Gender Mainstreaming

It isn’t the gender identity that we have invisibly between our ears that is going to cause us any issues. It is how we express that gender identity that will get reactions from people. – Amanda Ryan, Gender Mosaic, Ottawa

To really understand why I would want to carry a baby, you kind of have to, unfortunately, dismantle some of the stories that have been told about what it means to actually be trans. – Trystan Reese, a biological (and pregnant) woman who identifies as a gay man

The man, who was born a woman and is identified only as TT, became pregnant [via sperm donation] and has taken his case to the High Court to be registered as the “father” on the child’s birth certificate. - The Telegraph

I'm a man, 100 per cent. Legally, I'm a woman. I did it for cheaper car insurance.

To escape the delusion of having become a woman, I did something completely unprecedented in American history. In 2016, I convinced an Oregon judge to declare my sex to be nonbinary—neither male nor female. – Jamie Shupe

I married myself, and it was truly empowering. – Melissa Denton

No public sphere remains, once we have left the body behind and invested everything in the privacy of our minds. –  Douglas Farrow, Cracking the Gender Code 


A perverse man, who claims to be a woman, harasses actual women through the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, and the Canadian press, with one or two notable exceptions, is silent about it. Well done, Canada.  And B.C. wins this year's Gender Mainstreaming prize.


'Unfettered rights talk can take just about any human desire and transform it into a moral claim' - even waxing rights.


Gender mainstreaming, and its gospel of self-creation: today's faddish folly, tomorrow's crime against humanity. 'In the U.K., where one can legally self-declare a gender identity, there has been a 2,000 percent increase in the number of children seeking medical treatment due to gender identity over the last seven years. YouTube videos featuring kids transitioning via hormone injections get millions of views. And public schools with “gender inclusion” policies have become trans greenhouses, with one mother noting that 5 percent of the student body at her child’s school identified as trans, including her own daughter. When law and policy prop up the concept of gender identity, transgender identification follows.'


U.K. doctor fired for refusing to use pronouns that contradict chromosomes. 

Amazon banning books that contradict LGBTQ ideology? If so, where does that stop?


Catching autistic children in the transgender net? Testosterone and double mastectomies for fourteen-year olds? If this isn't child abuse, what is? Apparently, our society must now decide whether mutilation of minds and bodies is child abuse, or whether believing that boys are boys and girls are girls is child abuse. 


In BC, the Supreme Court has decided for us. Pursuant to a case heard by Justice Bowden, Justice Marzari has ordered that a father be arrested if he so much as refers to his daughter as a daughter, now that the daughter in question has claimed (with help, apparently, from her school) to be a son: PDF icon Protection Order. According to the court, "attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing AB by his birth name; referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to him directly or to third parties; shall be considered to be family violence under s. 38 of the Family Law Act."

While it is always perilous to judge at a distance who is being violent to whom, and how exactly, it should be noted that the father is not attempting to persuade his daughter to abandon any kind of treatment but to abandon life-altering hormonal treatments. But if it is family violence to contest a family member's chosen identity, and if one may be prohibited from speaking even to third parties about the matter, as the father now is, then the court is clearly engaged in an act of Gender Mainstreaming. That is, it is determining for all of us that we do harm to one another when we refuse to accept the SOGI idea that bodies don't matter, that identity is just between the ears. This is to make of the court itself an instrument of violence against the family, and against society as such. 


How to stop the developing legal-educational-medical combine that, under GM guidance, is acting in this violent fashion – that is the question many are asking. It is an increasingly urgent one, made more urgent by America's proposed Equality Act


Further from Jamie Shupe:  "Trauma, hypersexuality owing to childhood sexual abuse, and autogynephilia are all supposed to be red flags for those involved in the medical arts of psychology, psychiatry, and physical medicine—yet nobody except for the one therapist in Pittsburgh ever tried to stop me from changing my sex. They just kept helping me to harm myself." [He who has ears to hear, let him hear: some day those who help people to harm themselves will be held accountable.] "I didn’t like being named after the uncle who’d molested me. Instead of getting me therapy for that, they got me a new name... It wasn’t until I came out against the sterilization and mutilation of gender-confused children and transgender military service members in 2017 that LGBT organizations stopped helping me." It seems the New York Times lost interest as well...


Oxford professor accuses NHS transgender clinic of covering up negative effects of puberty blockers.

Investigations begin. When will the lawsuits begin?


A new study blows up old ideas (actually, quite new ideas) about boys and girls. 

The Pornification of Sex-Ed


Just how far will we go in obscuring the root causes of gender dysphoria and, for that matter, same-sex attraction? Or in substituting medical procedures for practical therapeutic wisdom? A very long way, it seems. Here's more transgender totalitarianism in Britain: a mother arrested in front of her children and carted off to jail for not toeing the transgender line on Twitter. A lad kicked out of class in Scotland for denying that there are more than two sexes or genders...

Since gender ideology is divorced from the scientific search for truth in biology, medicine, neural science, and psychology, it must turn to the manipulation of public consciousness and to totalitarian enforcement through the legal system, along with campaigns aimed at the ruin of the social and material existence of individuals. We see this happening through the legal restriction of free speech, the curtailment of religious freedom of Christians, and the obligatory sexualisation of children through the state. – Gabriele Kuby


Parents in California fight back. So do Muslim parents in Birmingham, who object to being made outsiders by the No Outsiders sex ed program.

Ottawa mother takes school to court for traumatizing six-year-old by telling her there are no boys or girls. 

'Screwtape' on Losing Our Identity

Jewish voices "disturbed by the prevalent atmosphere of suppressing any voice expressing loyalty to tradition."

Vatican Congregation issues new document on Gender ideology: PDF icon congregation_education_gender.pdf 

Proposal (not the Vatican's):  Why not expand Pride Month to include all seven deadly sins?  Wouldn't that be more inclusive? 


Trans is not the goal?

In 1970, Marxist-feminist Shulamith Firestone wrote that“[t]he end goal of feminist revolution must be…not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself.” Then “the tyranny of the biological family would be broken,” “unobstructed pansexuality” would replace heterosexuality, and “all forms of sexuality would be allowed and indulged.” Firestone argued that “[u]nless revolution uproots the basic social organization, the biological family…the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated.”

No, actually, it's not. "Talk about gender identity is intended to break down the male/female binary as an objective referent for law and public policy," because binaries interfere with autonomy. See The Right to be Yourself? Gender Identity as the Baptism of Autonomy. If my public persona is entirely under my control, and if I can die to my old self and rise to my new self any time I choose and in whatever manner I choose, and if indeed I am not to be burdened by my old “dead” name, as the Dean of Law says, in what sense is my persona public? What, for that matter, happens to the rule of law? If Dave becomes Renée, can Renée leave Dave’s crimes behind as well as Dave’s name? That is worth pondering, as Carl Trueman has pointed out. It is one thing to ask whether the star of the McGill Redmen can become the star of the McGill Martlets, another thing to ask whether Dave the rapist can return as Renée the ravishing.


Surprise, surprise – in Ireland a court is considering just the sort of dilemma identified above:

Due to the sensitive nature of the case the court asked that the defendant not be named publicly. The person had changed their named by deed poll in June of 2016 and had obtained a gender recognition certificate.

Superintendant Joe McKenna said the State would argue that this was one and the same person... The defence's case is that that person no longer exists and therefore the prosecution should not and could not proceed as it would be a violation of the rights of the defendant under the Gender Recognition Act.


Meanwhile, in the U.K. courts are being asked to ponder whether "deadnaming" is actionable. And speaking of rapists: "The prison service has apologised after a transgender inmate, charged with raping a woman, sexually assaulted four fellow inmates just days after being remanded into an all female jail." Odd what happens when how someone self-identifies trumps reality even in the penal system.


Then there's this, which was put to a Dutch court:

“Nowadays, in Europe and in the United States, we are free people,” he said in an interview with The Washington Post. “We can make our own decisions if we want to change our name, or if we want to change our gender. So I want to change my age. My feeling about my body and about my mind is that I’m about 40 or 45.”


An example of the way in which GM corrodes, not only the public sphere, but the stuff of the university itself: If, as per this draft policy document under consideration at the University of Minnesota, gender identity “cannot be observed,” then “the only way a person can know an individual’s gender identity is when they tell you.” So what is "public" is merely what the individual specifies to be the case, irrespective of documentation or corroboration. Indeed, once-public documentation that might refute rather than corroborate now becomes private and inaccessible, while members of the university are required to conform their speech (names, pronouns, etc.) to the stated claims and requirements of the individual. They can be harassed or even terminated for not doing so. 

Freedom of speech thus disappears in the academy, together with the idea that the truth or falsity of this or that claim is something that ought to be known through critical research and analysis open to public disputation. Despite its mission to support critical thinking, and academic freedom for the sake of critical thinking, the university actually becomes the purveyor and enforcer of an ideology fundamentally opposed to critical thinking. This happens as weak-minded administrators, anxious to appear committed to equality and equity without any real grasp of the ontological or epistemological frameworks in which equality is a meaningful moral concept, staff and fund programs devoted to this ideology, as many Sexual Diversity Studies curricula and Equity and Diversity offices now are. 


Research also disappears, if it doesn't fit the story-line.  Brown University removed the link to a study on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria which suggested that peer pressure and social media just might have something to do with it.


Over at Concordia, "Liberal Arts College Principal Mark Russell said Thursday that 'a diversity of voices' among the college's alumni spurred the decision to cancel the keynote speech" of Harvard's Prof. Harvey Mansfield, who was to speak on Great Books at the College's 40th Anniversary gala (now postponed). Nice turn of phrase, "a diversity of voices"! What it really means is "the voices of Diversity," and the voices of Diversity show no compunction about shouting down or shutting down anyone who dares diverge. Prof. Mansfield responds in the Wall Street Journal."We don't see ourselves as social engineers." Just reflecting social change, don't you know? But comedy will be no defence: Brits ban gender stereotyping in advertisements. What will they ban next? Since they mean male/female stereotyping, a few things leap to mind...


Look no further for evidence that McGill itself is being corrupted by GM, in just the same way, than its current Employment Equity Workplace Survey, which purports to be required by law though it is shaped not by law but by GM ideology. The first question (after "I don't want to complete this survey") is "Do you self-identify as a woman?"  This question already tells you everything you need to know.  It's self-identity or no identity at all. For university purposes, we're all "Theybies" now. Time to disband whatever unit studies anatomy and other such superstitious relics of the past. Oh yes, and women's sports teams.

McGill also asks potential research students throughout the university whether their proposed research takes into account “sex (biological) considerations” and/or “gender (socio-cultural) considerations.” What an odd question – a question that begs the question as to why it is asked at all, never mind asked of everyone.


And what does proper research actually show? This, for example:

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.


For an in-depth analysis of the issues raised by Gender Mainstreaming and the far-reaching implications of transgender ideology, take time to view The Politicization of Gender: Disfiguring Western Culture, the original version of which (at McGill's Newman Centre) was disrupted by protesters. No disruptions here!


Notes and commentary on the advance of Gender Mainstreaming in Canada


With the Prime Minister receiving a prize highlighting his "unparalleled commitment ... to demystify the realities of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals for the general public across Quebec and Canada,” and with the announcement of his government's intentions to change the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act on matters related to "gender identity," another religion and public policy issue recently emerged onto centre stage in Canada. Mr Trudeau's government moved swiftly, as it did on euthanasia. (Quebec, as usual, was a step ahead, however, and determined not merely to "demystify" but to declare war.) Demystification meant brushing aside any concerns about the philosophical, psychological, or even legal questions raised by the legislation that was tabled. Just get it done. And it was done. On 15 June 2017, Bill C-16 cleared the Senate. The Attorney General tweeted triumphantly: “Proud that Bill C-16 has passed in the Senate. All Canadians should feel #FreeToBeMe.” 

The Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould is more right than she knows. By the letter of this law I can decide to be a woman rather than a man; by the logic of this law I could decide to be Wilson-Raybould. I am already, in a manner of speaking, Attorney General, and so are you. We are each of us in charge of law and order now, for the very idea of law and order has been made to reside in the inner recesses of our own (incontrovertible!) individuality, to what "we have invisibly between our ears." 

Yes, that's a recipe for chaos, for the unraveling of law.  But, arguably, it belongs to a program of legal revision and social change to which a few people, at least, have given a great deal of forethought, a program laid out, for example, in EGALE's white paper on the just society. This is the program behind the program, some say, and its leading idea is that we ought to regard as grossly indecent anything that reinforces the idea of gross indecency. Viewed from that angle, the "gender identity and expression" bandwagon appears as a vehicle of convenience for advancing a much larger and quite different agenda. If there's anything to that, there's a good bit more "demystification" to come.

In the House, no attempt was made to look at the bigger picture. The vast majority of members simply assumed, with the Prime Minister, that they were advancing along the inevitable arc of history. C-16 cleared second reading with only 40 dissenting votes and sailed through committee without amendment, before passing third reading on an unrecorded vote. It went on to the Senate without public hearings, which would have been embarrassing since hardly anyone had got even as far as sorting out terms and definitions, much less begun to think, say, about what delivering a speech or reading Hansard or writing constitutents might be like under a kaleidoscopic pronoun regime. Meanwhile, the OHRC mandarins were already pontificating about supposed linguistic obligations in the public sector that they themselves had fabricated without regard for the law or the constitution, while the Ontario legislature was churning out five GM-driven bills in as many years. So C-16 doubtless seemed to many just a bit of catching up that didn't require serious attention.


The new legislation, we have been told, is "about ensuring that all people — regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity — feel safe and secure, and empowered to freely express themselves... Far too many people still face harassment, discrimination and violence for being who they are." Now "being who they are" generally means, in this context, a claim to being what they biologically are not, which some consider nonsense. But how "empowered" will these latter, dissenting folk feel to express themselves freely? What sort of pressure will be brought to bear on them to keep their views to themselves and to pay linguistic obeisance to the new ideology by, for example, supplying pronouns on demand? C-16 doesn't rule anything in or anything out.

Worried about that, Senator Plett proposed an amendment: “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act requires the use of a particular word or expression that corresponds to the gender identity or expression of any person." His amendment failed, however, underlining concerns that the new legislation will be used both to suppress free speech and actually to compel certain approved forms of speech. That would bring the Criminal Code into conflict with the Charter, and honest citizens into conflict with the law. We shall see. We shall see also how C-16 interacts with other legislation, such as Ontario's Bill 89, for example, which contains provisions that appear to threaten parental rights and freedoms in the matter of care for children with gender dysphoria. Doubtless we won't wait long to see C-16 being used institutionally to justify constraints on speech and various exercises in re-labeling, not to mention hiring and budgeting, etc. We won't wait long either to see it tested in court. 


In any event, there is more to the new-style Gender Mainstreaming than making people feel safe and secure in their so-called gender identity. There is an entire program in sexual re-education. Take this, for example: PDF icon who_2.pdf. Is this where we want to go? If so, we will find ourselves mired, sooner or later, in a culture of systemic child abuse that will dwarf anything experienced in the past.

It's perfectly normal?  No, it's not. Nor does it mean to be; that's the point. "The new 'normal' is that there is no normal."  

Patients are concerned. Pediatricians are also concerned. So are parents.  Surgeons, too, especially when they are begged to help people de-transition, which is easier said than done.

Some are beginning to think we are already half-way to systemic abuse under the new "cult of Transgender." Making schools "safer" doesn't just mean eliminating a certain kind of bullying, if we can; it means open doors for promotion of sexual perversion to young children and susceptible adolescents. Anti-bullying campaigns have been married to "safe sex" campaigns, and safe-sex campaigns into fronts for advertising anything-but-safe-sex. But don't think of advertising that, not before children's bedtime. Why not? Because the same material taught to them in schools, without parental knowledge or consent, is deemed unfit for public consumption by the advertising standands people. And so it is.

Pope Francis warns against an insidious "ideological colonization," particularly among the indigenous peoples of the developing world. Gabriele Kuby, who does not share Judith Butler's view that biological sex is a "normative fancy" imposed by "a regime of heterosexual hegemony," recounts the history of a global revolution that aims at a hegemonic regime of its own. 


Is the Kenneth Zucker controversy an example of that? We do seem to be dealing with a movement whose trajectory is from tolerance to totalitarianism.

We’re not far from the day when a child will be taken from a loving home simply because the parents refuse to believe that their little girl is actually a little boy. We’re already living in the days when telling your girl child that she shouldn’t undergo treatments that will render her infertile and painfully mutilated is deemed to be intolerant. – David French, The Tragic Transgender Contagion

Please, leave the kids alone. - Margaret Wente, Why are some gender activists denying science?


Here's how C-16 modifies the current list of prohibited grounds of discrimination: "identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability." 

We started down this path when we added sexual orientation, giving that term the meaning not merely "same-sex attraction" but behaviour based on that attraction.  Nevertheless, it was argued at that point that biology is destiny, and that sexual orientation is somehow akin to race. It isn't, in fact, and we're now admitting that by adding the underlined expression, for which the mantra is "Biology is not destiny."

Bill C-16, like its predecessor C-389 and look-alike bills elsewhere, effectively endorses Andrej (now Andreja) Pejič's thesis that “to be perceived as what you say you are is a basic human right.”  In that way it is an anti-body bill, which leaves the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act internally conflicted; for colour, race, age, sex, etc. are biologically determined, whereas "gender identity or expression" is a repudiation of biology. What we have here is a new Gnosticism.  (Is that 'gnosis' tattooed on Reese's belly?) This Gnosticism puts the very idea of rights in doubt, as I have pointed out elsewhere. See, for example, this commentary on Britain's proposed Gender Identity (Protected Characteristic) Bill 2016-2017PDF icon uk_gender_identity_bill.pdf


Rather than viewing the [recent legal] innovations as affirmations of gender, then, the perspicacious perspective is to see them as rejections of sex, and therefore the body—and therefore any objective reference point for human identity. By extension, we can say a claimed legal re-invention of human identity will have innumerable implications for the state’s attitude towards human behaviour. The notion of 'gender expression' is already waiting in the wings at the theatre of the absurd. – Daniel Moody, Bodiless: The Sexless Revolution Accelerates


Perhaps the leading opponent in Canada of Gender Mainstreaming is a clinical psychologist and professor (with a McGill PhD) at the University of Toronto, Jordan Peterson. Prof. Peterson, as everyone knows, has spoken out repeatedly and at length.  While he has many defenders, he also has some very noisy enemies. Some time ago he was told by university officials that he must not address the subject any more, and that he must conform his classroom language to the gender-identity agenda. He refused, and has continued to expend enormous energy exposing the ideology underlying that agenda. It would have been so much simpler (if cowardly) just to knuckle under and memorize a chart like this:  

Figure 4 Pronoun Reference Sheet

She Her Her Hers Herself

He Him His His Himself

They Them Their Theirs Themselves

Ze Zir Zir Zirs Zirself

Xe Xem Xyr Xyrself Xemself

Ze Hir Hir Hirs Hirself

Per Per Per Pers Perself

WWW.SU.UALBERTA.CA/SERVICES/THELANDING/LEARN/PRONOUNS

Actually putting this to use, of course, while trying to make sense of it, would require unlearning the psychology Prof. Peterson has studied and developed, which would have to be replaced by an entirely new and different, far less coherent one. It would also require abandoning the idea that universities exist as homes for vigorous debate about competing psychologies and philosphies, etc., and replacing that with the idea that universities are merely places for disseminating propaganda. Is it not interesting that in an era in which universities are more and more reluctant to invest in teaching real languages to students, they are more and more willing to demand that people master this freely invented stuff?

Here, by the way, is the handy reprogramming tool kit from which the above is drawn.  If you want the full monty, or perhaps a game of monte (though there are more than 45), or if you are looking for material for a new Monty Python sketch, try this fuller (highly amusing) list of genders and this equally inventive list of pronouns. Here is a saner linguistic note


Terminology for the perplexed

Sex:  what your body (governed by its chromosomes) is and determines you to be; that is, either male or female.

Gender: traditionally, either (1) your sex or (2) your sex considered in its typical social roles; lately, (3) your chosen gender identity as opposed to your sex – that is, what you decide you are, independently of your body, as if you somehow are not your body or your body is not you.

NB: No definition of gender (meaning 3), can be offered that is not strictly circular and vacuous, with 'gender' referencing 'identity' and vice versa, as, for example, in the OHRC definition:  "Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender. It is a person’s sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. A person’s gender identity may be the same as or different from their birth-assigned sex." The reason for that is that there really is no such thing as gender (meaning 3).     

Gender Dysphoria: a sense of confusion or unease with one’s sex, or feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex.

Cisgender person: someone comfortable with their sex; that is, with their body.

Transgender person: someone not comfortable with their sex and seeking a different identity than the one provided by their body.

Gender expression: the way someone acts in order to establish or display their chosen gender identity.

Gender Mainstreaming: a coordinated strategy to see that gender ideology, whether feminist or trans, is incorporated into law and public policy.

NB: The biological binary, male and female, was de-emphasized in certain spheres of discourse in favour of the cultural binary, heterosexual and homosexual. The latter has lately been partnered by a new ideological binary, cisgender and transgender. The first in each of these binaries is regarded in GM circles as suspect.  GM is a program for removing real or perceived domination of males (patriarchalism), heterosexuals (heteronormativity), and people who accept their bodily identity (cisnormativity).

Conversion Therapy: not what GM people do to make converts among children, and then to violate and mutilate their bodies, but what parents and other people do to protect children from the GM cult; hence something to be banned. (Would the real 'conversion therapy' please stand up?)


With the above, compare what Senator Grant Mitchell had to say, when introducing C-16 for second reading:

Before explaining the bill, I need to define what is meant by a few key terms. The term "gender identity" refers to an individual's internal and personal experience of gender – their sense of being a man or woman, both, or neither. For most people, the sense of self as being a man or woman aligns with their anatomical and biological characteristics. For others, it does not. These people are referred to as transgender or trans people. "Gender expression" refers to how people publicly present their gender, through behaviour and outward appearance such as clothing, hair, body language and chosen name. "Gender identity" refers to who a person is in their very soul. "Gender expression" refers to how each person publicly presents their gender identity. A transgender person simply knows they are of a gender different from the one assigned to them at birth, the one indicated by the physical and physiological features of their body. They cannot live honestly or comfortably in their birth-assigned gender, where they are literally and profoundly uncomfortable in their own skins. If they can overcome their fear, they transition to their true gender identity. To do otherwise is to live in a continuous, often agonizing, confounding and alienating condition. In some sense, it is to live a lie. No one should ever have to do that.

Note especially the proffered definition of gender identity, which refers to whomever or whatever one "simply knows" oneself to be in one's very soul, considered without immediate reference to one's body. This normalization of gender dysphoria, just like the Gnosticism of old, works out its anti-body logic by spinning salvific myths, as you will discover if you read the rest of the remarks on C-16, attending closely to the story-telling that now substitutes for rational debate in both houses.

Note, too, that the doctrine of gender fluidity entails that no one is purely male or female; rather everyone exists somewhere on the spectrum in between. This makes maleness and femaleness (unrealizable) ideals. Yet it is the very antithesis of the gender fluidity and gender identity doctrines to say that people should aim at approximating one or the other of these ideals. The aim is to move people away from them into a murky (unisex) middle. Which is why story-telling must replace logical reasoning and rational debate. 


To state what ought to be apparent to all, the stubborn facticity of sexual difference ensures that transgenderism is fated to forever carry on its back the sapping weight of contradiction. Consider: if John can become legally ‘female’ by filling in a form then the validity of his legal status is derived entirely from that form. But what does this mean for Tom, who only last year had the obviousness of his sex surgically smoothed down in an attempt to make his body fit his mind? Since John has undergone no such procedure is Tom ‘more female’ than John? No! They are legal equals. John can have his cake and eat it. Any surgical interference he might undergo in the future will be deemed elective, as per the Yogyarkarta Principles, the sacred text of the haters of sex. Meanwhile, Tom ceases to be legally female because of surgery and is outed as legally female despite surgery.  – Daniel Moody, "Bodiless: The Sexless Revolution Accelerates"


Just how ambitious is gender mainstreaming? Take a close look at the Yogyakarta Principles.  Here's how it looks in practice. And here's a convenient diagram: PDF icon genderbread.pdf


Apparently genderbread is being fed to Canada's Armed Forces as the food of champions against heteronormism. Is this to be our New Model Army? It certainly smacks of a new, if inverted, Puritanism. 

However you look at it, the genderbread ruse is no mere game. It's a full-scale Kulturkampf, with persons and institutions as its casualties, as I argue in The Politicization of Gender: Disfiguring Western Culture. In the same place I try to show how genderbread is not the right prescription for those who suffer gender dysphoria, and to offer an alternative.  – DBF


More Links and Commentary


"Why was the triumph of same-sex marriage followed so rapidly by the opening of a new regulatory and juridical frontier, the recognition of transgender identity?" Harvard's Adrian Vermeule, in review of Legutko's The Demon in Democracy, provides an interesting answer.


Are supporters of C-16 able to give a clear account of "gender identity"?  Is anyone able?  And what has science to tell us about all this? As of yet, not very much apparently, particularly if we're hoping for something that will pin down "that gender identity that we have between our ears".  Download the Mayer-McHugh study from The New Atlantis:

In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex. The findings that do exist often have sample-selection problems, and they lack longitudinal perspective and explanatory power. Better research is needed, both to identify ways by which we can help to lower the rates of poor mental health outcomes and to make possible more informed discussion about some of the nuances present in this field.

Yet despite the scientific uncertainty, drastic interventions are prescribed and delivered to patients identifying, or identified, as transgender. This is especially troubling when the patients receiving these interventions are children. We read popular reports about plans for medical and surgical interventions for many prepubescent children, some as young as six, and other therapeutic approaches undertaken for children as young as two. We suggest that no one can determine the gender identity of a two-year-old. We have reservations about how well scientists understand what it even means for a child to have a developed sense of his or her gender, but notwithstanding that issue, we are deeply alarmed that these therapies, treatments, and surgeries seem disproportionate to the severity of the distress being experienced by these young people, and are at any rate premature since the majority of children who identify as the gender opposite their biological sex will not continue to do so as adults. Moreover, there is a lack of reliable studies on the long-term effects of these interventions. We strongly urge caution in this regard.  

–  Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh, Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences, p. 115.

The New Atlantis responds to the lies and bullying of Human Rights Campaign, one of the largest LGBTQ lobbies, which has managed (according to recent reports) to cow Johns Hopkins into reinstating "gender reassignment" surgery, which for decades it has viewed as surgical mutilation.


"In counting to just 73 genders, which now seems quite parsimonious, Massachusetts ran out of time trying to make sure that no gender was left behind on driver's licences.


In a bid for more diversity, the London Tube drops even the distinction between men and women, substituting Hello, Everyone for the traditional "Ladies and Gentlemen."

KLM drops the distinction between seat-belts that "click" and seat-belts that don't. There's a rather obvious lesson there, one widely observed with (sober) hilarity.


Statement on C-16 by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; with brief bibliography.

Advice from the Synod of Bishops of the Major Archbishopric of Kyiv-Halych of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church concerning the Danger of Gender Ideology.  

The Church of England, for its part, remains rather in knots. It is looking at "re-christenings." So how will that go?  "You, John, were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Will you, Jill, now reaffirm John’s baptismal vows?"

The Beeb, meanwhile, is pimping for polyamory. The strategy here is the old one: get it declared an orientation. Perhaps, if that doesn't work, polyamory (with a little ingenuity) will qualify under gender identity and expression. 


From closer to home, an observation by the Not my Rights Movement:

Currently, LGBTIQCAPGNGFNBA is believed to be the world’s longest acronym used to describe human sexual orientations and gender identities. Chances are it’s already been surpassed by an even longer acronym with the self-discovery of yet another person, or group of persons, with a unique gender fixation. It’s probably pointless to try to memorize what all the letters stand for, because theoretically there’s no limit to the proliferation of sexual identities. But some of them come with unique pronouns, and you had better learn those. Otherwise you might run afoul of new federal and provincial human rights and hate crimes laws.


Another observation from Daniel Moody, writing in The Federalist, on Why You Shouldn't Use Transgender Pronouns:

There can be no such thing as a non-binary pronoun because there are no non-binary sexes, and there can be no such thing as a neutral pronoun because there are no non-sexed bodies.

So, in answer to our question, we could not refer to John through some set of pronouns other than he/him/his even if we wanted to. Think of it this way: is it possible to permit males to enter the female restroom? No. Why not? Because as soon as we permit males to enter, the restroom ceases to be the female restroom. Sure, it still has the word “Female” on the door, but its function has changed. Likewise, pronouns cease to be pronouns as soon as we de-sex them. Sure, John can help himself to the linguistic husk of female pronouns—she/her/hers—but their previous content will forever be beyond his reach because their previous content was a female-sexed body.

It turns out that gender pronouns are not pronouns at all. They are a new thing trading under an old name. 

His sustained analysis of the link between transgenderism and abortion: The Flesh Made Word, and its sequel; more briefly, see Gender: Law's Allergic Reaction to the Body, on what we might very well call our collective auto-immune disease.


Some time ago I wrote in The New York Times, as part of a forum on government policy, as follows:

Government should recognize what nature regulates – namely, the two chromosomal sexes that enable reproduction and other features of human complementarity essential to human society. Not to ground positive law in the fundamental fact that the human species is sexually dimorphic is a foolish attempt to legislate reality out of existence.

Government should not recognize, or attempt to regulate, individual or group psychologies. Which means that there should be no category "other" in the matter of sex. Nor should there be publicly approved and funded sex reassignment therapy, since it is not yet sufficiently clear what the relation between biology and psychology is in the matter of sex, and the therapy in question is highly invasive and even destructive.

There are, of course, irregularities in nature, but an irregularity is just that: it doesn't create a different sex.  Even complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) doesn't make a man into a woman, though it results in female external genitalia. What some call “true gonadal Intersex” is a much more striking phenomenon, but it is the phenomenon of doubling or overlapping; it does not amount to a third sex. There is no third sex.

The law should be very accommodating of people who suffer from irregularities, and medicine too; likewise any decent human community, which should be both accommodating and compassionate.  But for this purpose there is no need, nor indeed is it helpful, to set aside the fact that we are most definitely a dimorphic species, and that our flourishing as a species is dependent on that in all sorts of ways. That would not be to accommodate irregularities but to normalize them, as if nature were not basically regular and as if those suffering irregularities were not in fact suffering. It would be to treat the sufferer in such a way as to mistreat.

It ought to be borne in mind that faith in the regularity of nature is a conditio sine qua non for all scientific enterprise, and for moral reason as well. It should also be noted that most of the pressure on law, as on medicine and on social or political norms, does not come from people with chromosomal or androgen-related difficulties, but from social constructionists who oppose ‘gender’ to sex. The latter propound an ideology inimical to nature in general and to human nature in particular, an ideology which one has every right, and indeed a responsibility, to resist.  


Ontario's Bill 28, the All Families are Equal Act, redefining parenthood and the family, begins to fulfill the predictions made on 9 April 2005 at the March for Marriage on Parliament Hill, attended by some 15000 people of diverse religions, regions, and parties, in protest against the impending passage of Federal Bill C-38:  "In order to make homosexual unions more nearly equivalent to heterosexual unions, it is necessary either to find a way for the former to produce babies by technological means, or to deprive the latter of any special relationship to their babies. It is necessary, in other words, for the state to take control over human reproduction.”


Taking control is the Yogyakarta way. At the UN the fight for control was fight for control was centred most recently on the appointment of Vitit Muntarbhorn as independent Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) expert and the extent of his mandate (per HRC resolution 32/2) as SOGI czar. Muntarbhorn is inter alia a proponent of children's rights, meaning, some say, the rights of local, national, and international governing agencies to interfere (for SOGI purposes) in the raising of children. Muntarbhorn was co-chair of Yogyakarta, while Michael O'Flaherty was its chief drafter.


As for the Prime Minister, he is pondering, "as part of the great arc of history sweeping towards justice," gender-neutral identity cards. It may be wondered just what he knows of history or of justice, and whether he is prepared to defend publicly this obviously comprehensive worldview (to use the Rawlsian expression) that he thinks should dictate government policy. It may also be asked why citizens should accept this detaching of legal identity from bodily, biological identity. A gender-neutral identity card (whatever one thinks of identity cards as such) is a denial that one's body counts. Or one's child's body. What comes next, once this official Gnosticism has fully taken hold? 


Who's too young for what? A simple lesson in our current moral insanity may be had by comparing this video with this. The Prime Minister, however, thinks it's a shame the insanity didn't set in earlier. Guided by EGALE's white paper on the just society, and promising to pay what they say is owed at no small expense to the taxpayer, Mr Trudeau tearfully apologized to the nation for the existence of natural law, which he declares to be "null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time." 


Other ages have had their individual traitors – men who from faint-heartedness for hope of gain sold out their causes. But in the 20th century, for the first time, men banded together by millions, in movements like Fascism and Communism, dedicated to the purpose of betraying the institutions they lived under. In the 20th century, treason became a vocation whose modern form was specifically the treason of ideas.  – Whittaker Chambers, Witness (50th ann. ed., 524)


Disclaimer:  The perspectives that find expression on this site are those of the author in question or the site editor. They are not intended to be representative of McGill University or of any unit within the university.