THE THESIS: One can use the same framework used by the gender industry to pretend humans are assigned a sex at birth to say we are assigned human at birth. No one has ever been born in the wrong body. No one is “trans.” Some people are gender dysphoric, gender-confused, gender rebellious or have been conned into believing they are unhappy because they were born in the wrong body.
THE SCRIPTURE & SCRIPTURAL RESOURCES:
Trapping people in an altered body risks trapping them in permanent defiance to God. Certainly, the Lord can redeem people who have been surgically and chemically altered for the “trans” lie, but only if people allow the Lord to wake them from the lie.
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
When The Party succeeds in forcing people to pretend men are women and the reverse, they are conning, blackmailing or deceiving people into lying. That creates a wedge between them and God. Yes, the Lord is righteous to forgive and He expects us to let Him change us. We don’t perform works to get redeemed--we will never deserve redemption and cannot “purchase it” with effort--rather, our works after being redeemed are a sign of abiding in the Lord, Jesus.
James 2:14-26 - Faith and Deeds
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[b] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead
THE NEWS & COMMENT:
Sometimes The Party is hilarious. “Russian Trolls fractured the ‘women’s march.’” No, that march fractured women when they let men pretend to be female.
Sometimes it’s tragically, cynically amazing: Time.com frets about what pregnancy centers will do with women’s data . . . not what Planned Parenthood has already done.
Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers Are Collecting Troves of Data That Could Be Weaponized Against Women
The Figurehead’s bosses don’t care, either . . .
A woman in Iran was fractured to death and Twitter--which bans people for correctly calling a man a man because Twitter pretends it’s “Christian hate speech”--just banned a woman for posting a picture of a woman murdered by the Hijab Police.
Which brings us to the absurdity in which my $5,000 offer resides. Here is one of thousands of examples. Everyone who pretends that man is a woman is sinning by lying. Everyone who cons, blackmails or deceives others into doing it is sinning by causing others to stumble. Dylan is loved by God just as we are and it is not love to join into another’s delusion.
According to “trans”-activists, if a person ever regrets being surgically or chemically mutilated, they were “never really ‘trans.’” They are the same people who demand there exist absolutely no gatekeepers to kids getting chemically and surgically mutilated because, they insist, once you say you are “trans” that’s what you are. In fact, the utterly disgraced Forbes published a hit piece on a teen girl! Chloe Cole is a “transitioner”, a young woman attempting to get her body back from gender-jacking “doctors.” Forbes attacked her because . . . she’s autistic. I can use all of their tactics for my debate.
Forbes appears to have taken the article down, here’s a write-up with some of its lowlights.
Another example of an absurdity that makes my case. If you use the made-up, nonsense word “transgender”, you are required to agree in full that this man must be allowed to teach kids while dressed like this. Why? Because, of course, gender is on a spectrum and “breast havers” should not be the only ones with “breasts.” Likewise, I should be allowed to teach in a naked ape suit.
Ontario High School Defends “Fetishistic” Large Bust-Wearing Teacher
There was a “Let Women Speak Rally” in Brighton. This is what women and families face when they speak the facts about biology.
In Boston, home of Harvard University
Language Warning: Violent far-left protesters are pushed back by police in Boston after trying to confront those protesting transgender surgeries for children at Boston Children's Hospital.
Harvard University: the place that made Ted Kaczinsky into the Unabomber?
The Atlantic, 2022 -
By Alston Chase
Perhaps no figure at Harvard at this time better embodied the ongoing war between science and humanism than Henry A. “Harry” Murray, a professor in Harvard’s Department of Social Relations. A wealthy and blue-blooded New Yorker, Murray was both a scientist and a humanist, and he was one of Lewis Mumford’s best friends. He feared for the future of civilization in an age of nuclear weapons, and advocated implementing the agenda of the World Federalist Association, which called for a single world government. The atomic bomb, Murray wrote in a letter to Mumford, “is the logical & predictable result of the course we have been madly pursuing for a hundred years.” The choice now facing humanity, he added, was “One World or No World.” Yet unlike Mumford, Murray maintained a deep faith in science. He saw it as offering a solution by helping to transform the human personality. “The kind of behavior that is required by the present threat,” Murray wrote Mumford, “involves transformations of personality such as never occurred quickly in human history; one transformation being that of National Man into World Man.” Crucial to achieving this change was learning the secret of successful relationships between people, communities, and nations. And coming to understand these “unusually successful relations” was the object of Murray’s particular research: the interplay between two individuals, which he called the “dyad.”
The concept of the dyad was, in a sense, Murray’s attempt to build a bridge between psychology and sociology. Rather than follow Freud and Jung by identifying the individual as the fundamental atom in the psychological universe, Murray chose the dyad—the smallest social unit—and in this way sought to unite psychiatry, which studied the psyches of individuals, and sociology, which studied social relations. This kind of research, he apparently hoped, might (as he put it in a 1947 paper) promote “the survival and further evaluation of Modern Man,” by encouraging the emergence of the new “world man” and making world peace more likely.
Murray's interest in the dyad, however, may have been more than merely academic. The curiosity of this complex man appears to have been impelled by two motives—one idealistic and the other somewhat less so. He lent his talents to national aims during World War II. Forrest Robinson, the author of a 1992 biography of Murray, wrote that during this period he “flourished as a leader in the global crusade of good against evil.” He was also an advocate of world government. Murray saw understanding the dyad, it seems, as a practical tool in the service of the great crusade in both its hot and cold phases. (He had long shown interest, for example, in the whole subject of brainwashing.) During the war Murray served in the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA, helping to develop psychological screening tests for applicants and (according to Timothy Leary) monitoring military experiments on brainwashing. In his book (1979), John Marks reported that General “Wild Bill” Donovan, the OSS director, “called in Harvard psychology professor Henry ‘Harry’ Murray” to devise a system for testing the suitability of applicants to the OSS. Murray and his colleagues “put together an assessment system … [that] tested a recruit’s ability to stand up under pressure, to be a leader, to hold liquor, to lie skillfully, and to read a person’s character by the nature of his clothing. … Murray’s system became a fixture in the OSS.”
One of the tests that Murray devised for the OSS was intended to determine how well applicants withstood interrogations. As he and his colleagues described it in their 1948 report “Selection of Personnel for Clandestine Operations—Assessment of Men,”
The candidate immediately went downstairs to the basement room. A voice from within commanded him to enter, and on complying he found himself facing a spotlight strong enough to blind him for a moment. The room was otherwise dark. Behind the spotlight sat a scarcely discernible board of inquisitors. … The interrogator gruffly ordered the candidate to sit down. When he did so, he discovered that the chair in which he sat was so arranged that the full strength of the beam was focused directly on his face. …
At first the questions were asked in a quiet, sympathetic, conciliatory manner, to invite confidence. … After a few minutes, however, the examiner worked up to a crescendo in a dramatic fashion. … When an inconsistency appeared, he raised his voice and lashed out at the candidate, often with sharp sarcasm. He might even roar, “You’re a liar.”
Even anticipation of this test was enough to cause some applicants to fall apart. The authors wrote that one person “insisted he could not go through with the test.” They continued, “A little later the director … found the candidate in his bedroom, sitting on the edge of his cot, sobbing.”
My $5,000 to “trans” “healthcare” providers: “assigned human at birth” makes as much scientific sense as “assigned female at birth.”