December 19, 2016 (Everyday For Life Canada) — Are you aware of the fact that unelected representatives at the United Nations recently established a new position of ombudsman for LGTB “rights?” The mandate for the person that assumes the job is to promote human sexuality expressed by terms such as “sexual orientation,” “gender identity” and “gender expression.” It's the “inclusive” language of homosexuality. However, this is not a “right” found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the document, there is no such thing as LGTB or sexual “rights.” This new “right” is pushed by activists to serve their own goal to get greater world promotion and acceptance of homosexuality. We know what the new ombudsman will not do: be an advocate for heterosexuality, marriage, procreation, love, chastity, children and family.
There is another objective behind the new UN position. It's to put pressure on those countries that don't culturally recognize homosexuality and use the more persuasive concept of “right” to do so. In Canada, the United States and most other Western nations, public education is being used to achieve the same goal. Many Western countries have approved radical sex “curriculum” programs that sexualize children at an early age and teach them about contraception, abortion (“reproductive rights”), sexual consent and homosexuality. In the United States, these programs are known as comprehensive sex “education.” Embedded in the sex “education” programs is an inclusive language of sex that aims to change the thought and behaviour of children and the rest of society about human sexuality.
The tentacles of sexual revolution of the 1960s continue to reach out today in Western countries and at the United Nations. False sexual and reproductive “rights” in the Americas and Europe have increased abortions, led to higher rates of sexual infections and diseases, given us more pornography and too many broken families that leaves many children growing up without fathers. We are paying a high price in putting human sexuality outside of marriage, traditional family and morality. The pursuit of sex has become its own end.
Defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention comprehensive sex education is “A planned, sequential K-12 curriculum that is part of a comprehensive school health education approach which addresses age-appropriate physical, mental, emotional and social dimensions of human sexuality.” The programs, however, are too often not age appropriate because they expose children to the idea that sex is always “safe and fun.” In short, the programs introduce an explicit language to students about sex but with nice sounding words like: age appropriate, comprehensive, safe, education and fun. As the students learn the words, they learn how to think in sexual terms and many end up putting the words into experience. They end up having sexual relations at a young age. Nobody should be surprised because human beings use language to think and thinking leads to action. When thinking is distorted and irresponsible, it can result in dangerous consenquences. The language of sex works the same way as the language of business, entertainmant or any subject.
Here's one example of how one word has shaped thought and behaviour about human sexuality. It's the word gender. Today, gender is not so much connected to biology. It refers to other words, feelings and meanings. Gender is now about “sexual orientation,” “gender identity” and “gender expression.” In Ontario, we now have laws to protect the meaning of these words. Gender has turned human sex into an abstract concept away from the binary idea of male or female, boy or girl. As a result, there is an expanding and factually unchecked list of gender possibilities. The LGTBQ (lesbian, gay, transgendered, bisexual, queer, questioning) acronym continues to mushroom. It's language and meaning out of control.
Just consider this. The city of New York has 31 legally protected genders. Facebook has gone further by giving account holders 58 genders in the United States and 71 in the United Kingdom. In Ontario, the new sex curriculum will teach children at least six genders. There is no science to back these new words. It's being pushed by the politics of power, sex and correctness. And those that control language shape thought and behaviour. Laws are in place to make that one disagrees, otherwise the person can be charged with hate speech, fined or even go to jail.
These newly constructed words, acronyms and expressions about human sexuality are very confusing to young people in schools. They confuse adults. Can you define gander, sexual orientation and the difference between gender identity and expression? There you go, not so easy. That's the whole purpose, to confuse. Just imagine how a teacher can misuse this new language of gender to shape what children think about themselves and their sexuality. A teacher could say to a class: “Boys and girls you may not be a boy or a girl but any one of these 31 genders.” Here's the New York list of genders and consider just how confusing these made up words are. We will spare you the longer list from Facebook:
3. Drag King
4. Drag Queen
5. Femme Queen
8. Gender Bender
16. Trans Person
23. Third Sex
24. Gender Fluid
25. Non-Binary Transgender
27. Gender Gifted
28. Gender Blender
30. Person of Transgender Experience
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word gender has this origin and meaning:
gender (n.)c. 1300, “kind, sort, class,” from Old French gendre, genre “kind, species; character; gender” (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) “race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species,” also “(male or female) sex,” from PIE root gene. Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14th century.
The “male-or-female sex” sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for “sex of a human being,” in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
The word gender has undergone several meaning changes. It's a grammar term to classify nouns and pronouns as feminine, masculine and neuter. Gender has also been used to define the sexes, as male or female. Currently, the word gender refers to a person's constructed “social attributes,” what David Bowie called “gender-bender.” It's not limited to a person's biological sex. However, to learn more about how the meaning of gender has transformed it will be helpful to briefly outline the work done by the psychologist John Money at John Hopkins University in the 1960s. He believed that children's sexual identity is the product of socialized and the child's genes. These two factors determine whether a child becomes a boy or girl. It was Money who constructed a new language of human sexuality in connection to heredity and the environment. He was the one who first used the expression “gender identity” to capture the experienced feelings of sexuality, and “gender role,” to describe the societal expectations of being female or male.
Money was one of the people who began looking at ways to help individuals who were sexually confused. He thought that sex reassignment surgery could relieve the pain of those who experience dissonance between their biological sex and their perceived sexual identity. As we have said, Money believed that socialization had a great influence on determining whether a child would eventually be a boy or girl. Heredity could be altered by the environment. In fact, he co-edited the book titled, Transsexualism and Reassignment Surgery to promote the experimental surgery.
In one controversial case in 1966, Money advised the parents of a twin boy, who had a mutilated penis from a circumcision that had gone wrong, to raise the child as a girl. The parents decided to listen to Money. In 1973, Money said that the boy had been castrated and made to play with dolls and dresses. The experiment to raise the boy as a girl was going well. Socialization, after all, could change genetics. It was a big news story at the time. Money made the boys perform sexual acts, one playing the male role and the other brother the female. According to Money, the boy now a “girl” had accepted the new identity. The human experiment was a success.
However, in 1997 researchers discovered that eventually the boy had rejected his female identity at the age of 14. There was even a surgical attempt to reconstruct his genitals. Money was criticized by many once the news was made public. The story ended tragically: in 2004, the young man had eventually reclaimed his biological sexual identity but committed suicide. His brother did the same. The parents blamed Money for their sons' suffering and death.
The present day meaning of the word “gender” in comprehensive sex programs is decoupled from biology. As a result, the politically acceptable idea is that gender is changeable at will through the use of hormones, feelings, surgery and environmental factors. Money's failed social experiment has had a great influence on sex “education” even though it's not based on proven science. It's even against the law in Ontario to counsel a student (any person) to return to their biological sexual identity but may express feelings of being attracted to the same or both sexes. Just think of the harm this bad law will create in schools.
In 2015, the Ontario government issued a new Physical and Heath Education course for all schools, Grades 1-8. A controversial sex curriculum is part of the course. Here's how gender is defined: “A term that refers to those characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed.” Money's definition has prevailed. A person's sex defined as male or female has been replaced by the more general word gender. It's interesting that word heterosexuality can't be found in the Glossary of terms in the course document. It's been replaced by “sexual orientation,” that is defined as “A person's sense of sexual attraction the same sex, the opposite sex or both sexes.” The curriculum paves the way to introduce homosexuality into the curriculum as just another sexual orientation.
The term sexual orientation underplays the physical fact that human beings are biologically male or female. Much of the focus in the sex curriculum is not on heterosexuality and traditional marriage but on homosexuality and new family structures such as two dads or two moms. These ideas can be easier taught with use of generic terms such as “sexual orientation,” “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Here's how these words are defined:
1. Gender identity. A person’s sense of self, with respect to being male or female. Gender identity is different from sexual orientation, and may be different from birth-assigned sex.
2. Gender expression. The manner in which individuals express their gender identity to others. A person’s gender expression is often based on a social construct of gender, which is either stereotypically male or female. However, some individuals who do not see themselves as being either male or female but as some combination of the two genders, or as without gender, choose to express their identity in terms of a multiple model of gender, mixing both male and female expressions.
The sex curriculum states that male and female are mere “stereotypically” social constructs. The schools are continuing the flawed work of Money. If human sexuality is socially manufactured, it's much easier for schools to establish government mandated “gay/straight alliances.” These clubs are not promoting anything “straight.” They are there to normalize homosexuality. The clubs will help promote the LGTBQ language and thinking about gender. One Catholic high school calls its gay/straight alliance a “No Names” club. Neither parents nor the student body is going to ever suspect what the club is really doing.
Students will learn at a young and impressionable age that human sexuality can be unconnected to biology, family and procreation. Heterosexuality is just like homosexuality. It's simply another sexual orientation. There is no need to teach students that biologically two men or two women cannot naturally have a child, nor about the higher risks of anal sex because it's equal to heterosexual sex. It's equity education. Moreover, the sex curriculum is good for everyone because it's about tolerating “diversity” and “inclusion” of every kind: physical, ethnic, spiritual and of course sexual. That this is not true is irrelevant. This language of the sex curriculum aims to change student thinking.
The government's argument is that the sex curriculum is to create safe, anti-bullying and inclusive learning environments. It's the big push for more progressive education. Instead, the radical sex curriculum promotes to young students homosexuality and alternative family arrangements. It downplays the traditional family. And it's done under the umbrella of “inclusive, equity and diversity” education across the school curriculum. How could anybody in his right mind be against it. And it's much easier to get parents to go along when they are told that it's about “equity education” and anti-bullying strategies.
Here's a summary of some of what children will learn at the elementary level in Ontario:
Grade 1: identity the names of genitalia and the concept of “sexual consent.”
Grade 2: gender is self-constructed and so it's changeable; homosexuality is just another sexual orientation
Grade 4: romantic dating is introduced
Grade 6: masturbation as sexual pleasure
Grade 7: anal intercourse and oral sex
Grade 8: carry a condom and “make a sexual plan”
Of course teacher activists can further exploit the content, knowing that there's little chance that parents will ever find out what they actually teach. The government and the teachers' unions have given the green light to the sex curriculum. It's the mechanics and plumbing of sex devoid of love, marriage, family and procreation. No permission forms need to be sent home to get parental approval when it comes to teaching the sex curriculum, the “sensitive issues,” co-developed by Benjamin Levin a convicted child predator. It's the children that will suffer. It robs them of their souls. The “inclusive” language will change how students think about human sexuality and their behaviour. And it's not for the better. Parents make sure you teach this language life lesson to your children. It's your parental right to do so.
The explicit sex talk at an early age is bound to confuse children and corrupt their innocence. The new language of human sexuality is politically driven indoctrination and a corruption of education and thinking.
Reprinted with permission from Everyday for Life Canada.