Why The Pregnant Man Did NOT Give Birth!

“Stop right there,” read the text from one of my production crew.

I had just sent over the show prep topics for my Saturday Evening broadcast and the headline of the first story up had caused him to literally stop in his tracks.

In a sense of disbelief the producers of my show googled “pregnant man gives birth.” Even though the story was less than a day old, more than a million hits in google news popped up:

It wasn’t restricted to British press and it certainly swept the world of “journalism” (however yellow it will come to be known in this era) as fast as people could kick out a shocking title for it and cite the source that cited the source of the source that was cited before that last source… was cited.

The problem is the story is 100% untrue.

Yet being untrue—literally, scientifically, metaphorically, biologically, chemically, linguistically—didn’t stop a million outlets from printing it, as breathlessly first cited by the British media outlets.

The actual story—in reality—isn’t nearly as exciting, breathtaking, or groundbreaking as the headlines and media companies wanted you to believe.

As I awakened early on Saturday my attention was first drawn to it by a prominent pastor in the New York area tweeting it out. “Just when you think the world couldn’t get any crazier…” He hash-tagged it #BizarroWorld.

Because of family duties it took me a couple of hours before I got around to reading the article he had attached. What I found was nearly criminal use of tortured language, a basis for citing malpractice against every outlet that reported it in the terms they did, and a bonafide reason to label “fake news” across the modern journalism landscape.

The story is a fraud, and not ONE media or press outlet had the guts to call it what it was.

So here goes…

The aforementioned “man” listed in the story is in fact not male at all. She is a female who had begun living as a man and was openly considering the act of transitioning to perhaps have the surgery that would make her anatomically male. She pumped hormones through her system, she grew some facial hair and her voice lowered a bit. But if you were to test any (and every) cell of her DNA it would ping *female.* She is in essence female in literally every cell of her being, and no reassigning of genitalia nor overdosing on hormones and supplements can change the cellular DNA of what sex she is. She will always be female.

Born as Paige, and later changing her name to Hayden, she decided that would begin to live as a male in preparation for perhaps obtaining the expensive surgeries to alter her external anatomy (as best as surgeons are able to do such.) But before she did—like many young women in life—she decided she wanted to have a baby.

It’s important to point out that the desire to have a baby is different than the desire to raise a child. And the desire to have one’s own baby is distinctly a maternal, female, & mothering instinct. She went so far as to request her eggs be frozen so that she could try at a later date, but the doctors felt it unwise and discouraged it.

It was at this moment that she decided that she desired to have a baby, more than to continue with the transitioning process she had undertaken.

The result?

She halted the process of transitioning to appearing to be a man.

She enlisted a sperm donor, and she conceived (a uniquely female ability.) And the conception worked. And today she is a mother.

She has not yet re-engaged her transitioning process, though she pledges to do so. She still has no male anatomical resemblances. Her cellular DNA is still 100% female. And her female capacity is likely more alive than ever before. It is likely her breasts are producing milk, she is likely experiencing fatigue and postpartum after effects, as well as healing from her pregnancy.

It would also surprise absolutely no one if she never returned to the path of transitioning from one sex to the other—which to repeat is only achieved on a very superficial appearance level at best.

It made for shocking headlines. It made for progressive high-fives. It is seen as a “win” for those who would like to deny basic science and attempt to reconstruct all of society in a godless vacuum.

But they can’t, because the code on changing cellular identity has never been cracked.

Paige can change her name to Hayden. She can add external genitals, and attempt to have her milk glands removed. She can cut her hair, grow a beard, and speak with a baritone pitch.

But none of it changes the fact that God allowed her to become a mom.

And that’s one of the best miracles anyone could ask for from life!

Massive Sexuality Study: “NOT born this way.”

The argument centering on the issue of which bathroom Americans are suddenly confused about using grew out of the issue that centered around marriage which grew out of the issue of “settled science,” which turns out isn’t settled at all but rather downright fluid.

How do we know?

Well mankind’s selfish depravity mainly. 

But the evidence is revealed in a new study that will be difficult to argue against.

Let me back up.

Progressive leftism demands that science conforms to its moral viewpoint. (Or more accurately said, their lack of one.) 

Without any actual objective proof, the left argues that the entirety of the scientific community agrees upon the claims global warming is man made. 

They then poll only scientists who agree with that conclusion and proclaim that the issue is settled.

Scientists who disagree are excommunicated not just from participating in the research but if the left has their way–from the realm of science completely. They are excoriated, isolated, and marginalized.

The left then proclaims the “settled” science, not for the purpose of enlightenment and liberation through the application of learned knowledge. No the left uses the “settled science” as would a bully–attempting to control the lives of those who disagree with them politically.

As this has been repeatedly demonstrated in the area of the demogoguery of global warming, the arena of human sexuality is even more hotly manipulated by leftists.

This week in the Philadelphia Inquirer a new and massive study essentially debunks the idea that sexual activity (orientation) is a hard wired reality.

The study actually proves the exact opposite.

Nearly 34,000 people over 41 years were surveyed and the results were compelling. 

Compelling from the standpoint that the left’s assertions that those who participate in sexual abberration (everything outside of traditional heteronormative and relationally committed and monogamous exclusivity) do so because they are “born that way” is in essence–bogus.

The number of U.S. adults who said they had at least one same-sex sexual partner doubled between the early 1990s – that question wasn’t asked earlier – and the early 2010s, from 3.6 to 8.7 percent for women and from 4.5 to 8.2 percent for men. Bisexual behavior rose from 3.1 to 7.7 percent, accounting for most of the change.

The survey found that only 1.7 percent of men and 0.9 percent of women said they had exclusively homosexual sex.

The survey–the largest of its kind–is in essence admitting that there is far more non-heterosexual activity occurring by far more people in the population that are heterosexual in their own perception than those that identify as homosexual.

In fact over the 41 year period those who engaged exclusively in homosexual activity–the study found relatively unchanged.

This is almost impossible to comprehend since this is the same 41 year period that saw the acts of homosexual activities go from being defined as abberrant behaviors in psychological textbooks to the foremost celebrated form of sexual expression in society. Even a freshly won Supreme Court case finding a constitutional “right” to codify such behavior as a substitute for sacred marriage hasn’t appeared to change the numbers. 

What has changed is the sexual appetite and behaviors of the majority of the culture. “Heterosexuals” now are engaging (or more precisely have engaged) in homosexual activity at rates 10-12 times that of “homosexuals.” Heterosexuals (presumably many of the same) now see nothing objectionable to engaging in homosexual activity–to the tune of 49%. Only 11% morally condoned it 41 years ago.

The study also found that the sexual inclinations were adjustable (manipulatable) by other influences in ones life. There was also a gender disparity in the results.

For women, same-sex experiences are much more common among those who are younger. Only 2.4 percent of women born before 1945 said they had had sex with another woman. More than 12 percent of Millennials and 11 percent of Generation Xers said in the latest surveys that they had done so.

Women who attended church once a month or more were less likely to have sex with other women.

Long story short the survey reveals a great deal. Far more than even the writer of the piece for the Philadelphia Inquirer felt she could reveal.

Sexual behavior is always a choice. 

The left has spent 30 years or more pretending it isn’t and then raising their hands to proclaim the science is settled.

Most recently the abject ignorance of the President to acknowledge human choice in sexual behavior in advancing the abberrant behavior of men in women’s locker rooms and changing facilities is just the latest incarnation of it.

The only difference in the left’s proclamation in this issue and that of the question of the climate is that they wish to use the climate issue to control your life.

And they wish to say that fate has sentenced them to a sexual inclination of (fill in the blank) to control your ability to claim a normative moral viewpoint.

It’s also ultimately the desire (primary motivation) of the left to erase God.

For if the left is “needed” to “protect” the environment, then God is not capable doing as He claims in scripture. The holy writ asserts that God both created and sustains the very earth.

And if God is not seen as the one who creates and sustains, then the left will argue that He is also mute when it comes to moral authority over our choices and behaviors.

The left worships leftism. A godless worldview that is one of the most jealous religious systems ever devised.

God interrupts that.

But it is very interesting that after 41 years. Mankind reveals the truth that even the left tries to hide.

The *NEW* Islamic Guidelines On Slave-Sex

I kind of feel like in all the Trump vs. Hillary, who-has-the-right-to-bring-up-Bill’s-philandering, war on women, women abused by men in power, garbage that has been floating around the media universe in the last couple of days…

We may have missed the point:

The new rules

  1. It is not permissible for the owner of a female captive to have intercourse with her until after she has had menstrual cycle and becomes clean.
  2. If she does not menstruate and is pregnant, he is not allowed to have intercourse with her until after she has given birth.
  3. It is not permissible to cause her to abort if she is pregnant.
  4. If the owner of a female captive releases her, only he can have intercourse with her and he cannot allow someone else to have intercourse with her.
  5. If the owner of a female captive, who has a daughter suitable for intercourse, has sexual relations with the latter, he is not permitted to have intercourse with her mother and she is permanently off limits to him. Should he have intercourse with her mother then he is not permitted to have intercourse with her daughter and she is to be off-limits to him.
  6. The owner of two sisters is not allowed to have intercourse with both of them; rather he may only have intercourse with just one. The other sister is to be had by him, if he were to relinquish ownership of the first sister by selling her, giving her away or releasing her.
  7. If the female captive is owned by a father, his son cannot have intercourse with her and vice-versa. Moreover, intercourse with his wife’s female captive is also not permissible.
  8. If a father had intercourse with his female captive then gave her away or sold her to his son, he is no longer permitted to have intercourse with her.
  9. If the female captive becomes pregnant by her owner, he cannot sell her and she is released after his death.
  10. If the owner releases his female captive then he is not permitted to have intercourse with her afterwards because she has become free and is no longer his property.
  11. If two or more individuals are involved in purchasing a female captive, none of them are permitted to have sex with her because she is part of a joint ownership.
  12. It is not permissible to have intercourse with a female captive during her menstrual cycle.
  13. It is not permissible top have anal sex with a female captive.
  14. The owner of a female captive should show compassion towards her, be kind to her, not humiliate her and not assign her work she is unable to perform.
  15. The owner of a female captive should not sell her to an individual whom he knows will treat her badly or do unto her what Allah has forbidden.

Of course the Islamic professor says–none of this reflects Islam:

“Judaism, Christianity, Greek, Roman, and Persian civilizations all practiced it and took the females of their enemies as sex slaves. Islam preaches freedom to slaves, not slavery. Slavery was the status quo when Islam came around,” he added So Islam found this abhorrent practice and worked to gradually remove it.”

Unless of course Mohammed had nothing to do with Islam:

“Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time.  He relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night.  He had sex with a 9-year-old girl and married his adopted son’s wife (after arranging a quick divorce).  On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex – sometimes on the very days in which they had watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army.

So, by any realistic measure, the creator of the world’s most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history.”

Maybe its just because I’m a husband and father. But I can not for the life of me bring myself to say that there is anything equal in value or worth between Islam and Christianity.

Of course from both sides of the matter–I never should.

Isn’t that the point?