Does Science Support Your Opinion?

In my last post, “LGBTQLMNOP - Really?”, I spent some time questioning the obvious disconnect between those who say they are heavily entrenched in science (biological evolution, to be specific) yet claim to support those who chose to live a non-heterosexual lifestyle as normal. I did not approach the subject as a person being for or against those who chose said lifestyle. I only wanted to tackle the “hypocrisy”. I go into a lot more detail in the article, so please take time to read it if you haven’t already.

In this post I want to take the subject one step further, and ask how those who say they are heavily entrenched in science can at the same time support “gender reorientation” of children. By this I mean, how can someone say they support young Tommy wanting to be identified as, and further take steps to transition to, Tammy (or vise versa)?

(I am posting supporting links at the end of this post. The one from Mentalhealthdaily.com has supporting links for their article if you would like to research further.)

Today there are many options available for “children choosing” to change their gender, beyond simple name recognition, apparel, and which bathroom they use. One option is so-called puberty blockers, which suppress the production of estrogen and testosterone, given to children between the ages of 10 and 12. Another is providing estrogen or testosterone as a cross-sex hormone to transgender teens around 16 years old. There are health hazards with both treatments, but the idea is to allow the changes to occur while the child is still growing, versus having to resort to surgery when a person is fully grown.

In the paragraph above I put the phrase “children choosing” in quotes. Part of the reason is that legally minors require the legal permission of parents or legal guardians for medical procedures/medications. The other part leans more into the point of this post: there are children that are choosing, or are encouraged to choose, to change their gender. It is HERE where the hypocrisy lies.

According to science, a person’s brain does not reach physical maturity until the around the age of 25 years old. According to an article from Mentalhealthdaily.com, the area known as the prefrontal cortex goes through some major changes between the ages of 18 and 25. “The prefrontal cortex doesn’t have nearly the functional capacity at age 18 as it does at 25. This means that some people may have major struggles with impulsive decisions and planning behavior to reach a goal. The brain’s reward system tends to reach a high level of activation during puberty, then gradually drifts back to normal activation when a person reaches roughly the age of 25. Adults over the age of 25 tend to feel less sensitive to the influence of peer pressure and have a much easier time handling it.”

According to Nancy Guberti, a Functional Medicine Specialist, when describing the stage of development for 7 to 22 year olds,  “The neural connections or ‘grey’ matter is still pruning, wiring of brain still in progress, the fatty tissues surrounding neurons or ‘white’ matter increase and assist with speeding up electrical impulses and stabilize connections. The prefrontal cortex is the last to mature and it involves the control of impulses and decision-making.”

Did you see that? I’ll repeat: “The prefrontal cortex is the LAST (emphasis mine) to mature and it involves the control of IMPULSES and DECISION-MAKING (emphasis mine).

Here’s the disconnect: if it is scientifically known that the part of the brain that controls impulses and makes decisions is not fully formed until a person is in their mid-20s, why do we allow the decisions of a CHILD (especially of such importance) to be made that will impact the REST OF THEIR LIVES?

If a child is in elementary school and has a wonderful teacher, that child may come home and say that they want to be a teacher when they grow up. That is an admirable life goal. But would anyone think it normal/advisable/healthy to put that elementary school child in a program that will FORCE them to become a teacher when they are an adult?

When I was 17 I joined the U.S. Navy. When I did, I was determined to make a career out of it. At about six months before my time to reenlist or depart, I told the Captain of the USS Elrod (the ship I was stationed on) that I’d rather “flip hamburgers than reenlist”. When I called my parents from Italy (we were in the Mediterranean on our way home from the Persian Gulf) to let them know I was coming home, my mom flipped when she realized it was permanent. Why? She told all of our family and friends that her son was in the U.S. Navy and was making a career of it. Can you imagine being 17 years old, and signing a 20-year contract with the military? Of course not.

(By the way, I'm proud to have served in the U.S. Navy. If you are looking to join the military, take a look at Navy. It was a wonderful experience!)

So why would it seem normal to have a young child make an even more life-altering decision than that?

I often say that it is easier to count the number of college students who DON’T change their major.

Earlier I mentioned that I put “children choosing” in quotes. Let’s touch on that.

How many times is a child born a boy (or girl), when the parents really wanted a girl (or boy)? How many times is that child raised, even unintentionally, as the opposite? Ever hear of a “tomboy”?

In today’s attention-hungry culture, how many parents want the attention/publicity, even if it is through their children, because Tommy wants to use Tammy’s bathroom in school and a stink is made?

In other words, how many times is the child’s decision to change genders based on outside, rather than internal, circumstances? If a good teacher can influence a child towards a career, how much influence does a parent have?

This is too current an issue to think we have all the answers. There has not been enough time to see the outcomes of gender reorientation of children. When Tammy becomes an adult, and her prefrontal cortex has finally fully formed, what happens if she then decides that she made a terrible mistake and should have lived her life as Tommy?

(And let’s not even focus on the chances that those who go through gender reorientation can find themselves sterile adults.)

If science proves that the brain is not capable of making fully-formed decisions until the mid-20s, how can those who say they are so pro-science support the gender reorientation of children/teens?

http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/when-transgender-kids-transition-medical-risks-are-both-known-and-unknown/

http://nancyguberti.com/5-stages-of-human-brain-development/

©Emittravel 2017

LGBTQLMNOP - Really?

Over the years of writing this blog, I’ve spent my fair share of time being critical of Christianity. As a Christian, this type of introspection is usually kept for those closest in relationship, or just in the quiet of prayer. It is usually not voiced out into the air for those not of the same belief structure to hear. After all, Christians want non-Christians to become Christians. It’s part of the credo. Anything that even remotely smells like hypocrisy is supposed to be hidden or ignored.

What I want to know is how do those on the opposite end of the belief spectrum deal with apparent hypocrisy. What am I talking about? Let me explain.

Recently President Trump repealed the Obama administration’s school bathroom mandate, and that caused quite a stir on social media. Many people who claim to care for transgender folks were either blasting the “hatred” of President Trump and his administration, or pouring out words of overwhelming support for those affected by this mandate. Most of these folks do not claim to be Christians. Because, you know, Christians are hateful, narrow minded anti-truthers (a.k.a. “anti-science”).

As far as whether or not a person is non-heterosexual (by the way, it is just easier to use “non-heterosexual” than to have to remember ALL of the other terms used for those who claim to not be heterosexual), I really don’t care one way or the other. I will neither praise you for your “bravery”, nor condemn you for being a “bane” upon society. So I’m not coming at this with bias for or against. I am coming at this rather confused.

What I’m finding is that the same people who are so pro-non-heterosexual lifestyles, are the same people who claim to be very pro-science. Remember the age old war of religion versus science? Should a Christian school be forced to teach evolution? Should a non-religious school be forced to teach creationism? You know, evolution is the truth because it is supposed to be based in science, whereas creationism (and the idea of a God) is mythological whimsy.

What I want to know is, how do those who fully believe that evolution (and science) is truth can embrace non-heterosexual lifestyles?

Recently, Tucker Carlson had an interview with DNC advisor Zac Petkanas, where he asked if gender identity was really all someone needs to determine gender? In other words, what a person SAYS they are, they are. This is a common viewpoint: if Tommy says he is really Tammy, than to say Tommy isn’t is discriminatory. Tommy’s personal viewpoint of Tommy’s gender is all that really matters. Tucker Carlson argued that SCIENCE (biology), and not psychology should determine gender. According to science humans reproduce sexually with two genders: male and female.

How does someone who is a Darwinist, believing in biological evolution and disregarding anything that does not fit that viewpoint (creationism), accept that gender identity trumps science?

If you believe in evolution, you HAVE to accept the survival of the species premise. Non-heterosexuals do NOT fit in that premise.

If you took heterosexuals and isolated them on an island, they would reproduce and the species would survive. If you took non-heterosexuals and isolated them on an island (an island of homosexual men or an island of homosexual women), what would happen? And if you answer that honestly and scientifically, you HAVE to come to the realization that non-heterosexual lifestyles are NOT in line with evolution.

Non-heterosexuality does NOT benefit society, as it does not follow the basic, biological premise of evolution.

So, I ask those of you who claim that science is the ultimate truth, how do you reconcile this?

I’m not hating. I’m questioning. I’d really like to know.

©Emittravel 2017

If the Stiletto Fits . . .

A few weeks prior to this writing, Bruce Jenner "came out" publicly as Caitlyn Jenner.

First off, I think it interesting that we still use the expression "came out", as it is directly reminiscent of when those outside the socially-accepted "norm" were IN the so-called closet, and, when going public with the truth concerning themselves, would come OUT of said closet.

Secondly, I think it interesting that the term "closet" is used to describe both the place for those outside of the socially-accepted "norm", AND as the place Christians are encouraged to enter when praying (Matthew 6:6 - KJV). Curious. Ever think that for some people, the very "closet" one spends time in prayer becomes the very place they discover their true selves?

(Yeah, that last thing may upset a few folks . . . )

As I mentioned in my last blog post, one of the difficulties I have with the Christian church is the focus on the depravity of the world, and how those in the church have "overcome" and are separate from, even superior to, it. I was part of that belief structure for many years, and I know how entrenched that attitude can be in one's life. And it is sometimes given from the pulpit with sly humor, all the while reinforcing an intolerance for the very people the church is supposed to be reaching out to.

If you, as a person with such an attitude, find that you have difficulty with folks like Caitlyn Jenner, I want to know something: Is God the author of birth defects?

Think about that for a minute. And no, I'm not calling Caitlyn Jenner someone with a birth defect. Though, in a sense, maybe I am.

We Christians like to say that God doesn't make junk. For example, using the (re)creation account in Genesis chapter one, everything God made was "good". The bible also says that sickness and disease are from the Devil. So, where do birth defects come from? I've already argued that children aren't born with them because of their sins or the sins of their parents (see "Hey Babe: Take a Walk on the Quiet Side"), so where do they come from?

(One way I understand it is, the longer we have been here, reproducing and reproducing, errors in our genetic make-up keep getting passed down, and even transfigured, from one generation to the next. I was born, for instance, without a sense of smell. For me each breath is the same. My mom's sense of smell is normal. My dad's is beyond normal: he's smelled an underground gas leak that the technician couldn't detect with his meter until he had dug two-feet below ground! Yet, MY shnoz is basically useless. With sinus issues, it is sometimes beyond useless! Radiation is known to be a source of some cancers, because of the way it affects cells. I believe that in some cases, cancer can be a genetic disorder.)

Now, if someone is born with a birth defect, and science has come to the point where they can "fix" it, should the person with the defect take advantage of that technology? Or, since God made them that way, should they embrace the way they are and not seek "wholeness"? If one is born without arms or legs, prosthetics today have come a long way to providing someone a higher level of independence than they would have ever experienced otherwise. Would it be wrong to embrace such technology? What about corrective lenses (glasses or contacts), or even LASIC surgery? Would those be abominations because they go to "fix" what God had deemed "good"? Of course not.

Okay, let's not limit birth defects. Since sex is only determined by a couple of X's and Y's (and no, I'm not getting into the whole sex vs. gender argument), what if what one is born with is NOT what they, inside, determine themselves to be? Isn't that a form of birth defect too? And since science has come to the point where they can "fix" that as well, is it wrong for a person to embrace that either?

You have to think, if all wisdom and inventiveness ultimately comes from God, is it so wrong for medical technology to give people a way to live a more "normal" life?

As the title says, "If the stiletto fits . . . "

© Emittravel 2015

Stuff My Brain Says #43

According to a recent news article, the U.S. Navy's new "gender-neutral" aircraft carriers will not have urinals. My question is, would you get written up for leaving the seat up?

© Emittravel 2012