Gender Politics

Gender-Neutral Pronouns An Attack on “Being” | The Imago Dei

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • Moral standards…presuppose absolute moral standards, which in turn presuppose the existence of an absolute personality. In other words, they presuppose the existence of God. But what God?… Of all the major religious traditions, it is only biblical religion that affirms a God who is both personal and absolute. [Only biblical religion sees] that the idea of absolute personality is closely linked to the ideas of a Creator-creature distinction [as reflected in the imago Dei], divine sovereignty, and the Trinity. Compromise these and you compromise the personality of God. This precise pattern of thought is found only in the Bible and in traditions which are heavily influenced by the Bible. Is it then too much to say that morality presupposes the God of the Bible? I think not. — John Frame

I have been wanting to connect the reason I see gender-neutral pronouns like, they/them, ze/zim, sie/hir, are being used by the post-modern Left. The real — bottom line reason — is it dilutes evidences for God and every human’s “Imago Dei” Norman Geisler notes that “[t]he only ‘common ground’ with unbelievers is that they too are creatures in God’s image and live in God’s world.” Continuing he says,

  • But there are no common notions or methods; non-Christians approach the world differently from Christians, and they view it differently. We have a common world with unbelievers but no common worldview. The contact point with unbelievers is the imago Dei. But even here the “point of contact” is the “point of conflict,” for “if there is no head-on collision with the systems of the natural man there will be no point of contact with the sense of deity in the natural man.” Conflict is inevitable because of human depravity and sin.

I will emphasize our personal being in our language to bolster the point in this paragraph

Let me explain a bit more. Part of the Imago Dei in us all is that we get our “being” from it [“It” – the Ultimate Being]. In other words, an example I use is “can you refer to yourself in the womb of your mother without using personal pronouns? We have an “I” in our being. But that “I” has not always existed… it itself was brought into being by my, or your, parents. Who likewise had being, but “contingent ‘being,'” as they relied on others for their being.

I know, it is tough. But this “being” I am speaking of is argued well below, and is an excellent apologetic for God and the Christian worldview. Excerpted from my post, “Kalam Cosmological Argument ~ History and Argument“

PUT THUS:

We spoke of the universe as “the collection of beings in space and time.” Consider one such being: yourself. You exist, and you are, in part at least, material. This means that you are a finite, limited and changing being, you know that right now, as you read this book, you are dependent for your existence on beings outside you. Not your parents or grandparents. They may no longer be alive, but you exist now. And right now you depend on many things in order to exist–for example, on the air you breathe. To be dependent in this way is to be contingent. You exist if something else right now exists.

But not everything can be like this. For then everything would need to be given being, but there would be nothing capable of giving it. There would not exist what it takes for anything to exist. So there must be something that does not exist conditionally; something which does not exist only if something else exists; something which exists in itself. What it takes for this thing to exist could only be this thing itself. Unlike changing material reality, there would be no distance, so to speak, between what this thing is and that it is. Obviously the collection of beings changing in space and time cannot be such a thing. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist cannot be identical with the universe itself or with a part of the universe.

(From “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God“)

An excellent short video explaining this all is this one,

Contingency Argument SPEED RUN!

In other words, our “being” has a Cause in His “Being.” Plato saw this dimly in his Theory of Forms:

Plato’s Theory of Forms is a philosophical concept that explains the nature of reality. The basic question goes something like this:

We can see trees, cats, circles and many other things in everyday life, and we can easily recognise each one as the thing it is supposed to be. But, if we look closer, we never really see anything like a “standard cat.” Every cat is different, and so is every tree and every drawn circle. Especially with geometric forms, they are never perfect. Every circle we can see in our world is either broken, distorted, pixelated, or in a myriad of other ways not “a perfect circle.” In fact, a perfect geometrical circle would need to be drawn with a line that does not have any thickness, and so would be invisible!

So how is it, Plato asks, that we are able to identify circles, trees and cats if have actually never seen a “standard” thing of each kind?

There are two worlds, Plato says: the world of physical objects and the world of Forms. The world of physical objects is the world we see around us, while the world of Forms is the world of abstract concepts and ideas. The Forms are perfect, unchanging, and eternal, while the physical objects we see around us are imperfect, changing, and temporary.

Norman Geisler explains this in differing ways with the following. And note, I have more in-depth reproductions of his arguments in the second half of this post — along with the PDF reproductions for download. But I am here desperately trying to dumb the argument down to make the broader point. Which is, the “pronouns” being foisted on us ARE AN ATTACK on the foundation of truth and reality, which is rooted in God’s “Being”, Image, transferred to us in a finite, now fallen way.

Based on Sufficient Reason

(See an excellent article at The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

P1) A contingent being exists.

  1. This contingent being is caused either (1) by itself, or (2) by another.
  2. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible.

P2) Therefore, this contingent being (2) is caused by another, i.e., depends on something else for its existence.

P3) That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (3) another contingent being, or (4) a non-contingent being (necessary) being.

  1. If 3, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so onto infinity.

P4) Therefore, that which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either (5) an infinite series of contingent beings, or (4) a necessary being.

P5) An infinite series of contingent beings (5) is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.

P6) Therefore, a necessary being (4) exists!

Based on the Principle of Existential Causality

  1. Some limited, changing being[s] exist.
  2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.
  3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.
  4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.
  5. This first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable and one.
  6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition

A mix of both

  1. Something exists (e.g., I do);
  2. I am a contingent being;
  3. Nothing cannot cause something;
  4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being;
  5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being;
  6. But I am personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities);
  7. Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy;
  8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction;
  9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way;
  10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings);
  11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (=infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists;
  12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God;
  13. Therefore, the theistic God exists.

IN OTHER WORDS, our being, the “I” that we experience the world through IS AN APOLOGETIC, EVIDENCE of God!

Our being has a logical argument from Thee Being.

Our being (ways in which something can exist or occur or to be presented, or stand) is rooted in a theistic argument that is much surer in it’s premises and explanations.

That aside, the Marxist [read here atheistic] attack on Western values and truth is rooted itself in negating the Judeo-Christian aspect of historical truth, or knowing Part of this argument is the enquiry into “what we can know.” Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution either state or assume this:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

[….]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

[….]

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…”

This title of Supreme Judge of the world establishes God not only as the Creator of the world but also as the source of moral law. This statement is in opposition to the idea of Deism, which says that there exists a supreme being or creator who set the universe in motion but does not intervene in human affairs or the natural world. This statement suggests that those writing the declaration believed that the God of the Bible was the ultimate judge of good and evil.

The final mention of God in the Declaration of Independence labels God as the giver of Divine Providence.

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

This is a statement of trust in the divine’s oversight and actions that would result in declaring independence from Britain. These four mentions of God show that the founding fathers had a clear belief in moral truth which originated from a supreme being. In an article for Intercessors for America, Tyler O’Neil states, “The leaders who formed our country based their arguments for independence on the laws of God, and they trusted Him to guide America through its struggles. They looked to faith as a bulwark of freedom, not as its opposite.”

What Role Did Religious Beliefs Play in the Founding of the United States?

Many religious backgrounds made up those living in Colonial America at the time of the Declaration of Independence and the writing of the U.S. Constitution. Puritans, Anglicans, Quakers, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and Jewish congregations were all represented within the American Colonies.

It is well documented that 51 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention claimed to hold Christian beliefs. Even Benjamin Franklin, a proclaimed Deist, gave a call to prayer that contained several references to scripture on June 28th, 1787, when the Constitutional Convention was struggling to agree.

“The Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention God but references frequently concepts central to Christianity like morals, reason, and free will,” says David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, a Texas-based group dedicated to promoting America’s Christian heritage. …

(CHRISTIANITY)

In other words, attacking the foundation of knowledge and beings able to know moral truths and reality is at the heart of the pronoun issue. It is both an attack on our freedoms here in America, as well as an attack on our freedoms discovered via Western culture writ large.

WOMEN IN APOLOGETICS notes the foundation of “truth” in part of their post:

Truth

There seems to be little consensus where there was once clarity on what constituted male and female, boy and girl, man and woman, he and she. This is evidenced in the growing number of people who identify as transgender (those who experience gender dysphoria, a condition that describes the “psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity”) or those who identify themselves using other nontraditional gender terms. As such, it is becoming somewhat common for people to state or list their preferred pronouns in conversation, on social media, before meetings, or in email signatures. For example, during the 2020 election season, several Democratic presidential candidates put their preferred pronouns on their social media profiles.

In contrast, the Christian worldview asserts that God created people to be either male or female. Genesis 1:27 reads, “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.” God did not intend for sex and gender (identity) to be separate from one another; they are synonymous. To adopt a different worldview on sex and gender would be to reject the truth. Nevertheless, the culture today is attempting (with some success, unfortunately) to convince Christians differently. 

To not call someone by their preferred pronouns, like,  xe/xir/xirs, ze/zir/zirs and fae/faer/faers, is liked to a “human rights violations.” In fact, those prouns are an attack on what it is to be human.

Our essence.

Our being.

Dennis Prager says it is a war on human order. Which is a war on God:

Genesis 3:5 has the serpent (the Devil) tempting Adam and Eve. Half-truths are the best the Serpent can come up with, but the commentary I love on this verse will follow. I will highlight some points in it. 3:5 reads: “In fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (CSB).

Here is the commentary:

The climax is a lie big enough to reinterpret life (this breadth is the power of a false system) and dynamic enough to redirect the flow of affection and ambition. To be as God,25 and to achieve it by outwitting him, is an intoxicating programme. God will henceforth be regarded, consciously or not, as rival and enemy. Against this human arrogance ‘the obedience of the one’ and his taking ‘the form of a servant’ show up in their true colours (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:7).

So the tempter pits his bare assertion against the word and works of God, presenting divine love as envy, service as servility, and a suicidal plunge as a leap into life, ‘All these things will I give thee …’; the pattern repeats in Christ’s temptations, and in ours.

— On knowing good and evil, see on 2:9 [see below].

25. Or, gods (AV). The word ’ĕlōhîm can be used generically to include the angelic orders; see on 1:26.

2:9

…. The knowledge of good and evil is perhaps best understood in this living context. In isolation it could mean a number of things, many of them with biblical support. The phrase can stand for moral or aesthetic discernment (e.g. 1 Kgs 3:9; Isa. 7:15); yet Adam and Eve are already treated as morally responsible (2:16, 17) and generally percipient (3:6) before they touch the tree. It could be a hebraism for ‘everything’ (i.e. man is not to covet omniscience); yet it can hardly mean this in 3:22. It has often been regarded as sexual awakening, in the light of 3:7; recently R. Gordis suggested that this tree thereby offers a rival immortality to that of the tree of life, in the procreation of a family and a posterity. This too is open to several objections, including the fact that 3:22a is incompatible with it (heaven is sexless in the Old as in the New Testament), and that God instituted marriage after forbidding the use of the tree that is said to symbolize it.

In the context, however, the emphasis falls on the prohibition rather than the properties of the tree. It is shown to us as forbidden. It is idle to ask what it might mean in itself; this was Eve’s error. As it stood, prohibited, it presented the alternative to discipleship: to be self-made, wresting one’s knowledge, satisfactions and values from the created world in defiance of the Creator (cf. 3:6). Even more instructive is the outcome of the experiment; see on 3:7. In all this the tree plays its part in the opportunity it offers, rather than the qualities it possesses; like a door whose name announces only what lies beyond it.

Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 67–68, 73.

Yep. It is all a big lie. And the extreme gender confusion with it’s high rate of suicide is literally “a suicidal plunge as a leap into life.”

And the battle goes on…

And another point. Lets say you work at a Starbucks in West Hollywood, and you have 4-people who each have chosen a preferred pronoun[s]. For example, here are some of the choices:

  • So one person uses “xe, xem, xyr, xyers.”
  • Another uses “ne, nem, nir, nerself.” 
  • Yet another uses “ci, cer, cer, cirs.”
  • And lastly this person uses “ve, vis, ver, verself.”

How is one supposed to keep track of all that hogwash so as not to get fired? It is impossible for even these 4 to keep it straight. In Michigan they are making these felonies:

A new Michigan bill would make it a hate crime to cause someone to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened.”

The Michigan Hate Crime Act, designated HB 4474 , passed in the state House on Tuesday and now goes before the Michigan Senate.  It will replace the existing Ethnic Intimidation Act and expand the categories of people protected by the law.

The new bill would include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” as classes protected against intimidation.

[….]

If passed, the hate speech legislation would make violators guilty of a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of $10,000.

(DAILY CALLER | see DAILY WIRE as well)

AMERICAN THINKER notes this religious attack implicitly at the beginning of their article:

God-fearing people recognize that the effort to demolish the two God-given genders is a shaking of the fist at the Almighty. After all, the first chapter of the Bible says: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). This paradigm empowers females who are created in the imago dei. They are different from males, but equal to them at the level of essence. Nature and biology confirm God’s binary design.

Unfortunately, we live in a post-Christian society. Sane arguments often fall on deaf ears. The secular elites who control education and the media have marginalized those who provide biblical explanations. Given this sad reality, might there be another way to end the compelled speech of pronoun lunacy in which people can decide by which pronouns they will be referred?

[….]

For example, if someone asked another person about me: “What do you think of Newt?” They would need to respond something like: “I hate Newt. He is a tyrant. He never does what you ask of her.” Note that “he” is used when Newt is the subject of the sentence, and “her” is used at the end when Newt is the object of the sentence. If they failed to honor my preferred pronouns and said, “…He never does whatever you ask of him…” this would be a violation. I would report this, and press charges, if possible.

Mary could likewise insist on her pronouns being “She” and “Him.” Those speaking or writing about Mary would have to write something like: “I appreciate Mary. She is a great friend. I have no better friend than him. She is a great listener.” Or she could insist on “He” and “Her” (as does Newt).

Can you imagine if as many people as possible insisted upon this practice? Might it cause the regime of verbal tyranny to collapse? Though we are in the process of butchering English with the improper use of “they,” the mind can factor in this mutation and get used to it. However, since native English speakers calculate pronoun case automatically and subconsciously, it would be nearly impossible to speak and write in a way that could satisfy those who insist on different gendering pronouns that are case-dependent.

Yep. It is impossible to satisfy such people. This thinking “wresting one’s knowledge, satisfactions and values from the created world in defiance of the Creator.”

SOME APOLOGISTS DISCUSS THE ISSUE:

Douglas Groothuis w/Melissa Dougherty

Today, I interviewed Dr. Groothuis about the craziness we see around us and what we can do about it. Dr. Groothuis holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy and is a Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. He is the author of sixteen books and has also published over thirty academic articles in journals as well as dozens of pieces in publications.

Nancy Pearcey w/Babylon Bee’s Ethan Nicolle

Editor-in-chief Kyle Mann and creative director Ethan Nicolle welcome Professor Nancy Pearcey. She is professor of apologetics and scholar in residence at Houston Baptist University and author of several books, most recently Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality. Prof. Pearcey’s books also include Total Truth, Finding Truth, The Soul of Science, Saving Leonardo and How Now Shall We Live? (co-authored with Chuck Colson). They talk about sexuality, gender, abortion, and Christianity’s high view of the human body.

Topics Discussed

  • Abortion… scientific human life vs modern Personhood Theory
  • Biological Sex vs Gender
  • The Christian’s high view of the material world and the human body due to belief in the incarnation of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the new heaven  and earth.
  • Trusting in a design vs individual revolt against nature and biological realities
  • Language as a front in the culture war
  • All of our actions endorse a worldview
  • What about people who identify as “gay Christians” or some other adjective placed before the word Christian?
  • Nudity in medieval Christian art

Unnamed People w/Melissa Dougherty

There’s a postmodern ideology that is plowing through our world that aims to dismantle all societal and moral norms. This ideology is responsible for how we have gotten to the point in society where language is rebranded and “sex” and “gender” are separate. Now, there are supposedly unlimited genders. If this isn’t disturbing enough, the logical conclusion of this ideology (which really functions like a religion) is that age should be flexible, too. Kids should have the freedom to choose what age they identify as… as sexual beings. This ideology says this is good, liberating, and empowering.

This is completely shocking. And absolute garbage that should be talked about and brought to light.

Is This the End of Women’s Sports? (PLUS MORE)

Published by Papa Giorgio

PRAGER UIf we don’t believe that biological men have a significant advantage over biological women in sports, then why did women’s sports ever need to be created in the first place? Let’s stop fooling ourselves.

I have more posts that include Selina Soule, the girl in the above video:

  • The Destruction of Women’s Sports No Big Deal… To the Left (March 2019)
  • Girls’ Civil Rights Violated By Trangender “Athlete” (August 2019)
  • The Trans War On Women #FairPlay (May 2020)

1995 NIKE AD – From youth sports to collegiate athletics to the Olympics, female athletes in every sport and at every level deserve a safe and fair playing field.

What about this “intersex” charge? Does this then change our position as to being allowed into a female sport? No. XY is still present, as well as high levels of testosterone during puberty giving a life-long advantage over other [genuine] females:

Jessica Gill’s Insights Into “Intersex” | Plus: Poor Mans Podcast Stuff

Forcing Gender Affirmation In California (Animal Farm “Parenting”)

Published by Papa Giorgio

As the Daily Mail reported:

Under the revision to the Family Code, courts would be given complete authority to remove children from their homes if their parents do not affirm their gender.

The change would also make it so that schools, churches, and other organizations would need to affirm the gender identity of a child or face repercussions.

(DAILY FETCHED)

First, the schools confuse young minds, then, if those confused minds do not find celebration of their confusion at home, the state can take them. This is some Animal Farm crap!

Here is the DAILY SIGNAL’S story on it:

A recently amended California bill would add “affirming” the sexual transition of a child to the state’s standard for parental responsibility and child welfare—making any parent who doesn’t affirm transgenderism for their child guilty of abuse under California state law.

AB 957 passed California’s State Assembly on May 3, but a co-sponsor amended it after hours in California’s State Senate on June 6. 

Assembly Member Lori Wilson, D-Suisun City, wrote the bill and introduced it on Feb. 14. State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, co-sponsored it. Wilson’s child identifies as transgender.

Originally, AB 957 required courts to consider whether a child’s parents were “gender-affirming” in custody cases. Wiener’s amendment completely rewrites California’s standard of child care.

AB 957 post-amendment “would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child,” altering the definition and application of the entire California Family Code.

California courts would be given complete authority under Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to remove a child from his or her parents’ home if parents disapprove of LGBTQ+ ideology.

By changing the definition of what constitutes the “health, safety, and welfare of [a] child,” schools, churches, hospitals, and other organizations interacting with children would be required to affirm “gender transitions” in minors by default—or risk charges of child abuse.

AB 957 could also expand which organizations provide “evidence” of gender “nonaffirmation” to California’s courts.

Because of the addition of “gender affirmation” to the qualifications of California’s standards for “health, safety, and welfare,” California’s courts would now be able to accept reports of gender “abuse” from progressive activist organizations—as long as they claim to provide “services to victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.”

In essence, a boy could report his parents to his local school’s Gay-Straight Alliance club or other LGBTQ+ organization, who could then report the boy’s parents for child abuse.

Incredibly, the bill provides no definition whatsoever of what would qualify as “nonaffirming” to a child’s gender. 

As Susannah Luthi of The Washington Free Beacon points out, “The bill makes no distinctions regarding the age of a child, how long a child has identified as transgender, or affirmation of social transition versus medical sex-change treatments.”…..

Princeton Professor’s Failure At Proving Gender Is a Spectrum

Published by Papa Giorgio

MATT WALSH dissects an article written by a Princeton professor who claims that he can prove that there are more than two sexes. The Ivy League professor, Agustín Fuentes, has specialized knowledge in “racism,” “sex/gender” and “chasing monkeys,” according to his biography page. He argued in Scientific American magazine on Monday that biological reproductive cells (gametes) – such as sperm and egg cells – does not delineate whether someone is male or female. (BREITBART)

Dystopian Handmaid’s Tale is About the Democrats

Published by Papa Giorgio

The Left tries to blame Republicans for many things, many of which backfire constantly. Here is one example… the Handmaid’s Tale. They try to paint the religious right as the villain in that dystopian story, however, the Left loves dystopian terms.

  • “chest-feeding” instead of “breast feeding”… we get terms like “uterus havers” and “menstruators” instead of “woman”… we get the term “birthing bodies” instead of “pregnant woman” or “expectant mother”. Even the term “mother” itself is thrown out the door in this “re-orientation” of language. As a result, you have masses of women who are forced to silently accept this new corpus of terminology in which they themselves as women no longer exist. There is no upside for women in losing the words they need to talk about their bodies, their needs and their rights. (REDDIT)
  • US President Biden’s $6 trillion federal-budget proposal has attracted flak after it omitted the term pregnant mothers with “birthing people,” sparking condemnation with respect to the gender inclusivity, as well as among the women. The administration’s Maternal Health Guidance in the 2022 fiscal year budget included a public health document that addressed efforts to “reduce maternal mortality rates and end race-based disparities in maternal mortality.” (REPUBLIC WORLD)
  • Women’s March referred to female members of parliament as ‘menstruators’ (DAILY MAIL)
  • Australian National University’s latest “gender-inclusive handbook” instructs staff to use only “parent-inclusive language” when discussing labor, delivery and post-partum care, including replacing words like “breast-feeding” with “chest-feeding” and swapping “breast milk” for “chest milk” or “human milk” to avoid offending the…er, anomalously gendered. The guidelines also suggest replacing “mother” and “father” with “gestational” and “nongestational” parent. While the handbook notes that the vast majority of people idetify as “mothers” and fathers” “using these terms alone to describe parenthood excludes those who do not identify with gender-binaries.” (MRCTV)

DENNIS PRAGER:

The West has gone through many eras — the so-called Dark Ages, the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age and the Post-Modern. The present era is the Age of the Absurd.

In terms of the absurdities the cultural elites believe, and have convinced masses of people to believe, there has never been a time like today.

Here is a list of the most ridiculous that immediately come to mind.

No. 1: Men give birth.

Heading the list has to be the radical redefinition — indeed, denial of — sex and gender, leading to such reality-defying statements as “men give birth,” “men menstruate,” “birthing person” instead of “mother,” and to the Disney theme parks no longer greeting visitors as “ladies and gentlemen” or “boys and girls.”

No. 2: It is fair to allow biological men to compete in women’s sports.

We are supposed to believe that biological men do not have an innate physical advantage in competing against women. This is asserted as truth by every Ivy League university, virtually every other university, most high schools and by virtually all the elite media.

CHRISTIAN POST:

…In a Nov. 8 tweet, Harvard Medical School’s Postgraduate and Continuing Education proclaimed that “Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth” as it promoted a panel discussion about “Maternal Justice.”

The use of the term “birthing people” to describe women resulted in negative reactions from many commenters.

“During slavery black women were referred to as breeders. This experiment to dehumanize women & to deconstruct us into nothing more than holes & body parts for men to use, started with black women. This is regressive and not progressive. Stop perpetuating this nonsense!”….

NEWSBUSTERS:

….Anyways, this is what happens when you get so woke. NARAL must realize it can’t even claim the feminist angle to cover for their love of baby killing anymore. So much for women’s reproductive rights, it’s now “birthing persons’” reproductive rights.

Of course, for inclusive liberals, this new definition allows for trans men (biological women) to get pregnant and consider themselves “pregnant men.” Actually, it’s even less specific than that. It allows non-binary people with uteruses – still biological women – to feel included without having to suffer the indignity of being referred to as they biologically are. So, yes, genderless humans by definition can give birth, and since this is NARAL, genderless humans get abortions now, too!

Since we are all so busy trying to wrap our heads around this warp speed jump forward in human enlightenment, several conservative commentators stepped in and made it clear for the rest of us just how stupid NARAL’s tweet was.

 

NEW YORK POST: 

There’s a new addition to the list of words you can no longer say: woman.

Because 0.6 percent of the adult population is transgender, the word must be banished outright for the sake of inclusivity. And it’s not just activist Twitter users or gender studies professors who are taking note. Suddenly, our institutions have scrapped the word “woman” altogether.

The news media is on board: CNN tweeted that “individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancer screening at 25.” The new rule is being embraced by medical practices: gynecology clinic chain Tia advertised their services on TikTok to “uterus-having folks.”

Abortion providers have taken note: Planned Parenthood offers advice to “people who are pregnant.” Our medical literature is also conforming: the September 2021 cover of the Lancet declared that “historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected.”

Public health officials have hopped on the bandwagon: the CDC’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination refers to “pregnant people.” And it goes all the way to the top of our government: the White House’s 2022 budget referred to mothers as “birthing people.”

The words they’re replacing “woman” with leave a lot to be desired. The list of new lingo goes on and on… menstruators, birthing persons, uterus-owners, vulva-havers, or, worst of all, non-males. What’s more dehumanizing than being reduced to a single aspect of your anatomy?

FAIR PLAY FOR WOMEN:

Menstruators? Uterus-havers? Language matters

…Erasing the words woman and mother is not inclusive

The very words we use to describe ourselves as a sex class are being erased. In media reports, in health campaigns, in human rights organisations, we are seeing the replacement of “woman” or “women” with terms like “menstruator“, “uterus-haver” or “people with a vagina“. Women tell us that they find this dehumanising, not inclusive. Our concern is that it blurs legal issues such as sex discrimination. This can only set women’s equality back. There is no upside for women in losing the words we need to talk about our bodies, our needs and our rights.

REDDIT:

Don’t ever call me a “uterus owner” or a “person with eggs”

Anyone else noticed this common trend, mostly on Internet forums, of people calling women “uterus havers” or “person with a uterus”? I’m not lying when I saw someone refer to women as “person with eggs”.

I’m a woman. Call me a woman ffs. Just say woman. If there is a trans man present, then just say trans man.

REDDIT:

anyone else uncomfortable with words like bleeders, birthing people, uterus havers?

I am wordier in my language but inclusive too. For example:

“Pregnant women and pregnant persons”

“Women and other persons who menstruate”

“Women and others with a uterus”

I am not comfortable erasing the word “women” from our language, mainly because all throughout history, the patriarchy tried to render us invisible. At the same time, I am fine adding language for inclusivity.

ETA: The phrase “women and other persons who menstruate” clearly implies “women who menstruate and other persons who menstruate”. The same goes for “women and others with a uterus”. Had I meant all women, there would have been a comma. For example , “women, and people who menstruate” implies “all women”, but women and persons who menstruate implies two nouns (women and persons) connected specifically to a verb (menstruate). A subset of women and persons. Not all women and all persons.

(500CatsTypingStuff)

 

Mr. Rogers Tried To Warn Us

Published by Papa Giorgio

Mr. Rogers on #SCIENCE:

  • Mr. Rogers tried to warn everyone in the late 1960’s, and again in the 1980’s about an agenda on tv that isn’t suitable for minors. He went as far as making a song to remind young boys and girls what their biological gender is ln fear of one day the media would give them the idea to change genders later in life. Everyone laughed then but this is very much a reality now.

Mr. Rogers Tried Tried To Warn Everybody In The Late Sixties And In The Eighties

Here is the full testimony in the Senate:

On May 1, 1969, Fred Rogers, host of the (then) recently nationally syndicated children’s television series, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood (named Misterogers’ Neighborhood at the time), testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce Subcommittee on Communications to defend $20 million in federal funding proposed for the newly formed non-profit Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was at risk of being reduced to $10 million. Subcommittee chairman, Senator John Pastore (D-RI), unfamiliar with Fred Rogers, is initially abrasive toward him. Over the course of Rogers’ 6 minutes of testimony, Pastore’s demeanor gradually transitions to one of awe and admiration as Rogers speaks.

Trans Women Should Be Legally Treated as Women | UC Berkeley

Published by Papa Giorgio

Christopher Hitchens was my favorite atheist, I have to say Peter Boghossian is now in the #1 spot

Discussion abounds regarding the definition of “woman,” often focused on social and emotional factors of womanhood. This claim at the University of California Berkeley raises the stakes: “Trans women should be legally treated as women.”

One woman, a molecular geneticist, strongly disagrees with the claim, while another woman, an aspiring molecular geneticist, agrees. The third participant, a man, initially stands on the “disagree” line but recalibrates his confidence toward the end of the conversation.

Participants discuss how gender identity should be handled in hospitals, prisons, and legal identification documents (like driver’s licenses). The safety of biological women is a major point of consideration.

This conversation was filmed at UC Berkeley on April 19, 2022.

Orwellian/Messianic Pronouncements of the Left

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Rough quote) “If we call a man a woman, that’s what he is. If we call an open border a secure border, that’s what we have. If we tell you a collapsing economy is a robust economy, that’s what it is.” Fox News host Tucker Carlson rips President Biden for denying the United States is in a recession despite what economists say on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’

Tucker acknowledges the Mandela Effect many of us are experiencing on the definition of “recession.” Thankfully, the Biden administration is here to help. Highlights include:

“What matters is not the way things actually are. What matters are the words we use to describe things.”……………

(hat-tip to POLITICROSSING)

The Sexualization of Children

Published by Papa Giorgio

Who should decide when and how to discuss issues like sex and gender with young children? Just a decade ago, this was thought to be the sole purview of parents. But that is no longer the case. Why is this shift happening, and who’s behind it? Karol Markowicz addresses these important questions.

“He’s a man!” (No Shame In This Younger Generation)

Published by Papa Giorgio

The audio of the video is bad (background noise/echo). But here is the main part of the convo via RIGHT SCOOP:

WOMAN: “You think his body is the same as the other girls in the pool? Are you saying he doesn’t have male organs?”

DIPSTICK: “I don’t think that ‘she’ – you are twisting words and I think you have no idea…”

WOMAN: “No, I’m a woman and that’s not a woman. Do you have ovaries?”

DIPSTICK: “Can I ask you a question? Are you a biologist?”

WOMAN: “Oh my god, don’t be ridiculous. I’m not a vet but I know what a dog is!”

Here is the heartening part of the event, the dude getting booed:

There is a Title IX lawsuit, which should win (POST MILLENNIAL).