Category: Identity Politics

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

Grooming Future Revolutionaries: A Closer Look at Indoctrination in Military Base Schools

[I recently came across this 2022 investigative report and was struck by the extent of radical ideologies reportedly being promoted in military base schools. While I hope that the incoming administration will lead to a reduction in such practices, I’m not optimistic. This radicalism seems deeply entrenched in our institutions, and no single election cycle will be enough to undo it. True change will require sustained efforts over time. Here are some of my thoughts after reading the report.]

Schools on military bases are supposed to be places where stability, discipline, and strong values are passed on to the children of service members. But a recent report, Grooming Future Revolutionaries, reveals a very different reality. According to the investigation, these schools—run by the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA)—are becoming hotbeds for controversial ideologies, including critical race theory (CRT), radical gender theories, and activist-driven education.

If you think military schools should focus on academics and character-building, buckle up. This report might change how you see the role of education in these institutions.

From DEI to Woke Indoctrination

In 2018, DoDEA adopted a strategic plan called the “Blueprint for Continuous Improvement,” which focuses heavily on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). On the surface, these initiatives sound reasonable—who doesn’t want an inclusive environment? But the way they’ve been implemented has left many parents and educators concerned.

The report claims that DEI has shifted the focus away from traditional academic excellence toward social engineering. Key performance metrics prioritize equity and inclusion over core subjects like math, science, and engineering. What’s more, these programs allegedly shame students based on their race and encourage children to question their gender identity—often without involving parents.

Radical Gender Ideology in the Classroom

One of the more shocking findings is how radical gender theories are being woven into lessons, even for very young children. Teachers are encouraged to explore topics like pronouns and gender identity starting as early as preschool using tools like the “Genderbread Person” to challenge traditional norms. For instance, students might be asked to consider how they express their gender or even keep certain aspects of their identity secret from their parents.

Activities like these aim to challenge traditional ideas about family and gender, but they also create confusion. Instead of fostering confidence and self-understanding, these lessons often seem designed to disrupt what many families hold dear: familial trust, patriotic values, and the sacred order of God’s Good Creation.

Antiracism and Activism Over Education

In addition to gender ideology, the report outlines how antiracism education is turning classrooms into political battlegrounds. Lessons are reportedly designed to make students hyperaware of race and privilege, often framing history and society through the lens of oppression. Books like Me and White Supremacy and What We Believe: A Black Lives Matter Principles Activity Book are becoming part of the curriculum.

While promoting understanding and inclusion is important, critics argue that this approach replaces constructive dialogue with divisive rhetoric. Instead of encouraging kids to see themselves as individuals, it pushes them to adopt a group identity defined by race or gender.

The Impact on Military Families and Patriotism

What’s perhaps most troubling is how these programs are affecting military families and their values. According to the report, students are being encouraged to view their country and its symbols—like the flag and the national anthem—with skepticism. Instead of instilling pride in their heritage, the curriculum seems aimed at fostering a sense of detachment from their country.

For families who sacrifice so much in service to the nation, this feels like a betrayal. Patriotism, family values, and a belief in a higher purpose are cornerstones of military life. Undermining these principles risks eroding the foundation of what makes our armed forces strong.

A Call for Change

So, what can be done? The report suggests that parents and lawmakers need to push back. Senator Marsha Blackburn and Representative Elise Stefanik have already proposed measures to give military parents more control over what their children are taught. Unfortunately, these efforts haven’t gained much traction—yet.

But this fight isn’t just about legislation. It’s about recognizing that education shapes the next generation. If we allow schools—especially those tied to our military—to focus on divisive ideologies instead of unifying values, we risk losing more than academic excellence. We risk losing our shared identity and the moral framework that binds us together.

Final Thoughts

Education should prepare kids for life—not push them into confusion or activism. While I hope the new administration will steer us toward a more balanced approach, I’m not holding my breath. These ideologies are deeply embedded in our institutions, and it’s going to take more than one election cycle to turn things around. Still, this is a battle worth fighting—for our kids, our families, and the future of this nation.

[Source: Grooming Future Revolutionaries published by The Claremont Institute Center for the American Way of Life.]

+++

Posted on

Supreme Court Judges ‘Transgenderism.’

Today’s Supreme Court case hopefully will expose a medical scandal of significant proportions, where minors are subjected to irreversible treatments without sufficient evidence of their benefits and without proper informed consent.

The Court’s ruling (due in June ’25) should call for a desperately needed reevaluation of these practices to ensure the protection and well-being of vulnerable youth.

At least, one can hope, and pray.

Tyler O’Neil is on the case.

It’s hard to wrap your head around just how grotesque it is that many medical associations and the federal government have adopted the idea that it’s healthy to sterilize children in an attempt to “affirm” a stated transgender identity. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will shed much-needed sunlight on this medical scandal of epic proportions.

Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice will explain how activists conspired to flip the Hippocratic Oath on its head. Meanwhile, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chase Strangio—a female who says she identifies as male—will argue that Tennessee’s law banning Frankensteinian medical experiments on kids violates federal law by discriminating on the basis of sex.

The Supreme Court is hearing the case because of this discrimination argument. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld Tennessee’s law, finding that it doesn’t entail discrimination. But the Biden-Harris administration appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court took up the case—now known as U.S. v. Skrmetti after Jonathan Skrmetti, the Republican attorney general of Tennessee.

Read the whole thing.

+++

Embrace, Don’t Affirm