The question was innocent enough, and I think it deserves an answer. He may just be a random dude with a car selfie as his profile picture, but those people are just as entitled to responses to good questions as the movers and shakers. Besides, I don't know the exact number of how many are asking the same thing, but I'm guessing it's more than just a few.
In a comment thread on (what else?) the radical gender theory and associated madness that is currently sweeping the country, a guy named Daniel Scharpenburg asked this:
- For those who find it jarring when a girl that you've grown up with starts requesting that you call her "he"…
- For those who find themselves out of work because they inadvertently "misgendered" an obvious male – who spoke with a male voice, had male facial hair, had an intimidating male build – but wore a skirt, wig, and lipstick …
- For those who receive suspensions and loss of revenue and work because they find it offensive to God to facilitate the gender delusion of another …
…for all those people, this may seem like a disingenuous question. It may seem like goading, or playing dumb. And given that I don't know Mr. Scharpenburg, it might be. But I'm guessing it's not. I'm guessing Mr. Scharpenburg represents a lot of other folks who like to go along to get along, don't have any serious, traditional, moral/religious convictions, and don't see the big deal playing along with some male who wishes he was female and pretends accordingly.
To people like that, it all seems a bit silly. "They aren't asking you to shower with them, or let your kid dress next to them in the locker room – they're asking that you call them ‘she' instead of ‘he.' How hard is that?"
Again, I am assuming much about Scharpenburg, but I'm guessing he just sees the practice of using a person's requested, preferred pronouns as a simple matter of deference and politeness.
So let me attempt to provide some basic answers.
First, for many of us, God's Word is the ultimate authority for how we will live our lives. That includes obeying the scriptural admonition not to agree with that which is a lie – "live not by lies." Isaiah 5:20 has severe warnings for those who call something that is good "evil" and something that is evil "good."
Second, transgenderism itself represents a real and serious threat to a person. Endorsing or enabling harmful behavior – even if it is desired by the individual – is not ultimately an act of love. In fact, it's the height of selfishness to choose the path of least resistance (the easy road) for yourself, if it means harm is more likely to come to another. Take parenting as an example. Refusing to use another person's preferred pronouns may be interpreted by that individual as hateful in the same way that a confused child sees a parent's refusal to give them their way as hateful. While not all truth is spoken lovingly, there can be no love without truthfulness.
Take as an example former Biden appointee Sam Brinton. While some regard him as an object of ridicule, many of us see him as one of pity. We felt bad for him following his recent arrests because it was quite clear to us long ago that the man had serious psychological issues that needed to be dealt with. Instead, they were promoted and celebrated, and here we are.
Pronoun usage conveys a physiological truth about a person that is unlike monikers, nicknames, or preferred expressions. Even if one tried to argue it is an individual's choice to deceive themselves if they so choose, the same cannot be said for the community. No one has a right to deceive my children or yours, and demand we be culpable and complicit in that deception.
While it's true that side issues like transgender athletics may impact a relatively small portion of the population, the same cannot be said for the larger implications of the movement's demands. Consider:
Read that again, understanding that "Amber" is a man. Notice how journalistic participation in this language rebellion utterly twists and contorts our understanding of a crime. Consider how over time that will impact the efficacy of crime statistics and the sociological conclusions we are able to draw from them.
Or consider the mockery pronoun preference makes of our ability to communicate. Here's the widely-read Daily Mail utterly failing basic grammar by indulging Sam Brinton.
Surveillance footage from the airport - which is yet to be released - is said to show them removing the luggage tug from the bag and placing it in their handbag.
When cops called Brinton the first time, they played dumb.
Then, Brinton phoned the authorities themselves and admitted to taking the bag but insisted it was a mistake, and that they were simply tired.
Something doesn't sound right when reading that, and what is it? Brinton considers himself "non-binary" and demands everyone use "they/them" pronouns referring to him. But they/them is for plural usage. Notice how using that for a singular man completely changes the meaning and confuses the description in these few short sentences.
This is all non-sensical and only a fundamentally unserious civilization will humor it.
So, Mr. Scharpenburg: In the end, it is our concern for people, our respect for the necessary parameters of science and human communication, and our acknowledgement that a civilization cannot be built upon lies or delusions that make pronouns a red line.
