Free and Fair Elections

I really enjoy reading articles by Peter Heck. He is a very reasonably minded individual who is very good at keeping things in perspective. That's why I'm unsurprised by his take on the subject of this article, as it is a very level-headed analysis, but I cannot help but disagree with it in part.

I don't disagree with his argument that there has been no professionally produced evidence that Trump actually won the 2020 election. He's obviously right. The grandiose promises of the people who were sure they could produce extraordinary evidence that the election was rigged did not come to fruition. That's obviously true. Is confidence in fair and free elections paramount for our particular governmental system to endure? Yes, I'd say it is. To save from going through every little detail, I agree with most of the arguments as standalone statements. The facts are facts, unless they aren't - to make my stance a little more clear. We couldn't know any differently because no hard evidence has come of it. The election process is innocent until proven guilty, persay. But just as many people have been acquitted under shaky and suspect terms, I'm wholly unconvinced that the "judicial process" has confidently acquitted the 2020 election. We're looking at the Casey Anthony of presidential elections.

So do I disagree that it's dangerous and irresponsible to "continue to peddle" the claim that Trump actually won the 2020? It could be interpreted that way, but it's not so clear cut. It's actually a little strange that Heck makes this argument considering that there is no sanctity of the election process from the leftosphere - especially when this is discussed at length in the article. Confidence in the election process is nonnegotiable for the survival of our country as is. Yet we have been seeing Democrats et. al. contesting the results of elections since George Bush in 2000 and 2004. Suddenly, after Obama won, elections are free and fair again. Trump wins in 2016 and the democratic process is hopelessly corrupt and endangered. It's all okay, though, because Biden won in 2020, so all those glaring issues with the election process that allowed Trump to incorrectly win in 2016 have been fixed and now it's dangerous and irresponsible to believe the elections are anything except the freest and fairest in all the land.

Peter Heck insists, essentially, that it's wrong for Our Side to say that the election process is corrupt to its very core because Their Side is saying it, so we must instill confidence in the populace about the integrity of the process by discontinuing to vocally doubt it. If we stop that, then there can be confidence in our election process once again and everything will somehow be fine.

This premise makes little sense if the democratic process is, in fact corrupted. If our elections are not, in fact, free and fair, then we do nothing but doom ourselves to an accelerated takeover by a one party rule. There appears to be little hard evidence of fraud, whether it's 2000, 2004, 2016, or 2020. Very few people are found guilty for voter fraud every year. The amount of fraud or otherwise tampering of the election process would have had to occur in multiple states and affect many thousands of votes for Trump to have actually had the election stolen from him as he so claims.

Yes, of course, there has been no hard evidence. Every lawsuit was denied processing, so evidence they had was never admitted to court. Events that have long passed, like Georgia's conspicuous burst water pipe that was resolved many hours before they sent people home and "stopped counting" but didn't actually stop counting, and every other state that was an all-but-guaranteed Trump win suddenly stopping votes in the middle of the night, shutting out Republican watchers, barring up windows and blocking all oversight, dumping ballots in through the back doors under cover, some states taking many multiples of days to finish counting and the subsequent gaslighting that "this happens all the time" (it doesn't), and then suddenly multiple states inexplicably turning around for Biden at the very last second, are not things we can really go back and examine, as they were real time events that do not have quantifiable numbers. Multiple YouTubers have been suspended and videos taken down for going to registered voter addresses and finding condemned houses or empty lots. People attest to having received many multiples of mail in ballots to their address. But there is no hard evidence, I'll admit. Nothing was admitted in court because all of the lawsuits were not allowed to proceed, so how could we have the evidence? People who investigate are blocked, silenced, and stifled. The mainstream media would never write dozens of highly amplified articles about canvassers going to registered voter addresses who voted in the 2020 election and finding empty lots, so speaking about it is a "conspiracy theory". There's nothing anyone can do except shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, there's no hard evidence."

What all of these events and this, I suppose, softer evidence points to, however, is absolutely a justifiable suspicion that perhaps our elections are not the freest and fairest elections of all time, and that they may, in fact, be compromised. The confidence in our elections is paramount to a continued functioning democratic republic. Which is why it's such a crying shame that it's entirely justifiable to believe that these elections are in fact not free, nor fair, and have been rigged in various covert and unquantifiable ways. We have articles all but admitting the "shadow government" rigged the election ahead of time by changing election laws and altering as many aspects of our democratic process as possible entirely under the radar, without the people's consent and even admittedly illegally in some cases, and yet we are somehow supposed to believe it's all good. Freest and Fairest Election of All Time. Never mind that many of the events that occurred while votes were being counted that night are the same schemes that are pulled in corrupt third world elections. Claiming it is very important for us to stop questioning the validity of the 2020 election to help instill confidence in the election process ignores that questioning the validity of the 2020 election isn't the problem. The problem is the incredibly suspect validity of the 2020 election.

And that's where Mr. Heck and I will simply have to disagree. I watched these bizarre and highly suspicious situations play out in real time the day and night of Nov 3rd 2020. This isn't a random dossier that showed up from an unknown source with unproven claims that got published by every mainstream media outlet who all declared it simply must be true. This is what I saw with my own eyes. I won't allow the MSM to gaslight me into believing it is very normal for it to take many many days to declare the presidential election winner. I have watched the news coverage for the presidential election in 2004 and 2008, as well as of course 2016. 

Trump was declared the winner in 2016 by 2am on Nov 4th 2016. No states suddenly stopped counting, threw out bipartisan vote watchers, had trucks of ballots dumped into the back doors while the vote counters taped poster boards all over the windows, nor had various "counting errors" giving statistically unlikely solid chunks of votes to a single candidate at 4 in the morning. Bipartisan vote watchers were not barred entry despite having been court ordered by a judge to be allowed in. Yet I am to believe no one would have committed any fraud in an election where a significant number of people genuinely believed they were going to "vote out" a literal dictator? Impossible. I contest it is in fact irresponsible to tell people to believe that there was not malicious behavior in the 2020 election. Our democratic republic does not require only confidence in the election process, but actually fair and free elections. The illusion of a properly functioning democratic republic is not an actual properly functioning democratic republic.

I wonder if the real reason Heck insists we should no longer question the integrity of our election process is simply because it's clearly no longer valuable or useful. I don't suspect this is the case, as a man who has written before about the importance of truth. I wonder then if it was not the fruitless endeavor and hopeless doomerism of the burden of knowing the election process is most likely compromised, but there's little any of us can actually do about it which prompted him to simply explain away the problem like this. Simply believing we have fair and free elections will not actually help us have fair and free elections, but it would surely help promote a comforting illusion. 

There is absolutely no reason not to bring up these highly suspicious behaviors by vote counters, the rushed patchwork legislation changes people did not vote for, the non-zero number of registered voter addresses located at empty houses. It is imperative not to simply put our fingers in our ears and sing loudly that we have confidence in the democratic process. We must be able to have dialogue about what kind of behavior is not allowed in order to have that confidence in our elections. Barring watchers, stopping counts at midnight and sending the Other Team's counters home, taping paper over the windows, trucking ballots into backdoors at 4am - these are not behaviors conducive to a fair and free election. Do not bar discussion about these things - and if you believe that casting doubt on the 2020 election while having this discussion does not help the case, then just say that. We can speak objectively about what does not happen when a country's elections are actually fair and free without invoking the alleged "Big Lie". But it's offensive to say that we must simply drop the whole thing and start having confidence in our election process after nothing has changed. 

Mental Health Expert Doesn't Understand Christianity

With an opening paragraph that summarizes best as "the top five most superficial, surface-level reasons people become atheists", it's easy to start rolling your eyes as soon as you start to read this article. Don't worry, though, because at no point will your eyes get any rest. The article continues to portray a misunderstanding of Biblical reality so unbearable, it's no wonder that anyone who has these hangups about their former faith left it in the first place. 

The first unhealthy, allegedly Christianity-induced thought pattern is "all or nothing thinking", wherein the concept that "no sin is too small to send you to Hell" is causing former believers to go too hard at work, which sounds much more like a works-based salvation problem, but why would I try to make sense of this hot mess of a conceptual leap that's already based off of flimsy, incorrect theology. Apparently working 20 hours of overtime a week is some kind of black-and-white thinking issue. Regardless, the real crime here is a complete misconception of what "sends" one to Hell. It even further exacerbates its floppy conundrum with a statement that contains two truths, but has them both jammed together in an incoherent way. "Jesus only saves because He was perfect." Yes... Only Jesus saves, and He is perfect, but these don't cause each other. So what's the Bible actually say about these things?

The only thing the author gets right is, yes, there is either Heaven or Hell and nothing in-between. To argue against this in the examination of "all or nothing thinking", though, is absurd. These refer to locations, relative to their presence or absence of God Almighty. You are either in the presence of God, or you are not. There is no grey area between Heaven and Hell because there is no quasi-"Shrödingers God" type location to go to. Of course, the vast majority of even the lukewarm-est of Christians should, at this point in modern Christian theological discourse, be quite aware that it's not sin that sends one to Hell, but failure to accept Jesus as one's savior. What some may not be fully aware of is that it wasn't just that Jesus never committed a sin, but that His conception was immaculate, that makes Him free of sin and thus perfect, and able to be the ultimate and final sacrifice needed to satisfy God's wrath. 

Immaculate doesn't mean "no sex involved," - you've probably at least once heard immaculate used to describe a cleaning job that was done so well as to not leave a single speck of dirt behind. "Immaculate conception" refers to a conception that was, in layman's terms, spotlessly clean. The manner in which He was conceived made Him born without sin. Denominations disagree about what this exactly means, with Catholics believing Mary herself was also free of sin, but the fact of the matter is that Jesus was exempt from the original sin of Adam. Thus, even if, somehow, a human being from start to finish, never committed a sin, they are still born of the original sin of Adam and still require salvation from Jesus. The very state of our existence is tainted by sin (something the author takes issue with later), so there's actually little need to worry about "even the smallest sin" sending you to hell - it's actually much simpler. The only unforgivable sin is "blasphemy against the holy spirit". Some people believe this translates more or less into the only unforgivable sin being the denial of Jesus specifically. However you feel about it, it's clear for multiple reasons that, theologically, the whole concept here is a mess.

Second of all, only Jesus saves, but not because He is perfect. He was, and is, (and always will be) perfect, but He saves because he chose voluntarily to be a sinless sacrifice to close the gap between humanity and God, allowing us to be with God through Jesus. These are, as we see, very different justifications for why, specifically, only Jesus saves. Only fleeting remnants of the herein accused "Christian" reasons for an all-or-nothing thought complex are actually present in our theology.

Next up we have the apparently uniquely Christian concept of Us vs. Them complex. Obviously that was sarcastic, since "Good guys and bad guys" is basically in vogue at the moment when it comes to the vast majority of our society, unless this author is going to try to convince me that nearly every politician, pundit, and political activist is an "ex-vangelical". The "us vs. them" trap is easy to fall into, and unfortunately Christians do, too, but likely not because of what's in the bible. What's worse is, not only is this laughably nowhere near a uniquely Christian idea, it's - yet again - not even a Christian idea to start. 

Most starkly of course is the concept that Christians view sinners as our Bad Guys camp, which would then imply that we would scorn, hate, and avoid them - but of course the bible has plenty of passages about praying for your enemies, loving people who hate you, and trying desperately to save sinners from the eternal torment of Hell. The bible tries very hard to free us from the prolific us vs. them complex, forcing us to see our enemies as God's beloved children, just as we are. Seems a lot more complex of a relationship than "good guys and bad guys".

To make matters even more laughable, we see the line in this paragraph, "Christianity offers no mental model in which people are complicated and imperfect but basically decent," which I laughed at in real time when I first read it. People being complicated and imperfect while desiring to be good, decent people and do what's right is such a frequent theme in the bible that I'm not sure this person is talking about the right religion. I'm not sure what these people think they converted from, but it wasn't Christianity.

This next one is an extension of the previous, wherein the argument is that, due to our awareness of our own failings, we feel we are never good enough, since we are supposed to be like Jesus, who is perfect. This may be the only arguably valid concern in this article as actually being a potential side effect of Christian thought, but it is nonetheless still not biblically reasonable. We coach against this destructive mindset with poignant reminders that, as simple as it may be, God loves us. Yes, He wants us to work to be more like His son, but He loves us still, even when we fail. He is not a preoccupied, busy working father who only notices us when we are succeeding and excelling, who we feel compelled to compete against ourselves for his attention and love. At our worst and most lowly, God is there with us and loves us.

Our fourth presumably Christian hangup is called "hyperactive guilt detection", which seems fully to be the same category as the previous issue and should probably have been the prequel to the third point, if I had to be the editor for this piece. Ultimately the issue being explained here is that doing morally wrong things causes one to feel guilty, so as one continues to do morally wrong things, it weighs down their conscious. I'm trying to figure out why that's a bad thing so I'll go out on a limb here and assume that, because the author disagrees with objective moral good, that they are insisting here that it's bad to continually feel bad for doing things that are bad. We will just have to chalk this one up to pagan shenanigans and move on, then.

The fifth one is a classic, so I'll try to avoid dedicating too many paragraphs as to why this tired old argument simply must be hung up to dry for the final time. While this piece does not state outright the argument against "sexual repression", it would be silly to think they don't believe in it. Essentially, the argument is that keeping the aspects of your sexual desires that are morally wrong under control, or "repressed", causes neuroses and generally bad, negative side effects. It's much better, the argument goes, to express your traditionally-considered-wrong sexual desires, or else it will build up and explode in some modernly-considered-wrong way.

Let's clear up a few things first - homosexual and premarital relations are as morally wrong in biblical Christianity as nonconsensual, pedophilic, and adulterous relations are - it's just the first two that modernists want us to consider as socially and morally acceptable. Then again, this particular author may disagree since they bizarrely use the commandment that tells you to not bang your neighbor's wife as an example of that mean ol' biblical sexuality. Given the fact that all sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage are considered morally wrong in Christianity, but only half or so are considered morally wrong by secular standards, by what standard exactly do we base rape and the like as being acceptable to repress? Surely the author does not condone seeking sexual relations with minors, and yet somehow the concept of sexual repression is bad and will hurt people. What we have here is an argument not worth having unless this question can be answered - and don't fool yourself, the answer has nothing to do with "consenting adults can do whatever they want in their own bedrooms". Repressing a sexual desire to rape is analogous to repressing a sexual desire for your consenting boyfriend or girlfriend, in regards to the concept that repression of those desires will cause harm. The question is why is repressing a sexual desire to rape or to fornicate with 8 year olds not only acceptable but necessary, while other forms of sexual repression are evil and bad and will hurt the one repressing them? Without an answer, the "sexual repression" argument against biblical Christianity is nothing but vapid self-serving hogwash.

The next concern makes little sense, frankly, so I can only suspect the author has some kind of experience with people feeling this way in order to make a claim that anyone does this. The concern here is a strange take on the "build your treasures up in heaven" mindset wherein the person fails to also take joy in enjoyable things in life. The line "small every-day wonders that comprise the center of joy in mindful living" invokes thoughts of the exact sort of things that Christians emphasis daily, particularly when you use a term like "mindful living" which is a cornerstone of Christian culture. 

Perhaps I'm giving them too much credit, here, and the problem is that the things they think people should be "enjoying" here on earth aren't wholesome pleasures like spending time with family, gardening, playing a team sport, baking with your grandmother, stopping your busy life for five minutes to sit on the porch and enjoy the sunset, and so forth. If so, they did a fanciful job of hiding this behind a term like "everyday wonders", as those same everyday wonders are the things that we behold and give thanks and praise to the Lord for providing us. We typically pray before every meal, for heaven's sake, an act that regularly reminds me how blessed I am to eat such delicious food, increasing my enjoyment of it so much more - these are the everyday wonders of mindful Christian living that we take great joy in. Nothing in my life has come close to shattering my deeply embedded cynicism as effectively as my trust in and love for God. It is that very Christian outlook on life that grants me a deep, rich appreciation for the smallest things on this earth, the amazing miracle all around us, God's beautiful creation.

No, surely this concern is, in fact, referring to "everyday wonders" like hedonistic indulgence in self-destructive vices. There is no other explanation, aside from pure, unadulterated incompetence. 

This next one is not necessarily wrong so much as a potential side effect of coming to terms with the whole truth of Christ. "Fear of apocalypse" surely comes with the territory, but it is again a manifestation of poor emphasis on accurate theology. We should not fear the end times. The end times, the apocalypse, is the end of earth, but not the end of time. Through the bible, we are instructed not to look for the antichrist, but to look for Jesus. The return of Jesus is emphasized as a good thing and we do much unnecessary worrying when we focus on the "apocalypse" part.

However, that isn't even the biggest spot of contention here for this section. The absolute most laughable concept, here, is the idea that fearing a cataclysmic, horrible end is uniquely Christian. Our culture today is never-ending doomsday prophecies, with just about everyone convinced that - one way or another - the world as we know it is ending, and soon. Climate change alarmists are predicting that earth will be uninhabitable by 2050 - that's a lot sooner and more concrete a fear than the Christian apocalypse deadline of "we don't know". My generation is so consumed by morbid confidence in a quickly approaching dystopia-slash-Armageddon that it's basically a running joke. The most ironic part is that, without the redemption arch of Jesus' return in the mix, secular doomsday fears are an order of magnitude more hopeless and dreadful than the biblical end times. In those scenarios, there is no paradise awaiting us - just total annihilation and subsequent nothingness.

The next one is yet another shining example of this list's awkward habit of naming things that are super common in secular culture and then saying they're uniquely Christian neuroses. "Idealizing leaders" as something Christians specifically have issues with is a new one - I'd argue this is more of a general thing most people gravitate towards - a good ol' classic "are you a leader or a follower" type situation. Yes, many Christians incorrectly idolize human leaders, but this is specifically something they should not do. Actual biblical guidance tells us to, in short, not trust flawed humans, but only trust God. There is no parallel here between our commandment to trust God and any sort of mental hangup over idolizing a human leader. "No king but King Jesus". The bible does not pull any punches describing the human leaders at the time - and all of their horrible atrocities. Nowhere will you find support for the idea of idealizing a human leader.

Of course, again, we must uncomfortably point out that this is not unique to Christians - there are bobbleheads of politicians and supreme court justices, after all. Of course, fixation on the "conservative" Trump cult is the flashiest talking point lately, but the idea that every Trump sycophant is also a devout Christian is simply a false concept. Most Christians raised quite the eyebrow at the trotting out of a literal golden statue of Trump at CPAC, and our constant reminders and basic worldview concept of the fact that human beings are flawed and imperfect leads most actual Christians toward remaining sane and stable as our associates grow closer and closer to the concept of Trump as a savior. Jesus as the only one who saves is, quite literally as well as figuratively, a bedrock upon which we can remain grounded.

Secular folks do not have this kind of grounding, allowing their devotion to ebb and flow as charismatic leaders, promising all of the social change they desire, rise up and battle for the spotlight (this is how the antichrist will gain power, loved by the world - not Christians). Of course, I must mention, for fairness and context, that the worship of politicians is somewhat uniquely American - many people from other countries comment on how strange it is. Unfortunately, no one from any country is safe from the risk of attaching to a leader or charismatic figure as long as they lack a rock upon which to stand and place their trust. Again, it is ironically the Christian worldview alone that protects from the mental problem described here.

This next one I find quite interesting, described as "desperately seeking simplicity". The concept here is that a biblical understanding of our world creates quite an easy to follow set of instructions for what is right and wrong. The main point of contention here is that the author insists the world is much more complex than what a biblical worldview allows. The problem here is not that the biblical worldview is simple, but a concern that Christians would supposedly seek simplicity where there is none. The main flaw in this concept is the idea that Christianity does not contain any murky situations that require nuance and deep, complex consideration. 

I'm sure you can guess, but that assessment is wrong. Yes, there are aspects that are simple, but there are aspects of life that are simple. There are, in fact, many things that are astoundingly simple. Just as many things in biblical understanding are simple and many things are complex, so it is in a general sort of way, about everything. I must also take a quick moment to point out, that surely this list item should have been closer in position to its counterparts, items 2, 3, and 4. Indeed, this seems at best to be just another branch of the "good guys vs bad guys" point of contention from above. However, I'll address it as if it were its own case.

Compartmentalization is a problem Christians can have, but so can anyone else. Indeed, the failure to consider things as parts of one whole is a common ailment of the general population. The real issue here is not of a failure for Christians to consider "complex moral questions" but the actual point of contention is that Christians have an objective moral standard through which they analyze moral situations. There is no argument to be made that it's somehow bad to consider things with a "simple" moral frame, as how simple your moral framework is, is irrelevant to whether something is moral or immoral. The argument being made here can only logically be that the Christian moral framework is incorrect, not that Christians are somehow "trying too hard to find simplicity". This is not too surprising, since the author clearly disagrees with Christian morals. To phrase this another way, the author is not upset that Christians have a simplistic moral worldview, but that the Christian moral worldview itself is simplistic. 

And, frankly, the Christian moral framework is only simplistic in the broadest terms. We can easily designate things as murder or theft, but this is one part of the equation. Indeed, what do you DO with the murderer and the thief? God only tells us these things are wrong, He does not tell us how to punish these sinners. You can be executed for murder, but adultery is not against the law. Both are egregious sins! How to move forward from someone else's wrongdoings is intensely complex and the Christian worldview does not simplify them anymore than a secular one. In fact, it may make them much more complicated. God wants us to forgive people who have wronged us, which some brave souls have so shockingly managed to do for people who have murdered their loved ones. I can barely imagine having that kind of resolve. This is supposed to be simplistic?

The list item has other concerns to point out, like perhaps a fight lacks any identifiable good or bad sides, or problems that have no "right" answer. I place suspicion on the use of the word "right", as the author likely meant "perfect". Mostly everyone knows there are problems with no right answer, but we simply try to choose the best one. Sometimes there does not even seem to be a "best" one. These issues do exist within a Christian framework, as if they did not, we would not be instructed to pray to God and ask Him for wisdom for such complex issues as these. The "good guys vs bad guys" issue has, of course, already been beaten to death.

The only difficulty the author has that I would concede as accurate is a concern for "blurry" lines between humans and other sentient creatures. There is a biblical truth that animals lack the breath of God that humans have; there is indeed no blurred line. However, there is no biblical justification for anything less than respect and responsible treatment of those animals, as we were given dominion over them, but also told directly by God to care for and tend to His creation. The issue here is - funnily enough - a lot more complex than the author would have us imagine. If it were not complex as such, we would not have the vast number of incredibly long debates about whether it's most biblical to be vegan if possible. Frankly, coming from a staunch believer in a large number of simple biblical answers for a wide array of things, I could not tell you for a fact that veganism is not biblically coherent. The bible provides no clear answer on whether it is most righteous to abstain from meat or not. The only things I can say for sure is that humans have the breath of life from God while animals do not, that we were given dominion over animals, that we were charged with tending to animals, and that we were given permission (not commanded!) to eat meat. From there, there's quite a lively debate.

The final list item is something I would understand as a mental problem for former Christians - the nagging feeling that you're wrong, that you've made a mistake. This is, of course, something active Christians also struggle with, and indeed, every single living human person. We all struggle with doubt, and I'd be quite suspicious of the one who claims they do not.

Thus, our unfortunate adventure ends with a few closing paragraphs. The author is, in fact, a former Christian, so I can only assume their upbringing and Christian instruction were flawed, as many experience, perhaps unknowingly. It is never enjoyable to see that someone has rejected God, since we all know what that means. 

I must draw attention to the quote, meant to be poignant, "I would rather live with unanswered questions than unquestioned answers". I am clearly not the person this quote is meant for, as it makes no sense to me. While living as Christians, did these people truly believe they had no unanswered questions? I have an absolute smorgasbord of unanswered questions. I am constantly in wonder at the universe God has created, the plans He has. Properly appreciated, Christianity leaves perhaps too many unanswered questions, which is likely how we got to the point of thousands of denominations. I also have very few "unquestioned answers," and I'm not sure that this phrase is much more than vapid nonsense. Perhaps it seems so brave and inspiring because people do not wish to appear stupid by questioning it?

Unfortunately, despite being so humble as to admit that one cannot possibly have all the answers, they contend that they do have at least one answer, which is funnily enough one of the most arrogant. Looking back and being "certain of one thing", which is, that God is not real, is the absolute most obtuse thing to be certain of. If you are, as nihilistic atheists are so fond of reminding us, one speck in billions of entirely common and non-miraculous living creatures standing upon a rock hurtling through space at millions of miles per hour, how can you be so certain that there is no God? They believe themselves to be so humble, yet drip of hubris all over. I would know, of course, being a former atheist. Unlike a former Christian, it does not bother me so much that I may be wrong to have abandoned atheism. Blaise Pascal has a good few points to make on that wager. While we all have our doubts, mine are quite fleeting, and mostly revolve around other things than the existential questions of life and death. 

This wild ride has drawn to a close. I will concede that improperly understood Christianity will likely lead to a good number of unhealthy behaviors and mental disturbances, but funnily enough I would view this list as a good diagnostic tool for finding out if someone is following a cheap riff off Christianity rather than the real thing. Maybe we should read this list in church to find people's weak points in scriptural and theological understanding. 

Boys and Girls Are Different

One day I read an article that proclaimed studies showing biological differences between men and women's brains fully and completely are entirely wrong and all differences can be attributed to social constructs, due to the brain's plasticity. I did not save a link to the article and for my life I cannot find it. I wrote a rough draft rebuttal, but it seems silly to rebut an article that no one can read. I've taken the concepts from the rough draft and written about them separately, removing the context of a rebuttal of the article that doesn't exist, using instead new sources and articles that talk about close-enough concepts. (Edit: By the time I got to the very end of writing this, I found an article that discusses very closely what I found in the original article. I will not be editing the first half since I literally just did that, and instead I will declare at the end when the rebut to the newly discovered article begins.)

The first debated concept here is that the mystery article declared there to be no differences between male and female newborn brains. The only reputable evidence I've found in this debate is a study showing that brain scans show no difference between boy and girl brains while doing math, which studied children of various ages, so this is unrelated to infants. Funnily enough, I can find no claims that infant brains have no sex differences, but a lot of research that they do.

According to what I originally wrote, the article attributed all gender differences for children as young as 0 years old to the way their caretakers treated them, establishing immediately their "socially constructed gender". It seems a little self-indulgent to rebut this when I can't find a single study, or even hyper-progressive op-ed, saying this. Instead I suppose I'll focus on the conclusions drawn by the math study.

The brain scan math study summarized shows that all children used the same parts of their brain to process math. Everything from the development of the brain in regards to math skills to the actual application of math skills from those same children doing math tests showed no significant differences in children's ability to do math. Great! I have no issues with that. I'm not a brain scientist and I've never looked at a child's brain scan.

The problem starts when the article starts to conclude that, due to there being no inherent, physically measurable difference between boys and girls in math studies, it means the disparity between men and women who enter the STEM fields must be attributable to some other factor, likely a societal factor.

It rules out the hypothesis that more males end up in STEM-related careers because they're somehow better at the maths required in some of those fields. Something else must be going on: for example, preconceived ideas about the jobs men and women should go into.

What I'm sick to death of is the incessant demanding that women are not as represented in traditionally male dominated fields simply because of "social constructs" and discrimination. I'll regale everyone with a quick personal anecdote: I was very much into biology, zoology, and science in general when I was young. My class choices reflected this as I progressed through high school - I took two science classes every year, even up to chemistry and physics. I, however, hated math, and slowly realized that I'd have to do a lot of math to be a scientist. I got turned off from the concept of becoming some kind of scientist and eventually lost interest in schooling altogether.

At no point did I feel discriminated against and pushed against in my interests by any of my friends, family, or teachers. Everyone was quite psyched I wanted to be a scientist. My loss of passion and interest was my own doing. I didn't like math. It doesn't matter if my brain does everything the same as men's brains because there is a factor without a physically measurable number - what people want to do. The conclusion that, perhaps, women don't want to go into STEM is never mentioned by these types of studies. This was 15-25 years ago, back before Y2K, that I was interested in animals and zoology. My mom got me scientific books. I read nonfiction books about animals as a hobby. I was always considered "smart" and everyone imaginable gave me their enthusiastic support. Everyone was very "progressive" and knew I could "do anything I wanted". If I ever once heard that I couldn't do something because I was a girl, I don't even remember it. My story cannot be attributed to gender based discrimination.

Of course, it's impossible to know if my anecdotal experience is typical or an exception. I just know that I was a poster child for "getting girls into STEM" and boy did I totally not at all get into STEM. I don't like math. Perhaps of interesting note, my mother didn't like math either. She was in college for psychology when I was in high school and studied endlessly to pass her math class with an acceptable grade in order to retain her scholarships. She succeeded and was able to keep her high marks in math to keep her scholarship - but she hated it. It doesn't matter if she could do it, if her brain was the same, she hated it! Personal preferences are real, and could very well be influenced biologically by our sex! Imagine it. But this concept makes progressives froth at the mouth - that there could be gender preference differences, especially ones that can't be measured by brain scans.

The original, missing article focused a good portion on "toy preferences", as many progressives try to do. They attributed the provable fact that girls and boys prefer different toys to that fabled "differing treatment by their caretakers as infants" that I can't find a single study or article claiming. The argument about toy preferences has been quite thoroughly put to rest and there is actually little point in me going on about it. I have found an article showing that monkeys even show gendered toy preferences. It's impossible to attribute this to socialization and it's more clear than ever that it's biological.

So what are the implications of gendered toy preferences being real? It's almost like there are distinct differences between male and female humans, and once again it has to do with preferences. Can we really not, as a supposedly enlightened society, see something like toy choice preference and extrapolate it to job choice preference? Play is how we learn, after all. Funnily enough, I never played with dolls, but not because I didn't choose them. My mother actually explicitly trained me to not play with dolls. They were quite literally forbidden, and if I ever got one from an unknowing school friend who didn't know any better (mostly because I barely had any friends and tended to invite people I realistically barely knew to my parties), it was confiscated. For awhile as a child, I mimicked my mother's severe dislike for these dolls, confidently proclaiming that I hated them - and she would proudly share how much I despised those unrealistic barbies. However, my neighbor who remained my friend for many years had lots of dolls. With well off parents, she had huge collections of barbie doll houses and miniature clothes and furniture and kitchen tools. I always told her I never wanted to play with them, but I was so often tempted by them. I was a decently obedient child and knew I wasn't allowed, so I declined to play with them.

Regardless of the fact that my mother trained me to hate dolls and disallowed me from owning any, I wanted to play with them. Even now, while obviously I don't buy dolls for myself, I look at things like Calico Critters and think that it sure would be fun to have a little girl. I would get her so many tiny little dollhouse toys. They are absolutely precious and my innate female biological differences overrode my mother's intense social training that she began when I was a baby. I am but one person, but I cannot imagine I'm the only one with a story like this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the time I nearly finished this entire post, I found an article that supposes exactly the same concept as the original article I couldn't find. If you read the "edit" at the very beginning of this post, you'll know what's up. This post is far more charitable than the original article I had found, and I will now discuss it at length.

This article focuses a lot on physical development and tries to prove that girls doing things like maintaining eye contact and walking later than boys is due to caretaker treatment. This article is clearly biased, and while that's not explicitly wrong, I want to ensure we are all aware. The article contains this excerpt after the introduction:

Seeing my son’s rambunctiousness as God’s plan and buying a “Tough like Daddy” T-shirt sounded much more pleasant than scrutinizing my own behavior and engaging in hard conversations about gender. But I couldn’t gulp down the pink and blue Kool-Aid just yet. After all, my sample size of two clearly lacked scientific rigor. So I started reading.

What we have here is someone who is allowing the truth they want to influence their research into what is the truth. This person explicitly searched for research that supported their conclusion. While it doesn't mean their research is automatically disqualified, it means that this person found research supporting the conclusion they didn't want - twice! - and disregarded it until they found research that concluded what they did want. Indeed, the author presents both sides as "theories" in the article and then ends their article clearly showing their favor for the theory they liked the most. This is a common behavior of people and it is important to take note of it. We should try to accept when research comes into view that casts doubt upon our desired conclusions, which is exactly why I now believe in biological gender differences, because I used to be on board with the author of this linked post. Surely no one should be surprised that a mother who explicitly banned me from playing with dolls also socialized me with the idea that "girls can (and should) do anything boys can do". She was, in fact, a modern feminist, and I believed what she taught me until well into my 20s.

The article goes on to say, in slightly more charitable terms than the mystery article I originally wrote about, that it's "not easy" to tell whether eventual gendered differences in adults are due to biological sex or due to the treatment we endure as children due to our sex. This article postulates the same idea that there are "no differences" between infant boys and girls and that the differences that appear are due to biased treatment based on biological sex as soon as they are born, though it correctly refers to this concept as a theory.

I am not a scientist, though maybe I thought I would be one day, but I have an important piece of scientific information that I never see mentioned by these "no differences in infants" articles. Baby girls and boys both have intense amounts of their mother's hormones in their bodies when they are in the womb and soon after birth. In fact, this quick explanation says that it may take over two months for the mother's hormones to stop affecting the baby. Lo and behold, the "no differences in newborns" article denotes differences beginning to start around four months old, after these infants start reliably regulating their own hormones. Is this the end all be all to this discussion? No, of course not. But I personally feel like it's a little important and I find it odd that it is not considered by these studies. The best we get is that the scientists who want "all differences are social" to be true have "questioned how much these hormonal differences matter". How convincing.

Of course, there is a lot deeper of a rabbit hole to go into over hormones, like how transsexual brains start to scan as the gender they are assuming after so long on hormone treatment, let alone the fact that those hormones alter their physical appearance. We don't know everything there is to know, surely, but I find it difficult to dismiss the mother's pregnancy hormones entirely in light of all of the other things we know about how strongly hormones can change our bodies and behaviors. Hormones seem to matter or not when it's convenient, which is something anyone interested in the pursuit of genuine truth absent of ideological opinions should care about.

Very interestingly to me, I had mentioned that the original article I found "mentioned no studies or sources to back up their claim". This article, however, does! What a joy. The mere mention of the articles is helpful, but unfortunately none of them are sourced. We can't know the manner in which these studies were conducted that claim that, for example, mothers interact less with their male infants. I question this profusely, as I can't see a reality in which they could get away with that. Infants need constant attention, how are they interacting less with them? Are mothers really just tossing their male infants aside and ignoring them because they are boys? Who can know without a link to the study.

I have two personal anecdotes this time. My father, overall a good man with faults like any other human, treated me and my brother quite the same. When I say this, I mean that even in spite of me being four years younger than my brother, he still did something like take both of us on top of the garage roof to sit and watch the stars at night - when I was a toddler. What comes next may surprise you, because it's the opposite of the first two anecdotes - I was a very reckless, active child and still love getting dirty and "playing" outside today, though I try to do so constructively. In fact, without even knowing that I went on top of the garage roof as a toddler, I spent many of my childhood years finding things to use to climb up onto the garage roof in order to jump off of it over and over, for fun. I climbed trees and trounced through the woods, dug holes and collected bugs in buckets. I was always a "tomboy" in fact, and along with everything else revealed here, I followed behind my brother in a lot of hobbies, one of which was video games. I had few female friends as a child and was teased for these "boy activities" - though being interested in zoology wasn't one of them. Perhaps since I had so many easier attributes to target than being a science nerd, no one bothered to try very hard when they teased me. Who knows.

This seems to go against my overall theme, here, you might be wondering. Clearly I'm advocating for societal treatment influencing physical development and interest in physical activity with this anecdote, you say. Before we get into that, my second anecdote. The second has to do with this excerpt in particular:

In other words, when we tell little girls to “be careful” but comment, “What a boy!” when our sons attempt the same feat, the stereotype becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I actually have two boys, you see, and they were very early physical developers. I don't have a daughter to compare them to, but bear with me. My eldest rolled over for the first time at two months old, both of them began crawling by four months, and the eldest began walking at nine months, while the youngest at one year. The first born son, here, clearly developed physically much faster than his brother. Now, let me assure you, when my children do things like jump off the couch or try to climb up the shelves on their wall, the first thing out of my mouth is not "haha how funny you crazy boys" but "for the love of all that is good and righteous in this world be CAREFUL!" I have never encouraged reckless physical activity because I am actually scared to death of "freak accidents" where my children are inexplicably killed dead on the spot by breaking their neck, for example.

The eldest boy, with much sooner physical development accomplishments, is much more cautious than his younger brother. The baby boy will dash headlong into danger and enthusiastically agree to any sort of adventure. I have treated both with the same emphasis on taking care when existing actively in the world, including not running on asphalt and being slow while walking up stairs. I am more strict with the youngest child, as he wants to do everything his older brother does and I intentionally hold him back or force him to let me help him because I naturally think he's not as capable, being younger. Intentionally held back and not as physically advanced as his brother, the youngest one is still the most reckless and wild. This clear and distinct difference between two children close in age who were raised in the same house by the same parents and in the same manner seems to hint that socialization may not be as powerful a tool as we believe.

What these examples shows, I will admit firstly, is that gender differences can obviously not account for everything. Not every boy is reckless (my eldest son is quite careful) and not every girl is afraid of bugs (I collected them by hand in a bucket). Many of our individual differences can be attributed to the fact that we are all individuals and not all of us will fit into the box. The problem exists when you try to remove the boxes entirely, as if they have no validity. Clearly a gendered propensity toward certain choices exists. It does not need to apply with 100% accuracy to be acknowledged, but it also does not need to be disposed of entirely just because it's not 100% accurate. Why is it important at all, you may ask, if at the end of the day, people's choices are going to be affected by who they are and what they prefer?

It matters for a very simple reason - we cannot keep fighting an imaginary enemy. There is nothing within society or law that is "keeping women out of STEM" and there is no gross violation of women's rights by the fact that by and large, women are happier when they raise families. Countries with more freedom - not necessarily as dictated by law, but affected by things like financial security (removing the need to be employed) or plenty of job options - by and large find fewer women in STEM jobs. The article provides its own conclusions, but I won't be taking the time to get into them here because I've gone on long enough. Suffice to say, absent of various types of pressure to get well paying jobs, women who get to choose what they want to do tend to not choose STEM. When you attempt to legislate that this difference shouldn't exist by disproportionately coercing, propagandizing, or incentivizing women into jobs they would ultimately not choose without such measures, what do you gain? People who are ultimately less happy.

Indeed, in light of the government interference in our economy and societal structures due to the coronavirus, we are seeing articles proclaim that we're "setting gender equality back by decades" because women are being forced by government interference to stay home with their kids to educate them due to school shutdowns. Women are "being forced" out of the workforce to care for their children. This is inexplicably considered a bad thing, that more women being home with their kids is innately bad, and that gender equality is being ruined by it. While there's a whole wasp's nest of things to talk about within this concept, the point I'd like to focus on is that op-ed writers and progressive thinktanks see women staying home with their children as bad. Talk about "social constructs" - how many women angry about caring for their own children are just as much victims of social conditioning as a girl who thinks she is genderly-disadvantaged at math? Can we not see how vehement denial of naturally occurring happenstance can "condition" just as much as anything else? Can we not see how someone may be hit over the head with the idea that something is bad for so long that they go along with it, afraid to ever admit that maybe they feel differently deep inside?

These "boxes" are important because progressive policy and culture has inadvertently forced the boxes to become relevant by trying to force the boxes to go away. How ironic, really. Let people sit in the box if they want and stop trying to guilt girls into thinking they're letting all of humanity down because they wanted to stay home with their kids. We shouldn't tell them they can't be scientists, either, but we can't immediately blame that boogieman sexism each time a girl decides otherwise. If you tried to force me into STEM now, I'd physically fight you to avoid it, and that's my choice.