Category: Gender Ideology

Posted on

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

***

Louis Hersent – Pandora Reclining in a Wooded Landscape –
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

Posted on

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?

***

Posted on

Euthanasia and the Idol of Autonomy: What Does It Mean to Die Well?

As Christians, we often grapple with the question of why a good and loving God allows evil and suffering—a question known as the problem of evil. Orthodox Christianity offers a profound response rooted in God’s nature and His purposes for creation. At the heart of this answer lies freedom. God created humanity with free will, allowing us to choose between good and evil because love, in its truest form, cannot be coerced. He desires our love and relationship, not the programmed affection of robots. But God did not leave us alone in our brokenness. In His infinite love, He entered into our suffering through Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, who took on flesh, endured the cross, and defeated death for us. This sacrificial love assures us that God is not indifferent to our pain—He redeems it for His glory and our good.

As Christians, we recognize that death is a profound part of life—a moment of both physical frailty and spiritual significance. Leah Libresco Sargeant’s thoughtful article on euthanasia, An Idol of Autonomy—How the push for medical aid in dying distorts our understanding of life, raises an important question: What does it mean to die well in a culture obsessed with autonomy?

The Allure—and Danger—of Autonomy

At the heart of the euthanasia debate lies our culture’s idolization of autonomy. Independence, self-sufficiency, and control over our own bodies are treated as sacred. For many, the desire for “death with dignity” is rooted in a fear of becoming dependent or burdensome. But as Sargeant points out, this framing is deeply flawed. It not only misunderstands the human person but also risks turning our most vulnerable moments into opportunities for abandonment rather than care.

The reality is that autonomy has always been an illusion. From our first moments as helpless infants to our final days, dependence is a fundamental part of life. Our need for others isn’t a failure—it’s part of God’s design.

The Slippery Slope of Euthanasia

Sargeant’s shift on euthanasia began after reading a chilling account of Belgium’s increasingly permissive euthanasia laws. What started as a narrow allowance for terminally ill patients in extreme pain expanded to include children and individuals with non-terminal conditions like depression. Canada’s experience has been similarly troubling, with euthanasia becoming so common that one in 20 deaths in 2022 was medically assisted.

This slippery slope isn’t surprising. Once the state decides that some lives are not worth living, the boundaries inevitably blur. Vulnerable populations—children, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor—are disproportionately affected. What begins as a choice becomes a subtle pressure, as people are made to feel that their dependence is a burden, their existence a problem to solve.

A Christian Understanding of Life and Death

The Christian view of life offers a radically different perspective. We are not our own; we are created beings, fearfully and wonderfully made. Our value is not tied to our productivity, independence, or strength. Instead, it is intrinsic, rooted in the image of God within us.

Sargeant highlights how this truth is often forgotten in modern euthanasia debates. Advocates focus on avoiding pain, but in practice, the driving forces are often fear, shame, and a misunderstanding of what it means to live with dignity. True dignity isn’t found in autonomy—it’s found in love, dependence, and trust. Jesus Himself modeled this perfectly, submitting to death on the cross and relying entirely on the Father’s will.

Caring for the Weak

So, how do we resist the tide of euthanasia? First, we care for the weak. We honor the elderly, support the disabled, and comfort the dying, reminding them that their lives are precious. We invest in palliative care that alleviates physical pain and provides spiritual and emotional support.

Second, we tell the truth about what it means to be human. Dependence is not shameful—it’s natural and even beautiful. It reminds us of our shared need for God and one another. In our vulnerability, we find opportunities for love and grace that reflect the very heart of the Gospel.

Final Thoughts

Euthanasia may promise control and dignity, but it ultimately offers despair. As Christians, we are called to a higher vision of life and death, one that celebrates the sacredness of every moment and every person. Instead of making an idol of autonomy, let’s reclaim the beauty of dependence and the hope of eternity. By doing so, we honor God’s Good Creation, even in its most fragile forms.

[Source: The Dispatch]

+++

Choose Life