The Body of EvidenceFebruary 28, 2017
by Carl Trueman
Attending a lecture last week on the politics of gender, I turned to a friend and said, “You and I were pessimists before we heard that. How are you feeling now?” To which he replied, “It’s enough to make me take up drinking again.” Some of us, I returned, had never been optimistic enough to stop.
Bad as it is, the madness that is currently the only politically acceptable approach to gender is surely doomed. Or at least, it must stop at some point, if society is to survive. For it cannot offer a socially workable understanding of personhood.
Sound hyperbolic? Well, take a hypothetical scenario. In 1995, a man called David Jones commits a murder, but there is insufficient evidence to take him to trial and the case goes cold. In 2005, David Jones has gender reassignment—sorry, “confirmation”—surgery that turns him into her, David into Desiree. In 2017, evidence emerges that David Jones did commit the 1995 crime.
But did Desiree commit the crime? David Jones pulled the trigger, and he no longer exists. Indeed, to speak as if he did exist will certainly enrage the right-on Twitterati and possibly land you a fine for discrimination. So how can Desiree be held to account for what David did? And would the police be vulnerable to hate crime charges if they tried to arrest her? She no longer identifies as David, she identifies as Desiree. And in the land of the self-identifying, solipsistic psychology is king and self-chosen names determine personal essences. . . .
The Tabernacle (Vos Group #33)February 24, 2017
by Lane Tipton