Disregarding The Body – Podcast
The Crisis of our Time
Courtesy of the National Gallery of Art
Companion Posts
+++
Starting Again
I was born in the sixties. But I am not a child of the 60’s. My family was lower-middle class, and by the standards of the time, traditional in most every way. Dad was a minister. If he or mom had lived into their 90’s they would not have imagined the social changes we have witnessed in the last 20 years. It would be too easy to say the sexual revolution of the 60’s caused all this change, as some conservatives maintain. But the roots of this change go back much further than the swinging 60’s.
So I’m embarking with some misgivings on a survey of cultural history. There are deep intellectual and cultural traditions that have shaped our everyday lives. We’ve come to a point in the Western world where the statement “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body” is comprehensible to many public leaders, at least in public. That phrase would be completely incomprehensible to my parent’s generation, in public or private, not to mention every preceding generation. It is still incomprehensible to many, if not most people today. But if you express your bewilderment in public, say at many workplaces in the Western world, increasingly the odds are you will be regarded as stupid, immoral or worse. You may be reprimanded for your irrational “phobia.” You might even have your career derailed. If you broadcast your view on a public forum, say Twitter, expect the Twitterati to pounce with the ferocity of a caged unfed Tiger. In certain parts of the world you may even be charged with a hate-crime for your expressed incredulity at the latest massive cultural shift. (See the following posts, here & here.)
As a 60’s poet might say, “The times they are a changin.”
The tectonic cultural shift in the last 20 years is quite breathtaking. Regardless of what you think about gay marriage, we have gone from year 2000 where the majority of Americans were opposed to gay marriage to today where normalization of Transgenderism is fast approaching.
A long and winding road brought us to this point. I want to offer a thoughtful and hopefully generous exposition, from a Classic Christian point of view, of how we got here. As I go, I’ll be documenting some disturbing current events. (Read my next post). I hope that even those who disagree with Classic Christianity will find here a fair and readable assessment of our state of affairs. (post continues page 2)
When Telling a Child the Truth Becomes Suspect
Helen Joyce, the UK’s Conversion Practices Bill, and the problem of expressive individualism
Helen Joyce is one of the sharpest thinkers I’ve encountered on the subject of sex and contemporary identity politics. She has a remarkable ability to cut through complicated arguments and expose assumptions that others seem reluctant to question.
The accompanying three-minute video illustrates that ability beautifully.
On October 29, 2026, Joyce, representing the organization Sex Matters, testified before a joint committee of the British Parliament examining the government’s proposed Conversion Practices Bill.
Her testimony raises a question that ought to concern parents, clergy, therapists, and anyone who values freedom of conscience:
When did telling a child the truth become something the government might regard as abusive?
An Eleven-Year-Old Girl and Her Mother
Joyce asks the committee to consider an autistic eleven-year-old girl who identifies as non-binary. The child sincerely believes she is neither male nor female.
Her mother knows otherwise.
She knows her daughter is female, that she will undergo female puberty, and that her daughter’s feelings about her identity cannot alter those biological realities.
The mother may feel obligated to explain these things, even when doing so causes distress.
Joyce makes the essential observation:
“Her declaration, her words don’t make reality.”
Now suppose the mother restricts access to certain websites or friendships she believes are reinforcing her daughter’s confusion. The child becomes anxious, perhaps even refuses to attend school.
Has the mother engaged in abusive behavior? Or has she exercised ordinary parental judgment in a difficult situation?
Joyce’s concern is that the proposed legislation does not adequately distinguish between the two.
She offers another illustration. If a husband confiscates his wife’s telephone to isolate her from friends and family, that would constitute coercive control.
But if a mother temporarily confiscates her eleven-year-old daughter’s telephone to protect her from harmful influences, that is an entirely different matter.
Surely our laws must recognize the distinction.
What the Proposed Law Actually Says
The British government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill, published June 25, 2026, seeks to prohibit abusive efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity.
Protecting people from violence, intimidation, and genuine psychological abuse is an entirely legitimate objective.
But the legislation raises questions about what constitutes abuse.
Clause 1 includes conduct intended to cause someone to have, not have, or believe they have or do not have a particular sexual orientation or transgender identity.
In determining whether conduct is abusive, the bill directs attention to factors including controlling behavior and psychological or emotional pressure.
Clause 2 requires serious physical or mental harm, or serious alarm or distress substantially affecting everyday activities. The maximum criminal penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
The government insists that ordinary parenting, religious expression, and legitimate conversations would remain protected.
Nevertheless, the draft contains no explicit general exemption for parents exercising ordinary parental responsibilities. Nor does it provide an equivalent express protection for pastoral guidance.
And that is the concern Joyce and other critics are raising.
The proposed legislation also permits preventive protection orders, potentially bringing disputed conduct under judicial scrutiny without a prior criminal conviction.
The question is not whether genuinely abusive practices should be prohibited.
The question is whether the law distinguishes adequately between abuse and the legitimate responsibilities of parents, counselors, and religious leaders.
Children Need Guidance, Not Merely Affirmation
Children are not miniature adults.
We do not ordinarily treat their emerging preferences, convictions, or self-understandings as beyond question.
A child may sincerely believe something that is mistaken. A loving parent may be obliged to correct that belief, even when the correction is unwelcome.
This is particularly important when children experience distress concerning their developing bodies.
Therapists should be free to explore the possible sources of that distress without being required to reach a predetermined conclusion.
That means rejecting coercive attempts to force a particular identity upon someone. But it also means rejecting the opposite assumption that every declared identity must automatically be affirmed.
Genuine exploratory therapy should be free to explore.
The same principle matters in pastoral care. A priest or pastor should be able to discuss traditional Christian teachings about sexuality with someone voluntarily seeking that counsel, without unnecessary fear that the conversation itself will attract legal suspicion.
Compassion and honest disagreement are not mutually exclusive.
The Deeper Problem: Expressive Individualism
There is a larger philosophical issue beneath this controversy.
In The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, Christian historian Carl Trueman examines what he calls expressive individualism.
The concept, associated particularly with philosopher Charles Taylor, describes the modern conviction that our deepest identity is discovered within our psychological lives—our feelings, desires, and subjective experiences—and that authentic living requires outward expression of that inner identity.
In this worldview, personal authenticity becomes a central measure of human flourishing.
But consider the implications.
If my deepest feelings determine who I am, then someone who questions my self-understanding may appear to be doing more than disagreeing with me.
They may appear to be denying my very identity.
And if affirmation becomes a moral obligation, disagreement can be interpreted as psychological injury.
This helps explain why an ordinary parental conversation about biological sex can become so contentious.
What one person regards as a loving acknowledgment of reality, another may interpret as an attack upon personal identity.
We have moved from the proposition that people deserve dignity and respect to the untenable proposition that respecting someone necessarily requires affirming that person’s subjective understanding of reality.
Those are not the same thing.
The Christian Understanding of the Human Person
Christianity offers a fundamentally different understanding of human identity.
We are not self-created beings whose bodies are incidental to our deepest selves.
We are embodied creatures, made in the image of God—male and female, according to Genesis 1:27, and Jesus (Matthew 19:4).
The body is not an inconvenient biological shell surrounding the supposedly authentic person within.
Our bodies belong to who we are.
Indeed, the Christian story places extraordinary importance upon embodiment: Creation, the Incarnation, Christ’s bodily resurrection, and the promised resurrection of our own bodies.
This does not mean dismissing psychological suffering. Quite the contrary. Christians are called to respond with patience, compassion, and love.
But compassion does not require treating subjective experience as the final authority on reality.
And love sometimes requires telling someone something they do not want to hear.
Protecting Children Without Criminalizing Care
The proposed British legislation remains under parliamentary scrutiny. The joint committee is scheduled to report by January 22, 2027. Its final language and legal consequences remain uncertain.
That makes Joyce’s testimony especially timely. After having followed Joyce for many years now, (see here, here, here, & here), I unhesitatingly say; if she is concerned, I’m concerned.
A civilized society must protect vulnerable people from genuine abuse. But it must also preserve the freedom of parents to parent, therapists to investigate, and religious leaders to offer counsel consistent with their convictions.
None of those freedoms licenses cruelty or coercion.
But neither should they become casualties of legislation that fails to distinguish responsible guidance from abusive conduct.
Helen Joyce has identified a question that reaches well beyond Britain.
When a child’s subjective identity conflicts with biological reality, will parents and professionals remain free to discuss that conflict honestly and compassionately?
Or will the fear of being accused of abuse determine what they are permitted to say?
I encourage you to watch her three-minute testimony and consider what is at stake.
+++
When Oxford Bows Before the Sovereign Self
More evidence that our elite Western institutions are bowing the knee to the ideology of technologically assisted expressive individualism—unconstrained by God-designed reality.
At Oxford University, a male biochemistry tutor continues teaching while wearing enormous prosthetic breasts. When questioned, Oxford emphasized its commitment to allowing members of its community to feel “able to be themselves,” while declining to comment on the individual case.
Consider what this represents.
We are witnessing the triumph of an ideology in which personal identity is increasingly detached from biological reality, the body becomes something to be technologically manipulated, and subjective self-expression takes precedence over objective truth.
This is expressive individualism taken to its logical conclusion: the sovereign self determines reality, and institutions are expected to accommodate it.
Christianity offers a profoundly different understanding of human nature. We are embodied creatures, made male and female in God’s image. Our bodies are not meaningless biological accidents to be overcome but integral to our God-given humanity.
The troubling question is no longer simply what individuals choose to believe about themselves.
It is why institutions supposedly devoted to discovering and teaching truth increasingly appear unwilling to defend the reality of our created nature.
[Source: https://thisisuncaptured.com/male-oxford-university-tutor-still-wearing-prosthetic-breasts-to-work/ ]
+++
God Help Us!
When Compassion Becomes Neglect: California’s Homelessness Lesson
Why good intentions, enormous spending, and permissive policies are not enough.
In my previous article, I examined Republican gubernatorial candidate, Steve Hilton’s proposal to address California’s homelessness crisis, which he calls Off the Streets and Back on Track. His plan combines shelter, medical care, addiction treatment, psychiatric services, job training, and assistance finding permanent housing with a renewed commitment to enforcing public camping laws.
I argued that this approach reflects an important Christian principle: genuine compassion sometimes requires intervention, responsibility, and the restoration of order.
But I want to go a little further.
Because California’s experience raises a rather uncomfortable question: How can a state spend tens of billions of dollars helping homeless people and still have so many people living on its streets?
And perhaps more importantly, why do we so often assume that spending more money is evidence of greater compassion?
The $24 Billion Question
Between fiscal years 2018–19 and 2022–23, California allocated nearly $24 billion to homelessness and housing programs. That’s billion with a B.
According to a 2024 California State Auditor’s report, nine state agencies administered at least 30 programs dedicated to preventing and ending homelessness.
And what did the auditors discover?
California frequently lacked the information necessary to determine whether its programs were actually working.
Of five programs examined, two appeared cost-effective. For the other three, the state had not collected sufficient data to evaluate their effectiveness.
Think about that.
Billions of dollars spent, and the government couldn’t adequately account for the results of major portions of its efforts.
I’ve made this argument before, particularly in discussions with my progressive Christian friends: Good stewardship is not optional for Christians.
When we give money to a charity, we reasonably expect evidence that the money is helping people. Why should we expect less when government spends billions of dollars taken from taxpayers?
The question isn’t whether California cares enough to spend money.
It’s whether California cares enough to find out what works.
When Government Makes Housing Unaffordable
Here’s another uncomfortable reality.
California’s extraordinarily high housing costs are not simply the unfortunate consequence of market forces. Government policy contributes to them.
Restrictive zoning, lengthy environmental reviews, permitting delays, development fees, and complicated regulatory requirements all increase the cost of building housing.
And when housing becomes prohibitively expensive, people living on the financial margins are the first to suffer.
Although the following example concerns California’s high-speed rail boondoggle (a government jobs program masquerading as a transportation project) it vividly illustrates the broader problem of excessive regulation, particularly in California.
Cali Bullet Train FACTS: Approximately $15.7 billion in baseline program expenditures (as of July 31, 2026); zero miles of high-speed track laid; and roughly 18 years since voter approval (or ~30 years since the Authority’s creation).
A major University of California, San Francisco, study found that unaffordable housing was a central factor in people’s pathways into homelessness. Participants reported a median monthly household income of just $960 in the six months before becoming homeless.
The irony is difficult to miss.
Government restricts housing production, housing becomes more expensive, more people struggle to afford shelter, and then government spends enormous sums attempting to address the resulting crisis.
This isn’t an argument for eliminating reasonable environmental protections or building standards.
It’s an argument for recognizing that regulations have consequences, including consequences for the poor.
According to the California State Auditor, newly constructed affordable housing in some parts of the Bay Area can cost as much as $1 million per unit.
Imagine how many people could be helped if the cost of producing housing were substantially reduced.
And imagine what that might mean for taxpayers, charitable organizations, and the people desperately needing somewhere to live.
Housing First—and Then What?
California has also embraced a policy framework called Housing First.
The underlying idea is understandable: provide stable housing without first requiring sobriety, employment, or participation in treatment. Once people have a roof over their heads, other problems may become easier to address.
For some people, this works.
A family facing eviction because of a temporary financial setback may need little more than rental assistance and an opportunity to regain stability.
But consider someone with a severe methamphetamine addiction, untreated schizophrenia, or a long history of living on the streets.
Housing alone will not adequately address those conditions.
And treating every homeless person as though the primary problem is simply the absence of an apartment risks misunderstanding the complexity of the crisis.
Critics of California’s homelessness policies, including researchers at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, have questioned whether the state’s approach adequately addresses addiction, mental illness, and other factors contributing to chronic homelessness.
A more comprehensive approach must distinguish among very different circumstances and provide different forms of assistance.
For some, that means affordable housing.
For others, intensive psychiatric treatment.
For others, addiction recovery.
For still others, job training, family reconciliation, and help rebuilding ordinary routines of responsibility.
Compassion requires understanding the actual problem—not merely applying the same policy to everyone.
Addiction, Mental Illness, and the Limits of Autonomy
Research from the University of California, San Francisco, makes the challenge unmistakable.
Its Behavioral Health and Homelessness report found that approximately 48% of surveyed homeless adults had complex behavioral-health needs, including regular drug use, heavy drinking, hallucinations, or recent psychiatric hospitalization.
Thirty-five percent reported regular illicit drug use.
Perhaps most troubling, 28% of respondents with regular drug use or heavy alcohol use had sought treatment during their current episode of homelessness but couldn’t access it.
What kind of compassionate society tolerates that?
One that speaks endlessly about respecting autonomy while failing to provide meaningful opportunities for recovery?
Certainly, civil liberties matter.
But Christian anthropology offers a richer understanding of human freedom than merely allowing people to do whatever they happen to desire.
A person enslaved by addiction is not flourishing in freedom.
A person suffering from untreated psychosis is not necessarily exercising meaningful autonomy simply because government leaves him alone.
Sometimes protecting human dignity requires more than respecting someone’s immediate wishes.
It requires helping restore the conditions in which genuine freedom becomes possible.
When Good Intentions Produce Bad Consequences
California’s experience with Proposition 47 offers another cautionary lesson.
Approved by voters in 2014, the measure reduced penalties for certain drug possession and theft offenses.
Its supporters hoped to reduce unnecessary incarceration and redirect resources toward more constructive responses.
Those are understandable objectives.
But a 2026 study by the Public Policy Institute of California found evidence that Proposition 47 likely contributed to approximately 7,000 additional people experiencing unsheltered homelessness between 2015 and 2019.
Researchers also estimated that the measure contributed to a roughly 20% decline in drug-treatment admissions, associated with fewer referrals from the criminal justice system.
These are statistical estimates, not a claim that Proposition 47 alone caused California’s homelessness crisis. But they raise serious questions about the unintended consequences of well-intentioned reforms.
A policy can emerge from sincere concern for suffering people and still make their circumstances worse.
And when that happens, acknowledging failure is not cruelty.
It is a moral obligation.
A More Christian Understanding of Compassion
I return to something I’ve been emphasizing for months.
The Christian obligation to care for the poor is unequivocal.
But Scripture does not tell us that compassion requires a particular government program, an ever-expanding budget, or the suspension of ordinary expectations about personal responsibility.
Those are matters requiring wisdom and prudential judgment.
The Good Samaritan didn’t merely express sympathy for the injured traveler.
He acted.
He provided immediate care, transported the man somewhere safe, and arranged for continued assistance.
Le Bon Samaritain, Rembrandt, 1632-1633.
His compassion was concrete, costly, and directed toward recovery.
That is the standard I would like to see reflected in our public policies.
Help people get off the streets.
Provide appropriate treatment.
Make housing more affordable.
Restore public spaces to their intended uses.
Measure results.
Hold government and nonprofit contractors accountable.
And enlist the tremendous resources of private philanthropy, churches, and community organizations.
None of this guarantees success. Any serious alternative, including Hilton’s, must demonstrate that it can deliver appropriate care, respect civil liberties, and produce better outcomes.
But surely we can agree that perpetually managing human misery is not the same thing as overcoming it.
In my previous article, I suggested that California’s extraordinary private wealth could become a powerful resource if philanthropists had confidence that their contributions would produce meaningful results.
I still believe that.
And I would like to see California test a comprehensive approach that joins public responsibility, private generosity, personal recovery, and measurable accountability.
The objective should not be simply to make homelessness less visible.
It should be to help homeless people become homeless no longer.
That’s a far more demanding understanding of compassion.
And, I would argue, a far more Christian one.
+++
We Don’t Have To Live Like This