Um, No: Rachel Dolezal, Caitlyn Jenner, & the Pregnant Man

Caitlyn Jenner-Vanity Fair

‘Not in Kansas anymore…

The timing of the Rachel Dolezal controversy is unbelievable. It broke just days after Bruce Jenner instructed the world to call him Caitlyn, and announced that he is the new normal.

See? There is a God.

Both Rachel and Bruce claim a mental identity that does not conform to their physical bodies. From the trans perspective, one’s mental identity apparently trumps everything else. But then why isn’t anyone calling Rachel brave and courageous? Why isn’t everyone congratulating Rachel for living out her true self? Why is everyone disrespecting Rachel by continuing to refer to her as white? Why isn’t Rachel the new new normal?

Why does the person who has enjoyed the benefits of being a white male for his entire life now get to enjoy renewed celebrity status as a “woman,” while the white woman who has lived her life and served as a black woman gets publicly shamed and put in her place? After all, Rachel’s claim is far less extreme than Bruce’s.

Just to be clear, I remain unconvinced that Bruce is a woman, or that Rachel is black. I’m just trying to follow the “progressive” logic.

As it turns out, this is not possible.

Yahoo News quoted Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D., on “transracialism” :

Applying this concept to race makes little sense to me. ‘Trans’ refers to a lack of fit between biology and identity, but there is no biology involved in race.”

Wait…What? I wonder how white slave owners avoided accidentally enslaving other white people?

On CNN Tonight, Montel Williams repeatedly called Dolezal a liar: “It’s a costume…She’s a liar.”

Uh…Apparently Montel didn’t get the trans memo. He’s calling her a liar just because she has a white body. But the way the trans thing works is, if she mentally identifies as black, then she’s black. She gets to say who she is. It’s called self-determination. This is why Jenner can say he’s a woman even though he has XY chromosomes and can pee while standing up.

Here is an indignant Zeba Blay, writing for the Huff Post:

“Transracial identity is a concept that allows white people to indulge in blackness as a commodity, without having to actually engage with every facet of what being black entails — discrimination, marginalization, oppression, and so on. It plays into racial stereotypes, and perpetuates the false idea that it is possible to “feel” a race.”

Ummm…but…You can make each of those same arguments about Bruce Jenner, who up until now has spent his entire life being treated as a privileged white male. Also, look at 65-year-old Bruce on the cover of Vanity Fair and explain how he is not “playing into [sexual] stereotypes.” And why is “feeling” race a false idea, but “feeling” gender is not?

I don’t necessarily disagree with Zeba’s conclusions, but if she wants to support the LBGTQ agenda, she’s going to have to trash Dolezal with arguments that don’t also trash transgender people. If Dolezal claims to “identify as black,” Zeba can’t say she’s pretending, or lying, or mentally ill, at least not if Zeba wants to be a good liberal.

The issue here is that some people internally identify in ways that do not correspond with their physical bodies. I can tolerate that. The question is, “Should everyone else have to celebrate, normalize, and go along with this when it occurs?”

In the case of transgenderism, the practical question is “should we turn the culture upside down, overhaul language, and obliterate the nuclear family in order to accommodate trans people?” I think that’s asking an awful lot.

I’m sure by now you’ve heard of mansplaining. That’s the derogatory feminist term for men explaining to women how they should think.

Well, I’d like to coin a new term: transplaining. That’s my derogatory term for transgenders (usually biological men) explaining to women how they should think.

You might object, “but LGBTQ people are a misunderstood and persecuted minority. They deserve a voice, and it’s trans people who should explain their experience to the rest of the population.”

I’m fine with that. But we must also reserve the right for people to respectfully disagree with LGBTQ people about their opinions. Nobody gets to control what other people think.

On one level, this is not even a mysterious issue.

Here’s the deal. Within the human experience there is a fundamental reality called sexual reproduction. It depends upon the complementary male and female halves of humanity coming together. This is undeniable. It is undeniable because it is undeniably the reason we are still here. This must be a starting place for understanding normal human sexual experience over millennia. It is ground zero for a healthy grasp of the basic shape of reality if we’re going to continue to have a field called biology.

It’s true that this does not describe the personal experience of the less than 5 percent of the population who identify as gay, or for the even smaller percentage who identify as gender-variant. However, “not fitting” does not place them outside of the scope of humanity. According to my biblical worldview, they are intrinsically valuable individuals, with a right to express themselves. They deserve the same freedoms and protections as everyone else. But they do not have a right to redefine reality, sexuality, and marriage for the general population, and certainly not for our children. No one does.

They have a right to say, “The gender binary is a completely outdated social construct.”

I have a right to say that statement is ridiculous.

I do not deny that trans people are experiencing gender dysphoria. I certainly don’t think they choose it. I understand that choosing to live as the gender with which they mentally identify is an attempt to bring coherence to their experience. But the general culture stands to lose too much if we deconstruct the gender binary model. Too much depends on it.

This is especially so when the gender binary mainstream isn’t broken. It’s working just fine for the vast majority of people. In a pluralistic culture, the mainstream’s response to transgenderism should not be hate or division, but compassion and human acceptance of the persons involved. At the same time, we are not obligated to buy into the transplaining. This idea that we must either participate in the prevailing LGBTQ political perspective, or else we must hate LGBTQ people, is a false dichotomy. It’s an idea that needs to die a thousand very public deaths.

Un-muddying the water
There is more than one way to look at this stuff. Let’s consider another new and amazing groundbreaking hero who is arguably not all that new or amazing – the world’s first pregnant man.

Thomas Beatie, (born Tracy, a biological female,) while “transitioning to a man,” decided to keep her uterus because she wanted to have children someday. In 2008 “He” appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show while pregnant with “his” first child, and was introduced as the world’s first pregnant man. Beatie has since birthed 2 more babies…

Whoa, mama. Let’s stop the train right there.

I realize it’s politically incorrect to put the word he and him in quotes, because Thomas wants to be referred to as a man. But this is exactly the point. We’re expected to agree that Beatie is a man when it’s at least just as reasonable to say that Beatie is a surgically and chemically altered woman. The fact that she didn’t want to let go of her working uterus kind of gives away the game. (Not that it’s a game.) If there is anything that is distinctly and uniquely female, it is the conceiving, gestating, bearing, and nursing of children. That’s a uniquely female thing! Beatie is not a man with a uterus. She is a woman who “feels like a man,” whatever that means. There is no need to be mean to these people, but neither do we need to go along with this. Underneath it all, there’s nothing new here.

I think the fact that Beatie wanted to keep her uterus is telling. She wanted to live as a man, except that she still wanted to be able to get pregnant. Buuut…that’s…not living as a man. Beatie was quoted as saying, “I see pregnancy as a process, and it doesn’t define who I am. It’s not a male or female desire to want to have a child – it’s a human desire.”

Well…It’s pretty freaking female to desire to give birth to a child. Just sayin’.

By contrast, my understanding is that men “transitioning to women” are generally uninterested in gestating and bearing children. I think we can guess why. And yet this is virtually the only intrinsically female role that is not a cultural construct.

No, instead Bruce tells Dianne Sawyer that he’s looking forward to being able to have nail polish on long enough that it actually chips off. This seems to me a shallow, even insulting, understanding of femaleness.

[Update: In March of 2012 Beatie and “his” wife Nancy began divorce proceedings, which, due to the unprecedented nature of their situation, lasted until August 2014. In November of 2014, Thomas was jailed briefly, pleading “not guilty” to stalking Nancy, after a GPS tracking device was discovered on Nancy’s car by police. Thomas admitted that the device was his and that he had been tracking his wife for over two years, out of concern for his children.]

Why should anyone care about what these people do?
We should care because this is a very big deal, and it will affect everyone on the planet. This is as basic as it gets.

Consciously or not, the “marriage equality” and transgender full court press that we are now seeing is part of a utopian movement called Postgenderism. Apparently, the Left believes it sees an opportunity to impose the next stage of its egalitarian vision onto the world. Accordingly, it now seeks to redefine not only marriage, but gender itself. This is an unimaginably reckless and unprecedented step, not to mention astonishingly arrogant.

What is Postgenderism? Following is an excerpt that requires no comment. Bear in mind that you are not reading a Netflix sci-fi movie summary. (Emphasis mine):

Abstract: Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies. Postgenderists contend that dyadic gender roles and sexual dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction. Greater biological fluidity and psychological androgyny will allow future persons to explore both masculine and feminine aspects of personality. Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice… (Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary)

This is simply a logical conclusion of evolutionary humanism. We are seeing in our culture a collision of worldviews. Ultimately this boils down to a question of authority. The secularist LGBTQ agenda sees no authority other than mans’: We’ve arrived by accident in a purposeless universe, and we are free to alter our destinies by whatever means we see fit. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

As the secular world slowly loses its grip on reality, the things that matter most get ignored and then lost. The most vulnerable and least politically powerful people – children – stand to suffer the most.

Transgender Restroom Sign

Sign-up HERE to receive notification of my new storybook releases! Each beautifully illustrated book is designed to help you instill a biblical worldview in the children you love.   – Scott Freeman


One of My Most Satisfying Projects Ever…

A few years ago a police officer friend, Jon Holsten, asked me to illustrate a children’s book he had written. During a 3-year stint working as a detective in the sex crimes unit in Ft. Collins, Colorado, Jon had seen a need for a book that parents could read together with their children, to teach about inappropriate physical contact. The resources he knew of were too technical, or frightening, or otherwise inappropriate for kids. Our collaborative effort produced “The Swimsuit Lesson”, which was soon featured on Good Morning America, which in turn got the attention of The Oprah Winfrey show.

To my amazement, Jon was booked to appear on the Oprah Winfrey Show, and I began to think about how I might take advantage of the publicity from this once in a lifetime opportunity. I had always hoped to someday write and illustrate a Christmas storybook, and this seemed like the perfect time. I love Christmas, and with 5 children, Mollie and I have accumulated a pretty grand collection of books which we look forward to seeing each Christmas season. I was excited by the thought of making a contribution to the genre, and I knew just the story I wanted to illustrate. Years before I had received a newsletter featuring a true story that deeply moved me. I had saved that newsletter, and each year I would get it out and read the story again to myself.

The story in the newsletter was entitled, The Tiny Foot, written by a doctor named Frederic Loomis. While I loved the story, it had two problems. First, the doctor was clearly writing to an adult audience, as he went into a fair amount of technical detail about the birthing process. Second, the entire story took place inside of a hospital over a period of years. I didn’t want to illustrate the inside of a hospital, so I reset and rewrote the story to take place at the turn of the last century, out west, when doctors still made house calls on horseback to deliver babies. This way I would get to illustrate horses, and a small western town in winter.

The whole project was a blast. My lovely daughter picked two of her lovely high school friends to model for me. I sent them to her room with some references of Victorian era gowns and hairstyles, and asked them to replicate as best they could the lines and feel of the period. They pretty much had only some old white T-shirts, white fabric, and scissors to work with. I would make up the difference with my imagination. Eventually they came out into my studio, looking amazing. I lit them, and shot my usual lame, blurry-but-sufficient photos. One of my sons modeled as well. I also worked with the Loveland museum to get some period photos and artifacts. In short, from start to finish the book is full of things I love – art, music, the American West, antiques, the city of Loveland, my children, Christmas, God, and a great story about the innate worth of every human being. I can’t imagine  how it could get much better than that.

I titled the story Naomi’s Gift, and self-published the book. The Oprah thing never did materialize, but I had a wonderful time doing book signings and readings in Loveland and in several neighboring towns. In doing so I had the further privilege of meeting a lot of great people and hearing their stories, many of which were also quite moving. Following is a brief description of the story line, and a couple of short excerpts from the book:

Summary: A small town doctor rushes to the home of a poor, struggling family, to find the wife in the throes of laboring through a difficult breech delivery. During the course of the labor, the doctor realizes that the baby has a deformity, and the thought occurs to him to perform an “unsuccessful delivery” to spare the impoverished family, and the child, the burden of living with her disability. After an intense inner struggle, he can’t bring himself to do this, and he delivers the baby, though he always second-guesses his decision. True to his fears, the family sells their farm and moves away to seek treatment for the little girl. Years later the doctor meets a musician who helps him to make peace with his decision.

Excerpts: “…I married late in life, and God had blessed me with a very patient and understanding wife. It seemed our life together was constantly interrupted, but Gretta never said a word. She knew I hated leaving now more than ever, but duty was calling again. I kissed her and our new son at her breast. I breathed in their warm scent one last time, grabbed my black bag and my coat, and hurried outside into the cold, grey afternoon.” (pg 1)

“…As if in answer to that unspoken question, the baby suddenly began to struggle. I felt a strong surge of life as she kicked forcefully in my hand with her good leg. This was too much for me. I could not go through with my plan. I quickly delivered a malformed, but otherwise healthy, baby girl. The Hoseas were overjoyed. They scarcely seemed to notice her deformity. After a time, as mother and baby seemed to be doing well, I left some instructions with Mr. Hosea. Congratulating them and promising to return the next day, I headed back home. I remember I could not bring myself to say “Merry Christmas” to the Hoseas that night. It seemed too ironic a thing to say, knowing the broken gift I was leaving with them.” (pg 9)

If you’re looking for a unique gift idea, Naomi’s Gift can be ordered through Paypal at my website:

If you’d like a signed copy, send me an email and let me know who you’d like your book signed to. $20 will cover everything if shipped in the USA. Email: