The issue of “sexual orientation” has cast a huge shadow upon the land. This is a multi-faceted issue that requires reasonable (not reactionary) considerations if it is to be dealt with in a truly helpful and healthy manner. If such issues are handled incorrectly and carelessly, they will contribute to the undoing of individuals and society. I would like to offer two important distinctions as we begin considering confusion in the area of gender identification. Following is the first distinction.
There is a difference between discussing a moral choice and a physical condition. This distinction deserves careful consideration. In reference to the topic at hand, I want to make an important clarification. Neither this article nor the confusion over public bathrooms is related to the intersex issue. Both are the result of, what can be thought of as, the “inner-sex” issue. Intersex relates to human beings with a physical abnormality resulting in a combination of male and female organs (estimated to occur in 0.2% of births). The phrase “inner-sex” has reference to human beings feeling like and, consequently, choosing to “self-identify” as the gender opposite to their physical state. The intersex community has not generated the current restroom conundrum; it is the result of the “inner-sex” community demanding the “right” to use a public restroom designated for those of the opposite gender.
Sadly, we live in a generation that has very little understanding of moral law, moral agency and moral government. Even sadder is the fact that many professing Christians, under the guise of being spiritual and loving, violate moral principles. The careless assumption that love and spiritual activity originate in the emotions (“I feel that…”) has provided a poor foundation for understanding moral issues which are based in truth and must be handled reasonably, thoughtfully and, finally, with a willful choice (right or wrong). The Biblical insight, “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death,” (Pro 14:12) is quite applicable in this regard. Failure to understand such things places us on a slippery slope.
The second distinction has specific application to the current public restroom nonsense. We must recognize that there is a difference between those who have “confusion” regarding their gender identity and those who are predators who will take advantage of our foolish approach toward the public restroom issue. Many people are blind (in a number of ways) in their sympathetic, emotionally based defense of the “rights” of gender-confused individuals, failing to think through to the point of being honest about the opening they are giving to sexual predators. This is a grave mistake!
I want to emphatically state that we are considering a moral issue, when discussing gender confusion and the corresponding public restroom issue. This is not to be confused with a physical issue. This is, again, a moral issue based on decisions being made from an emotional foundation. As such, there have been very bad moral decisions that have no basis in reason and intelligent evaluation. Attempts to compare those who are choosing to identify themselves with the opposite sex with racial issues of the past (the civil rights movement) are illegitimate. In other words, saying that we once did not allow black people access to public restrooms as a defense (manipulation) to support allowing men calling themselves women into restrooms designated for female usage is illegitimate.
Moral choices come with serious consequences. Good moral choices produce healthy consequences while poor moral choices produce unhealthy consequences.  We must recognize that those who express confusion over their gender are struggling with very deep moral and psychological problems. This is not stated lightly nor as an insult, but simply as a fact to be recognized if we are to take a helpful, healthy approach toward their confusion and the social issue now birthed from this confusion. Such moral and psychological issues are often the manifestation of previous problems that have not been handled properly. Failing to properly address such moral and psychological issues will produce further problems. True love (as opposed to the shallow pseudo-love being proposed by many misguided individuals – many of whom associate with the Christian community) does not validate and legalize such disturbance; it seeks to get to the root in order to eliminate such problems. However, again, having no real knowledge of moral law and moral government, we have redefined love in terms of emotion instead of moral truth and sound principle.
Human understanding of moral issues is innately tied to the fact that we are designed in the image and likeness of God as moral agents capable of understanding and acting according to a very real moral standard. Human beings are moral agents because we are created in God’s image. What is morally right and wrong can only be understood on this basis? Having gone a long way into the denial of God’s existence and / or supremacy, as a society we are attempting to deal with moral issues and build on a completely unstable foundation. Having shifted to an evolutionary, naturalistic base, we essentially deny moral agency and play “games” with moral issues. Embracing or rejecting the idea that human beings are designed in the image of God is the most foundational presupposition that will lead people to approach such issues differently. Humanistic and theistic foundations are drastically different. Sadly, much of the Christian community now builds on a humanistic foundation, making man’s feelings central, and, consequently, fail to evaluate moral issue properly. As we depart from a well-rounded Biblical, theistic foundation, we produce increased disturbance in the human soul (psyche) and in society. The current gender confusion / restroom issue is such a disturbance. It should be relatively easy to see that we are not dealing with normal behavior when dealing with men who think they are women based upon confused feelings.
Love will labor to deliver people and society from that which produces destruction. Re-labeling cyanide does not eliminate the fact that it is poison. Legalizing or embracing immorality and psychological disturbance does not eliminate the fact that they are destructive. Love requires wisdom, diligence and commitment, not mere emotional sentiment (from which those accusing others of being haters often operate).
It is one thing for individuals to have deep moral and psychological struggles, recognized as departures from a healthy approach toward life, but it is another level of disturbance when such confusion and behavior is encouraged, embraced and, even, legalized by society and government. This is a warning sign that indicates further, serious trouble ahead. Ignore this flashing red light and the engines of society explode.
Should we base social order upon those who have a moral and psychological disorder? No, that would be foolish. Should we hate those with such disorder? No, we should attempt to provide them with treatment in order to bring healing and deliverance.
When we simply give people what they demand (except those who demand we shouldn’t do so) and pretend that a big hug will solve all our problems, we have simply departed from the way things actually work (reality). Jesus, drawing from the prophets of old, said, “…the heart of this people has become dull, with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, otherwise they would see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, and I would heal them.”
 This is a simple, direct statement about a complex matter. A good moral choice can produce challenging consequences in the form of the response other moral agents have toward the choice. Such responses can produce difficulties for the person making the good moral choice but an inherently healthy consequence occurs within the soul the moral agent making such a choice, a peace that surpasses comprehension.