Paul A. Ibbetson
The naked gecko: challenging the defenders of gender blending
By Paul A. Ibbetson
Society tends to espouse the value of children in almost every facet of life. We talk about how our children will be the defenders of the nation in the future and our need to protect them until they take up that mantle of important responsibility. Many Americans express true concern that their children will be handed a huge government debt, and our responsibility today to minimize the economic burdens we lay at their feet. These large-scale social and economic confrontations are battles worth fighting, but they are not the only important conflicts of consequence when it comes to our children. Currently there is a battle of significant importance being waged over simply allowing boys to be boys and girls to be girls.
Today's gender war is not a biological conflict, but a battle between conflicting psychological and ideological forces. Many modern liberals wish to destroy the structure of the traditional family, and to do so the pillars of the biblical patriarchal family unit are being ruthlessly attacked. Of the many tragedies that arise due to those that wish to reverse the intrinsic nature of gender formation, the worst is that innocent children are being offered up daily as test subjects in liberals' labs of lowdown lunacy. Here is a modern-day example:
As reported by Joshua Miller of Fox News, a family in Toronto, Canada, has decided to raise a genderless child. How will they do this? The parents have decided to withhold the gender of their four-month-old child, whom they have named Storm, from school officials and everyone else. The parents conducting this modern-day gender-stripping experiment state that their child will be free of societal norms regarding gender. Within this sort of parental mentality both stupidity and craziness are fighting desperately for supremacy. I would say it's a tie. The sad part here is that the child, not the parents, will suffer most. In reality, little Storm will not be free of societal norms but will instead be penalized by peers for violating normal gender practices in the classroom and on the playground. Liberals know this to be true and thus enters the push for institutionalized gender blending.
In Oakland's Redwood Heights Elementary School 350 children were subjected to a two-day gender diversity lesson by a reported anti-bullying educational group called Gender Spectrum. The California Teachers Union gave Gender Spectrum a $1,500 grant to fund the two-day session. Children ages five and six years old were questioned about what they thought were "boy" and "girl" toys. Boys were told they could like the color pink if they wished. At an age when children are typically trying to discern the difference between glue and scissors, Gender Spectrum has now introduced the question of whether or not kindergarten-aged boys are "accepting enough" to the color pink. Thought that was strange? Here come the animals!
At the gender diversity sessions, school children were shown pictures of single-sex geckos and transgendered clownfish to show the variations in nature that were reported to naturally occur among humans. This is some low-handed, dirty Darwinism. There is no hiding the liberal moral relativism here when school children are propagandized to believe that their behaviors should be no more regulated than those of the animal kingdom. If Gender Spectrum truly believes this animal-to-human equivalence to be present, why not tell girls they can rip the heads off the first males they have intercourse with, or that parents can eat their children in a pinch? I wonder what would happen if these liberal social engineers were faced with a question from the class about God's placement of man above all of creation and our responsibilities to his law and not the moral relativists' more convenient law of the jungle. Yes, we all know what the unanimous answer would be from the Gender Spectrum types of the world. Something akin to, "Shut your intolerant bully mouth and keep staring at the single-sex geckos!"
Patrice Lewis of World Net Daily is accurate when she describes the detriments of those who live by and push the concept that we can live without our God-given biological code. Society gets boys who become men without the ability to embrace their responsibilities to be protectors of the family. Society gets girls who grow up to be women that fail in their responsibility to nurture their children. The end result is a perpetuation of deviance disguised as tolerance. If we love our children, we must do more than just protect the economic structure of America; we must maintain its moral fabric. Without the latter, America will be as lost and ill-prepared for tomorrow as poor little Storm walking to the first day of school.
© Paul A. Ibbetson
June 2, 2011
Society tends to espouse the value of children in almost every facet of life. We talk about how our children will be the defenders of the nation in the future and our need to protect them until they take up that mantle of important responsibility. Many Americans express true concern that their children will be handed a huge government debt, and our responsibility today to minimize the economic burdens we lay at their feet. These large-scale social and economic confrontations are battles worth fighting, but they are not the only important conflicts of consequence when it comes to our children. Currently there is a battle of significant importance being waged over simply allowing boys to be boys and girls to be girls.
Today's gender war is not a biological conflict, but a battle between conflicting psychological and ideological forces. Many modern liberals wish to destroy the structure of the traditional family, and to do so the pillars of the biblical patriarchal family unit are being ruthlessly attacked. Of the many tragedies that arise due to those that wish to reverse the intrinsic nature of gender formation, the worst is that innocent children are being offered up daily as test subjects in liberals' labs of lowdown lunacy. Here is a modern-day example:
As reported by Joshua Miller of Fox News, a family in Toronto, Canada, has decided to raise a genderless child. How will they do this? The parents have decided to withhold the gender of their four-month-old child, whom they have named Storm, from school officials and everyone else. The parents conducting this modern-day gender-stripping experiment state that their child will be free of societal norms regarding gender. Within this sort of parental mentality both stupidity and craziness are fighting desperately for supremacy. I would say it's a tie. The sad part here is that the child, not the parents, will suffer most. In reality, little Storm will not be free of societal norms but will instead be penalized by peers for violating normal gender practices in the classroom and on the playground. Liberals know this to be true and thus enters the push for institutionalized gender blending.
In Oakland's Redwood Heights Elementary School 350 children were subjected to a two-day gender diversity lesson by a reported anti-bullying educational group called Gender Spectrum. The California Teachers Union gave Gender Spectrum a $1,500 grant to fund the two-day session. Children ages five and six years old were questioned about what they thought were "boy" and "girl" toys. Boys were told they could like the color pink if they wished. At an age when children are typically trying to discern the difference between glue and scissors, Gender Spectrum has now introduced the question of whether or not kindergarten-aged boys are "accepting enough" to the color pink. Thought that was strange? Here come the animals!
At the gender diversity sessions, school children were shown pictures of single-sex geckos and transgendered clownfish to show the variations in nature that were reported to naturally occur among humans. This is some low-handed, dirty Darwinism. There is no hiding the liberal moral relativism here when school children are propagandized to believe that their behaviors should be no more regulated than those of the animal kingdom. If Gender Spectrum truly believes this animal-to-human equivalence to be present, why not tell girls they can rip the heads off the first males they have intercourse with, or that parents can eat their children in a pinch? I wonder what would happen if these liberal social engineers were faced with a question from the class about God's placement of man above all of creation and our responsibilities to his law and not the moral relativists' more convenient law of the jungle. Yes, we all know what the unanimous answer would be from the Gender Spectrum types of the world. Something akin to, "Shut your intolerant bully mouth and keep staring at the single-sex geckos!"
Patrice Lewis of World Net Daily is accurate when she describes the detriments of those who live by and push the concept that we can live without our God-given biological code. Society gets boys who become men without the ability to embrace their responsibilities to be protectors of the family. Society gets girls who grow up to be women that fail in their responsibility to nurture their children. The end result is a perpetuation of deviance disguised as tolerance. If we love our children, we must do more than just protect the economic structure of America; we must maintain its moral fabric. Without the latter, America will be as lost and ill-prepared for tomorrow as poor little Storm walking to the first day of school.
© Paul A. Ibbetson
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
