Statism and the De-Sexed Society

The Total State wants nothing standing in between it and the naked individual. Complete control by the authoritarians is much easier that way of course when there is no one to mediate between the person and the All-Powerful State. Things like independent unions, churches, families and voluntary societies are all targeted when the Police State takes charge.

That is why families and churches are especially in the crosshairs of the militant social activists. They know that if these two institutions can be destroyed or neutralised, then the Totalist State has a free run. I have warned about this repeatedly, including in this recent piece:

This is how we must understand the homosexual and transgender juggernaut which is crushing everything in its path. These identical twins are involved in an effort to subvert and overthrow biblical morality and marriage and the family. The war on the sexes is a very vital component of all this.

big brother 5Destroy the very concept of male and female and you go a long way to destroying culture – certainly any culture based on biology, normality, reality, and the Judeo-Christian worldview. That is the endgame for the sexual revolutionaries: destroy it all.

So the hyper-drive for trans’ rights is just the latest manifestation of all this. De-sex society and you destroy society. And then the State gets complete control over everything and everyone. And the activists have spilled the beans on this, so don’t take my word for it.

I have already mentioned how the Marxist trans-activist Roz Ward who developed Australia’s Safe Schools program has openly admitted that this is not at all about bullying, but about implementing the Marxist cultural, social and sexual agenda.

And in America we have activists like Riki Wilchins who write in mainstream homosexual outlets like The Advocate, saying “We’ll Win the Bathroom Battle When the Binary Burns”. The subtitle to the article says it all: “Ending our culture’s obsession with what’s ‘male’ and what’s ‘female’ will be our salvation”.

In the piece he/she says that we must move beyond the two sexes: “You have to instead critique the heterobinary structure itself.” The article concludes as follows:

What really needs to be contested here is not just our right to use bathrooms with dignity (which would personally be very welcome), but the entire underlying hetero-binary structuring of the world queers must inhabit. This is the real struggle, and queer activists have been talking about it at least since the 1970s of Gay Liberation, even as the movement it spawned has continued to nudge it aside. All of which is to say, transgender advocates and their allies are doing incredible work. But they have finally and perhaps unwittingly opened the gender Pandora’s Box, and over the next few years all sorts of unexpected non-binary things, like Maria, are about to come popping out. This is going to be interesting.

As Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council put it, “The long-term goals of many LGBT activists are actually not just access to the restrooms of their preferred gender identity, but actually destroying the concept of gender or the separation of the genders altogether.”

Or as Rod Dreher wrote, “That is to say, they want to destroy the concepts of male and female entirely. This is what they’re after, and they’re not going to stop until it is accomplished.” Stella Morabito, who has written often on this issue has a brand new article which is well worth highlighting. Entitled, “A De-Sexed Society is a De-Humanized Society” she notes how Big Brother and the sexual anarchists are in bed together on this.

She begins:

President Obama’s transgender directive isn’t about civil rights or bathroom use. It’s about state control over personal relationships. As usual, tyranny comes disguised as “civil rights.” The latest exhibit of this general rule is President Obama’s directive that seeks to force a transgender bathroom, locker room and dorm policy on the entire nation, starting with schoolchildren. Many of us are taken aback by this news, but we really shouldn’t be. The order is merely the latest incarnation of a long line of social engineering. The goal, as is always the case with such movements, is to remake humanity. What the people behind this latest version won’t tell you is that their project requires each and every one of us to deny our own humanity.

She reminds us that “Without Sex, There Are No Families” and goes on to say this:

What will happen when all of society is sexless in both language and law? If the law does not recognize your body as physically male or female—applying only the word “gender” to your internal, self-reported self-perception—does the law even recognize your body? Every single cell of you has either “male” or “female” written into its DNA, but the law refuses to recognize such categories. Such laws will only recognize an infinite, immeasurable “gender spectrum,” your place on which is determined only by your mind. So what exactly are you after the law has de-sexed you? In what sense is your body a legal entity?
And what happens to your familial relationships after the law has de-sexed you? Are they legally recognized? I don’t see how they could be. Certainly not by default, certainly not by the recognition that each child comes through the union of two opposite-sex parents.
In a society de-sexed by law, would the state recognize your relationship as a husband or a wife? Mother or father? Daughter or son? Those are all sexed terms. A system that does not recognize the existence of male and female would be free to ignore the parentage of any child. You might be recognized as your child’s “legal guardian,” but only if the state agrees to that. Anybody can be a guardian to your child if the state decides it’s in the child’s “best interest.” In this vision, there is nothing to prevent the state from severing the mother-child bond at will.
In such a scenario, the state controls all personal relationships right at their source: the biological family. The abolition of family autonomy would be complete, because the biological family would cease to be a default arrangement. The “family” would be whatever the state allows it to be. Again, in the de-sexed world of gender politics, all personal relationships end up controlled and regulated by the state.
Martha Fineman, a gender legal theorist, touched on this in her 2004 book The Autonomy Myth. In it, she argues for the abolition of state-recognized marriage because it allows for family privacy, writing that “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society” (emphasis added).
Gender ideology is an effective statist tool. Cultural Marxists use it to corrupt language and sow confusion, especially among children. It paves the way for the removal of the institutional protections for freedom of association and family privacy that stand in the way of “regulating interactions among all members of society.”

She then asks, “How do you get public opinion on board with an agenda that leads them to deny the reality of their own humanity?” Here is her disturbing answer:

There are lots of pieces to this puzzle, including the erosion of social trust, the breakdown of family, social polarization, and growing ignorance of history. But the groundwork has been laid over a long period of time.
First, virtually all outlets of communication had to be on board—Hollywood, academia, the media. Check. All medical personnel, particularly mental health personnel, had to be “educated” to comply with the transgender program or risk losing their licenses. Check. The educational establishment had to imbue schoolchildren with the ideology. Check. Large corporations had to get on board as stakeholders and enforcers. Check. And, of course, the push to legally de-sex society had to be embedded—Trojan Horse style—within a slightly less alien idea, with the slick slogan “marriage equality.” Check. Churches had to be brought on board so that even religion became a conduit for anti-truth. Check. Social, emotional, and economic pressures had to be established to censure anyone who dared to question the wisdom of it all. Check. Any such person had to be labeled a bigot, a hater, and a non-person. Checkmate.

Yes that is where all this is heading: not only the death of marriage, family, and male and female, but the death of freedom and democracy, and the rise of the All-Powerful State. I wonder if Huxley and Orwell knew last century that their feared dystopias would come about via the homosexual and transgender agendas.

Well it most certainly is happening that way.

[1442 words]

7 Replies to “Statism and the De-Sexed Society”

  1. I would like to share with you off-the-cuff what I (as a believer in the word of GOD) personally fear concerning the future of all those Nations that do not fear our Father GOD, creator of this universe. It may be apparent to most, that the governing bodies (in most cases) are elected into place by a majority (the so-called democratic system). Yet who are the majority now? In by far the majority of cases (if not in fact all), they are undeniably, unbelievers. So we cannot and must not think that any method of government based on the above system, will endeavour to hold to Christian ideals at all; let alone condone them. (Here I speak of “Christian” in the purest sense). And it is for that reason as well, that we will observe total anarchy (and it is already happening in many countries right now) begin to spread around the globe. For those that fear not the LORD Himself; are serving another god, whose name is death.
    This is why I am constantly raising the topic of praying for my country and every time I mention it, it is a reminder to myself, to pursue this course. Nevertheless, we do not yet know, what the final end will be.
    Thank you so much for your insight and willingness to share what is significant in these times.

  2. Good article Bill. Am I correct in thinking that if this crowd destroys gender, then how can they then have rights for homosexuals because they won’t exist by their definition?

  3. How do the deluded minority get so much power that they get to dictate to the majority? (Rhetorical question) I keep trying to raise awareness of what is happening but people look at me as if I am crazy, unfriend me both on social media and in real life and shun me. They don’t believe how bad this is getting.

  4. I am of the opinion that people will now believe anything that is told to them as being “good for society”…even when it is obvious to a blind man that it isn’t. They prefer to believe lies rather than truth because it will keep them in the “majority” camp, which is far more comfortable than being on the truth fringes, where we are.
    Thus I have no doubt that the abolition of gender would be welcomed by them all, because it will demonstrate “full inclusivity and equality for all”. Thus begins the society of the neutral human, or a robot by any other name.

  5. D.H. Lawrence in his remarkably perceptive A Propos of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” (p. 320 in the Penguin Twetieth-Century Classics edition) wrote:

    “Make marriage in any serious degree unstable, dissoluble, destroy the permanency of marriage, and the church falls. …
    … The marriage tie, the marriage bond take it which way you like, is the fundamental connecting link in Christian society. Break it, and you will go back to the overwhelming dominance of the State, which existed before the Christian era. …”

  6. Hit the nail on the head, Bill. The issue is nothing to do with what is being presented. The vast majority of homosexuals (around 95%) are not remotely interested in “marriage.” It is purely and completely a political move to replace truth, morality and democracy with lies, immorality and totalitarian rule. Whether people are smart and virtuous enough to see through the ploy is the question. People know there is something wrong which is why they keep voting for obscure parties and platforms but it would appear that the media propaganda blitz (albeit sometimes a very subtle one) has blinded them to what the answer really is. Very obviously, people are clutching at straws instead of coming to the truth.

  7. Examples of loving, but non-sexual, relationships abound; but all homosexual relationships MUST, unless words lose ALL meaning, be sexual, irrespective of the feelings involved
    A Society in the process of redefining its words is headed for self-destruction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *