It’s About Control

The transgender movement has never been about “gender.” It’s all about sex. Sex is the real target. “Gender” is merely the politicized linguistic vehicle that facilitates a legal ban on sex distinctions. There aren’t a whole lot of dots to connect to uncover the logic of where this leads: if you abolish sex distinctions in law, you can abolish state recognition of biological family ties, and the state can regulate personal relationships and consolidate power as never before.

Stella Morabito

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


  1. It’s about control, but for what purpose? Answer: the disintegration of man’s inner person, his soul, the source of his dignity as the spiritual image bearer of the One God in three Persons. This insidious process was begun during the Enlightenment by Deists and fellow free-thinkers. Lester Crocker explains their agenda:

    “There existed in the eighteenth century a widespread desire to equate the moral with the physical world…” What was desired above all was “total integration of man in nature, with refusal of any transcendence, even though it was admitted that (being God’s image-bearer) gave him certain special abilities and ways of thinking. The important thing, as La Mettrie, d’Holbach and others made clear, is that he is submitted to the same laws: everything is response to need—mechanically…like a tree or a machine. Man merely carries out natural forces—without any freedom whatsoever—in all he does, whether he loves or hates, helps or hurts, gives life or takes it.” (Monsters of the Id, E. Michael Jones, pp. 5,7)

    From the 18th century till our own, anti-God revolutionaries have been working toward the goal of scientifically deconstructing the souls of Westerners. Thus today, as cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett claims, there is no you. Soul, spirit, and will are illusions caused by chemical interactions in the brain. Naturalist Tom Wolfe agrees:

    “Sorry, but your soul just died.” (The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul, Beauregard and O’Leary, p. 4)

    Mankind has traveled this highway to hell before. Six centuries before Jesus Christ, the Buddha already knew that if all that exists is matter and energy then the human self (inner person) cannot exist either. In his book, “The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha,” Ravi Zacharias explains that Buddha took God away and his espousal of an absence of self was the most unique and fearsome claim he made. (pp. 59, 67)

    Vishal Mangalwadi, the internationally respected Indian philosopher and Christian scholar concurs. In his bestseller, “The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization,” Mangalwadi explains that Buddha deconstructed the Hindu idea of the soul so that reality for Hindus became non-self since one’s sense of self is an illusion. In other words, you don’t exist. The Buddha taught that liberation is in the realization of the unreality of your existence. (p. 6)

    What does all of this mean? Speaking through His prophet Jeremiah, the Lord said, “my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water.” Jeremiah 2:13

    In other words, by forsaking our Creator, the fountain of life in favor of matter and energy (nature worship), men destroy themselves. In effect they make themselves into walking dead bodies whose ‘new’ reality is non-self, meaning that by the logic of their choice there is no one home.

  2. Is this really that big of a surprise? After the introduction of the “Pill” in the sixties and having sex didn’t necessarily lead to pregnancy any more, Sex instead became recreational. Just observe the cinema and television from the time before the pill and then after. The culture became obsessed with the possibilities of sexual recreation and all its variabilities. Those variabilities are now the cultural rule. Sexual holiness has become an oxymoron even in the church. The church has, for the most part, boughten into the cultural sexual lie. But for that matter, as far as the church is concerned, holiness has become the forgotten piece of the biblical definition of God’s grace. Romans 6 Instead grace has come to mean “I’m ok and you’re ok”. The answer to all this is that the church has to find its way back to being a light in the darkness rather than a mirror of the darkness.

    • Rob,

      The sexual revolution probably began in the 1920s. We’re less aware of what was happening because was more remote and not televised and because the Great Depression and WWII tamped down things. In that light the pill only facilitated a desire to control and break free of nature. After all, the pill did not just happen randomly. It was a response to market demand.

    • Dr. Clark,
      What are some resources that it began in the 20s as you say? It makes sense. When I read the Washington Post some guy was saying that the Hook Up culture isn’t about immorality but population demographics and he pointed to the roaring 20s, and the post war demographics. It was a bizarre article.

      • Trent,

        We shouldn’t assume that the 1920s were just like the 30s-50s.They weren’t. One example: some of the first films that were made were explicit pornography. Radio and film were like the internet in its early days. There was little to no regulation. Radio later become heavily regulated and film was, until 1968. That is one reason why the CRC and the fundamentalists put a ban on “the silver screen.” It was seen then the way internet porn is seen today.

        They really were the “Roaring 20s.” There was a shift after the crash of ’29. The corruption that was evident in the 20s was less evident during the Great Depression, WWII, and the Cold War 50s but it re-emerged c. 1968, when the boomers came of age and began to pick up where the 20s had left off.

        I don’t have anywhere to direct you in particular. If I think of something I’ll post it.

  3. You can go back to Cain & Abel about the failing sexual ethics in humanity as far as that goes. In the Apostle Paul’s time sex in all its variations was part of the religions of Greece. It is what 1 Cor.6 is all about. My point is that sex lost its sacredness when it became entertainment in our culture. The mystery and innocence that surrounded the act of sex in the American media before the sixties was abandoned with the convenience of the pill. Don’t get me wrong I’m not opposed to birth control. All I’m saying is the issue of the SCOTUS decision on SSM was inevitable. It perfectly reflected the direction that our culture at large was traveling. The church needs to quit mirroring society in regarding sex as a biologically neutral act. Sex is always a moral and a spiritual act. In psychology there’s hardly any more damaging activity upon the human psyche than rape and sexual abuse.

  4. I’m not a lawyer, I don’t pretend to be one, and never want to be one, but I have a question: How would abolishing sex distinctions in law provide a way to to abolish BIOLOGICAL family ties?

    • Sex = biology.
      Biology as a category is obliterated, i.e., no longer recognized.
      Biological family ties would be no longer recognized.

      Stella is a scholar of the Soviet Union. She turned her attention to the USA and began to see the same techniques used here that were practiced in the USSR.

  5. Maybe Stella says it better someplace else, but it’s not about gender.
    It’s not about sex.
    It’s not even about marriage.
    It’s about the family.
    Why? Because the family is the first institution of government after self government, as well as being the first church, school, business etc. IOW if it goes gunnybag in the family, we’re playing catch up all down the line.

    Two, in that you gotta serve somebody according to Bob Dylan, the prevailing idolatry and sacred cow of the day is civil government, ie. statism if not socialism. And as has been said before at HBlog and elsewhere, Leviathan needs to cripple, if not destroy, the alternate institutions and loci of authority and stability in society in order to have its own way and sway in the world. Total control is the desideratum.

    As re. Alberto’s question, abolishing sex distinctions is what they were trying to do with passports. Instead of the categories of “father” and “mother”, we get “parent” because sexist homophobic genderist (fill in the blank expletive) reality – never mind history – aside, it’s pretty tough to legally distinguish between the two lesbians in a relationship/legal marriage when it comes to “mommy” and “daddy”. Or a woman who divorces, brings her two children with her into a lesbian affair, then repents or splits and her “partner” then pursues her in law for custody rights re. “their” children. Go figure.

    (Tinfoil hat aka conspiracy alert theory here.
    Is this kind of like what Ptacek was talking about in his Family Worship? He mentions an example of the change in American presbyterianism (PCUS, 1867) from “fathers” being charged to conduct family worship according to the Scottish Directory of Family Worship (1647) to only “parents” being responsible for Christian education (p.64). The same CE which ends up meaning SSchool and youth programs run by women and youths.
    Inquiring minds enquire eagerly.)

Comments are closed.