Hambo Describes a Whole New Category of Sin

There’s a new kind of sin for creationists to fight against, and it’s something your Curmudgeon never heard of before — Emojis. They’re described by Wikipedia as “ideograms and smileys used in electronic messages and web pages. … They are much like emoticons, but emoji are actual pictures instead of typographics.”

Because of your Darwinian ignorance, you’re probably wondering why the things are a problem for anyone, so get ready to learn what’s going on out there. The answer comes from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: New Emojis (2020): Male Bride, Woman in a Tuxedo, Gender-Neutral Santa. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

With a new year comes a host of new things — including a new set of emojis for your Apple or Android device. The Unicode Consortium is adding over 100 new emojis to the texting dictionary, including 65 brand-new ones and 55 new gender and skin variations. Among the new emojis appears a mustached man in a wedding dress, a woman in a tuxedo, a gender-neutral Santa, and the pink-and-blue transgender flag.

Frightening stuff, huh? Hambo says:

These new emoji designs are just another sign of the times we live in today as our culture moves away from the Judeo-Christian ethic founded in God’s Word. God’s design for gender — male and female — has been abandoned and is even mocked and scorned. [Oh no!] In its place is the new gender revolution that says men can be women, women can be men, or, if they like, men can wear a frilly white wedding dress (intended for a woman) and women can don a man’s tuxedo (intended for a man)!

O the horror! After that shocking revelation he tells us:

But this goes against God’s clear design (Genesis 1:27). He created us male and female — distinct and different. And, because there are only two genders, he says in Deuteronomy, when giving the Law to the Israelites, “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5). God’s command was clear; men are to look like men, and women are to look like women.

And don’t you forget it! Hambo continues:

While we shouldn’t be legalistic about this (and it will look different in different times and different cultures), we should always adhere to the biblical principle that men are to look like men, and women are to look like women. And, of course, the science of genetics confirms there are only two genders, so believing in many genders is both anti-biblical and anti-science.

Once again, the bible and science are in agreement! Let’s read on:

Many of you have children and teenagers with smartphones or social media apps using emojis and will see these new emojis as they are rolled out over the coming weeks. [Gasp!] I encourage you to use it as a teaching point to shine a light on biblical truth.

Good advice! Another excerpt:

There is no “gender-neutral Santa” because [Because there’s no Santa at all?] there’s no such thing as a “gender-neutral” person; we’re either male or female. Men are not to dress as women or women as men.

Even fairy-tale characters must follow the biblical rules. There are no exceptions! Here’s more:

And the transgender flag is a symbol of the sin of pride — arrogance and defiance against the Creator, who made us male and female.

We never saw one, so we googled around and found a pic of the Transgender Flag. And now we come to the end:

We should have compassion for those who struggle with gender dysphoria, but they don’t need us to join in on their rebellion against God’s design. They need us to speak the truth with love and gentleness — we are male and female.

We live in sinful times, dear reader, but there’s one thing you can count on — ol’ Hambo will always keep you on the right path. Any deviation will lead you to the Lake of Fire!

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

41 responses to “Hambo Describes a Whole New Category of Sin

  1. Why is Kenny so obsessed with how other people perceive themselves? You’d think if Kenny’s favorite all powerful god person (blessed be he/she/it or gender-neutral one) were upset by it, he/she/it could do something about it.

  2. I propose a competition: What kind of emoji can we design for Ham?
    I start with (1) Master + Slave, (2) Burning Stake (for evolutionists)

  3. Why worry about the gender of Santa? Santa is not a real person. And many evangelical Christians think of Santa as a pagan distraction from Christmas, like the Easter Bunny.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Given Ken’s love of all things Old Testament, why isn’t he following all its laws? It is all “God’s word”, no?

  5. If we are made in god’s image, then surely god must also be trans/gay etc or he fluffed it somewhere along the way?

  6. “the biblical principle that men are to look like men”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    OK, it’s unlikely that Ol’Hambo will want to dress like a Roman, but I still never have seen him wearing clothes like Jesus. He of course was the ultimate man, so Ol’Hambo doesn’t look like one either.

  7. chris schilling

    Personally, I blame the talking 🐍. It’s true: emojis are satanic. But the 😈=💩, anyway. And so does 🥓.

    (Bacon? I couldn’t find an emoji for Ken, but you get the idea).

  8. Michael Fugate

    Do they have hindquarters emoji or a sphincter one?

  9. Theodore Lawry

    Ken Ham is talking Deuteronomy 22? What does he have to say about stoning to death brides who don’t bleed on their wedding night? That’s in Deuteroo 22, too! Is he advocating that, or is he a hypocrite who picks and chooses which Bible verses to believe? Inquiring minds want to know!

  10. Ham’s correct, animals have only two sexes, male and female, producing sperm and eggs, respectively. Among mammals, individuals produce either one or the other, not both, and there is nothing intermediate. But, sex isn’t gender, and even among non-human animals, including mammals, there are instances of females exhibiting male behavior and males exhibiting female behavior. Dog owners know this, as do those of us raised on a farm with chickens, pigs and cattle. Transgender is a biological reality. Yet Hambo would force people who produce eggs to conform to his concept of female and vice versa. I can’t accept that it’s due to sin that a person with testicles has a brain that screams female. Truly, Genesis does has more bigotry than answers.

  11. “But this goes against God’s clear design (Genesis 1:27). He created us male and female — distinct and different”

    I think God’s idea was to create Bread, Peanut butter, and Ham. That’s a good start for a snack. He missed his(/her/it/their/noneoftheabove) spell and got Man and Woman… and, eventually, Ham.

  12. Eddie Janssen

    TomS:
    “Why worry about the gender of Santa?”
    Because the next one will be God (Him?)self.

  13. @sciemtist
    I think that all species of mammal are normally male or female. But there are humans who are born not physically fitting that pattern.
    Among other animals, there are species which don’t fit that pattern. There are species of whiptail lizards which are only female. There are vertebrates which can change sex. There is a lot of variation of sexes among invertebrates.
    There are multiple types of some fungi.

  14. @TomS. One could write a book on all the sexual variations. Oh, wait, people have. The commonality is that even where there are multiple sexes as in some fungi and protists, it’s always two cells (or two nuclei) that combine to form a new individual. In plants and animals these cells are called sperm and egg. Things get complicated, and controversial, especially in humans when the concept of gender is introduced. I prefer to leave that to the person and their family and doctors, not theologians wedded to an ancient text.

  15. @Scientist
    Agreed.
    It takes a book length to describe the
    Variations of sex.
    And nobody before the 19th or even the 20th century had understanding of much of the basic biology involved. I think that the contemporary concept of gender (other than in grammar, and not as a euphemism for sex) is just a few decades old!

  16. Wait – how can there be a gender-neutral Santa? Sure, there are women who have beards, or at least facial hair growth, but the big, bushy, bountiful, beautiful white beard and mustache of Santa? C’mon! Santa, in all his imaginary self, is definitely a guy.

    But that’s beside the point. What kind of twisted mind would find sin in a gender-neutral Santa? Kenny is ill.

  17. “the Creator, who made us male and female.”
    That creator apparently enjoys messing around a bit now and then:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foekje_Dillema

    Now which creator has such a character? Why, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course.
    Still for some reason I do not expect Ol’Hambo to reconvert any time soon. Rather he will remain arrogant and keep on sinning against his creator.

    @Scientist: “animals have only two sexes, male and female”
    Dillema shows it’s a bit more complex.

    @TomS: “I think that all species of mammal are normally male or female”
    Depends on what you mean with “normal”. Creacrap thinking says it’s “as created by a creator” and hence Dillema would be perfectly normal. The escape route is also well known: maintain that she’s a product of god’s eternal opponent.
    And at this point the joke gets too bad even for my bad taste.

  18. Well… “Santa Claus” is a contraction, through two languages (I think) of “Saint Nicholas”, said to be a bishop of Myra who lived 270-343 CE. All mentions of him date from no less than 200 years after his life, which might be entirely fictional, for all anybody knows. But grant that he is a Christian saint, for argument’s sake. If Ham were at all concerned for reverence for the Saints, he’d be very unusual for an evangelical, or anywhere on the Protestant fringe, but leave that aside, too. Is Ham, then, concerned with the possibility that a “gender-neutral” Santa is blasphemous?

    Only if he thinks the usual depiction of Santa Claus is also blasphemous. The jolly round white-bearded man in the red (or sometimes green) fur-trimmed robe, with the pompom stocking cap and the boots and the whole nine yards, is a complete fabrication that has its roots in northern Europe, but with traditions that transmuted as they spread to the New World. It even has pagan associations. It certainly has little to do with the original St Nicholas, and the religious significance has entirely disappeared. The current depictions can be traced to Clement Clarke Moore’s 1822 “A Visit from St Nicholas”, now known as “The Night before Christmas”, and even more, to a Christmas card of 1880 painted by Thomas Nast, and to a favourite Coca-cola poster advertisement of 1948. This depiction is essentially an American tradition, as demonstrated by the fact that it is rejected by other local traditions in Latin America and Europe itself.

    Of course, if Ham were objecting to that image, he’d be no more than a sour old poop, but he isn’t. If he were, he’d be consistent. Santa Claus has changed to fit our evolving culture, and has become entirely secular. That they (or whatever pronoun is required) can become gender-neutral as well is only one more expression of that evolution.

    Me, I confess a fondness for the tradition. But I know perfectly well that the main reason for that fondness is because it is the tradition I was raised in, and that only privileges it for me, and not necessarily anyone else.

  19. This may be where I lose friends.

    I sympathise with Ham’s concern about our current obsession with trans-sexuality. In almost all cases, there is no doubt as to biological sex, and since, I glad to say (though Ham is not), accepted gender roles are now so flexible, I wonder whether gender dysphoria may in part be an iatrogenic disorder, and what research has been done about the happiness of people who have undergone the massive interventions involved in sex change surgery and hormone therapy. Is there really such a thing as “a brain that screams female”, in either men or women?

    In any case, I do not think that anyone with a penis should have access to women’s protected spaces, or that anyone clearly born male should be allowed to compete in female-only sporting events. Cases like Foekje Dillema, and also cases where a trans woman applies for a women-only scholarship, present problems to which I do not pretend to know the solution.

  20. @DaveL: ” through two languages”
    Not really; saint is derived from sanctus and Nicolas from Nicolaus; both are Latin. However the original of Nicolaus is Greek Nikolaos.

    @PaulB: “….. to which I do not pretend to know the solution.”
    Neither do I. While “she’s a man!” obviously is false the question of fair play remains. But that doesn’t stop me from mocking Ol’Hambo’s religiously inspired stupidities.

  21. @Paul Braterman: “This may be where I lose friends.”

    Same here.

    As much as male on male sex seems “icky” to me, and as much as anything transsexual is totally beyond my ken, I do still recognize that these behaviors and beliefs are wholly Constitutional.

    “Iatrogenic”? Too many syllables — pass.

    As to whether penises should have access to uterine sport — should bespectacled persons have access to bare-eyed sports? Should shod athletes have access to barefoot sports? Should diet conscious athletes have access to omnivorous sports?

    You are setting up a false dichotomy. Vaginas can take testosterone, you know.

    Elimination of the social distinction between “male” and “female” seems logically inevitable.

    (Pass the ERA!)

  22. Michael Fugate

    There is no “normal”, there is just what happens. Normal is an incredibly loaded word and should be avoided. Normal implies an outside purpose which doesn’t exist. Most individuals with a XY chromosome combination develop male secondary sex characteristics, but many other phenotypes can present – anything that arises is “normal” because it just is. Doctors have been manipulating sex and gender for a long time – what happens in a botched circumcision or with undeveloped penises? The environment plays a huge role in development – genes get all the press, but they are just a part – an actor only. The brain develops at a completely different pace than the rest of the body and under different influences. A binary system will never work on something so complex – so stop trying. Let’s deal with reality as it is not as we want it to be.

  23. @Michael Fugate
    I know better than to use the word “normal”. I was trying to point out the complexity of sex by contrasting that with an over-simplified idea.
    Whatever happens, that is what is real.

  24. @MichaelF and TomS: “Normal is an incredibly loaded word and should be avoided.”
    In science it’s well defined. Think of normal distribution. Things go wrong when the probabilistic meaning of normal is connected to an ethical judgment. This might also be why so few people recognize the real problem:

    Is it fair to let Foekje Dillema compete with other athletes when having a bodily advantage due to a genetic quirk? If you say yes, why separate sports for men and women?
    Or better: is it desirable to organize games when they become utterly predictable due to genetic characteristics?
    I honestly do not know.

  25. I think Michael is conflating the phenomenon of intersex conditions with the current trend of transgenderism. The former is a natural condition that occurs in a subpercentage of newborns and can be recognised as a disorder, sometimes involving infertility. These conditions do not magically put sex on a spectrum.

    The latter is a trend with people mostly in the range sixteen to twenty-something who suddenly discover they belong to the other sex (or between the sexes, which can even vary with the time of the day). The reasons for this are not completely clear, but there seems to be a faction which has always had relational or other mental problems which they hope can be resolved by taking hormones, sometimes severing their genitalia, and living as the other sex. Another few are outright predators who use modern legislation to simply declare themselves woman and walk in on women’s locker rooms, rape shelters or even prison wings, or become prominent in women’s sports.

    Once these people, mostly of the male-to-female type, have declared to be ‘transitioned’ they become part of a cult-like social circle (mostly present on Reddit, Twitter and Facebook) which espouses constant mutual confirmation and where any dissent is quelled. From the outside world, they expect constant affirmation of their femininity in all walks of life, including useless pap smears and mammographies. Or even worse, insist that every school child which has a stage in which it feels like it’s the other sex is put on a regimen of dubious puberty-inhibiting drugs. In the Social Justice Warfare suppression classification, trenders rank at the very top.

    It can be predicted that within 15-20 years from now, many of these people start getting regrets about their life choices and will start suing psychiatrists and surgeons for letting them get through with this.

  26. Yes, but as Semenya is still alive while Dillema and her main adversary Fanny Blankers-Koen are not I find it easier to discuss the latter.

  27. Michael Fugate

    Disorder? How do you fxxxking know it isn’t ordered?
    How much ignorance can be packed into a couple of paragraphs!?!?

  28. “…Men are not to dress as women or women as men….”
    There aint no such rule, the hambone is just plain st00pid and worse the sheeple he talks too believe the crap! And the actual rule that pertains to men/women clothes are still really st00pid too! And I doubt he even know why!

  29. Draken, that is a fascinating world you’ve created there – I assume the setting for some sort of novel? Doesn’t sound very interesting to me, though – you really should work more on realism in your world-building.

  30. So, Michael, how do you perceive ‘disorder’? Someone born with 2×6 fingers, disorder or not? Missing an arm or a leg Anencephaly? After all, those parts of the brain that are there, are neatly ordered, right?

  31. Male versus female performance in sports.

    First we need a definition of “male” and “female”, and that definition must be impersonal for this purpose. (For the purposes of general social interaction it can be personal and self-chosen.) I would propose that it should be chromosomal; that is, a male person is “one possessed of mostly or entirely XY chromosomes”, and a female is “one possessed of mostly or entirely XX chromosomes”. There are, of course, people who are possessed of both or even neither. These are edge cases – all definitions have them – which have to be decided, if a decision is necessary, on apparent characteristics or personal decision, or simply decline to decide, or decide to be intersex or asexual or neither male nor female.

    Now: there is a notable relative and absolute differential between the performances of populations of male and female athletes in all sports. This is emphasised at the elite level. How is this differential to be explained?

    I suppose that it could be contended that it is entirely due to socialisation. There are also statistical effects: when comparing the performance of elite athletes, we are comparing populations of outliers. Physical measurement of strength, speed, etcetera, shows that (whatever the cause) females trend more strongly to the mean. It would follow that their populations would show fewer extreme outliers. Nevertheless, the differential definitely exists, and must be recognised and accommodated.

    For some sports at least, there is undeniably an advantage to the athlete with the higher proportion of muscle mass to overall weight, or simply to the tallest or strongest, and these metrics are undeniably statistically greater with men – the products of sexual dimorphism. But there are sports that don’t seem to so simplistically advantage those qualities, and yet in which men are definitely far over-represented.

    That’s true for chess, if you count chess as a “competitive sport”. Chess players are “rated” by an impersonal system that measures comparative performance against other players in tournaments. Women may compete in all chess tournaments; there are also tournaments limited to women. In the world chess rankings by rating, only one female player is in the top one hundred. I would be very cautious about drawing inferences from that. Yet there it is.

    The same is true of billiards, snooker and pool. There is no bar to women competing equally with men in all competitions, yet only one woman has ever won a match in what is called a “ranking” event in snooker, and the same is generally true for the other table games. It would appear that physical athleticism – size, power, strength – are not real advantages in these games. Yet it appears that the differential still exists.

    I would put the proposition that if there is such a differential – which I believe is undeniable – and if that differential is partly caused by sexual dimorphism caused, in turn, by chromosomal difference – which is at least an impersonal way of saying it – then requiring chromosomally female athletes always to compete with chromosomally male athletes on the same basis is unfair to the former, and therefore that segregation of the competitions is justified and necessary.

    I would therefore bar transgender women – that is, women with XY chromosomes, whatever their hormonal regimes or surgical interventions – from competing with XX chromosomal women in sporting contests for women only.

    Phew! Now that only leaves us with the problem of what was referred to by Draken as “predators”; people who will take advantage of a purely personal definition of sex or gender to enable sexual predation. There are such people. What, as Lenin asked, is to be done?

  32. @Dave Luckett, billiards, snooker and pool certainly require muscular strength, with sufficient reserve to allow very fine control of very forceful movements. Consider, for example, how a master snooker player can control the final position of the cue ball in a shot that depends on giving the cue ball the correct amount of backspin.

    As to why there are so few women chess players in the top 100, this may be cultural. If so, I would wonder whether the number in, say, the top thousand has increased over the past generation. Cultural expectation and access to training and competition at the highest level is certainly extremely important; consider how few world chess champions have ever come from outside Russia.

    Regarding access to women’s protected places, I continue to think that the penis test is sufficient.

  33. I don’t know much about this, but I know that there are weight categories for participants in some sports at the elite level.

  34. Paul Braterman, I have played snooker and billiards on a club level, and I believe you exaggerate the strength required to play those games. Control of the cue ball is as you say essential for good standard of play, but that requires precision. A woman of average musculature, reasonably trained and fit, could certainly generate all the power required.

    Including Alexander Alekhine, who was stateless when he won the world championship, seven of the sixteen official world champions were Russian. Mikhail Tal was Latvian and Tigran Petrosian was Armenian. The current world champion is Magnus Carlsen, who is Norwegian, and the one before him was Viswanathan Anand, who is Indian. Yet I take your point. Obviously culture is extremely important to the participation rate in a sport or game. Women may, in fact, be culturally discouraged from playing competitive chess.

    There is one general field of sports in which men and women now participate in all events on an equal and undifferentiated basis – equestrian. Here, however, there is again some differential, if the tally of Olympic medals is anything to go by. Women riders seem to win at least as often in the dressage and team dressage events, while men win more often in the eventing and showjumping. Of the sixteen riders who have won five or more Olympic medals (these would be the utmost elite of the sport), four have been female. Though certainly not equality, this is a more favourable ratio than for the most elite chess or snooker players. Perhaps it is true that culture – in the west, at least – is more accepting of women equestrians than it is of women chess or snooker players. I note that there is some suggestion of separating some of the equestrian competitions by sex. There seems to be significant resistance to this idea, and it appears to be coming from women in the sport. Interesting.

  35. Dave L states re x and y chromosomes: “There are, of course, people who are possessed of both or even neither”. I know that there are a few rare folks who are chimeric 46XX/46XY, but I was under the impression that every viable zygote had to have at least one X; X0 {Turners} and variants of extra y’s are viable but not normal, and 0Y is non viable.

  36. Douglas Swartzenruber: Everybody has at least one X chromosome, but rare individuals have XXY or XYY chromosomes.

  37. Would it take an X in order to have mitochondria?

  38. That’s what I thought you meant but not quite like I read it. There are indeed XXX, XXY, XYY, XXXY, XXXXY, but everybody gotta have an X! TomS – the eggs always supply an X, and virtually all of the mitochondria to the zygote. So I think that the answer is ‘yes’ but it has to be a maternal X since the sperm can contribute either an X or a Y. In theory, the egg could be 22-0 and the sperm could contribute the X giving rise to Turner’s syndrome. The mitochondria would still be maternal even though there was no maternal X.

  39. @TomS, as Douglas says. The mitochondria are not part of the nucleus, but are supplied by the ovum, and the nucleus of the ovum also invariably supplies an X chromosome.

  40. @DaveL: “Women may, in fact, be culturally discouraged from playing competitive chess.”
    That’s an understatement. It’s the reason why Georgia (the former Soviet-state, not the American state) has produced so many of the best female chess players, especially when compared to Georgian men.