I was appalled and amused this morning by an interview on NPR's "Morning Edition," discussing the decision by the Trump Administration to revoke an Obama-era letter that mandated how schools should handle access to bathroom and changing facilities for "transgender" individuals. In the course of the interview with an official from the Obama Justice Department, co-host Rachel Martin made the following assertion about why people oppose letting men who claim to be women into women's locker rooms:
"And especially conservatives say this is, this is a moral issue. And this is now the federal government telling me how to understand an issue that I think of in religious terms." (Sorry there's no transcript posted at the link; Ms. Martin's comment comes at about the 5:20 mark on the recording.)
I might add, my transcript of the quote omits the many uhs and ums by Ms. Martin as she clearly struggled to articulate the position of those who objected to such an enlightened policy. I strongly suspect Ms. Martin has not really absorbed -- if she has even encountered -- the actual arguments opponents make; we appear to have been given access to the actual moment in which the poor woman attempted to process this idea for the very first time; and the quote above is what resulted.
The mind boggles. According to Ms. Martin, to believe that penises and vaginas exist, and have some actual significance -- is now in the same category as believing in the Holy Trinity and transubstantiation. Now, I firmly believe in in the existence of all the things itemized in the prior sentence; but I have always understood that sexual attributes (and their effects and consequences) belong to the objective realm and are capable of verification, whereas belief in the Real Presence and the Trinity require faith. But not according to NPR! It's all dogma.
Elsewhere in the same program, there was another segment: "Should Scientists March? U.S. Researchers Still Debating Pros And Cons." This reflected a concern that respect for science and actual facts -- as opposed to "alternative facts" -- was declining in our present age. Perhaps the scientists might want to march past NPR's offices? Would it do any good?