[I recently came across this 2022 investigative report and was struck by the extent of radical ideologies reportedly being promoted in military base schools. While I hope that the incoming administration will lead to a reduction in such practices, I’m not optimistic. This radicalism seems deeply entrenched in our institutions, and no single election cycle will be enough to undo it. True change will require sustained efforts over time. Here are some of my thoughts after reading the report.]
Schools on military bases are supposed to be places where stability, discipline, and strong values are passed on to the children of service members. But a recent report, Grooming Future Revolutionaries, reveals a very different reality. According to the investigation, these schools—run by the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA)—are becoming hotbeds for controversial ideologies, including critical race theory (CRT), radical gender theories, and activist-driven education.
If you think military schools should focus on academics and character-building, buckle up. This report might change how you see the role of education in these institutions.
From DEI to Woke Indoctrination
In 2018, DoDEA adopted a strategic plan called the “Blueprint for Continuous Improvement,” which focuses heavily on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). On the surface, these initiatives sound reasonable—who doesn’t want an inclusive environment? But the way they’ve been implemented has left many parents and educators concerned.
The report claims that DEI has shifted the focus away from traditional academic excellence toward social engineering. Key performance metrics prioritize equity and inclusion over core subjects like math, science, and engineering. What’s more, these programs allegedly shame students based on their race and encourage children to question their gender identity—often without involving parents.
Radical Gender Ideology in the Classroom
One of the more shocking findings is how radical gender theories are being woven into lessons, even for very young children. Teachers are encouraged to explore topics like pronouns and gender identity starting as early as preschool using tools like the “Genderbread Person” to challenge traditional norms. For instance, students might be asked to consider how they express their gender or even keep certain aspects of their identity secret from their parents.
Activities like these aim to challenge traditional ideas about family and gender, but they also create confusion. Instead of fostering confidence and self-understanding, these lessons often seem designed to disrupt what many families hold dear: familial trust, patriotic values, and the sacred order of God’s Good Creation.
Antiracism and Activism Over Education
In addition to gender ideology, the report outlines how antiracism education is turning classrooms into political battlegrounds. Lessons are reportedly designed to make students hyperaware of race and privilege, often framing history and society through the lens of oppression. Books like Me and White Supremacy and What We Believe: A Black Lives Matter Principles Activity Book are becoming part of the curriculum.
While promoting understanding and inclusion is important, critics argue that this approach replaces constructive dialogue with divisive rhetoric. Instead of encouraging kids to see themselves as individuals, it pushes them to adopt a group identity defined by race or gender.
The Impact on Military Families and Patriotism
What’s perhaps most troubling is how these programs are affecting military families and their values. According to the report, students are being encouraged to view their country and its symbols—like the flag and the national anthem—with skepticism. Instead of instilling pride in their heritage, the curriculum seems aimed at fostering a sense of detachment from their country.
For families who sacrifice so much in service to the nation, this feels like a betrayal. Patriotism, family values, and a belief in a higher purpose are cornerstones of military life. Undermining these principles risks eroding the foundation of what makes our armed forces strong.
A Call for Change
So, what can be done? The report suggests that parents and lawmakers need to push back. Senator Marsha Blackburn and Representative Elise Stefanik have already proposed measures to give military parents more control over what their children are taught. Unfortunately, these efforts haven’t gained much traction—yet.
But this fight isn’t just about legislation. It’s about recognizing that education shapes the next generation. If we allow schools—especially those tied to our military—to focus on divisive ideologies instead of unifying values, we risk losing more than academic excellence. We risk losing our shared identity and the moral framework that binds us together.
Final Thoughts
Education should prepare kids for life—not push them into confusion or activism. While I hope the new administration will steer us toward a more balanced approach, I’m not holding my breath. These ideologies are deeply embedded in our institutions, and it’s going to take more than one election cycle to turn things around. Still, this is a battle worth fighting—for our kids, our families, and the future of this nation.
Today’s Supreme Court case hopefully will expose a medical scandal of significant proportions, where minors are subjected to irreversible treatments without sufficient evidence of their benefits and without proper informed consent.
The Court’s ruling (due in June ’25) should call for a desperately needed reevaluation of these practices to ensure the protection and well-being of vulnerable youth.
At least, one can hope, and pray.
Tyler O’Neil is on the case.
It’s hard to wrap your head around just how grotesque it is that many medical associations and the federal government have adopted the idea that it’s healthy to sterilize children in an attempt to “affirm” a stated transgender identity. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will shed much-needed sunlight on this medical scandal of epic proportions.
Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice will explain how activists conspired to flip the Hippocratic Oath on its head. Meanwhile, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chase Strangio—a female who says she identifies as male—will argue that Tennessee’s law banning Frankensteinian medical experiments on kids violates federal law by discriminating on the basis of sex.
The Supreme Court is hearing the case because of this discrimination argument. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld Tennessee’s law, finding that it doesn’t entail discrimination. But the Biden-Harris administration appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court took up the case—now known as U.S. v. Skrmetti after Jonathan Skrmetti, the Republican attorney general of Tennessee.
I’ve studied this issue for the last few years, reading several books on the topic, scouring the Internet etc., and I’ve come up with only one physiological reason for why Gender Identity Activists insist thatGender is on a spectrum. And, counter-intuitively for most people, that Sex is ASSIGNED at birth, as opposed to recognized at birth. This leads a growing number of Activists to claim that Sex, too, is on a spectrum. Because, since sex is ‘assigned’ it is therefore a social construct that can be reconstructed, thus leading activists to claim you can change your sex. And even more radically some say there are more than two sexes. Yep. That’s what many are now saying. [See video in my next post.]
But before looking at the physiological reason, let’s look briefly at the philosophy and some real world consequences of what I’m going to call Gender Ideology.
***
Gender Ideologues have philosophical reasons for pushing Gender Identity and Expression as valid categories not only for civil rights protection but also because many of them seek a fundamental restructuring of society. That philosophy, with its desire to restructure society, is usually joined at the hip with a Critical Theory offshoot called Queer Theory (I should explore that theory in more detail at another time, but fair warning, by design, QT is an incomprehensible, convoluted mess.) For now let me briefly quote a satisfactory summary of QT from Wikipedia:
Queer theory and politics necessarily celebrate transgression in the form of visible difference from norms. These 'Norms' are then exposed to be norms, not natures or inevitabilities. Gender and sexual identities are seen, in much of this work, to be demonstrably defiant definitions and configurations.
Because this definition of queerness does not have a fixed reference point, Judith Butler has described the subject of queer theory as a site of ‘collective contestation’. She suggests that ‘queer’ as a term should never be ‘fully owned, but always and only redeployed, twisted, queered from a prior usage and in the direction of urgent and expanding political purposes’.
Fundamentally, queer theory does not construct or defend any particular identity, but instead, grounded in post-structuralism and deconstruction, it works to actively critique heteronormativity, exposing and breaking down traditional assumptions that sexual and gender identities are presumed to be heterosexual or cisgender. [emphasis mine]
Queerness in this sense is a very fluid way of assessing the world around us and interacting with it. Berkeley professor Judith Butler, QT’s most prominent theoretician, says, ‘Queerness’ ought to be characterized by “collective contestation.” This is all very much like other 20th Century Critical Theories, deriving as they do from a Marxist analysis of society and its ills. For example, Critical Race Theory like Queer Theory seeks to collectively overthrow “oppressive” narratives or discourses. In CRT racism is opposed. In Queer Theory that “oppressive” narrative is “heteronormativity.” (Remember Ms. Barnes?)
All this fluidity has as its goal the destabilization of cultural norms, especially Western Capitalist and Religious cultural norms.
If you’ve been following the recent social movements energized by the various Critical Theories, and after reading the Judith Butler quote above about “collective contestation,” you will understand why these various movements are so relentless to shutdown, shout down, and outright cancel, or “deplatform” any dissent. For many, fighting “oppression,” by any means necessary, is the animating dogma.
Previously relegated to feminist and gender studies departments of academia, QT has now “hit the big time.” In the Western world, QT is reforming cultural consciousness and shaping public policy.
Let me give just one example of the in-roads that Queer Theory has made in our popular culture by linking to the following 2016 CNN story “What It Means To Be Gender-fluid.”
CNN starts off the report by writing that gender identity and expression “can change every day or even every few hours,” and this fluidity “can be displayed in how we dress, express and describe ourselves.” Moreover, it added, “Everyone’s gender exists on a spectrum.”
Of course, as all of us recognize, “expression” is variable. But I want to highlight “identity” here. This view of humanity explicitly states that our subjective mental state is the overriding determining factor of identity. And this mental state, as mental states do, can change as often as our shifting moods or needs dictate. If adopted, this point of view renders any effort to form rational public policy hopelessly problematic.
***
Here’s one example of the practical consequence of aligning society with a movement that idealizes disembodiment.
Public safe spaces for biological women, spaces that were constructed so that men and women could work and recreate together outside the home will be threatened if today’s disembody movement proceeds unhindered. Those safe spaces were constructed with full recognition of the specific biological differences, privacy concerns, AND, most importantly, differences in vulnerability between men & women. If gender ideology wins the argument public spaces like sex-specific intimate facilities, such as restrooms, locker rooms, etc., could be entered by a biological male identifying as a female on Tuesday morning, and then by Tuesday afternoon that same male could revert back to a male identity and access the nearest male restroom “in an emergency.”
Under this logic, saying you are a ‘trans-woman,’ with the right to enter female spaces, is a totally unfalsifiable assertion.
Real world safety concerns and Law Enforcement problems proliferate under these “Gender-Identity-Based Access Policies” (GIBAPs). Kenneth Lanning, who for 20 years worked in the Behavioral Science Unit and the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime at the FBI Academy in Quantico, describes this real-world problem:
Law enforcement officers and prosecutors will be less likely to record, investigate, or charge indecent exposure or peeping offenses in a GIBAP environment, because there is no objective standard for determining whether someone born a male can lawfully be present in a women-only facility. It would be more difficult to prove lascivious intent when self-reported gender identity drives access rights, and easier to accuse law enforcement personnel of discrimination. This is made even more difficult when that self-reporting need not be corroborated in any way whatsoever.1Expert Declaration and Report of Kenneth V. Lanning, Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ Brief, Exhibit M, 18.
Sometimes it is alleged that people like myself, or detective Lanning, are guilty of falsely ascribing impure motives to those who have actually gone through the ‘transitioning’ process and truly identify as Transgender. The truth is we are more concerned about the non-transgendermale sex offenders who are “driving a truck” through this very real GIBAP loophole in public policy. The examples are multitude!
As every law enforcement official knows, public restrooms are crime attractors. Women and girls are especially at risk in a GIBAP world. You don’t need a PhD in Criminology to know this. Again, it is not necessarily the Transgender person committing crimes but the opportunistic male predator who will in a world with “Gender-Identity-Based Access Policies” (GIBAPs).
Establishing criminal intent will be much harder in a world where biological males can self-identify “at any time” with the opposite sex and legally enter the safe spaces of women and girls.
***
Here is another real world example. During an LGBTQ Presidential Forum in 2019 Joe Biden said the following:
"In prison, the determination should be that your sexual identity is defined by what you say it is, not what in fact the prison says it is."
Today, in the British prison system at least 1 in 50 male prisoners identifies as transgender. Because of a similar prison policy, like the one Biden supported, a convicted rapist and child molester in the United Kingdom was placed in a women’s prison and subsequently sexually assaulted four female inmates.
Is this totally subjective, gender fluid world, the world we want to live in?
***
Apart from a Queer Theory saturated worldview, I can find only one physiological reason for why Gender Identity Activists propagandize in this way and why they say “sex is assigned” at birth. And that reason has to do with DSD’s or Disorders of Sexual Development (A categorization that Activists want to relabel “Differences of Sexual Development”).
Let’s look at those for a few minutes.
Sometimes these disorders (I refuse to call them differences) result in the formation of two sets of sex organs, or an incomplete development of reproductive organs. They are sometimes caused by genetic mutations and at other times by chromosomal or hormonal defects.
But because we have people with ambiguous genitalia and chromosomal irregularities this is considered grounds for throwing the whole classification system up in the air and dispensing altogether with the male – female binary. As I just outlined above there are real world consequences to going down this path of eliminating the male – female sex binary as the overriding identifier of sex.
Unbelievably some prominent Medical Associations are playing along too. I think they have become politicized by radical Queer Theory Subjectivism. More about that in future posts.
***
***
I’m trying hard to be fair about this issue. So I don’t want to misrepresent Gender Ideologues. But in all my research I can find only one objective reason for why they say sex is assigned at birth. It’s the only reason why our grade school teachers were instructed to abandon the “biological sex” section of the Genderbread Person for the “sex assigned at birth” section of the Gender Unicorn. [See my post Our Schools and Gender Ideology.]
Gender Ideologues hang their hat on DSD’s which occur in 1 out of 5000 births.2This figure is found in Peter A. Lee et al., “Global Disorders of Sex Development Update since 2006: Perceptions, Approach and Care,” Hormone Research in Paediatrics 85 (2016): 159.
That’s it! That’s the only thing that grounds their ideology in anything remotely biological and scientifically objective. Everything else in their ideology is about the totally subjective lived experiences of the “disembodied”individual. Individual perception and desire are sacrosanct. Not to mention free floating. In other words nothing more grounded than “my truth and your truth.”
Again, I repeat what I said in my “What is Sex” post, since biological sex is grounded in an organism’s organization for reproduction, DSD’s are not mere differences, but disorders.
Here are some Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD’s).
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) The most common DSD occurring in 1 out of 14,000 births is a recessive disorder caused by two parents who carry a faulty (mutated) gene which prevents the normal production of cortisol thus altering the development of primary and secondary sex characteristics of their child. This often leads to the virilization or masculinization of the female external genitalia producing obvious genital ambiguity. Internally these people develop and function as women.
Klinefelter syndrome: Instead of 46 chromosomes, someone with this syndrome has 47. They develop as males but with abnormal body proportions and enlarged breasts, infertility is common.
Turner syndrome: People with 45 chromosomes. Instead of having XX or XY they have only X chromosomes. They develop as infertile women because two X chromosomes are necessary for the normal development of ovaries. Causes numerous health and development problems, including but not limited to short stature, lymphedema, infertility, webbed neck, coarctation of the aorta, ADHD, amenorrhoea, and obesity.
Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome: “People with androgen insensitivity syndrome develop as normal-appearing but sterile women, lacking a uterus and oviducts and having internal testes in the abdomen.”
According to an article by Bonnie McCann-Crosby and V. Reid Sutton, “Disorders of Sexual Development,” in the journal Clinics in Perinatology 42 (June 2015): 403, a severe genetic mutation results in the testes never forming and therefore the body never masculinizes because of testosterone deficiency. These individuals develop as females who are infertile (because they lack a second X chromosome).
Ovotesticular disorder (also called true hermaphroditism) – A condition where an individual has both testicular and ovary tissue.
Mosaicism: People who develop from a single fertilized egg but because of a genetic mutation have a patchwork of genetically different cells. In other words two different sets of DNA, with some of the body’s cells being XX or a single X and some being XY. Klinefelter syndrome already mentioned is one kind of Mosaicism.
Chimera: When two different embryos combine early in a pregnancy. Again, some cells are XX and some cells have XY chromosomes. Fewer than 100 cases documented worldwide.
***
Okay, after having waded through that, what should we conclude? These are disorders. Not differences. My brother was born with a cardio-vascular disorder which is why he died at the age of 21. His cardio-vascular system was incapable of working as designed and gave out way before the normal “expiration date.” Disorders of Sexual Development in almost all cases result in a short-circuiting of our reproductive system. It is a disorder. We should stop using DSD’s as an excuse for saying the male-female binary is obsolete.
Finally, and here is where the “assigned at birth” label gets attached, in the past when doctors were confronted with an infant having one of these disorders they had to make a careful judgment as to which sex the child was most likely to be comfortable with as the child matured. Sometimes in the past, but not so much today, actual surgical intervention occurred to assist the infants future development. Occasionally the doctor would “assign” either a male or female path forward, depending on the doctor’s professional judgement. Birth certificate sex was therefore “assigned” in these exceptionally rare cases.
This is why Gender Activists use their “assigned at birth” social construction language, providing some of the rationale for their ideology. (Apart from their philosophical rationale of course.)
Does that sound rational to you? Throwing out the male – female binary because a relatively low number of humans have one of these disorders, which occasionally necessitates a sex “assignment” by a medical professional, is not reasonable to me. Does that non-binary world sound reasonable to you?
It does if you want to fundamentally restructure society by tossing out all sexual norms, norms born out of biology and religious Truth.
Now of course most people are not agenda driven in this way. They just want to be considerate of “difference.” That’s completely understandable and loving. And we can still do that. We can still love people and embrace those with these disorders without buying into the radical social agenda being pushed on their behalf. And we can love people who are genuinely confused, who think it is possible and advisable to reject their biological sex.
***
If you haven’t already added your email to my list, do so and I’ll let you know when the blog is updated.
