Category: Gender Ideology

Posted on

More Than Two Sexes?

The video below is well done and the “Sex is a Spectrum” advocate does a great job packing in a lot of important information in just 13 minutes. Although I strongly disagree with his belief that there are more than two sexes, this video is a good primer on current beliefs about Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD’s) which have been misrepresented in the video as “Differences of Sexual Development.”

So as you watch:

Note how many times the words or word groups mutation, syndrome, congenital condition, anomaly, disabilities, sterile, incomplete, ambiguous, recessive, health conditions, and even the dreaded word disorder are mentioned.

I counted over 15.

Also after reading my last post, DSD’s and Sex “Assignment” you should be ready to answer correctly this question: Do these DSD’s sound more like a difference or a disorder? If your answer is disorder, then you know there are only two sexes.

There Are More Than Two Sexes?

MOST IMPORTANT QUOTES:

“Biologists today are saying sex is a spectrum.” (0:35). There are plenty of prominent biologists and other medical professionals who dispute this. I mentioned two in my post, What is Sex?

“…biological features don’t always agree with each other.” (1:27). He’s talking about chromosomes, gonads, hormones & genitals which most would say should agree or you have a disorder.

“It’s estimated that nearly 2% of live births are born with congenital conditions of Atypical Sex Development.” (1:42) Based on everything I’ve read the 2% number used here is extremely high. Nothing I’ve read comes close to 2 percent. Based on my research the actual number is 1 in 5000 births.1This 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. Not sure where they get this 2 percent number. Unless their definition of “atypical” is an expansive definition not used by most medical professionals and scientists.

“That basically means that something in their chromosomes, hormones, gonads, or genitals is different from what many people expect of a “boy” or a “girl.” (1:52). So these are differences, not disorders. Notice how “boy” and “girl” are in quotes.

“This used to be known as being intersex, but these days, it’s better described as having Differences of Sexual Development, or DSD’s.” (2:01). Most health professionals and scientists still call them “Disorders of Sexual Development.”

“There’s a lot of variation within what we call male or female, and there’s a lot of overlap that’s normal too. Anatomically, someone might look…female on the outside but not have ovaries or a uterus, or have tissue from both overies and testes.” (3:24) How anyone can seriously call this variation or overlap “normal” is part of the problem we face. Because of a well-meaning desire not to stigmatize and also, it must be said, a desire to propagandize an ideology, we are expected to believe these are mere differences, and not disorders.

“Minor Learning Disorders” (4:35). The first and only occurrence of the word “disorders.” Interestingly this disorder has to do with learning. Or the lack, thereof. Hint, hint, for those who haven’t learned the “new” science of sex and gender.

“Did I learn nothing but lies in High School?” (5:29) The way he says this is funny. But he makes a serious mistake in again suggesting that DSD’s like Mosaicism and Chimaerism are just “different” developments. For example, a Genetic Chimera occurs when two different embryos combine early in a pregnancy. Some cells are XX and some cells have XY chromosomes. Fewer than 100 cases documented worldwide. No, you were not lied to in High School. You were told the truth about normal human bodies. Which the advocate tacitly admits in the next quote.

“Depending on the distribution of those cells, mosaicism and chimaeras can result in ambiguous sexual characteristics or both male and female reproductive body parts. (5:54). Nothing normal about that!

From this point forward the words “mutation” and “syndrome” occur frequently. Notice the many times a so-called “difference” in development is mentioned. The advocate is “spinning” the story here to fit his narrative, but by now you should understand these as disorders.

***

People born with Disorders of Sexual Development often develop gender-dysphoria. Gender Dysphoria — formerly known as “Gender Identity Disorder” is characterized by a severe and persistent discomfort in one’s biological sex. They need our loving support which also means telling them the truth about their disorder.

On the other hand, the vast majority of young people today who are convinced they have gender-dysphoria do not in fact have it. Classic gender-dysphoria presents early in life, ages 2-4, and until the recent explosion among teenage girls, was almost exclusively experienced by young boys. Today most of those who say they are gender-dysphoric don’t have any DSD’s, for example. Their discomfort is purely psycho-social in nature but they remain convinced they were born in the wrong body. We can blame the Gender Ideology taught in our schools, coupled with “affirming” therapy that largely disregards other co-morbidities like anxiety, autism, depression, and in far too many cases, trauma caused by sexual-abuse. We can also blame the social contagion phenomena spread via social media for the confusion, especially among our girls.

The Irreversible Damage being done to their bodies is heartbreaking.

Is this the world we want to live in?

***

Posted on

Euthanasia and the Idol of Autonomy: What Does It Mean to Die Well?

As Christians, we often grapple with the question of why a good and loving God allows evil and suffering—a question known as the problem of evil. Orthodox Christianity offers a profound response rooted in God’s nature and His purposes for creation. At the heart of this answer lies freedom. God created humanity with free will, allowing us to choose between good and evil because love, in its truest form, cannot be coerced. He desires our love and relationship, not the programmed affection of robots. But God did not leave us alone in our brokenness. In His infinite love, He entered into our suffering through Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, who took on flesh, endured the cross, and defeated death for us. This sacrificial love assures us that God is not indifferent to our pain—He redeems it for His glory and our good.

As Christians, we recognize that death is a profound part of life—a moment of both physical frailty and spiritual significance. Leah Libresco Sargeant’s thoughtful article on euthanasia, An Idol of Autonomy—How the push for medical aid in dying distorts our understanding of life, raises an important question: What does it mean to die well in a culture obsessed with autonomy?

The Allure—and Danger—of Autonomy

At the heart of the euthanasia debate lies our culture’s idolization of autonomy. Independence, self-sufficiency, and control over our own bodies are treated as sacred. For many, the desire for “death with dignity” is rooted in a fear of becoming dependent or burdensome. But as Sargeant points out, this framing is deeply flawed. It not only misunderstands the human person but also risks turning our most vulnerable moments into opportunities for abandonment rather than care.

The reality is that autonomy has always been an illusion. From our first moments as helpless infants to our final days, dependence is a fundamental part of life. Our need for others isn’t a failure—it’s part of God’s design.

The Slippery Slope of Euthanasia

Sargeant’s shift on euthanasia began after reading a chilling account of Belgium’s increasingly permissive euthanasia laws. What started as a narrow allowance for terminally ill patients in extreme pain expanded to include children and individuals with non-terminal conditions like depression. Canada’s experience has been similarly troubling, with euthanasia becoming so common that one in 20 deaths in 2022 was medically assisted.

This slippery slope isn’t surprising. Once the state decides that some lives are not worth living, the boundaries inevitably blur. Vulnerable populations—children, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor—are disproportionately affected. What begins as a choice becomes a subtle pressure, as people are made to feel that their dependence is a burden, their existence a problem to solve.

A Christian Understanding of Life and Death

The Christian view of life offers a radically different perspective. We are not our own; we are created beings, fearfully and wonderfully made. Our value is not tied to our productivity, independence, or strength. Instead, it is intrinsic, rooted in the image of God within us.

Sargeant highlights how this truth is often forgotten in modern euthanasia debates. Advocates focus on avoiding pain, but in practice, the driving forces are often fear, shame, and a misunderstanding of what it means to live with dignity. True dignity isn’t found in autonomy—it’s found in love, dependence, and trust. Jesus Himself modeled this perfectly, submitting to death on the cross and relying entirely on the Father’s will.

Caring for the Weak

So, how do we resist the tide of euthanasia? First, we care for the weak. We honor the elderly, support the disabled, and comfort the dying, reminding them that their lives are precious. We invest in palliative care that alleviates physical pain and provides spiritual and emotional support.

Second, we tell the truth about what it means to be human. Dependence is not shameful—it’s natural and even beautiful. It reminds us of our shared need for God and one another. In our vulnerability, we find opportunities for love and grace that reflect the very heart of the Gospel.

Final Thoughts

Euthanasia may promise control and dignity, but it ultimately offers despair. As Christians, we are called to a higher vision of life and death, one that celebrates the sacredness of every moment and every person. Instead of making an idol of autonomy, let’s reclaim the beauty of dependence and the hope of eternity. By doing so, we honor God’s Good Creation, even in its most fragile forms.

[Source: The Dispatch]

+++

Choose Life

Posted on

Grooming Future Revolutionaries: A Closer Look at Indoctrination in Military Base Schools

[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.

[Source: Grooming Future Revolutionaries published by The Claremont Institute Center for the American Way of Life.]

+++