A few weeks ago, I participated in a strong discussion about transgenderism and intersex conditions with a leftist Democrat in a barber shop.
In recent years, debates about gender identity have made their way into nearly every aspect of cultural discourse, including the church. What once would have been considered fringe theology—if theology at all—is now promoted in some pulpits.
Among the more creative attempts to harmonize progressive (woke) ideology with the Bible is the claim that Jesus supported transgenderism in Matthew 19.
Specifically, some assert that Christ’s reference to “eunuchs who were born that way” is a nod to modern transgender individuals, supposedly affirming their identity and dignity.
Such claims are not merely theological missteps; they are deliberate distortions meant to co-opt the moral authority of Christ for ideological ends. This article will examine the passage in its context, explore the progressive misinterpretation, and offer a biblically faithful understanding of the three eunuch categories Jesus described.
We will also address disorders of sexual development (DSD) and show why these cannot be conflated with transgender identity. Finally, we’ll close with a reflection on how liberal churches and leftist ideologues misuse Scripture not out of reverence for its authority but as a rhetorical tool for societal transformation.
Setting the Scene: The Context of Matthew 19
Matthew 19 opens with Jesus departing from Galilee and heading into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. There, large crowds follow Him, and He heals them. The Pharisees, seeing yet another opportunity to trap Jesus, approach Him with a question regarding divorce:
“Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (Matthew 19:3, ESV)
This is the central issue that prompts the entire discussion in this chapter. The Pharisees aren’t simply seeking wisdom—they are hoping to ensnare Jesus in a theological or political misstep. By posing a question that divided the rabbinical schools of the time (notably between Hillel’s permissiveness and Shammai’s strictness), they thought they could alienate Him from at least part of His audience.
Jesus, however, bypasses their trap and goes directly to Scripture:
“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female…” (Matthew 19:4, ESV)
Here, Christ reaffirms the created order, rooting His answer in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. In doing so, He makes clear that the union of one man and one woman is not a social construct but a divinely ordained pattern. Marriage, Jesus asserts, is between male and female, joined together by God, and not to be severed by man.
This answer displeases the Pharisees, who press Him further about Mosaic law and the allowance for divorce (v.7). Jesus replies that this concession was due to the hardness of human hearts—not God’s design. The disciples, taken aback by Christ’s strict stance, respond in verse 10:
“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
To this, Jesus gives His now-famous reply about eunuchs, which includes the much-debated phrase “born that way.” This is the backdrop: a conversation about marriage, human sexuality, and God’s design—not gender identity or modern social movements.
Explaining the Passage: Matthew 19:11–12
Let’s now turn to the specific verses that have become the subject of such ideological controversy:
“But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.’” (Matthew 19:11–12, ESV)
The Immediate Context
Jesus is replying to the disciples’ reaction to His high view of marriage. Their statement—that it might be better not to marry—is what Jesus is answering. He is not suddenly shifting topics but rather addressing the notion of celibacy and those who are, for various reasons, unable or unwilling to marry.
“Not everyone can receive this saying”
What saying? The implication is that lifelong celibacy or a single life, for the sake of righteousness or kingdom purposes, is difficult and not universally required. Marriage is normative, but celibacy is a legitimate path for some.
“Eunuchs who have been so from birth”
This phrase is where progressives often focus their attention. Jesus refers to those who, by birth, are unable to participate in marriage.
The term “eunuch” in this ancient context does not refer to gender identity as we understand it today. Instead, it denotes a person who is sexually incapacitated—often through castration or congenital inability.
The ESV Study Bible, edited by Wayne Grudem, notes:
“Jesus’ mention of eunuchs refers to those who, for various reasons, do not marry. Some were born without the capacity for marriage; others were made that way by men (through castration); and some choose a celibate life for spiritual reasons.”
The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible, edited by DA Carson, echoes this, noting that Jesus is “affirming singleness” as a legitimate lifestyle and pointing out the contrast with the Jewish emphasis on marriage and procreation.
There is no indication—either in the language, context, or purpose—that Jesus is referring to transgender identity, which in modern terms refers to a psychological sense of incongruence with one’s biological sex. Rather, He is categorizing physical conditions and spiritual commitments that lead to celibacy.
“Eunuchs Who Were Made Eunuchs by Men“
Jesus’ second category refers to those “who have been made eunuchs by men” (Matthew 19:12, ESV).
In the ancient world, this was a tragically common practice, especially in royal courts. Castration was used as a way to neutralize threats, prevent heirs, or ensure loyalty. It was typically done without consent, and the individual was often a slave or servant—powerless to resist.
But this phrase also speaks with haunting relevance to our modern age, in which medical professionals—under the guise of compassion—mutilate the healthy bodies of children and adults in pursuit of a false gender identity. So-called “bottom surgery,” which removes or alters the genitals, renders an individual incapable of sexual reproduction or marital consummation. In many cases, it results in lasting pain, loss of sexual function, infertility, and profound regret.
Those who undergo such procedures—especially under coercion, social pressure, or deception—are victims. They, too, have been “made eunuchs by men.” Not by emperors or court officials, but by doctors, psychiatrists, educators, and political ideologues advancing a pseudo-compassionate but fundamentally destructive agenda.
Some may have consented formally, but lacked the maturity, mental clarity, or truthful information to make such irreversible decisions. In biblical terms, they were deceived by “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15), some of whom wear lab coats and carry graduate degrees in medicine or psychology.
This is not mere rhetorical flourish. When an 18-year-old is told that cross-sex hormones will solve their depression, or when a 14-year-old girl is affirmed and fast-tracked to mastectomy without parental involvement, we are not witnessing freedom—we are witnessing an industrialized form of harm. These individuals are shaped—physically and psychologically—into eunuchs, not for the kingdom of heaven, but for the kingdom of self, wrapped in lies, and often bankrolled by pharmaceutical profit.
Such mutilation is not just a personal tragedy—it is a societal indictment. It shows how far we’ve fallen when we call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). Those who survive these procedures and come to regret them—detransitioners—are living testimonies of what happens when man attempts to play God. They did not choose to become eunuchs in the biblical sense; they were formed into them by a culture gone mad.
And yet Christ’s words give these broken ones a measure of dignity—not because their condition is affirmed, but because He acknowledges the reality of human brokenness, and offers the gospel even to those whose bodies and identities have been marred by sin—whether their own or someone else’s. These are precisely the kinds of people the Church must welcome, not to affirm their journey into darkness, but to walk with them toward restoration in the light of Christ.
Eunuchs Who Made Themselves Eunuchs for the Sake of the Kingdom
Finally, Jesus references a third group—those who have made themselves eunuchs “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” This category is metaphorical, not literal.
The Lord is not endorsing self-castration (as some early heretics like Origen misinterpreted) but describing those who renounce marriage and sexual relations in order to devote themselves entirely to God’s service.
Paul the Apostle echoes this principle in 1 Corinthians 7:32–35, where he describes the unmarried man as being able to devote himself more fully to the Lord’s work. Church history is full of examples of individuals—men and women alike—who remained celibate out of gospel commitment, often to serve as missionaries, ministers, or caregivers.
Importantly, these individuals did not cease to be male or female. Their celibacy was a vocational calling, not an ontological change. They weren’t redefining their identity; they were surrendering their desires and future plans in order to serve Christ more fully. This is the opposite of modern gender ideology, which insists that we must alter our bodies to match our self-perceptions. The eunuchs “for the kingdom’s sake” are an example of self-denial, not self-assertion.
To summarize the three categories:
- Some are celibate due to congenital conditions.
- Some are celibate due to forced physical mutilation.
- Some are celibate due to voluntary service to Christ.
None of these groups redefined their gender. None underwent surgery or hormone therapy in pursuit of a personal identity. None rebelled against their biological sex. Rather, all reflect physical realities and spiritual priorities—often marked by suffering, not self-fulfillment.
Disorders of Sexual Development vs. Transgender Ideology
Having now examined the three eunuch categories Jesus names—especially in their historical and pastoral dimensions—we must distinguish clearly between two very different conditions: disorders of sexual development (DSDs) and what is now commonly called “transgender identity.”
This distinction is crucial, not only for theological clarity but also for public discourse. Too often, transgender activists attempt to collapse (conflate) these categories to lend their movement a scientific or medical veneer. This conflation is not only dishonest; it exploits individuals with rare medical conditions in order to normalize elective self-mutilation and psychological confusion.
What Are Disorders of Sexual Development?
Disorders of sexual development (sometimes called intersex conditions) are rare congenital conditions in which chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sex development is atypical. These are not ideological categories—they are medical ones, well-documented in scientific literature.
Some common DSDs include:
- Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS): Individuals with XY chromosomes whose bodies do not respond to male hormones, resulting in a female appearance.
- Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY): Males with an extra X chromosome, often resulting in reduced fertility and some feminine physical features.
- Turner Syndrome (XO): Females missing one X chromosome, typically resulting in short stature and infertility.
- Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH): A condition in females that can result in ambiguous genitalia due to hormonal imbalance.
These individuals are not transgender. They are not “third genders.” They are male or female human beings affected by rare medical abnormalities. In most cases, a person’s underlying chromosomal sex is identifiable, even if secondary sex characteristics or reproductive anatomy is atypical.
Medical care in such cases involves honest diagnosis, compassionate treatment, and acknowledgment of the biological realities—not surgical invention based on identity politics.
What Is Transgender Identity?
In contrast, transgenderism is a psychological and ideological phenomenon in which a person experiences a subjective sense of incongruence between their biological sex and their internal sense of “gender.” It is not based on chromosomal ambiguity or medical disorder. A healthy male may claim to be a woman, or vice versa, not because of any physical abnormality but because of inner feelings.
Modern transgender ideology argues that these subjective feelings are authoritative, even determinative, and that biological sex is merely a “social construct.” This belief system now demands that schools, governments, and even churches conform to its dogmas: pronoun rituals, bathroom policies, drag queen story hours, and yes, medical transition procedures.
But there is no scientific overlap between this ideology and DSDs. One is a legitimate medical challenge rooted in human fallenness; the other is an ideological rebellion against human nature and God’s design.
Exploiting Intersex Conditions to Validate Ideology
Progressive activists frequently appeal to DSDs as a way to justify or legitimize transgender claims. “What about intersex people?” they ask, as though the existence of rare genetic conditions undermines the binary nature of sex or proves that gender is a spectrum.
But this is a bait-and-switch.
DSDs are medical outliers—tragic but real consequences of living in a fallen world. They are not evidence that God created a spectrum of genders. If anything, DSDs demonstrate the norm: their exceptionality proves the rule. The fact that we can identify a “disorder” presupposes an order—namely, male and female.
Using the real suffering of those with intersex conditions to justify elective surgeries on otherwise healthy bodies is a form of exploitation. It is not compassionate. It is ideological.
Christians must reject this confusion. Compassion and clarity are not enemies. We must care for those with DSDs and stand firm against the transgender movement’s efforts to co-opt their experience for political gain.
The Inconsistency of the Left’s Biological Arguments
The modern Left is trapped in a web of contradictions, especially when it comes to gender. One of the clearest examples of this inconsistency is how they attempt to conflate disorders of sexual development (DSDs) with transgender identity—while simultaneously insisting that gender is nothing more than a “social construct” unrelated to biology. These claims cannot both be true.
Claim: “Gender Is a Social Construct”
This is the foundational dogma of transgender ideology. According to its proponents, “gender” refers not to biological sex, but to internal identity and social expression. A person can be “assigned male at birth” (note the passive phrasing), yet “identify” as female, nonbinary, or any number of invented categories. Under this model, biology is irrelevant—or even oppressive.
Judith Butler, a key theorist in gender studies, famously argued that gender is something we perform, not something we are. In this view, manhood and womanhood are not rooted in nature but imposed by society. It follows, then, that anyone can declare themselves a different gender simply by feeling it or performing it differently.
This doctrine is now echoed in classrooms, government agencies, HR departments, and yes, even in some progressive pulpits. But the absurdity of this claim becomes obvious the moment it is subjected to basic scrutiny.
Claim: “People with Intersex Conditions Prove Gender Is a Spectrum”
When pressed to defend their rejection of the male-female binary, progressives often pivot to biological exceptions: “What about intersex people?” Suddenly, biology matters again—but only when it’s convenient for the narrative. They point to CAIS or ambiguous genitalia and claim that these rare cases prove that sex is a spectrum rather than a binary.
But they can’t have it both ways. If gender is purely a social construct, why appeal to biology at all? And if biology does matter—if chromosomes, anatomy, and hormones have meaning—then why are we told to ignore them when someone declares themselves a different gender?
This is not scientific reasoning; it’s ideological opportunism. When it suits the argument, biology is everything. When it doesn’t, biology is nothing.
It is deeply disingenuous to invoke genuine medical disorders in debates about identity. It is also a profound insult to those who suffer from these rare conditions. DSDs are not proof that male and female are meaningless categories. They are reminders that our world is broken—and that even our bodies bear the scars of the Fall.
A Biblical Response to the False Binary of Feelings vs. Biology
The Bible presents a consistent and coherent view of human nature: God made mankind male and female (Genesis 1:27). This binary is not merely biological; it is theological. It reflects the image of God, the design of creation, and the structure of human relationships—including marriage, procreation, and family.
This design is not erased by the Fall, though it is marred by it. Disorders of sexual development are part of that marring, as are psychological struggles such as gender dysphoria. But neither erases the underlying reality: every person is created with a sex—male or female—given by God and not subject to self-declaration.
Gender ideology tells us to “trust the science” when it supports their claims and to “trust the feelings” when it does not. But biblical Christianity tells us to trust the Word of God, which reveals both the truth about who we are and the hope of redemption through Christ.
The Pastoral Consequences of Ideological Confusion
The confusion created by this ideological bait-and-switch is not abstract—it has real-world consequences. Children are being taught that they may have been “born in the wrong body.” Teenage girls are binding their breasts, and teenage boys are being told they should consider estrogen. Parents are losing custody of their children for refusing to use false pronouns. And countless young people are being led into irreversible surgeries and hormonal treatments that sterilize and scar them for life.
The Church must speak with clarity. There is no contradiction between compassion and conviction. We must reject the false equivalence between transgender identity and intersex conditions. We must call our society back to the truth: that human beings are embodied souls, made male and female by a wise and loving Creator.
And we must remember that even those who have been misled or mutilated by this ideology are not beyond the reach of grace.
Weaponizing Scripture: The Left’s Ideological Game
One of the most troubling features of our present age is the cynical use of Scripture by those who do not believe it. Progressive activists—both inside and outside the church—have developed a pattern of appealing to biblical texts, not because they accept the Bible’s divine authority, but because they recognize its rhetorical power. They exploit the reverence many people still have for Scripture to sanctify ideas that are, at their root, deeply opposed to the gospel.
This is not honest engagement with God’s Word. It is ideological manipulation.
The Left’s Approach: Use the Bible, But Redefine Everything
When progressives cite Scripture, they often begin by isolating a verse from its context—both its literary context and its canonical context. Then, through a process of selective emphasis and linguistic revision, they reshape the meaning of the passage to conform to modern values. This method is not interpretation—it is eisegesis, the reading of one’s own worldview into the text.
In the case of Matthew 19, Jesus’ reference to eunuchs is severed from the discussion on marriage, celibacy, and the kingdom of God. Instead of interpreting Christ’s words in light of Genesis, the doctrine of creation, and the moral logic of the Law, progressives impose categories from modern gender theory and claim, “See? Jesus affirms trans people.”
But they ignore the fact that the same Jesus, in the same passage, affirms the male-female binary and the divine design for marriage (Matthew 19:4–6). He quotes Genesis 1 and 2 without reservation. He affirms that God “made them male and female” and that the one-flesh union of marriage reflects this created order. His words about eunuchs are not a repudiation of this design, but an acknowledgment that some—whether by circumstance or by calling—will live outside it for the sake of the kingdom.
The progressive interpretation fails to account for this. It is an ideological hijacking, not a faithful reading.
When Scripture Is a Tool, Not a Truth
The Left does not approach the Bible as the infallible Word of God. They approach it as a cultural artifact that can be mined for progressive themes—so long as those themes can be aligned with their current goals. They ignore the hard sayings of Christ, the calls to repentance, the judgments against sin, and the exclusivity of salvation. They discard anything that affirms divine authority or moral absolutes. But when a passage can be made to sound inclusive or affirming—especially when taken out of context—they will quote it liberally.
This tactic is not new. Satan himself quoted Scripture when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness (Matthew 4:6). The serpent in Eden twisted God’s words just enough to deceive Eve (Genesis 3:1). False teachers have always used God’s truth as a cloak for their lies.
This is why the Church must be vigilant. We are not only defending biblical doctrine—we are defending the very integrity of the text. When progressives use the Bible to affirm what the Bible plainly condemns, they are not engaging in dialogue. They are waging war.
Progressive Denominations: The Captured Pulpit
Many mainline denominations have already fallen to this pattern. The so-called “Seven Sisters of Protestantism”—a term once used to refer to the dominant mainline churches in American religious life—have embraced a theology of affirmation rather than repentance. These include:
- The United Methodist Church (at least, large portions of it)
- The Presbyterian Church (USA)
- The Episcopal Church
- The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
- The United Church of Christ (UCC)
- The American Baptist Churches USA
- The Christian Church (The Disciples of Christ)
In these bodies, it is now common to hear sermons that redefine sin, endorse same-sex marriage, celebrate gender transitions, and reinterpret Scripture through the lens of intersectionality and critical theory. Pastors in these denominations are often trained in seminaries that prioritize social justice over sound doctrine. Theological liberalism—long a threat to the authority of Scripture—has now metastasized into full-scale cultural conformity.
Consider this: When was the last time you heard one of these denominations preach on Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, or 1 Timothy 1 without downplaying or revising the biblical text? When have they proclaimed the gospel as the call to deny oneself, take up one’s cross, and follow Christ? Instead, they proclaim, “Come as you are—and stay as you are.”
This is not Christianity. It is a counterfeit religion that uses the language of grace to excuse rebellion.
Seminaries of Subversion
Many of these churches are downstream from seminaries that have been captured by progressive ideology. Institutions like Union Theological Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, and others that once trained gospel preachers now produce political activists with clerical collars. They teach future pastors to question the historicity of the resurrection, the reality of sin, the exclusivity of Christ, and the sufficiency of Scripture.
In place of doctrine, they offer deconstruction. In place of holiness, they offer inclusion. In place of Christ crucified, they offer Christ reimagined.
And this theological rot does not stay confined to elite institutions. It trickles down into local pulpits, Sunday school classrooms, youth groups, and community outreach programs. Before long, entire congregations are discipled into progressive values under the banner of biblical faithfulness.
It is no wonder, then, that such churches now use Matthew 19 to defend transgenderism. They have long since surrendered the authority of Scripture—and are now using it as a vessel for their ideological cargo.
Conclusion: Clarity, Conviction, and Christian Witness
The conversation that began in a barber shop—whether Matthew 19 supports transgenderism—deserves far more than a clever retort or a soundbite. It requires clarity rooted in truth, conviction shaped by Scripture, and courage forged in love for Christ and neighbor. We have now walked through the full context of Jesus’ words in Matthew 19, examined the progressive distortion of this passage, unpacked its meaning according to sound exegesis, and exposed the inconsistency and deception of transgender ideology. What remains is to stand firm in the truth—and to bear witness faithfully in a culture increasingly hostile to it.
Jesus Did Not Affirm Transgenderism—He Affirmed the Created Order
At no point in Matthew 19 does Jesus affirm or even allude to modern gender ideology. On the contrary, He reaffirms the creational binary: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (v. 4). That is not a throwaway comment—it is the foundation of His entire argument. Gender, marriage, and sexuality are not social constructs. They are rooted in God’s good design.
The discussion of eunuchs that follows is not a celebration of gender fluidity. It is a sober recognition of three categories of people who, for various reasons, remain single and celibate: those with congenital physical conditions, those mutilated by human cruelty, and those who voluntarily forego marriage for the kingdom of God. Not one of these categories is an affirmation of self-identification, bodily alteration, or gender rebellion. Rather, they highlight brokenness and sacrifice—both of which point us toward the redemptive mission of Christ.
The Bible Is Not a Political Tool
For centuries, Christians have honored the Scriptures as the very Word of God—authoritative, inspired, inerrant, and sufficient. It speaks about all arenas of the human experience.
But to progressive ideologues, the Bible is merely a resource to be mined for rhetorical leverage. They do not approach it with reverence, but with agenda. When the text supports their cause—at least superficially—they quote it. When the text can be distorted to accuse the believer of false standards, they use it. When it confronts their own sin, they dismiss it.
This is not merely poor hermeneutics. It is willful rebellion masked as piety.
As believers, we must not be intimidated when false teachers quote Scripture. The serpent did the same in Eden. Instead, we must know the Word deeply, handle it rightly (2 Timothy 2:15), and confront deception wherever it arises—even when it comes wrapped in religious garb.
The Captured Church Is Not the Faithful Church
The Seven Sisters of Protestantism and their like-minded allies in left-leaning seminaries and denominations no longer represent the biblical Christianity of their founders. They have substituted cultural relevance for eternal truth, and ideological affirmation for gospel transformation. Their churches are filled with rainbow flags, inclusive slogans, and social justice mantras—but void of repentance, reverence, and regeneration.
This apostasy should not surprise us. Paul warned Timothy that “the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears…will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” (2 Timothy 4:3). That time is not coming. It is here.
But even now, God has preserved a faithful remnant. Across the world—and across our nation—there are churches, pastors, and laymen who still believe the Bible, proclaim Christ crucified, and call sinners to repentance and life. These congregations may be small. They may be despised by the world. But they are beloved of God, empowered by the Spirit, and entrusted with the gospel that saves.
The Christian Response: Truth with Compassion
As Christians, we are not called to mock those caught in the grip of transgender confusion. We are not called to dehumanize detransitioners or those with DSDs. We are called to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3), and to plead with the lost to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20).
Our message is not “You’re fine just the way you are.” Our message is: “You are made in God’s image, marred by sin, and in need of salvation—and Jesus Christ offers you life, forgiveness, and restoration.” That’s not hate. That’s hope.
We must also make clear to those who have been mutilated by the lies of transgender medicine that the gospel is big enough for their pain. Jesus is not unfamiliar with wounds. He was wounded for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5). And He can redeem the most broken body and the most confused soul.
The Kingdom of God Is Worth the Cost
Jesus ends His statement on eunuchs with these words: “Let the one who is able to receive this receive it” (Matthew 19:12). This is not just a conclusion; it is a summons. Not everyone will accept the cost of kingdom living. Not everyone will submit their identity to Christ. Not everyone will forsake their desires for the sake of the cross.
But the call remains.
Following Christ will cost you everything. But in return, you gain everything: forgiveness, purpose, fellowship with God, and eternal life. No ideology—no matter how affirming—can offer that. No surgeon can create that. No self-identity can fabricate that.
Only Christ gives it. And He gives it freely to all who come to Him in faith.
Final Word
So, does Matthew 19 support transgenderism?
No. It doesn’t. Not in its context. Not in its language. Not in its theology. Not in any faithful reading of the passage.
Jesus affirms the goodness of male and female, the sanctity of marriage, the legitimacy of celibacy, and the sovereignty of God over human identity. He does not affirm gender fluidity, bodily mutilation, or ideological rebellion.
Let the Church not only reject the misuse of this passage—but reclaim it. Let us proclaim the glory of God’s design, the sufficiency of His Word, and the grace of His gospel. And may we do so with clarity, conviction, and a compassion rooted not in compromise, but in the cross.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
rob@christiannewsjunkie.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” , “transition” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex. Unfortunately, we are forced to adopt the language of the left to discuss some topics without engaging in lengthy qualifying statements that make conversations awkward.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at rob@christiannewsjunkie.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.