Lesbian activist Rikki Wilchins has no prob- lem defining her final goal. Her article, “We’ll Win the Bathroom Battle When Bi- nary Burns” 1 clearly states that the goal is to eradicate the differences between men and women.

If a person cannot be identified objectively by his or her characteristics using logic, we cannot know anything. With this, the principles of iden- tity and non-contradiction vanish, leading to mental and personal chaos. “Transgender” peo- ple want to transform “identity” into a mere illu- sion created by fantasy, determined by whatever one desires. They deceive themselves with the il- lusion that they can change their sex and iden- tity at will.

Of course, this is absolutely impossible to do. “It is physiologically impossible to change a per- son’s sex, since the sex of each individual is en- coded in the genes—XX if female, XY if male. Surgery can only create the appearance of the other sex,” explains Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D., Philip M. Sutton, Ph.D., and Dale O’Leary in a well-documented study. Sexual iden- tity, they add, “is written on every cell of the body and can be determined through DNA test- ing. It cannot be changed.”

While sex can- not be changed, newly invented terms referring to sex created by the homosexual movement try to give the appear- ance of change and cause confu- sion in the general public. It would be helpful to under- stand the meaning and origin of the words “gender” and “transgen- der” as steps in changing the perception of a per- son’s sex.

A sexologist at Johns Hopkins University, Dr. John Money, coined “gender” in 1955 as a term to describe what sex one identifies with, not a de- fined biological trait. However, if a person mani- fests anything other than identifying with his or her biological sex, it has long been considered a psychological disorder that no one is born with and is manifestly contrary to our human nature.

In 1965, psychiatrist John Olivan coined the term “transgenderism” in a medical study on Sexual Hygiene and Pathology and used it in a medical context to indicate the urge one suffers from when desiring a change of sex. Note here that the word “urge” does not refer to a biological matter, but a function of the will, which is to de- sire. Neither the word gender nor the word trans- gender have any basis in genetics, rather they are psychological terms that refer to states that orig- inate in the mind.

Many credit transvestite Arnold Lowman, who took the name “Virginia Prince,” for coining the term transgender in 1969, but this is not true. However, Arnold did start the Society for the Sec- ond Self, published the magazine Tranvestia from 1960 till 1980 and produced many other writings promoting transgenderism. One such article was titled “The Expression of Femininity in the Male” in 1967 under the pseudonym “Vir- ginia Bruce.” It discussed the psychiatric links be- tween cross-dressing and sexual deviation. Never did he confuse his biological sex with his desires.

Rikki Wilchins, the founder of the first trans- gender advocacy group Gender-PAC, has gone further stating “as a matter of simple human dig- nity, trans people should be allowed to access the bathroom that fits their gender identity. Full stop.” 3 Her argument assumes the premise that gender ideology is an uncontested fact. She complains that we are all confined to the social construct of the binary system of sexes that must be destroyed because it gives an indisputable definition according to biological characteristics. Binary sex is not a social construct but a reality rooted in biology, and destroying it destroys our nature.

It is physiologically impossible to change a person’s sex, since the sex of each individual is encoded in the genes—XX if female, XY if male. Surgery can only create the appearance of the other sex.” —Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D.

What Wilchins will ultimately achieve by “burning binary” is the burning of logic through moral relativism. Logic is the intellectual means by which we are able to know things correctly; that is, what something is and is not, to define things as they are. The etymology of the word “define” would help. It comes from the Latin definire , meaning to set limits or specify, and transgender people want to eliminate any defi- nition that clashes with their ever-changing fantasies.

In fact, the word “transgender” is not clearly defined by the very people who promote it. It is an umbrella term used by the homosexual move- ment to address myriad sexual desires and iden- tities. Besides referring to trans-men and trans-women that “identify” with the opposite biological sex, it can also refer to people who are not exclusively men or women but are gen- derqueer, which includes bigender, pangender, genderfluid, third gender and agender. Some of these definitions include being both, or neither, sex and/or “gender” at the same time and place.

Once sexual binary concepts have been de- stroyed, and together with them the first princi- ple of logic, the principle of identity will be challenged. This is the first of the three classical principles of thought defined by Aristotle, stat- ing that everything that exists has a specific na- ture. It states that each entity exists as something in particular and possesses characteristics that are a part of what it is, therefore “each thing is the same with itself and different from another.”

Logic shows us that it is impossible to affirm and to deny one thing at the same time and under the same aspect; it is a consequence of the principles of identity and non-contradiction. However, with transgenderism rejecting the principle of identity, it also rejects the principle of non-contradiction. This is the patent substi- tution of objective reality with subjective feelings.

Today, the honest person is faced with two personal decisions: (1) to remain faithful to the God-made objective reality, (2) to go along with modern subjectivism and adopt a series of lies. Something as simple as a set of cellphone cases shows the beauty of the difference created by God. Male and female are the only created and existing genders; the difference between them is real and beautiful.

If the moral relativism inherent to transgen- derism succeeds in burning the concepts of bi- nary definition and logic regarding one’s sex, what can possibly resist the ferocious unbridled passions from obliterating the very underpin- nings of what makes us all human beings? By forcing society to respect a man for what he feels like rather than what he is, we will have com- pletely denied the fundamental characteristic that defines us as rational beings. That is, the ex- tinguishing of the light of reason through the de- nial of logic, one of the most important qualities that differentiates us from every other animal.

It becomes clear that by challenging funda- mental and non-negotiable binary concepts, the definition of what it means to be human is at stake. The burning of binary unleashes a moral relativism that threatens the destruction of civilization. It is ironic that the transgender movement can’t seem to see the God-given def- inition of biological sex; but it clearly defines its goal to destroy the very existence of that which it denies.


1. well-win-bathroom-battle-when-binary-burns


3. well-win-bathroom-battle-when-binary-burns

You may also like:

Comments Policy: reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.