Short-Term Gratification vs Long-Term Satisfaction

A few years ago, I was sticker-shocked while buying some new clothes, when the salesman said something that stayed with me. It's  something to think about next time you are about to do something you will regret...

Short-Term Gratification vs Long-Term Satisfaction | Article | AskDrBrown

A few years ago, I was buying some new clothes to wear on a series of episodes on Christian TV. The salesman, a seasoned pro with a very good eye, picked out some blazers, slacks, and shirts, and after trying them on, I made my final selection. It was only then that I discovered the prices on these items, expressing my surprise out loud. 

In response, the salesman said something that stayed with me. Allow me to share it with you here.

For those who know me, I have never been a sharp dresser (you don’t associate the word “stylish” with me), and I have never spent a lot of money on clothes. So I was a bit surprised to hear the price tag on one particular blazer.

The salesman, a colorful fellow with a catchy name (something like Michelangelo if I recall) said to me, “I once talked with a Lexus car dealer. He told me I could buy a cheaper car, which would give me short-term satisfaction but long-term disappointment. Or I could pay more now, giving me short-term sticker shock but long-term satisfaction.”

I agreed with him in principle, and since I was not paying for the clothes out of my own pocket, I bought the blazer, along with the other items.

A few days later, when I did the TV shoot, recording more than 20 episodes in two days and changing shirts or slacks or blazers after each episode, some of the staff commented to me, “That one blazer looks really good on you!”

They could tell the difference in quality too.

But this article is not about clothing, nor is it about spending lavish amounts of money on our wardrobes. (Be assured that my library is worth many times more than my wardrobe!)

But it is about the principle of short-term gratification vs. long-term satisfaction, a principle found over and again in the Bible.

Think of Esau, who sold his birthright to his brother Jacob because he was hungry and wanted some food. He discarded something of lifelong, generational value to fill his stomach once. How carnal.

Think of Solomon, the wisest man who ever walked the earth, but destroyed the united kingdom of Israel because of his insatiable lust for one more woman. How foolish.

Think of ministers over the years who brought reproach to the name of Jesus, shamed their families and congregations, and undid decades of ministry work because they couldn’t say no to the flesh. How tragic.

Yet on some level, this is something all of us do, overindulging in food or going into debt or disclosing a secret or having an affair or committing a violent act because we couldn’t say no in the moment.

We needed that release. That food tasted too good. We had to have that product. The secret was too juicy. The person was too attractive. Our anger was too strong.

Whatever it was, be it large or small, we yielded to the pull of the moment, only to regret it the next day (or, in some cases, for many days or years to come).

On Wednesday, August 24, I celebrated 8 years of healthy living, all by the grace and mercy of God. (When people tell me how disciplined I am, I ask them, “Then why did it take me 59 years to break my bad eating habits?”)

It is true that, every day, I have to say no to my flesh. I have to refuse to eat more nuts, even though they are raw and organic. I have a certain, small amount, and that’s it.  I have to limit myself to one, 140 calorie health bar (it tastes like chocolate to me; to others, it would taste like beans).

I do have an absolutely massive salad each day, filling a four-quart bowl with all kinds of sumptuous veggies. And I do have three good meals a day, but rarely with any meat (on average, once every week or two, normally grilled chicken). And I thoroughly enjoy the healthy foods that I eat.

But I abstain from dairy, flour, and sugar and follow Dr. Joel Fuhrman’s “eat to live,” plant-based guidelines. And I do this 24/7, regardless of what occasion we’re celebrating or where I’m traveling worldwide. Cheating is not an option.

But the long-term satisfaction is wonderful. Absolutely wonderful!

I can’t describe how good it feels to weigh 180 lbs. rather than 275 lbs. (I’m about 6 feet 2 inches in height.)

I used to have several headaches a week. I have had virtually no headaches in 8 years, meaning roughly 1,250 headaches avoided. Think of that!

Instead of high blood pressure, my blood pressure is optimal.

Instead of my bad cholesterol being high and my good cholesterol being low they are totally reversed.

Instead of lots of lower back pain, there is none. None!

My immune system is massively better than it used to be. My energy level is terrific. (Although I don’t jog much, I ran a mile on my treadmill a few weeks ago in 7:34, and I’m 67 years old.)

To say it once more: the long-term satisfaction is wonderful. Absolutely wonderful!

Again, my only boast is in the Lord. I was the poster boy for unhealthy eating for decades (not gluttony, but unhealthy eating). I was addicted to chocolate and sweets. I was a pizzaholic. I hardly ate any fruit and very little vegetables.

So, if God could help me, He could help you too. (For the journey that Nancy and I took, check out our book Breaking the Stronghold of Food.)

But this article is not just about food. It is about a principle.

Think about it next time when you are about to do something you will regret.

Do you want short-term gratification with lasting regret? Or will you choose short-term discipline with lasting satisfaction?

Make the right choice today. You will thank yourself tomorrow.

How ‘Gender Confirmation’ Surgery Confirms There Are Only Two Genders

It used to be called sex-change surgery, even though it’s impossible to change your sex. Then it was gender reassignment surgery. Now it’s gender confirmation surgery. But whatever you call it, a simple tweet made an important observation, asking, “Why does everyone that ‘transitions’ pick male or female to transition to, when there are supposedly many other genders?”

How ‘Gender Confirmation’ Surgery Confirms there are Only Two Genders | Article | AskDrBrown

It used to be called sex-change surgery, even though it’s impossible to change your sex. 

Then it was gender reassignment surgery. Now it’s gender confirmation surgery. 

But whatever you call it, a simple tweet made an important observation, asking, “Why does everyone that ‘transitions’ pick male or female to transition to, when there are supposedly many other genders?”

That’s a great question. And it’s a fair question. 

Why only “transition” from male to female or female to male?

The answer is ridiculously obvious. It’s because there are only two sexes, male and female. Consequently, there are only two types of bodies into which humans are born, male and female. (Those who are intersex because of a chromosomal or biological abnormality only confirm the rule. They do not form a new gender or sex.)

I’m sure transgender activists would have some kind of response to this, explaining the difference between gender and sex or providing some kind of hairsplitting nuance.

Unfortunately for these activists, the very terms they have chosen to use refute their own arguments. After all, isn’t this called “gender reassignment” or “gender confirmation” surgery? Here, “gender” is identical to male or female anatomy. (And note that, in the early days, these same activists spoke of “sex change surgery.”

That’s because biological realities are pretty stubborn things, as expressed succinctly by a molecular geneticist. When asked why she strongly disagreed with the statement that “transwomen should be legally treated as women,” she replied, “Because I’m a molecular geneticist.”

That’s why a trans-identifying, biological male might say, “I’m attracted to women, but I identify as a female lesbian, and I want to transition to female.”

He might even say, “I identify as multi-gender and am pansexual, but I do not feel at home in a male body and want to transition.”

Either way, the choice is male body or female body. That’s because there are only two sexes/genders.

As the molecular geneticist noted, “Being male, or being female is a developmental process. You can’t go backwards. You can't change your sex.” (By “developmental process” she did not mean something you develop in your own perceptions. She meant biological and genetic development, beginning in the womb.)

That’s why, to this moment, every human being is the product of a male and a female. Every. Single. One.

That’s why female inmates left alone in a prison will never get pregnant, even if they are sentenced to prison for life. But if they share a cell with a “transwoman” who has not had bottom surgery, they might end up pregnant. That’s because the “transwoman” is a male, no matter how he identifies.

That’s why people seeking to transition choose either male or female surgeries. How they identify in their own brains is another matter, with an endless stream of choices, including human, animal, and entirely imaginary.

But when it comes to concrete reality, there are only two choices: male or female. That’s why transpeople identify as MTF or FTM. Those are the options.

To be sure, there are some people who identify as agender or asexual or non-binary to the point of mutilating their bodies in a different way. But the surgery they undergo is called “nullification” surgery (seriously). They are not “transitioning.”

When it comes to transitioning, you either feel trapped in a woman’s body and want to become a man or you feel trapped in a man’s body and want to become a woman.

To say it again: those are the only choices.

As Professor Sherif Girgis pointed out when arguing before the Supreme Court in the Obergefell case, “After all, male and female are not just any two sexes, as black and white are just two races. Maleness and femaleness, and a certain social purpose, are necessarily inter-defined: one cannot fully explain either maleness or femaleness without reference to the other and to a certain social good. The reason is that what differentiates them are not just different anatomical or genetic features, but— at a deeper level of explanation— their joint (basic) physical potential for a biological task: reproduction. And this task, its social value, and its link to sexual composition are certainly not mere social inventions.” (As cited in Ryan T. Anderon, When Harry Became Sally, an important book banned by Amazon.)

Or, in the words of Professors Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh, “The underlying basis of maleness and femaleness is the distinction between the reproductive roles of the sexes; in mammals such as humans, the female gestates offspring and the male impregnates the female. More universally, the male of the species fertilizes the egg cells provided by the female of the species. This conceptual basis for sex roles is binary and stable, and allows us to distinguish males from females on the grounds of their reproductive systems, even when these individuals exhibit behaviors that are not typical of males or females.” (Also cited in Anderson.)

As I wrote in February 2021, “In a series of tweets posted on February 3, the ACLU alleged that ‘trans girls are girls’ and that ’the idea of sex being rooted in biology is a ‘myth.’’ Yes, the ACLU affirmed, ‘Biological sex and gender are not binaries,’ and, ‘Trans athletes do not have an unfair advantage in sports.’ Accordingly, the only reason to deny a trans-identified student the right to play on the sports’ team of his or her choice is ‘pure discrimination.’

“To this I say – with love and compassion to these young people who struggle with their gender identity – this is a lot of bunk.”

That’s why a 2017 study conducted by researchers in the Molecular Genetics Department of the Weizmann Institute discovered that of the 20,000 genes analyzed, “6,500 of them are expressed differently in men and women in at least one of the body's tissues.”

“Sex-change” surgery or “gender reassignment” surgery or “gender confirmation” surgery simply confirms what we know.

There are only two sexes/genders. Anything beyond that is the product of our own imaginations.

Monkeypox, STDs, Violating God’s Divine Order, and Receiving Mercy

The latest report on the transmission of monkeypox confirms that it is spread overwhelmingly by men who have sex with men. What should we conclude from this?

Monkeypox, STDs, Violating God’s Divine Order, and Receiving Mercy | Article | AskDrBrown

The latest report on the transmission of monkeypox confirms that it is spread overwhelmingly by men who have sex with men. 

In the early days of AIDS, it was commonplace to hear preachers refer to this “homosexual disease” as a judgment from God.

As recounted by Michael Christensen on the Ministry Matters website, “When I was a pastor in San Francisco, many Christians viewed AIDS as a sign of the end of the world. I kept busy countering the predominant apocalyptic view in evangelical and fundamentalist churches that ‘AIDS was God's judgment on the homosexual lifestyle’ or as ‘punishment for IV drug use.’ I remember trying to help people process (including those in my own congregation) why it was that those whose behavior put them at high risk got AIDS from a virus, not as a punishment from God for immorality.”

At that moment, though, AIDS being a judgment on homosexual men seemed like a perfectly logical conclusion, especially given the climate of the day, when homosexuality was denigrated rather than celebrated by our nation.

Sadly, as pointed out by ex-gay leader Joe Dallas, the church missed a great moment to reach out to gay men across the country at a time when they were terribly fearful of this mysterious and dreadful disease. It was decimating their communities. It was destroying their bodies. It was killing young men in their prime.

Yet the main message these men heard from the church was that God was judging them for their sins.

To repeat: at that moment, it seemed clear that this was the case, that the Lord was striking these transgressors with a modern-day plague. All too few Christian leaders seized the opportunity to reach out to the homosexual community, even if they felt that AIDS was a divine judgment. This should have been the time to visit the sick and dying and offer them mercy and repentance through the cross before it was too late.

Today, we are witnessing another “gay disease,” although one that, at present, is not a fraction as savage and deadly as was AIDS.

First, when we live by our Creator’s rules and honor the proper functions of our body, on average, we will be healthier and live longer.

That’s why insurance companies ask if we smoke or drink.

That’s why people who were obese had a higher chance of dying of COVID, not to mention dying of a host of other conditions, including heart disease.

And that’s why men who have sex with men have a much higher rate of contracting STDs than the rest of the population. Some of their most common sexual acts violate God’s intended use of the body. It is only natural that more diseases are contracted and transmitted.

In fact, simply going outside the bounds of marriage opens people up to more STDs, even somewhat mysteriously.

What I mean is that if a man and woman got married as virgins and had a healthy sex life for years as husband and wife, they would never contract an STD. But if they committed the exact same act with someone they were not married to, they might well contract one.

Why? And how? Where did this STD come from? (The answers to those questions, which are somewhat speculative, are outside the scope of this article. But they are questions worth asking.)

The bottom line is that God made us to thrive as human beings. He designed the body for health, not sickness. And even though it is very true that some of the godliest people on the planet are chronically sick and that some of the wickedest people on the planet are very healthy, the rule is still the same.

When we follow the Creator’s instruction manual, we have a much better chance of survival.

This is a good time for all of us to ask ourselves, “Am I living in harmony with my Maker’s guidelines in every area of my life?”

Judging others is easy. How about judging ourselves?

Second, we need to remember that all of us live by God’s mercy, and the moment we become righteous in our own eyes, thinking we deserve His favor, we deceive ourselves. That’s why self-righteousness is one of the ugliest sins in God’s sight.

Jesus gave a famous parable to this effect, known as the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (or, Tax Collector).

To put it in contemporary terms, a well-dressed, rich, Christian man was walking into his church building on a Sunday morning when he noticed a homeless man lying on the street, barely conscious and mumbling under his breath.

The Christian said to himself, “God, I thank you that I am not like this wretch. I have not made a mess of my life. I have not had a drink in more than 30 years. I go to church faithfully. And I give away more money to the poor every year than this bum has made in his lifetime.”

As for the homeless man, he was actually mumbling a prayer, saying, “God, I’m not worthy of Your mercy. I’ve destroyed everything through my foolish choices. But a preacher told me yesterday that Jesus could save even me. So, Lord, because of Jesus, have mercy on me!”

According to Jesus Himself, it was the homeless man who was justified in God’s sight that day, not the wealthy Christian man.

Will California Legislate Medical Child Abuse without Parental Consent?

It sounds too ghastly to be true, but it is true. If California Bill SB 107 becomes law, as the bill currently stands, California could become a 'sanctuary state' for minors wanting puberty blockers and sex-change surgery, even without parental consent. “SB 107 may be the most brazen assault on fundamental parental rights in the history of this state.” This bill opens the door wide for thousands of kids to make terrible, life-altering decisions, even against their parents’ wishes. It is a brutal attack on children.

Will California Legislate Medical Child Abuse without Parental Consent? | Article | AskDrBrown

It sounds too ghastly to be true, but it is true. 

If California Bill SB 107 becomes law, as the bill currently stands, California could become a sanctuary state for minors wanting puberty blockers and sex-change surgery, even without parental consent. In the words of Attorney Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute, “SB 107 may be the most brazen assault on fundamental parental rights in the history of this state.”

In short, a trans-identifying child unable to receive hormone treatments or undergo irreversible sex-change surgery in the state in which they live would be able to flee to California and be treated under the protection of the state.

What if these treatments were available in the child’s home state but the parents opposed such treatment? Tough luck on them! As explained by the California Family Council, “Courts would also be instructed to ignore the fact that a child has been kidnapped from the parent or parents with legal custody, if the minor comes to the state for gender transitioning.”

Yes, the bill “would empower California courts to take ‘temporary emergency jurisdiction’ of children if they come to California for trans-drugs, surgery, or mental healthcare.”

Put another way, if you’re 16-years-old and your parents forbid you from transitioning, or if you live in a state where such procedures have been banned, California is the place for you.

To flesh this out more fully, let’s say you’re that child, living today in Texas. You are 16, you are a girl, but you’re convinced that you are a boy, and you desperately want to transition. This alone will be the solution to your deep emotional pain.

Your parents, on the other hand, are dead set against it, agreeing with Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, who stated that these treatments and surgeries, “when performed on children, can legally constitute child abuse under several provisions of chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code.” (For the devastating reality of all this, see here and watch this.)

Thankfully, you have extended family living in California, including two female cousins you’re close to. So, you ask your parents if you can vacation with these cousins over summer break, not telling them that the reason you want to go to California is to start the transitioning process.

Under these conditions, if SB 107 becomes law, your parents would be powerless to stop you once you got to California.

You could come home one year later without breasts, with your voice permanently altered and with your body sterilized, and there is nothing that your parents could have done about it. This is what this bill would do.

No wonder that attorney Dean Broyles, president of the National Center for Law and Policy, stated that “SB 107 is a direct assault on parental rights and state rights which will cause great damage to children and families if enacted.” Indeed, said Mark Schneider, Esq., president and founder of Protect Our Kids, “It would pit state against state and parent against parent.”

So, one state makes it illegal to transition a child and California says, “Come to us!” (This is now happening with access to abortion with the overturning of Roe.)

Or, if parents are separated but with joint custody of their child, if that child wants to transition and one of the parents is in favor while the other opposes, that parent can simply bring the child to California. The other parent would not be able to do a thing about it. Not a thing.

At the risk of overusing a phrase, I must say it again: This is madness!

The bill was introduced by State Senator Scott Wiener, based in San Francisco and himself openly gay, in response to the growing number of states that are passing bills making it illegal to transition minors. In his view, these states are engaging in “brutal attacks on transgender children.” The bill is actually referred to as “Trans Refuge Legislation.”

In reality, this bill opens the door wide for thousands of kids to make terrible, life-altering decisions, even against their parents’ wishes. So, it is the bill itself, not the laws in other states, which constitutes a brutal attack on so-called transgender children.

In fact, the LGB Alliance USA, billed as “leading the fight for same-sex rights,” strongly opposes the bill stating, “This particular bill is written under the fallacious premise that ‘gender affirming care’ is something that should be protected. However, the very term ‘gender-affirming care’ is a euphemism that obscures the reality of such ‘care’—namely, that it sets people on the path of lifelong medicalization based on scientifically dubious treatments, including hormones, puberty blockers, and mastectomies. No minor should be subjected to such treatments for gender dysphoria, as they have damaging and irreversible effects. Contrary to what SB 107 says, we believe it absolutely should be the public policy of the state of California to protect minors from adults who would irresponsibly set them on the course for such ‘treatments.’”

Not only so, but the LGBA actually endorses “the guidelines recently released by the Florida Department of Health. Such guidelines recommend against medical and social gender transition for minors, but rather encourage counseling for youth struggling with gender dysphoria.”

What do you know! (For those wondering why LGB activists would oppose SB 107, it is because “lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are over-represented amongst gender dysphoric youth. LGB youth ought to be encouraged to accept their sexuality without feeling a need to permanently medically alter their bodies.”)

Unfortunately, the California madness doesn’t stop with SB 107, which goes to preliminary vote on August 3.

There is another bill introduced by Sen. Wiener, SB 923, which, as is currently worded and according to the California Family Council, would force “all medical and health insurance personnel to attend transgender ‘cultural competency training’ classes. Those who still fail to provide ‘trans-inclusive health care’ will have to repeat the training over and over.” (Forms of the word “require” are found 43 times in the bill at present.)

As for those who refuse to provide such “health care,” a formal complaint could be lodged against them, which could then be made public. To paraphrase, “You will be reeducated, you will comply, or you will be shamed and discredited publicly!”

Or, from a different angle, “You will be forced against your will, against your religious and moral convictions, and against your better medical judgments to help people transition, or the state will be coming after you.”

It would be bad enough if things like this were taking place in a totalitarian country like China. But California? Really? Or was no one listening when many of us warned that “tolerance” was never the end goal of many LGBTQ+ activists?

This is all about compliance, or else. Californians, beware!

(If you live in California, reach out here to find out how to contact your elected representative. For the rest of the country, help get the word out!)

One columnist recently expressed his hope that we have reached “peak woke.” He defined this as “the peak (for now) of left-wing institutional intolerance and illiberalism regarding race, sex, and religion.” I certainly hope he is right, since the alternative is hard to imagine...

Have We Reached ‘Peak Woke’? | Article | AskDrBrown

Columnist David French recently expressed his hope that we have reached “peak woke.” He defined this as “the peak (for now) of left-wing institutional intolerance and illiberalism regarding race, sex, and religion.” 

I certainly hope he is right, since the alternative is hard to imagine.

To be sure, many of us saw this craziness coming a long time ago, both in terms of intolerance and cultural madness.

After all, in my 2011 book A Queer Thing Happened to America, I could already reference a June 2000 article in the Village Voice titled, “Two Dads with a Difference—Neither of Us Was Born Male.” As one of the “dads” explained, “We are transgendered men (female-to-male, or FTM). My boyfriend is the mother of my child.”

And I could already reference an August 2001 article by Richard John Niehaus in First Things in which he wrote, “The Transgender Revolution’ is the latest political cause being promoted by those of heightened consciousness. Columnist John Leo notes that San Francisco now pays for city employees who want sex-change operations, and a number of television shows are in the works portraying the joys of transgendered liberation. The Los Angeles Times had a sympathetic story on a husband and wife who are both having the operation. They will stay married, but the husband will become the wife and vice versa.”

To repeat: this was written back in 2001.

On the other hand, the mainstreaming of this societal craziness is particularly shocking, especially when we think of the devastatingly destructive impact it has had on impressionable children. (For my recent article on this, see here.) How could so many people accept as normative something that is so very bizarre? (I say this with compassion for those who struggle with their gender identity while at the same time being convinced that hormone therapy and sex-change surgery are not the way to go.)

A case in point is the concept that people are “assigned” a gender at birth as opposed to being born male or female.

When I first came across this concept while doing research for the Queer Thing book, I actually found it laughable. “Are you kidding?” I thought to myself. “Gender you’re assigned at birth – as if the doctor makes some arbitrary choice? Seriously?”

In the chapter titled “Lavender Language, Gender Speak, and Queer Semantics: Toward An Omnisexual Society?” I interacted with some definitions given to various LGBTQ+ terms.

The definition of “genderqueer” was a term “for people who feel that their gender identities [sic] or gender expression do not correspond to the gender assigned to them at birth, but who do not want to transition to the ‘opposite’ gender.”

In response I wrote, “Let’s consider this carefully. First, the concept of having multiple ‘gender identities’ is now acceptable (which means that you might consider yourself male and female and even something else, not biologically but psychologically). Second, it is now widely accepted in many GLBT circles that you are not born male or female but you are assigned a gender at birth (by society, through the medium of your parents and the doctors). There is even a regulation concerning this in the San Francisco Unified School Policy: ‘Transgender students shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth.’”

Today, such concepts have been mainstreamed to the point that medical websites have adopted this terminology.

For example, the Cleveland Clinic website notes that, “While Afib can affect anyone, it’s more common among people of European descent. However, Black people who have Afib are more likely to have serious complications such as stroke or heart failure. People assigned female at birth (AFAB) are more commonly diagnosed than people assigned male at birth (AMAB).”

So, there are even acronyms for these terms now, AFAB and AMAB. (I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that these acronyms will not replace female and male in the long term.)

Couple these acronyms with the discussion about Afib, and the whole thing almost sounds like an Abbott and Costello parody.

“First I need to know if you’re an AFAB or an AMAB. This way I can tell you if you’re an AFAB with Afib or an AMAB with Afib.”

“Then you’re an AFAB without Afib or an AMAB without Afib. But first tell me if you’re AFAB or AMAB and then we’ll discuss Afib.”

Sarcasm aside, the very fact that doctors need to distinguish between “AFAB” and “AMAB” is because there is a difference between females and males, and that difference directly affects many health outcomes and treatments. Of course biology matters!

But today, it is not just Justice Jackson who could not give a simple answer to the question, “What is a woman?”

The WHO – the World Health Organization! – has now weighed in, stating that there is no simple answer to the question. As I noted in a recent article, “The WHO has an existing ‘gender mainstreaming manual’ which argues that there are many genders existing on a spectrum from male to female. The organization now says that does not go far enough, however.” (Quoting Fox News.)

And it was a law professor from Berkeley who accused Sen. Josh Hawley of being “transphobic” when he dared to suggest that only women could get pregnant.

All that to say that I certainly hope that David French is right and that we have reached “peak woke,” not just with gender issues, as addressed here, but in other areas as well. 

Rosaria Butterfield Renounces Her Rejection of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts

Rosaria Butterfield is one of the most articulate, clear-headed voices in the Church today addressing issues of sexuality and gender. As a former lesbian feminist, now a committed Christian, she understands LGBTQ+...

Rosaria Butterfield Renounces Her Rejection of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts | Article | AskDrBrown

Rosaria Butterfield is one of the most articulate, clear-headed voices in the Church today addressing issues of sexuality and gender. 

As a former lesbian feminist, now a committed Christian, she understands the LGBTQ+...

There is a simple way to demolish the current wave of gender madness, and it is by asking one simple question as well. In fact, it was the perfect follow-up to the questioning of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearings when she dodged a simple question on the definition of the word "woman” stating that she was not a biologist...

Justice Jackson, Are You a Woman? | Article | AskDrBrown

One of the most effective strategies employed by LGBTQ+ activists has been to join their movement to the Civil Rights Movement, making gay (or trans) the new black. One of the quickest ways to demolish that comparison is by asking a black person, “When did you come out as black?” At that moment, the air goes out of the tire and the false comparison is exposed. Obviously, there is a massive difference between skin color, which is not a matter of personal perception and which cannot be hidden and does not need to be announced, and one’s perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

In the same way, there is a simple way to demolish the current wave of gender madness, and it is by asking one simple question as well. In fact, it was the perfect follow-up to Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s questioning of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearings when she asked the nominee, “What is a woman?”

When Judge Jackson was unable to answer that question, stating that she was not a biologist, Sen. Blackburn could have simply asked her, “Judge Jackson, are you a woman?” How could she not be able to answer that?

The reality is that even women on the left, including radical feminists, realize that if you can’t give a simple, self-evident definition of the term “woman,” then there is no such thing as women’s rights. After all, if we don’t know what a woman is, how can she (or he?) have equal rights?

As expressed by Pamela Paul in an op-ed for the New York Times (citing her colleague Michael Powell), “even the word ‘women’ has become verboten. Previously a commonly understood term for half the world’s population, the word had a specific meaning tied to genetics, biology, history, politics and culture. No longer. In its place are unwieldy terms like ‘pregnant people,’ ‘menstruators’ and ‘bodies with vaginas.’”

When we say “men and women” or “males and females” there is no ambiguity here at all – not unless you are a radical gender activist. As Paul rightly said (and to repeat the obvious), in the past, the word “woman” was “a commonly understood term for half the world’s population, the word had a specific meaning tied to genetics, biology, history, politics and culture.”

Paul continued, “Planned Parenthood, once a stalwart defender of women’s rights, omits the word ‘women’ from its home page. NARAL Pro-Choice America has used ‘birthing people’ in lieu of ‘women.’ The American Civil Liberties Union, a longtime defender of women’s rights, last month tweeted its outrage over the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade as a threat to several groups: ‘Black, Indigenous and other people of color, the L.G.B.T.Q. community, immigrants, young people.’

“It left out those threatened most of all: women. Talk about a bitter way to mark the 50th anniversary of Title IX.”

On July 13, Breitbart reported that, “A senior bishop of the Church of England said this week the Church has no ‘official definition’ of a woman amidst an evolving understanding of gender in the contemporary world.”

To quote the bishop directly (his name is Dr. Robert Innes, and he is “the Church’s Bishop in Europe and chairman of the Faith and Order Commission”), “There is no official definition, which reflects the fact that until fairly recently definitions of this kind were thought to be self-evident, as reflected in the marriage liturgy.”

Indeed, a special project within the Church “has begun to explore the marriage complexities associated with gender identity and points to the need for additional care and thought to be given in understanding our commonalities and differences as people made in the image of God.”

So, the Church of England has lost its way too. How sad (albeit not surprising).

And then this, reported by Fox News on July 12: “The World Health Organization will update its gender guidance to reflect its belief that gender goes ‘beyond non-binary,’ the organization has announced.

“The WHO has an existing ‘gender mainstreaming manual’ which argues that there are many genders existing on a spectrum from male to female. The organization now says that does not go far enough, however.”

But of course. The social reengineering must go further still.

Accordingly, “The updated guidance will focus on ‘highlighting and expanding on the concept of intersectionality, which looks at how gender power dynamics interact with other hierarchies of privilege or disadvantage, resulting in inequality and differential health outcomes for different people,’ the WHO website reads at the time of reporting.

“The update will also emphasize ‘going beyond non-binary approaches to gender and health to recognize gender and sexual diversity, or the concepts that gender identity exists on a continuum and that sex is not limited to male or female.’”

To say it yet again (but with more emphasis this time), this is madness! MADNESS!

So, the WHO has it wrong biologically, the Church of England has it wrong biblically, and the radical left has it wrong ideologically.

Perhaps Justice Jackson can help bring clarity here. 

Will America Soon Face a Gambling Epidemic?

I write this article as a concerned observer, not as an expert on the phenomenon of gambling and not as someone who ever struggled with gambling. I have simply noticed the pervasive presence of gambling stats and odds in the world of sports, coupled with invitations to download gambling apps, prompting me to wonder how many more Americans will becomes slaves to this highly addictive habit. Or, if they don’t become slaves to gambling, how many will simply lose lots of money indulging this habit?

Will America Soon Face a Gambling Epidemic? | Article | AskDrBrown

Some years ago, a pastor told me that a well-known worship leader was scheduled to be at his church but never showed up. It turns out that the man had a secret gambling addiction, and he fell back into his old habit while on the road, because of which he was a no-show that night. Gambling, at least for a season, had destroyed his ministry.

It’s a sad story, but it’s also illustrative. Gambling addictions are as real as drug and alcohol addictions, and in their own unique way, they can be just as destructive.

That’s why the rise of sports-related gambling has gotten my attention. It really is everywhere.

For me, watching sports one night on a free weekend is a nice way to relax or unwind. Or I’ll read some sports pages online after hours of writing. It’s a harmless way to chill and wind down.

But with some sports, at the beginning of the event, you’re told what the latest odds are. Then, as the event unfolds, in live, real time, you’re told what the latest betting odds are, being adjusted by the minute. Obviously, people are betting all the time.

Or you’re reading about the buildup to a major game or event, and in the same article that you’re reading, there’s a betting section as well. “We recommend putting your money here.”

Then there are the ads for betting websites and apps. They, too, seem to be everywhere these days. Have you noticed this as well?

Well it appears that we’re not the only ones taking notice.

A Forbes headline on February 15, 2022 announced, “U.S. Gambling Revenue Hit Record $53 Billion In 2021.”

As the article explained, “The nation’s casinos and gaming mobile apps rang up a record $53 billion in revenue last year, according to a report by the American Gaming Association. Revenue is up 21% from the previous annual record set in 2019, which was just before the pandemic forced much of the industry’s casinos to close for months.

“Bill Miller, the president and CEO of the American Gaming Association, called 2021 a ‘remarkable’ year during a press conference on Tuesday.”

Yes, noted Miller, this really bucked the societal trends. He said, “Our incredible rate of recovery sets us apart from others in the hospitality sector and the broader economy.”

That’s why we should be very concerned. What Miller, from his perspective, calls “incredible” and “remarkable,” I call really bad news.

That’s why CBN featured a story on, “The Rise of Sports Gambling in America” on April 8, 2022.

And that’s why, as I was writing this op-ed piece tonight (July 11), I spotted an article posted just three hours earlier on the MoneyWise website, starting with these jarring words: “We've seen people go from six-figure incomes ... to living on the streets': Why it's easier than ever to get addicted to gambling. Experts say there needs to be more education and awareness around this ‘invisible addiction.’”

Chew on that for a moment: going “from six-figure incomes ... to living on the streets,” all because of gambling. Shouldn’t this give all of us cause for concern?

As explained in the article by Serah Lewis, “Gambling has long been one of Americans' favorite pastimes. And access to it has only gotten easier since 2018, when the Supreme Court overturned a decision that limited sports betting to Nevada. Ads and apps have been popping up everywhere since, even some featuring celebrities like Aaron Paul and Shaquille O'Neal.

“But those ads can have a troubling effect, says [former gambling addict Noah Vineberg]. Because while they may show people winning, ‘winners’ are not who the advertisers are really trying to target.

“‘The client they’re after is the “me” that's going to go to four different check-cashing places … and going to just try and make enough on the weekend in my bets to cover my butt by Monday.’

“And it's only going to get more difficult for people like Vineberg. More than two dozen states have legalized sports betting in the past few years. And according to a report by the American Gaming Association, sports betting and iGaming revenue grew by double digit percentages in April from the previous year.”

Lewis also quotes Mike Bergeron, a certified credit counselor at Credit Canada, who noted that, with gambling apps. “It's just so easily accessible. Everywhere you're at — it's on your phone, it's at home on your computer, you can do it at work on your lunch break.”

“It's just so easily accessible,” says Bergeron. “Everywhere you're at — it's on your phone, it's at home on your computer, you can do it at work on your lunch break.”

Health

Short-Term Gratification vs Long-Term Satisfaction

How ‘Gender Confirmation’ Surgery Confirms There Are Only Two Genders

Monkeypox, STDs, Violating God’s Divine Order, and Receiving Mercy

Will California Legislate Medical Child Abuse without Parental Consent?

Have We Reached ‘Peak Woke’?

Rosaria Butterfield Renounces Her Rejection of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts

Justice Jackson, Are You a Woman?

Will America Soon Face a Gambling Epidemic?

Why is Senator Elizabeth Warren Declaring War on Pregnancy Crisis Centers?

Fat Is Not Fit

Fentanyl Is Killing Our Young People

Christian Leaders, Please Do Not Publicly Celebrate Your Liberty to Drink

Isn’t This More Dangerous Than Alleged Vaccine Misinformation?

‘This Is [Expletive] America’: Dana White Pushes Back Against Cancel Culture

A Suggestion for Joe Rogan that Could Educate the Masses

COVID, Fear, and Demons

Sickness Is an Enemy

Thoughts on Australia’s Decision to Deport Tennis Star Novak Djokovic

Totally Candid Reflections on the COVID Vaccinations

So, I Finally Got COVID

Once Again, the Greek Word Pharamakia in Revelation 18:23 Does Not Refer to Big Pharma

Is It True that the Book of Revelation Indicts Big Pharma?

With Word of New COVID Variants, God’s Message Again is Fear Not

Why the Heavy-Handed Mandate Bullying?

We Must Never Get Used to the New Cultural Craziness

I Warned that Doctors were Experimenting with Transgender Children. Now a Leading Transgender Doctor is Sounding the Alarm

When Parents Became the Enemy

Never Underestimate the Power of Greed

Did You Hear About the Latest Moral Outrage from California?

Why YouTube’s Banning of Anti-Vaxxers is So Ominous

Analyzing the Election Results in California and Canada, and the Attitude of Faith vs Fear

From ‘Let Them Eat Cake’ to ‘Let Them Wear Masks’

The Real Attack Against Our Children

An Open Letter to Women Say ‘My Body, My Choice’

What Makes this 91-Year-Old Man So Energetic and Full of Life?

Why a Virginia Middle School is Removing Urinals from the Boys’ Bathrooms

We Were Here When Medical Science Lost its Mind

The Politicizing of COVID Has Become a Deadly Game

Yes, Twitter Actually Blocked Me for THIS

If You Can Change Your Sex Can You Change Your Race?