Gender identity and gender expression should not be added to anti-discrimination policy because gender is an amorphous undefined term, used to cover up lies.
What is needed is a campaign strategy, to wean the public away from the deceptive word gender and back to the reality based sex,
I would suggest the slogan for bumper stickers
We will not lie
We will not call the baby in the womb a woman’s choice.
We will not call the relationship between 2 women a marriage.
We will not call a man a woman.
We will not say gender when we mean sex.
We will use sex-specific words: father, mother, bride, groom, husband wife.
We will not let others lie to our children.
We need a symbol, I suggest XX/XY, with the double helix of the DNA drawn inside each leg.
We are the defenders of reality. XX/XY remind us that the difference between man and woman is an undeniable reality, that it takes an XX and an XY to consummate a marriage, that takes an XX and an XY to make a baby.
Every child has a right to grow up in a home with his biological mother and father, biology matters.
Government documents should document reality. They should not be changed to accommodate political pressure.
If it says women on the door, it should be for women. Perhaps we should put an XX on the door to make it clear.
It is interesting to note that some Radical Feminists do not accept men who claim to be women or in some cases lesbian women. They point out that women who have been surgically altered to resemble women have not experienced the reality of women’s lives. Such men are invaders. Such men envy women and covet what rightly belongs to women. Some gay men have started a petition drive to “Drop the T” because they see the men pretending to be women undermining their agenda.
No has the right to lie or to force others to lie.
My article “A Simple Plan for Winning Back the Culture After the Same-Sex Marriage Decision: Envisioning a positive future after the Obergefell case,” was published on line by Aleteia, July 14, 2015
The following is a brief summary of the five initiatives that I think could make a difference. I hope my readers will download the entire piece, send their comments, share with me what they are already doing, and consider how they could support some of these initiatives.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that no state may deny a marriage license to two members of the same sex, those who have been fighting in defense of natural marriage are asking, “Where do we go from here?”
I offer some suggestions:
1. First, it is necessary to confront the Sexual Revolutionaries and their promotion of Utilitarian ethics…
2. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech must be defended…
3. Prayer, fasting, repentance, and reparation. Individually and in our churches, we need to pray for people with same-sex attraction (SSA) and gender identity disorder (GID), for their children, and their parents….
4. Support groups. In spite of the fact that gay activists insist that they don’t need therapy, we must be there for those who want help…
5. We need to know and speak the truth about SSA and GID…
HOW NOT TO BE USED: LOVE AND RESPONSIBILITY
In the last thirty years, advocates for a revolution in sexual ethics and practice have mounted a frontal assault on traditional morality. These Sexual Revolutionaries have presented themselves as promoters of pleasure and freedom, working to liberate the world from the bondage of sexual restraint. Their activism has lead to the removal of legal restrictions on sexual behavior, popularization of what a generation ago would have deemed pornography, and a shattering of social norms. In today’s media-driven culture the defenders of traditional sexual morality face derision and contempt. The powerful entertainment industry delights in breaking down barriers and portraying sexual rebels as heroes persecuted by neurotic, hypocritical bigots. Journalists treat Sexual Revolutionaries as victim/heroes fighting for freedom against oppressive discrimination. Read more…
On the program MediaBuzz (April 5), there were rare moments of honesty. One of the panel of members of the media admitted that while 50 percent of the public considered themselves faithful Christians, only 10 percent of those working in newsrooms would classify themselves as such. The panelists all but admitted that they just didn’t understand Christians. The ten percent who are believers probably aren’t always candid about their feelings. Even when big names admit to religious motivations, they are treated with skepticism. When Bill O’Reilly said that he was inspired by the Holy Spirt to write Killing Jesus, his interviewer Nora O’Donnell of 60 Minutes was incredulous. She asked him if he thought he was “the chosen one.” Ms. O’Donnell is undoubtedly unaware that average Christians often are convinced that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit to take up a particular work. Read more…
Suppose parents were informed that their child has a serious condition, one for which the recommended treatment included: a lifetime regime of powerful drugs which could cause serious, even life threatening, side effects; mutilating surgeries, which leave scars and compromise urinary track function; total loss of the ability to procreate; and partial or complete loss of genital function and feeling. Even with this radical treatment, their child would be at high risk for depression, other psychological disorders, suicide, HIV infection, and a shortened life span. In addition, their child would probably have to deceive others, including intimate partners, about the nature of the condition. Should these parents be allowed to seek a second opinion? President Obama and his advisor Valerie Jarret say, “No.” Read more…
Can a for-profit business or an individual employed by a for-profit business make moral judgments? Yes, if they are judging their own actions. They have a right not to be forced to use their talents and skills to create something that they believe violates their sincerely held beliefs.
Suppose a customer comes into a bakery and asks for a cake in the shape of male private parts (I actually heard about such a thing), a baker would have every right to say, “I won’t do that,” and it wouldn’t matter if the client were gay or straight. Suppose a client were to come to a photographer and ask to pose naked or in pornographic positions. The photographer would have a right to say “I won’t do that,” and it wouldn’t matter if the client were gay or straight. Read more…
The culture war is a war of words and those who defend reality need to choose their words carefully. The word gender has been permanently corrupted and there is no point trying to rehabilitate it. If the Sexual Left insists on defining gender as “socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men.” We should let them.
Gender isn’t a synonym for sex and we should not use it as one. Gender is a creation of the mind detached from the corporeal. It floats above the material world, like ever changing clouds, constantly reshaping, renaming itself. There are two sexes –male and female. Read more…