What troubles me even more than my brother\u2019s decline in mental health is that countless people around him have decided to simply \u201clove and support\u201d him on his \u201cjourney.\u201d If he were claiming that he believed an alien or a time traveler lived inside his body, they might not be so supportive. But because it is 2019 and the denial of reality when it comes to gender is culturally en vogue, people are going along with it. They\u2019re terrified of being called intolerant. They say things like, \u201cIf he tells us that <\/em>she<\/em> is his \u2018true self,\u2019 who are we to argue?\u201d<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ah yes . . . the \u201ctrue self,\u201d a mantra of a generation. No matter where you go, you can\u2019t escape it. Books, television shows, Instagram captions, and Internet memes suggest we can all attain greater levels of health and peace through a deeper realization and expression of our \u201ctrue self.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Back in the day there was something called moral realism, a worldview that put an emphasis on human sin and weakness. Biblical figures like David and Moses were seen as great leaders who were also deeply flawed<\/em>. Augustine and the early church fathers talked about the depravity of sin and the need for grace. Then around the 18th<\/sup> century moral realism found its rival in moral romanticism. Romantics like Jean-Jacques Rousseau started talking about the inherent goodness<\/em> of man. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Fast forward to 1946 when Rabbi Liebman published his book Peace of Mind. <\/em>The book <\/em>urged people toward a new morality based on the idea that you should never repress any part of yourself as sinful. Instead you should \u201clove yourself\u201d and be unafraid of your hidden impulses. The book became a New York Times<\/em> best seller for 58 weeks. Humanist psychologists ran with it, arguing that the primary problem for humans was no longer sin<\/em>, but rather the fact that we weren\u2019t accepting ourselves exactly<\/em> as God made us. This line of thinking led to the advent of the self-esteem movement in 1969. The core of that movement morphed into what author Charles Taylor calls \u201cthe culture of authenticity.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n The central belief of the culture of authenticity is this: <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the center of every one of us is a Golden Figure known as \u201cthe true self.\u201d The true self can always be trusted. You know that what you\u2019re doing is right when you feel an inner peace (or shalom) inside your true self. You know what you\u2019re doing is wrong if you do not feel that peace.<\/em> <\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Because the true self is inherently good, there is no sin to be found in it. Sin is now found only <\/em>in the external structures of society that seek to repress the true self. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In his book The Road to Character<\/em>, David Brooks explains that older generations believed the development of character came by struggling against<\/em> the desires of the true self. Traits like selflessness and self-sacrifice were considered most admirable. Younger generations, in contrast, believe the most admirable trait to be radical self-expression<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, the steps to the \u201cnew salvation\u201d being promoted by younger generations include <\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet 19th century British philosopher John Stuart Mill said the point of life was to struggle every day to <\/em>\u201csacrifice the true self on the altar of care and concern for others.\u201d This is done by achieving a series of small, inner victories against<\/em> our own desires because you know that acting upon them could result in negative consequences for others. Even if acting on our impulses doesn\u2019t feel like it\u2019s doing any harm in the moment, it could be adversely affecting countless generations to come. Thus, we build character by a thousand selfless acts of restraint that no one ever sees.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n But in 21st<\/sup> century America, this line of thinking doesn\u2019t compute. We don\u2019t applaud people for restraint; we applaud people for throwing off<\/em> restraint. Hence the hundreds of Instagram followers now giving my brother a \u201cheart\u201d for announcing he\u2019s a woman. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The logical problem with this is that if a man is to be \u201csupported and celebrated\u201d as he embarks on his journey to become a woman, shouldn\u2019t everyone<\/em> be celebrated as they continue down the path toward their true self? Shouldn\u2019t the married woman be encouraged when she reconnects with her true self in the arms of another man? Our culture would say yes, and books written about this have become best sellers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If we do away with the concept of a sin nature and concede that everyone is inherently good, there is really no<\/em> impulse that needs to be fought against. Ever. The porn addict may as well explore his addiction. The alcoholic and heroin user too. And what about the pedophile? What do we do with the man who says his true self has been attracted to small children from the time he hit puberty? <\/p>\n\n\n\n My brother and sister-in-law would agree that we shouldn\u2019t condone any behavior that would \u201ccause harm to others.\u201d They\u2019d argue that the trans person is not harming anyone by switching genders. So let\u2019s consider that argument. Would my brother, who has been a man for more than three decades, suddenly becoming a woman<\/em> really not be harmful to anyone? <\/p>\n\n\n\n I suppose that depends on your definition of harmful. Is it harmful to disrupt the mental, emotional, and physical health of everyone <\/em>in your family, both immediate and extended, for months and likely years to come? Is it harmful to raise five small children in a state of psychological confusion in which the person that they thought was one thing is now another, one in which their parents morph from a heterosexual couple to a homosexual couple right before their eyes? Is it harmful for a husband who promised to love and cherish his female<\/em> wife to abandon all responsibilities as the man <\/em>she thought she married? Is it harmful for a father of five to commit a slow form of suicide as he begins to disappear and a new creature (complete with a different name) takes his place? <\/p>\n\n\n\n My tall, handsome, muscular brother began taking strong female hormones that transformed him into a different person. His facial hair stopped growing. He grew breasts instead. As part of his \u201csocial transition\u201d he began wearing dresses, wigs, heels, and makeup in public. He will have to stay on female hormones until the day he dies. He refuses to answer to his former name, Josh. He says Josh is dead. There was even some type of symbolic \u201cburial ceremony\u201d to say goodbye to Josh once and for all. Unfortunately, I didn\u2019t get invited to that. Nor did my parents. No one sent us flowers. No one dropped off a casserole. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The best way to describe what happens when a loved one decides to swap genders is this: it\u2019s as though someone murders your loved one, and then the murderer gets extremely angry if you won\u2019t let them take the victim\u2019s place in your family. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And if we really believe that supporting people on their journey to their \u201ctrue self\u201d is best, what do you suppose our society is going to look like a decade from now? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, the number of \u201cotherkin\u201d (people who identify themselves as half-human, half other species) is growing. A man named John who identifies himself as a fox is now requesting special legal rights that will accommodate his needs as an animal. Surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly), a significant percentage of \u201cotherkin\u201d also identify as transgender. Thus, the argument is easily made that if you support transgender rights, you have <\/em>to support otherkin rights. After all, who are we to say what someone\u2019s true self might really be? And just like transgender individuals, many otherkin are now having surgery to look more and more like the animal or entity they identify with. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If you can legally change the biological sex on your driver\u2019s license, logic says you must<\/em> be allowed to legally change any other trait you like because YOU and you alone know your true identity. This is how we end up with Martina Big and Michael Eurwen from Germany. The couple has undergone many rounds of Melanotan injections, a synthetic hormone that makes the skin darker. Why? Because although reality would tell us that they are both Caucasian, they personally identify<\/em> as being African. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If you Google Martina Big, you will notice she does not appear to be well. Apart from Martina\u2019s attempts to become black, she has also had 23 breast implants (she\u2019s now a size 32 S). Should people continue going along with Martina\u2019s delusions because only she<\/em> can know her true self? Or should people try to get Martina the mental health help she obviously needs? I ask the same question of those in my brother\u2019s circle of friends. <\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/messagemagazinetesthome.wpcomstaging.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/Trans-Symbol.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nProfiting from Transgenderism<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n