There’s a flaw in his argument

Ken Ham has declared that he cannot respect other people’s pronouns. The reason: that would be lying.

As believers, we cannot in good conscience use transgendered pronouns—no matter our intentions—because, in doing so, we are lying. When we use she/her (or Miss or Mrs.) for a man or he/him (or Mr.) for a female, we are participating in the lie that sex/gender is on a spectrum or that a man can be a woman and a woman a man. Or if we use “they/them” (or Mx., etc.) or the myriad of other “pronoun” options today, we are participating in the lie that humans are not innately sexed as either male or female. We’re participating in the lie that humans can choose to be or are naturally androgenous or ambiguous, when that is not true because God has created us either male or female.

One problem with his excuse is that Ken Ham has never been reluctant about lying, whether it’s to get tax breaks on his con game or his claims about science. He’s also lying here: it’s not about preserving his honesty at all, or he’d just come out and plainly state that it’s because he thinks gay and trans people should burn in hell.


  1. moonslicer says

    ” . . . we are participating in the lie that sex/gender is on a spectrum or that a man can be a woman and a woman a man.”

    No, you’re not. You just haven’t got the brains to understand these issues. So you call a lie what is over your head.

    That said, I have no problem calling you “Ham”. You are a bit of a pig, you know. (Whoops! Sorry, pigs. You didn’t deserve that.”)

  2. Ed Seedhouse says

    “As believers”? Believers in what? I daresay that believers in, say, Buddha might have different opinions about that.

    Well, I’m a believer in the sun rising in the morning. But to Ham and people like him apparently you are a “believer” only if you subscribe to his particular extremely weird cult.

  3. birgerjohansson says

    Believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have as far as I know not stated any position on the issue so Ham is full of S*☆•#t.

  4. kome says

    Always good to be reminded that pronouns didn’t exist in the English language until just a few years ago. The novelty of words like “they” or “she” is just so confusing to people! Where did these words come from?!

  5. Dennis K says

    @1 moonslicer — He understands the issues. To the tune of millions of dollars per year. Let’s not mistake his malice for the idiocy of the rubes he’s actually playing.

  6. moonslicer says

    @ Dennis K #6

    “@1 moonslicer — He understands the issues. ”

    Sorry, Dennis, I will insist that he doesn’t. This notion that a transgender person is man somehow claiming to be a woman or a woman somehow claiming to be a man is well-nigh universal among our enemies. That can’t conceive that we transpeople could be something else. They don’t see any other alternative.

    Now, I’ll grant you that Ham is playing the rubes. But all he’s doing is feeding their misconceptions with his own, which misconceptions they themselves are gladly propagating. It’s a case of mass ignorance, which all are happy to indulge in.

  7. raven says


    I can’t say that Ken Ham is an honest person or a good person.
    Because that would you know, be lying.

    The truth.
    Ham is a greedy, voluntarily ignorant hater who hasn’t had an original thought in his life.
    He and his family are taking well over a million dollars a year out of his Fake Ark park in salaries and benefits.

  8. skepticalmat says

    Yet Ham uses masculine pronouns for god. Does he think god has a dick?

  9. says

    Always the most off putting about Dumb Idiot Ham is that he speaks the language of a cult leader and a dictator. And acts like them, too, dictating to “Believers” and “Christians” on what they should believe, accept, and conform into. Sounds like someone who cheated his way into the White House, desecrated it for 4 years before we managed to kick him out for good.

  10. drew says

    Does it really surprise anyone that Ken Ham claims not to know what lying means?

  11. Akira MacKenzie says

    The state of American politics right now has got me sooooooooo enraged that I can’t comment on any issue anymore without advocating violence. I don’t know what to do anymore.

  12. says

    Ah, I see.

    So a man gets to be a “man”. But a woman is a “feeeeemale”.

    But I guess I shouldn’t expect anything less. To people like Ken, women aren’t fully human, regardless of how they identify.

  13. imthegenieicandoanything says

    He and all the rest can wish for and sincerely believe anyone they like will burn in Hell – or any other – EVERY other! – sad, empty, pointless exercise they like. I’m not his keeper, in that way at least.
    What he and the rest of these sad, fascist shits can only do over my dead body is make these prayers of theirs into law for all of us, in real or by the assistance of our supposed law enforcement.

    Ken Ham already lives in the Hell there is: his own ugly, smarmy twisted and greedy and hateful mind. Clearly, he’s vain and stupid enough to think he likes it there.

  14. lanir says

    Interesting. So he wants everyone to call out lies, especially lies about how people are addressed? Okay. I’m fine with that!

    That person will henceforth be known as Shitlord Fruitloop to me because that is his true name. Ken Ham? Surely he’s lying, his name is Shitlord Fruitloop and it will never be anything but that. Why? Because it is obvious that this is who he is. I must in good conscience insist he goes by this name and so should all of you. We must correct the path of this serial liar to let him know who he really is despite his fanciful delusions.

    … Oh, Shitlord is upset about pronouns? Why would I have a problem with someone telling me the truth about who they are?

  15. says

    Asking for a friend:

    Is the Holy Trinity a “they,” since it’s three nonbiological-but-identified-by-Ham individuals in one entity? Or is it so disrespectful that no pronoun should ever be used concerning the Trinity?

    (This is the same friend who wants to know if reanimating the dead required prior approval from the IRB. In this instance, Ham has reanimated a dead 18th-century argument that is deader than a Pythonesque parrot — without IRB approval.)

  16. birgerjohansson says

    I cannot address Ham in another way than “idiot”. It would be lying.

  17. pick says

    Though I am no psychologist, the only lens through which I can now view characters like Ken Ham is clinical. I’ve come to think that individuals that display this kind of behavior are developmentally disordered. That is to say that their development from children into adults has been manipulated in a way that renders them incapable of ordered thought. Instead their minds are filled with socio-pathological thoughts and ruminations that rob them of free will and won’t leave them alone. Sad really.

  18. Howard Brazee says

    Then obviously he is in favor of saying “they” over “him” when the gender of someone is unknown.

  19. John Morales says

    Howard, doubtful.

    The preferred term is ‘he or she’, and the excuse is that ‘they’ is plural.

    (Pointless arguing the issue with such; they lean on prescriptivism and ignore descriptivism)

  20. John Morales says


    “He who hesitates is lost” is a hoary adage (and an useful heuristic at times).

    Easily expressed as just “Who hesitates is lost”, and thereby avoid the issue and be pithier.

  21. StevoR says

    @ 20. birgerjohansson : “I cannot address Ham in another way than “idiot”. It would be lying.”

    I can think of a few other things to address him as but most of them are pretty rude! Dropkick and willfully ignorant dodgy douchebag are some of the milder ones..

    PS. Wonder where Ham stands on the use of the “Royal we” – something Gawd uses biblically too if memory serves? (Not a typo for once! ;-) )

  22. Silentbob says

    @ 24 Morales

    That’ll get you a wiggly green underline for bad grammar. It’s a malformed sentence, lacking a subject.

  23. Silentbob says

    “Whosoever hesitates…” works if you don’t mind sounding out of the 19th century. :-)

  24. Rich Woods says

    @StevoR #25:

    use of the “Royal we” – something Gawd uses biblically too if memory serves?

    This construction sometimes appears in the Pentateuch because two traditions are being reported, not because it’s a ‘Royal We’. In one, God is Yahweh, the god of the Israelites, and in the other God is Elohim, one god out of the seventy-odd Canaanite gods who has yet to replace the leader of the pantheon and who speaks of him and his fellows in the plural. This pair of traditions is likely why there are two contradictory creation accounts, for example. The pair might also have been combined in places, such as when describing the provision of the two separate sets of Commandments, one lost and its replacement.

    The use of plural and singular names for God is mixed inconsistently with plural and singular verbs and adjectives throughout the Old Testament, which gives both theologians and scholars plenty of scope for furthering their preferred and contradictory claims on the matter.

  25. John Morales says

    Rich, yeah.

    First Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”.

    That only makes sense if other gods are presumed.

    Modern Abrahamic goddists say that means no false gods, because… well, because.

  26. Howard Brazee says

    The Bible mentions other Gods. Biblical literalists ignore that, as they also ignore the people living in the Land of Nod when Cain moved there.