Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I’m old-fashioned. I prefer to stick with the formerly accepted meaning of words, let alone pronouns. When asked what my preferred pronouns are, I answer, “the correct ones.” When we talk about “sexual deviancy,” we’re not necessarily making a moral assessment of its practitioners (although let’s continue to hold pedophiles, pederasts, and rapists in contempt, please). To practice “deviancy” of any sort means to deviate from the norm.
Even the Catholic Church has softened the language to describe homosexual acts as “disordered” rather than “deviant.” And in the age of the tyranny of relativism, it’s run straight into the problem of explaining what is “properly ordered” versus “disordered” to people who don’t hold to objective truth to begin with. Which is why I prefer “deviant.” This is a scientific, statistical term. You can graph it as a bell curve and see that homosexuality and all the recent innovations in sexuality summed up in the alphabet soup LGBTQIIA++-whatever fall out on the shallow ends of the curve.
Now let’s do “love.” Love is not love. What an idiotic, circular formulation. Love is willing the good of the other even if it costs you. From a Christian perspective, especially if it costs you (picture Christ on the Cross). Let’s say it costs you sexual gratification to forgo sodomy, for example, because it’s not “good” for the other person, even if he desires it himself. It isn’t “good” to misuse one’s reproductive faculties in a manner exploiting someone’s digestive anatomy, and vice versa. And “exploitative” is the correct terminology for sexual deviancy. Exploitation is not love. It’s the inverse. It is literally not caring for the good of the other as long as your own desires are met.
Similarly, the abortion regime is about sexual exploitation. It’s a misuse of sexual faculties for gratification while negating the reproductive results of sex. So-called “feminist” pro-abort women should buy a clue. As Dennis Prager notes:
In feminist Newspeak (Orwell’s term for the totalitarian redefining of language), when applied to women, “strong” means “easily offended,” and “perceiving oneself as a victim.”
It’s no wonder feminists are so miserable. They’ve bought into the lie that having sex and then killing your offspring isn’t sexual exploitation by non-committal, irresponsible men, yet if some man tells a joke about women being either bisexual or bipolar, feminists have been “victimized” by their male oppressors. Pathetic.
Finally, I’d like to address the “T” in the alphabet soup of sexual deviancy and the Fox News segment promoting the family who started transitioning their daughter at five years old! I’ve only read about the segment and haven’t watched it, but I absolutely hate that this child is being exploited twice. First by her California (of course) family and now by Fox News. And I hate that any criticism of the segment might be construed as criticism of the child, who I consider to be a complete innocent and victim of her terrible “progressive” (one presumes) parents.
Does anyone believe that the child communicated that she was a boy before she could speak? Or that she was “constantly told she’s a girl” and would scream in reply that she’s “a boy?” And why is the phenomenon so much more prevalent among progressive parents (like the family across the street from us) and in places like California rather than rural, conservative families in Ohio, for example? (Hat tip to Bill Maher.)
If you’ve watched the Daily Wire documentary, What Is a Woman?, you know that the rate of suicides among transgendered individuals peaks at about seven years post-surgery! Yet we’re supposed to believe that this is a “loving,” Christian family who just wants “a live transgender son rather than a dead daughter.” And that every masculine girl who doesn’t like “wearing feminine clothes” is really a boy.
How about this for love? How about if your child is a girl with masculine traits or a boy with feminine traits, you allow for appropriate expressions of the same in how they dress and what hobbies they take up? How about not insisting that your masculine daughter wear pink dresses and let her dress in jeans and t-shirts and play rough sports (field hockey comes to mind and my shins remember the bruises)? And how about letting your feminine son collect colorful gemstones and read romantic epics? Does every girl have to like pink dresses and every boy have to play with trucks? Does any loving, conservative parent believe that?
And if the child’s gender confusion persists and worsens into extremes — like the desire to take hormone blockers or have surgery — isn’t the loving thing to do to seek psychological (and maybe psychiatric) help for them, rather than mutilating them chemically or physically? Likely significantly shortening their lives because you’ve allowed them to live an extremely unloving lie that their taste in clothing or hobbies means they’re in the wrong body?
Matt Walsh has a moving conversation with a Canadian father who was jailed for using the “wrong” pronouns with his daughter who was seeking to transition. He did everything to stop it but failed. His daughter is taking hormone blockers and likely will receive “affirming” transition surgery at some point. He’s lost his daughter but he did everything he could to save her from this wicked ideology and, as he said, he kept a conscience he could live with, God bless him. That’s love. Putting your life on the line for the other, up to and including going to jail.
I don’t believe the Fox News California family knows what love is.Published in