Friday, May 25, 2012

A "Genderless" Society? Common Sense Has Finally Left The Building

Is This The New Form Of Child Abuse?

O' Canada...Meet Baby Storm 
Supposedly no one knows Baby Storm's gender because his/her parents have decided to make it a secret even to him/her and certainly to all the rest of us. The parents, Kathy Witterick, 38, and David Stocker, 39,  sent this email out New Year's Day when Baby Storm was born:
"We decided not to share Storm's sex for now -- a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a standup to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime."
So Baby Storm is a representative of what the world "could become" in baby Storm's lifetime???  So far Grandparents have had to try to explain why everyone is sworn to secrecy regarding Storm's gender. Storm's brothers have even been told that the gender of their brother/sister is a secret. What do these kids tell other kids about their brother/sister? What toys do you buy? What diapers do you buy? If he is a boy, do you dress him in a dress or skirt or lace clothing?
"To raise a child not as a boy or a girl is creating, in some sense, a freak," ..."It sets them up for not knowing who they are."..."To have a sense of self and personal identity is a critical part of normal healthy development,"..."This blocks that and sets the child up for bullying, scapegoating and marginalization."..."We all have sexual identity,"..."The mission to have masculine and feminine traits more equalized and more flexible and not judgmental is awesome in a utopian community. But we take pride in our sexual identity." ~ Dr. Eugene Beresin, director of training in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. 
So ultimately even those in the mental health profession claim that this "experiment" is not a good one. In fact it is down right manipulative.

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player
The basis of this is that view is the "theory" that gender is a learned behavior. That if a person is not taught  gender association and expression, that they will be and become a "sexually free" person uninhibited by bring "trained" to embrace a certain gender and having the ability to express themselves as sexually neutral. In essence, in their perfect world, the person may embrace a gender but it will be without being pressured to do so? As Storm's mother says:
"In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, 'Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what she (he) wants to be?!."
What if Storm gets older and wants to go to the restroom at a restaurant? Do you mean that Storm can impose his "freedom" to invade the privacy of men or women in their respective bathrooms because he is not an expression of either, or because he/she is gender neutral?

Then there's this discussed on The O'Rielly Factor:

It seems that all of this is on the heels of a British couple who for the last 5 years raised their male child "Sasha" as gender neutral. Sasha's mother, Beck Lawton, said the following regarding her actions in keeping her son's gender identity secret, even from him:
"I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping. Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?"... "I don't think I'd do it if I thought it was going to make him unhappy, but at the moment he's not really bothered either way, All I want to do is make people think a bit."
OK, so Mrs. Beck is convinced that this child is not "bothered either way" regarding being raised as a gender neutral child. In other words, when he is wearing pink, frilly outfits and playing with dolls while other boys that he may like being around are engaging in activities more suitable for boys, his parents simply waive the magic wand and make the value judgement that he doesn't mind? Only how do they know this? how do they know that he doesn't feel different regarding his looks, appearance or his association within the context of the group of children? In fact do they consider the impact that this has upon others children? How is it that other parents shouldn't mind when Sasha is told that he can go to either bathroom based on how he "feels" today? Is it right to subdue the societal value and norm of gender identification to cater to someone who deliberately claims that they are not gender identifiable? 

I claim that this is a form of child abuse. It is a parents experiment to see what will happen and their effort to use a child as a public, social and moral value statement. It is a parent's imposition on both the child and society in general in effort to make society bow down to honoring gender re-definition. In fact, we all know where this goes. It goes to open sexuality and what the bible describes as lasciviousness. 

Fact : Gender Is Not Learned, Gender Is Genetic

What we are dealing with is the concept of "gender morality" The fact is that "gender morality" like all morality,  proceeds from the one who writes the code of life and that is God himself. Although there is no right or wrong gender, the truth of gender is the fact that it exists. Within each gender there is a certain set of genes that provide a hormonal makeup for a person to experience gender identity. So from a purely naturalistic point of view, a person's gender is an unambiguous part of an individual's life. 

What is interesting about this concept as it is applied by these individuals, is that it suggests the claim of body/ mind dualism. Dualism would mean that the body and the mind are two different things as opposed to one. In concepts of materialism, the mind is an extension of the body and the mind can be manipulated to suit whatever expression that suits the body's needs. In this case, the assumption is that if left alone the mind should be allowed to produce its own gender identity regardless of the body's presentation of fact (genitalia or genes) and that the natural state of the body and mind are open and neutral toward gender identity. The concept is that being a boy is learned behavior, just as being a girl is learned behavior. 

This is ridiculous and utter confusion.

Man Is Not Created Gender Neutral. They Are Created Male and Female 

Genesis 5:2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Mankind (Heb. Adam) consists of both male and female. The pattern of man's existence is that he has been created with gender identity and that identification is for a reason. and should not and cannot be denied. It is obvious. 

Chaz Bono
The Transformation
Gender identity is a part of nature. Even the animals have been given a certain gender based on their genetic makeup. Man is created in a higher order than animals with both moral thought and higher values. We should expect man to respond to how they are created in a much higher way based on a much higher set of values. 

Moral law speaks to the hear that these things are wrong. what is inescapable is the sense of right and wrong that one gains from concepts of gender manipulation or neutrality. Adults, such as Chaz Bono, can do what they wish to do in manipulating their bodies to appear as a man or a woman against their genetic code. However, to not equip a child with valuable information that he/ she will need in order to function in this world, or to use them as a scapegoat to promote a social agenda is beneath every parent and spell child abuse and neglect. In the United States there are individuals who have had their children taken from them by the state for lesser offences.


What about religious training pastor? I know children who are made to quote bible verses by their parents and they have no idea what the scriptures say or even mean. Isn't that brainwashing and child abuse as well?
Dr. Richard Dawkins
This objection is a common one. Prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins, claims that parents should be charged with abuse for teaching their child religion and the bible in general. There are a few points regarding this:

First teaching the bible violates no genetic predisposition of human physiology.

Secondly the bible is not a fictitious book or a story. The bible provides verifiable and historically accurate information. Therefore the bible becomes a valuable source for education of historical events, culture and attitudes of the day. 

Third, the religion of Christianity offers no values and makes no assumptions which are harmful to the growth, health and development of either individuals or a healthy community in general.

Fourth, parents are to provide a moral base from which families grow and develop. Concepts such as truth, right and fairness are what the bible teaches. Therefore the bible is an excellent resource for moral value training and teaching. 

Fifth, quoting a bible verse, whether one understands it or not, is not tantamount to psycho-manipulation of gender neutrality, which is in essence being told that one can choose whether they are a boy or a girl irregardless of one's genetic and physical makeup. 

In order to fulfill our education, we have all quoted certain information before we have come to properly understand it. The Declaration of Independence is one such document. The Constitution of the United States is another that even adults quote but don't know what it means. Are we to assume that we shouldn't repeat history until we can fully comprehend and understand it? Many children grow to appreciate what these documents mean even if they can't understand them at an early age. However has anyone considered it to be "education abuse" to teach the documents to the child and even have them recite them?

Once again, arguments such as this are full of NOTHING but tired retorts that appeal to a shallow and hollow understanding of moral basis, views and how societies are developed and sustain.   


A gender neutral society is a modern version of a sick, sexually depraved, materialistically centered, vision, ultimately where sexual morals and commitments do not exist. It is plain to see that if a parent fails or refuses to teach a child what is right, someone will proceed to teach their version of what they think is right. A child should be taught moral values as it pertains to their gender and how to act and handle themselves if they are a boy or a girl.  

Prov. 22:6Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

One can't help what a child decides to do with their life and body when they are bale to make decisions on their own. That is an issue of personal morality and moral values. However, one can help what one teaches and the messages that one gives or provides. Failure to provide that message to a child is certainly no less than abuse. 



  1. It is unquestionable that we live in a rebellous high minded, arrogant and full of pride society. Children rebelling against parents, and parents rebelling against God. You mentioned "common sense". Sense is no longer common. Instead, it is more valueable as the rarest, precious jewel.

    Mankind has become wise in its own conceit. Mankind has taken the path that the scriptures speak of as being right unto man but the end thereof is destruction. This is scripture. A good student, or interested person will take a key from that passage, and look it up in its entirety.

    It seems that society is repeatedly shaking its fist in God's face by repeatedly disrespecting His authority in every way possible. In the words of a famous preacher: If God does not bring judgement upon America, He will have to apology to Sodom and Gommorrah.

  2. I just cannot get over some things.

    So "The world" has been doing this gender thing all wrong for centuries, is that it? These people are going to show us how it should really be, they are obviously right.

    The epitome of foolishness!

    Being a boy does not mean that one has to play sports and neither does a girl have to play with dolls, but they are what they are. Not letting us know does not change that.

    I know this is far fetched but suppose he says he does not want to be human at all, maybe he wants to behave like a dog, would they endorse it?

    This is nothing short of Child abuse, both to the baby and the other Children in the house.

    Whoopi would be the one to embrace this foolishness; she allowed her daughter at the age of 14 to have a child because she believe's in "freedom". Yes, the child actually told/asked her about having a baby and even though it hurt, Whoopi could not go agaisnt her beliefs.



I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Thanks.