Disregarding The Body – Podcast
The Crisis of our Time
Courtesy of the National Gallery of Art
Companion Posts
+++
Starting Again
I was born in the sixties. But I am not a child of the 60’s. My family was lower-middle class, and by the standards of the time, traditional in most every way. Dad was a minister. If he or mom had lived into their 90’s they would not have imagined the social changes we have witnessed in the last 20 years. It would be too easy to say the sexual revolution of the 60’s caused all this change, as some conservatives maintain. But the roots of this change go back much further than the swinging 60’s.
So I’m embarking with some misgivings on a survey of cultural history. There are deep intellectual and cultural traditions that have shaped our everyday lives. We’ve come to a point in the Western world where the statement “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body” is comprehensible to many public leaders, at least in public. That phrase would be completely incomprehensible to my parent’s generation, in public or private, not to mention every preceding generation. It is still incomprehensible to many, if not most people today. But if you express your bewilderment in public, say at many workplaces in the Western world, increasingly the odds are you will be regarded as stupid, immoral or worse. You may be reprimanded for your irrational “phobia.” You might even have your career derailed. If you broadcast your view on a public forum, say Twitter, expect the Twitterati to pounce with the ferocity of a caged unfed Tiger. In certain parts of the world you may even be charged with a hate-crime for your expressed incredulity at the latest massive cultural shift. (See the following posts, here & here.)
As a 60’s poet might say, “The times they are a changin.”
The tectonic cultural shift in the last 20 years is quite breathtaking. Regardless of what you think about gay marriage, we have gone from year 2000 where the majority of Americans were opposed to gay marriage to today where normalization of Transgenderism is fast approaching.
A long and winding road brought us to this point. I want to offer a thoughtful and hopefully generous exposition, from a Classic Christian point of view, of how we got here. As I go, I’ll be documenting some disturbing current events. (Read my next post). I hope that even those who disagree with Classic Christianity will find here a fair and readable assessment of our state of affairs. (post continues page 2)
Species Fluidity? Transpups?
In 2016 a documentary revealed a previously little-known global subculture of people living double lives as “human pups”, wearing elaborate dog suits and engaging in “human puppy play” with their handlers.
I wish I could say this is just one big publicity gag. But, I can’t.
You can read details about the subculture at this news story in The Guardian (UK). A trailer of the documentary is embedded in the story. Check it out.
***
Here are two quotes from the story that should sound familiar to those who’ve been reading this blog or following the logic of the Gender Identity movement.
Kaz, another pup, argues that for some, being a puppy isn’t just a fun mask to try on – it’s how they identify; it’s who they are.
Whether we see it as a kink, an identity, a reaction to an early experience, a form of escapism or a fetish, the main thing, says Tom, is that we see it at all; that we know it’s there and accept it. “It feels like you can be gay, straight, bisexual, trans and be accepted,” he says. “All I want is for the pup community to be accepted in the same way. We’re not trying to cause grief to the public, or cause grief to relationships. We’re just the same as any other person on the high street.”
theguardian.com
***
Public Domain
This is the Pandora’s Box we’ve opened up. Trans-activists and Gender Identity Ideologues often accuse critics like me of supporting biological determinism. The “pups” in this story would accuse me of species determinism.
Do we want to live in this world? Again it cannot be a question of loving confused people. That’s a given. These folk need therapy, prayer and plenty of hugs. Not pats on the head, or belly rubs.
***
If you are still interested, here’s an interview of one of the documentary “puppy” stars. When you finish please read my reflections below.
***
For most people sex becomes visible at birth, or via ultrasound, whichever comes first. We are born anatomically, chromosomally, male or female. But even before that, mature reproductive cells called gametes, male sperm & female eggs, determine biological sex. When the sperm fertilizes an egg at conception, the baby will be either a male or female human. At around seven weeks, if the embryo is male, the testes secretes testosterone, masculinizing the brain, if the embryo is female, this process does not occur.
Sex is not “assigned” at birth. [See my rebuttal of that fiction here.] This rhetorical move by Transgender activists (widely used and accepted) suggests that your sex may be reassigned, surgically or otherwise, even though your DNA encodes every cell in your body as either male or female. Against all reason in my view, some think reassignment possible. Even some medical professionals, and well known medical associations have gone along with this fiction.
I blogged about the politicization of the medical profession here and here.
We are told by many in this debate that the body is essentially irrelevant, which leaves us with the more relevant characteristics of mind, will, imagination, desire, emotions, all components of our inner life. Outer life, visible life, the life of the five senses, biological life, DNA encoded life, are deemed insufficiently relevant. Only what we think, what we desire, really matters.
Thus, inner conviction trumps biology, and thereby divorces our humanity, splitting our mind-body unity into two disconnected parts, resulting in mind-body alienation.
Okay. If that split is one that ought to be recognized by society, what about these bloaks in the UK who think they are dogs? Are there any limits to psychological preference and the convictions of the inner life? If you think you are a bird and jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, will you fly?
If psychology trumps biology, then when you say you are a dog, aren’t you indisputably a dog? And shouldn’t public policy accommodate that belief? What’s to keep an activist from shouting “a trans pup is a real pup!” If there are zero biological boundaries to consider, why not? If there can be gender fluidity, why not species fluidity? Logically, what’s the difference?
***
How is this not mental confusion screaming out for therapy and prayer? How can we possibly affirm these mental disorders? If we disregard chromosomal sex, (males are born with XY chromosomes, females have XX chromosomes,) if we deny what male and female gametes have “lovingly” produced why can’t someone deny their species genetic markers? If we disregard the breasts, uterus and ovaries, the penis and testicles, the unmistakeable reproductive parts of males and females, what’s to stop someone from disregarding their humanity and unfortunate lack of paws?
If you accept the premise that it is only what we think, feel, desire or will that truly and fully identifies us, even though every DNA informed cell in the body says otherwise, how can you deny Transpups the same legal recognition as those who are Transgender or any other identity they wish to claim? Isn’t this something we must accept to qualify as an inclusive society?
I’ll be the first to admit that biological facts are not everything. I’m not a philosophical materialist. But those facts are not nothing. For I believe our bodies are gifts from God, in partnership with our parentage, of course. If we disregard our bodies don’t we disregard our God-given design? And isn’t that delusional?
***
I’m a Classic Christian and regard Gender Ideology as anti-creational to the core. This blog is about “God’s Good Creation.” That’s why I’m writing about Gender Ideology. And “speaking up” as I’m confident Jesus would.
"Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female.'" [Matt 19:4]
As a Classic Christian I encourage everyone to “Embrace, Don’t Affirm” those with a Gender Identity Disorder (Gender-Dysphoria). Please read this post for more details.
***
If you haven’t already added your email to my list, do so and I’ll let you know when the blog is updated.
Email: blog@blueridgemountain.life
Birthright Citizenship: Time for a Good-Faith Review
Yesterday, a good friend of mine—who is not a fan of the current administration—sent me links to two articles on the hot-button issue of birthright citizenship (see links below).
One was by Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, and the other by former NY Times columnist, Anand Giridharadas. Both passionately advocate for an “inclusive” birthright citizenship policy. However, Robinson accuses Trump—and by extension, anyone else questioning this policy—of racism.
President Donald Trump’s executive order purporting to abolish birthright citizenship is unambiguously and profoundly racist. We can conclude only that this is the whole point. The order plainly violates the Constitution and seeks to overturn crystal-clear Supreme Court precedent.
Eugene Robinson
I’ve followed Eugene Robinson’s work at The Washington Post over the years and am well acquainted with his point of view. I’ve always enjoyed reading his perspective, even when I disagree—which I often do. I believe we should all strive to consider perspectives from commentators and media voices that differ from our own. Over the years, I’ve made this a personal habit.
A central theme in Robinson’s writing is race, often framed as a critique of Republican policy initiatives. This is especially true when discussing Donald Trump, a politician who, to be fair, provides ample material for criticism. But in the debate over birthright citizenship, Robinson and others who take a similar approach reduce a complex legal and policy issue to a simplistic “crystal-clear” narrative centered on race. And that’s wrong.
Our allies ‘across the pond’ in the United Kingdom disagree with Robinson on this issue. Would he call their policy racist?
The British Nationality Act (1981)
The British Nationality Act 1981 fundamentally reshaped the UK’s approach to birthright citizenship by ending the principle of unconditional jus soli–the principle that anyone born on their soil automatically becomes a citizen. Prior to 1983, anyone born on British soil automatically acquired citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. However, this changed with the 1981 Act, which took effect on January 1, 1983, and established new eligibility requirements for citizenship by birth. Under the revised law, a child born in the UK is only automatically granted British citizenship if at least one parent is either a British citizen or legally settled in the UK with indefinite leave to remain or permanent residency. Importantly, the law was not retroactive, meaning that those born in the UK before 1983 retained their citizenship, but children born afterward became subject to the new rules. Additionally, the 1981 Act explicitly excluded children of diplomats from birthright citizenship, aligning with international norms by recognizing that such individuals are not subject to British jurisdiction. These legal changes reflect the UK’s deliberate move away from automatic citizenship by birth, reinforcing the principle that nationality should be tied to legal status and long-term commitment to the country rather than merely birthplace.
Most of our allies in the developed world do not recognize unrestricted birthright citizenship. Would Robinson argue that their policies stem from racial animus? The fact is, the United States is an outlier in this regard, and there is ample reason for a good-faith discussion about whether this policy continues to serve the national interest.
Trump, whatever one may think of him, is trying to invite a reasonable legal challenge to a policy that has gradually evolved beyond its original intent (see argument below). To frame such a challenge as inherently racist, as Robinson does, is both untruthful and harmful to public discourse. If we’re ever going to have real discussions about immigration, national identity, or any other important issue, we need to drop the automatic cries of racism and focus on the actual arguments.
I believe Mr. Robinson overlooks crucial aspects of the history and legal rulings surrounding birthright citizenship in the United States. With that in mind, here is my more detailed perspective on the issue that moves beyond reflexive accusations.
The Historical and Legal Foundations of US Birthright Citizenship
Lawmakers drafted the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 to secure citizenship rights for freed slaves, ensuring they were recognized as full members of American society. However, its phrasing—”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens”—has since been debated in contexts beyond its original intent.
The drafters of the amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to children of foreign nationals without full legal allegiance to the United States. The 1866 Civil Rights Act, which laid the groundwork for the Fourteenth Amendment, explicitly granted citizenship to “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power.” This wording suggests that Congress sought to exclude from automatic citizenship those whose parents owed allegiance to another country.
Misinterpretation of Wong Kim Ark
Proponents of universal birthright citizenship (the more inclusive kind) often cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as definitive proof that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil. However, this is a misreading of the case. Wong Kim Ark concerned the U.S.-born child of legal permanent residents, not of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. The ruling did not directly address the modern issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.
Further, early Supreme Court decisions like Elk v. Wilkins (1884) held that being born within U.S. territory was not sufficient for citizenship; one had to be fully subject to the country’s jurisdiction, meaning complete political allegiance.
Practical and Policy Implications of Birthright Citizenship
Unlike the United States, most developed nations have restricted or eliminated automatic birthright citizenship. I’ve already mentioned the UK. Other countries like France and Germany once granted citizenship based on jus soli—the principle that anyone born on their soil automatically becomes a citizen—but later abandoned it due to concerns over abuse and unintended consequences. The U.S. remains one of the few advanced economies where individuals can acquire citizenship simply by being born on its soil, regardless of their parents’ legal status.
This policy creates incentives for illegal immigration, as individuals recognize that having a child in the U.S. can provide an anchor for legal status and benefits. The term “birth tourism” describes cases where foreign nationals travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth, securing citizenship for their children despite having no lasting ties to the country.
The Moral and Cultural Counterarguments
Many contend that birthright citizenship defines American identity. Anand Giridharadas, in his article “The Idea of Birthright Citizenship,” presents an emotional and cultural argument: that America is a nation of becoming, defined not by blood or lineage but by inclusion. He contrasts this with European countries that define citizenship by ancestry, arguing that America’s model is superior because it embraces newcomers as equals from birth.
While compelling, this vision overlooks the crucial role of legal processes in maintaining a functioning nation-state. Immigration is a cornerstone of American success, but it should be orderly and lawful, ensuring that new citizens share the values and responsibilities of the country they join. A system that effectively rewards illegal entry undermines this principle.
The Path Forward: A Balanced Approach
Rather than maintaining universal birthright citizenship, the U.S. should adopt a policy that ties birthright citizenship to legal status. A possible approach:
- Citizenship should be granted at birth only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
- Children of non-citizens could be eligible for citizenship through a streamlined naturalization process, rather than automatically.
- Clear guidelines should be established to prevent birth tourism and other abuses while maintaining protections for those who come to the U.S. legally and contribute positively.
Supreme Court Direction
For decades, birthright citizenship has expanded far beyond its original intent, not through congressional action or explicit judicial precedent, but through administrative policy creep. This drift occurred “silently through the back door” because executive agencies and immigration authorities passively adopted an overly broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than enforcing it as originally understood. Courts, too, have failed to clarify the issue, allowing bureaucratic inertia to dictate a policy that was never explicitly sanctioned.
It is not the role of unelected officials to redefine constitutional meaning through gradual reinterpretation, yet that is precisely what has happened. The Supreme Court must finally take up this case and settle the matter—preferably by reaffirming the original intent of the amendment, as was written and understood by its framers.
This, I believe, is Trump’s intent with this controversial executive order (he’s had a few!).
Conclusion – Returning to the Personal
This debate is about more than legal technicalities—it’s about how America defines itself. Is citizenship a mere accident of birth, or is it a commitment to a shared national identity and legal order?
I respect those who argue passionately for universal birthright citizenship, and I understand their concerns about exclusion and fairness. However, America’s history and legal traditions argue that citizenship should be reserved for those who are truly part of the nation, not extended indiscriminately.
At the very least, this is a debate worth having, rather than allowing bureaucratic reinterpretation aided by a few lower court decisions to override the original meaning of the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment must be understood as it was intended by its framers, not reshaped to fit modern political preferences. In that light, we should critically examine whether birthright citizenship, as currently applied, aligns with the amendment’s original purpose and serves the best interests of the country and its future generations.
Debating birthright citizenship is a matter of law and principle, not racism.
Sources:
Richard Epstein – The Case Against Birthright Citizenship (Legal scholar, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law)
Amy Swearer & Hans von Spakovsky – Birthright Citizenship Clause Too Many Forget, But Trump is Right to Question (Legal and policy experts at The Heritage Foundation)
Eugene Robinson – The Real Reason Trump Wants To End Birthright Citizenship (Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist at The Washington Post)
Anand Giridharadas – The Idea of Birthright Citizenship (Author and political analyst, former New York Times columnist)
+++
More Than Two Sexes?
The video below is well done and the “Sex is a Spectrum” advocate does a great job packing in a lot of important information in just 13 minutes. Although I strongly disagree with his belief that there are more than two sexes, this video is a good primer on current beliefs about Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD’s) which have been misrepresented in the video as “Differences of Sexual Development.”
So as you watch:
Note how many times the words or word groups mutation, syndrome, congenital condition, anomaly, disabilities, sterile, incomplete, ambiguous, recessive, health conditions, and even the dreaded word disorder are mentioned.
I counted over 15.
Also after reading my last post, DSD’s and Sex “Assignment” you should be ready to answer correctly this question: Do these DSD’s sound more like a difference or a disorder? If your answer is disorder, then you know there are only two sexes.
There Are More Than Two Sexes?
MOST IMPORTANT QUOTES:
“Biologists today are saying sex is a spectrum.” (0:35). There are plenty of prominent biologists and other medical professionals who dispute this. I mentioned two in my post, What is Sex?
“…biological features don’t always agree with each other.” (1:27). He’s talking about chromosomes, gonads, hormones & genitals which most would say should agree or you have a disorder.
“It’s estimated that nearly 2% of live births are born with congenital conditions of Atypical Sex Development.” (1:42) Based on everything I’ve read the 2% number used here is extremely high. Nothing I’ve read comes close to 2 percent. Based on my research the actual number is 1 in 5000 births.1This figure is found in Peter A. Lee et al., “Global Disorders of Sex Development Update since 2006: Perceptions, Approach and Care,” Hormone Research in Paediatrics 85 (2016): 159. Not sure where they get this 2 percent number. Unless their definition of “atypical” is an expansive definition not used by most medical professionals and scientists.
“That basically means that something in their chromosomes, hormones, gonads, or genitals is different from what many people expect of a “boy” or a “girl.” (1:52). So these are differences, not disorders. Notice how “boy” and “girl” are in quotes.
“This used to be known as being intersex, but these days, it’s better described as having Differences of Sexual Development, or DSD’s.” (2:01). Most health professionals and scientists still call them “Disorders of Sexual Development.”
“There’s a lot of variation within what we call male or female, and there’s a lot of overlap that’s normal too. Anatomically, someone might look…female on the outside but not have ovaries or a uterus, or have tissue from both overies and testes.” (3:24) How anyone can seriously call this variation or overlap “normal” is part of the problem we face. Because of a well-meaning desire not to stigmatize and also, it must be said, a desire to propagandize an ideology, we are expected to believe these are mere differences, and not disorders.
“Minor Learning Disorders” (4:35). The first and only occurrence of the word “disorders.” Interestingly this disorder has to do with learning. Or the lack, thereof. Hint, hint, for those who haven’t learned the “new” science of sex and gender.
“Did I learn nothing but lies in High School?” (5:29) The way he says this is funny. But he makes a serious mistake in again suggesting that DSD’s like Mosaicism and Chimaerism are just “different” developments. For example, a Genetic Chimera occurs when two different embryos combine early in a pregnancy. Some cells are XX and some cells have XY chromosomes. Fewer than 100 cases documented worldwide. No, you were not lied to in High School. You were told the truth about normal human bodies. Which the advocate tacitly admits in the next quote.
“Depending on the distribution of those cells, mosaicism and chimaeras can result in ambiguous sexual characteristics or both male and female reproductive body parts. (5:54). Nothing normal about that!
From this point forward the words “mutation” and “syndrome” occur frequently. Notice the many times a so-called “difference” in development is mentioned. The advocate is “spinning” the story here to fit his narrative, but by now you should understand these as disorders.
***
People born with Disorders of Sexual Development often develop gender-dysphoria. Gender Dysphoria — formerly known as “Gender Identity Disorder” is characterized by a severe and persistent discomfort in one’s biological sex. They need our loving support which also means telling them the truth about their disorder.
On the other hand, the vast majority of young people today who are convinced they have gender-dysphoria do not in fact have it. Classic gender-dysphoria presents early in life, ages 2-4, and until the recent explosion among teenage girls, was almost exclusively experienced by young boys. Today most of those who say they are gender-dysphoric don’t have any DSD’s, for example. Their discomfort is purely psycho-social in nature but they remain convinced they were born in the wrong body. We can blame the Gender Ideology taught in our schools, coupled with “affirming” therapy that largely disregards other co-morbidities like anxiety, autism, depression, and in far too many cases, trauma caused by sexual-abuse. We can also blame the social contagion phenomena spread via social media for the confusion, especially among our girls.
The Irreversible Damage being done to their bodies is heartbreaking.
Is this the world we want to live in?
***