My thoughts today, being a Sunday, are directed to you in your Sunday best. Some of you glare disapprovingly, shaking a head and mumbling to others in the car. Most of you are apathetic, avoiding even the slightest interaction. I wonder if you believe you are justified to the extent you could cast the first stone? Or if you recognize your own hypocrisy and are simply walking away? I judge you today as having chosen maga’s propaganda over Christ’s scriptures.

Hypocrisy is a powerful accusation, one quickly invoking the defensive catch-all retort , “judge not, lest you be judged." Let there be no mistake, that verse does not absolve me from the responsibility to point out your adherence to misguided beliefs and actions, from trying to guide you in the way of righteousness. Strict adherence to “judge not” negates the entire foundational need for ministry, pulpit preaching, or evangelism - all of which judge the darkness of the world is in need of enlightenment. Of discernment and righteous judgement. Sanctioned judgment precedes Christian evangalism. Judgement and offering an alternative direction are my obligations, not accepting that judgement is your right. I am told to clean your dust off my feet and move on.

This is not an interesting post, but just following through on an idea I had to log responses from Roger Williams to my email requests.  Previously, I have just emailed a protest without asking for a response.  The fall of 2024 I did get responses, though mostly not timely--some during the time the congress was dismissed...
.........
Oct 24 2025
Honorable sir, What is your stand on Trump’s treatment of our beef industry?  Will you be protesting the administrations favorable treatment of Argentina over our ranchers?

Oct 26, 2025
Sir,
  You have been an advocate for small government.  It’s hard to tell if we are getting there, because Trump seems to be ignoring congress.  Will you be speaking out for true congressional control of the federal budget?


Oct 28
Sir, Do you agree that the administrations use of tariffs has done harm to Texas farmers?  Is congress going to help us here?


From RW 10-31-2025
Dear Mr. Brock,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. It is good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond. Democracy thrives on participation, and I’m grateful for input from the Constituents of Texas’ 25th District. This information better helps me understand the needs of the district, and influences how I approach issues in Congress. I encourage each and every American to engage in our democratic process, and to have a voice, even if opinions might differ. As Lawmakers debate this important issue, please know that I will perform my due diligence, and give full consideration to all relevant legislation before making any decision. It is the honor of my lifetime to represent you in Congress, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future. For additional information, to include specific policy positions, please visit my website at williams.house.gov. Be sure to subscribe to my email newsletter (williams.house.gov/contact/newsletter) to keep informed on what I am doing on behalf of Texans here in Washington.

From RW 10-31-2025  His newsletter makes reference to farmers’ issues.

Dear Mr. Brock,
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding the Administration’s recent decision involving Argentinian beef imports. It is good to hear from you, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
Our nation depends on the hard work of Texan farmers, ranchers, and producers. While I believe the Administration’s decision to partner with Argentinian beef producers was made in good faith to help lower grocery prices for American families, this action could risk undercutting U.S. cattle production and displace the safe, high-quality beef our producers work tirelessly to provide. It is essential that we keep American beef great and we do not undermine the years of investment and dedication that have built this industry. Please know that I will continue working with the Administration to find a solution that supports affordability for consumers while protecting Texas cattlemen and the integrity of American beef.

Nov. 9
Dear sir:  I feel it is time to reopen the government before we do ourselves more harm.  Texas and Texans are being held back.  I hope you will add your voice to those who urge the speaker to bring back the congress to do whatever is needed.  You are not worried about the Epstein files, are you?  Please tell the speaker to work for his folks, not the whims of the president.  Will you do this?

Nov. 12 Response from Roger:
On September 19, 2025, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5371, extending federal Appropriations funding until November 21, 2025, by a vote of 217-212. This Continuing Resolution prevents a government shutdown without adding costly or unrelated provisions. By passing a clean Continuing Resolution, Republicans and President Trump will have time to develop a transparent and fiscally responsible plan to advance the fiscal year 2026 Appropriations process. For these reasons, I am proud to have supported this legislation to keep the government open and avoid disruptions for hardworking Americans. Sadly, Democrats refusal to act has led to a shutdown Republicans fought to prevent. Rest assured, I will continue working to deliver a responsible funding plan for the American people.
​
Nov. 24 response from Roger
Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me with your views regarding the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. It is good to hear from you, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond. 
On November 19, 2025, President Trump signed H.R. 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law. This legislation would require the Department of Justice to publish all investigative materials in its possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. As Congress pursues transparency in this case, it is crucial that we protect the victims throughout this process. I thank the Justice Department, the House Oversight Committee, and Speaker Johnson for their deliberate and responsible efforts to release case materials to the public. For these reasons, I voted yes when this bill was brought to the House floor and applaud President Trump for signing this bill into law.

The topic of gender is not something I should take on, but if I do, consider this an ill-informed attempt.  Someone (s) unnamed should do a proper take.  Maybe I can just provide some of the back scene.  
    “There are just two genders”, is not really how conversations (disputations?) would have started, except that apparently that is Texas’ official stand.  I think it would be more likely to want to counter some adult’s fear that school, or social media, etc, is going to turn, or has turned, their child’s ideas about their gender, or sexual interest in the wrong direction.  Maybe there is something in the nerdy part below to help you guide them toward professional consultation and away from blaming others.


This essay is mainly about the reasons why we have people who want to transition, not about age of transitioning, or public support of medical procedures.  And I would like us to lead people on the sidelines away from stigmatizing others based on gender pigeon holes. 
       It would be best if we could say that gender discussion is best left to the experts.  It’s a private affair that society does not need to intrude on.  But we are already over that line.  How to convince your conversation opponent…..


I.
This is a “culture war” topic manufactured as a wedge.  It would be good if we could just point that out and be done with it.
     “Can we agree that this is not as important an issue to you, yourself,  as other policies that affect your wellbeing, like healthcare,  and get on with other topics?”
    “Uh, OK. So what’s your stand on _______?”
Unlikely conversation.


For some of my friends, the gender topic triggers a fall-back to religious dogma (OK, I should say the teachings of their religion, their faith.)  I want to suggest to them that fundamentalists are essentially saying that God stopped talking way back when people didn’t know much about biology, etc. (A bit more think at the end.) …. But it might be better just to argue that they do everyone harm by trying to impose their private understanding of the world based on faith into the world of others.


So, what follows are a couple of nerdy bits which might serve to move a conversation away from stereotypes when you have someone whose feelings have been nudged in a wrong direction.


 II.
 Going to school in the late 1950’s - 1960’s, I wasn’t aware that any of my classmates might not be any other than girl-boy.  Being called “homo” was a petty bad insult, so it would have been hard for anyone to “come out” (we would have said come out of the closet).  
    And beyond sexual proclivities, would I have known of schoolmates uneasy about their assigned gender?  No.  Some girls were tomboys, some guys were a little “swishy”, but I was busy with my own interests and gave them little thought.  
    Coming of age these days and dealing with issues connected with sex (that are usually underserved by our parents), it has to be confusing or hard to accept that there are schoolmates who could be unsure or unhappy with their gender, or their perceived gender.  (I didn’t have to deal with that confusion at a tender age.  I’m glad that whatever exposure I had to history or philosophy or accepting people, I was able to be an accepting adult.)
And so, a conversation based on personal exposure…


“There are two genders…”

1. You may not be aware, but there are people who grow up to be—at some age—unhappy with the gender they were assigned at birth (gender dysphoria).  The Pew Research Center reports 5% of young adults are dysphoric; 1.6% adults have transitioned or report to be non-binary.  Would you have been aware as a high schooler that 1 in 20 of your classmates were seriously unhappy with themselves that way?  Likely not.
2. Let’s compare that with other conditions:  It’s usually way more obvious if one of your classmates has a behavioral syndrome or actual mental illness. Even if it is subtle and not “on paper”, you can intuit a difference.  You may have known classmates with ADHD (attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder). The prevalence in schoolage kids is 11.4% overall.  Or you may have known someone with ASD (autism spectrum disorder), for which the percentage in school kids is 3.2%, according to the CDC.   In general, 10% of adults take medication for depression.  Schizophrenia usually become apparent in late teenage to early adult years.  The rate is small: 0.64% or less medically rated, or an estimated 0.33% - 0.75% in the non-medically evaluated. 

Most of us, as young people, would have thought of the above various types as “not like me”.  But they are all like me in most respects: they are people with the same needs as I have (if not more).  And as a young person we would have seen each of these as “they are who they are”. I don’t have to be friends with them, so go back to my own thoughts
   And for us as adults, we can grow that thought, going from “I can’t do anything about it” to “I don’t need to try to do anything about it (unless we are professionals or enlisted to help).  


Our ethical obligation is to do right by each type of person we find ourself dealing with.


  OK, so remember I’m talking about different people in general who are not exactly like me, but I’m focused especially on people who differ in one way: because I’m not seeing the person gender-wise they see themselves as.  What I have is my confusion, misled by appearances, not their confusion.
My ethical obligation is to do right by each type of person I’m dealing with.




IV.
When I took Genetics in college, we were still mainly concerned with chromosomes.  We knew then that there was more than XX and XY.  It was known that there were a few people with uncommon sex chromosome configurations:  XXY, XYY.  And there were hints that hereditary material outside the nucleus could affect various traits.  Much more has been learned since then.


Biological sex itself is not strictly binary — it’s determined by a combination of chromosomes, hormones, gonads, and secondary sex characteristics, which don’t always align neatly. Intersex people, for example, make up about 1–2% of the population, showing that nature already provides diversity beyond a simple male/female framework.
For a graphic that illustrates the possible complexities involved with gender:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/




        From a FB post  June 28, 2025
Rebecca Helm, a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville US writes:
Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread]
If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well...
Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?
Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?
A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer...
Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??
“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And...
...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this...
Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer.
What does this all mean?
It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.
Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?
Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you...
The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.
Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?
Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.
Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others.
Biology is a shitshow. Be kind to people.


***************
Back to the impact religion has had on the discussion.


We go back to Genesis, a great and eternally problematic book.  I think my grandfather may have just been baiting me when he claimed that men had one fewer rib bones than women, because of some words in Genesis, but I wasn’t sure.  God created man and woman.  OK, that is He created these biological beings that have a tremendously complex inner working that we are still working to understand.  And some of that product of omniscient creation has produced results that we discuss here.


Also, we speak of God-given talent, etc.  Let’s then allow God-given other.  


Lady GaGa sings: “Baby, I was born this way”.  There are some people who worry that the power of exposure to alternative gender ideas leads to young people “deciding” to change genders.  I think there is some scholarly debate, nature vs nurture, even on this topic.  However, the hearing from people who want to or are in process of “transitioning” leads me to believe that usually the seeds of gender dysphoria are there at the start of life.  Have an open mind.  Do not close your heart.


Other sources:


https://www.hrc.org/resources/get-the-facts-on-gender-affirming-care


https://www.apa.org/news/press/op-eds/gender-affirming-care


https://www.aamc.org/news/what-gender-affirming-care-your-questions-answered




A medical reviewer provided some additional comments:


One small but important clarification I’d offer is that “gender dysphoria” isn’t quite the same as being transgender or non-binary. It’s a clinical term used to describe the distress someone might feel when their gender identity doesn’t align with their body or the sex they were assigned at birth. Not all trans or non-binary people experience that distress — and many people who do experience it find it resolves or lessens when they can express or live as their true gender. So gender diversity itself isn’t a disorder; the distress sometimes associated with it is what’s recognized medically.
The comparison to ADHD, autism, depression, and schizophrenia is understandable as a way to express prevalence, but it can be misleading. Those are neurological or psychiatric conditions, while gender identity is not. The World Health Organization actually moved “gender incongruence” out of the mental-disorder section of its international classification system (ICD-11) in 2019, recognizing that it’s a matter of identity, not pathology.
So while “male and female” can describe common biological categories, gender refers to identity, roles, and expression — a social and psychological construct that can vary across cultures and individuals. It’s why the concept of “two genders” doesn’t fully reflect human reality, even though it’s the view most of us grew up with.
Today’s science sees gender diversity as a normal part of human variation, not a symptom or trend. The more we learn, the clearer it becomes that supporting people in living authentically is what actually reduces distress, rather than causing it.


A search on “biological gender determination” will bring you more aspects of the discussion.  Examples:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11771763/


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128159682000098
​