SeoMac: [click] Okay, commence recording … the date is May 1, 2023, and the interview is with Stanley Rudd, who represents the 48th district in the Nebraska state legislature. Good morning, Senator.
StanRudd: Good morning to you.
SeoMac: I understand our time is limited, so if you’ll pardon me, I’ll dive into some questions that will interest our readers.
StanRudd: That’s fine by me.
SeoMac: Over the past year, state legislatures have considered nearly 150 bills related to transgender issues. And in Nebraska, the legislature has been stymied for weeks over a couple of these bills. Very little has been accomplished in this session, due to contention over this legislation. Do your constituents support spending so much time on these bills, at the expense of other work the legislature could be doing?
StanRudd: Well, of course, people are frustrated by how much time has been spent fighting over these bills. But for the most part, folks in my district think these are matters of common sense. And they’re not willing to just roll over when their ideas and beliefs are being challenged.
SeoMac: In public remarks, you have shared some of your beliefs pertaining to transgender issues. Last month, you stated that transgender people are “defying and defiling the creative genius of God, embedded in their DNA” - have I quoted you correctly?
StanRudd: That sounds correct, yes. It’s not the only thing that I said. I’ve stated plainly on numerous occasions that God loves people who are wrestling with transgender issues.
SeoMac: I appreciate the point of clarification.
In preparing for this interview, I took a look at your public Facebook page, and I noticed you are a deacon in your faith community. So I imagine, you take ideas and beliefs related to your faith quite seriously.
StanRudd: I do, yes, like many folks in my district.
SeoMac: Family also appears to be important in your life - there are many photos of your wife and children, and it looks like they’re active with you in your faith community and in service to others.
StanRudd: Yes, I’m proud of my family, and we do things together that reflect our values.
SeoMac: Your wife, in particular, seems to be outgoing and gracious. I was impressed by her remarks, interacting with people in the comment sections.
StanRudd: I don’t have much to do with the Facebook page, but that sounds like my wife. I’m blessed to be her husband.
SeoMac: She also has a keen sense of style.
StanRudd: That she does.
SeoMac: And she tries different things - in the last few years, she’s been a platinum blonde, a sandy blonde, a brunette … but she always looks fashionable.
StanRudd: I’ll pass along the compliment…
SeoMac: And her makeup is glamorous - but not too much, tastefully done.
StanRudd: Thank you…
SeoMac: That being said - Mr. Rudd, I’m curious how you square your wife’s stylistic choices with your reverence for “the creative genius of God”?
StanRudd: What?
SeoMac: I mean - your wife’s natural hair color is “embedded in [her] DNA” … and the same is true for her natural complexion, and the shades of her eyelids and her lips. How is her alteration of these characteristics not “defying and defiling the creative genius of God” - in your words?
StanRudd: Well, come on … lots of women dye their hair, and there are plenty of ladies in my district who simply wouldn’t feel comfortable going out, without their face on.
SeoMac: I acknowledge that there are many women who aren’t comfortable with their natural bodies. And yes, it’s common for women to alter their bodies in more or less permanent ways, in order to feel more comfortable - including and especially in public.
Perhaps that is why so many women are sensitive to transgender issues - they can understand the difficulty of not feeling comfortable in one’s own body.
StanRudd: Well, in our society we should be focused more on inner beauty…
SeoMac: I suppose, then, that you will have your wife change her beauty regimen?
StanRudd: [chuckles, with a hint of exasperation]
SeoMac: The website of your faith community states that the husband is the head of the household, and it’s the duty of the wife to submit and obey his leadership. So, naturally you will put a stop to how your wife has been flouting “the creative genius of God”?
StanRudd: I don’t expect you to appreciate a traditional family life, where the man provides leadership for his household. But no, I’m not going to change my wife’s routine.
SeoMac: You don’t think she’s acting in conflict with “the creative genius of God”?
StanRudd: I see your point, but I’m not going to be a tyrant about it with my wife.
SeoMac: So you are unwilling to impose this principle on your wife - which is understandable. Are you concerned about “be[ing] a tyrant about it,” when you impose the principle on your fellow citizens?
StanRudd: Well, you’re really in the weeds…
SeoMac: These are your own arguments, your own words.
StanRudd: The bottom line is, my wife is a grown woman. I’m not going to tell her how to manage her beauty routine. But I’ll put my foot down with my teenage daughter, or my son. I mean, you have to give kids a healthy amount of freedom. But if my son or daughter is wanting a tattoo or something that will have a lasting and possibly negative impact on their life, then yeah, I’ll “be a tyrant” about it.
And that’s the point of the transgender legislation. It doesn’t prevent grown adults from getting surgeries or hormones. It steps in to protect minors from long-lasting repercussions, later in life.
SeoMac: I noticed on your Facebook page that your son was recently baptized in your faith community. Some traditions baptize as infants and do a confirmation ritual in the teen years. It looks like your tradition does baptism later than that.
StanRudd: We believe that baptism should reflect the personal choice of the individual - infants have no choice in their baptism.
SeoMac: Your son is in middle school, if I’m not mistaken. Is that around the typical age for getting baptized in your faith community?
StanRudd: It differs from case to case. Sometimes we might baptize somebody who’s a little younger than middle school. But it depends on their maturity.
SeoMac: I see… Now, if minors can’t be trusted to get a tattoo - or to make decisions about their own transgender care, even at the discretion of their parents - then why should they be trusted with a decision like baptism, that potentially has eternal repercussions?
StanRudd: Well, [chuckles], teenagers are at an age where we want to facilitate good choices, but prevent bad choices.
SeoMac: So, they are old enough to make choices you approve of, but not choices you don’t approve of?
StanRudd: The bottom line is, we want to protect young people from mistakes that will affect the rest of their lives. I mean, that’s the job of adults - to protect kids.
SeoMac: I can understand that in the legislation there is an attempt to protect kids from their own mistakes.
But not only that - to protect them from their parents’ mistakes? They wouldn't be able to receive some types of gender-affirming care, even with parental permission.
StanRudd: That is correct…
SeoMac: And not only that - to protect them from their doctors’ mistakes? They wouldn't be able to receive this care, even with the recommendation of medical professionals.
StanRudd: Kids aren’t the only ones who can make terrible mistakes. So yes, the legislation protects them from their own mistakes, and from the mistakes of adults.
SeoMac: Where, then, are the kids protected from your mistakes? Because parents and medical professionals aren’t the only adults who can make terrible mistakes. Legislators can make terrible mistakes, too.
StanRudd: Well, I’m sure that’s true - because legislators in other states allow children to receive so-called medical care that does irreversible damage to their bodies. And I think those legislators are making a terrible mistake in that regard.
But the protection there is the same protection we all have from legislators’ mistakes - citizens can seek relief through the courts, and at the ballot box, by electing different legislators.
SeoMac: Is that real protection, or theoretical protection, in a state where the courts and the ballot boxes are dominated by people who are adamantly opposed to your position?
StanRudd: I can imagine that it feels frustrating, but we have a system of laws and government and that’s how it works. The values and ideas of a majority of our citizens are reflected in our laws, and those values include a lot of freedoms for people whose opinions are in the minority, but there are some fundamental standards and at the end of the day not everything is allowed.
SeoMac: I thank you for your time, Senator, and for your answers today. I do have one last line of inquiry, if we have enough time…
StanRudd: I guess…
SeoMac: I notice - again from your Facebook page - I notice that your son is Asian.
StanRudd: Yes. My wife and I married fairly late in life, and we adopted our son from overseas.
SeoMac: So, he’s not really your son.
StanRudd: [blinks repeatedly, then sighs] Now what?
SeoMac: Well, “embedded in [his] DNA,” he is the son of two other people, not you and your wife.
StanRudd: So we’re back to that again…
SeoMac: You have to admit that, by your principle, he’s not really your son.
StanRudd: [heatedly] By every principle that matters, he really is my son.
SeoMac: You acknowledge, then, that there are other principles - prevailing concerns - that constitute a reality that is deeper and more significant than the code “embedded in [his] DNA”?
StanRudd: [exasperated]
SeoMac: And you want the law to recognize that deeper reality? And you want your neighbors to engage that deeper reality with respect?
StanRudd: [exhales brusquely, shakes his head] You come in here with a bunch of clever questions. So how about you answer one before you leave?
SeoMac: I guess that seems fair.
StanRudd: Tell me, then - what is a woman?
SeoMac: Okay, I’ll answer your question plainly. Forgive me, though … I’ll ask a parallel question. What is a tomato? Is it a fruit or a vegetable?
StanRudd: Well, I have internet access. So you’re going to say the tomato is technically a fruit, but we treat it like a vegetable.
SeoMac: Actually, that would not be my answer. My answer is: a tomato is not a fruit or a vegetable. And that’s not all - a tomato isn’t even a tomato.
StanRudd: What, now?
SeoMac: “Fruits” and “vegetables” are concepts that human minds invented. They are categories we use when we think about the world around us, because we have minds that like to categorize.
And “tomato” is a name that was invented by a human mind. The name corresponds to various concepts that have been constructed by human minds … because we have minds that like to name things and conceptualize things.
So we may point at something that catches our attention and call it a tomato, or a fruit, or a vegetable. But whatever we call it, such is an artifact of our minds.
Now, what if we called it a tomato, but it had the capacity to reply to us? Perhaps it would say, “I am an eagle!” And that would seem ridiculous to us, because in our minds the concepts of “tomato” and “eagle” don’t correlate to each other. But that might make clear sense in the mind of the (so-called) tomato.
So what, then? How would we behave when relating to the (so-called) tomato? Would we call it an “eagle” to its face? Would we insist on calling it a “tomato” - even if it vigorously objected?
StanRudd: [stares] Didn’t you say you were going to answer the question plainly?
SeoMac: Yes. “Woman” is a name and a concept that is invented by human minds. And different human minds conceive of “woman” differently.
Every day, our government faces the challenge of relating to people whose minds are imbued with different ways of thinking. Some of these people live in faraway countries, and some are our fellow citizens.
There are times when we confront our differences, vigorously. But in many cases, we choose to emphasize ideas we have in common, and we diplomatically avoid points of conflict. We do this to build bridges and reservoirs of goodwill.
But some people don’t want bridges or goodwill. For their own purposes, they want conflict and alienation and ill-will. Every day, we see the natural fruit of this.
And I’ll say, you’ve been remarkably patient as I’ve probed at aspects of your family life and your religion…
StanRudd: Like anybody, I have a limited amount of patience.
SeoMac: Fair enough - like anybody. These are sensitive areas, naturally.
When it comes to transgender issues, and medical choices, and trying to provide the best care for one’s children - these are all sensitive areas, too. I suppose you are well aware.
StanRudd: I am aware.
SeoMac: Thank you, Senator, for your time and your patience today.
