(Another guest-post by my husband.)

Homeschooling parents are often asked why they choose to homeschool their children. The fact is, the village school system provides no shortage of reasons why responsible parents should remove their child from the government’s influence as quickly as possible. AB 1266 is just one more straw to add to the camel’s already-broken back.

Most people are already familiar with the California State Assembly’s move to pass Assembly Bill 1266. California’s state legislature has been in the death-grip of the ideological Left for most of my voting life (or for as long as I can recall). They pass a continual stream of policies which cripple the state’s economy and sink the state further into the mire of moral confusion. Now the political Left in Sacramento want to appease a very confused minority group, regardless of how it embarrasses, inconveniences, or imposes on the conscience and privacy of the vast majority of normal students (I won’t say which political party proposed and approved this bill along party lines, but suffice it to say that the culprits are appropriately represented by a jackass). AB 1266 will allow any student to gender-bend his way into the locker-room or showers of children of the opposite sex (as well as infiltrate their sports teams). It doesn’t matter if boys will be able to violate your daughter’s privacy. All the ideological Left care about is imposing their tyranny of visions on the public. And if you don’t like it, they simply call you a bigot for opposing their twisted understanding of “equality”.

Such ideologues don’t stop to consider the logical conclusion of their policies. After all, high-school boys are in their hormonal prime, and if their hormones were to direct them to follow this policy where it naturally leads, why wouldn’t they declare themselves a female trapped in a man’s body in order to infiltrate the girls’ locker-room? In fact, why couldn’t a boy simply declare himself to be a lesbian trapped in a man’s body? This way, he could shower with the girls while also maintaining his sexual attraction to them. Frankly, the ideological Left could offer no rational opposition to such a scenario, because it is perfectly consistent with their premises. In fact, I suspect many on the Left would be happy to appease such a student (after all, it was they who gave us the sexual revolution, which divorced human sexual behavior from any moral restraint). It seems these people will not be satisfied until they have all boys and girls in the same showers and erase all vestiges of distinction between men and women.

And what about the consequences of students who gender-bend their way into each other’s sports-teams? Let’s acknowledge a simple fact: The reason men and women do not compete against each other in the Olympics is because a physically superior male will always be stronger than a physically superior female (yes, boys and girls really are different). Given such a fact, why shouldn’t a school which desires to dominate its league simply fill its girls’ sports-teams with “lesbians trapped in men’s bodies”? This way, it can have physically superior teams (although, real girls who can no longer make the cut will not be happy about being bumped out by a bunch of boys, but hey, we cannot allow such bigotry to exclude the oppressed and misunderstood “lesbians trapped in men’s bodies”). One seriously has to wonder what would happen if such a team won the state finals and went on to a national competition. What if other states refused to acknowledge such “girls” teams? Will the ideological Left, spearheaded by the ACLU, take it to the Supreme Court and force society to acknowledge such a sham? Some may believe these questions represent a slippery-slope fallacy. But let’s be honest; no one in their wildest dreams would have believed anyone would have stood before the Supremer Court and seriously argued that they have a “right” to marry someone of the same sex. And yet, here we are.

All the while, this ideological nonsense is endorsed by the village school system, a system which can no longer be seriously viewed as an academic institution. So the next time someone asks you why you choose to homeschool, avoid the long explanations and simply reply, “AB 1266”.


UPDATE: AB 1266 was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, Democrat, on Aug. 12, 2013

UPDATE: Download and sign this petition to repeal AB 1266

NOTE: In the comment section below, I’ve attached my response to a video I was asked to watch relating to the issue of sexual identity.


41 thoughts on ““I’M A LESBIAN TRAPPED IN A MAN’S BODY!”

    • One need only examine the article to which you linked to see how the ideological Left are a bundle of contradictions. On the one hand, they want to deny differences between the sexes, suggesting that pink is not just for girls, and blue is not just for boys. And then, in their typical irrational fashion, they contradict themselves by, as the article stated, assuming that because the boy wanted to play with a pink blanket, he must somehow really be a girl. Well, which is it? Is it okay to assume that, in general, girls like pink, or is it a gender-neutral color?

      What’s worse, the attorney claimed that by not getting to use the girl’s bathroom, the boy’s educational opportunities were being limited … huh? Can anyone tell me what “educational opportunities” one finds in a girls restroom? This is the kind of absurd, sloppy argumentation employed by the Left and their colluders on the bench and jury box.



  1. Unfortunately, this falls on deaf and ignorant ears. If you look at children whose “gender” is not what they are born with, you see children with a developing brain. Spend time watching this: http://www.ted.com/talks/sarah_jayne_blakemore_the_mysterious_workings_of_the_adolescent_brain.html and you see how WRONG we are to allow this! there are people willing to destroy our youth for some form of perverse pleasure. How can we allow this? Slowly, no quickly, our youth are being destroyed. Generations to come shall be damaged all because of this stupidity.


  2. Wow. Regardless of our religious differences, I usually really enjoy reading your blog, but, I have to say, the positive, informative, graceful attitudes and beliefs that I normally find here are not represented. My initial reaction (as part of the “villainous” Left) is an opposition to this bill, but I don’t understand the anger and hate being put into the world in this post…particularly over a political party of all things. I understand being angry about a bill, but to wholesale insult a political party (repeatedly) seems not at all in character with the beliefs usually expressed here. 😦


    • First, if AB 1266 doesn’t get any parent angry, I don’t know what would. There are, after all, situations where anger is the proper response, and this is definitely one of them.

      Second, the apparent anger in which I wrote the post isn’t at all relevant to the veracity of the claims made, i.e., either what I wrote is true or it is false. If anything I wrote was false, then I’m happy to examine any argument to that effect.

      Third, don’t confuse anger for hate. This conflation of the two is another drum constantly pounded on by the Left. Criticize anything they stand for and you’re labeled a “hater”. However, if I must be guilty of hating something, then I hate evil. Can anyone find fault with that?

      Finally, as for the insult to the political party who approved this bill along party lines, who else is deserving of the blame? It is the party of the Left who continue to impose these policies on the public. For the record, most political parties stink (in my opinion), but it’s what we’re stuck with. Given this situation, citizens must align themselves with that party which best represents their interests. That doesn’t mean that a voter will agree with everything that his party does or stands for, but one must weigh the good and the bad in each and support the one which will do the most good (or at the very least, does the least harm). So I realize one can vote for the party of the Left while still opposing AB 1266, but policymakers who run the party are nevertheless guilty of perpetrating this bill, and they should be thrown out of office for such nonsense.


      P.S. Note that this blog belongs to my wife, who, as you correctly noted, is “positive, informative, [and] graceful”. I just happen to be guest-posting, so if you find fault with the presentation, please attribute the fault to me, and not to her. She’s an innocent bystander. Her only fault is allowing me to guest-post on occasion. Thank you for being understanding.


      • I could argue your points one at a time, but I don’t much see a point in that, do you? I will have to respectfully disagree with your comments about the left and hope that you realize that one can express anger without insults. The insults are where one gets the impression of hate…not from one’s political stance.


      • First, if you took the insult personally, then I humbly apologize. Not because my opinion of those who perpetrated this bill has changed, but because my insult wasn’t directed toward voters. And though there’s plenty enough with which to hang these policymakers without resorting to ad hominem statements, still, sometimes one needs to call a spade a spade.

        Second, I’d be very interested in examining your point-by-point rebuttal. As for the point in doing so, I think if those on the ideological Left want to be taken seriously, then it behooves them to offer some rational argument in support of their agenda. Until then, the public has no reason to put up with such policies.

        Thank you again for visiting and for your patience toward me.



      • I realize that this is a guest post. I hope you understand that I am in no way saying that I dislike this blog now or that I won’t continue to read it or any such thing. I’m not planning to click “unfollow.” 😉


      • Yes, I was serious. As I’ve already had a lovely conversation about the matter with the author of the article two months ago, I politely decline to rehash the discussion. You are welcome to read it above. Have a great evening!


  3. Somewhere I lost the “reply” button on our conversation, hence the new response.

    No, I am not personally offended by your insults, but I want to point out that others reading this post would have a hard time discerning the fact that you are not presenting insults to everyone with a leftward leaning.

    As to the point-by-point response, I think you may have misunderstood. I am not trying to argue the rightness or wrongness of the bill. As I said, my gut reaction is to disagree with it. My point was only that the negative way in which your presented your opinion was off-putting. I was actually referring to a point-by-point about your first comment, not your original post. Since I’d hate to fail to be taken seriously, I’ll consent to your request for a rebuttal, but I’ll keep it short and sweet. 😉

    Your point: Any parent would be angry. My point: Perhaps so.

    Your point: The anger of your post isn’t relative to the claims you made. My point: You’re exactly right. The anger isn’t relevant, so why not skip the insults and stick to facts? Additionally, I never questioned the veracity of your claims. I simply questioned the wisdom of presenting your claims in such a negative way.

    Your point: Don’t confuse anger for hate. My point: I don’t. For example, I got a bit miffed at my husband earlier this evening. I did not begin to insult him, his beliefs, and his politics. I adressed the issue at hand. The same concepts that make a happy marriage (discussing disagreements calmly and rationally) also do pretty well for relationships with the rest of the world. Anger, as I said, can be expressed quite clearly without insults. Adding insults to the mix falls on the side of being hateful, in my humble opinion.

    Your point: The left deserves the “blame” for this bill. My point: Yes, the lawmakers on the left deserve the responsibility and accountability for this bill. Blame? I don’t find assigning blame helps in most situations. Being pro-active does. Disagree with the bill? Right letters, cast votes, remove your children from the school system (I know you already have…this is a more general sentiment), etc. Again, just like in personal relationships, focusing on blame is rarely useful or productive. (Again, my humble opinion.)

    Your point: All political parties have their weaknesses. Individuals have to choose what they believe is the “lesser of the evils.” My point: I concur, sir.

    Those were the points I was interested in adressing.

    And, no, a healthy disagreement will absolutely, 100% not chase me away from your wife’s blog. As I said earlier, I very much enjoy this blog. 🙂


    • When I said this: “but I want to point out that others reading this post would have a hard time discerning the fact that you are not presenting insults to everyone with a leftward leaning,” I did not mean that I somehow have superior intellect and was able to deduce something that others couldn’t. I meant that you specified in a comment that you weren’t directing your comments toward the voters, so I was aware of that when other readers of the post may not be. Didn’t want to come off as a pompous smarty-pants. 😉


    • You know what? You’re completely correct. That those in control of the state legislature are appropriately represented by a jackass is an observation which, however true, needed no mentioning. Instead, I should have simply focused on the main issue. Allow me to inform readers that they are to disregard the observation and only focus on comments directly related to AB 1266.

      With regards to the “blame” issue, I have to respectfully disagree. Everyone needs to know who perpetrated this bill in order to hold them accountable. Moreover, everyone needs to know what kind of ideology gives birth to policies like AB 1266. Without such an understanding, politicians who promote such agendas will continue to be voted into office.

      Thank you for your rebuttal. I found it refreshingly well put.



      • Thank you for the lively discussion! 😉 Sorry to keep this response so short, but here in North Carolina, it is certainly bed time. I look forward to future posts from you and your wife. Good night!


  4. I know I’m inviting attack here, but you are exhibiting a fundamental (and willful) ignorance of the difference between sexuality (hetero/homosexuality) and gender. It’s not completely your fault when society keeps asking about a baby’s “gender” rather than sex. But there is a difference between male/female and masculine/feminine. The “lesbian trapped in a man’s body” is a false construction. While there are transsexuals who find themselves attracted to the same sex after transition, most are not. So they may present as a homosexual person before transition, but because they don’t see themselves as the sex they were born as, they don’t consider themselves homosexual.

    Now, I know YOU don’t see the difference, nor are you willing to do the research to understand the differences because you’ve already decided such research is ideologically biased. You note above that you’re willing to entertain logical proof/arguments, but you’re not because you’ve already condemned any who do this research. Hence, you’re not being honest when you say you will.

    And for the record, no 16 year old boy should SUDDENLY be allowed to enter a girls’ locker room because yesterday he decided he wants to shower with girls. A teenage “boy” who is transsexual has likely been presenting as female for years, has been in therapy, and is likely on estrogen. If “he” isn’t already being treated as a “she,” then he shouldn’t be allowed in. I will agree with you that some unknowing administrator might not be as diligent as they should be, and if that’s what you’re concerned about, that’s fair. But your slippery slope argument that all teenaged boys will suddenly be willing to claim being female (NOT simply lesbian) just to get their jollies off, or that coaches will suddenly want to pack women’s teams with boys to get the edge is, well, chicken little thinking.

    Finally, there are girls who also see themselves as transsexual. Are you ask concerned about girls packing boys’ teams, or wanting access to boys’ lockers?


    • I think you are missing the point. I have no wish to speak for the writer of this article, but it has been clear in all of the articles contained in this blog, that both husband and wife have a solid, Biblical world-view, as I do.

      Having researched this subject extensively, I find no evidence for a happy future for any of these gender dysphoric individuals, no matter the presentation. For instance, the correlation between early childhood and prepubescent molestation with teenage/ adult onset homosexuality is largely swept under the rug. But the facts are clear. As the sodomites are famous for stating – “Sex before eight or it’s too late.” A clear admission that this was how they were introduced to this “lifestyle.” Surely you remember famous sodomite Elton John’s song – “All the Girls Love Alice.” What do you think that song was about?

      This would beg the question – why does little Johnny really want to use the girls restroom. Is his home life healthy? Rather than forcing radical social (and in view of Holy Scripture – extremely sinful) change on a resistant populace, why not investigate, honestly, the who, what, and why behind this movement. (I’ll give you a hint – his name starts with L.)

      For instances of true physical chromosomal disorder, and hermaphrodism, surgery and treatment allow a chance at a normal lifestyle.


      • I would like to add that physical and even emotional abuse has a strong correlation with homosexuality. Child brain development is important not only at the young age but also at the teenage years and beyond. Our environment is a strong influence on the brain development from how we treat children to even malnutrition.
        Neurological disorders are not well understood, but anyone can see the abuse of a child has a drastic impact on the child’s future.


      • Thank you, mortisreaper. I used childhood molestation as a jumping off point, which you nicely expanded on. Here is a very interesting and scholarly article, detailing the extensive research relating to the vast and various abuses of early childhood, from distant fathers, to excessive teasing.


        I also highly recommend this book for anyone who has experienced the anguish of gender dysphoria. It demonstrates that there is recovery from childhood, prepubescent, and teenage abuse and neglect. Please know that you are a victim, and that there is abundant healing for your wounded soul through the Holy Spirit. The hurts you have are not visible to anyone but God, but thankfully, He sees everything. And the hurts you have are every bit as painful and scarring as a knife wound.

        “Broken Children, Grown Up Pain,” by Paul Hegstrom. If you Google it, there are many online sources, as well as an audio sermon.

        Jeremiah 17:14
        Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for Thou art my praise.


    • @Irene
      I wouldn’t attack you. But of course I have a refutation to offer your position.

      The notion that gender is anything other than a synonym for sex (when referring to persons, not to grammar or other such non-personal entities) is a modern fiction. Nor does semantic legerdemain alter the facts.

      That one might believe himself to be the opposite sex is no more relevant than believing oneself to be a kangaroo. We are discussing objective reality; not a subjective, distorted opinion one may have of himself. Reality, after all, does not magically conform to how one feels. A person who believes himself to be other than what he really is is either mad, a liar, or seriously confused. Either way, the rest of society has no obligation to entertain his error.

      With respect to any alleged research, what “research” can possibly be offered in support of a logical contradiction, i.e., the notion that a thing is something other than what it is? Or, if it’s the case that one believes a person can actually be born in the wrong body, what possible evidence can any research produce in support of such a notion? After all, a “wrong body” presupposes an alternative “right body”, in which an appeal is made to a person’s telos, assuming that they were “meant” to be the opposite of what they actually are; at that point, however, one would be engaging in metaphysical speculation, not empirical research (I’m not appealing to empiricism as an epistemology, but only noting that nothing resembling empirical evidence can be offered in support of such a teleological claim). Finally, suggesting that I’m unwilling to “do the research” is just a failure to offer legitimate argumentation. If you seriously believe there is research to support your position, please share with us. We don’t need a mountain of evidence. Just begin to scratch the surface so we can at least examine whether it has any merit.

      Regarding my possible scenarios, you claimed that a 16 year old boy shouldn’t suddenly be allowed to enter the girls’ locker room, but now you’re concocting ad hoc criteria for discriminating who does and does not get to gender-bend. But who are you to insist that a boy be receiving estrogen treatment before proclaiming his inner female? Perhaps he simply doesn’t want to take drugs? Perhaps he’s shy and is just now coming out of the closet? You’re in no position to judge who is and is not trapped in the body of the opposite sex (I say this under the erroneous premise that one could possibly be trapped in a body of a different sex). It’s not at all clear why you get to arbitrarily set the criteria by which you will discriminate against some, and yet you find fault with others who discriminate using objective criteria which is observable by anyone.

      Finally, with respect to girls packing boys’ teams, it would never happen (unless one is deluding himself into believing that a superior fit female is stronger than a superior fit male). Yes, where skill is involved, a girl can be just as skilled as a boy. But where a sport requires brute strength and mass, you’ll never find a boys’ team supplanted by girls (even if you could find an Amazon or two who could make the cut). As I said, there is a reason men and women don’t compete against each other in the Olympics.



  5. So you’re going to delegitimize the lived reality of those who are transgendered/transsexual and finally feel not only normal, but happy and fulfilled? Ask Deirdre McCloskey (nee’ Donald), whom I’ve met, if she is confused. As Kate Bornstein. Ask Jamison Green. Ask Patrick Califia. Ask Sandy Stone. Ask Chaz Bono. And ask Jackson Jandtz, an acquaintance of mine. All of these individuals struggled for a big part of their lives until they finally accepted who they are. They were willing to endure ridicule, the loss of jobs, ostracism from their families, and other difficulties in order to be true to themselves. And all of them would say they’re happier now.

    As for who gets to “arbitrarily” decide, the law does. One cannot undergo surgery until and unless they’ve lived as the opposite sex for a minimum of a year and have been in therapy for at least two. And the ability to change sex on legal documents also requires a doctor’s support.

    “With respect to any alleged research, what “research” can possibly be offered in support a logical contradiction, i.e., the notion that a thing is something other than what it is?” This statement tells me that no amount of research will convince you that there are those who truly feel abnormal as the sex into which they were born. There are lots of reasons people might feel this way. Sex is more than external genitals and science has shown that external genitals don’t always match chromosomal or hormonal sex. But the only thing people tend to LOOK at are external genitals. This is the problem many intersexed individuals face — parents want their child to look “normal,” even though 1 in 1000 are born with “abnormal” genitals, because they want to be able to tell others if they had a boy or girl. There are thousands of intersexed people whose parents and/or doctors surgically chose a sex for them (usually female, since it’s easier to cut things off than build things up), only to realize they’re not that sex. So if these individuals exist, what’s to say that something else didn’t happen to a body in utero yet still have fully developed genitals?

    Anyway, as I said, you’re not going to accept any of the research I offer, so why bother. If this makes me a coward, so be it. One can only slam one’s head against a brick wall for so long. But if you’re truly interested, I have a whole reader on Transgender Studies that I can let you borrow when I get home.


    • I happen to “feel” that you’re wrong and I’m right. Is that an argument by which you’re willing to concede the debate? Yeah, I didn’t think so. That’s because you know that “feelings” provide nothing by way of argument or evidence. And yet, you offered nothing beyond emotion. The people you listed “feel” happy. They “feel” normal”. They “feel” fulfilled. No consideration is given to truth. Whatever one “feels” seems to determine truth for you. Truth, however, is determined by correspondence to objective reality, not by one’s subjective feelings. You can’t “feel” a million bucks into your bank account. You can’t “feel” the moon into being made of cheese. And you’re not Napoleon simply because you “feel” like you are. Reality isn’t dictated by feelings.

      You stated that the “law” gets to arbitrarily decide (in response to my comment about who decides when a person is trapped in a body of the opposite sex). Either you’re revealing a philosophical naivaté, or you’re avoiding my point in which I was asking an epistemological question, not a legal question. The fact remains, neither you nor the government is able to provide an objective criteria by which one can determine whether a person is telling the truth when they claim to be in a body of the wrong sex. And therein lies the giant elephant in the room. No one can prove such a thing as being in the wrong body. You have no choice but to accept anyone’s bare claim. You can’t even know for yourself when a person is telling the truth, much less can you prove to the rest of us that such people are accurate about their assessment of themselves.

      With respect to “research”, you stated that, “no amount of research will convince you that there are those who truly feel abnormal as the sex into which they were born”. Everyone can go back and read everything I’ve written and see for themselves that I have never doubted what anyone feels about themselves. The dispute has never been about what people “feel”. The issue is about reality, regardless of anyone’s feelings which fail to correspond. To suggest that there are a lot of reasons people “feel” the way they do is a red herring, because it’s entirely irrelevant to what they, in fact, are.

      You suggest that sex is more than genitals. However, a man who says he’s trapped in a male body determines that he is trapped in a “male” body because, LO AND BEHOLD, he has male genitals. And he uses this common sense criteria (as do you), except when attempting to suggest that sex is not determined by genitals. This is a glaring contradiction in your position. As for those born with physical mutations, such persons provide no evidence that physically normal persons can occupy the wrong body, nor is a parent’s error in choosing a mutated child’s sex at all analogous to a process of growth which produces a physically normal person.

      Finally, you again suggested that I wouldn’t accept any research you could offer. Well, if such “research” consists of nothing more than the emotive proclamations of people who refuse to acknowledge reality, then, yes, I suppose that wouldn’t cut it. But note that you didn’t address how it is that this research can, even in principle, prove the metaphysical claim that one occupies a body which differs with his telos. Frankly, all we’ve been told is that a lot of people feel confused about their sexuality. However, such confusion hardly warrants the conclusion that such persons occupy the wrong body. Nor have we been given any reason to think that the rest of society has any obligation to entertain the confusion of such people by ignoring reality and allowing boys to shower with girls in public schools.



    • Glad you spoke up here Irene Grau! I am struggling to figure out at what point to jump in or whether to. I do not know ANYTHING about the California law (I live on the east coast) but my initial response to allowing certain gender-bent individuals into a locker room of either sex is that it doesn’t make me terrified…and I do have a 12 year old daughter. I am more terrified by closed-mindedness and bigotry….which run rampant in our local schools so that any child who isn’t the “mean” (sexually, racially, economically) is subject to cruelty and torture.
      I homeschool so that my kids can associate with other kids of all persuasions in a positive and encouraging environment. And yes, they do have one trans-gender friend (also homeschooled) who is quietly and slowly and with her intelligent and supportive parents’ help, trying to figure out how to go forward.
      Tasha in Catskill


      • Tasha,

        How does sharing autobiographical information about how you “feel” (in this case, not “terrified”) constitute an argument in favor of AB 1266? How is your personal lack of concern at all relevant to the propriety of allowing boys to shower with girls? After all, the issue is one of propriety, not about your subjective feelings.

        Herein lies the problem with those who defend AB 1266 or the ideology behind it. Their entire position is emotion-based, and if anyone dares disagree with them, they immediately level the charge of “closed-mindedness and bigotry”, as if that ends the debate. What’s ironic is that to accuse another of bigotry is to assume the moral high ground, and yet, those same accusers recoil at the very notion of objective moral propriety.



  6. Wow!!! gay marriage transgender bathrooms and you have spurred all sorts of great and lively discussion. Sad, not many people have a moral compass. Rome was great and fell too. I have my moral compass which tells me there were entire cities destroyed over certain acts, which we are in the process of legalizing. Bless God and God bless. I agree on your stance, we homeschool as well. Soon, they may try forcing all into the funnel but i’m gonna fight that one. This AB thing is so far fetched and stepped away from any sort of morality that it would be humorous except God will not be mocked.


    • Unfortunately, there are those who are forced to accept these kinds of policies. I have a friend who works in the FBI, and he recently told me that employees are required to display open approval for the LGBT agenda and are threatened that silence will be interpreted as disapproval.
      Such workplace policies have successfully violated the 1st Amendment, with respect to both freedom of speech and religious liberty. LGBT ideology necessarily depends on tyranny and the suppression of liberty in order to flourish, because it cannot win on the battlefield of ideas. Welcome to 1984.



      • Indeed! Even one of the Justices deemed that anyone not on the side of gay marriage is “against the human state”. We tear out the Bible from schools and church and state because it makes people feel guilty. 1984 is coming except it will be those who oppose the agenda that get sought out for to hurt. Sadly, if we as Christians had been as fervent as the LGBT when standing up for our rights, we wouldn’t be here. Peace, and blessings


  7. Boy you stepped into a storm there. thanks again. We will need to be braver as the times get darker. The world will look harshly upon those of us who are not like them.
    we are in the world but not of it. blessings to you and your family


  8. I was asked to watch a video in defense of the ideology which gave birth to AB1266. To summarize the video presentation, Alice Dreger argues for the unknowability and/or nonexistence of distinct categories. Click HERE to watch the YouTube video, so that you’ll understand the context of my response.


    Now, Dreger doesn’t state it as clearly, but it forms the core of her arguments. She believes that “nature doesn’t draw the line for us between male and female”, and she predicates this on the existence of persons born with sexual abnormalities of one sort or another. But how does she make the logical leap from the fact that some persons are born with mutations to ‘therefore, there is no such thing as a fixed or determinable sex’? We’re not told, but until she fills in the gaps with valid, related premises, her conclusion remains without warrant.

    Furthermore, if, as Dreger claims, sex is arbitrarily determined, then any assessment she makes about the sex of others is likewise arbitrary, unless she believes herself to have a privileged epistemic position, as if she were God. (Speaking of which, God has set the clear categories of male and female with respect to mankind, and He’s provided us with the faculties of apprehending those categories.)

    Another problem with Dreger’s presentation is that she issues unwarranted or counterintuitive conclusions. In one case, she shared about a male who looked like a male, acted like a male, had normal male desires (and intimate relations with females), and had male genitals. She then tells us that this male had some female internal parts (which, due to bleeding from internal menstruation, caused physical problems). From this, she leaps to the conclusion that this male was really female internally; and by “female internally”, she’s not being redundant and repeating that this male had female internal parts, but she was insinuating that this boy was really a girl. But what justifies such a conclusion? Why not simply say that this boy was born with a deformity insofar as he had some girl parts? From appearance, behavior, desire, and external genitals, this male was, in fact, male, and yet she issued the counter-intuitive conjecture that this boy was really a girl. (One has to wonder, had the boy been born with a mutation of having four legs, would Dreger have concluded he was a llama?)

    Dreger also observes that many people born with deformities are “perfectly healthy”. However, “perfectly healthy” is not equivalent to ‘perfectly normal’. A person born with three arms might be perfectly healthy, but three arms is, nevertheless, a mutation. She also alludes to the fact that, since these people are perfectly healthy, the surgery they often seek is not necessary. This reveals another white elephant in the room. Some desire to get their genitals changed to the sexual group to which they believe they belong (e.g., if a male believes himself to be a female, he seeks surgery to acquire female genitals). However, if genitals do not determine sex, then why get one’s genitals changed at all? In fact, how could, in principle, one know he has the “wrong” genitals, given that his genitals have no intrinsic relation to either sex?

    Dreger then wanders off into darwinian speculation, asking what we should make of humans sharing genetic similarities to chimps, as if that has anything to do with sexual categories. (One wonders what she would conclude from a skateboard and an airplane similarly having wheels.) From such a similarity she concludes that there are no clear cases of categorization, never bothering to make the logical connection between her premise and her conclusion. She just throws something out there and then, by some unknown route, makes her way back to the positions she wishes to espouse.

    In an attempt to recruit the Founding Fathers to her cause, Dreger then concocts a revisionist history to claim that they replaced monarchies with a democracy predicated on a “commonality of anatomy”… Yeah, even Mrs. Incredible can’t make a stretch like that (and given her prior observation about the commonality between humans and chimps, one wonders whether she believes chimps should vote). I can’t take the time to correct all of her historical errors, but suffice it to say that nothing she presented from history offered any evidence or argument for either her operating premise or for the position she bases on that premise, even if we granted her revisionist account of history.

    Near the end of her presentation, Dreger issues a generalization about the nurturing nature of women (a generalization with which I agree). However, how can Dreger issue such a generalization without first identifying that it is indeed “women” who possess this nature? You see, where it conflicts with her ideology, she states we cannot clearly distinguish who is either a male or female. But where she desires to issue a sweeping generalization, she suddenly knows how to identify women. This is another example of the self-refutation that plagues her theory.

    By the end of her presentation, Dreger ironically tells us she does believe in creating different categories, but she never offers any criteria by which we are to do so. One has to wonder why she bothered to attempt to destroy one system of categorization without replacing it with anything else.

    The important thing to keep in mind after watching Dreger’s presentation is this: the existence of persons who have some physical deformity or biological malfunction is entirely irrelevant to how we are to assess physically normal people who claim to be something other than what they clearly are. To summarize, this video provided nothing in support of AB 1266.



  9. Throughout the comments you have spoken about the supposed contradiction– that some people claim genitalia doesnt determine sex, but then the same people wish to alter their genitalia to match the gender they feel they are. Im not sure that your logic follows; Im not certain that this is actually a contradiction as you state it.

    Genitalia does not have to be the determiner of gender in order for someone to want it to match typical sex/gender associations. Much in the same way, as a woman, wearing a dress does not make me a woman. However, I may decide I prefer wearing dresses every day because it makes me FEEL more like a woman. In the same way, having a vagina does not have to make a person identify as a woman, but having a vagina probably would make anyone feel more feminine than having a penis does….

    Furthermore, there are benefits, socially, to presenting yourself, physically, as a match to how you present your gender. You will encounter less confusion, less prejudice/discrimination, and less plain old staring if your behavior and your physyical appearance fall within the social norms of how we expect a female (or male) to look and to behave.

    To be clear, all the above is nothing about my personal views, Im just trying to demonstrate how I think you are drawing a false conclusion here.


    • First, thank you for visiting and offering your thoughts.

      You suggested the contradiction to which I referred was a false conclusion, suggesting that, ‘Genitalia does not have to be the determiner of gender in order for someone to want it to match typical sex/gender associations”, comparing genitalia to wearing a dress in order to “feel more like a woman”. The analogy to social conventions in clothing, however, begs the question. You begin with the convention of social fashion and then compare it to genitalia as if the assignment of sex organs were similarly a matter of convention. But such a notion (that genital assignment is a matter of convention) is the very thing which has not yet been demonstrated. It was merely assumed. The question is, why make such an assumption?

      You wrote that, “having a vagina probably would make anyone feel more feminine than having a penis does.”
      The obvious question is, why? If a vagina has no intrinsic relation to females, then why would it make you feel more feminine? You’re demonstrating a rationally intuitive acknowledgement (which we all share, despite any protests by some to the contrary) to the unavoidable fact that females and vaginas are definitionally and inextricably related.

      Finally, you suggested that gender-benders “match” their genitals to their sex in order to “fall within the social norms of how we expect a female (or male) to look and to behave.”
      In all honesty, if such persons really cared anything for social norms, they would keep their sexual confusion to themselves or on a psychiatrist’s couch and cease attempting to impose their distorted views on the rest of society. I apologize if that sounds harsh, but we can’t have it both ways. Either they find help for their serious identity problems, or the rest of society must entertain their distorted ideas. Thus far, no one has yet to demonstrate that society has any obligation to entertain such confusion by sacrificing their children to irresponsible policies like AB 1266.



      • Its not logically sound to claim that because vaginas and feminine gender typically present together then the presence of a vagina MUST make one a woman(gender). This is something anyone learns in logic 101. There may be a third thing we dont know about ehich usually but DOES NOT ALWAYS cause vaginas to present with feminine gender. I am not claiming it is a social convention at all, only that society naturally associates these to things which are correlated but NOT NECESSARILY directly related.

        Furthermore by saying people who claim genitalia dont determine gender should also not care whether they have a penis or a vagina, is to force the issue further than what most anyone would claim. You are essentially saying, if they dont think genitalia determines gender then their genitalia must be completely irrelevant to their lives.

        And look,to claim that someone should just bury all their emotions and inclinations if they care about societies conventions is just so simplistic as to be laughable. Its really not a valid argument at all. It seems especially harsh and cruel since you made the comment previously that gender confusion is highly correlated with sexual/emotional abuse as a child. People dont always have things figured out, for various reasons, on social issues across the board, lets not expect everyone to just stamp down their will and stamp down their doubts if they cant just get it right the first time.


      • You wrote that it’s not logically sound to claim that “because vaginas and feminine gender typically present together then the presence of a vagina MUST make one a woman(gender).”

        You’re suggesting that the correspondence of vaginas with womanhood is merely “typical”, as if there were plenty of women without vaginas. But this is akin to saying, “It is logically unsound to claim ‘bachelorhood’ is equivalent to being unmarried due to their typical connection.”
        However, being unmarried is precisely how we define and determine bachelorhood, just as being born with a vagina is how we define and determine what is a female. Thus, I am not drawing a “logically unsound” inference as you supposed. Rather, I’m merely pointing out that one cannot logically divorce a definitional term from its referent. The fact remains, “Women are possessors of vaginas” is an analytical statement, not a synthetic one.

        Regarding genitalia, you suggested that I was essentially claiming that “if they don’t think genitalia determines gender then their genitalia must be completely irrelevant to their lives.”
        That is not at all what I was claiming. Rather, what I was demonstrating is that they contradict themselves by, on the one hand, divorcing sexual identity from genitalia, while, on the other hand, claiming they were born with the wrong genitals. But one cannot have “wrong” genitals if genitals have no intrinsic relation to a particular sex. “Wrong” is a value judgement which assumes a deviation from some “right” standard. This is a glaring contradiction which you seem to be ignoring.

        You wrote that I offered a “simplistic” suggestion that gender-benders “bury all their emotions and inclinations”.
        First, we expect those who are inclined to murder, steal, or commit adultery to repress any inclinations to act out any such behavior, yet no one views our expectations as simplistic. Why then is it “simplistic” to expect behavioral restraint from those with sexually deviant inclinations?
        Second, anyone can go back and read what I actually wrote, which was that gender-benders keep their sexual confusion to themselves or find help from psychiatrists (or from ministries or counselors who deal with their problem). And by “keep their confusion to themselves”, I am only suggesting that they not attempt to impose their confusion on the rest of society.

        Finally, we still have not yet seen a single argument from anyone as to why society has any obligation to entertain policies like AB 1266.



  10. Ps. 139:14 “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works and that my soul knoweth right well.”
    How can we argue with our Creator… enough said.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.