#67 - On Politics, Genderspeak and a Queer New World (Part II)

This is part II of a 2-episode series that addresses the history and politics of the gay liberation movement, the influence of the LGBT movement on countless aspects of everyday life and how far things have progressed in a few decades.

How has the LGBT movement influenced media outlets, religious discourse, school curricula and global corporations over the past few decades? Why and how did the American Psychological Association (APA) remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)? How did we get to a point where any therapy other than gay- or trans-affirmative therapy is outlawed? How does the trajectory look like moving forward, and what can we do as Muslims and members of faith communities around the world to stay true to our faiths and value systems? These and other questions are explored in this episode.

Resources used and references mentioned in the episode:
- A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been by Michael Brown
- "Can Islam Accommodate Homosexual Acts? Quranic Revisionism and the Case of Scott Kugle" by Mobeen Vaid
- Strong Support webinars: Therapeutic Choice with Mike Davidson; Trends in Therapy for Unwanted Same Sex Lust and Q&A with Andrew Rodriguez; Them Before Us with Katy Faust
- Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movement by Katy Faust

Additional relevant resources:
- "Where The Rainbow Ends: American Muslims And LGBT Activism" by Mobeen Vaid
- Same-Sex Marriage: Not Best for Children - statements, Amicus briefs, research, press releases and commentaries
- Homosexual Parenting: A Scientific Analysis by the American College of Pediatricians
- No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting by Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai

Chapters

• 0:37 Episode Introduction
• 2:16 On Media
• 7:21 On Queer Theology
• 11:26 On Educational Systems
• 24:50 On Businesses and Corporations
• 35:01 Is Queer the New Black?
• 38:34 On the APA and Gay Lobbying
• 46:52 On Conversion Therapy and the Ex-Gay Movement
• 1:06:51 When the Oppressed Become the Oppressors
• 1:16:28 Trajectory?
• 1:24:47 Paving Our Way Forward
• 1:36:13 Ending Remarks

Transcript

Waheed 00:37
Assalamu alaikom wa rahmatullahi ta’ala wa barakatuh, and welcome back to “A Way Beyond the Rainbow”, this podcast series dedicated to Muslims experiencing same-sex attractions who want to live a life true to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and Islam. I'm your host Waheed Jensen, thank you so much for joining me in today's episode.

In this episode, we continue our 2-episode series entitled “On Politics, Genderspeak and a Queer New World”. As you remember, in the last episode, we spoke about the origins of the gay liberation movement, and we dived into the book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, a book that helped bring about a transformation in the LGBT movement and lay out the vision and plans for the desensitization towards homosexuals, as well as the acceptance and even celebration of queerness and homosexuality, as part of a fight towards civil rights and integration into mainstream politics.

In today’s episode, inshaAllah, we continue this discussion and explore the influence of the LGBTQ movement on media, religion and theology, educational systems, businesses and corporations, psychology and therapy as well as society at large. The content of this episode has been taken from the book A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been by Michael Brown as well as other resources, I will add these in the episode description, so make sure to check them out. So let’s get started, inshaAllah.

02:16
Let’s start off by talking about the media. Large-scale media campaigns took place over the past couple of decades that transformed the image of homosexuals in the media and in the eyes of people. According to Michael Brown, two main factors contributed to this change: the first being cultural change, specifically “a greater acceptance of homosexuality among a younger generation of media executives and screenwriters who matured in a more tolerant, sexually relaxed society”, and the second is gay activism. Organizations like the “Gay Activists Alliance” and the “National Gay Task Force” monitored the presentation of homosexuals in media, and TV executives saw the benefit of hiring gay affirmative reviewers to check scripts and media content for any negative portrayals that might cause bad publicity. A prominent organization as well is GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), which is “dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation” - their influence on programming in general cannot be denied as it is overt and deliberate in supplementing gay propaganda campaigns. 

Just like Kirk and Madsen put forward in their book, Michael Brown says the following: “One of the great achievements of the gay liberation movement was the display of the nonstereotypical, well-adjusted homosexual on the televisions in millions of American living rooms. More than any other medium, TV had the power to shape and manipulate the conscious and subconscious prejudices of the American public… Gay activists in the 1960s and 1970s understood that only after the public saw that homosexuals were not threats to society could gay rights make any political and legal progress. By manipulating the media and forcing more sympathetic characterizations of homosexuals on television shows, the gay rights movement offered powerful challenges to common stereotypes.” 

Mainstreaming of queer media has multiple examples of socially adjusted and acceptable gay figures insinuating themselves into mainstream consciousness. A famous example of that is the “Fab Five” from the famous show Queer Eye – five gay men who go around giving makeovers to awkward unstylish Americans, showing their worth to everyday society through cosmetic applications of good taste on a shallow level meant to normalize and even celebrate the presence and influence of gay people in mainstream media.

Openly gay TV presenters and talk show hosts helped pave the way for a positive representation of LGBT men and women, like Ellen DeGeneres and Anderson Cooper, among others. And many of us are familiar with notable TV shows from the past decades like Grey’s Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, Ugly Betty, Brothers and Sisters, ER, House M.D., Friends, and many other shows, which featured prominent storylines involving LGBT characters which garnered sympathy and appraisal from viewers. Notable movies like Brokeback Mountain and Capote have also been influential in striking people’s sympathies and sending the message skillfully. Nowadays, it’s highly unlikely that you’ll come across any Western movie or series, particularly on any streaming services, that don’t feature LGBT characters. Even the trans agenda is nowadays heavily pushed in mainstream media showcasing “born in the wrong body syndrome” – propagated by the likes of Oprah, Barbara Walters, and others, while maintaining a one-sided approach to the subject by avoidance of non-affirmative aspects of the debate.

Of course, it’s important to mention that positive progress has been made through all of this – “gay” people are no longer caricatured as “effeminate fops and insane deviants”, but rather as fellow human beings, and the issues of same-sex sexual attraction and gender dysphoria are becoming less taboo to talk about. However, these efforts have also made sure to deliver the message that homosexual behavior is just another alternative to heterosexual behavior, that different sexual orientations and gender identities and expressions are celebrated, that transgenderism is normalized and sex-change surgery is lauded, and that that “ex-gays”, “desistors” and virtuous men and women with SSA/GD are ridiculed and their very existence denied.

07:21
The LGBT movement has extended its influence to involve religious discourse and theology. As such, gay identifying notable clergy and “gay Christians/Jews”, among many other notables of queer-based theological circles, have contributed to the growing body of work in relation to normalization of the gay/trans lifestyle from a theological standpoint, using scripture as justification and encouragement of certain facets of the LGBT community’s lifestyle choices and worldview. A lot of these “queer clergy” and “progressive” movements within monotheistic religions involve men and women with impeccable academic backgrounds from reputable institutions, yet the trend has arisen of interpreting the Bible, its verses and stories, from a homosexual/queer standpoint, rejecting the “heteronormative” and “heterosexist” interpretations, and instead “queering” the narrative. This phenomenon has led to the sanctioning of the LGBTQ+ lifestyle by God himself via their skewed interpretations, making bold claims and drawing wild conclusions from a reviewing of biblical scripture and characters mentioned therein.

Of course, this started with Jewish and Christian traditions and has found its way into Islamic discourse as well, with many “progressive” and “revisionist” groups and movements pushing forward their own interpretations and ideologies onto the Qur’an and Sunnah. For example, such discourse reinterprets the story of Prophet Lut (PBUH) and his people as that of rape and non-consensual sex, discards altogether hadiths that talk about punishment of sodomy or the prohibition of cross-gender dress and behavior, and paints Islam as a “sex positive” religion that celebrates “sexual minorities” and provides leeway for same sex couples to celebrate their love, and for transgenders to be proud of who they truly are. We also see nowadays queer-friendly and “all-inclusive” mosques in certain parts of the world where queer theology and celebration of homosexuality and transgenderism are celebrated, even same-sex marriages are held there. We will talk more about all of this this season with Br. Mobeen Vaid and Sh. Mustafa Umar, inshaAllah, as we explore these revisionist arguments and deconstruct a lot of this rhetoric and discourse that are beginning to affect a lot of Muslims globally. And with the normalization of the LGBT discourse, traditional Muslim discourse is perceived as backwards, bigoted, and no longer acceptable. Imams and scholars are brought under scrutiny when they preach scripture and normative positions on male-female dichotomy, gender roles, as well as the prohibition of same-sex sexual behaviors and cross-gender behaviors and mannerisms. 

Remember in episode 20 when we spoke about David/Dawud (PBUH) and Jonathan, as well as Shams and Rumi. Given the influence of “queer theology”, it’s not uncommon to find that the deep friendships and platonic love that these pairs of righteous men enjoyed is interpreted from a homosexual lens. We go into this in more detail in episode 20, but those are just two examples out of so many others, which shows you how “queering” theology has influenced how we perceive God, scripture and history. For those of you interested in learning more, I recommend you check out the relevant chapter on this topic from Michael Brown’s book, and if you’re interested in learning more about the revisionist arguments within Islam, Br. Mobeen Vaid’s article “Can Islam Accomodate Homosexual Acts? Qur’anic Revisionism and the Case of Scott Kugle” is an excellent starting piece. Once again, Br. Mobeen is joining me soon to discuss these arguments in detail, so I hope you give those episodes a listen when they come out.

11:26
Around two decades ago, it wasn’t that common to hear about LGBT clubs at schools or so-called “gay-straight alliances” (GSAs), with laws being issued to influence school curricula and encourage students to explore gender identities and sexual orientations. In a matter of a few years’ time, thousands of schools in the US have GSA’s or other student clubs that deal with LGBT issues. A prominent organization in the US is known as GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network), and it is the leading national education organization focused on ensuring “safe schools” for all students. Many national education and social justice organizations, including the National Education Association (NEA) have joined GLSEN in its work to create “safe schools” for American children through projects like “No Name-Calling Week” and others which encourage kids not to pick on other kids because they seem to be different. While such efforts are commendable in and of themselves, GLSEN’s agenda goes far beyond this – there is an ultimate goal to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism completely and even encourage, celebrate, and nurture them in the educational system. 

A GSA is not merely another club. A newly established GSA often becomes a springboard for pro-homosexual advocacy seeking to alter school curricula and silence dissent through restrictive student speech and conduct codes. An overview of the purpose of a GSA as described by the Gay Straight Alliance Network describes them as an activist club seeking to, “get Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning (LGBTQ) issues in the curriculum, LGBTQ related books in the library, and progressive non-discrimination policies implemented at a district level.” GSA’s are now increasingly common in schools, influencing young kids, pre-adolescents and adolescents.

An example of the many initiatives is the “GLSEN Lunchbox”, for example, which is a training tool for teachers beginning at kindergarten level aimed at providing community members with the background knowledge, skills, and tools necessary to make schools “safer and more affirming places for LGBT students.” Some of the activities include “North American History Game Cards,” listing twenty-eight North Americans, most of whom are fairly well known and all of whom, according to GLSEN, are (or were) gay or transgender. A similar game card activity is provided for World History that helps children and teachers recognize that many outstanding personalities in world and national history, including musicians, artists, statesmen, religious leaders, authors, and others, were gay. Therefore, being gay is neither negative nor bad nor degrading nor harmful nor dangerous. It also seeks to strike at the very root of male-female distinctions. Another activity is known as “Getting in Touch with Your Inner Trannie” which helps participants “better understand and personally relate to the breadth of issues around gender identity and expression,” asking the children questions such as: “Have you ever been told, ‘Act like a lady/woman/girl,’ or ‘Act like a man?’ What was the situation? How did it make you feel and why?” 

Many books are introduced into the school curriculum for elementary and middle school students that aim to deconstruct notions of gender, masculinity, femininity and gender roles, which are to be viewed as antiquated constructs that hold countless children in bondage to the false expectations of society. Questions in many books include: How do you define gender? / How many genders are there? / What would the world look like without gender? / In what ways do you feel confined or restricted by your assigned gender?/ Was the gender assigned to you the one you feel most comfortable with?/ What privileges do you or don’t you have due to the gender you have been labeled?/ Do you feel forced to act in certain ways because of your assigned gender?/ What happens when you don’t act these ways? How do you unlearn gender? 

Other books deconstruct notions and definitions of family and parents, while other books and game cards for primary school children quiz students and teachers on terms like Biological Sex, Gender Identity, Gender Role, Transgender, Gender Expression, Sexual Orientation, Heterosexism, Transphobia, Asexual, Bisexual, Lesbian, Gay, Transsexual, Intersexual, Androgyny, Cross Dresser, Genderqueer, Gender Non-Conforming, Queer, LGBTQ, Sexual Reassignment Surgery, MSM (men who have sex with men), and other terms.

Years ago, children who did not conform to gender norms in their clothing or behavior or identified intensely with the opposite sex were directed to therapy and behavior modification. Nowadays, children as young as five who display predispositions to behave or dress like the opposite sex are supported by a growing number of young parents, educators and mental health professionals to choose their own gender and gender expression, with the possibility of medically blocking puberty and later on receiving cross-sex hormones for purposes of gender transitioning.

Major medical establishments and clinics around the world are nowadays offering full transgender service for prepubescent children, beginning with hormone-blocking treatments and then sex-change surgery, and medical professionals are speaking up about how transgender kids tend to be much happier – and less likely to harm themselves – when they’re able to live in their preferred gender role. The medical profession and the educational system are nowadays working together for ostensibly “compassionate reasons” to reorder the lives of children who are not at home with the “gender they were assigned at birth.” Cross-gender behaviors and dress are becoming more acceptable and normalized in schools, protected by GLSEN-inspired “anti-bullying” policies which seek to ensure all students are “valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.”

In 2009, GLSEN released its “Safe Space Kit,” which includes a forty-two-page manual with the goal of being used in all of America’s more than 100,000 middle and high schools. The manual offers advice and pointers for those wanting to be “allies” of LGBT kids and adults, such as not assuming sexual orientation or gender identity of students, parents or staff members, being open to a variety of gender identities and expressions, using “inclusive language” when referring to people in general (like using the word “partner” instead of “boyfriend/girlfriend” or “husband/wife,” and avoiding gendered pronouns by using “they” instead of “he/she”). Remember Genderspeak which we spoke about in the previous episode; this is pervading school curricula as early as kindergarten level. 

According to some school policies, parents do not have to be informed about changes in their child’s gender self-identification (or declaration of their perceived sexual orientation, since parents may not “react well”). Teachers and school counselors have the responsibility to provide resources and help these children in exploring their gender identity and sexual orientation, without discussing these matters with parents. All teachers have the right, and the responsibility, to weave respectful, age-appropriate messages about LGBT people and issues into their lessons and classrooms. Educators should not need to seek approval or have parental consent to discuss LGBT people and issues in the classroom in age- appropriate ways, unless the discussion involves actual sexual practices. In light of all this, it is not surprising that the average age of kids “coming out” as homosexual or trans has dropped significantly, with more kids “coming out” nowadays. 

It really is a no-brainer that what’s happening is leaving long-lasting impressions on impressionable kids. The “queering” of school education in the West is just the prequel to the full-blown, unapologetic gay and transgender activism that is gaining more and more momentum in primary and secondary schools throughout the world. Acceptance is not enough. Homosexuality and other variant sexual orientations, as well as transgenderism and different expressions of gender (or non-gender) identities must be celebrated. For gay activists, it is not enough for kids or teachers to tolerate or accept homosexuality; they must support, admire, appreciate, nurture and advocate for it.

Now that’s as far as primary and secondary education goes - what about colleges and universities in the West? Notable institutions of academic excellence in the West, mostly founded on moral Christian principles, have nowadays adopted the LGBTQ+ agenda in keeping with the new normal. Campuses have been “set free” from the “binary constriction” of “heteronormativity” through advocacy and intense lobbying, as well as the inclusion of “queer studies” and “gender theory”, as well as notable professors/academics in the field who are now celebrated and encouraged. 

A prominent example of this is one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world, Harvard University, originally founded on Christian moral ethics. The moral code included the following: “If any student, either through willfulness or negligence, violates any law of God or of this college, after being twice admonished, he shall suffer severe punishment, at the discretion of the President or his tutor.” Students in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were expected to “logically explain the Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testaments, and be blameless in life and character.” 

Fast forward to this time and age when Harvard hosts “Gaypril”, a month set to include gay pride celebrations, a day of silence to raise awareness about the prevalence of homophobia, and a panel of experts on sadomasochism. Universities are willfully including queer studies and supporting LGBT movements and activism in direct opposition to their founding members’ mottos, creeds, and Christian ethics. Celebration of Pride Month, hosting awareness weeks, events and holidays, as well as setting up interactive spaces relating to the LGBTQ+ movement are some of the examples of what’s taking place globally on school and college campuses. Overt sexuality is encouraged when once temperance and high moral character was the norm, and deviant behaviors and perversions (such as BDSM clubs and events) are applauded as forms of “free speech”.

So all of this is done in the name of “inclusivity”, “diversity”, “tolerance” and “free speech”, yet anyone or anything criticizing such efforts and practices are immediately shut down. Michael Brown sarcastically remarks, “So, a Catholic professor teaching Catholicism within a university’s Department of Religion is dismissed for accurately teaching what Catholics believe about same-sex acts. And to think: On a daily basis all over America, college professors mock belief in God and attack organized religion; vilify political leaders (especially conservative ones) and denigrate American government policy; encourage (hetero)sexual experimentation and celebrate homosexuality – without the slightest penalty for their actions. But the moment a professor crosses the gay line, he loses his job. If this is not an example of gross academic injustice and inequality, then nothing is.” Many men and women in academia have lost their jobs for abiding by their morals and values, expressing concerns against the explosion of the LGBTQ narrative on school and college campuses, or for simply stating that it is a biological fact of life that gender is male or female. Please tell me that we’re not living in an age of thought crime with real thought police, that Genderspeak is not the new norm, and that this is not a Queer New World.

24:50
Diversity is the codeword for gay and transgender activism, while “embracing diversity” is another way of saying “endorsing homosexuality and supporting the goals of the gay and transgender agenda.” How exactly are companies and businesses becoming more LGBTQ-friendly, or rather “diverse” and “inclusive”? Gay and lesbian employees are more visible in newsletter and other communications produced by corporations; openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and gender non-binary individuals are included on company boards and task forces; gay publications, like 10 Percent, The Advocate, Out, and Victory, among others, are ordered and displayed where other magazines are displayed; during Pride Month and National Coming Out Day, companies would fly the rainbow flag at work locations, convert their social media logo to rainbow colors, and spread the rainbow everywhere; booths and events are sponsored during gay pride events, and company logos are included as sponsors for Pride Month festivities, among many other examples. 

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the largest LGBTQ advocacy group and LGBTQ political lobbying organization in the United States. In 2002, it began releasing its annual Corporate Equality Index (CEI), which, according to their website, “is the national benchmarking tool on corporate policies, practices and benefits pertinent to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer employees… A primary driving force for LGBTQ workplace inclusion. Data from the CEI tells the story of nearly two decades of year over year growth in the adoption of these critical policies and practices indicative of employers' commitment to equality.”

And every year, the release of the HRC’s annual report is greeted with great media fanfare. A review of some of the questions asked as far back as 2005 on the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index Survey is enlightening. Companies are evaluated based on barring employment discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression by including the words “gender identity” or “gender identity or expression” in its primary non-discrimination or EEO policy, offering health insurance coverage and other benefits to employees’ same-sex partners, having written gender transition guidelines documenting supportive company policy on issues pertinent to workplace gender transition such as name change policy, bathroom accommodations, dress codes and harassment, and medical coverage of gender transitioning procedures, among others.

The HRC boasts, “In 2002, the year it was first published, the CEI noted just 5 percent of businesses banned discrimination based on gender identity or expression. The 2010 report shows that figure has increased exponentially, now standing at 72 percent,” and while “just 13 businesses received perfect ratings in that first year … by 2005, more than 100 businesses had achieved perfect ratings,” and by 2010, the number had reached 305 – despite the fact that every year, the HRC seems to raise the bar of criteria required for a perfect score. Yet the higher the bar is raised, the higher these companies jump (and the more their numbers multiply). In 2021, a total of 1,142 companies participated in the CEI survey, and 767 companies achieved the perfect score of 100%, with an average score of 92% among participating companies. Among the participating companies, 100% explicitly include “sexual orientation” as a part of their nondiscrimination policy, 99.7% explicitly include “gender identity” as a part of their nondiscrimination policy, 78% documented that they provide inclusive benefits for same- and different-sex spouses and partners, and 91% offer at least one transgender-inclusive plan option with current market standard coverage.

Companies are also expected to engage in direct marketing to the LGBT community, to sponsor “a LGBT health, educational, political or community event” and to fund “LGBT health, educational, political or community-related organizations.” Without question, gay activists insist that corporations must wholeheartedly embrace the gay agenda, with all its political and cultural implications, and employees that don’t follow suit could risk termination, while offices that don’t satisfy the “diversity” quota could lose business.

As Michael Brown comments, “And let’s remember that these guidelines are produced by an organization that calls itself the “Human Rights Campaign,” not the “Homosexual Rights Campaign,” as if their efforts were also aimed at helping impoverished day laborers, or starving children, or women sold into sex-trafficking, or any other number of needy people groups. No, their focus – which is perfectly understandable and quite legal – is on one segment of the population only, yet they are misleadingly called the Human Rights Campaign, as if anyone who differed with them was fighting against universal human rights.”

It’s also important to understand that the contemporary concept of “embracing diversity” has opened up a Pandora’s box of sexual perversity, to the point that even the most offensive public displays are included under the heading of “diversity”; a simple example of this are public practices and display booths at many gay pride events worldwide, particularly larger events. This too is sponsored by businesses and corporations.

As Michael Brown remarks, “large gay celebrations worldwide are commonly marked by nude or semi-nude parades, simulated sex acts, and floats with massive, protruding phalluses. Isn’t this perversity rather than diversity? Shouldn’t this be a source of shame rather than “pride”? And shouldn’t corporate America distance itself from such displays? What would have happened to the civil rights movement if Black Pride rallies in the 1960’s were marked by lewd public displays and a fixation on male genitalia? Wouldn’t this have discredited the whole movement, not to mention the people themselves, in a moment? And what if the immigration rallies of 2006 and 2010 were marked by nudity and gyrating drag queens? Wouldn’t this have severely damaged the cause of illegal immigrants?... Could anyone imagine lewd public acts being associated with “Asian Pride” or “White Pride” or “Jewish Pride” or “Muslim Pride”? Yet gay pride events – especially the larger ones – are commonly marked by public lewdness, forming an integral part of gay pride, all part of “coming out” and being unashamed. And all this, of course, is to be celebrated under the heading of “diversity” – and eagerly embraced by corporate America. There’s something else peculiar about the contemporary use of the word “diversity.” One would think that “diversity” would be “inclusive,” not wanting to cause any one group to feel alienated or put out. Indeed, such language is commonly used to explain the very essence of diversity. But that is hardly the case. Do companies like Starbucks sponsor pro-life celebrations in solidarity with the preborn? Do they sponsor teen abstinence drives? Do they sponsor events honoring the traditional family? The record speaks for itself: The answer is no.” 

Of course, plenty of gay men and women disapprove strongly of such behavior – especially in public – and, quite obviously, plenty of them are not involved in these kinds of activities. But the question that must be asked is this: Why have gay pride events been famous for such displays? And why, through the years, has little or no action been taken against these displays by the gay community itself? Why is such perversity paraded and flaunted and championed and celebrated? And why are big businesses so eager to sponsor these events? Of course, gay activism and “political correctness” play a big role nowadays, and so does the big buck.

Michael Brown further remarks, “In the past, “diversity” referred to things like ethnic and cultural and religious diversity, but then it became a code word for homosexuality (then bisexuality, then transgenderism), without prescribed limits or boundaries. After all, if it’s gay, it’s good, and it should be embraced in the name of diversity. Why then should it surprise us that some people would take the concept of “diversity” even further? On what basis should pedophilia and bestiality not be included under the rubric of “diversity”? (Again, I’m not equating homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality; I’m asking on what basis these things should not be included under the heading of “diversity.”) And if the public perversity often paraded at gay pride events is protected under the heading of diversity, why shouldn’t pedophilia – especially, the allegedly “consensual” sex acts between a minor and his boy “lover” – be protected under that same heading? And why not bestiality? Isn’t this all part of sexual “diversity”? This will obviously sound extreme to many, but I ask you: On what basis is it extreme? To many Americans, the idea of men having sex with men and women having sex with women is morally wrong, yet it is becoming taboo even to suggest such a thing. A good dose of diversity training at work will cure this “homophobic” condition!”

35:01
Back in season 1, particularly episode 7, we discussed extensively the research done to try and find a genetic basis or a “gay gene”, and how results remain inconclusive to this date, with many pro-”gay gene” studies being fraught with bias and methodological errors.

That being said, and based on the identity paradigm, it’s quite common nowadays to hear the notion that “gay is the new black”; i.e. that sexual orientation is akin to skin color, immutable and genetically pre-determined, beyond one’s choice and will, and hence deserving of a separate identity category and civil rights. While skin color is obvious and indeed black people have been subjected to laws of segregation and mistreatment across centuries based on their skin color, there is no hard and objective method to determine one’s sexuality from his/her appearance. In addition, it is not fair (and nowhere equivalent) to compare the immense suffering of black people to that of people identifying as LGBT. As Michael Brown states, “just look at the openly gay people in politics, congress, CEOs, sports stars, etc., there was nothing similar during the persecution of black people. The black people didn’t get to where they are and get acceptance by starting out as hip-hop fashion designers, and we cannot deny the glaring difference between not being able to marry someone of the same sex and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter or use a toilet due to one’s skin color.”

Not to mention that, unlike skin color which is coded in one’s DNA following polygenetic inheritance, one’s sexuality and the gender to which one is attracted are not (yet, ironically, one’s gender is dictated by one’s DNA, yet we overlook that in favor of one’s subjective perception of gender). As discussed in detail back in season 1, the most seasoned researchers and clinicians in the field agree that homosexuality arises out of a combination of biological, developmental and environmental influences, although this is rarely acknowledged within popular media.

Just because someone is born with certain desires does not mean they are morally acceptable or justifiable. There are countless behaviors that have a genetic basis yet we take no issue in making moral judgements about these tendencies (e.g. genes related to violent or criminal behaviors, others linked to alcoholism or addiction, particular antisocial personality traits, ailments, etc.). And of course, sexual interests and behaviors come and go, and some people’s sexuality may never emerge, or it may only emerge later in life. Things are different between people, and homosexual desires can exist alongside heterosexual ones.

The irony is that, nowadays, something that is coded in your DNA and not amenable to change (i.e. gender) is OK to change through puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgical interventions, yet something that is not genetically coded, at least not entirely (i.e. homosexuality), and has the potential for change, or at least keeping under control within a particular moral framework, is not OK to quell or keep in line. So how did we get to this point? To answer this, we need to look at the major changes that have taken place within major institutions of psychology and therapy, like the American Psychiatric Association.

38:34
Before 1973, homosexuality was considered by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to be a mental disorder. However, that changed in 1974 when the APA removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is considered the “Bible” of psychiatry and psychology, the official handbook of mental diseases published by the APA. After that landmark decision, it was a matter of time before other organizations fell in line. Fast forward to 2009 when the APA clearly stated that “Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality; in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders.” So how did this 180-degree turn take place?

The 1973 decision by the APA was more political than it was scientific, and it is not a secret that disruptive gay activist pressure played a major role in that decision coming to fruition. In 1970, there was an APA convention in San Francisco, and gay activists carried out what was known as “zaps”, defined as “militant, but non-violent, face-to-face confrontations with homophobic persons in positions of authority.” Those activists burst into the conference room and pushed their way through, threatening to further disrupt the meeting if they were not heard out. And so, they were heard.

By 1973, and after several years of dispute within the APA, the Board of Trustees of the APA decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM. Many professionals were infuriated and accused the APA of submitting to the threats and pressures of gay liberation groups, so they forced the board to submit the decision to a referendum of the full APA membership. As a result, America’s psychiatrists were asked to vote on whether homosexuality was to remain a mental disease. 

A simple observation of such events brings the entire scientific process into question. Instead of in-depth analysis and discussion of data, as things would normally happen in a scientific setting, what was happening at the time was in fact a game of pressure, conflict, politics, and an eventual referendum. Let us not forget the political sentiments of the time - there were massive anti-war protests happening in the 1960’s and 70’s, along with the after-effects of the sexual revolution and the birth of many civil rights movements. Michael Brown writes, “A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.” And just like that, and for the first time in medical history, a diagnosis or lack thereof was decided by a majority vote rather than by actual scientific evidence and proper inquiry.

Many professionals within the APA were completely against this decision and called out its potentially devastating effects. One example is the late Dr. Abram Kardiner, famous psychiatrist and psychoanalytic therapist at Columbia University in New York, who viewed “homosexuality as a symptom of social disintegration.” He also argued that “Those who reinforce the disintegrative elements in our society will get no thanks from future generations. The family becomes the ultimate victim of homosexuality, a result which any society can tolerate only within certain limits. If the American Psychiatric Association endorses one of the symptoms of social distress as a normal phenomenon, it demonstrates to the public its ignorance of social dynamics, of the relation of personal maladaptation to social disharmony, and thereby acquires a responsibility for aggravating the already existing chaos.” 

Understandably, gay activists were alarmed by the call for a vote (as a majority vote against the APA decision meant that homosexuality would not be normalized), and behind the scenes, the National Gay Task Force (NGTF) helped compose and fund a letter to be sent out to all APA members, urging them to back the Board’s decision and vote in favor. The letter stated that it would be a serious and potentially embarrassing step for the profession to vote down a decision which was taken after serious and extended consideration by the bodies within the organization designated to consider such matters. In other words, a fundamental letter presumably written and mailed by its signers (who were key members of the APA’s Board of Trustees) was actually the product of gay activists. Obviously, the NGTF was careful not to let the APA members know that it had anything to do with the letter, since doing so would have been suicidal (given the grave conflict of interest and obvious politics at play).

Eventually, when the referendum vote was taken, the ruling was upheld 5,854 to 3,810, with 367 abstaining, meaning that, even with all the applied pressure and the effects of the sociopolitical climate at the time, almost 40% of mental health professionals did not support the decision. How is this any kind of medical consensus or scientific breakthrough? As Michael Brown said, “The reality is that the radical activism of the 1970’s has become the reigning orthodoxy of today, to the point that dissenting voices are summarily marginalized and even silenced.” And this still holds true to this day.

Now let’s go back to the statement mentioned earlier by the APA that, “Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality… in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders.” Notice the lumping of attractions and behaviors in one category, as well as describing them as normal and positive. So, the APA is telling us that same-sex attractions and behaviors are beneficial, and they are not negative or unhelpful in any way. But is this true?

Recall back in episode 5 when we spoke about how scientific studies have shown that that “gays” and “lesbians” experience markedly higher levels of mental health problems than “heterosexuals”, along with increased risks for sexually-transmitted infections, substance abuse and suicide, and that adjusting for social intolerance or prejudice does not eliminate these findings, as shown by studies conducted in Sweden, one of the most pro-LGBT countries, for example. Gay men in particular are more promiscuous than straight men, and gay sex is more dangerous and carries more health risks than heterosexual sex, even in “monogamous,” committed relationships, and even when protection is used during sex. Many studies have shown that men who have sex with men (referred to as MSM in public health and medical literature) are at significantly higher risks for contracting STIs including HIV/AIDS, with rates of new HIV infections being more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women, and HIV-positive MSM are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer.

What is positive about any of this? And the more these behaviors and the acceptance of this lifestyle is normalized, the more these numbers will grow, unfortunately. And none of this can be blamed on homophobia, as is normally done. It’s about time we wake up and accept the facts here.

46:52
Ironically, almost thirty years after helping pave the way for the APA’s normalization of homosexuality, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was a psychiatrist and professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York City, became the object of scorn and ridicule when he published a study indicating that some gay and lesbians were, in fact, successful in making changes in their orientation. You can imagine how that created an uproar. Robert Spitzer remained a strong advocate of “gay civil rights” and committed liberal, yet he was vilified by the gay community, as he claimed that, “Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that’s untrue -- some people can and do change.” His conclusion was that some “highly motivated” gay people can “apparently make sustained changes in sexual orientation.” The moment his study was released, both he and his team were vilified by gay leaders. Of course, those opposed to the Spitzer study claimed that his methodology was seriously flawed, that he relied on interviews he had conducted with 247 gays and lesbians over a period of 16 months, so how could he tell if the participants were truthful? That is even though Spitzer had been one of the most esteemed leaders in the APA, he had more than 250 academic publications to his credit, and he had no ulterior motive in carrying out his research and simply followed the evidence whichever way it went. 

Other pro-gay researchers used similar interviewing methodologies to conduct their own studies, yet their methodologies were not critiqued as Spitzer’s. It would appear that when a person tells you that he or she used to be gay (or, had some level of change in their sexual orientation), they are not to be trusted, but when a gay person tells you that he or she was harmed by reparative therapy, they are definitely telling the truth. Psychology professor Dr. Warren Throckmorton says, “You could make a case that riding in cars is invariably harmful if you only studied those who were in automobile accidents. But would that be scientific?” Psychologist Louis Berman, author of a major book on homosexuality called The Puzzle, made these interesting comments when asked about the limited research on homosexuality, “Research in this area is taboo… off limits in most psychology departments. One of the arguments of my book is that we need more research in the development of sexual orientation and in orientation therapy. Gays, gay advocates, and gay-friendly people sit on the research boards that decide which grant applications are approved and which are not. A young psychologist whose doctoral research was on the origin or change of sexual orientation might have a hard time finding a job. It is politically correct nowadays to believe that sexual orientation is not a problem, that gay is just as good as straight. If, on the other hand, homosexuality is really an attempt to overcome a feeling of deficit, then straight is better than gay, in the sense that homosexuality burdens the individual with problems and risks that he would not otherwise face.” As Michael Brown comments, “There really is a Catch-22 situation here, since we are told that homosexuality is good and that it can’t be (and shouldn’t be) changed, but anyone wanting to do research to question those premises is often marginalized in academic and professional circles. How, then, can serious research be done?” 

Of course, we need to highlight the fact that “conversion therapy” is a wastebasket term, a catch-all phrase that encompasses practices from “praying the gay away” or boot camp-style programs that have shown to be ineffective, to electro-shock therapy and other inhumane practices meant to “convert” people from “gay” to “straight”. It goes without saying that we reject such interventions, and no one in their right mind would advocate for them. However, it needs to also be highlighted that, unfortunately, any evidence-based and proper psychotherapeutic methods that help individuals overcome and heal many traumas that may be associated with their same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion are also lumped together with the term “conversion therapy”, hence rejecting and even outlawing any and all therapeutic methods or opportunities available which might be of help to individuals seeking them by personal volition. This is very unfortunate and unfair, and it is done on purpose. This topic has been discussed back in episode 11 of the podcast, as you may recall.

In other words, if I seek psychological help to support me in dealing with my issues and healing old wounds that, in my case, may be associated with my same-sex attractions and attachment problems, or my gender confusion if I experience gender dysphoria, with the ultimate aim of keeping my attractions or gender identity in check and not acting upon desires that go against my value system, then that is automatically labelled as internalized homophobia or transphobia, and anyone helping me in the process is a “conversion” therapist whose license needs to be taken away and he/she should be fined and/or imprisoned. But if I seek “gay-affirmative” therapy, where my same-sex attractions and behaviors are celebrated, and I am encouraged to “live out my truth” and “be proud of who I am”, even seek to change the body I’m created with if I’m not happy with my gender, then that is encouraged and celebrated.

As Michael Brown says, “The gay mantra on the subject of any kind of re-orientation therapy is that it is medical quackery, its practitioners are driven by greed and should be de-licensed and put out of business, there’s no science to back it up, it’s harmful, oppressive and abusive.” If you have been following this podcast from the beginning, you’ve probably begun to see that this is not true, and if you yourself deal with SSA and/or GD and have put in the work that we’ve discussed so far in the podcast and maybe checked out the many resources we’ve added, you may have witnessed some changes in your lifestyle or overall quality of life, regardless of whether or not your sexual orientation or gender dysphoria changed in any way. There are many men and women across the world who have benefited from particular kinds of therapy or access to books and resources, support systems, mentorships, etc., and have experienced major changes in their lives – be that healing of old wounds and traumas, building brotherhoods/ sisterhoods and friendships, finding mentors and filling internal voids, feeling more connected with their bodies and selves, feeling more connected with their peers and communities, and even more connected to God and their purpose in life, and so on. Some, in fact, have experienced a shift in their sexual orientation (be that a reduction in their SSA and/or an improvement in their OSA, or more acceptance of their biological sex and a reduction in their GD), and some were able to get married and start their own families. Such experiences vary, of course, but one cannot deny that all of these helpful tools and methodologies have been monumental in people’s journeys of healing and recovery.

The questions that follow are: When we share our experiences or speak about the potential of healing and “change” (in particular cases), why are we immediately shunned and silenced? Is it ethical, just or fair to ignore such voices that exist, believe it or not, in large numbers around the world? If a person was a practicing homosexual and his/her life dramatically changed and is now in line with a particular religious or value system, why are their voices silenced or ridiculed? Why are debates on these topics usually devoid of the position of the “other side”, and only the “politically correct” voices are the loud and assertive ones? And better yet, since two of the most popular mantras of gay activists and their liberal allies are “tolerance” and “diversity,” why are the stories and voices of those of us who sincerely report to have walked away from homosexuality or transgenderism not celebrated, much less tolerated, for the “diversity” they bring to the table? Why is it that the very mention of any potential for growth or change beyond the gay lifestyle, or any mention of “ex-gays”, creates such a whirlwind of controversy and attacks?

On the one hand, it is understandable that many gay and trans men and women have been subjected to traumatic means of “healing” or “conversion” and were left with more trauma and pain, that even opening up this topic uncovers these old wounds. For others, the countless years spent with hopes of “change” or “improvement” were uneventful, as they discovered no “change” after much persistence and effort. For some, discussing the possibility of gay or trans men and women changing is like going back to the stone age, while for others, it’s like reminding them of the pain they went through their childhood and adolescence and young adulthood, and possibly even through an unsuccessful heterosexual marriage – why open up old wounds again? And of course, many in the LGBT community feel personally attacked when the possibility of change is raised, since this undermines the very basis of their worldview and the “civil rights” for which they fight given their unalterable sexual orientation.

On the other hand, it is also common in our communities to say something like, “Well, you can change if you want to,” as if it were that easy or immediate. We have to practice compassion and understanding, and we have to respect people’s experiences and what they went through to get to their current stage in life. However, the same compassion and understanding has to be exhibited to those of us who have experienced healing, change or recovery (to whatever degree), who, after years of pain, inner conflict and confusion, have found their “home”, personal freedom and peace. After all, tolerance goes both ways, doesn’t it? Many of us belong to the latter group, and I have been quite vocal about us walking a tight rope: on the one hand, we are rejected by the Muslim communities we belong to, out of ignorance and lack of understanding, and we are also rejected by the LGBT community for harboring what they deem as “internalized homophobia”. On top of all this, we dealt with the misunderstandings, hatred and shame growing up, as well as the trauma of coming to terms with our SSA or GD. After that, many of us went through yet another traumatic journey, questioning our identities and worldviews, and then enduring countless difficulties on the journey of recovery and healing. And after all this, and after many have found true peace and happiness, we are vilified by the very group of people that should be the most sympathetic to our stories and identify with the struggles we went through, the same group of people that supposedly stands for tolerance and understanding. Talk about double standards, right?

Could the reason to all this be that the very existence of an “ex-gay movement” or any potential for change completely undermine the whole argument of an immutable orientation and the “born this way” and “accept yourself” mantras? Is it the case that one testimony of healing or change (to any degree) among thousands and thousands of testimonies causes the entire “ideological house of cards” to crumble?

And this is precisely the problem: if one continues to experience ANY kind of homosexual thoughts or temptations, then he/she has not really changed/healed/what-have-you. This logic is incredibly flawed. Since when do occasional thoughts of past lapses or even particular present slips deem a therapy or recovery program unsuccessful? Think of 12-step programs, like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Narcotics Anonymous (NA), or Sexaholics Anonymous (SA), for example. Do people lose their “sobriety” if they fantasize about a drink or joint or sexual encounter that triggers them? Or do they even give up because they slipped on their road of “sobriety”? Do media or advocacy groups trash these programs for their lack of 100% success rates? Finding “recovery” (whatever that entails for the person) is an ongoing daily process which may last a lifetime. “Change” may not be instantaneous or radical, but it can be profound and impactful. After all, who of us is not tempted in this life?

Michael Brown quotes Ex-gay Jeff Johnston who outlines the kind of change often experienced by Christians who overcame their SSA, and these categories resonate with many of us in the healing and recovery community: “Change in behavior (meaning, no longer committing homosexual acts or being enslaved to sexual desires); Change in motivation (“from initial fear and shame to a love for God and desire to follow Him”); Change in identity (“Many men who come out of homosexuality do not think of themselves as ‘gay’ or even ‘ex-gay’ any more. They are sons, fathers, friends, husbands … men.”); Change in attitude (from feeling “victimized and rejected” to being emotionally healed and filled with gratitude and joy); Change in relationships with men and women (developing healthy, non-sexual relationships with those of the same sex); Change in relationship with God (from viewing Him as “angry, uninvolved, or uncaring,” to knowing Him as a loving Father); Change in homosexual attractions (“For many, same-sex attractions do change dramatically, and attractions for [the opposite sex] develop.”)”

Instead of celebrating such efforts and providing resources for people struggling with their SSA/GD, laws and resolutions are being passed in many countries around the world that deem any act of therapy/ counseling/ support to help clients deal with unwanted SSA or GD as a violation of ethical codes of conducts and standards of practice. Anything short of “gay-affirmative” or “trans-affirmative” therapy is subject to dire consequences (including, but not limited to, fines, de-licensing or imprisonment). While we respect that people have their own choices and free will, and if they choose to live out a gay or trans lifestyle, they are free to do so. However, isn’t outlawing particular therapies, counseling services and support venues that could help me as an individual deal with my SSA/GD in ways that are in line with my religious rulings and value system a violation of my ethics and human rights? What happened to tolerance, diversity and acceptance? Or are these part of a one-way street? For those of you interested in learning more about the barriers that people face when accessing professional support and what we can do as a collective faith community to defend the human right to access support and counselling without prejudice, I recommend checking out the webinar with Mike Davidson hosted by Br. Ali Jaffery from Strong Support. Also, if you’re interested in learning more about the kinds of therapy available for people with SSA/GD, there are two webinars with Andrew Rodriguez also hosted by Strong Support, and I will add links to all of these webinars in the episode description.

It is absurd that professionals nowadays assert that the only possible reason a person would not be at home with his or her homosexuality is the influence of a homophobic society (i.e. if it weren’t for people’s prejudice, and my internalized homophobia and shame as a result, I would’ve been OK living the gay lifestyle and not seeking any alternative venues of support instead). There’s no room for one’s moral or religious convictions, which are only an extension of one’s internalized homophobia. In other words, in a world devoid of societal prejudice, there’s no shame or problem with “being gay”. Come again? It’s incredibly ironic that when the “persecuted” become the “persecutors,” they become guilty of the very things they condemn in others. Complaining of intolerance, bigotry and hatred experienced in the world soon become (or rather, have already become) the same weapons used against those who don’t share their same views.

Michael Brown shares a statement he cites from an ex-gay website:

“Individuals who have transitioned out of a former homosexual identity and lifestyle, or who choose to pursue alternatives to homosexuality, deserve compassion and respect. Their choices should not subject them to discrimination, ridicule, marginalization, or make them the target of hate speech or accusations of homophobia. Demands for tolerance by one group can never justify intolerance or ridicule of another.

In sharing our experience, we are not necessarily suggesting that everyone can change. Nor are we saying that everyone should try to change. We are only sharing our own experience, about what was right for us and what worked for us. We have no desire to try to convince people who are happy living a gay life that they should be dissatisfied. If “gay” works for them, great. We are not suggesting that those who embrace and accept a gay identity and choose to live as homosexuals are sick, or wrong, or somehow “less than” others. They are as deserving of respect as we are. Homosexuality just wasn’t right for us. It conflicted with our deeply held beliefs, our life goals, and our intrinsic sense of our true, authentic selves. And so we pursued change -- and ultimately found that by facing and addressing deep emotional wounds, fears and other root problems, our homosexual desires started to diminish and then to disappear, while heterosexual feelings began to emerge and increase. True, we found the journey was often difficult and frightening, but the destination has brought us immeasurable peace and joy. In fact, if there is one consistency in the scores of published testimonials by those who have succeeded at change, it is their universal claim that their lives are better now.”

The conclusion for all this is the following: despite the difficulties, it is possible for someone who has embraced a gay identity to live a satisfied, non-homosexual lifestyle. It is also possible for those desiring healing, recovery and a redirection of their sexuality in alignment with their value system to achieve that, to different degrees, depending on their individual contexts. As for the notion that homosexuality is inborn and immutable, and the rejection of that is a statement of “internalized homophobia”, the healing and recovery community as well as the global “ex-gay” movement is living proof of the faulty ideological foundations of this agenda. And this explains the concerted effort from gay leaders and activists as well as LGBT allies to silence or discredit the voices of countless men and women who prove them wrong, thereby threatening their cause and what they stand for. 

1:09:24
Unfortunately - and this has happened quite frequently in human history - those who have been the most oppressed, suffering humiliation, discrimination and violence, once liberated, become the oppressors when they reach a position of influence. The ironic reality is that their thinking has been conditioned by their past experiences and subjective perceptions, such that they inadvertently create the same loops they were trying to escape from in the first place. As jurist and author Marvin Frankel said, “The powerless call out for tolerance. Achieving power, they may soon forget.” And as Michael Brown beautifully comments, “Today, those who have come out of the closet are trying to put their ideological opponents into the closet; those preaching tolerance have become the most intolerant; those calling for inclusion are now the most exclusionary; those celebrating diversity demand absolute uniformity.”

Of course, we of all people know the pain and trauma that our brothers and sisters have experienced. It is a fact that the LGBTQ community has experienced rejection, mockery, abuse and violence throughout their lives, whether from family members, teachers and classmates, ministers and imams, and even the community at large. There’s shame, hopelessness, despair, and many are driven away from God, away from the deen, away from connection and belonging, and into darkness, more pain and sometimes even suicide. We can’t deny that. People need love and belonging, they need understanding and empathy, and they need a loving embrace and a healing touch. We need to reverse the equation. Hate must be transformed into love, the kind that heals. That being said, calling out injustice and working on healing goes both ways – when the oppressed become the oppressors, their injustice has to be called out for what it is.

As we have seen so far, the tentacles of the LGBTQ movement have spread to affect virtually all aspects of society: teachers, educators, professors and administrators are being intimidated by a “repressive new order”, ministers and religious leaders are being silenced, researchers and scientists are dealing with censorship and post-truth ideologies; employees have lost their jobs; even parents have been told they cannot exercise their rights. “Queer has become something to fear, and gay is beginning to rule the day. The tables have been turned — dramatically. Who would have imagined?” asks Michael Brown.

I’m sure you have come across many stories during the past couple of years: A photographer sued for refusing to take pictures at a gay wedding (or commitment ceremony before such weddings were legalized); a bakery taken to court due to the refusal of the owners to bake a cake for another gay wedding due to religious reasons; a therapist getting delicensed and fined for refusing to offer gay-affirmative therapy, or for offering reparative or reintegrative therapy addressing a client’s SSA or GD; fertility doctors barred by the state Supreme Court for refusing artificial insemination of a lesbian patient given their religious beliefs; teachers getting fired for their refusal to participate in pro-gay events at school or to teach trans-affirming material; student groups getting disbanded for promoting traditional marriage and religious values of pro-life and male-female gender dichotomy; employees getting fired for choosing not to participate in pro-LGBT events in the office or for voicing their concerns on religious and moral grounds; and media personnel and politicians getting canceled for adopting more “conservative” views and not participating in Pride festivities or even declaring pronouns. And the list goes on and on. Michael Brown makes a twist to a famous Orwellian theme when he asserts, “Big Brother is definitely watching, and he most definitely is gay. If you work for the university, your utterances and actions must mimic the standard gay mantras or you’ll soon find yourself out of a job.” Again, anyone taking a step back for a moment and observing the world we live in would realize that we’re already living in an Orwellian dystopia with a queer thought police, and this is in fact a queer new world.

The word “hate” has nowadays become weaponized and branded on all those who differ with the LGBTQ community and its agenda. Any opinion or movement that presents an alternative path is immediately demonized and labeled as “hate speech”. The definition of the word “hate” has shifted from its conventional meaning “to feel hostility or animosity, to detest” to include “to hold to Judeo-Christian principles and values; to stand for biblical morality; to take issue with homosexual practices”. The public sphere is no longer safe for open discourse, however compassionate and understanding. People no longer have the freedom to believe in what they believe. As Michael Brown powerfully asserts, “Pushing the Hate button has proven quite effective, causing level-headed, reasonable discourse to come to a sudden halt and quickly making the person with whom you differ into a small-minded, mean-spirited bigot.” Psychological manipulation has taken place on a massive scale propagated, initially, by Kirk and Madsen’s watershed book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s that we discussed in the previous episode. The effectiveness of the strategies outlined in the book are palpable in today’s day and age.

To this end, Michael Brown again remarks, “The strategy has worked like a charm, as Jeff Jacoby, a conservative columnist with the Boston Globe, noted, “Dare to suggest that homosexuality may not be something to celebrate and you instantly are a Nazi…. Offer to share your teachings of Christianity or Judaism with students ‘struggling with homosexuality’ and you become as vile as a Ku Kluxer…” Or, in the words of Dr. Laura Schlessinger, “Simply because I am opposed to legislating homosexual marriage and adoption, I am labeled a Nazi.” So, two Jews, Jacoby and Schlessinger, can be called Nazis – without the slightest hint of irony – simply because they expressed their differences with the goals of homosexual activism. Yes, all you have to do is push that “hate button,” and the results are utterly predictable.” And later he adds, “But the lesson has been learned: If you define marriage as the union of a man and woman, as every dictionary in our history has, you are full of hate; if you say that you don’t think men were designed to have sex with men or women were designed to have sex with women, you are full of hate; if you say that you know people who were formerly homosexual, you are full of hate; if you say, from a biblical point of view, that you believe that the Scriptures speak against homosexual practice, you are full of hate – indeed, anti-gay hate of the highest order.”

Of course, no one condones any hateful acts towards any group or individual, especially the LGBTQ+ community, we are simply drawing attention to the fact that whatever is said, however polite and respectful, the hate button will always be pushed as an immediate reaction to silence alternative views. If you believe that it is immoral to engage in same-sex sexual acts, to have a same-sex marriage, or to engage in cross-sex dressing and mannerisms or undergo a sex-change operation, or to even dare suggest that a child is better off raised by a father and mother, or that homosexuality is not innate but rather acquired, you are immediately labeled a bigot, homophobe and transphobe, and you are irreversibly canceled.

Once again, to be clear, and this is coming from someone (and a community) experiencing same-sex attractions who know, on a visceral level, what it means to feel different, experience pain, shame and trauma, and deal with everything the LGBTQ community experienced or is experiencing, who mean no harm to anyone (on the contrary), and who wish to live a lifestyle in accordance with Divine values and morals. What we engage in is respectful and compassionate discourse, and we only wish peace, mercy and healing for all mankind. Unfortunately, no matter how compassionate and sincere the discourse we use, whatever we believe and no matter how respectfully and compassionately we communicate it, our stance is going to be labelled “homophobic” and “hate speech”. And as Michael Brown beautifully puts it, “Could it be that the “hate” is not so much on the lips of the speakers… as much as it is in the ears of the hearers? And, to take this one step further, could it be that the tables have now turned so dramatically that most of the hate speech is coming from the lips and pens of those who perpetually push the hate button, namely, the gay and lesbian community?”

1:19:01
A small error multiplied becomes a large, consequential error. A slight deviation from the path becomes enormous and even deadly over the course of time. Any marksman will tell you that the tiniest miscalculation in aim will result in a badly missed target. It’s all about the trajectory: If followed to its natural and logical conclusion, where will the current direction take us?

There are massive and costly consequences to this deviation from the basic, male-female ordering of human life and society, and so, before we proceed any further, we should first look ahead and see where we’re headed. The trajectory has been set, and the only thing uncertain is the final end of the journey. But make no mistake about it: A queer new world is here already. Yes, once we open the door, there is no stopping the flood. As Michael Brown says, “So, get ready to meet and embrace and accept as perfectly normal a whole “beautiful community,” including “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersex, queer, and questioning” – just to name a very, very few. No doubt, there are many beautiful people among them, but that hardly means that each of their sexual orientations and identities and proclivities must be recognized, endorsed and celebrated by society or that their sexual orientations or identities or proclivities are what make them beautiful.”

And the flood doesn’t stop. As noted by German physician, Dr. Christl Ruth Vonholdt, “In recent years there was an increasing shift away from man and woman as basic anthropological realities, towards heterosexual and homosexual identities which supposedly exist on an equal level. However, this, too, has now become outmoded. For quite a while now German universities no longer offer just Gay-Lesbian Studies, but Queer Studies. Queer theories deny that humankind should fall into two gender categories. Instead of acknowledging mutually complementary manhood and womanhood, such theories hold that there are a variety of different genders which are all on a par with each other...” For the last two decades, the transgender movement has picked up pace and “trans” has become trendy. Oprah has done several shows on the topic; trans people are coming out at work, and the rising numbers of transmen and transwomen are forcing people to rethink the use of personal pronouns. Reality shows are now documenting stories of young kids’ journeys of gender transitioning, with the involvement of parents, students and teachers, as well as doctors and mental health professionals. 

To quote lesbian professor of Social Work at Manchester College Barb Burdge: “…challenging oppressive gender structures and making gender rights a priority are critical steps toward universal freedom from punishment for gender nonconformity.” Thus she calls upon all social workers to join forces and “challenge gender stereotyping unceasingly. Given the ubiquitous nature of gender stereotyping in our society, social workers need to be acutely perceptive and prepared to challenge gender stereotyping in any setting at any time…. Whatever the forum, we must be capable of sophisticated conversations on gender if we hope to cure the social diseases of sexism, homophobia, heterosexism, and transphobia. In all our communications, we can intentionally inject the language of diversity and inclusivity into a gendered world. In doing so, we can begin changing the broader gender discourse, lessening its oppressive power.” War has been declared on the “gendered world,” and what Burdge advocates is nothing less than complete and radical social revolution; gender as a social construct dividing humans into male and female is oppressive and should be rejected altogether, and transgendered individuals – which includes a whole range of individuals – should be affirmed and considered to be gender variant, and gender transitioning procedures are to be advocated and celebrated. 

From a spiritual perspective, by attacking and deconstructing male and female distinctives and calling for erasure of gender and instead promoting gender transitioning and gender fluidity, an attack is made on the image of God and His creation, which is reflected in the uniqueness of males and females as well as their divinely-ordained attributes. And one can not help but remember Satan’s promise to God in Surat An-Nisaa’, “And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah." [Allah continues] And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss” [Qur’an, 4:119].

As Michael Brown states, “We have already veered dangerously off course, and either we make a serious course adjustment now or we suffer the consequences. The very foundations of human society are undermined once we deviate from the foundational path of male and female. Once we recognize homosexuality as no better or worse than heterosexuality, we have let the cat out of the bag (or, more accurately, opened a veritable Pandora’s box), leading to an almost endless list of gender possibilities… This is where the deviation from the path has already led us. What is coming next? And what will the multiplication of all these “gender variant” people mean to the rest of society? What of the kids raised in any assortment of “gender variant” households? (What of the kids who are encouraged by their parents to identify as the opposite sex when only six or seven years old?) If the parents are uncertain of their sexual and gender identity (producing much internal conflict in their lives), what will happen to their children? And what will be the effect of the coming wave of “gender variant” professors and school teachers?”

And let’s not forget the “alternative” family structures that are being celebrated nowadays (e.g. two moms, two dads, “throuples”, polyamoric arrangements, trans-parents, arrangements with donor eggs and/or donor sperm, etc.). We can go on and on about all these arrangements and how LGBT activists insist that they’re similar (or even better) than traditional families, but the reality (backed up by empirical evidence) shows that kids, regardless of what anyone says, really do grow up much more whole with their biological mother and father. This is how Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala has intended it and has emphasized in His deen. There’s so much importance placed on the natural family and the natural order, and some of it transcends what can be expressed by all the scientific studies in the world. And yes, sure, there are kids with severe problems who were raised in homes with heterosexual parents, and there are well-adjusted kids who were raised in homes with same-sex parents, but there are recurring patterns that cannot be denied, that children raised outside the traditional family system, particularly same-sex homes, are more prone to issues like promiscuity, sexual experimentation, and crossing gender lines. If you are interested in learning more about the topic, a brilliant book that is highly recommended is Katy Faust’s Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movement which tackles these issues in detail, as well as a webinar that Br. Ali Jaffery from Strong Support held with the author herself. Once again, I’ll add the links in the episode description for you to check out, as well as other relevant resources on the topic.

1:27:20
As members of faith communities, and as Muslims in particular, we need to understand what is happening and work together to help people in the right ways. With regards to the topics covered in this and the previous episodes, you might be familiar with many of the ideas or all of them, or they might be new to you, in which case, it’s normal to feel shock and get overwhelmed by the prospects of where the world is heading. But it’s important, amidst all this chaos, to remember our purpose in life, and the Creator we worship. He chose for us to exist in this time and age, and we have a responsibility on our shoulders to do our part, to be a source of light and love, guidance and healing to our communities as well as the global community.

We must recognize that, men and women experiencing SSA do not consciously choose their sexual and romantic attractions, and those experiencing GD do not consciously choose to experience the dissonance in gender identity. For someone dealing with something they didn’t ask for, which comes with its own set of trials and tribulations, as well as comorbidities, if anything, this calls for compassion and mercy, not name-calling, attacks, shaming or alienation. It goes without saying that we should all treat everyone with dignity and respect, recognizing that all human beings are created as worthy creatures by a loving Creator and blessed with divinely-ordained attributes. In addition, we are all challenged and tested with our own versions of trials and tribulations, and some of us happen to be tried with SSA or GD. 

Whether you are struggling with SSA or GD, or you’re a parent, family member or friend, or you’re a teacher or educator, professional, imam, priest, or community leader, we can all pitch in and work together. There is a personal responsibility, and there is a communal responsibility. With regards to personal responsibility, the first step for all of us would be to educate ourselves on these topics and raise awareness on their different facets, which has been the purpose of the podcast from day 1. We also seek to learn more, by stepping down from our “ivory towers” and having conversations with people experiencing SSA or GD to gain more first-hand knowledge and understanding. Trust me, if you approach this topic from a place of curiosity and love for your fellow man, the entire outlook changes. You begin to see the pain lurking beneath the surface, and how, deep down, under all these masks of Genderspeak, thoughtcrimes and this queer new world, there are people craving love, human connection, guidance and belonging. All of this is human. And we can’t fight fire with fire or use the same old rhetoric that drove people away in the first place. Approach things from a place of love and compassion, and the entire  paradigm shifts. As Richard Cohen says, “This is a battle of love. Whoever loves the most and the longest wins.”

So how do we do this? If you have a child, sibling or family member experiencing SSA or GD, step into their world and see how you can help them. We have a couple of episodes on this topic later in this season, so stick around and check them out soon inshaAllah. If your neighbor, a member of your congregation, a staff member at your school or a colleague at work is dealing with these matters, how about you befriend them and have a meal together? Maybe take an interest in their lives and find a genuine connection with them? And as Muslims and people of faith in general, how about we pray on a daily basis for our brothers and sisters dealing with SSA or GD? None of this compromises our value systems or morals or constitutes an acceptance of the lifestyle or any of the sociopolitical agendas taking the world by storm. It just means that you recognize the humanity in others and are fulfilling your duty as a Muslim, who is supposed to be a source of light and mercy for all mankind. And just because we have our own morals and value systems doesn’t mean that we can’t live in respect and civility with our LGBT neighbors, co-workers, and family members, and should anyone threaten to mistreat or harm them because of who they say they are or how they choose to live, we are the first to advocate for their safety and defense. Every human being is entitled to fundamental protections under the law, and those of us in particular who claim to believe in God and His principles should be champions of justice for all. As Michael Brown says, “But this is where we will be misunderstood, and this is where we will certainly be reviled, since if we are really motivated by love, we will not celebrate something that we believe is harmful any more than a doctor would celebrate obesity. Instead, we will draw a line in the sand with as much courage as compassion, and we will state clearly that the time has come to make a strategic adjustment to our trajectory before we pass the point of no return. Now is the time to regain our bearings.”

And this brings us to communal responsibility. As Muslims, and as members of faith communities around the world, we need to step up, set aside our differences and work together to stand our grounds against the tsunami that’s taking the world by storm. At a time where media outlets are driven by the LGBT agenda, we should have our own media outlets, be they websites, audiovisuals, radio and TV programs, podcasts, publications and so on that reflect our values, correct misconceptions, raise awareness and offer authentic, evidence-based and God-conscious support and guidance to people struggling with SSA or GD. At a time where queer theology and revisionism are taking over traditional religious discourse, we ought to train imams, scholars and community leaders in deconstructing shubuhat and revisionist arguments, and provide them with resources to use in their communities and congregations with proper rhetoric and discourse, and we need to protect them at that. At a time when our schools and colleges are competing in their gay-affirmative campus activities, our teachers, educators and counselors need to have proper resources and syllabi that remain true to our value systems, while at the same time providing proper support and guidance to students and staff members dealing with SSA or GD. And at a time where the professions of psychiatry, psychotherapy, counseling, social work, and even medicine have been severely compromised by the LGBT agenda and political lobbying, we need to have our own qualified therapists and healthcare workers, as well as counseling and support centers, that provide proper counseling, therapy and guidance, without caving in to outside pressures, and to work around laws that impose fines and delicensing of professionals if our efforts are deemed non-gay-affirmative. Wherever you work, whether it is healthcare, engineering, law, natural sciences, social sciences, vocational work or others, we can all work together to create safe spaces at our workplaces that are in line with our beliefs and value systems, while also standing our ground not to be swayed by external forces that impose their own versions of “safe spaces”, “inclusivity” and “diversity”.

It is written in the Bible, the book of Genesis, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). And in the Qur’an, Allah says in Surat Al-Hujurat, “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Aware” [Qur’an, 49:13]. In Surat Ghafir, Allahs says that He formed us and perfected our forms [Qur’an, 40:64], and in a hadith cited by Al-Bukhari and Muslim, Abu Hurayrah narrates on behalf of the Prophet (PBUH), who said: “Allah created Adam in His image…”

In Surat Ar-Rum, Allah says, “And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought” [Qur'an, 30:21]. In addition, in the first verse of Surat An-Nisaa’, He subhanahu wa ta’ala says, “O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women” [Qur'an, 4:1]. The Book of Genesis “explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one” (Genesis 2:24) and that men and women are uniquely fit to reproduce and bring forth new life, to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). Our natural, instinctive conscience, our authentic self, or what we call our fitrah, accepts the truth that Allah has created mankind as male and female, and our design is such that there is compatibility and balance in that regard, that “heterosexuality” and gender congruence are the norm, and that the traditional family system with a father and mother is the foundation, as mom and dad unite and set an example for their children. We also recognize that exceptions to the norm exist, and that these people need our care, love and attention, as well as proper, God-conscious support. This doesn’t mean, in any way, that we open the door to homosexual practice or gender chaos. What I’m trying to say from all of this is that we need to hold on to our values and stand our ground, regardless of what anyone says or does, while practicing compassion, respect and mercy, and living God-consciously, keeping Allah front and center.

I would like to end with Michael Brown’s words, “It is not too late to turn the tide, no matter how daunting the task might appear in light of the massive societal shifts that have taken place in the last generation. In times like these, when it is easy to be discouraged, we do well to recall the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won.” Without a doubt, those of us who oppose the current trajectory of GLBT and beyond will be told that we are on the “wrong side of history,” that we have branded ourselves as intolerant bigots, that we have marginalized ourselves to the point of no return. So be it. It is better to stand up for what is right than to have the approval of the masses. It is better to swim against the tide when it is going in the wrong direction than to be carried along with the (always fickle) whims of current public opinion.”

1:38:46
And with this, we have come to the end of today’s episode, which wraps up our 2-episode series entitled “On Politics, Genderspeak and a Queer New World”. I would like to sincerely thank the brothers who have helped me over the past summer summarize the books used in these two episodes. I appreciate your help and the time and efforts you have invested to help bring this content to light. Jazakom Allah khairan and may Allah reward you immensely. In the next episode, inshaAllah, we will discuss the polar opposites of toxic masculinity and radical feminism and try and find that middle ground in today’s world. Until next time, stay safe and healthy. This has been Waheed Jensen in “A Way Beyond the Rainbow”, assalamu alaikom wa rahmatullahi ta’ala wa barakatuh.