Master & Meaning: Flags, Language, and the Issue of Authority

*Audio Available* Owen Barfield, Humpty Dumpty +FAQ's

I wanted to record audio for this post for two reasons: first, because it’s a little long and I thought if you didn’t have time to read, you could listen, and second, because I wanted you to hear my voice. We need to have these conversations as a community, and the more human these conversations can be, the better. I think we need to see each other’s faces and hear each other’s voices as much as possible. Simply reading text at times can be limiting. This particular post is an attempt to help Christians who are finding it difficult to understand and navigate a rapidly changing culture, particularly surrounding the LGBTQ language and movement. If you don’t think you would be helped by that, that is ok, this may not be the post for you.

I know these conversations are difficult, but I think they’re absolutely essential. I know they can be hard and feel heavy, but we must have them. We cannot claim to be a true gospel community and then shut down when things get hard; we will not experience true gospel culture if we simply survive by avoiding these conversations. One of best pieces of advice I have been given on how to navigate in our culture today, is to have these challenging conversations with your friends and loved ones BEFORE the world puts you in a place of compromise. Because if you draw your lines before you are put in that position, you’re more likely to make a wise and faithful choice. If not, you’re much more likely to compromise on what you believe. As I’ve said before, my primary purpose for writing is to catalyze more conversation around these issues, so here is an offering, something I’ve been thinking about and want to add to this challenging conversation. Let’s jump in.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master- that is all.”

-Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

---

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

-Inigo Montoya

Unraveling

Today, we are witnessing the total collapse of language and shared agreement on the meaning of words and symbols; we may use the same words, but we define them using our own personal dictionaries. Consequently, there is a very deep and abiding contradiction that is always with us: the words and symbols we all collectively use to communicate with one another, only have the meaning that we as individuals attribute to them. We are having a real Tower of Babel¹ moment, only the difference today is, we are still technically using the same language. Today, we may all use the same word, but often cannot agree at all on what that thing is. This is a real problem; we cannot even agree on the meaning of some of the most fundamental components of reality: “woman”, “marriage” and “person” are all on the table, or, no longer have any real meaning at all. Our ability to agree on the meaning of things that we see and say, is unraveling.

Saving the Appearances

Owen Barfield, one of the “Inklings” who had a large part in converting C.S Lewis to Christianity, wrote a book called “Saving the Appearances”. In that book Barfield speaks about “collective representations”. “Collective representation” is philosophy speak for “a symbol that articulates and embodies the collective beliefs, sentiments, and values of a social group”². A perfect example of this would be a flag. Any people of any country can look at their nation’s flag, and although they may have mixed feelings about it, they will collectively share an understanding of what that flag means.

Barfield argues that collective representations help us understand what is truly real. Ironically enough he uses an analogy of a rainbow to make his point. He says if a man walks out of his front door and sees a rainbow, how can he be sure it is really there? One way is that his neighbor also walks out of his front door and says “wow, look at that rainbow!” The shared experience of the rainbow helps us know it is real, and not a schizophrenic hallucination or a dream. 

Today, it is interesting to hear words like “mass psychosis” used to describe this strange cultural moment we find ourselves in. But “mass psychosis” is just another way to explain what Barfield would have recognized as a complete breakdown of collective representations. We no longer experience a shared understanding of what things actually mean, even very basic things. Perhaps we are not experiencing a society-wide psychotic episode, but just like in the story of the Tower of Babel our language has been deeply confused and we are unable to clearly communicate with each other, we are scattered, and so at times it can certainly feel like we’ve gone mad. 

Flag

But words and symbols do mean something outside of our own individual interpretation. And it is possible to have a shared agreement on what words and symbols mean. Journey with me on what may be an uncomfortable, but hopefully clarifying thought experiment. I’ve recently wondered, was it always wrong to fly the Nazi flag? Hear me out. The Nazi flag, that we know and rightfully despise, became the Nazi party’s flag in 1920 and then later became Germany’s official national flag in 1933. But Auschwitz II wasn’t established for the “extermination of the Jews” until October of 1941. So then, from 1920 until 1941 was it always wrong for everyone to fly that flag? Of course today almost everyone would rightfully say it is clearly wrong to fly that flag, but was it just as wrong in 1920? Or 1933?

What if someone in 1933 did not attribute anti-Semitic beliefs to the flag but instead interpreted that flag to mostly symbolize national solidarity, German pride, a vision of rebuilding after WWI, a strong economy, far-right social values, was that evil or morally wrong in an absolute sense? Maybe not. So then my next question is, how many Jews had to be murdered before that flag became a clear and obvious representation of absolute evil? 1?  1,000? A million? At some point, we all agreed that this flag was a clear and obvious representation of something truly evil in the most absolute and objective sense. And even still today, when it is almost impossible to agree on the meaning of some of the most basic things, just about everyone would agree the Nazi flag represents objective and absolute evil. 

So today under the banner of the new “progress flag” (pictured at the top), a broad cultural symbol of the LGBTQ movement, children who identify as “transgender” are receiving medical “treatment” that ends up sterilizing them. We wince at this but it is real and happening and important to look at. When children begin “medically transitioning” they are prescribed what are called “puberty blockers” and studies show that 98-100% of those children eventually graduate from taking puberty blockers to taking what are called “cross-sex hormones”³. According to the latest “guidance” from the “experts” this process can begin as early as eight years old.⁴ The cross-sex hormones begin to reconfigure their physical body in an effort to either feminize or masculinize their form. After just a few months of taking cross-sex hormones, the chances of becoming infertile become very high; in most cases, cross-sex hormones sterilize the person, ending their procreative potential. This is evidenced by the fact that most major medical bodies that speak on trans issues recommend freezing the person’s sperm or eggs before taking cross-sex hormones⁵. 

So to conclude our thought experiment, my question becomes, how many children do we need to sterilize in the name of “progress” before we all agree that the progress flag represents something reprehensible and morally wrong? 1? 1,000? A million? Let me say this another way. We are now in the year 2024. If in 20 years from now in the year 2044 we find that we have sterilized six million children in the name of “progress”, will we then be able to agree that this flag represents something evil and that it is morally wrong to fly it? My point is not that Nazi Germany and transgenderism are the same, what happened in Nazi Germany is certainly worse. My point here is about the power and meaning of a symbol, in this case a flag, and what it can come to represent over time. If we keep going down this road of medicalizing and sterilizing children, when will this symbol, the progress flag, be one that we all agree collectively represents something truly evil in an objective and absolute sense?

Language as Tech

Many people would agree with me on the deeper issue here; that queer theory and transgender ideology is false and dangerous. But many of those same people may not agree with me on how to apply these beliefs in everyday life. For example, I will not put pronouns or the progress/rainbow flag in my email signature at work, nor will I recite the LGBTQ catechisms “sex assigned at birth” or “gender identity”. To articulate all of my reasons for not doing so would take time and space that I don’t have here right now, so I’ll leave that for another post. But my point here is that some people who may agree with me on the deeper issue may not see the harm in using pronouns, the progress flag, using the language etc. which I understand, even if I ultimately disagree.

I recently got into a long debate with a good friend about this. My friend agrees with me on the deeper issue but disagrees with my position on how to apply these beliefs in everyday life. This friend works in I.T. so I used a metaphor about technology to explain one reason why I will not use the trans jargon. 

Think for a moment about how technology fundamentally changes the world. Take music as an example. Even 75 years ago, music was largely a corporate experience. In the classical world, people would all gather at a cathedral or arena to listen to music, a choir, an orchestra, an opera. It was fundamentally a shared experience. People all experienced music together and in the same way. The songs were all heard in the same order, at the same time and at the same volume. Now compare that to how we experience music today. Technology has almost completely changed the way we experience music. We put our AirPods in, we mostly experience music completely alone, we are in full control of the volume, the order of the songs, the genre of the music. In this way, technology has completely changed the way we experience music. 

I made the case to my friend that the same principle applies to language. Language is a form of technology. The words we use shape how we think and see the world. The Church has understood this for centuries, which is why catechism remains a central method to form the minds and hearts of Christians. Our postmodern culture clearly understands this as well, which is why the newspeak⁶ exists in a constant rotation, and why language is always at the forefront of the public discourse. Words that were appropriate even 5 or 10 years ago are replaced with newer, better words that operate to shape and mold reality to more modern, fashionable values like “inclusivity” or “diversity”. For example, “Person of color” is the new “African American”. And sometimes, the same word is “reclaimed” and redeemed. So, the old “queer” was bigoted and offensive, but the new “queer” is affirming and empowering.

That language powerfully shapes our thinking is something our post-modern world deeply understands and appreciates, even if they have the wrong end or purpose in mind. Words are worth fighting over. G.K. Chesterton once said, 

"Why shouldn't we quarrel about a word? What is the good of words if they aren't important enough to quarrel over? Why do we choose one word more than another if there isn't any difference between them? If you called a woman a chimpanzee instead of an angel, wouldn't there be a quarrel about a word? If you're not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only things worth fighting about." (emphasis mine)

- G.K. Chesterton, The Ball and the Cross

It is difficult to overstate the level of influence that language has on the way we think and see the world; our morality, our values, our entire worldview is shaped by the words we use, or do not use. Therefore, it is mistaken to think that you can thoughtlessly use this new ideological language and it will have no effect on the way you think about these issues. So, although I am not prepared to tell someone they are morally wrong for using a neologism like “gender identity” in a serious way, I don’t think it is wise or advisable unless you’re able to parse out exactly what you mean when you say it. If you don’t stop and explain that “gender identity” signifies the false anthropology of transgenderism - the view that a person’s sex and gender can and should be seen independently from one another rather than interdependently - then the person you’re speaking to may wrongfully assume you have embraced this gnostic and mistaken understanding of what a human is.

In market terms, our culture’s supply of confusion, has created a high demand for wisdom and prudence. It is better to be intentional and clear with our language and use words that articulate a true and moral vision of reality, as best as we can. Clarity is charity, so love your neighbor well by being clear, careful and intentional with your words. Words matter, language is a powerful technology, do not be deceived in thinking anything less⁷. 

The Law of Noncontradiction

Aristotle is responsible for the logical “principle of non-contradiction”. Essentially this law states that assertions that contradict one another cannot both be true at the same time. For example, “x is the case” and “x is not the case” cannot both be true, they contradict each other and are therefore mutually exclusive. I think this principle applies here to our discussion on the progress flag and LGBTQ language. And how our culture’s expressive individualist⁸ impulse leads to the breakdown of agreement, where words and symbols only have the meaning that each individual person chooses to attribute to them.

For instance, I have come to see the progress flag as a representation of something false, dangerous, and harmful. Friends of mine believe it can be a symbol of safety, welcome, and inclusion for sexual minorities; in other words they see it as something that can be good. The challenge is, I am fairly certain that ultimately, we cannot both be correct. 

In other words, Aristotle’s principle of non contradiction refutes the animating principle of expressive individualism: “the progress flag is good” and “the progress flag is not good” cannot both be true today. 

The Question

Humpty Dumpty points us to the crucial question: who gets the final say on what words and symbols mean? Dumpty rightfully highlights that ultimately this is an issue of authority. Who determines the standard against which we weigh the moral value and meaning of the words and symbols we use in everyday life? The government? History and tradition? Does each atomized individual get to determine that for themselves based upon their lived experience? Is, or is not, the moral standard we use attached to any fixed, objective reality or does it simply change over time depending on the shared intuition of the people using those words and symbols? Does Humpty Dumpty get the final say?

Christians believe that we have the living and active Word of God, the Church, and the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us. Whether or not you are religious, one thing is certain: everyone must have a standard. If you speak or communicate in any way, then you presuppose that those words mean something and that they get that meaning from somewhere. It is impossible for this not to be the case. Even if the standard is your own personal interpretation or feeling in a particular moment, every person must appeal to some standard that determines what the words that they use mean.

Nonreligious people can appeal to the natural law and the observable order of the cosmos. In other words, you don’t necessarily need a deep and accurate exegesis of the book of Genesis to understand that queer theory and trans ideology are wrong and dangerous. I think at some level, we all know it’s bad. One way this can be seen is through the constant use of the word “dysphoric” to explain the experience of transgenderism. This word is essentially clinical jargon for “not how it should be”. Many atheists and secular people are also pushing back on the medicalization of children and adults who are confused about their sex and gender.

Conclusion

Even though Barfield was writing in the 50’s, he saw from a great distance the beginning of this complete breakdown of collective representations and shared agreement. I don’t think he would be surprised by what is happening today. When people cannot communicate, expect chaos.

I think, at some level, we all know that it is possible to come to a shared understanding on these issues. We need to level with ourselves, talk with each other, pray and repent from our faith in the false gospel of expressive individualism. In the quote above, Humpty Dumpty perfectly expresses the essence of expressive individualism; where words mean only what we say they mean. In difficult conversations today about LGBTQ language or the use of the rainbow/progress flags, you may hear things like “But that’s not what it means to me”. This points to the chaotic nature of our language today and the breakdown of agreement.

But there can only be one true gospel, one final hope for agreement and understanding, one Master who gives meaning to life. In a culture governed by the false gospel of expressive individualism, “lived experience” is the highest form of moral authority. “You can’t deny my lived experience” is the ever present trump card used to veto conversations. But we need to view our individual lived experience through the lens of the gospel and the word of God, not the other way around. The more that we submit to the word of God, the closer we will get to a shared understanding of what is evil or good, what is true, and what is false. And the more we will be able to live faithfully and truly love our neighbor. 

My prayer is “Lord, give us the humility, courage, and love that we need to attempt this act of submission. And may we repent and believe in the One True Gospel, for the love of God and our neighbor.”

FAQ’s

I wanted to take a moment and respond to a few of the objections or questions that I hear the most. You may soon find yourself in a position where someone asks you one of these questions. My hope is that maybe seeing me process through some answers here may help you. 

1.     “This doesn’t sound very loving, aren’t you just punching down?” 

I understand this is difficult, and I know my language here can sound bold and terse at times. Also, I am not making the claim that I cannot be wrong or challenged here, in fact I genuinely hope people do challenge me. I do not at all believe that I have a monopoly on truth or that I have perfect cultural insight. The claim I am making here is that it’s not loving your neighbor to send any signal whatsoever that the medicalization and sterilization of the sexually confused is ok. And whether we want to accept it or not, some of the new language as well as the progress flag does in fact represent and signal approval of that movement. You can try your best to scrub the meaning of those colors from the flag, but I’m afraid they’re not going anywhere. To fly a flag that clearly represents a fatal lie that true freedom happens when we are liberated from all moral or religious standards, when we are unbounded by the “oppression” of nature itself, is not loving your neighbor. It is dangerous and unsafe; God’s design is the only safe place. I believe it is loving and just to openly oppose it (especially for the vulnerable children scandalized by this movement).

Empathy is a beautiful thing. God Himself came down from heaven and took on flesh, it doesn’t get more empathetic than that, but he did not sin. When empathy is untethered from God’s truth, it can be very dangerous. There seems to be a gnarly strain of empathy today, even inside the church, clouding our ability to judge what is good and evil, and when that happens, it becomes difficult to truly love your neighbor and honor God. I can promise you that I have given this a tremendous amount of thought and consideration, nothing I am saying here is impulsive or reactionary. I do sense this issue is pressing so you may hear a sense of urgency in my tone. But I can say with honesty, I truly believe there is a good reason for that, and I am doing my best to approach this topic with sincerity and a genuine heart.  

2.     “Doesn’t the progress flag represent many groups, not just trans people?”

Of course, many other groups and movements are represented by the progress flag, and the transgender colors are only a few of many colors on the flag. I do understand the flag is meant to be a collection of several, marginalized racial and sexual minority groups. I also understand as a Christian that God has a special place in His heart for the poor and needy, the fatherless, widows, imprisoned, the oppressed etc. This is all true and beautiful. But this truth does not exclude or nullify other truths. For example, that we are to “speak the truth in love” and “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Ephesians 5). To read a full critique on what I see as another deeper issue here, which is our culture’s fixation with the postmodern oppressor/oppressed binary, click to read a piece I wrote called Reclaiming the Pre-Political. I’m aware that those with same-sex desires, the BLM movement, and communities with genetic abnormalities like intersex people all have stripes on that flag. But the flag broadly is a representation of critical and queer theory. The flag represents a deep belief that we can be completely unshackled from any religious and moral sexual codes or ethics, even ones that protect children⁹. And that we can be emancipated from the “oppression” of nature itself. This is our Tower of Babel, our culture’s attempt to transcend the finitude of humanness through human innovation. And the transgender movement animates the flag in a powerful and distinct way¹⁰ and highlights the real danger that lives under the queer theory/progress flag umbrella¹¹. My main point about the progress flag is that we can deduce, using a host of tools and gifts God has given to us (wisdom, prudence, God’s Word and Spirit, our rational faculties, intellect, reasoning etc.) that this flag has come to represent something dangerous and unnatural, and that it’s meaning is becoming progressively more pernicious by the day. And to not see this flag as a Trojan Horse for all sorts of dangerous and damaging movements, including the push to “medically transition” children would be a serious, category error. 

3.     “Don’t your words call for violence against trans people and erase their existence?” 

Me and someone who would say that I’m “erasing a trans person’s existence” would have a fundamental, anthropological¹² disagreement on what a person is. A traditional Christian anthropology defines a human as a hylomorphic being, equal parts matter and form, material and immaterial; we are body and soul composites, equally both, and they are unalterable and intended to be in harmony with one another. Biblically, a person is a human created in the image of God who has been gifted a sexed body as either male or female. Scripture clearly teaches that this is good. A person who holds to a transgender anthropology believes something fundamentally different; that a person is essentially a disembodied will, and that we have this unproveable gendered essence inside of us that determines who we truly are. And this inner essence (they’re really talking about a soul but would never use that word) can and should be seen independently from the body. The trans movement today takes it a step further and declares that if a person’s inner essence and their body are in opposition, it is the body that should be brought into alignment with the person’s inner, truer self. This is a fundamental disagreement on what a human being is.

I don’t believe I can erase a trans person’s existence because I do not accept the transgender premise of what a person is. I’m not refusing to acknowledge their experience, their experience may be very real. I am disagreeing with their assertion that their experience determines our reality. I am putting my finger on what is clearly a deep anthropological dispute. I hold to traditional Christian belief about personhood: that we are all people, created in the image of God, male or female, made to reflect and glorify Him. That being said, of course we live in a fallen world and there are all kinds of people with serious psychological and physiological issues that need help. There are people who experience a deep dysphoric tension between their sex and gender, and they persistently feel like they are in the wrong body, that is a real experience. They should receive appropriate treatment they need from doctors along with compassionate care and active support from friends, family, and their church. But it is never helpful to affirm someone’s dysphoria. That will inevitably lead to harm. That is cruelty, done in the name of care¹³. 

4.     The “wouldn’t you rather have a living son, than a dead daughter?” question and suicidality. 

“‘If you leave me, I will kill myself.’ The National Domestic Abuse Hotline says ‘if your partner regularly threatens suicide, particularly whenever you're not doing something he or she wants you to do’, this is a form of emotional abuse typical of Borderline Personality Disorder.”

I pulled this from an X/Twitter account of a “de-transitioner” named Ray Alex Williams who was quoting the National Domestic Abuse Hotline. (Someone who has “de-transitioned” is a person who medically transitioned but then stopped those treatments and transitioned back to their original state. For example, a man that “transitioned” to a woman and then back to a man as in the case of Williams.) 

This is emotional blackmail, plain and simple, and is often taught as a script to teens by YouTube influencers and TikTok-ers, sometimes even by doctors or therapists. They are instructed to say these things to get what they want: cooperation with new name and pronouns, puberty blockers etc. It cannot be both a completely unacceptable argument from an abusive partner, and also a legitimate argument from your confused teen. It is manipulative, unfair and emotionally abusive. 

There is not yet a single widely accepted, long term study that shows that when a person transitions, it positively affects their mental health outcomes over a long period of time. There are in fact studies that show the opposite, (click here OR here), that transitioning increases a person’s anxiety about their gender and produces negative mental health outcomes. From what I see, opinions and consensus on whether or not transitioning has long term positive mental health outcomes varies as wide as the eye can see. As far as studies go, you can find whatever you’re looking for. But my question is, do we, especially as Christians, need a peer reviewed study to confirm that it is ok to sterilize a child because of their inner sense of self? Is that what will have the final say or really make the difference in shaping our worldview on sex and gender?  

5.     “Who are you to judge? Doesn’t Jesus say, ‘judge not lest ye be judged’?”

He does say that. And I am in no way trying to stand on any moral high ground here. I, like everyone, was dead in my sins, hopelessly enslaved to my own disordered desires (some of which I still struggle with). And Christ rescued me, freed me, gave me a way out, and brought me back to life. I am not my own, I was bought with a price. I was adopted into a Family, I am not the Master of the house, and I do not set the rules. My intention here is to challenge what I see as a broad cultural acceptance of language and symbols that represent something false and harmful, especially inside the Church. Also, I’m attempting to challenge the modern orthodoxy of Expressive Individualism which dictates, like Humpty Dumpty, that words and symbols fundamentally mean whatever the individual person using them believes they mean. And I am cautioning people against thoughtlessly embracing and using the LGBTQ language and flags, whether they are unaware or willfully ignorant of the power that language has in shaping our minds and hearts. 

6.     “Aren’t you a Christian? Aren’t you called to love your neighbor?” 

You can accept your neighbor without affirming your neighbor’s confused identity or disordered desires. You can listen to, build relationship with, pray for, have compassion for them. And if they open the door, you can speak the truth to them in love. We must be good listeners, but not only listeners. At some point, if and when given an opportunity, we should be prepared to share God’s truth. Of course we should share the gospel gracefully, maybe even creatively, slowly or in stages, and with much wisdom. But it is not loving your neighbor to tacitly endorse every deep desire or inner sense they have, especially if it directly leads to the mutilation of their body, the scandalizing of their soul, and damages their most precious and important relationships. It is not loving your neighbor to signal your support for something that is ultimately harmful to them.

---

Thank you so much for reading. If you read this and have a thought, please leave a comment here or email me (below). My primary motivation for writing is to create more good conversation around cultural, theological and political issues. I would love to hear your thoughts.

jeffreycharlescaldwell@gmail.com

1. Genesis 11:1-9 CSB

The whole earth had the same language and vocabulary. 2 As people migrated from the east,[a] they found a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make oven-fired bricks.” (They used brick for stone and asphalt for mortar.) 4 And they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky. Let’s make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we will be scattered throughout the earth.”

5 Then the Lord came down to look over the city and the tower that the humans[b] were building. 6 The Lord said, “If they have begun to do this as one people all having the same language, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let’s go down there and confuse their language so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So from there the Lord scattered them throughout the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 Therefore it is called Babylon,[c][d] for there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth, and from there the Lord scattered them throughout the earth.

2. Merriam-Webster

3. https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/statsforgender.org__;!!BVlYjipjli5gsg!FMP14OOZmnJjWCBOE-pGH6wPVXBBgJcYgEP5ZEOewTmb9hrAmEwbwmphmjV07W3w-QgL56LqGmQVSmdv6Ps04P5cjpw$

4. https://apnews.com/article/gender-transition-treatment-guidelines-9dbe54f670a3a0f5f2831c2bf14f9bbb

5. https://transcare.ucsf.edu/

6. Roger Scruton once said “Newspeak is whenever the primary purpose of language, which is to describe reality, is replaced by the rival purpose of asserting power over it”

7. American novelist Erica Jong once said “Language matters, because whoever controls the words controls the conversation, because whoever controls the conversation controls it’s outcome, because whoever frames that debate has already won it, because telling the truth has become harder and harder to achieve in an America drowning in Orwellian newspeak” 

8. Charles Taylor on expressive individualism “I mean the understanding of life which emerges with the Romantic expressivism of the late-eighteenth century, that each one of us has his/her own way of realizing our humanity, and that it is important to find and live out one’s own, as against surrendering to conformity with a model imposed on us from outside, by society, or the previous generation, or religious or political authority.” Click here to read more

9. The relationship between queer theory and pedophilia is well documented. Like any movement you can look to it’s history, tradition and architecture. Michel Foucault colloquially known as the “godfather of queer theory” for instance argued for the eradication of age of consent laws, even for infants. Gayle Rubin known for drafting some of the founding documents of queer theory once said “like communists and homosexuals of the 1950’s, boy-lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders of their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation” she later compared pedophilic desires to a preference for spicy foods. To my knowledge, zero queer theorists including the most famous Judith Butler have spoken out strongly against pedophilia. This information is mostly sourced from the work of professor, writer, activist Derrick Jensen from California, click to watch a clip from a lecture he gave titled Queer Theory Jeopardy . Another excellent book for Christians that I’ve read on this issue is “Gender Ideology” by Sharon James

10. I think this can be clearly seen when you examine the implementation of LGBTQ policy, which is often couched in the transgender movement: Bill C16 in Canada was mostly regulating speech related to transgenderism, the only policies that are mandated at my workplace are SOGI policies where we are required to use trans oriented language “what is your sex assigned at birth” and “what is your gender identity”, policy about girls’ sports, public facilities (bathrooms, prisons, locker rooms, libraries) often take center stage. The cover of the December 2011 issue of Time magazine read “Transgender People: The Next Frontier in Civil Rights”.

11. The history and design of the rainbow and progress flags also support my claim that transgenderism animates the progress flag in a unique and powerful way. The original rainbow flag created in 1978 was six color stripes that represented values, for example red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight etc. and was intended to be a symbol of hope. The progress flag was designed in 2018 by a man named Daniel Quasar and Quasar’s progress flag added a 5-line chevron on the left of the flag that points to the right to signify progress. The 5 new lines represent identities, not values like the original rainbow flag. This was a critique of the new progress flag even from within the LGBTQ community. The very first three colors (white, light blue, pink) of the chevron represent non-binary and transgender people (it’s worth noting that Quasar identifies as non-binary), and the last two colors (brown and black) represent marginalized people of color. The Victoria and Albert Museum website has a good synopsis of this history click here to read, they explain that the purpose of the chevron was to “place discriminated minorities at the forefront”, and at the very forefront, those at the very top, are transgender and non-binary people. They also are the group most at risk for dangerous medical treatments and surgeries: for transgender people that includes blockers, hormones, hysterectomies, double mastectomies, phalloplasty’s, vaginoplasties and more. For non-binary, it includes previously listed procedures plus controversial “gender nullification” surgeries. I would argue all of this supports the claim that the trans movement is clearly the darling of the progress flag, adding to its problematic nature, especially for Christians.

12. Merriam Webster. To clarify, when I use the word “anthropology” here, I am using the theological term seen below with definition #2. Anthropology: 1. the science of human beings especially : the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture. 2. theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings.

13. An important reminder, the word “transgender” is best seen as an umbrella term and can include a wide variety of people and dispositions. It can include men who are sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women, who may dress up as a woman for that reason, this is called Autogynephilia. It also includes teen/adolescents, (mostly) girls, who are experiencing what has been called “rapid onset gender dysphoria” ROGD driven heavily by an internet-fueled social contagion among that group. It also includes, as I mentioned above, people who legitimately experience a deep, lasting sense of discomfort (dysphoria), and that their sexed body does not match their gender. Historically this was an extraordinarily small group of people, almost all were very young boys who from an early age persistently expressed discomfort with their sex.  They deserve our compassion and quality mental health treatment.