There was a time when boys of easy virtue had to content themselves with sneaking a peek at the girls’ swim team during practice. But social engineers may make this passé with a proposal to allow boys to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms.

No, this isn’t the plot of a decadent B movie.

The story comes out of Maine, with a state proposal that would grant boys claiming to be female the right to use the aforementioned girls’ facilities. It may even give such boys the right to compete on girls’ sports teams.

In fact, a boy in the state had already been allowed to use a girls’ bathroom, creating a controversy that led to the current guidelines. Bob Unruh reports on the story at WorldNetDaily.com, writing:

A fifth-grade boy at Asa Adams School had been given permission to use the girls' restroom. He then was subjected to "harassment," according to the Maine Human Rights Commission.

The school tried to reach a compromise by designating a special restroom for the boy, instead of allowing him to continue to use the girls' restroom. But the move brought a determination of discrimination from the state agency.

The Maine Human Rights Commission proposed a set of guidelines that would require schools "to allow young children to have access to facilities of the opposite sex. Under the proposed guidelines, boys who self-identify as female will have access to girls' sports teams and cheerleading squads, girls' bathrooms, and girls' locker rooms."

Shocking though this is, it’s nothing new. WorldNetDaily.com had previously reported on similar measures/laws in Tampa, Fla.; Montgomery County, Md.; and Colorado, all of which may or will allow men access to women’s bathrooms.

Yet this is part of a wider problem still: the sexual confusion characterizing our time. For example, last year I wrote about a Swedish couple that refused to reveal the sex of their two-year-old, believing that “gender” is a “social construction.” Then there was the story of Caster Semenya, the South African runner whose masculine appearance and wide-margin victories over female competitors sparked suspicion that the track star was a hermaphrodite (yes, I know it’s an outdated term, but I’m an outdated guy). Subsequent sex tests proved this to in fact be the case, but what was even more remarkable were the comments left by website respondents prior to that determination. Many actually expressed the idea that if Semenya believes “she’s” a woman, then “she” is. Well, tell that to the female opponents the runner left in the dust.

There was also the story of German Tim Petras, who, at age 12, became the youngest of what society calls “transsexuals.”  Not to be outdone, Britain served up two similar cases: a 12-year-old boy and a 9-year-old boy who showed up for school appearing as girls. Moreover, the authorities expected them to receive special treatment and placed the onus on the other children to be “sensitive” to their preference.

If you think these are isolated social accidents, know that there is method to this madness. And to introduce this, I’ll say something about the Swedish couple who maintain that “gender” is a social construction.

They have a point.

This is why I don’t use the word “gender” in today’s usual sense.

Unless you’re quite young, you probably remember a time when only “sex” was used to refer to the quality of being male or female. And while you probably assume that replacing it with “gender” is a rather innocuous language innovation, this is far from the truth.

If you look in an older dictionary, you’ll see that “gender” is always defined as it is in my seventh printing, 1975 American Heritage School Dictionary, which states the following: “In grammar, one of a number of categories, such as masculine, feminine, and neuter, into which words are divided.” It says nothing about people, and for good reason: The term never referred to people — only words.

Do you smell an agenda? Keep reading.

While I don’t exactly know who first applied “gender” to human beings, a great proponent of such usage was a now discredited psychologist named Dr. John Money. A professor of pediatrics and medical psychology at Johns Hopkins University, he invented terms/concepts such as “gender role” and “gender identity.” He advanced the idea that while your “sex” was inborn, “gender” was something else entirely: your perception of what you were. (Money also originated “gender neutrality” theory, which he stubbornly applied in the infamous David Reimer case, an example of malpractice which ultimately led to the death of Reimer.)

Money’s gender-identity theory — which stated that a child could be raised as a member of the opposite sex and be perfectly well-adjusted as long as he truly viewed himself as a member of it — has been discredited. But the idea that perception is reality has only gained currency. Where Money believed that a person’s “gender” could be determined by those raising him, psychologists and many others today embrace the idea that a person’s “gender” can be whatever he wants it to be. Furthermore, they say that a child can be born in the body of the wrong sex — they even have a name for it: “gender dysphoria.” Thus, by their lights, it’s perfectly legitimate for a boy thus disordered to believe that he really is a girl. This is the thinking that gives us Johnny in Mary’s and Suzy’s restroom.

Yet the category of “gender” has been expanded far beyond male and female identity. Some of the more bizarre examples of “gender” are: autosexual, intergender, bigender, third gender, soft butch, and eunuch.

Of course, not everyone agrees on what belongs in the category, which, mind you, is burgeoning. How could it be otherwise? Feelings have been made the arbiter here, as one’s perception is simply what he feels he is. And, remember, there are people who feel that certain limbs don’t belong on their bodies (and certain doctors have actually performed amputations on this basis), a disorder the psychologists label “body dysmorphia.” There are also individuals who claim to be animals, such as the wolf girl in Texas. So you can just imagine the creative genders people can fancy themselves to be.

And the gender agenda has been translated into policy. There are numerous governments — local, state, and even national — that have made gender a “protected” (read: specially favored) category under hate-crime and anti-discrimination laws. Then there was the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. Seeking to define what could constitute a family, the organizers identified five different genders: male heterosexual, female heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, and bisexual. The language was ultimately stricken from conference documents, but only because of Vatican contingent protests.

Why has the word “gender” been redefined? A major reason involves, no doubt, an effort to legitimize homosexuality. After all, if you want to normalize something, it helps to lump it in with that which is normal. But you couldn’t very well convince people that homosexuality was a third sex, as it is already cemented in people’s minds that there are only two sexes. But, gender, now, that’s a different story. Remember, the dictionary definition stated that it referred to multiple categories, such as masculine, feminine, and neuter. All you had to do was apply it to people.

We should completely reject the concept of gender. And we can start by saving the word for grammar. Remember, the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate. You cannot combat an agenda if you use its language.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (25)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Autumn Sandeen said:

Then we stick with gender Then, in accordance with your last paragraphs, I will continue using the terms and phrases related to gender and gender identity.

March 08, 2010 | url

Really?, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Angst, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Lee Gonzales said:

September Meadows Society was a much happier place when the practice of homosexuality was outlawed by the several States. We need to go back to those standards and practices when American society was not in a state of conflict and people did not have any identity crisis or went into fits over signs: "ladies," "gentlemen" and "No boys allowed in here!" It is simply a case of sovereignty. Think of of it this way September Meadows, does your home have separate bathrooms? your home is your personal property and its your sovereign right to tell your guests to use the bathroom "down the hallway." You keep guests and strangers out of your master bathroom for reasons of your own. In a public setting like a cafe or theater the sovereignty issue has not changed. There are property owners involved who make the rules. Separate men and women bathrooms is the most common feature seen in business establishments. A public school gym shower is the property of the taxpayers who pay taxes to maintain schools in operation. States don't want to be told what to do by the federal government. It's their right isn't it, Sept. Meadows? The ladies have sovereignty and should have the right to keep out males from their shower rooms and bathrooms regardless of claims that they aren't really males. What you are defending is not "minority rights" but you are helping one person to force his will and have his way over another person. You are the one who is "prejudiced" and "bigotted" against the personal rights of a girl who does not wish to be violated by the eyes of a boy while in a shower/ bathroom setting.

March 08, 2010

Just Jennifer said:

A complex topic.... This is a very complex topic that is all too often reduced to simplistic assertions. First off, a better term than gender is "sexual differentiation of the brain." The brain is influenced during fetal development by hormones, just as the body is. What makes a male, a male, is the presence of testosterone. If something interferes with this, you can have a child who is born intersex. In the most extreme cases, you have a child who is genetically XY, but who is born a female. This is very rare, but it does occur. If the hormone imbalance occurs at the right point, you have a child who is born a transsexual, that is the brain is one sex, and the body is another. This is also rare. This is where John Money was wrong. He tried to claim that transsexuals are made, not born. In the rare case where a child is born with a brain that is at odds with the body they will suffer tremendously until the problem is corrected. Now, we have another phenomena that is what makes this all complex. There are some people, for reasons I do not understand, who decide to rebel against what they are. They choose, for some unknown reason, to decide that they should be the opposite sex. They may be labeled "transsexuals," but they are not. They have lived most of their life with no indication that they have any gender issues at all. They push the idea that whether or not a person is male or female is subject to one's choice. Call yourself a woman, and society should be forced to agree. True transsexualism is very rare, and those who suffer from it should be able to receive proper medical treatment. But those who simply wish to claim to be a woman because they change their clothes should be rejected.

March 08, 2010 | url

Sophie Hawes said:

Huge Nonempirical Fallacies I am not going to nitpick your article, but if you want to be more convincing, in addition to your a priori logic, you need to use empirical reasoning as well. A priori logic is valid in so much as the model used is valid. When empirical evidence surfaces that is contrary to that model, it requires a paradigm shift. Some of your assumptions that are fallacies in light of empirical evidence over the last 50+ years: Fallacy 1) Language and the concepts they represent are static. In actuality they are not. Concepts overlap, but they are mental constructs, with deviations based on personal experience and identity. Gender was confusingly equated to biological sex, rendering it an archaic use of the term. It has resurfaced as a new concept that is quite clear as it does have roots in syntactic analysis used to declare concepts as male or female.

March 08, 2010

Sophie Hawes said:

... Fallacy 2) Transsexuality is a different way of being homosexual to legalize same sex couples. It's a completely different issue. Gender identity has more to do with who you are. Sexual orientation has more to do with who you're attracted to. Fallacy 3) Gender is a choice. Not by a long mile. There is a region in the hypothalamus that sends a consistent signal as either a girl, a boy, or neither. It's very inisistence when you are trying to live by society's standards according to your birth-asigned gender is disruptive in your ability to build lasting, supportive relationships. People kill themselves to shut off the signal so they don't have to transition amongst people who threaten them if they do. Fallacy 4) The child that transitioned caused the problems. Go back and read the hole story. A male-identified child refused to let her safely use the bathroom, calling her derogatory names and following her in there. And this was sanctioned by the bully's grandfather, who should have been sentenced to jail for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

March 08, 2010

Sophie Hawes said:

... Fallacy 5) Gay and lesbian people want your children to engage in homosexual behavior. In reality, gay and lesbian people simply want to be able to have the same rights with their spouses as straight people have with theirs. And they don't want to be bullied by gender police. So, uh, could you do me a bug favor and turn your siren off until your arguments are more consistent with empirical evidence?

March 08, 2010

Stephanie Vomact said:

Public accomodations not a matter of owner's sovereignty Most places that server food and beverages or merely deal with the public are required by law in most states to have publically accessible restrooms. In texas the law is: http://law.onecle.com/texas/health/341.068.00.html and states: ................. § 341.068. RESTROOM AVAILABILITY WHERE THE PUBLIC CONGREGATES. (a) Publicly and privately owned facilities where the public congregates shall be equipped with sufficient temporary or permanent restrooms to meet the needs of the public at peak hours. ................. So it really is not a matter for most business owners personal choice about whether they want to or not. I'm not saying that this is ethical, good, correct,etc, but I am saying that 1. Most states require public facilties to have restrooms available to the public 2. Few to none of these laws state that they must be sexually segregated 3. Personally, I feel that sexual segregation of bathrooms is a huge architectural and cultural design flaw. Taking your argument at face value,do YOU have sexually segregated bathrooms, in your home? I am aware that a very few quite well to do people do that,but most humans on planet earth,no. Why are the lines for the women's room 2 or 3 times longer at most public events? Because the architectural and social guideline is that there be an exactly equal number of toilets,etc. If all restrooms were family restrooms, or single use, there would not be this issue. Property owners would pay less and there would be shorter lines for everyone. I think it is absolutely horrible that parents might take an opposite sex toddler or pre-schooler into a bathroom that is for the opposite sex from child,but I'm pretty sure that the law allows it. Myself,I do not believe that anyone has a god-given or inborn "right" to use a public restroom. But It is a lot better than the alternative(s).

March 08, 2010

SCHNORCHEL said:

Gender Mainstreaming Hasn't anyone done their homework? Take a look at UNESCO Gender Mainstreaming. This policy has been infiltrating society for generations. Its purpose is to make all humans "Gender-Neutral" as Communism requires, while breaking up the institution of the Family. As the slogan "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" of the French Revolution required, it continues to this day. Adam Weishaupt lives!

March 08, 2010

Stephanie Vomact said:

They speak for equality, in pay, and education, you disagree? If you'd prefer all women be kept barefoot and pregnant its ok to just come out and say so. I would agree with you that their language is that of a horridly obtuse academician,but, they do state things directly,here: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001405/140572e.pdf From this goal, UNESCO derives the following OBJECTIVES3 for its gender-mainstreaming policy: Promote full and equal education for women and men, girls and boys throughout life, with a focus on life-long learning and basic education. Provide gender-responsive learning environments and equitable access to appropriate education programmes for all members of society, in particular to women and girls in difficult conditions. Encourage equal access to knowledge and career opportunities in all fields, but notably in such fields as communications, the arts and cultural industries, science, technology and engineering. < sarcasm > Sound like some dang marxist-leninist to me,that have been co-opted into a 2nd rate American University doctorate of education program < / sarcasm > Why if this is kept up, they'll want equal pay for equal work!

March 08, 2010 | url

cfrsucks said:

... Presently living in one of the jurisdictions that allows this type of outrage. This makes it easier for girls and women to get raped by a male cross dresser. I can't believe that it is actually law because it breaks a long held societal norm that the vast majority want to keep in place. Gay issues such as same sex marriage and same sex couple child adoption aren't about equality but about legitimizing perversion. Perversion is not liberty and should not be treated as such.The states have the right to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman if they want to, and should continue to be able to. The Federal Government has no rights under the 10th Amendment to intrude here.

March 08, 2010

Lee Gonzales said:

the state versus the rights of property owners First of all, Stephanie, the people were the ones who created the government. The state governments first and later formed a confederation or union. They did these things to protect individual liberty. The idea ( which is lost on you)is that government was formed to protect and defend private property and not so that government would dictate to private property owners how to run their businessess. The founders also built a court system to settle disputes and saw no need to establish a 4th branch of government - bureaucracy. Government at all levels has crept into the lives of private individuals and forced restaurants to comply with social engineering schemes.It's a symptom of what happens when government over-steps its authority and imposes its will on private individuals. The bureaucracy does not love people; they want to control people and take their money. Government is only a tool to keep your rights intact and to protect your property.But government needs to be cantained or they will destroy personal liberty and private property.

March 08, 2010

Lee Gonzales said:

More correction of Stephanie Stephanie, how did you come up with this one?: "...do YOU have sexually segregated bathrooms, in your home? I am aware that a very few quite well to do people do that,but most humans on planet earth,no."---Stephanie Stephanie most people on planet earth use the bushes, a hole in the ground or use unitary facilities. Wow, Stephanie,are you that emotionally cross-eyed? This is what I said in my first post: "...does your home have separate bathrooms?" I reiterate: it's up to you to do as you wish. Those reasons could be based on the fact that you don't want people to see your messy bathroom. It's obvious that my argument went over your head. It's your home and you can do as you please. Open up your bathroom(s), even your master bathroom to male and female; tell your guests that they can use your home and even go into the buushes out back to relieve themselves. You don't want to be accused of being "prejudiced" against people who have a hatred for indoor plumbing.

March 08, 2010

Lee Gonzales said:

continued: People in business Those who do business with you will continue to do so as long as you treat them right. Customers regulate better than any government agency. Customer's or clients' opinions are critical to the survival of any business. The city planning devision made me do it: Forcing a business to have separate restrooms or to not have them is not just an archtectural detail. Its' really none of the government's business to interfere. If lady customers complain about wet seats they will force the owners to build separate facilitiles. Plain and simply. If the owner can't afford to build separate facilities he better make certain the restrooms are spotless and installs a retractable toilet seat! Business owners like to attract cutomers to their place of business. Having nice separate bathroom facilites is an added feature in the mind of the owner. Unitary or separte facilities is not the jurisdiction of the planning division downtown. The city adds lots of costs to doing business in addtion to the grief they cause businessmen with their nit picking rules and regulations. Pro-regulatory folks have brought this regulatory leviathan into being and all of us are paying the price in less freedom and higher costs.

March 08, 2010

Observer said:

Grammar police Before someone criticizes the grammar used in any article, they should first be able to form complete sentences.

March 08, 2010

Sean Evans said:

More scare tactics (cont.) Indeed, there's more reason to condemn those who push these "men in the women's room" fear tactics as a danger to women than there is to condemn trans people. As for Dr. Money, his mistakes showed the world that gender identity isn't something that can be altered based on upbringing-- nothing in the results show that gender identity must be congruent with a person's genitalia at birth. Actually, if you actually bother to read his work, he provides a great argument against the type of therapies meant to "fix" transgendered children by forcing them into the roles assigned to their natal sex. Perhaps if you extended your research beyond unsupported fearmongering and into the realm of peer reviewed studies and other verifiable information, you might actually learn something. I'm not holding my breath, though.

March 08, 2010

Lee Gonzales said:

... The issue is that a lady has a right to keep males from her shower room and bathroom. A girls gym roomis not for boys who dress up and make pretty. Those that do are either voyeurs, perverts or insane and emotionally unbalanced. If the latter is the case then they should be in a hospital. This fixation that some of you possess on studies and "peer reviews" demonstrates that you don't understand the underlying issue- women have a right not to be violated by men or "boys" pretending to be women. You folks are way out there on a tangent looking for something that does not exist. There is no third sex.

March 08, 2010

stephanie vomact said:

I think all people have the right to keep CREEPS out Lee? someone's "right"? Pass a new constitutional amendment on that, I'll agree. People's unalienable rights? Bathroom use in public was never covered by John Locke, Aristotle, Robert Welch, etc. Issues is that a lady has a right (what kind?) to keep males out? I feel that ALL people has just as much a right to keep all sexual predators out of their private space,like bathrooms, public showers.etc. A public policy initiative? Are you in favor of legislating people's morals. That never worked, and it has backfired. Prohibition comes to mind. You say: The ladies have sovereignty and should have the right to keep out ,but wait. I thought this was either private property, or public property ,but not female specifically owned property. I find it highly hypocritical of you that you would suggest the country was a better place when morality was legislated. happier place when the practice of homosexuality was outlawed by the several States. And then go on to espouse a no government intervention approach. That, is just crazy making. I suggest instead something that can 1. reduce costs for public (taxpayers) or private ownwers. 2. increase privacy 3. require no legislative or rule making intervention. Single use & privately screened facilities that are not sex specific. It is very commonly used in most people's homes. 1. Keeps out all sexual predators from my place to be half or fully naked. Sexual segregation can not do that. 2. Reduces the total number of facilities required. Partitions and curtains cost a lot less than walls. Sounds like a big win win to me. Privacy, lower cost, security.

March 09, 2010 | url

Sean Evans said:

... The issue is that a lady has a right to keep males from her shower room and bathroom. Except, the "necessity" of separate bathrooms has been falsified many, many times. And where exactly is the "right to segregated bathrooms" enumerated in the Constitution? A girls gym roomis not for boys who dress up and make pretty. Those that do are either voyeurs, perverts or insane and emotionally unbalanced. If the latter is the case then they should be in a hospital. And your "expert opinion" is based on... what, exactly? "cause it's sure as hell not based on anything resembling accurate information. Oh, but I guess accurate information just confuses the issue for guys like you, right? This fixation that some of you possess on studies and "peer reviews" demonstrates that we prefer to base our opinions on accurate and verifiable information instead of hatemongering and scare tactics. You folks are way out there on a tangent looking for something that does not exist. There is no third sex. So everyone is born either male or female, huh? Unfortunately for you and your ilk, more and more people are recognizing that you can't just dismiss the existence of people whom don't fit in with your pre-existing biases.

March 09, 2010

Lee Gonzales said:

Stephanie and Sean I have better things to do than to play ring aroung the rosy with you two. The subject of separate mens and womens bathrooms never came up in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reserved issues like that to the states. Common sense should prevail.

March 09, 2010

Sticks n Stones said:

Common sense "Oh, but I guess accurate information just confuses the issue for guys like you, right" -so much for 'tolerance' "Single use & privately screened facilities that are not sex specific. It is very commonly used in most people's homes." -I suggest going to your local homeless shelter & leaving your address. On your way home, drop-off your address to every hooker & drug-addict you can find. I'm sure they would all prefer to use the non-private public bathroom in your home. I'm with Lee-better things to do that try to teach people to use common sense! :::sigh:::

March 10, 2010

happiness1535 said:

... Regarding Caster Semenya, "hermaphrodite" is an incorrect term, not just an outdated one. She has alpha-5 reductase deficiency or partial androgen insensitivity syndrome. Note that, like it or not, those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome can run as females despite being XY, no questions asked. The IAAF has not yet made a decision on Semenya

March 14, 2010

J Ross said:

WHERE IS ORDER? I agree: gender should return to what it is meant for, grammar. People are either male or female, unless born with both complete physical sex characteristics. Homosexuality is a choice, as is so called "bisexuality". People invent categories to legitimize their confusion and try to confuse the rest of us and bully us into submission to their ideas. Our society has become confused because people who have a sense of order have allowed the confused to run things. Where is order? Where are the guidelines that take the confusion out of living? Who do the confused think they are that they can destroy order in a society that wants order? If the confused want disorder, then let them found their own society somewhere else in the universe and leave the rest of us alone to live like we know is sensible and sane.

March 14, 2010

Cheryl said:

Right to privacy. As a female, with a niece in high school, I want my privacy and hers protected from male intrusion. Regardless of what an individual claims to "believe", the physical anatomy overrides all else. This ridiculous idea only opens the door to perversion and possible emotional or physical injury to females. Without tax payers, there would be no public schools. Thus, something like this should be put to a vote. Such a referendum would never pass in 99% of the districts. And, that would be that.

March 17, 2010