The Sean McDowell Show - 5 FATAL Flaws in Transgender Ideology (ft. Frank Turek)

Episode Date: September 13, 2023

Is there anything wrong with transgenderism? Who could possibly be hurt? Dr. Frank Turek uses sound reason and evidence—not religion— to show that virtually everyone is hurt by same-sex marriage and transgenderism, even those who identify as LGBTQ. There's lots of concise answers to objections about equal rights, discrimination, being born a certain way, and the charge that people who disagree are homophobic or transphobic. Dr. Turek’s message is direct but respectful—correct, not politically correct. It is a message we must not ignore. READ: Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism: https://a.co/d/0u9Dhj9 *Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf) *USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM) *See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK) FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sean_McDowell TikTok: @sean_mcdowell Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/ Website: https://seanmcdowell.org

Why would one of the leading Christian apologists of our day write a book on transgender ideology and what makes it different from other books that are out there? We're about to tackle some of the most common questions about this issue today with my guest and good friend, Dr. Frank Turek, who wrote a book years ago called Be Correct, Not Politically Correct, dealing with same-sex marriage, added a whole new section on transgender ideology. Before we dive in, Frank, always good to have you back, my friend. Hey, great being with you, Sean. It's a sensitive topic, but I think it's a topic we need to address. It is a topic we need to address. Now, I've addressed this in a number of different ways

on my channel related to the sports issue. I've dealt with some books responding to claims of scripture that scripture supports a certain view of transgender identities. Tell us why you as an apologist known more for responding and engaging skeptics and atheists would weigh in on this conversation. Well, it actually goes all the way back to 1993 when I lost a friend of mine to AIDS. And that was about the same year I began to attend seminary here in Charlotte under Dr. Norman Geisler. And about 1998, well, actually just before then, Dr. Geisler gave a sermon at a church. And how often do sermons change your life? Normally they don't, but this one did. And his sermon was on, can you legislate morality? And basically his bottom line

point was, Sean, that all laws legislate morality. Every law declares one behavior right and the opposite behavior wrong. And so I went to him and I said, wow, I've never heard that. I said, that ought to be a book. He said, well, let's write it. And so we came up with an outline. And the first book I ever had an opportunity to write was with Dr. Geiser. And it was called Legislating Morality. Is it wise? Is it legal? Is it possible? And of course, the answer is yes, yes, yes. It's impossible to not legislate some sort of moral position. And then after I realized this and we wrote that book, I knew that same-sex marriage had become sort of an issue that was gaining traction and that people would think it was a good idea. And in about 2004, I think it was Massachusetts was the first state that actually their court decided to impose same-sex marriage on them. And so I said, I really need to write on this because I lost a friend to this. I lost a friend who, his parents, they were wonderful, loving people. But I thought that their approach

to when their son came out and said, I want to engage in this behavior, especially during the AIDS crisis, wasn't the best approach because it ultimately, in my view, to a certain extent, enabled him to lead to his death. And so I wrote a book called in 2008 called Correct, Not Politically Correct. And it had to do with same-sex marriage, how same-sex marriage hurts everyone. And I wasn't writing the book quoting Bible verses. There are no Bible verses in the book, despite the fact that you'll go and you'll see people say,

he's just quoting the Bible. They didn't read the book. I'm just giving sort of a natural law medical case against same-sex marriage. And I updated it after the Supreme Court decision in 2015. So about 2016 or 17 was the second edition of the book. And then the third edition was just this year because transgenderism really came to the forefront of society over the past five or so years. And I felt that it was important to address this issue, again, not from a biblical perspective, but just from a medical, natural law perspective,

because people are getting hurt by this, Sean. Despite the fact that I think most people involved are very well-intended, right? They're well-intended. They want people to be happy, and they think that they can be happy by going through some sort of transitionary process and i think when you look at the evidence the answer is that doesn't work and so maybe we can get into it as we go yeah so

in some ways you might have answered this but what is different about your approach than maybe some others who've spoken or written on this topic yeah it depends on whether we're talking about christians or non-christians again even though i am a Christian, I'm not quoting Bible verses in any of these editions. I'm just pointing out the natural law of medical case as to why same-sex marriage and in the new edition, transgenderism is not good for individuals and not good for society. So really quick question. What's been the feedback since writing this book in 2008? Has there been a lot of support? Has there been people who said, hey, you made me rethink my position? Has there been a ton of hate from

either Christians or non-Christians? What's it been like weighing into this issue? Well, as I document in the first edition, and by the way, when you get the third edition, you're getting the first edition with it because I left with the first edition as it was and the second edition as it was. I just added to it. You know, you always get people who are upset about this issue because it's a very personal issue for some people. It is. And I get that because, look, if I had same-sex, I'd probably want same sex marriage, too. Right. I mean, it's approval. It's it's as Anthony Kennedy said in the Oberfeld decision that, you know, it's it's it's a way of validating what what people think they are. but i still don't think it is something that uh is uh something the government ought to promote because you know the government can do only three things with any sort of behavior sean it can prohibit a behavior it can permit a behavior or it can promote a behavior prohibit

permit or promote and in our country and we can argue over the efficacy or the wisdom of this, for most of our history at the state level, same-sex behavior was prohibited. Then due to, and even through the 1986 Supreme Court case of Bowers versus Hartwick, they still said that states had the right to prohibit same-sex behavior. It wasn't until the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case that they said, no, you can no longer prohibit it. You must permit it. Well, we've gone in very short order from prohibit to permit now to promote. And that's what same-sex marriage does.

It promotes now the behavior. And so we might say, okay, it's a behavior that should be permitted in a free society, but is it something we ought to promote? And that's what the book deals with. views on same-sex marriage. Now, maybe tell us what happened and if you think things have gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in terms of free speech and holding ideas on this than when you were fired years ago. Yeah. In 2011, I was doing corporate training for both Cisco and Bank of America. And I'll save all the details of it because it's kind of a long story, but basically I was fired because someone who was in one of my leadership classes Googled me and figured out I'd written the book, Correct, Not Politically Correct, How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone. This is the first edition. Very short little book.

It's not very long at all. And again, not using Bible verses. Anyway, he said Frank can't work here at Cisco because he doesn't agree with same-sex marriage. Now, keep in mind, this is actually four years before the Supreme Court would impose same-sex marriage on the country. And so I was fired immediately. And I wound up writing the head of Cisco. At the time, his name was John Chambers. He was the CEO. And in 2008 in California, he was on the elect McCain commission in California. 2008, it was Senator McCain against Senator Obama for the presidency and Chambers was all for Senator McCain.

And so I wrote him and I said, um, dear Mr. Chambers, I've been working for your company for many years as a consultant at all of my programs that I've done. Even the guy that complained about me said that the leadership program I taught was was great. Right. OK. Anyway, I wrote to Chambers and I said, I'm a I'm a veteran of the United States Navy and I've been working your company, and I appreciate your support for Senator McCain in the last election. And here's why I was fired, because I don't agree with same-sex marriage. Are you aware that Senator McCain holds the same position on same-sex marriage that I hold? And then I said, are you qualified to be working at Cisco? Interesting. And so the next day, because I FedExed a letter

to him, I got a phone call from an attorney who said, what do you want? And I said, well, I don't really want anything except you call the dogs off other Christians. Why are you putting a litmus test, a political litmus test, a moral litmus test on a controversial issue on people in your company? Does everyone have to agree with same sex marriage to work at Cisco? I mean, if so, that would be a violation of the civil rights amendment, right? That you're putting a political and moral litmus test on people, especially on this controversial issue. And so he said, well, why don't you speak with the head of diversity and inclusion here? I said, I'd be happy to.

So I had a meeting with her. Our friend Mike Adams was on the phone with me when this happened. We happened to be at Summit at the time. We had a phone call with this lady. And I kept asking her, why was I excluded and not tolerated for holding a diverse view on this issue when you claim to be all about inclusion, tolerance, and diversity? And she couldn't answer the question, Sean. She just gave me platitude after platitude. She couldn't define what inclusion, tolerance, and diversity meant. And so after the call didn't go well, Mike said, we got to go public with this.

I go, yep, we do. And so he wrote the first column back in June of 2011 called, called the Cisco kid. Oh, interesting. I wrote a column explaining what really happened called sex at work. Now, ladies and gentlemen, do not Google sex at work. It'll take you to Harvey Weinstein's website. Okay. You need to go, you need to go to cross examine.org our website, and type in sex at work. You'll see the article. It's also in the third edition, the expanded edition, the new one that just came out, correct? Not politically correct. That article explains what really happened.

And the reason I called it sex at work, Sean, is I kept asking people, why are you guys even talking about sex at work? What does this have to do with workplace productivity? As long as we treat everybody with respect, regardless of whether we may disagree over certain sexual behaviors, as long as we treat everyone with respect because everyone's made in the image and likeness of God and they deserve respect, as long as we do that at at work why do you care what people think about certain sexual behaviors and i keep asking people that question why is that a corporate issue why are people talking about it i i still don't know the answer i don't see why it's relevant to workplace productivity do you i mean what what's what's the reason for this that's a great question i imagine you've gotten this pushback from some folks. Before we jump into the question of transgenders, some folks will say, well, Cisco, Bank of America, private companies.

Shouldn't they be able to regulate in private companies? This is not the government who works for them and who doesn't. Biola University, where I work, churches, maybe cakes. They should have a right, you know, people who bake cakes, like our friend Jack Phillips, to not bake a cake for same-sex marriage. So how is this different? Yes, well, actually, I agree with that. I said that in the article. I said, Cisco has the right to fire me, and so does Bank of America. But don't go around saying you're inclusive, tolerant, and diverse then and diverse then broadcast the world that the only people that can work at cisco are people that agree with these values if you want to do that you can do it now there are some

that the government will say you can't like if you say okay we're for racism right you can't you know you the civil rights the civil rights amendment or the civil rights law will say you can't do that. But if they were to come out and say everybody that works here must adhere to these certain moral principles, there's going to be a big they're going to have a big problem. So what they do is they actually say they're for inclusion, tolerance, and diversity, but they're really not. What inclusion, tolerance, and diversity means to most corporate elites is we have this list of politically correct values you must agree with, and if you don't, you're going to have trouble here. Gotcha. That makes sense. Well, this is a whole other conversation we could have about tolerance. I want to get into your book on transgender ideology, but just two more questions

before we jump in. When we look at this topic, obviously there's certain cultural forces that have been forming to get us to this point. Carl Truman lays it out brilliantly in his book, you know, the rise and triumph of the modern self from technology to Marx and Rousseau, et cetera. Do you look in at the church at all and think we've fallen short in some ways on how we have navigated the sexual revolution and even gender identity before we criticize others? Is there some critique due within that we should pay attention to? Absolutely. The folks that gave us same-sex marriage are not the LGBTQ community. The folks that gave us same-sex marriage from the beginning was the heterosexual community. Why? And the church. Because we bought into the romance view of marriage, the sentimental view of marriage, that marriage is just about feelings. And if I lose my feelings, I therefore have the right to find somebody else where I do have these romantic feelings for, I do have these romantic feelings for this person, because they think love is all about feelings. And the government is just here to recognize that I

love someone of the opposite sex. But in reality, that's not the real purpose the government's involved in marriage at all. I mean, why should the government care that you love Stephanie or I love my Stephanie? We both have wives named Stephanie, right? Why should the government care that we have this romantic affinity for these people? It shouldn't. The reason the government should be involved in marriage and has been involved in marriage is because marriage between a man and a woman perpetuates and stabilizes society. That's why the government's interested in it. Okay. The problem is, is when heterosexuals have decided that marriage really isn't about children, it's all

about the romantic feelings of adults. And then we can have no fault divorce because these feelings have evaporated. Then the rest of the culture goes, well, if marriage is all about feelings, if marriage is all about romantic affinity, then why not two men or two women? If it has nothing to do with children, what's the point? And, you know, they're right. If there is no real covenant view of marriage that involves the procreation and upbringing of children. Now, we do understand some marriages who are heterosexual don't bring forth children, but they're still modeling a generally procreative relationship, and they still tend to keep the man off the street from impregnating other women out of wedlock if he's involved in a marriage, even a sterile marriage. So there is value to a man

and a woman coming together for society, even if they don't procreate. But the only way to actually bring forth the next generation is through a man-woman relationship. And so that's the reason the government's involved in marriage to begin with. And the problem is heterosexuals bought into this idea, this romantic view of marriage, this feelings view of marriage, and it just made logical sense. why not two men why not two women and pretty soon the two is going to go away sean because the reason it's two as you know is is for procreation and bringing forth the family once that's gone why not three why not four why not well the whole thing's blown up then it started with us by the way that's fair where did bill call divorce start uh i think it was California Reagan, right?

Reagan. Yeah, Reagan was the guy that did it. He literally invented it. But it spread across the country, and here we are. All right, so let's jump into the section of your book. It starts with same-sex marriage, shifts towards transgender ideology. Why do you think there's been a rise in transgender identification? And as you answer this, one of the responses people will give, and I've heard and tried to think

about is, well, maybe there's a rise in identification because finally there's cultural space for people to come out and identify as who they truly are. Yeah, it is a complicated matter, but according to Abigail Schreier, who wrote the seminal book, Irresistible Damage, How the Transgender Craze is Seducing Our Daughters, she points out that a decade or so ago, gender dysphoria was a condition that affected about one out of every 10,000 men, so men who thought that they were really women. But in the past decade or so, there's been almost a 5,000% increase of actually young girls claiming that they are boys. And according to her, and it seems to make sense, this is a social media contagion, Sean.

This has passed almost entirely through the growth of social media and she points out as well that there are other factors involved um in addition to social media what what do young people want more than anything they just want to fit in right when you're a young person you're a young teenager you want to fit in you want to be on the in group? What's the fastest way to fit in? I'm still young, Frank, just for the record, but keep going. What's the fastest and easiest way to fit in in today's social media culture is to claim you're trans because everybody will applaud. Anybody who says this is dangerous, don't go down this road is going to be canceled or declared some kind of bigot. And it's also another way because, you know, we were teenagers, Sean, you always wanted to stick it to your parents every now and then, right? It's a good way of

doing it is to claim you're trans. So this has been almost entirely fueled by the ubiquity of social media. In fact, I just emailed you an article I saw yesterday on the fact that in about the past decade, young people have claimed that they're not happy with their lives. That percentage has doubled from about 25% to nearly 50%, Sean. 50% of teenagers are saying, I'm not happy with my life. And the article places most of the blame on the social media contagion. And there's so many other things that contribute to that as well. But that's really what's going on. It's a social media contagion. Now, the good news of that is, is with some effort, social media can be avoided. So if you're worried about people who are very impressionable, and of course, teenagers are,

it might be wise. In fact, I saw one lady claiming and there's some senators, I think Josh Hawley has said we ought to have a law that says social media can only be accessed by 16 and above. I don't know if that's the best move or not, but that's what they're saying because, because of, of the damage that's done. The cat is out of the bag on that one.

The fact that people are talking about it draws good attention to it, but I don't think that one is going back in with all due respect to Hollywood. Isn't it ironic too that we're right now on social media because social media itself is amoral, right? It's not good or bad. It's what you do on social media that turns out to be good or bad. But social media does affect our worldviews, even though it's not moral, I think. And it really, this larger shift that I think is taking place this generation from discovering your identity without. So conforming your identity to an external reality and a higher purpose, when you lose yourself, like Jesus said, seek you first the kingdom of God, and then all things will be added unto you. Now it's seek your own feelings and well-being and identity, and we've seen depression rise amidst that narrative.

I think social media is just playing into that narrative because it's all about projecting yourself to the world, and it's brought it to the surface. So I'm with you. What's interesting is there's always been a segment of the population, always at least going back a century or so, that have genuine genitus phoria. But this rapid onset genitus phoria is emerging primarily in adolescent girls without any history of genitus phoria. That tells me there's some type of social contagion taking place here. Now, you have in your book what I think is really interesting. Anybody, wherever they stand on this issue, I think needs to wrestle with these five critiques that you offer of transgender ideology.

And again, you're not pointing towards the Bible. You're not using chapter and verse. You're just simply raising what you call five flaws in transgender ideology. So let's take them one by one and kind of unpack for us what you mean by these. You call flaw number one. Now, you called five flaws. If you wanted one more F, you could have called them five fatal flaws, but I digress. So in the fourth update of the book you could throw that in there but all right you know sean that was free advice my friend um flaw number one you say the design of the body proves there are only two genders yes and the reason for that is men and women, and this is true of the entire mammalian world, male and female can only do one of two things. You can either produce a sperm or an egg. There's no third category. And obviously there are some humans that can't produce either, but that's not a third capacity that's an incapacity and so uh

when you look at the natural design of the body there's only two things that the body can produce either a sperm or an egg so that seems to indicate there's really only two genders there's not 58 as facebook says or there's only two now i know people are going to try and say well gender is different from sex well that that that new kind of definition has come along five minutes ago but if you insist that gender is completely different than someone's biological sex then if there's no relationship between the two then why are people advocating for cross-sex hormones or sex change operations if gender and sex are completely different, then nobody would be saying, I need to change my sex or I need cross-sex hormones.

People are implying that gender and sex are related. That's why they're trying to transition. So if you say they have nothing to do, if gender and sex are completely different things, then there's no referent in biology. If there is a referent in biology, then the biology shows there's only two genders. So I'm a little less concerned with the language of gender if we mean how somebody expresses their biological sex because there are variants across culture. There's different ways even within our culture.

My concern is when gender gets completely severed from biological sex. Do you agree with that? Or do you think sex and gender should just honestly be synonyms for one another and we shouldn't even make that distinction? Well, I think they're synonyms for one another. If you say they're not, what's going to happen culturally, Sean, is the fact that gender, what I think I am, is going to overpower my biology by law. That's what they want. They want people to say that whatever I think I am, I am. That's why you have to use my pronouns. That's why you have to call me a woman, even though I'm a man, because they basically want to ignore biology on one hand, uh, to, to, to affirm what their, their perceived gender is. Yet on the other hand, they're trying to say, well, I need to align my biology now with my mind. And so that's why I have to have cross

sex hormones or surgery. So I think the truth is sex and gender are the same thing. And if you say they're different, then the folks who want this difference are going to say, then you need to ignore my biology and you need to treat me as if whatever my gender is, whatever I think I am, I am. And that runs into trouble as we'll see here in the next flaw. We'll move to the next flaw. One of the things that concerns me is that we have certain stereotypes that we've brought in about what masculinity and femininity mean, typically tied to gender as opposed to biological sex. And when I have read a lot of just queer theory to get behind some of the ideas in this, there's so often just stories of people who feel

like I didn't fit in, didn't fit the stereotype. The idea that I was a woman trapped in a man's body was empowering to me. So there wasn't space for this person who didn't fit the stereotypes to say, maybe I'm a man, maybe I'm a woman, but I just experienced this a little differently than the norm. So part of my concern is how do we keep this expression of what it means to be male and female tied to biological sex, but allow a certain flexibility of people who just experience that differently. Now that's a whole nother conversation, but when we, yeah, go ahead, weigh in. Let me piggyback on that because I think you're right. If we're going to talk about biology, then it's obvious what somebody is, right? Their biology is. But that doesn't mean if I'm a man that I have to adhere to all these stereotypical definitions we put on what a man is.

I may have sort of what we might say are feminine tendencies or feminine interests. That doesn't make me any less of a man. I'm still biologically a man regardless of what my affinities are. Now, I know we say, like, if I consider myself a woman trapped in a man's body, that's kind of gender dysphoria. But my question is, why not think at the opposite, Sean? Why not think I'm a man, but i'm enveloping a woman's mind if that's the case the way i heal i get healed is i change my mind and you can change your mind you can't change your biology in fact that's one of the five fatal flaws that we're going to talk about here maybe

we'll just we'll just get to it okay yeah fair enough. It really gets to the heart of identity. Is my body being sexed an essential part of who I am or not? That's at the heart of this question. Let's move to fatal flaw number two. For fun, you say transgenderism must presuppose fixed genders. Explain. Yeah, because if I'm a man and i think i'm a woman i have to have some idea what a man is and some idea what a woman is to know i have this mismatch between my psychology and my biology if there were no fixed genders i wouldn't be able to recognize the mismatch secondly if i'm going to try and make the so-called transition to become a woman i have to have some idea what a man is and some idea what a woman is

to make the so-called transition. In fact, it would be impossible for transgenderism to exist unless there were fixed reference points. So on one hand, people are trying to say that gender is completely fluid. On the other hand, you have to admit that genders can't be completely fluid. Otherwise, transgenderism would be impossible if there weren't fixed reference points by which you could say i'm transgender you wouldn't be able to you wouldn't able to be transgender and by the way this denial of fixed genders has created a bit of a civil war so to speak in the lgbtq community because if the t's get their way, Sean, that there are no fixed genders. The L's, the B's and the G's don't exist because how can you be a lesbian unless there are fixed genders? How can you be bisexual unless

there are fixed genders? How can you be gay unless there are fixed genders? Those identities presuppose fixed genders. And by the way, this is why Matt Walsh's biography or biography documentary, What is a Woman, has so many of these transgender advocates and left-wing academics flummoxed by the simple question, what is a woman? Because they're kind of caught in a dilemma. If they say that a biological female is a woman, then transgender ideology is false because transgender ideology says I can be a biological man, but really I'm a woman. If they refuse to define what a woman is, which is what they tended to do in the documentary, then transgenderism is not possible. Because if you don't know what a woman is, how can you transition to something else? You can't. You have to know what you are in order

to make the transition. And you also have to know what you're transitioning into and by the way the feminists are not happy with this either sean because if there are no genders there are no women and if there are no women there are no women's rights this is why jk rowling of course the uh the author of the harry potter series um has said you're erasing women by this trans ideology and despite the fact that she's taken so much heat for it, she has stood strong. And I don't really know her religious beliefs. You know, she did when she wrote Harry Potter, because the previous book I wrote with my son,

Hollywood Heroes, How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God, we did a little research on Rowling. And she said, yeah, I basically got the Harry Potter story from the Bible. She said that. Wow. Oh, yeah. Yeah. She said, if you look got the Harry Potter story from the Bible. She said that. Wow. Oh, yeah. Yeah. She said, if you look at the Harry Potter story, Harry Potter is the savior of his world. And he has all these characteristics that are similar to Jesus. And she said, yeah, I basically got it. It's a British book. You'd expect me to have the Bible in it. In fact, she says the whole series can be

epitomized by a couple of bible verses one from first corinthians another from the gospel of matthew in any event i digress so i don't know her religious convictions but she's standing strong just based on principle by saying transgender ideology erases women and by the way it also erases lesbians g gays, and bisexuals. What's really interesting about this is, for lack of a better metaphor, there's very strange bedfellows of people critiquing certain trans ideology and the free speech that follows from this, whether it's Bill Maher, whether it's J.K. Rowling, conservative Christians, feminists, it's really a bizarre group of people who would have, many would have no issue with same-sex marriage or LGB rights are saying, timeout, this has gone too far. And I think it's a fair question. And part of it is

the tension that you said between LGB and T. So so for example i just read this account it's been it's been a few weeks about two lesbians who are in a relationship and one of the lesbians transitioned to a male and the other lesbian was caught because she said if i don't affirm your transition then i'm transphobic if i, I'm now in a relationship with a man and deny that I am a lesbian. And it was such a bizarre contradiction. I thought, wow, these are the natural things that are going to happen when we start to deny reality as we do in this case. Let's move to flaw number three. You can change your mind, but not your biology. Yeah, well, that's contrary to what, of course, transgender ideologues say, that you can change your biology, but you can't. And as I mentioned earlier, why, when our psychology and our biology are mismatched,

we think the solution is to change our biology. I mean, why, why would you change your biology? We don't do this with parallel conditions and probably the closest parallel condition would be anorexia. You know, when, when somebody is anorexic, uh, and they say, but I, you know, I'm overweight, you would not say, you're right, let me give you a liposuction. You would say, dear, your mind's playing tricks on you. You're dangerously underweight. We need to get you nourishment. We're not going to get you liposuction. Yet, why would we say we're going to cut off perfectly healthy sex organs when somebody has a delusion a a mental condition that is causing them to believe

something they are not another example would now be the trans able i don't know if you've heard of this recently sean but there are people out there who are claiming that they they're disabled even though everything's working perfectly fine and so some of them want to have their limbs removed so they can be disabled. Now, what doctor would say, you know, you know, you're right. You are disabled. Let me take off your arm or let me take off your leg. Any doctor would be sued for malpractice if they ever did that, rightfully so. And yet we're also saying, well, let's cut off perfectly healthy sex organs because someone has this gender dysphoria condition. That's not the solution. You don't treat a mental condition with surgery in most cases. You treat it with psychiatry or counseling or prayer. That's what we need to do.

I mean, I don't mean to belittle this, but I mean, if your daughter said, hey, Sean, I'm a mermaid, you wouldn't drive her off the coast and dump her in the ocean, right? You would say, honey, you have a mental issue going on here. We need to get you help for that. So in every parallel situation, we always realize there's a mental problem that needs treatment. We don't try and change the physical to meet the mental. We say the physical's fine. We need to fix your mental condition. And this is where Bill Maher came in. In May of 2022, Sean, on his program on HBO, which I don't have hbo but you can see it on youtube um he had a a show called along for the pride where he said that the latest generations

the most recent generations was gen z millennial whatever they identify with lgbtq at much higher rates than say the baby boomers and he shows this graph Sean and he has this graph going all the way to 2060 and he says if this trend continues we'll all be gay by 2060. right what he was essentially saying with this he says this is a social media contagion this is it's not something new in the water there's not there's not some new, something new in biology. This is, is completely driven by social media. And he said, look, particularly when it came to children, he said, kids go through phases. He said, if eight year old, if everyone knew what they wanted to be, when they were eight, the world would be filled with cowboys and princesses, but it's not.

He said, when I was a kid, I wanted to be a pirate. Thank God nobody took me seriously and took me for eye removal and peg leg surgery. Right. Because he's just pointing out that we, especially for kids, we can't be encouraging them to do these irreversible things to their bodies, to their perfectly healthy bodies. We need to get them counseling. And by the way, 80% of young people that have this so-called gender dysphoria, whether it's social media driven or not, grow out of it by the time they're 18. So it really makes no sense to give them cross-sex hormones or surgery permanent solutions to a temporary problem. So if almost every other issue we can think of, and you gave the example of anorexia, is to fix the mind, not the body. And I would presume that people would have to recognize this as a whole. Why is it different in this case? Why do people say, well, when it comes to the issue of trans, we've got to shift the body. Why is it different here than other issues? I think it's because it's related to sex, Sean. Sex is sort of the new religion in our society. Sex is the one thing that you can't suggest any restraints to. The last restraint that's about to go down is the age of consent. In fact, when I first wrote the book, Correct Not Politically Correct,

back in 2008, I had a FBI agent email me and he said, I've been undercover with NAMBLA, North American Man-Boy Love Association. And he said, the arguments that you talk about in the book, Correct Not Politically Correct, the arguments about being born a certain way, so therefore I'm justified to act this way he said nambla is using that now the pedophiles are essentially saying we're born this way and so that justifies our behavior and that's coming now he wrote me that back in about 2009 but now you start to see people calling pedophilia, what is it, generational attraction? They're trying to make it sound much more benign.

Sure. Yeah. In any event, the real answer is if you suggest any sort of constraints on sexual desire, you're going to be met with opposition in our culture today because sex is the new religion. I think you're right that logically it goes that direction. It'll be interesting to see culturally if we head that direction or not. Those are two distinct questions, but you're right. There is some momentum, at least people trying to push that. Let's move to flaw number four. You say sex, and it's in quotation marks,

is not assigned at birth. Yeah, that's one reason they try and say that, they try and affirm that this gender is completely fluid and it's wrong to identify young people, one sex or another, but we all know this is nonsense. You know, when a baby's born, sex isn't a sign. Sex is discovered. And sometimes it's discovered before birth. In fact, most people know what they're going to have before birth. And so this is, it's not like the doctor just arbitrarily goes, well, this is a girl. No, they know it's a girl. They know it's a boy. And yet some people will try and say that the intersex situation, which is a very rare occurrence where people are born with ambiguous genitalia, is somehow an argument for

transgenderism. It's not. Because in the intersex situation, when that occurs, as they say, where people with fully formed and healthy sex organs attempt to transition to the opposite sex. You see, intersex is a biological condition, but gender dysphoria is a psychological condition. So the existence of intersex conditions does nothing to support the claim that sex is assigned at birth. Birth defects do not disprove the norm. It would be impossible to identify birth defects without the norm. Okay. So the norm is that 99.9% of the people are born either male or female based on their biology.

The very small percentage that aren't are what we would call some sort of deficiency or some sort of defect. But that defect does not then become the standard for the rest of society. It would be like saying, because a small number of people are deaf, Sean, that none of us can hear, or that none of us should hear, or that no one should listen to music because it's going to offend the deaf, or no one should use their voices. Everyone should use sign language because if you don't, you're going to offend the deaf. No, we don't change all of society because a very small number of people have some sort of deficiency. We may adapt to them to try and help them, but we're not going to insist that all of society forego what is normal in order to somehow prevent any sort of offense they may have.

And yet that's what the whole transgender movement's trying to do. The whole world needs to change now for this mental condition that they have. One of the most helpful examples when the topic of intersex comes up, I did not come up with this, but it's the idea that humans develop with 10 fingers and 10 toes. If somebody develops with more or less, they're certainly no more or less human. And it does mean that humans aren't 10 fingered or 10 toes. It's an exception to the typical human development. And that's akin to intersex. These are precious human beings made in God's image, and I have so much compassion for people with this condition trying to navigate the difficulties of their bodies and social reality and all the stereotypes we've talked about, but it just

doesn't follow that sex is on a spectrum because a few individuals have this kind of condition. In fact, many intersex people I've heard and talked with don't appreciate being used in this fashion, kind of as a pawn, so to speak, to make this argument. All right, let's move to flaw number five. You say there is no basis for transgender rights. Yeah, the question is where do rights come from? They don't come from your government because if they came from your government,

that would mean there weren't really rights, they were preferences because if your government changed and decided to take these so-called rights away from you, then they wouldn't be rights anymore? No, a right is something you have regardless of what someone else says about it. So if your government decides you no longer have the right to free speech, do you still have the right to free speech?

No, you still do. Your government just doesn't recognize it. No, rights only come from God. And as our Declaration of Independence says, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men were created and endowed by their government. No, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. You see, if God doesn't exist, there are no rights. And now, you don't need to believe the Bible to know this. In fact, our country, contrary to some Christians, what they said, our country was not founded on the Bible. It was not founded on Christianity, even. It was founded on the moral law consistent with the Bible.

What Jefferson calls natural law in the Declaration of Independence, he actually calls it nature's law. C.S. Lewis would call it the moral law. The UN would call it international law, even though they don't assign God as the source. If there is no God, then there are no rights. Everything's just a matter of personal opinion. This is, by the way, how we were able to prosecute the Nazis in Nuremberg. They said, hey, we're just following orders. And we said, there's a government beyond your government, and that is God's nature. And you had a moral obligation to disobey any immoral order your government gave you because there's a law beyond

your law, and that law is the law of God, God's nature. Again, you don't need to be a Christian to know this. You don't need to be a part of any kind of church or denomination. You don't even need to believe the Bible to know this. In fact, before there was a Bible, people knew basic right and wrong, because God had written it on their hearts. And that's how our country began. So the problem here is, is people today seem to be inventing rights every 10 minutes, Sean. And many of them are atheists. They have no way to ground these rights. Unless God exists, there's not only no right to same-sex marriage, there's no right to natural marriage. Unless God exists, there's not only no right to same-sex marriage, there's no right to natural marriage. Unless God exists, there's not only no right to abortion, there's no right to life. There's no such thing as trans rights. There's no such thing as gay rights. There's no such

thing as human rights, unless God exists. Now you say, okay, well, what does God approve? What flows from his nature? Well, I think as even our founders had discovered that homosexuality and certainly transgenderism, which wasn't a thing even at that point, would not be considered a right for anyone because it doesn't flow from the natural design of the body. It doesn't flow for the purpose for which God created us. So while these people who may identify this way have human rights because they're made in the likeness and image of God, these special rights that they seem to have invented don't exist. Oftentimes when these conversations come up, people will talk about how there are certain rights that LGBTQ people have not had, such as visiting loved ones in the hospital room. You're not even talking about that.

You're saying this is not uniquely LGBTQ or uniquely transgender rights. You're saying there's no basis for human rights of any kind, which would include transgender rights. So in a sense, this would go back to your book, Stealing from God, in which you're saying if we argue for transgender rights, this assumes that there's a basis for human rights, but go against many of what we hear coming under the kind of the rubric of transgender rights. Is that fair, the argument that you're making? Yeah, exactly. In fact, one thing that may clear it up is an illustration, because some people will say, well, I'm an atheist, but I know right from wrong, to which I agree. Or they'll say I'm an atheist and I can be good, to which I agree. What I'm saying you can't do is you can't justify what good is and you can't justify any sort of standard unless God exists. And here's this illustration. You could drive down the highway and see speed limits, 65 miles an hour. And you can know what that speed limit says and you can even obey that speed limit.

And while you're doing that, you can deny there's a traffic authority. You can do that, right? But there would be no speed limit up there, and there would be no speed limit to know unless there was a traffic authority. So in the same way, an atheist can say, I can know it's wrong to murder people, and I can do good things because I know what good is, and deny that God exists. There just would be no good to know or good to do unless God exists. So again, atheists and non-believers, they can be good. They can know good. They just can't justify what good is unless God exists. So, so many people in the public square today are arguing for a particular position, a particular

right position, a particular standard of rights, or I should say a particular list of rights, but they have no standard by which to ground these rights. Our friend Greg Kokel gives the example of you can read a blog or a book if you don't believe in authors or bloggers, but you can't have books and blogs without there being an author. Exactly. Great way also to understand it. Now, when you say, again, no basis for transgender rights, we're talking about the existence of human rights in the first place. Is that possible without there even being a God? And I think that's the heart of the question. And it kind of amazes

me, even as we've gone back to the debates over same-sex marriage, very few people talked about what is a right? Where do rights come from? Do we even have a right to marriage? And what is marriage? That debate didn't even take place. We just skipped over it. And I think a similar thing has taken place here. Now let's shift a little bit. We walked through your five flaws. You talk about the health hazards of transitioning. Now in this, I recently just did an interview with Paul Rhodes, Eddie, who has gone into depth on the detransition scientific data about those who transition and those who detransition. And there's a significant percentage of people who transition who say they are happier, they're healthier, have better well-being, at least at the current state.

So you're not saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that everybody who transitions or even necessarily most people, but there are some health hazards to transitioning that are being skipped over. What are some of those? What are your concerns? Well, let me just give you the, I mean, we could talk about osteoporosis. We can talk about many different health heart problems that result from taking cross-sex hormones these kind of things let me just read something from a a lady who tried to transition to become a man she's known as scott nugent now and i'm just going to read what she said about her attempt at transitioning she said this during my own and by the way this is in the

book correct not politically correct she said during my own, and by the way, this is in the book, correct? Not politically correct. She said during my own transition, I had seven surgeries. I also had a massive pulmonary embolism, a helicopter flight ride, an emergency ambulance ride, a stress induced heart attack, sepsis, a 17th month recurring infection due to using the wrong skin during a failed operation to give her a male, uh, organ. Um, she said um she said 16 rounds of antibiotics three weeks of daily iv antibiotics the loss of all my hair only partially successful arm reconstructive surgery permanent lung and heart damage cut bladder insomnia induced hallucinations oh and frequent loss of consciousness due to pain from the hair on the inside of my urethra all this led to a form of ptsd that made me a prisoner in my own apartment for a year between me and my insurance company

medical expenses exceeded 900 000 now this is just her one her experience but she goes on to say you know doctors are making this up sean there is no way to turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man. There's no protocol. It's an impossible surgery. And so they try and invent ways of trying to make the person look like a man or a woman. And no one ever completely transitions because you have to take a lifetime of medication to continue to try and force your body to go in the opposite direction in which it's designed. And this, and according to her, according to what this lady now known as Scott Nugent says, this just is a boon for big pharma. It's cha-ching.

You're going to get a constant stream of income from people who have to take artificial medications to try and get their body to do something their body's not designed to do. And the ultimate health problem here, Sean, is this. As you mentioned, there are always exceptions. This doesn't apply to everyone, but this is the aggregate data. The aggregate data show that at about the 10-year mark after the so-called surgery, the suicide rate of people that get the surgery is 19 times higher than the general public. So there's a honeymoon period where people feel better, but about the 10-year mark everything blows up and tragically the suicide rate goes through the roof because what was promised to them isn't fulfilled you cannot change your sex it's impossible biologically

and yet they've been told they can we're going to come to that question of increasing the suicide risk in a minute. But I have a number of people who watch this who are, would be Christians who describe themselves as affirming, non-Christians who are in the LGBTQ community. Super honored that they watch this. And I know right now they're going to be thinking, at least some of them might be thinking, Frank, that is an exception and that's unfortunate. But in every kind of surgery that we have, some just go bad. This is the nature of it. But most people who have the transition describe the experience differently. So why pick on the exception and make it the norm? What would you

say to that kind of response? Yeah, well, I would say, tell me what the right protocol is for same, for sex transition surgery. There isn't one. There's, there's, there's no way, there's no way to do it. It's, and this is what Scottott nugent and others have said that there's really no way of doing this they're making it up as they go because it's impossible and look you can always get a good result out of a bad process right there's no question about that sometimes things just work out for whatever reason the question is should this be policy moving forward that we encourage? And in our free society, we might say, okay, after someone is an adult, if they want to go through this, they're free to do it. But certainly this should never be, in my view,

foisted on children, no matter what children say, because children change. Children go through phases. Children can't give their informed consent. In fact, there's a lady out there in California. Her name is Chloe Cole. I talk about her in the book as well. She had her perfectly healthy breasts removed when she was 15 years old. Now at this writing, she's 18, maybe she's 19 by now, and she's suing her doctors going, what did you do to me? And this is why, by the way, in the UK right now, which you know, is more so-called progressive than we are, Sean, they're closing their gender clinics. Why? Because they started earlier than the United States. And the problem is, is that the people they operated on now are, many of them are horrified. When they were children, they were operated on and now they're adults and they're going, what did you do to me?

And they are suing these clinics. That's why they're closing. Now, I was going to ask you about that, so let's focus on that right now. That is so fascinating, England and some other European countries, that they're moving in the different direction as the U.S., which many would argue that those countries are even more secular than the U.S. So what do they know and what do they see and what's guiding these decisions in a way that you think the larger powers that be in the U.S. don't see? They're seeing the negative effect on children five or 10 years later when these children these children are adults and the children are saying they're adults now they're saying you shouldn't have done this to me and look we have

a little section in the book too sean about the real problem here is the concept that our society buys into the the mantra follow your heart be your authentic self right and i go through three reasons why you can't follow your heart without moral restraint the first is is that your heart be your authentic self right and I go through three reasons why you can't follow your heart without moral restraint the first is is that your heart is selfish and deceitful and it wants what it wants and it sometimes wants things that you shouldn't have the second reason is that your heart changes I mean you know your your heart can change and want different things in the same day, right? On one hand, you want to be healthy and fit, and then you're walking down the aisle and you see the box of glazed donuts. You know, I mean, which heart are you going to follow, right?

I mean, on one hand, you want to have a family and you want to settle down and you want to love one person. On the other hand, you want to have a family and you want to settle down and you want to love one person. On the other hand, you want to play the field, right? You know, on one hand, you want to make sure you're there for your kids and you want to, you know, you want to disciple them and make sure that they're brought up in the Lord. On the other hand, you're tired. You just want to watch Netflix. Kids, go, you know, go take care of yourself, right? I mean, you've got a changing heart all the time.

It's conflicting, too. That's the third reason. It conflicts, it changes, it conflicts, and it's deceitful. And without a standard that you can look back on or look to, and in our view, that's God's standard, you're going to run aground. You're going to run aground. You're going to run yourself aground. You're certainly going to run your relationships aground. Because if you just follow your heart without moral restraint, Sean, I wouldn't have made it through the first year of marriage, right? Much less the 38 that my wife and I now enjoy.

I mean, you continually have to say no to certain desires that come across your heart. If you don't, you're going to wind up in trouble, and you're going to blow up every relationship you've ever had. In fact, I think the second most important verse in the Bible, and this is the one verse that's actually in, correct, not politically correct, it comes from Proverbs. I think this is the second most important verse in the Bible today for today's culture that obviously the gospel is the most important, but this is the second most important. It comes from Solomon, Proverbs 4, 23, which says, above all else, guard your heart because everything you do flows from it. Above all else. It doesn't say follow your heart. It says guard your heart. And if you don't guard your heart, you're going to wind up broken, alone, addicted, and probably prematurely dead. You know, there is a Bible verse in there, but it's fair to refer to Solomon simply as somebody of history with wisdom and insight as much as you might cite some other religious figure in there.

So I think that's completely fair to put in your book. I've got a couple more questions for you that I hear regularly, and I'm curious how you respond to it. One of the claims that we see an increase in depression, anxiety, loneliness, and suicidality is the non-affirmation of society. So society does not affirm somebody who they truly are, leads them into isolation, depression, et cetera. So hence, if that's the problem, we would need to shift society to fix the root of the problem, right? The solution has to be rooted in the problem. You take issue with the idea that the reason why we see higher psychological distress in the trans community is the non-affirmation of society why well because no matter what society

you're in the problem persists there's still a high suicide rate regardless of whether you're in san francisco or in alabama all right it's, it's not, it's not totally social approval or disapproval. Now I'm not suggesting that social approval or disapproval doesn't have an impact. I think it does. Right. I mean, it would be, it would be absurd to say there's, there's, there's no impact on someone's psychological wellbeing based on approval or disapproval from society because it does have an effect. The question is, which way should we be trying to help people move more toward into this kind of surgical or chemical solution or more toward a psychiatric or counseling solution? And I think the proper way is to move them into psychiatric and counseling.

In fact, if you look at the data, which we in correct not politically correct the people that work in that with the transgender community discover guys like um uh uh walt hire who who actually lived as a trans woman uh for about eight years and then came out of transgenderism and now has a website called sex change regret.com yeah and other data show that there's always a traumatic event that occurs prior to someone claiming to be trans. There's some sort of, sometimes it's sexual abuse. In fact, he points out that a man wanting to be a woman might want to be a woman because that man or that boy at some point had been sexually abused and wanted to rid himself of the organ that was sexually abused. And so you can see the psychology behind someone wanting to do this. The question is, what's the solution? Is the solution to get that person a scalpel to take off

that organ? Or is it to get them the proper psychological counseling to help them work through the problem? And that's what I'm saying. That's what other doctors, I'm not a medical doctor, but that's what other doctors like Dr. Paul McHugh at John Hopkins University, a psychiatrist, are saying. You don't help people by affirming a psychological disorder. You help them by getting them the proper counseling to help them solve the psychological disorder. Now, if higher says there's always some psychological trauma that would strike me as potentially overplaying a hand versus they're often being, cause all you need is one exception.

So he's saying, yeah, what he's saying, Sean is in his experience. Okay. Got it. Yeah. And it is experience his experience yeah you're right there might not be uh uh okay that's that's his experience everyone that he's counseled there was an event there was something that happened in their past in other words childhood trauma is what leads people into transgenderism it's not transgenderism that leads them to childhood trauma.

It's the other way around. It's the childhood trauma that leads them into transgenderism. In fact, one study showed that about 62% of people that claimed to be trans had a prior mental health condition before claiming to be trans, whether it's autism, whether it's some other issue mentally. In fact, Chloe Cole, the young girl that is now suing her doctor, was diagnosed with autism after they gave her the surgery. Nobody bothered to look at her psychological condition before the surgery because that would have been, according to them, transphobic. So instead of getting her the proper care she needed, they immediately,

due to political pressure, went to surgery when they could have, in her view now, in fact, she actually says this, they did Nazi-like experiments on me. What she's saying now, instead of giving me the proper psychological mental health care they immediately went to these nazi-like surgeries on me and now i probably will never be able to have children that's a pretty harrowing story now i can hear some people pushing back saying well that just shouldn't happen if we have the right, you know, let's check for autism first. Let's not do Nazi-like experiments. Let's work through the list, make sure we diagnose this and make sure we have certain levels of accountability built in and understanding and of age.

Like if we work through all these things, which many people would claim that they do, wouldn't that fix the problem, Frank? Well, no, not in California and not from the Biden administration right now. I'm just telling you what's going on. You know in California better than I do, that the state legislature just passed a bill that basically said the government can come into your home, take your child from you if you don't affirm gender affirming care. Now, what does gender affirming care means? It means if your daughter who's three years old decides she's a boy and you don't affirm her in that, the government, in this case, the state of California, can come and take that child from you.

And President Biden said that from the federal level back on March 31st of 2022. His HHS put out a memo that basically said the same thing so from a political perspective no this is here's here's how here's how politics now has overpowered the ability to make good medical decisions they're mandating that any young person that claims to be gender confused must be affirmed in that gender confusion that's where we are talk about pro-choice no pro-choice here look that's just the way things are at this point and and and if if if christians non-Christians, any people of good sense want to protect children from this, we need to speak up now, Sean. Otherwise, it's going to be too late.

In fact, the government of Tennessee, I think, just passed a ban on these kinds of surgeries until someone is 26. Now, why did they pick 26? Because according to the medical data your brain is not completely formed until 25 and so they said okay let's do 26 if you still hit if you hit 26 and you think this is a solution for you you have the freedom to do it but we're not going to impose this on anyone who can't give their complete informed consent prior to that time so frank how did you speak on the first edition of your book, probably early 2000s. I don't know, 08, 010 or something like that.

Might have been a camp of the woods when we were together as families. And this is five to seven years before the Obergefell Supreme Court ruling. And I had a sense of like this ship has left the dock, so to speak, same-sex marriage is coming. It felt inevitable to me. Do you feel the same about where kind of this trans movement is going and concern for the natural family? Do you think it's not too late? How would you compare this with the inevitability of same-sex marriage 5, 10, 15 years ago when you first wrote the book? Yeah, great question. First of all, the inevitability of a political position I think should be irrelevant to us as Christians or even just sensible non-Christians.

We have to speak the truth and leave the results to God. And I'm not just here to make a political point. In fact, I want to just make a personal point to people. If you're considering this for your child or you're considering this for yourself, you need to know the truth about it. In fact, one question I ask people is, have you looked into the health side effects of trying to do this? Have you done that?

Have you even looked into it before just blindly going into it? So we may not be able to affect any political change on any of these issues, but that's not the point. We as Christians are supposed to care for people regardless of whether we can win politically, right? So we have to speak the truth. That's number one. Number two, I think with regard to transgenderism, this might be the one thing that actually speak the truth. That's number one. Number two, I think with regard to transgenderism, this might be the one thing that actually turns the tide. Because as you've already pointed out, Sean, there are people who are going, okay, this now has gone too far. In fact, there are people who identify as gay. They're even in same-sex marriages. In fact, Dave Rubin, as you may know,

is strongly against all this, even though he's in a same-sex marriage. In fact, Dave Rubin, as you may know, is strongly against all this, even though he's in a same-sex marriage. I'm about to do a program with Dave, actually, here tomorrow. And he realizes that this has gone way too far. You see people who identify as LGB and LGB going, no, I didn't sign up for this uh the the if if this is the lgbtq community effect i think andrew sullivan's even saying that if this is if this is what you're if if this is what pride means count me out okay that you're going to try and mutilate children

in the name of some ideology when 80 of the time that the young children that have this problem, it's fixed just by growing up. No, don't do this. So transgenderism and particularly the idea of going after children on this might be the thing that wakes some of America up, at least enough of America up to go, okay, this is one thing we can't tolerate. That's great you're interviewing Dave. If it crosses your mind, tell him I would love to have him on my show to interview him. I have-

I think Dave's interviewing me. Oh, wow. Fascinating. We can still give that plug nonetheless. I'd love to have him on my show. I like Dave. He's very sharp. Oh, he's sharp.

He's expressed some interest in God and spiritual things and has a fascinating backstory. I interview a lot of people from a range of different backgrounds just to hear their stories here, and he's somebody I would love to. So no pressure, but if it crosses your mind, regardless, have an awesome, awesome interview with him. Here's the last thing I'll say is I want to really encourage people to get a copy of your book and read the arguments you have concerning transgender ideology. Now, if people look at the books behind me and some of the side they can't see, I read books on all sides of topics. I have to. It's the only way I can be convinced that I'm following what I think is true, whether it's on the historical Jesus, whether it's on

LGBTQ, you name it. So there's probably a lot of folks, if they stayed with us, are not happy with some of the things that you said. But you know what? I think they owe it to themselves and their kids and their culture to wrestle with the best ideas and at least take them seriously. And you've done the research in the book, but you lay them out in a very popular way that people can at least understand them. So I hope people pick up a copy of Correct, Not Politically Correct, and wrestle with some of those ideas. Before people go away, make sure you hit subscribe. We've got some other shows coming up on this topic and many more near-death experiences, the historical Jesus, etc. If you

thought about studying apologetics, we'd love to have you at Biola. We have a fully distance apologetics MA program. I'll have you in class on problem of evil, resurrection. I'm doing a whole class this fall on biblical sexuality. And so if you're watching this, ever thought about going back, check it out. We also have a certificate program in apologetics in which we'll guide you through key lectures and basic assignments to get that certificate. Huge discount below in the show notes. Frank, always enjoy the conversation. Thanks for coming on, man. Hey, Sean, let me just say one other quick thing that we didn't have a chance to cover,

but it's in the book. And that is the question, does love require approval? And my position is it doesn't. And I think any parent thinking about this will realize that, that if you approve of everything your kid wants to do, you're not loving, you're enabling. And so for all the people out there who may be watching and may disagree with some of the things I've said, or some of the things you've said, or it doesn't mean we don't love. Love does not require approval. You need to stand in the way of things that are going to hurt people. And I think, unfortunately, this whole transgender movement is hurting many more people than it's helping. You know, I think, last thing I'll say, I think this is really important, is that people on all sides of this debate are doing what they think is right, doing what they

think is good, doing what they think is loving. But beneath that are questions. Is there such a thing as truth? What does it mean to be free? What is love? And ultimately, there's a worldview difference that's at play here. So I don't question people's motivations, but I challenge ideas. And your appeal is to, hey, if you disagree with me, don't hate me as a person.

I'm doing what I think is right and what is good and what is loving. Show me where I'm wrong rather than attack me. And that's something people on all sides of this debate, Christians included, can do better. So appreciate you, my friend. Always fun to have you on. Amen. Thanks, Sean. God bless, folks.