Jack or Jackie and the Bigotry

Good Morning America has put the transgender issue right out there, about Jack who turns out to be "Jackie." At some point it is said that he is girl in a boy's body, which raises an interesting philosophical question: is Jack something apart from his body, something that just inhabits a body? Is that something (soul or spirit?) male or female, but not physically so? GMA is just telling us how it is....Dressing like a girl when his body is simply male is somehow going to end up better for him than dealing with interior feelings? So what is a teenage boy at his future high school supposed to do if he strikes up a friendship with "Jackie"? Does Jackie owe it to him to tell the boy who likes him that, surprise, he has a penis? Should society construct a new way of dressing that says, "Boy in a girl's body?" What if "Jackie" decides she's a lesbian, dates a girl and they "have sex"? Is it heterosexual sex? Or could Jackie sexually harass a boy? What do the rules say? You see where all this is going, and counselors and school board members will write reams of regulations and guidance and standards  for managing a complete mess. This is what happens when you take something that is tragically off, and insist, no, there is no problem here, only what society has made into a problem, and we are going to say it's normal, what's the problem? Which soon becomes, What's your problem, bigot?

Comments

[Greg Cook]

Funny how the pro-homosexual argument is often based in "biology," but yet that same biology (in this case chromosomes that unmistakably mark individuals as either male or female) is denied in the case of "trans-genderism."

[B Cody]

Normal gender identity does not have sexual pleasure as its god, rather it is only one of its outlets of normal expressions-however-"gay", "lesbian" and "transgender" ironically remove the term "sex" from the behaviors those names represent; but note the gender identity of those who give their life to living in homosexuality and transsexuality make sexual pleasure into a god. It is no surprise that they are willing to sacrifice so much for the sake of keeping their idol happy.

[Kamilla]

I was at the bookstore today and there on the shelf, near the book I was looking for, was "Chaz" Bono's new book subtitled, "The Story of How I Became a Man"

I just shook my head and said to myself, "But you're not a man. You're just a girl with surgically altered bits."

This business of thinking you are something separate from your body is becoming more frequently and explicitly expressed among religious feminists (egalitarians). I listened to a sermon given some months back in which the woman speaking made repeated references to, "this female body I have". Blech.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

As Chesterton famously didn't say (but it's true nonetheless), "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything." Imagine trying to build a house without a measuring device. One wall would be 8 feet tall and the other side would be 7'10", so the roof would slant. Or the toilets leak, or the windows not fit their casemates and let all the heat out. We are trying to build a society like that, where what "I imagine to be true" has replaced "the faith that has been handed down to us" as the yardstick of constuction.

Christians are better start taking their faith very seriously, because 1) no one else does and 2) they are going to need it.

[Sibyl]

Deacon Harmon,
Actually, it's worse - ignoring God's Commandments would be like building a house without regard to the laws of gravity, physics, math, stress and weight tolerance, balance, etc.

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

Christians are going to have to take back what it means to be Christian. Now anyone, even those who ignore or even are opposed to fundamental Christian doctrine call themselves Christian and get away with it.

It is similar to the lead article "Table Manners" If we do not make a concerted effort to clearly deliniate what constitutes Christian belief, then anyone can be a Christian.