Twenty years ago I attended the United Nations’ Beijing Conference on Women. The focus of the gathering was the definition of “gender”. The word appeared at least once in almost all of platforms over 300 sections. While many people believe that the words “sex” and “gender” are interchangeable, the goal of the Beijing conference was to change radically the definition of both.
Until then, sex had described to the totality of what it means to be male or female, and gender was a grammatical term. But gender theory downgraded sex to the biological level only. In normal usage sex was to be replaced by gender, and gender would describe socially constructed roles that could be changed. A male could have a female gender identity.
According to gender ideology, all the psychological and cultural differences between men and women are artificial constructs that not only can, but should be eliminated so that men and women participate in every activity of society in statistically equal numbers.
The obvious enemy of this agenda is motherhood. If two people have sexual relations, only one gets pregnant and it’s always the woman.
When the conference was over I wrote a book, The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality. The following are quotations from the conclusion of my book.
The UN is inhabited by people who believe that what the world needs is:
1) Fewer people
2) More sexual pleasure
3) The elimination of the differences between men and women
4) No full-time mothers
These people recognize that increasing sexual pleasure could increase the number of babies and mothers. Therefore, their prescription for world salvation is:
1) Free contraception and legal abortions
2) Promotion of homosexuality (sex without babies)
3) Sex education courses, which encourage sexual experimentation among children; which teach them how to get contraception and abortions, that homosexuality is normal, and that men and women are the same.
4) The elimination of parental rights so that parents cannot prevent children from having sex, sex education, contraception or abortion
5) Fifty/fifty, male/female quotas
6) All women in the workforce
7) Discrediting all religions that oppose this agenda.
This is the ‘gender perspective’ and they want it mainstreamed in every program at every level in every country.
. . .
The Gender Agenda cannot be defeated until people are willing to stand up and say, “No more inclusive language, no more politically correct speech.” We must refuse to say “gender” when we mean “sex”. Those who are offended by reality and human nature will just have to live with it.
During the Beijing conference, at a meeting sponsored by pro-family, prolife NGO’s, two lesbians spoke up. They were crying and said that all they wanted was to get married. The pro-family, pro-life spokespersons had no compassionate answer and I knew that this would be next major challenge. It was obvious then that we were in the midst of a culture war and the issues before us were inextricably linked.
In the intervening years things have gotten worse. People who should know better use gender when they mean sex. Others go along with the fantasy that a man can become a woman, or that the relationship between two people of the same sex is a marriage. Selling unborn baby parts is defended on the floor of the US Senate.
Just when it felt like the world had gone over the edge, Africa’s Catholic bishops stood up and refused to be blackmailed by UN bureaucrats and western gender activists.
Having cowed the Western nations into submission with accusations of sexism and homophobia, the gender activists turned their attention to Africa and demanded that, as a condition of receiving development aid, the African nations adopt the gender agenda. However, the African bishops saw through the ambivalent language of “reproductive rights” and in a Common Statement rejected, as a new form of slavery, the “so-called ‘gender perspective,’ according to which motherhood, the filial and nuptial identity of the human being and the family based on marriage between a man and a woman would be ‘discriminatory stereotypes.’”
Let us hope that people of good sense will follow their lead, wake up, realize they have been conned, and stand against gender theory in all its forms.
Dale O’Leary is a US writer with a special interest in psychosexual issues and is the author of two books: One Man, One Woman and The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality. She blogs at What Does the Research Really Say?