Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

America in the Twilight of Truth
“The Tragedy of Transgenderism, Part 1”

Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman, Eagle Forum’s Court Watch
President, Blackstone Institute
September 10, 2017

Do you agree that the following statements that the “transgender” movement in contemporary America is “neo-Nazi, bigoted, misogynist/misandrist, hatemongering cultural terrorism”?  Or are these following quotes with a Judeo-Christian worldview actually the truth and a truly scholarly description of what transgenderism is?

Quote #1: “A form of cultural Marxism,” “an aggressive agenda to destroy Western traditions, values, and norms . . . one which is especially threatening to the Christian faith,” according to Vanderbilt law professor Carol Swain, referring to Vanderbilt’s new “pronoun etiquette policy concerning transgenderism.” Their language policy is designed to support transgendered students at the Nashville university, which is one of many American educational institutions supporting transgenderism through its new (2016) “pronoun standards.” In this “etiquette,” the “he/she” pronoun protocol of Western civilization is being replaced by vacuous terms such as “ze, zir, and zirs.”

Quote #2: That transgenderism is a societal danger of the greatest magnitude has been recognized by a variety of other leaders in American academia. In a 2015 conference, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern [Baptist] Seminary declared that, “We have underestimated the challenge that we’re facing [with the transgenderism movement].” He continued that [this movement] represents the cultural dilemma about gender and sexuality even more clearly than homosexuality. Indeed, this moral revolution has expanded so rapidly that it throws into question the “very existence of biblical Christianity.”

Prof. Swain and Dr. Mohler have solid grounds for their concern about the homosexual/bisexual/transgenderism movement and for their support for what we shall also refer to as “sexual orthodoxy”; that is, the Judeo-Christian truth on transgenderism. In this series of studies on “The Tragedy of Transgenderism,” we shall analyze some the most compelling arguments against the transgenderism movement, which are organized into six categories. Each category focuses on one of the core concepts of a “worldview” – be it Judeo-Christian or Humanistic. The Judeo-Christian position regarding each core concept is clearly superior to the Humanistic position, which leads unarguably to the conclusion that American law and culture must rest on the Judeo-Christian worldview at every point. The core concepts follow a logical order.  These issues are:

  1. Ontology
  2. Cosmology
  3. Epistemology
  4. Anthropology
  5. Teleology
  6. Axiology

NOTE: Each of these core concepts is identified by a label that may initially sound overwhelmingly scholarly and beyond ordinary understanding. This is NOT the case! We academicians love big words; but many of these words, like the ones we use here, have simple meanings that ARE understandable. Please do not be intimidated! Much of America’s Culture War is a “War of Words,” and we in the Judeo-Christian community are in dire need of a vocabulary lesson.  Today we address Issue #1.

ISSUE ONE: ONTOLOGY. This term refers to the essential nature, or meaning, of something. In transgenderism debate, we must start with the very NATURE of the transgenderism issue itself.  Is this issue a “religious” one or not?  By any reasonable standard, the issue is unarguably very religious, as asserted by the Judeo-Christian worldview and the sexual orthodoxy which is one of its central components. The creation of the human body is reported for the first time in Genesis 1:27. The beauty and significance of the body to God is obvious in such Old Testament references as Psalm 100:3 and 139:13-16. The body receives additional significance in the New Testament, where it is repeatedly referred to as the “temple of the Holy Spirit,” a vital dwelling place of God on earth (c.f., , Romans 12:1 and I Thessalonians 4:4). Any fundamental alteration of the nature of the body is a religious issue; a bodily desecration of the most serious nature.

These fundamental facts lie at the very core of the transgenderism fight. But they are very seldom even mentioned in the “mainstream battles” – a disastrous exclusion of necessary truth from the battlefield. “God” and the “Bible” are inherently religious. To argue, as do Humanists, against the existence or nature of God as depicted in orthodox Christianity, especially His act of creation, does not render the Humanistic arguments secular – the arguments simple embody a religious position opposite to that of the position of Biblical advocates of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Since God and the Bible are an inseparable part of the core of the transgenderism debate, transgenderism is an inherently “religious issue.” Any debate on transgenderism – in the public square or in the law courts — must acknowledge this religious component.

Furthermore, the Judeo-Christian community MUST be far better educated in basic Christian apologetics (that is, we must defend our beliefs), including the defense of our inherent sexual nature. For example, we must be prepared to defend the existence and nature of God as pictured by throughout the Bible. Plus, we must be prepared to defend a “high view” of the Bible’s authorship, authenticity, authority, accuracy, and applicability in every realm of life, including – and especially — the bitter, climactic debates in the transgenderism battle.

A splendid step in that direction is embodied in the publication on August 29, 2017, of the Nashville Statement. This brief, 14-point declaration has been drafted and signed by a diverse coalition of over 150 Evangelical Christian leaders in support of the sexual orthodoxy position. The Nashville Statement is superb in content and style, stating clearly, but with love and compassion for homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered individuals, the case for sexual orthodoxy. This statement should be extensively utilized by our Judeo-Christian community in any debates on sexual confusion.

Finally, as this battle blazes on, of critical importance, will be the federal courts. The only transgenderism case to reach the U.S. Supreme court thus far is the Grimm case (Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., by his next friend and Mother, Deirdre Grimm, 2017). This case involves a female student wanting to transgender to male in the Gloucester County [Virginia] schools. Grimm has already followed a convoluted path, with a federal district court, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Trump Administration interacting, the result being that Grimm was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  In February 2017, the Supreme Court, in a 43-word pronouncement, refused to hear the case at that time, sending it back to the Fourth Circuit for further consideration.  When the case returns to the Supremes with Grimm’s request for a full hearing, the Supremes’ decision will be of monumental importance.

Regardless of that one decision, the “marching orders” of the Judeo-Christian community are clear. These orders have been eloquently proclaimed by Oliver O’Donovan of the University of Edinburgh: “A Christianity which will bear witness to God’s Word in Jesus will be a speaking, thinking, arguing, debating Christianity, which will not be afraid to engage in intellectual and philosophical contest with the prevailing dogmas of its day.”

The Nashville Statement may be read at    An excellent broad picture of the movement itself is available at http://net/49446/evangelicals-counter-agree-to-disagree-sexuality