The Misleading Genderqueer Dialectic

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Misleading Genderqueer DialecticOne of the first principles of logic is the Law of Contradiction, which states that something cannot be, and not be at the same time and place. Any child can understand this because we are hardwired to think this way, however the LGBTQ crowd cannot seem to get it. The term genderqueer has appeared out of thin air and is supposed to mean that a person is attracted to male or female, both or neither. It is a self-identifying label that also means that one is neither male nor female but an androgynous hybrid or rejection of both. If this seems confusing—it is. When one violates the principles of logic, chaos ensues.

Welcome to the delusional world of gender politics where everyone tries to escape the binary definition of sexuality. It is not enough that those who hold these theories affirm this intellectual chaos. Now, through political correctness, the general public is held hostage to play this bizarre game by accepting the dialectic of their ever-morphing lifestyle, lest they be accused of discrimination.

This veritable dictatorship is now attempting to oblige everyone to accept their preferred gender pronouns, known as PGPs for short, which change from one moment to the next and implement the use of a bizarre language corresponding to their behavior, such as ze, sie, e, ou and ve.

According to nature, the sex of any human being is clearly defined by unique biological features having to do with reproduction. Consistent with these characteristics, there are supporting roles in one’s psychology, emotions, temperament and entire physiology. The confused gender crowd denies all of these characteristics as essential to one’s physical identity and behavior and considers them insignificant accidents that can be changed at will. This is because they consider the sexual act is for pleasure and not for the purpose of procreation. Therefore “I am what I feel.”

Consistent with their choice in behavior, which departs from the good social and natural order, they have been creating a new dialectic to accommodate their behaviors using terms such as gay, gender, genderqueer, cisgender, pansexual, skoliosexual, gynesexual, gynephilic, androsexual and androphilic to mention a few. This ambiguous terminology is charged with baggage that means everything and nothing at the same time; depending upon who is speaking and how they feel at the moment. Ergo, absolutely everything is relative. If the previous statement appears contradictory, it is.

In an effort to break away from the traditional understanding of sex as a means for procreation, professor of sexology at Johns Hopkins University John Money started this process by coining the term gender role in 1955. He created an artificial separation between one’s anatomical sex and behavior by producing a term that allows for one’s identity to be defined by a behavior rather than one’s biological makeup with the specific reference to eroticism.

Money urged pedophiles not to be discouraged by the lack of evidence backing up their cause because if homosexuals did not need scientific evidence, neither would pedophiles. He stated that, “when the gay rights activists became politically active, there wasn’t a sufficient body of scientific information for them to base their gay activism on. So, you don’t have to have a basic body of scientific information in order to decide to work actively for a particular ideology. As long as you’re prepared to be put in jail. Isn’t that how social change has always taken place?”1

His radical departure from the traditional concept of sexuality was nothing more than thinly veiled justification for sin by attempting to remove personal responsibility for bad behavior by claiming homosexuals were born that way. Regardless if one suffers from unwanted same-sex attraction, sexual behavior must be consistent with the purpose for its existence, which is procreation.

The definition of a word, is to have meaning, therefore a word defines. The definition of the word “define” is “to mark out the boundary or limits of,” meaning that things have limits; therefore we know what something is by what it is not and vice versa. Creating a new dialectic with ambiguous meanings only promotes chaos and the misleading word genderqueer is only the latest fad in this ongoing insanity.



Related Articles: