Last week Richard Dawkins, an avowed atheist and evolutionary scientist, said “there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it” and that those going after Harry Potter author, J.K. Rowling, over gender identity were “bullies.” Via Facebook, evangelist Franklin Graham said, “I usually don’t take sides with an atheist but on this issue, I agree 100%.” Here is what I wish Mr. Graham had said instead.  

Many Christian political conservatives have been touting their success in passing bills protecting biological girls from competing in high school sports against transgendered persons and preventing hormone therapy for minors. This week, federal district court judges held unenforceable a law on the former in West Virginia and on the latter in Arkansas. For the following reasons, I believe enacting these bills is an exercise in futility.

Several years ago, June was designated as “Pride Month” by the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender community. That designation has since been picked up and celebrated by many in the business community and even many civil governing bodies. This morning I came to better understand the designation and its growing acceptance. In fact, here is why I think we should designate every day as “Pride Day” and make it for all of us.

Tuesday morning, over coffee, I read a story about actor Ellen Page’s transition to Elliot Page. That same day I went down to the legislature to testify on a bill prohibiting a governor or local government from limiting attendance at a worship service. On Wednesday morning, I realized in a new way the close connection between transgenderism and what Christianity actually speaks to.

This week, a bill sponsored by Tennessee state Representative Scott Cepicky took a first step in the state House toward keeping biological males from competing against biological females in high school sporting events. Here are grounds on which I could oppose the bill, or at least the reasons given in support of the bill (do not jump to conclusions!)

In June, the United States Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that transgender ideology, namely, the principle that sex is not biological but a subjective mental state, was infused into the word “sex” found in Title XII of the 1964 civil rights law that applies to organizations with 15 or more employees. This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit took the next step, extending the Supreme Court’s “gender ideology” to countless public and private schools and colleges. Here are the hard questions this new decision raises.

Monday, the United States Supreme Court issued a judgment based upon the word “sex” in Title VII, the federal law prohibiting workplace discrimination, having a meaning it did not have when it was enacted in 1964 and one that isn’t even its primary dictionary meaning now.

A good friend of mine is knee-deep in a lawsuit over “transgenderism” in high school sports. As I read what the judge in that case told the lawyers representing the biological female plaintiffs concerning the words they must use, I felt like I was Alice in Wonderland falling through the rabbit hole and coming face-to-face with Humpty Dumpty.