Skip to content

We will not lie

April 7, 2016

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.

13 Comments leave one →
  1. Noel Edsall permalink
    April 7, 2016 2:35 pm

    You have the consummate ability to make clear a societal issue that should be clear on its face. How have we come to this? Why has it been so readily accepted in academia and government? Perhaps if you can identify the cause(s), a counter strategy could be mounted to roll back this destructive movement. Your “bumper sticker” may be clever first step.

    • April 8, 2016 2:00 pm

      How did we get into this mess?
      The cultural rebels adopted Marxist theory because it was useful in their war against religion and the family.
      Years ago I interviewed a Marxist professor at Mt Holyoke College. He said that Marxism gave atheists something to believe in and a cause. It also gave professors power.
      This is the long march through the institutions. Marxists getting their feet in the door and then bringing in co-conspirators. A friend of mine went to a meeting to promote women in government. The presenter made it clear that they were not interested in promoting conservative women, only fellow travelers.
      Parents worshiped education and didn’t realize they were turning their children over to Marxists.
      Also after McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade, people didn’t want to be associated with anti-Marxism. I myself was confused at first by the suggestion that our opposition were cultural Marxists. When I speak in Europe I don’t have this problem, they know a Marxist when they see one.
      I am speaking at a conference in Brazil April 15-17, pray for me.

      • Lauren Cushman permalink
        April 27, 2016 7:27 pm

        Thank you for your clear and powerful insights, Dale! Where are you lecturing in Brazil? My in-laws live in Sao Paulo, and I’m sure would benefit greatly from your presentation!

  2. permalink
    April 7, 2016 6:51 pm

    Well said Dale – many agree with you I’m sure! God bless………Diane (M.Phil) NZ

  3. David Thornton permalink
    April 8, 2016 4:36 pm

    Sex-specific words. But in some well-known homosexual ‘marriages’ one of the partners refers to his partner as his ‘wife’!!!

    • April 9, 2016 5:09 pm

      The fact is that the gender ideologues have trouble getting away from the language of reality. However there is a problem with the wife status in a same-sex male relationship. The ‘wife’ is often younger, unemployed, dependent, who is supposed to supply domestic and sexual services. The ‘wife’ often finds this demeaning.

  4. Dev permalink
    May 11, 2016 12:41 am

    This makes no sense. Homosexual men and women don’t deny that men are men and women are women. And same-sex marriage – whether you support it or oppose it – does not supplant sex with gender. In fact, it is precisely because homosexuals do not believe the lie that the terms “men” and “women” are subjective or interchangeable that they have fought so hard for same-sex marriage. If “man” and “woman” were subjective or interchangeable and if biological sex were marginalized, there would be no reason to care about same-sex marriage.

    Also there is no “right to grow up in a home with [one’s] biological mother and father.” You might argue that this is the ideal child-rearing arrangement. You might argue that this arrangement should be promoted above others. But that is not the same thing as asserting a “right” by the child to be raised in that particular family structure. If it were a right, then the child would be able to enforce it. For example, the child would have the right to veto a divorce, or at least to be represented separately in a divorce proceeding so as defend his living arrangement right. If the child’s parents were living apart or unmarried when he was born, he would have the right to sue either parent to compel them to live with the other biological parent, and arguably to force them to marry. The law has never conferred any such power upon a child, so this “right” to grow up with biological parents is fictitious.

    How many years have you been at this? Eight? Ten? And yet you clearly haven’t thought things through.

    • May 11, 2016 1:31 pm

      You are right to say that gay men and lesbians do not deny their sex. For this reason many of them reject the claim of the transgendered to be part of their movement. Some lesbian/feminist gatherings are restricted to women born and living as women and some gay men have started a petition to ‘drop the T’.
      However, the LGBT activists argue that sex shouldn’t matter in marriage or parenting. It does matter. Consummation requires one man and one woman. every child has a biological father and mother. Pretending that the partner in a same sex couple is the same as the biological parent does not serve the child’s best interest.
      As to the children, ask a child separated from one or both biological parents and they will tell you of how they feel they have been deprived of something that was rightfully theirs. They should be allowed to sue and be represented in a divorce and discover the name of birth parents.

      • Dev permalink
        May 17, 2016 5:07 am

        Arguing that sex is irrelevant to participation in a particular institution is not the same thing as advocating that sex should be abolished or that it should be supplanted by “gender.” It may be that the same-sex marriage advocates are wrong in the position they take about marriage, but they aren’t arguing that man and woman don’t exist or that they are subjective terms. You don’t seem to disagree, and so you should acknowledge that your inclusion of gay marriage in the above post was inapt.

        As for children having the “right to grow up in a home with [one’s] biological mother and father” it is no argument to say that children “should be allowed to sue and be represented.” If the right whose existence you asserted actually did exist, they would have the right to sue and be represented — and they would have numerous other subsidiary rights as well. But they don’t. They don’t have those rights in any state in the US or (to my knowledge) any country in the entire world. And they never have. A child cannot enforce a “right” to grow up in a home with his biological parents in even the most religiously conservative state in the Union. Not in 2016. Not in 1956. Not in 1916. Not in 1816. Even when gay marriage was unheard of and homosexual acts were criminalized in all 50 states, no child was represented in a divorce and no child could prevent one on the grounds that it violated a right to be raised in a particular family structure. In sum, you are making stuff up. And you don’t get to make stuff up.

        Now, if you think that there *ought to be* a right to be raised by one’s biological parents, that’s a different beast. But one wonders why you have never written about such an aspiration in any context other than opposing gay marriage and why not a single conservative organization anywhere in the US is even thinking about an effort to alter divorce laws to protect this “right.” The time would seem to be ripe for such an effort. Gay marriage is, for the foreseeable future, off the table in terms of direct policymaking. It will take a change in the Supreme Court or a Constitutional amendment to put it back on the table. That will take years or decades, if it ever happens. But there is nothing stopping you and other conservatives from lobbying legislatures and using the initiative process to reform divorce laws to allow children to be represented and to prevent divorces sought by one or both parents. You could be doing that right now. So how about it? When will we be seeing that effort? (I’m kidding. We both know the answer.)

      • May 17, 2016 1:00 pm

        There was a time when people believed they had a right to own slaves. Children conceived by artificial insemination donor are now arguing for their right to know their fathers. How can adults sign binding agreements denying that right? Check out the movie Delivery Man. I can foresee a day when children are represented by their own lawyers and their interests are given consideration.

  5. Molly permalink
    May 16, 2016 2:05 pm

    Another slogan for a bumper sticker that I would recommend is “2 + 2 = 4,” a reference to the final scene in the novel, 1984, in which a beleaguered Winston traces “2 + 2 = 5” in the dust because he has been finally broken by the system. Let us not succumb to the lies.

  6. Dev permalink
    May 25, 2016 9:48 pm

    “I can foresee a day when children are represented by their own lawyers and their interests are given consideration.”

    Yes Dale, and foreseeing is all that you will do. There will be no $38 million Prop 8-style effort to protect children in divorce proceedings and guaranty their right to live in a home with their biological parents. There won’t be a $28 million effort or an $18 million effort. There won’t be a $10 effort. Because you don’t care. FRC and AFA and FOTF and CWFA and other similar groups, which have been around for decades, really and truly do not care. Which is why they have never done anything on this issue in all of that time. Not even in deeply red states where they totally dominate and could easily get the law changed. Your and their concern for this non-existent “right” of children to be raised in a particular setting magically appears when you want to rant about gays and it vanishes the instant you are finished ranting about gays. The real question is how it came to be that ranting about gays defined the totality of your political agenda, your moral priorities and your life.

    • May 25, 2016 10:06 pm

      Many Catholic writers are concerned about the effect of divorce on children. It took years for the Evangelicals to come around on the abortion issues, they will come around. However, I think the change will come when the victims will speak up and demand the right of children. Judith Wallerstein’s work will lead the way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: