Nicole Russell, Defender of the Faith, is obsessed with gender nonconformity
Nicole Russell, a self-appointed arbiter of morality, feels compelled to dispense her disapproval as shame.

“The result of all this drivel is a great deal of nonsensical noise in regards to a minuscule percentage of society.”

Monday, according to Nicole Russell, a Heritage Foundation propagandist and Defender of the Faith™: ‘Gender Fluid’ Celebrities Like Demi Lovato Are Defining New Moral Relativism. Nicole Russell is obsessed over the existence of people whose gender identity she disapproves of.

The result of all this drivel is a great deal of nonsensical noise in regards to a minuscule percentage of society. Compelled disapproval produces obedient idiots.

Bigots frequently claim that the prejudiced class is a danger to children; sometimes women:

Pop star Demi Lovato announced Tuesday in a video on her Instagram account and podcast, “4D with Demi Lovato,” that the singer now identifies as nonbinary.

This appears to be an increasingly popular decision among celebrities that is harmful to young people and represents America’s increasing decline toward embracing moral relativism as a whole.

We do not know what “this” refers to. Is it the fact that they are nonbinary or that they decided to announce that they are nonbinary?

Either way, I would challenge Nicole Russell to explain how this is harmful to children. There was a time when an announcement that a celebrity is gay was depicted as harmful to children. Neither version of the smear makes any sense.

Russell’s religious fanaticism is a choice. Gender identity is not a choice.

Later on:

Why now? A common misconception is that people are now less afraid to announce themselves as nonbinary thanks to the prevalence of the LGBTQ community in everyday life.

The above reveals the very nature of religious intolerance. By announcing their gender identity they are now unable to be shamed. Shame (disapproval) and praise (approval) are the principal levers used to coerce compliance with the applicable dogma.

What Russell claims is a “misconception” is an attempt to recover the ability to shame someone effectively. I am not a mind reader but I suspect that Lovato feels more comfortable with who they are. This will increase as a greater percentage of the population accepts the scientific truth that gender identity is not a choice.

Furthermore, being nonbinary makes perfect sense. Gender identity is a continuum with male and female at the extreme ends. Some people are in the middle area of the spectrum.

Moreover, why is this any of Nicole Russell’s business? My best guess is that Christian conservatives believe that they acquire strength when their approval is solicited. Not only has Lovato eliminated the potential for Russell to shame them. They have stated that Russell’s approval is irrelevant.

Russell manages to get even creepier:

However, it makes more sense to view the wave of new nonbinary people as a popularity contest, a contagious frenzy: Making such a claim grants attention to stars who crave it. If the person is truly struggling with identity or gender issues, embracing this new lifestyle might at first seem to “fix” that crisis temporarily.

Actually, the above makes no sense at all. People who make known that they have incongruent or nonbinary gender identity become targets for derision. Ms. Russell’s rhetorical vomit is proof of that concept.

A bigot in service to religion is still a bigot:

“In spite of evidence to the contrary she is insisting that people can be persuaded to be gender incongruent. Common sense should suggest otherwise …”

Even if a person is struggling with recognizing where they fit in a world of two genders, pop star or not, it’s dangerous to applaud a bold statement like this with fervor, as many already have.

Lovato’s adoring fans are mostly teens and preteens, a particularly impressionable age group. The teen years are already tumultuous ones full of self-esteem issues, battling parental boundaries, and craving acceptance from peers. This will only compound problems.

What Russell seems to be saying (my gibberish-to-English app is perplexed) is that young people will choose a gender identity that Russell does not approve of. It is idiotic. Gender identity is not subject to the influence of others.

The case of David Reimer provides evidence contrary to Russell’s claim

Reimer received a botched circumcision which destroyed his penis. Dr. John Money’s “solution” was to have the boy castrated, given hormone treatments and to be raised as a girl. Money even wrote a paper heralding the supposed success of his gender conversion.

Money’s experiment actually proved the opposite: The immutability of one’s inborn sense of gender. Reimer resisted the conversion from a very early age without even knowing his natal sex. In effect Reimer suffered from manufactured gender dysphoria.

By the age of 14, Reimer refused to live as a girl. Only then did his parents explain what had happened and what they had done. Reimer eventually had a double mastectomy, was injected with testosterone and surgeons created a semi-functional penis. Sadly Mr. Reimer committed suicide at the age of 38 in 2004.

In addition to Reimer, there are a large number of intesex individuals who live with the dire consequences of infant surgery. Over the past few years, such surgery is increasingly offered only to adults who can identify their gender identity and actually want the procedure.

Along comes Nicole Russell

In spite of evidence to the contrary she is insisting that people can be persuaded to be gender incongruent. Common sense should suggest otherwise because that that would induce a form of gender dysphoria accompanied by significant distress.

Dogmatists do not accept common sense. They believe that religious doctrine represents incontrovertible truth regardless of evidence, logic or the expertise of knowledgeable people.

The dogmatist’s belief system comprises something comparable to a conspiracy theory. Anyone who does not conform to their religious views is part of the conspiracy. Doctors who provide transgender care are often depicted as evil leftists.

Ironically, the people conforming to evidence-based medical science are characterized as science deniers. The dogmatists claim that they are in accord with the science. It is classic upisdownism.

Nicole Russell does not recognize her own stupidity:

Often, teens claiming to be nonbinary or “finding my truth” to reflect their role models or as a coping mechanism for gender identity issues are more depressed, anxious, and even suicidal than other teens. On its website, Elevations RTC, an “all gender residential treatment program” in Utah, said:

Despite growing acceptance for gender nonconformity, the study suggests that gender non-conforming teens are twice as likely as cisgender teens to report symptoms of anxiety and depression. Mental health struggles are common in around 30% of all teens, but numbers are as high as 62% for gender non-conforming teens.

The above is probably true. The reason it is probably true (particularly in a state like Utah) is minority stress. It is no secret that people with gender dysphoria suffer with anxiety and depression.

However, it is also true that youth who are supported in their gender identity have levels of anxiety and depression that are nearly comparable to their cisgender peers.

Compounding the imbecility:

“…when a belief system based on faith presumes to be authoritative over evidence then there is something wrong with the adherent.”

It is dangerous for influential members of society to embrace such a morally relativistic viewpoint, especially about something so deeply personal and important. The concept of gender fluidity is both anti-science and illogical, but has far-reaching effects due to its ignorance of the importance and unique qualities of male and female biological differences.

And there you have it. People who are transgender or gender nonconforming are — according to Russell — immoral. Furthermore, they have this mystical ability to influence the gender identity of other people. Moreover “gender fluidity” is usually a phrase used by the Christian Right to display disapproval.

Furthermore, here is proof of what I previously wrote. The dogmatist is claiming to be scientific and logical. That is based on accepting Church teachings as absolute truth when it is objective truth that is scientific and logical.

Moreover, Russell is throwing in “unique qualities of male and female biological differences.” Those qualities are irrelevant. They only become relevant for people who cannot accept the scientific fact that gender and natal sex are separate constructs.

They cannot accept the truth because some eunuch at the Vatican has determined that the existence of gender as an independent construct does not conform to scripture (Genesis 1:27):

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The Church has explicitly referenced the above text as the foundation for its teachings on sexuality. The Church dishonestly asserts that the science of gender is “gender theory.”

More science denial in order to defend religious doctrine:

Who a person really is on the inside—particularly genitalia—is clear. Case closed. Denying this is denying science, reality, and the definitive nature of biology.

No idiot. It is not “case closed.” Gender as an independent construct reflects science and reality. In fact, the Endocrine Society has stated that incongruent gender has a biological basis.

Get thee to a nunnery
Get thee to a nunnery. Farewell. Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery go, and quickly too.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 1

I read and then write about stupid people saying stupid things every day. From Nicole Russell we have “learned” that the science of gender is unscientific and that a gender identity that she disapproves of is immoral per se.

Demi Lovato is nonbinary. Nicole Russell has a binary standard that is self-serving and arrogant. Everything is subject to either her approval or her shame.

Religion serves a purpose. It provides a path to an afterlife and that is about as unscientific as any concept. There is no evidence to support the existence of an afterlife. It is an article of faith.

There is nothing wrong with faith. However, when a belief system based on faith presumes to be authoritative over evidence then there is something wrong with the adherent. There is something wrong with Nicole Russell who obsesses over the existence of a half-percent of the population.

By David Cary Hart

Retired CEO. Formerly a W.E. Deming-trained quality-management consultant. Now just a cranky Jewish queer. Gay cis. He/Him/His.