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

Christian Anthropology & Synthetic Sex Identities

The Billionaire Family Pushing Synthetic Sex Identities (SSI)

The wealthy, powerful, and sometimes very weird Pritzker cousins have set their sights on a new God-like goal: using gender ideology to remake human biology


So says Jennifer Bilek in this important Tablet article. It’s worth your time.

Here are my thoughts.

Christian Anthropology, rooted in Biblical teachings, holds that humans are created in the image of God (Imago Dei) and that this divine image encompasses the whole person, including one’s biological sex and gender. The Christian view understands gender as a binary, corresponding to biological sex, given by God as part of the created order (Genesis 1:27). Biological sex is not only a physical reality but also has spiritual and psychological significance.

The Pritzker family’s support for SSI, which promotes the concept of gender fluidity and the medical transformation of gender, contradicts Christian Anthropology in several ways:

Contrast with Biblical Creation Story

The support for SSI, which asserts a spectrum of gender identities and the possibility of changing one’s biological sex, stands in contrast to the Biblical narrative that God created humans male and female. This narrative in Genesis is foundational for the Christian understanding of gender as a given and stable aspect of human identity. An identity affirmed by Jesus.1“Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female.'” [Matt 19:4]

The Concept of ‘Playing God’

The promotion of SSI and related medical practices should be seen as an attempt to ‘play God’ by altering the fundamental aspects of human nature. Christians believe those fundamentals were divinely ordained and reject this unethical attempt to fundamentally alter God’s Good creation, especially when it involves the core aspects of human identity.

The Role of Technology in Human Identity

The involvement of the techno-medical complex in creating new gender identities through medical interventions must be viewed from a Christian perspective as an over-reliance on technology to define and alter human identity. Christian Anthropology emphasizes the God-given nature of human identity, which is at odds with a technologically driven redefinition of this identity.

unethical Medical Practices

The promotion of surgeries and medical interventions, especially for children and adolescents, to affirm gender identities that do not correspond with their biological sex, is clearly unethical. From a Christian perspective, the physical and psychological well-being of individuals, particularly vulnerable children, is paramount, and the long-term impacts of such interventions are woefully missing in today’s discussions about gender.

Implications for Education and Social Policy

The influence of gender ideology on education and social policy, as indicated by the support for sex education programs that teach gender fluidity from a young age, is another pressing concern.

Christian Anthropology values the upbringing of children in ways that align with Biblical teachings, including the understanding of gender and sexuality. The introduction of concepts that contradict these teachings in educational settings conflict with the rights of parents and the church to guide children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

+++

The promotion of SSI departs from Christian teachings on gender and human nature.

Many thanks to Jennifer Bilek for alerting us to the dark forces behind this movement.

+++

A Transhumanist Foresees The Future

A World Economic Forum lead adviser foresees the future. At the end Harari predicts that we will “upgrade Homo sapiens into gods.”

Along with Transgenderism, Transhumanism is profoundly dehumanizing. Humans are by definition embodied souls. God gave us bodies because we were meant to have them. To reach for more is the original temptation.

This won’t end well.

Companion Post

+++