Month: June 2023

While admittedly hesitant to feel capable of demanding what all others should care about, perhaps the better question is: “Do we care if our news is accurate?” Unquestionably, not all proclaimed news sources present actual, factual news.

To be clear, biased sources are capable of being actual and factual; the credibility question, however, is simply whether they are transparent in regard to how their bias impacts the way in which they report.

Take “fact checkers,” for example. We’d like to assume they are providing us with accurate news. They publicize and pronounce themselves as sources which scrutinize reality. Take Snopes, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, for example. Each claims to be actual and factual.

Yet a key, oft-overlooked part of fact-checking is ensuring that the assessments are balanced and complete. Notice how AllSides, a respected Intramuralist source, shares 6 ways in which the Fact Checkers quietly mislead by embedding their bias:

Just fact check the other guys, leave “their side” mostly unchallenged.

This is apparent in the case of President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump — when Biden falsely said during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Trump supporters at the Jan. 6 Capitol riot “killed a police officer,” few fact-checkers paid any attention to it. Many of the same outlets that didn’t cover Biden’s claim published inaccurate stories in the riot’s immediate aftermath about the officer’s death. Conversely, few right-rated sources spend any time fact-checking Trump’s claims that election fraud cost him the 2020 election…

Fact check extreme or narrow statements to label them as false, implying that a more general idea is also false.

PolitiFact (Lean Left bias) recently analyzed the statement that “critical race theory has moved into all our schools in Virginia” and found it to be false. The claim is in essence true, though highly exaggerated. If PolitiFact instead had fact checked whether “themes of CRT are being taught in schools today,” that answer, based on their own description, would be true. Fact checkers on both sides issue true/false binaries on claims that are largely subjective. In an article about a Florida bill that would prohibit discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in schools, Breitbart Fact Check rated the claim that “Conservative Florida legislators are targeting vulnerable gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex children” as “FALSE”, even though the claim itself is highly subjective. Breitbart’s presentation of the claim minimizes more specific criticisms of the bill about freedom of expression and general concerns about the LGBTQ+ community.

Subjectively judge claims, often beyond the hard facts, to give a final “fact check” rating. 

One example of this is in this controversial fact check by The Washington Post of Carly Fiorina’s statement, “I started as a secretary, typing and filing for a nine-person real estate firm. It’s only in this country that you can go from being a secretary to chief executive of the largest tech company in the world, and run for president of the United States. It’s only possible here.”  The Washington Post Fact Check (Lean Left) gave her statement a “3 Pinocchio” rating (which means “mostly false” or has “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions”), saying that “In telling her only-in-America story, she conveniently glosses over the only-for-Fiorina opportunities and options beyond what the proverbial mailroom worker has,” while also affirming with detail that she had indeed started as a secretary.

Trust only a few government experts or others that are likely biased toward one conclusion.

Fact checkers often show bias via which authority they appeal to. They may trust claims and data given by institutions or authorities such as government agencies or military branches that are themselves being charged with falsehood or controversial behavior. For instance, years ago, PolitiFact fact checked the GOP accusation that many would not be able to hold onto their current doctor with Obamacare. PolitiFact appealed to statements from Obama’s administration to state as fact that you could keep your doctor, and called accusations to the contrary as false, not covering the arguments and data showing that you would lose your doctor. (To their credit, after Obamacare was passed and many people were forced to give up their current doctors, exposing the lie, PolitiFact called Obama’s claim that you could keep your doctor their “Lie of the Year”.)…

Only provide or emphasize data that supports one conclusion.

On issues such as gun control, racism in policing, and abortion, there is a range of data and research that support and oppose the various arguments about the issue. A fact checker might emphasize one set of data and facts while completely ignoring or greatly downplaying another set of data and facts that support an alternative conclusion…

Lack of thought diversity within the fact checker team.

Journalists tend to lean left. This may explain why Politifact doubled down on a fact check debunking the theory that Kyle Rittenhouse’s possession of a rifle on the night he killed two men and wounded one during Black Lives Matter unrest was “perfectly legal.” A judge tossed out a charge of a minor carrying a weapon, reportedly due to unclear laws regarding the alleged violation, but Politifact wrote a lengthy explanation about why they believe their fact check conclusion still had merit.

Just want to be actual and factual, friends. That would help so many of our conversations, enabling us to more productively dialogue about what is indeed true.

Respectfully…

AR

With Google being our active and semi-altruistic friend, the individual info search has become quite the convenient, domestic activity. Hence, on a witty whim earlier in the week, we asked, “What are people prone to?”

The answers span the spectrum of creativity, if I do say so myself…

Depression… coronavirus… certain health conditions.. each was shared via take #1.

A more involved search produced the concepts of being prone to accidents, addiction and anxiety. Such sent my pondering brain in a different direction — one perhaps more tailored toward an Intramuralist focus — especially when I was asked by a friend recently, “Why aren’t you more prone to insult?”

For communicative clarity (which we believe is one of current culture’s unfortunate, increasing scarcities), let’s provide some basic definitions.

First, what does it mean to be prone?

prone (adj.) – likely to do something

Second…

insult (v.) – to speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse

It’s amazing how frequently insults flow. We find ourselves in these insulated, likeminded huddles, where we justify the disrespect and scorn. It’s like we think it’s ok there. I recently saw someone throw even public, scornful shade at one who had recently died. They pointed out all the perceived, massive wrongdoing of the deceased and then suggested that in heaven, if there, Jesus would be gently but demonstrably pointing out all the ways the man had erred in his judgment. I didn’t have the heart to say that such is likely to be true for all who are blessed to enter those pearly gates. But alas, we stand amazed.

Ah, let’s offer one more definition. That of “amazed.” Note that “amazed” is a neutral adjective; it is not aligned with good nor bad. It simply means “causing great surprise or wonder; astonishing.” Yes, it’s amazing how frequently insults seems to flow.

So the question was why is the Intramuralist not likely to engage in such verbal abuse. Allow me first a very important distinction. Unfortunately, I have had moments in which I contributed to said negative discussion. I have had times where I joined in the fray. I have said things that were rude and disrespectful. And yes, absolutely, I have had multiple moments that I regret. I most likely will have some more.

Yet with the experience gained through seasons of life — as a constant student, continuous learner, and one who desires to grow in what is good and right and true — there is clear recognition that none of us are perfect. Each of us often falls prey to lesser, disrespectful things.

The goal is to justify the lesser less.

I honestly, simply believe that no one is deserving of my disrespect.

And in those moments, where I have felt so emboldened in justifying that scorn or disrespect, I am typically really, really, really focused on the errors in another…

And simultaneously really, really, really ignoring the imperfections in me.

That, my friends, is amazing.

Respectfully… indeed…

AR

As we soon celebrate the 15th year of the Intramuralist (crazy… I know!), I find myself grateful, gleeful and sincerely humbled. It’s been a true labor of love for this decade and a half. As we near our actual anniversary this fall, we will find ways to appropriately (and wittily) acknowledge the years, span the subjects, and express our deep gratitude to the thousands of you who have loyally tuned in.

The reality is this also finds me a wee bit nostalgic. It’s fun to remember some of which we wrote. So I scaled back to our earliest years and found the following insightful gem.

It’s a little more personal.

And it began by discussing how we look at other people.

It started by suggesting that we tend to look at one another in one of two ways — that all-too-luring, all-too-incomplete binary choice…

“… We look at others in one of two ways:  (1) what they are capable of doing, or (2) what they are not. We employ this tactic often, and it appears we employ it with a confidence that is questionable… perhaps sometimes inappropriate.”

And after presenting the binary bait, we acknowledged how this plays itself out in politics and sports.

But alas, neither is truly my favorite subject.

As written years ago, indulge me in my no doubt favorite example, from a sweet, momentous time…

“Today my youngest son ‘graduates’ from his first school. He has attended the early childhood center for 5 years, having the privilege of learning under some extremely, highly skilled educators since the age of 2. He has grown. He has blossomed. He can now do things we once wondered if impossible! Joshua is ready to tackle whatever happens next. He is fully confident that he can move forward — even without knowing all that ‘forward’ entails.

His propitious development astounds all who invest in him. Remember, this is the same child who solicited an initial in utero response from more than one doctor in regard to our desire to abort him. Please know their question was asked respectfully. It simply would have been more tactful had they congratulated us on his conception first.

Each day Josh looks at mountains and perceives them to be merely mole hills. Each day there are those who try to remind him they are really mountains. Some hold sincere intention, like his elementary, female peers who possess that seemingly innate mothering gene and thus work to instill some type of independent control in all those around them. But I also see adults interact with him… like the mom on the baseball field who seems to only announce what my son is doing wrong.  Where is the affirmation for being on that field instead? Where is the affirmation for what my son can potentially do? Who he can potentially be?

I believe one of our objectives in life on planet Earth is to spur others on to be who they were called to be. To encourage them all the more. To motivate them to use their gifts. If we only look at others from the perspective of what they cannot do, we ourselves will never spur on another.  We will then be the ones incapable.”

It’s a fascinating phenomena…

The greatest limitations are those we discern we have the ability to place… either on others or on self.

So we ask today: who are we negatively assessing? Who are we seeing most from the perspective of what they cannot do?

Let’s be better. Let’s be kinder. Let’s spur another on.

Respectfully…
AR

We’ll get to the partying. First, let’s review one recently discussed fact:

The clear majority of American adults don’t want either Joe Biden or Donald Trump to run again for President. But alas, they are still running. 

With all due respect, it begs the question: who do they each care most about?

But they aren’t the only ones whose care is in question…

Many months ago, we shared the motives here of a group called No Labels. Ardent Intramuralist readers will recall that through this organization, this current events blogger has had the recent privilege of being in very thought-provoking meetings with politicians Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gov. Larry Hogan, Gov. Pat McCrory, civil rights leader Dr. Benjamin Chavis, and for interviewing purposes, New York Times reporter David Brooks. As spokespersons or chairmen, they respectfully advocate for a “national movement of commonsense Americans pushing our leaders together to solve our country’s biggest problems.” Unfortunately, intense political polarization has halted progress on our problems. And some of the advocated legislation on the left and the right has become fairly radical — and dare I semi-humbly suggest, radically disrespectful of often at least half the country’s population.

No Labels encourages each of us to have the courage to put our country first… to care most about country. As they sincerely but bluntly acknowledge, “In American politics today, it doesn’t take courage to follow the party line. You don’t need a backbone to hurl pot shots at the other side. To stir up hate and recrimination. To gum up the works. To refuse to cooperate.” And yet, that is what many are doing. Joe Biden and Donald Trump each contribute significantly to the problem, albeit via varied angles.

Hence, aware of the potential of the again insufferable choice between Biden and Trump, where questions of competence and character are unquestionably in play, No Labels has been working for multiple years now to craft what they call the “Insurance Policy 2024.” If we face Biden vs. Trump round 2, No Labels is preparing to offer a unity ticket, a presidential ticket that features strong, effective and honest leaders who will commit to working closely with both parties to find those commonsense solutions. They are preparing for the possibility; they have not yet committed to doing so. They care more about the country than any one party. 

Now that they are making notable progress, picking up steam, with more and more of us attracted to a movement that doesn’t pander to the extreme left or right, notice, no less, how the parties have reacted…

Last week from the primary two parties, a group of approximately 40 political strategists and former officials — including Pres. Biden’s former chief of staff — met quietly together for a singular purpose: to “subvert” the No Labels plan. As Michael Scherer penned for The Washington Post, “The group discussed raising money to minimize impact of No Labels presidential bid, pressure donors and potential candidates to back away… Their mission: Stop No Labels.”

Their mission doesn’t stop there. In Arizona, the Arizona Democratic Party is actually suing to keep No Labels off the ballot. They are suing to actually obstruct the democratic process.

Let me be clear; this is not just the Democrats. This is not just the Republicans. This is both. These are the established political parties who are threatened by the existence of another, viable party. We ask once more: who do they care most about?

Partying is a problem.

Let us suggest the Democrats and Republicans are threatened by more than a sensible third party. Note, in their words, what No Labels stands for: 

1. We care about this country more than the demands of any political party.
2. Political leaders need to listen more to the majority of Americans and less to extremists on the far left and right.
3. We are grateful to live in a country where we can openly disagree with other people.
4. America isn’t perfect, but we love this country and would not want to live any place else.
5. We can still love and respect people who do not share our political opinions.
6. We support, and are grateful for, the U.S. military.

As is our passion here at the Intramuralist — and no doubt one of the reasons we are sincerely attracted to the efforts of this movement — note in particular values #3 and 5: grateful to live where we can openly disagree… and… we can still love and respect those who don’t share our political opinions…

That, my friends, is eye-opening. Neither established, primary party is known for their gratitude amid disagreement nor their respect for those who actually disagree. No wonder they are threatened; people are realizing that their partying is a problem. 

Respectfully…

AR

One of the Intramuralist’s key ambitions is to routinely encourage what is good and right and true. But let’s face it. In a society bombarded by seemingly constant moral digression, sometimes what’s good and right and true is difficult to discern.

We watch people fight. We watch them denigrate the different and call others names. We watch them refuse to listen.

And those are just the adults.

My sense is that part of our downfall is we’ve polluted the third pillar in the good, right and true metric; we’re confused by the definition of truth. Our airwaves and even casual conversations are befouled by quotes depicted as “brainy,” that in actuality speak of truth differently… I am my truth… Your truth and my truth may not be the same… This is my truth; tell me yours…

All of the above, therefore, prompt us to ask today’s zillion dollar question:

Is truth relative?

To ensure we are aligned, let’s put forth a few definitions…

truth | tro͞oTH | – noun

the quality or state of being true

• (also the truth) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality
• a fact or belief that is accepted as true

true | tro͞o | – adjective

in accordance with fact or reality

• [attributive] rightly or strictly so called; genuine
• [attributive] real or actual
• said when conceding a point in argument or discussion

And last but not least… 

rel·a·tive | ˈrelədiv | – adjective

considered in relation or in proportion to something else

• existing or possessing a specified characteristic only in comparison to something else; not absolute

So let’s get this straight…

“Truth” or “true” means that which is in accordance with fact. Facts are not debatable nor deniable. They are proven reality.

“Relative” means possession a characteristic only in comparison to something else. In other words, by definition, it is not fact.

Hence (and clearly, this isn’t rocket science nor actually any kind of science), truth cannot be relative.

“I am my truth,” therefore, instead implies that I am mixing up the words “truth” with either my “preference,” “opinion” or “desire.”

“Your truth and my truth may not be the same”… Such is also understandable, yet we’re getting lost in a most poetic idea, wherein “truth” is getting confused with either “perspective” or “experience.”

And as for “This is my truth; tell me yours”… That’s another good one, but here we’ve misplaced “truth” on top of “story” or “conviction.”

It makes sense that we would each have different preferences, opinions, desires, perspectives, experiences, stories, and convictions. With absolutely all due respect, it does not make sense that there exist different truths.

Truth be told, if we tell the truth — the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that is — truth is not relative. It’s can’t be. That’s good. That’s right. And it’s actually true.

Respectfully…

AR

“When he was faced with an impossible choice, when the futures of all paths were equally shadowed, when the countless possibilities of either choice either balanced out or were hopelessly confusing, that he would make a decision based on what he hoped to be true, rather than by what he feared to be true.” — from Aleron Kong in The Land: Predators

Kong’s mesmerizing tale is fiction. Unfortunately, the situation we may soon find ourselves in is not.

A few weeks ago, we took time out before the season becomes prone to slinging, to respectfully but bluntly acknowledge the perceived codependence of Presidents Biden and Trump. Our working supposition is that Joe Biden and Donald Trump need each other in order to get re-elected, but as a country, with truly all due respect, we need neither. We need competent, fit, lucid, self-aware, emotionally-intelligent, unity-building, economically-solid, solicitous problem solvers. That doesn’t unquestionably describe either of the two most recent presidents. And yet, both are running again. 

As Philip Levine opined in USA Today last month, “We have the American people facing the prospect of choosing, for a second time, between two candidates they don’t like — candidates intent on ignoring the many voters who appreciate old-fashioned things like cooperation and problem solving.” It is, therefore, an impossible choice, one the clear majority of the country fears coming true.

According to a recent NBCNews poll, 70% of Americans believe Biden shouldn’t run for re-election; that includes 51% of Democrats. 60% of Americans believe Trump should not run; that includes a third of Republicans. Hence exists the impossible choice that the public — not the parties nor candidates — seem to see. We want better.

So if the parties/candidates truly wanted to embrace the inaugural wisdom of JFK by not asking “what our country can do for you,” my sense is the following should change before the debates and primaries…

But alas, the presidential debates… Allow us a brief, tangent editorial observation. The debate system has certainly become flawed. Some of the worst public, nonproductive, political debates we’ve witnessed have come in the last three years (i.e. Biden vs. Trump, Fetterman vs. Oz, etc.). The public has noticed; so have the candidates. Trump has threatened multiple times now to skip the party’s debates. Biden’s party has said they will adhere to recent precedent and actually hold none. Commented actor James Van Der Beek, “There’s no debate? There’s no debate over an 80-year-old man who, if he lives, would be the oldest sitting president in the history of the country? And if he doesn’t live, has a vice president whose approval rating is worse than his?” As Van Der Beek added, and which thus seems true of both Biden and Trump, they are “openly ignoring, bypassing the will of the people.”

So let’s get back to the will of the people and what we can do for the country…

Before the onset of the presidential primaries — with the Republican primaries currently scheduled to begin in Jan of 2024 in Iowa and the Democrats in February in South Carolina — let us semi-humbly suggest the following…

For the Republicans, currently 11 noteworthy persons have declared their official candidacy: 

• Doug Burgum, the governor of North Dakota
• Chris Christie, former governor of New Jersey
• Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida
• Larry Elder, a talk radio host and 2021 California gubernatorial candidate
• Nikki Haley, former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Governor
• Asa Hutchinson, former Arkansas Governor 
• Mike Pence, former vice president of the United States
• Vivek Ramaswamy, entrepreneur and political commentator
• Tim Scott, a United States senator from South Carolina 
• Corey Stapleton, former Montana Secretary of State
• Donald Trump, former U.S. President 

For the good of the country, that’s too many. With so many vying for the nomination, they will dilute the vote, potentially handing the nomination to Trump. Good for the country would be for many to exit the race before the primaries ever begin.

For the Democrats, currently 3 noteworthy persons have declared:

• Joe Biden, incumbent President of the United States
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a lawyer and author
• Marianne Williamson, 2020 presidential candidate and author

For the good of the country, that’s too few. With so few vying for the nomination, they don’t provide a significant choice, potentially handing the nomination to Biden. Good for the country would be for more solid candidates to enter the race before the primaries ever begin.

The majority agrees; we want to avoid the impossible choice. We instead seek someone who is unquestionably competent, fit, lucid, self-aware, emotionally-intelligent, unity-building, economically-solid, and a solicitous problem solver. That, no doubt, would be good for the country.

Respectfully…

AR

As we met yesterday in the dining area of one of our favorite local eateries, we paused a bit from our Chick-n-Minis, Egg White Grills, Scramble Bowls and Burritos, long enough to ask why this is so good. Not so much the food — even though the food is great — but what about this experience? Why is it so good?

What makes Chic-fil-A so popular, being one of the nation’s top ten, revenue-producing fast-food chains, even though they’re closed one day every week? They are open 52 fewer days per year.

What does Chic-fil-A do uniquely well?

It’s a great question…

… great to ponder for any institution, government and even self..

What can we learn from Chic-fil-A?

What struck us first is that Chic-fil-A offers a consistently great product. The quality of what they do and what they offer is never in question. They know there exists no such thing as partial excellence. (Even though in admitted pure opinion, I could do without the pickle.) 

They don’t do what they don’t do well. They don’t serve burgers. Let the person who does that well do it. Celebrate them. None of us, no institution, is meant to be all things to all people.

They keep it simple. Not all the red tape. There is no chicken alfredo, cacciatore or even divan. Unnecessary complexity can be appetizing, but it also provides room for all sorts of inefficiency and waste. (We’ll save for another day if any institutions we know have any excess waste.)

They communicate well. Their “yes” means “yes” and their “no” means “no.” They mean what they say. We can trust them. Trust is an eroded virtue in current culture.

They’re adaptable. Yesterday morning I walked in, wanting to pay for 20 people, each who would be strolling in individually. It was outside Chic-fil-A’s typical order rhythm. But rather than saying “we can’t” or “we won’t,” they listened well, collaborated on a solution, and made it work. 

They recognize the value in community. As they write on their corporate website, “’We are better together’ — one of our core values at Chick-fil-A — means when we combine our unique backgrounds and experiences with a culture of belonging, we can strengthen the quality of care we deliver.” Love that. Current culture would be so much wiser if we recognized what we had in common. With, uh, all.

They give back. I love that one of their core giving philosophies is that everyone’s job is “to serve.” Service puts other people first. Not just some people.

They have a solid value system. They are about far more than selling chicken. Said their founder, S. Truett Cathy, “We should be a part of our customers’ lives and the communities in which we serve.” They thus have a value system that never wavers. We know what they are for.

They respond to culture with generous care. I love how in my hometown of Orlando, when the awful Pulse nightclub shooting happened, where an Afghan-American domestic terrorist murdered 49 people and wounded 53 others at a gay dance club, Chic-fil-A opened their doors on a Sunday — which is not their practice — to provide food to those who were donating blood and to law enforcement officers who were part of the organized response.

They greet customers with sincere warmth. In response to all who thank them, employees always reply, “My pleasure.” That’s not “no problem,” “you’re welcome” or something simply transactional. “My pleasure!” That means more. That is excellent customer service. 

I suppose in a nutshell, that’s it. Chic-fil-A never compromises on who they are nor why they do it. Sometimes the rest of us do that. Sometimes our government does that.

We simply don’t do everything with excellence. And clearly it’s not always a pleasure.

We can do better.

Maybe we start by selling chicken. 🙂

Or by at least learning from one who does more.

Respectfully…

AR

J: OK, let me say it right from the get-go. This is hard.

K: I know. People don’t do this well. There aren’t many safe places to speak. 

J: Not just to speak, but to honestly explore what we think. I feel like if you say one wrong thing, people will be immediately offended, like “you’re not allowed to even think that!”

K: Right. Like “you even thinking that is evil or immoral or damaging.”

J: And they’re shouting… always shouting.

K: True. The societal shouting is pretty exhausting.  

J: So knowing this is a safe place, where all thoughts, discussion and exploration are welcome, can we talk? Really talk? I’m hesitant to go here, but I need help. The conversation keeps changing. What current culture deems as good and right and true keeps changing. I can’t keep up with it!

K: Agreed. We keep moving the bar, goalposts, whatever you want to call it. But, of course, here is a respectful place to exchange ideas and listen to one another, regardless of where we come from and what we believe.

J: Thanks. Can we talk about LGBTQ+ — the movement, the definitions, even this whole Bud Light, Target, Twitter documentary thing — whatever that is? I keep trying to learn from the media, but I also feel whatever side I’m listening to that they’re not attempting to encourage any critical thinking; they’re just trying to encourage me to think like them.

K: Oh, the media. They’re pretty impure. I think they hurt more than they help. In recent years I’ve come to believe they actually try to divide us. Maybe it’s a ratings thing.

J: Or maybe they just broadcast what they want, dressing up their opinions and offering it as news. Scary. But I think we, too, often fall prey to listening to media outlets that only confirm what we already think.

K: Amen to that! And that is doing damage to our entire culture.

J: So back to this LGBTQ+ thing. And it’s not really about the “L,” “G” or “B.” I know “L” stands for “lesbian” or same-sex attracted women; “G” stands for “gay,” which now primarily refers to same-sex attracted men, and “B” for “bisexual,” persons who are attracted to both sexes. I understand all that. I have tons of LGB friends — and love them dearly! But I’ve been sincerely struggling with the “T,” the concept of transgender, referring to a person who was biologically born male or female but now desires to be the other. I really mean no disrespect — please! I simply have honest-to-goodness questions about what I believe — and not many places will let us talk about it. 

K: I get it. And then the whole Bud Light and Target thing brought it all to the forefront.

J: Right! Bud Light sponsored a trans woman or biological male on Instagram, and Target started selling a kids swimsuit promoting “tuck-friendly construction” with “extra crotch coverage.” Then I hear of a protest, and I’m sitting here not wanting to be disrespectful or offensive to anyone, but I don’t know how to feel! It’s so confusing!

K: Indeed. Share with me a little more here. And let me be sure to emphasize this — I think you said it, too — but it’s important to be respectful and compassionate to all involved. There are many affected by this issue that struggle with various mental and spiritual health issues, and we want to be sure not to add to that. It goes back to what you said from the start; this is hard.

J: I guess I feel like the “T” doesn’t really fit with the “L,” “G” and “B.” Again, I really do mean no disrespect. I’m just trying to logically wrap my brain around this. LGB still recognize their biological makeup. “T” doesn’t do that. Their identification is subjective, believing we can be who or what we identify as, as if we can just decide; it contradicts the divine truth of being created uniquely male and female. Again, I’m not shouting. I’m just one who craves and embraces the truth; truth has never been relative. So it was one thing for me when advocates suggested we just want freedom. No one’s rights should be denied. But somewhere along the way…

K: Somewhere along the way Bud Light and Target and other corporations came in…

J: Yes. They keep pushing the envelope too far, meaning farther than what’s true. For Target, for example, to put that swimsuit in the kids section means kids will see it. It’s as if Target wants to teach my kids that gender is somehow malleable. That doesn’t make sense. And holding that opinion — and this is why it’s so hard to discuss — doesn’t make me “anti-trans.” I absolutely value the freedom and value of all people. Rather, it makes me a believer in biological and biblical truth.

K: You’re not alone in your questioning. There are increasingly more angles that the majority of our country sincerely wrestles with. We need to be able to have healthy, respectful, non-shouting conversations about what is true and what is not. Especially, for example, this idea of sexual-changing surgery as a minor. This is tough! I feel for the one who struggles with this. I care deeply, too, for my many friends who are the parents of these dear kids. I also struggle with the idea that a person that young knows what’s best for the entire rest course of their life. I certainly didn’t.

J: Oh, and look at all the adult confusion… 

K: Ah, like when Lia Thomas took center stage in the the NCAA swimming competition.

J: Right. A man competes against men one year. The very next year against women. He goes from 554th to 5th place in one event and 65th to 1st in another. That doesn’t take any kind of science to discern that DNA made the difference. An award was then taken away from women, both straight and lesbian women. 

K: FYI — Lia plans to swim at the 2024 Summer Olympic trials.

J: Yikes. When places of women are taken, when their rights are violated, this gets even harder.

K: Yes. The bar or the goalposts are certainly being attempted to be moved. My sense is persons are attempting to move from acceptance of a thing to celebration of that thing.

J: And there’s a huge difference between the two, especially because of truth. Truth and grace, as I say, always given at the same time. And generously. Always generously.

K: Wow. Yes. This is hard.

J: No doubt. [Insert deep breath here.] Thanks for talking.

K:Thank you. Thanks for being honest and vulnerable… although I don’t know that we solved anything.

J: No, but at least we found a safe place to talk.

Respectfully…

J&K for AR