Gender Issues: After Gender Identity Comes “Gender Stereotyping”
What is the logical end of the new sexual revolution that seeks to erase inherent differences between the genders and make sex a matter of cognitive choice rather than biology?
Nope, I’m not overstating it even a little bit. If anything that might be an understatement. But just in case you still aren’t convinced by my fool-proof logic and obviously sound reasoning, let’s look at a couple of recent accounts to see if my hypothesis holds up to scrutiny.
Bryan John Ellicott was born a woman, but now identifies as a man. According to a recent article the 24-year-old went to a Staten Island public pool where “he” changed into swim trunks and a t-shirt. A little while later when “he” returned to change shirts an employee of the pool told the transgender man that he had to either use the women’s locker room or leave.
Then we have Chase Culpepper, a 16-year-old boy that considers himself “gender non-conforming” and chooses to live most days a girl. Young Chase went to the DMV to get his license and was told he could not wear makeup for his photo because he did not look like a boy. Reportedly, the DMV was just following protocol.
Each of these accounts shows the inevitable outcome of the new sexual revolution that wants to eliminate gender differences and make sex and gender a personal preference instead of a biological fact.
Is it really a good idea to have a woman changing clothes in a men’s locker room? Most sane people would say “no, that’s a recipe for sexual harassment.” We typically segregate the sexes in order to preserve dignity, respect, privacy, and safety. There’s just something about putting naked men and women in the same room that produces certain…undesirable results. So even though this particular woman believes she is a man, she still looks like a woman. Putting her in a men’s locker room is simply not advisable.
This kind of behavior leads to perverted men dressing in women’s clothing so they can go into the women’s locker room. The result will be similar to the hacked celebrity accounts that made the headlines not long ago. But the sexual anarchists orchestrating the current rebellion either can’t see that, or don’t want to see it. They want their rebellion so badly that they are willing to create scenarios that will hurt others.
But what about Chase and his desire to have a driver’s license picture in makeup? Is there any problem with that? Well, that depends, would it be acceptable for any person to wear items that are not related to his or her biological gender? For example, what if a male that appears to be foreign is getting his license but wants to alter his appearance by wearing makeup, or even a wig? Would this be acceptable? Common sense says it would be problematic because it poses a security risk. Such a license could be used to hide the true identity of an individual which could potentially allow the person to commit crimes.
Btu so what if people get hurt because of these policies. The new sexual revolution demands that people be allowed to dress and act any way they choose and no one is allowed to ask a single question. Interestingly, the DMV policy which refused to let Chase wear his makeup states:
“At no time will an applicant be photographed when it appears that he or she is purposely altering his or her appearance so that the photo would misrepresent his or her identity.”
Whoa! Wait a minute. Is the government saying that the only two identities a person can claim is either male or female? The only pronouns used in that statement are “he,” “she,” “his,” and “her.” Those are so…tyrannical. How dare the government declare that only male and female genders exist! Don’t they know that some people, like Chase, are “gender non-conforming”? Don’t they know that you can choose among several dozen “gender identities” on Facebook? Don’t they know the central theme of the LGBT movement is to allow people the freedom to associate gender and identity as fluidly as they desire?
The government itself has declared that transgender people are indeed identifying as male or female. An article at The Family Research Council explains that the Department of Labor now views sex stereotyping as a form of sex discrimination because no one, not even the government can tell a person how a male or female should act. The article states:
“One theory on which the government relies here is based on ‘sex stereotyping’ as a form of ‘sex discrimination’ — because a male chooses to identify as female, the theory goes, discriminating against them constitutes a form of stereotyping how males are supposed to act, and thus constitutes ‘sex discrimination.’ Such thinking is far-fetched to begin with, but even the legal issues are not as clear cut as the government would have us believe. For while other protected classes are clearly rooted in easily-identifiable inborn characteristics, ‘sex stereotyping’ is based on one’s actions — thus individuals are not protected based on any ‘gender identity’ status alone if they can’t show they were stereotyped, according to this theory. In addition, the DOL points to the EEOC’s argument that “treating a person differently because the person is transgender is by definition sex discrimination because it is ‘related to the sex of the victim.’ But a person ‘is transgender’ based on a choice not a biological reality, unless someone is prepared to introduce a new biological third category of sex, beyond male and female. Absent such a creation, being ‘transgender’ is still only ‘related’ to sex as an action taken with regard to one’s sexuality.”
So…in other words, only an individual can determine what gender he or she is, and even after that determination is made only the individual can determine what constitutes “normal behavior” for the chosen gender. Furthermore, anyone discriminating against another person based on gender, gender identity, or gender stereotype is wrong. Does that sound about right?
If you’re confused don’t worry, you’re not alone. The new sexual ethic that is making an effort to become normal in our country is more than confusing. It’s downright insane. There’s not just safety concerns here, there’s privacy concerns, and ultimately there’s concerns for human dignity and respect.
What happens when a man successfully uses “gender identity” as a defense for why he was in the women’s locker room all day? What happens when a criminal uses “gender identity” to get a driver’s license that looks nothing like his image? What happens when a teenager becomes so sexually or gender confused that he ends his life?
Encouraging confusion in people is not something to be proud of. Pushing people toward a lifestyle that promotes anxiety, stress, and lower self-esteem is dangerous. The end result is a group of people with emotional hurt far deeper than they had before they were encouraged to be someone other than their biological gender. And we all lose when laws are based on such nonsense.