regardless of the despicable opportunism [by wokesters and worse] and laziness [by “conservatives”] of federal parliamentarians enacting pernicious invalid statutes, revolutionary zealots like A-G Dreyfus know that, for faith communities, “the process is the punishment”.
Nil desperandum – we know Who is in charge.
And further, ” … But “intersex” and “transgender” mean entirely different things. Intersex people have rare developmental conditions that result in apparent sex ambiguity. Most transgender people aren’t sexually ambiguous at all but merely “identify” as something other than their biological sex.
Once you’re conscious of this distinction, you will begin to notice gender ideologues attempting to steer discussions away from whether men who identify as women should be allowed to compete in female sports toward prominent intersex athletes like South African runner Caster Semenya. Why? Because so long as they’ve got you on your heels making difficult judgment calls on a slew of complex intersex conditions, they’ve succeeded in drawing your attention away from easy calls on unquestionably male athletes like 2022 NCAA Division I women’s swimming and diving champion Lia Thomas. They shift the focus to intersex to distract from transgender.
Acknowledging the existence of rare difficult cases doesn’t weaken the position or arguments against allowing males in female sports, prisons, rest rooms and other female-only spaces. In fact, it’s a much stronger approach because it makes a crucial distinction that the ideologues are at pains to obscure…” – excerpted from “A biologist explains why sex is binary” Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist, is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. The Australian, April 10, 2023