“The audience will nod their heads in agreement according to the religious choreography but they are being instructed in the art of ignorance.”
|The quote at the top is from Robert P. George|
Nancy Pearcey will be speaking at Family Research Council on Wednesday. The topic of her talk will be her new book: Love Thy Body. I am sure that it is a compelling page-turner. This event burnishes Family Research Council’s credentials as an anti-LGBT hate group.
In evangelical Christian circles, Nancy Pearcey is held out as an intellectual. Pearcey is also a fellow at Discovery Institute. She is responsible for promoting “intelligent design” through the media, her writing, personal appearances and events.
There is nothing intelligent about intelligent design which is just a way of describing creationist BS. “Intellectual creationist” is oxymoronic. The FRC blog post describing this event was written by Patrina Mosley, one of FRC’s anti-choice activists. The post is titled: An answer to this generation’s identity crisis.
According to Ms. Mosley:
This topic comes in an age of transgenderism, LGBT discrimination laws, and national outcry over who gets to use which restroom—a time when gender is given to self-determination and may change daily. The nature of the sexual identity debate is often laced with animus and confusion and has profound implications for people as well as policies that will affect every citizen.
Animus? FRC is a hate group. If one wishes to reflect animus, claiming that gender is “given to self-determination” is a good way to start since that suggests a willful choice. Claiming that a person’s gender “may change daily” is a cherry on top of the abysmal ignorance. That is not what gender fluidity means.
Transgender people are a tiny percentage of the population. Gender fluid people are a tiny percentage of those and they are folks who are gender ambiguous. We refer to it as genderqueer.
The debate that Mosley refers to only exists because religious zealots are unable to accept medical science.
Again, according to Ms. Mosley:
The Economist recently reported a flood of adolescent girls seeking treatment for gender dysphoria over the last eight years. In 2009, 41 percent of teens going to gender clinics in the U.K. were female. By 2017, that number jumped to nearly 70 percent.
She actually missed the talking point but that “flood” is non-existent. Mosley is probably trying to imply that gender dysphoria is contagious. It is not. The one “study” which arrives at that conclusion was written by an Ob/Gyn and is undergoing a re-review by its publisher.
Let’s expand on an idiotic theory:
Today, we are seeing gender confusion and gender dysphoria become more common among this generation, especially as many young people have taken up androgynous identities to be hip, cool, or in fashion. They have embraced the exploration of their sexuality to the point of denying truth. While the political Left exploits our youth to gain political points, the real heart of the matter is the philosophical attempt to erase God’s fingerprint on the design of mankind. One of the unique fingerprints of God our Creator is science. Our biological makeup speaks a truth louder than words—down to our XX and XY chromosomes. Researchers have identified over six thousand genes that are expressed differently in men and women.
I scarcely know where to begin. “Gender confusion” is church-speak for gender dysphoria. It is akin to describing homosexuality as same-sex attraction. Both terms are designed to suggest that the condition which some Christians disapprove of can be changed with conversion or so-called reparative therapy.
Gender dysphoria is most certainly not a philosophy and people who suffer from the condition are not motivated to have an involuntary condition to rebuke Mosley’s god. Claiming otherwise is rampant ignorance and stupidity.
Nor does gender dysphoria have preferred left-wing politics as Mosley suggests. Caitlyn Jenner is a Republican Trump supporter (at least she was). Ms. Mosley is trying to appear erudite by referring to chromosomes. It is a galactic failure to appreciate the science. The overwhelming consensus is that natal sex and gender are separate and distinct constructs.
In Nancy Pearcey’s new book, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality, she says:
The implication is that the physical structure of our bodies reveals clues to our personal identity. The way our bodies function provides rational grounds for our moral decisions. That’s why, as we will see, a Christian ethic always takes into account the facts of biology, whether addressing abortion (the scientific facts about when life begins) or sexuality (the facts about sexual differentiation and reproduction). A Christian ethic respects the teleology of nature in the body.
…which is pseudo-scientific, pseudo-intellectual gibberish. It sounds smart but it is just a recitation of freshman year philosophy. The “Christian ethic” in this context respects only one thing: Religious dogma which is part of a belief system. What Pearcey is trying to say by invoking teleology is that there is an intrinsic natural purpose for who we are and what we do. It is a way of refuting science that she does not like and the evidence upon which that science is based.
I give Mosley credit for understanding what Pearcey is trying to say:
This is called a teleological view of nature, based on the Greek word telos, which means “purpose” or “goal.” It is evident that living things are structured for a purpose. Romans 1:20 says, “[f]or since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and the divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made . . . .”
The quote from Romans aside, the problem with Mosley’s take and, presumably, Pearcey’s offering, is that structure really means approved structure or the structure that Christians consider valid. That view limits nature to only that which coincides with, or conforms to, scripture. That creates the conundrum of reconciling beliefs based on faith with evidence to the contrary which requires very unscientific and illogical selective observation. It is how we get to pronouncements that transgender people do not really exist or that gay people just need proper guidance and prayer.
I have not read Pearcey’s book. I will not attend the event. I have no intention of reading Pearcey’s book. If Mosley’s preview is correct then listeners can expect faith presented as science. The audience will nod their heads in agreement according to the religious choreography but they are being instructed in the art of ignorance.