Jesus was trans too?

Joshua Heath, an Anglican clergyman in the United Kingdom, declared in a recent Evensong sermon that Jesus had a “trans body”.

Apparently Heath attempted to draw a metaphor between the wound from the Roman spear…and a vagina. 

Because, logically, whenever any man receives a puncture wound, or a large laceration, the wound automatically becomes a vagina, right?

Any man who has ever undergone surgery, in fact, has become at least temporarily transgender. Continue reading “Jesus was trans too?”

Oli London, Chloe Cole, and this moment of civilizational madness

Oli London is a young white British man who decided that he identified as…wait for it…a Korean girl.

Am I kidding? I only wish I were.

So London underwent the surgeries needed to transform a white British man into a reasonable facsimile of a Korean girl. 

Then he realized that this was all a mistake. (Ya think?) He’s now “detransitioning” and changing back to his original racial/gender identity. He’s also warning other impressionable young people who might be hornswoggled by the current enthusiasm for all things trans.  Continue reading “Oli London, Chloe Cole, and this moment of civilizational madness”

How Eloïse Bouton celebrated Christmas

To mark Christmas 2013, a French sociopath named Eloïse Bouton (who calls herself a journalist) burst into a Catholic church in Paris with ill intentions. 

Bouton was bare-breasted. She wore a simulated crown of thorns, and a blue veil mocking the common depiction of the Virgin Mary. 

And of course Bouton didn’t sit in the back pew. She charged to the front of the church, interrupting the the ongoing service.

But it gets better. Bouton was carrying two ox livers, which she used to simulate an abortion of the infant Jesus. 

And it gets better yet. Then she urinated in front of the congregation. 

All of this was intended as a pro-abortion protest.

Even in France, that is pushing the envelope of civilized behavior. 

I should also note that abortion is perfectly legal in France, and likely to remain so in the foreseeable future. Around one in three French women have had at least one abortion. America’s Planned Parenthood, therefore, is unlikely to find an export market in France for fetal brains, hearts, and livers. The French are dismembering plenty of fetuses on their own, without any outside help. 

Finally, Eloïse Bouton identifies as queer. 

So, she’s a non-heterosexual woman living in a country where abortion rights are more or less sacrosanct. What were the odds, in 2013, of Eloïse Bouton ever needing an abortion and being denied one in her home country? About the same odds as an American being unable to find an accessible McDonald’s, I’d say.

In other words, why was it necessary for her to do this, unless she is either a.) a nut job, or b.) a flaming asshole. (Or c.), a little of both? My money is on c.)

A French court ordered Bouton to pay the church damages. It also issued her a jail sentence (which doubtless would have been suspended). 

Then the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) got involved. The European court overturned the ruling of the French court, and ordered the French government to pay Bouton €9,800 in damages. Bouton, according to the supranational ECHR, was exercising her “freedom of expression”.

We need not wonder how the European Court of Human Rights would have ruled had Bouton pulled this stunt in a mosque. Assuming she survived (and the odds of that are small), she would have been charged with the ideological crime of Islamophobia. To a certain kind of leftwing mindset, only Christianity is fair game for gratuitous blasphemy. 

That may be because Christians turn the other cheek. Muslims?…Well, some do. But remember what happened to the journalists and illustrators at Charlie Hebdo in 2015. When you publicly blaspheme against Islam, you might lose your life. Catholics, on the other hand, give you Christmas cookies and hurt expressions. So a cowardly bully like Eloïse Bouton naturally picks on the Catholics.

Western concepts of free speech give one a right to blaspheme. They do not give one the right to disrupt a Christmas service in this manner. Likewise, you have a right to burn the Quran if you want to (and just to be clear, I don’t recommend it). You do not have the right to do so inside the walls of a mosque or Islamic center. Because then you would be just as much of an asshole as Eloïse Bouton is. (Oh, and you’d probably not survive.)

We wonder why the countries of Europe are eager to leave the European Union. We also wonder why Italy recently swung to the traditionalist right, electing as its new prime minister Giorgia Meloni of the Brothers of Italy party. 

There is no great mystery here. When the pendulum swings in one direction, it inevitably swings in the opposite direction. Just give it time. When France eventually swings to the right, you can thank cretins like Eloïse Bouton, and her cowardly apologists at the inaptly named “European Court of Human Rights”. 

The death of free speech…and common sense

Graham Norton, a BBC talk show host, has declared that cancel culture is just “accountability”. He obliquely referred to J.K. Rowling, a liberal feminist author who was “canceled” in 2020 for declaring that there is an inextricable link between biological sex and socially acknowledged gender.

Actually, J.K. Rowling wasn’t canceled, because she simply makes publishing and media companies too much money. The craven chieftains in the head offices of those firms will always look to their own paychecks first and foremost.

But a lesser known author who expressed support for J.K. Rowling, one Gillian Philip, was canceled. Gillian Philip was fired by the corrupt overlords of Working Partners and HarperCollins in 2020 after she tweeted the hashtag #ISTANDWITHJKROWLING.

If this isn’t “cancel culture”, then what is? The concept here is that once a critical mass of social media influencers, tech CEOs, and journalists have “ruled” on an issue, there is to be no further public debate. The matter is closed, and all dissenters will be punished, in one way or another.

Accountability? Accountability is what happens when there are consequences for genuine, objective wrongdoing. J.K. Rowling’s basic assertion—that the term “woman” has an immutable, biological basis—would have been accepted as simple common sense in basically all quarters a mere twenty years ago. What we are witnessing here is not just the death of free speech, but of skeptical inquiry itself. Evidence is to be willfully ignored, if it conflicts with the latest ideological orthodoxy.

That said, I agree with Graham Norton insofar we need a new word for mob-enforced thought policing. Jacobinism—and perhaps Maoism—are far more apt descriptors for what is commonly referred to nowadays as “cancel culture”. 

Ben Sasse and the howling mob at the University of Florida

Ben Sasse made a visit today to the campus of the University of Florida in Gainesville, upon his nomination to the presidency of that institution. (Sasse is expected to resign his Senate seat in December.)

A group of leftist student groups, the UF Communists among them, organized a shrieking melee. By the end of the event, Sasse literally found himself in flight from the screeching, gibbering students (I use that noun very loosely here).

I have no opinion regarding Ben Sasse’s suitability for the post; nor do I care one whit, particularly, who becomes the next University of Florida president. Nor have I ever even counted myself much of a Ben Sasse fan.

That said, we have set a dangerous precedent in recent years: allowing small, vocal mobs to determine, often with the threat of physical violence, who will be allowed on campus and who will not. The American university now practices mobocracy in its purest form. 

Want proof? Just look at what happened in Gainesville today.

A final word on this matter. It isn’t my place to play Monday morning quarterback for Sasse. I wasn’t there, after all. I would have had a lot more respect for him, though, had he stood his ground and told the hooligans to take a long collective walk from a short pier. Somebody should, after all. 

Participation trophies and organic chemistry

Maitland Jones Jr., an award-winning professor at NYU, was fired after a group of his students signed a petition alleging that his organic chemistry course was “too hard”. 

I should begin with the usual disclaimer: I don’t know Maitland Jones, or the students who signed the petition. I never took his organic chemistry course. But that doesn’t mean I’m completely unfamiliar with the broader questions here.

In the academic year of 1987 to 1988, I took three semesters of organic chemistry at the University of Cincinnati. The reader might reasonably ask why I did this to myself. 

During the previous summer, I had taken an intensive Biology 101 course, comprised of three parts: botany, zoology, and genetics. I got A’s in all three sections of BIO 101.

Botany and zoology were easy for me because I have always been good at memorizing large amounts of information that has no logical connections. (I’m good at foreign languages, for much the same reason.) I struggled a bit with the genetics portion of Biology 101, which required more math-like problem-solving skills. But I still managed to pull off an A. 

It was a respectable academic performance, but not one that should be over-interpreted. I was 19 years old at the time, however. With the typical logic of a 19-year-old, I concluded that my success in BIO 101 was a sure sign from Providence, indicating that I should go to medical school. I changed my undergrad major to premed, and began taking the math and science courses that comprised that academic track. 

That’s how I crossed paths with organic chemistry. Organic chemistry was nothing like the Biology 101 course I had taken over the summer session. Biology 101 was aimed at more or less the entire student body. (I initially took it to satisfy my general studies science course requirement.) Organic chemistry was aimed at future heart surgeons and chemical engineers. Organic chemistry was the most difficult academic course I have ever taken, or attempted to take.

Organic chemistry is difficult because it requires the ability to memorize lots of information, as well as the ability to apply that information to solve complex problems. Organic chemistry is, in short, the ideal weed-out course for future heart surgeons and chemical engineers. 

How did I do in organic chemistry? Not very well. I managed two gentlemanly Cs, and I dropped out the third semester. 

My dropping out would have been no surprise to my professor. Nor was I alone. Plenty of other students dropped out, too.

Early in the course, I remember the professor saying, “Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or a chemist. Organic chemistry is a course that lets you know if you’re capable of being a doctor or a chemist.”

That was 1987, long before the participation trophy, and back when a snowflake was nothing but a meteorological phenomenon. My experience with organic chemistry was harrowing, so far as “harrowing” can be used to describe the life of a college student. But in those days, disappointments, setbacks, and the occasional outright failure were considered to be ordinary aspects of the growing up experience. My organic chemistry professor did not care about my feelings or my self-esteem. He only cared if I could master the intricacies of stereochemistry, alkenes, and resonance.

The good news is that I was able to quickly identify a career that I would probably not be good at. Even more importantly, you, the reader, will never look up from an operating table, to see me standing over you with a scalpel.

If we have now reached the point where students can vote their professor out of a job because a course is too hard, then we’ve passed yet another Rubicon of surrender to the cult of feel-good political correctness. 

A decade ago, many of us laughed at the concept of the participation trophy. But at the same time, many of us said: “What’s the big deal?”

The big deal is that small gestures, small surrenders, have larger downstream consequences. A participation trophy is “no big deal” on an elementary school soccer field. At medical school, participation trophies can endanger lives, by enabling the less competent to attain degrees and certifications which they would never have acquired in saner times. 

Are you planning on getting heart surgery down the road? You might want to get it now, before the present generation of premeds and medical students becomes the next generation of doctors. 

No more law clerks from Yale?

Judge James C. Ho, a Trump appointee who serves the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, has announced that he will no longer consider students from Yale Law School for clerkships.

His reason? Ho states that Yale Law School not only “tolerates” cancel culture, but “actively practices it.”

That may be true. Yale University, along with the rest of the Ivy League, is only slightly less ideological than the East German institution that used to train members of that country’s secret police, or Stasi. 

Stupid stuff coming from Yale and Yale students is so common now, that poking fun at them has become something of a turkey shoot. In 2015, protests famously erupted on the Yale campus over Halloween costumes and cultural appropriation. But that’s only the beginning.

While I understand Ho’s sentiment, his gesture will likely become but one more salvo in the ideological boycott wars. For one thing: it is easy to imagine left-leaning judges (who outnumber conservative ones in most states) responding in kind. 

We might argue that Judge Ho is taking the wrong approach entirely. Nothing so hobbles the intellectual capacities of a young person than to graduate from any school in the Ivy League in the third decade of the twenty-first century. 

Yale Law School students need nothing so much as some sane, balancing influences. Who better to provide that, than a judge who disagrees with most of their professors? 

Can “Emma” beat the Chinese and Russian commandos?

Watch the above video compilation, which juxtaposes recent military recruitment ads from China, Russia, and the USA. Even if you understand no Mandarin or Russian, you’ll discern the contrast. The Russian and Chinese ads look like actual military recruitment ads. Ours looks like something else entirely.

First, a bit of background. The American military draft ended in 1973. After that point, the US Armed Forces had to compete with private-sector employers to meet their recruitment goals. 

This meant appealing to the values of each new generation. My generation, Generation X, was focused on career advancement and economic opportunities. I therefore grew up with “Be All You Can Be” US Army commercials, and the “we don’t ask for experience, we give it…” tagline.

And what are Gen Z’s values? The people running the military are not simpletons. They understand marketing concepts like USPs and focus groups. They did their research, you can be certain.

We all know that Gen Z values diversity. Okay…so how about a recruiting commercial featuring an African American woman from Chicago, or a young man from a farm in Appalachia? Or a Latino youth from Texas? 

No one is saying, after all, that recruitment spots should be populated solely with well-heeled white dudes from the suburbs. (And that wasn’t the case even in the 1980s. Watch the Reagan-era ads immediately above. You’ll see plenty of women and minorities.)

But we didn’t get the black woman from Chicago, the working-class white guy from Appalachia, or the Latino youth from Texas. The latest US Army ad (below) features a young woman who is obsessed with LGBTQ issues, and who has two lesbian mothers. 

Gen Z, our media pundits and academics breathlessly tell us, is the “queerest generation” ever. And so we get “Emma”.

But can “Emma” beat the Chinese and Russian commandos in a fight? If I were a betting man, I know which side I would place my money on.

I also think back to myself at military recruitment age. Had I watched the combined video of the Chinese, Russian, and American recruiting ads, I would have found myself inspired….to join the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

We should all be concerned about this. This is not the relatively peaceful world of the 1990s, in which I came of age. In addition to Islamic terrorism, we now face a Russia and a China that are stronger than ever, and eager to upset the world order as we know it.

The ideological obsessions of our educated and corporate class used to impact only our educational and corporate systems. Now their reach extends to our national security and military readiness, as well