Catholic priest calls Caitlyn Jenner a whore and backs it up with ‘science’

Catholic priest calls Caitlyn Jenner a whore and backs it up with ‘science’ June 3, 2015

Father Dwight Longenecker of Patheos Catholic is at it again. Apparently calling atheists boring and unimaginative wasn’t offensive enough, so he decided to crank it up to eleven. In a recent blog post about her appearance in Vanity Fair, Father Longenecker calls Caitlyn Jenner a whore.

 

“When I see that Vanity Fair cover I don’t see an attractive woman,” writes Longenecker, “I see a man dressed up as a whore.”

Longenecker sees Jenner’s transformation as nothing more than a cheap trick to “sell his sexual confusion and medical and cosmetic transformation into a female.” Note the use of the masculine pronoun and complete lack of commas. And. And. And…I digress.

Longenecker uses Jenner to make a cheap point about vanity being for sale, which is completely ironic because if you check out Longenecker’s twitter account it is nothing but him constantly sharing and re-sharing his own articles. Vanity indeed.

Ignoring his inability to form proper sentences, Longenecker soldiers on, writing:

“That’s my gut feeling, but putting that aside, what are we to make of this new push for acceptance of transgender condition and men (for it is mostly men) who think they are really women?

Yes, what are we to make of all this “acceptance” and “not being a complete asshole”? As promised, Longenecker puts aside his gut feeling and immediately uses his confirmation bias to confirm his gut feeling.

To prove that he is not just some bigoted douchebag, Longenecker breaks out some serious science. And by science, I mean an appeal to the authority of an equally douche-baggy person who also happens to be a scientist. He writes:

An excellent article from First Things from 2004 has surfaced in a timely way today. It is probably the best thing I have ever read on the transgender issue because it is written by a psychiatrist who has actually been involved in treating this very condition.”

The psychiatrist Longenecker refers to is Paul R McHugh, who the good father is quick to mention, “was University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at John Hopkins University.” Bringin’ out the big guns!

It turns out if you look up McHugh’s research and scroll through all his published peer-reviewed papers, none of them seem to have anything to do specifically with transgender psychology. In fact, most of them have to do with dementia or schizophrenia; some of them have colorful titles like Endogenous cholecystokinin in the control of gastric emptying of liquid nutrient loads in rhesus monkeys. Say that three times fast. I bet you can’t.

Furthermore, if you look up First Things, it is hardly the stuff of hard-hitting scientific journalism. First Things describes itself thusly:

“First Things is published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research, and educational 501(c)(3) organization. The Institute was founded in 1990 by Richard John Neuhaus and his colleagues to confront the ideology of secularism.”

So yeah, clearly no bias there.

In the First Things article, McHugh does some top-notch research:

“Those I met after surgery would tell me that the surgery and hormone treatments that had made them “women” had also made them happy and contented. None of these encounters were persuasive, however. The post-surgical subjects struck me as caricatures of women.”

McHugh’s research method was to ask people something and then not believe them because he wasn’t feeling it. He continues, writing about how they were caricatures because, “They wore high heels, copious makeup, and flamboyant clothing.” Or in other words, they behaved like many women do. Weird.

McHugh continues, concluding that transgender people aren’t really transgender, but fall into two distinct categories:

“One group consisted of conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men who saw a sex- change as a way to resolve their conflicts over homosexuality by allowing them to behave sexually as females with men. The other group, mostly older men, consisted of heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females. As they had grown older, they had become eager to add more verisimilitude to their costumes and either sought or had suggested to them a surgical transformation that would include breast implants, penile amputation, and pelvic reconstruction to resemble a woman.”

If you notice, both groups consist of people who cannot control their sexual urges, the latter group apparently consisting of Cosplay fanatics want super-awesome costumes to go with their licentious desires.

I’m going to assume that when father Longenecker says that the article is the best thing he has ever read on the transgender issue – which it must be, since he reproduces it almost in its entirety on his blog – what he means is that it conforms to his predisposition that transgender people are just confused, don’t know what they want, and need to be subordinate to someone wiser and more in control of themselves. You know kind of like how the Catholic Church treats women already.

"Tom Hughes --- Gee, you're clearly quite intelligent. I bet you're in Mensa. The MAJORITY ..."

Clarification on the now viral Wisconsin ..."
"Source in the Constitution?Again, you have not replied to my argument about any "except for" ..."

Donald Trump vowed to destroy the ..."
"Tom, I gave explicit instances when getting ID and registering to vote might be difficult. ..."

Clarification on the now viral Wisconsin ..."
"You do realise that the only person we've seen throw the word nazi around is ..."

The Danthropology blog is moving on

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment