To replace real, biological sex with subjective feelings about who one is and mandating that people accept and act on this in public life is, as Emilie Kao of the Heritage Foundation recently observed, not the result of new scientific discoveries or thoughtful public debate. It is a radical and coercive decree, which amounts to “gaslighting reality.”  It is, as a recent article by this writer reviewed, a replacement of reason with raw will.

he sexual revolution is poised to wipe away any religious freedom against sexual license with two acts: the Equality Act (H.R. 5), and a follow up Do No Harm Act (H.R. 1450). Together with the campaign against “conversion therapy,” the meaning of which  is being radically expanded to cover any expression of traditional sexual morality, both words and actions in accord with God’s commands in Scripture against sexual immorality will be forbidden. Unsurprisingly, as reviewed in a recent article, this legislation is opposed by religious groups holding to an orthodox, historic understanding of their faith, and supported by religious groups advancing a post-1960s, revisionist understanding.

It might be called a sexual dictatorship, but as has been noted before, transgenderism abolishes sex by making it self-defined (it is “violence” to classify someone against their will). The true violence, of course, is advancing self-will against reality. Thus, what is happening is more properly described as a tyranny of the self. The “dignity” that is endlessly claimed is based not on who we are, but who we say we are.

The dictatorial self will be groomed by the entertainment industry, the educational system, and social media to see itself as preeminently sexual, and valorize the latest sexual identity trends as sources of meaning and hope and pleasure.

As noted in earlier articles, the claim of civil rights for sexual behavior involves the impossible project of conflating people with their behavior. Personal behavior and inclination simply cannot be free and equal. Complete anarchy would prevail, with no question of “harm,” because there can be no adverse judgment (discrimination) against a protected category. The instability of the “LGBT” initialism, with varying letters added to it, and sometimes a plus sign, shows this.

Instead of any principled argument from liberty or equality, what has happened is that the religious and popular condemnation of homosexuality has been judged cruel on the basis of liberal sensibility and made into a civil rights category. Our nation’s long history of religious freedom and liberty of conscience would reasonably mandate exemption from complicity in homosexual (and now transgender) behavior. The First Amendment’s protection of the “free exercise of religion,” which its principal author, James Madison, explained includes action as well as belief, would reasonably mandate the same thing, however pained or offended anyone is. But the point for LGBT liberation is not civil rights, but the destruction of traditional sexual morality. Therefore with skilled and seasoned legal support, and few exceptions, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, declining complicity in homosexual or transgender behavior has been judged discrimination against persons.

The bill’s radical scope is clearly stated (Sec. 3 (a)(2)(c)(4)) as prohibiting “discrimination or segregation in public accommodations” based on sexual orientation and gender identity – and as commonly interpreted by the courts, including discrimination against associated personal behaviors – in:

“any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services.”

and Sec. 3 (a)(2)(c)(5):

“any train service, bus service, car service, taxi service, airline service, station, depot, or other place of or establishment that provides transportation service.”

Read More