“Trans” Madness: De-Sexing the World
 
“Trans” Madness: De-Sexing the World
Written By Laurie Higgins   |   12.20.18

The “trans” rebellion against science, nature, and morality is well underway, trampling under its jackbooted stilettos athletic achievement; academic inquiry; physical privacy and safety; speech rights; religious rights; association rights; children’s needs and rights; parental rights; and the bodies of boys, girls, women, and men. “Trans”-cultists want everyone to accept their faith-based assumption that immaterial feelings are more real and more meaningful than objective biological sex. Daily, news stories emerge that attest to the “trans” madness that pursues the impossible: de-sexing the entire the world.

It’s important to bear in mind that in the service of effacing sex, “progressives” manipulate language. “Sex” refers to the objective, biological categories (i.e., male and female) into which humans are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. “Gender” is no longer synonymous with “sex.” “Gender” now refers to the arbitrary, socially constructed and imposed roles, conventions, interests, traits, and behaviors commonly associated with maleness or femaleness. And “gender identity” is the subjective internal and often fluid sense of being male or female, both, or neither.

The worst manifestations of this “trans” madness pertain to children—often the first victims of pernicious ideologies. One of those manifestations is the growing movement of parents raising their children to be “gender creative.” These parents conceal their children’s sex from the world, and often from close family and even the children themselves. Two of these parents are “Nathan” Levitt and her female partner, both of whom are women who fancy themselves men. These two women use the plural pronoun “they” when referring to their singular child “Zo” whose sex they conceal in order to prevent society from, in their view, imposing socially constructed arbitrary expectations on him or her, which, in their view, is damaging. Absolute autonomy to define even objective material existence is the driving force in their parental decisions.

Levitt, a registered nurse and long-time “trans” advocate, claims that

random people on the street… are incredibly invested in what gender our child is. That’s always the question, “Is that a boy or a girl?” And so often we will say to people, “We don’t know yet.”

Levitt is either being inconsistent or dishonest. Remember, in the socially constructed “trans” dystopia, “gender” and “sex” are different phenomena. Random people on the street are not asking about their child’s “gender” or its “gender identity.” They’re asking about its sex—which Levitt and her partner do, indeed, know. And their baby’s sex is as important as its humanness. In fact, biological sex is arguably the most important objective feature of every human being.

These foolish parents believe they are refraining from imposing an ideology whereas, in reality, they are imposing the belief that biological sex has no intrinsic meaning relative to, well anything, including even bodies. But, as reported by Alex Morris on the website The Cut, avoiding cultural indoctrination takes a lot of indoctrination:

Pronouns are likewise scrambled in books to give equal airtime to female and nonbinary heroes (one family tells me of reading the Harry Potter series using they/them pronouns for Harry). Parents do not shy away from describing body parts, but are quick to let children know that “some people with penises aren’t boys, and some people with vaginas aren’t girls,” as one mom told me. 

Morris reported that parents of “theybies” ask everyone in their social circles to use “they” rather than he or she. Parents of “theybies” ask that daycare workers who change diapers, keep secret the body parts they will see and that purportedly have nothing to do with maleness or femaleness.

Morris continued:

A common fear among gender-open parents, then, is that their family will be isolated, cut off from people for whom interacting would require just too much cognitive work. 

Yes, socially imposing doctrinaire science-denying dogma requires a carload of cognitive work, as well as a morsel of emotional manipulation and a smidgen of social stigmatization. Propagandizing biological sex out of the public consciousness is very hard work.

Writing on the CrossPolitic blog, Ben Zornes writes this about parents of “theybies”:

[T]hese “parents” feign to be “not choosing” to assign their child a gender, thus sparing it from the social pressures of conforming to being a boy or girl. But their not choosing is… itself a choice which their child has no say in. They have made a choice about what sort of gender values they want their child to have. They want their child to value autonomy when it comes to choosing its gender…. But autonomy is the fairy dream of postmodernism….

This child…. is growing up being taught that it can chart its own destiny, be its own sovereign. This humanistic worldview is the broad way which leads to destruction. The only way off this path is through repentance. Repentance, in this case, looks like embracing the sex which God assigned this child in its mother’s womb…. The real sorrow here is that these parents are tying the millstone of their own sexual rebellion to the neck of their precious toddler and sinking it into the sea of the diabolical madness of the GQBLT religion…. Their “not choosing” is a choice to place a vile temptation before this little one at every turn it makes. God will judge, and will not spare. Unless they repent of their own folly, and the folly they’ve introduced to their child.

Forty-one-year-old lesbian, “trans”-activist, and law professor “Dean” Spade offers a glimpse of where “trans”-activists would like to lead culture (To be clear, Spade is a woman who passes as a man and has relations with women.):

We’ve fought against the idea that the presence of uteruses or ovaries or penises should be understood to determine such things as people’s… proper parental roles, proper physical appearance… [and] proper sexual partners…. Our bodies have varying parts, but it is socialization that assigns our body parts gendered meaning.

Spade and everyone else who pretends to believe that the emperor in the peignoir is an empress should listen to biologist Colin Wright who wrote this for Quillette:

[S]ocial justice activists attempt to jump the epistemological shark by claiming that the very notion of biological sex, too, is a social construct. As a biologist, it is hard to understand how anyone could believe something so outlandish. It’s a belief on a par with the belief in a flat Earth.

[T]he most prestigious scientific journal in the world, Nature, published an editorial claiming that classifying people’s sex “on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned” and “has no basis in science” and that “the research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female.” In the Nature article, the motive is stated clearly enough: acknowledging the reality of biological sex will “undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.” But while there is evidence for the fluidity of sex in many organisms, this is simply not the case in humans. We can acknowledge the existence of very rare cases in humans where sex is ambiguous, but this does not negate the reality that sex in humans is functionally binary. These editorials are nothing more than a form of politically motivated, scientific sophistry.

The formula for each of these articles is straightforward. First, they list a multitude of intersex conditions. Second, they detail the genes, hormones, and complex developmental processes leading to these conditions. And, third and finally, they throw their hands up and insist this complexity means scientists have no clue what sex really is. This is all highly misleading and deceiving (self-deceiving?), since the developmental processes involved in creating any organ are enormously complex, yet almost always produce fully functional end products. Making a hand is complicated too, but the vast majority of us end up with the functional, five-fingered variety.

What these articles leave out is the fact that the final result of sex development in humans are unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. Thus, the claim that “2 sexes is overly simplistic” is misleading, because intersex conditions correspond to less than 0.02 percent of all births, and intersex people are not a third sex. Intersex is simply a catch-all category for sex ambiguity and/or a mismatch between sex genotype and phenotype, regardless of its etiology. Furthermore, the claim that “sex is a spectrum” is also misleading, as a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time. Lastly, the claim that classifying people’s sex based on anatomy and genetics “has no basis in science” has itself no basis in reality, as any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that. 

A relatively few brave professionals from the medical, mental health, and academic communities are stepping forward at great personal and professional risk to speak the truth about the “trans” ideology that seeks to eradicate recognition of the fact and meaning of sexual differentiation. Increasing numbers of doctors and scientists are trying to stop the socially contagious “trans” madness that, left unopposed, will effectively de-sex and bring incalculable suffering to the world. But as Wright explains, stepping forward is a risky endeavor:

Despite the unquestionable reality of biological sex in humans, social justice and trans activists continue to push this belief, and respond with outrage when challenged. Pointing out any of the above facts is now considered synonymous with transphobia. The massive social media website Twitter—the central hub for cultural discourse and debate—is now actively banning users for stating true facts about basic human biology. And biologists like myself often sit quietly, afraid to defend our own field out of fear that our decade of education followed by continued research, job searches, and the quest for tenure might be made obsolete overnight if the mob decides to target one of us for speaking up. Because of this, our objections take place almost entirely between one another in private whisper networks, despite the fact that a majority of biologists are extremely troubled by these attacks to our field by social justice activists. This is an untenable situation.

It is astonishing that so many sheep-like Americans believe or pretend to believe the “trans” ideology. We should no longer marvel in horror that the Holocaust or slavery happened. We should no longer shake our heads in disbelief that ideas as utterly evil and patently false as those that propelled the extermination of 6 million Jews or the brutal enslavement of men, women and children could have been embraced, tolerated, or acquiesced to.

The embrace of and acquiescence to evil, false ideas are taking place in our time, in our midst, before our open but un-woke eyes. And it advances through the same mechanisms that prior evil, deceitful ideas gained cultural ground, that is, through government-subsidized propaganda, bad legislation, bad judicial decisions, control of cultural institutions, and cowardice.

The “trans” ideology, an evil and patently false set of dogmatic beliefs is wreaking havoc on individual lives, families, and virtually all cultural institutions, and relatively few people are opposing it.

To be clear, I am not comparing the degree of evil intrinsic to Nazi beliefs or pro-slavery beliefs about racial superiority or the effects of those beliefs to the degree of evil intrinsic to “trans”-cultic beliefs or their effects. Rather, I am comparing the oppressive mechanisms by which these sets of beliefs achieve cultural ascendancy and the cowardly absence of resistance from those who should know and proclaim the truth despite the cost.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:


Save the Date!!!

On Saturday, March 16, 2019, the Illinois Family Institute will be hosting our annual Worldview Conference. This coming year, we will focus on the “transgender” revolution. We already have commitments from Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians; Walt Heyer, former “transgender” and contributor to Public Discourse; Denise Schick, Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, and daughter of a man who “identified” as a woman; and Doug Wilson, who is a Senior Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho .

The Transgender Ideology:
What Is It? Where Will It Lead? What is the Church’s Role?

Stay tuned for more information!


Help us meet our end-of-year matching challenge goal!
Dollar for dollar match through December 31st.
Your $25 becomes $50, $100 is $200, and $250 becomes $500.

Laurie Higgins
Laurie Higgins became the Illinois Family Institute’s Cultural Affairs Writer in the fall of 2008. Prior to working for the IFI, Laurie worked full-time for eight years in Deerfield High School’s writing center in Deerfield, Illinois. Her cultural commentaries have been carried on a number of pro-family websites nationally and internationally, and Laurie has appeared on numerous radio programs across the country. In addition, Laurie has spoken at the Council for National Policy and educational conferences sponsored by the Constitutional Coalition. She has been married to her husband for forty-four years, and they have four grown children and nine grandchildren....
IFI Featured Video
Taking action for unborn children is easier than ever
Get Our New App!