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

Who Told You That?!?

WHO told you that?!? Who TOLD you that?!? Who told YOU that?!? Who told you THAT?!?

The other day a coworker told me about a transgender woman being attacked on a subway. A woman started yelling obscenities at her and ended up chasing her around the car. At one point the attacker yelled, "What should we do about you 'cause this sh** right here ain't appropriate for my child." The attacker wasn't travelling with her child at the time, but apparently didn't see the disconnect between screaming obscenities at someone for just being different and determining what was appropriate or inappropriate for her child.

I'm not going to spend a lot of space discussing my opinions on the whole transgender topic. If you want, you can read that here.

You do not have the right to hate someone because of their sexual identity.

I want to ask the woman one question: Who told you that?!?

President Barack Obama has been given the "title" of "First Black President". That is a title I have a lot of problems with. For one thing, he comes from a father who is black and a mother who is white. So, if anything, he is the "First Half-Black President". Calling him "black" is just as racist as calling him "white". Regardless of whether or not you agree with his policies, if you focus on the color of his skin - as a badge of honor or disgrace - you are being racist.

Let me state that again: It does not matter whether you focus on the color of his skin in a positive or negative way, the mere act of focusing IS racist. You can consider him the best President this country has ever seen, or the devil's spawn himself, but you have to do that based on his character - not his color.

You do not have the right to hate someone because of the color of their skin.

I want to ask you one question: Who told you that?!?

Where did this prejudice come from? Is it something that is a part of our DNA? I don't think so. Our basic belief structures are influenced - nay, determined by those who we either chose (friends, coworkers, church members) or don't chose (parents, extended family, church members[?]) to associate with. It is up to us to open our eyes and minds to the POSSIBILITY that what we've been molded by was wrong. And once we've allowed ourselves that opportunity, it is up to us to change. How? Maybe by consciously filtering the inputs we receive before they, like weeds, take root in us and choke the life out of the beauty that we can experience.

I’m going to end this blog by sharing a "Shots of Awe" video. This video doesn't focus on the prejudice I've been smacking, rather, it focuses on the fact that our free will is not autonomous. Rather, it is influenced by the world around us, and our free will, as a result, influences it back.

©Emittravel 2016

The Future is Now



In 1987, Alex Murphy was taking criminals "dead or alive" in "Robocop". I remember watching it for the first time (oh yeah, many times over the years) and seeing the scene in the Detroit police department locker room where both men and women were in various stages of undress (and no, I'm NOT posting a pic). The reason the scene got my attention, outside of the women in various stages of undress (I admit, I AM a straight male), was that both sexes were oblivious to the fact that the opposite sex was there in various stages of undress. I'll say that again: they were oblivious to the fact. It was normal. Just another day. And I wondered: what would it take to get us from "here" to "there"?

What I mean by "here" is a society that still has difficulty with male and female equality in all of its various forms (think "equal pay", for example), dress codes that determine the length of a woman's skirt and whether or not a man wears a necktie, and what gender "Pat" is.

Then one day it hit me. I finally figured out that unknown bridge: transgenderism.

Transgender people are throwing all kinds of confusion into "normal" society. Recently, an elementary school hit the news because a boy, who has determined himself to be a girl, has decided that she didn't want to use the teachers' or unisex bathroom, but decided to use the girls' bathroom. Both students and parents were up in arms, and the school made the statement that students are to use bathrooms that match their "plumbing" (my word, not theirs). I know of a business where an employee who presents himself as female, wants to use the ladies restroom as well. That business determined that if the employee is presenting himself/herself as a certain gender, they are able to use the bathroom that coincides with said gender. Part of the decision was based on the fact that the toilets are in stalls with doors, and the urinals have dividers (and I have never seen, in all my 49+ years, another male attempt to look past the divider - ever!): no one sees anyone in any form of undress. And does anyone really care the gender of the person at the next sink washing their hands? Hell, I'm just happy when people wash their hands. Of course, that business hasn't determined locker room/shower room use, but they will have to address it soon.

Having the opposite sex "invade" your bathroom is nothing new. Anyone who has been to a concert at the former Richfield Coliseum (I saw my first concert, Billy Joel - from A Piano Man to An Innocent Man - at that coliseum) has seen women skip the long lines for the ladies' room and grab a stall in the men's room. We guys noticed, but again, the stalls had doors. But now, that "invasion" is starting to become the "norm". (I noticed that I use a lot of quotation marks in my blogs. I wonder what the significance of "that" is . . . )

So for good or ill, trans genders are here to stay, so society needs to adjust.

According to an article by Jocelyne Zablit, "a California elementary school has become one of the first in the country to phase out gendered bathrooms". They are not adding a unisex bathroom; they are getting rid of those male and female silhouette-signed bathrooms.

Society is beginning to adjust.

Ally McBeal was the first to address a unisex bathroom (that I'm aware of), and that was back in the late 1990s. It was a novel idea that became a mainstay in the course of the series. And as has been said, good fiction soon becomes fact.

So, the future is now. We are slowly setting aside our long-held "hang ups" (there are those damn quotation marks again) and are beginning to allow the natural progression of society to become whatever it decides to be. And I think that is a good thing.

First unisex bathrooms, and next: silver jumpsuits!

  

(The above video is a clip from the 2002 Simon Wells film, "The Time Machine". That's right, Simon Wells: the great-grandson of H.G. Wells, the author of the book of the same name.)

© Emittravel 2015