Our bodies in transgender law are represented by words that do not point to any realities about our wholeness as human beings. That’s because “sex and gender are as far apart conceptually as is possible,” according to Moody. “Sex and gender are linked only by the thin threads of language and the human mind. Like an atomic bomb vaporizing bodies and leaving only shadows.” In this sense, we are not being governed by a law that reflects reality, even though we may think we are. Instead, we are living under false law that only allows the word “gender”—which signifies the absence of our physical sex—to define us.

Let’s stop polluting our language with the word “gender.” Corruption of the English language was Point A on the road to President Obama’s directive to de-privatize and de-sex all school restrooms nationwide. The ploy that got us all into the lazy habit of using the empty term “gender” in place of the accurate word “sex” has its roots in gender ideology, which cultural Marxists pushed for many decades. Since cultural Marxism is nothing but nihilism, it shouldn’t surprise us that “gender” can mean whatever you want or don’t want it to mean. In other words, there’s no there there.

George Orwell’s classic 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” discusses how easily language can be a tool of political manipulation. Here’s a great excerpt that I think shows us how we got to today’s state of confusion:

A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible.

Don’t you love Orwell’s positive note here, that the process is reversible? If we inject proper usage back into the language, the habit can catch on, and our thoughts can become clearer.

Orwell continues: “Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration.” Let’s hear it for political regeneration!

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better.

A lot of us who do know better—including yours truly—have fallen into the silly habit of substituting the weaponized word “gender” for the precise word “sex.” Now there’s hell to pay, since it’s infecting all manner of legislation and legal documents—all in the name of “equality,” another term that’s become equal to nothing.

Let’s recall that the most accurate usage of the term “gender” is strictly grammatical, as when referring to noun and adjective declensions in foreign languages that assign gender to its words. Yes, yes, I know the dictionary has assigned new and “richer” meanings to the term “gender,” having to do with society, culture, and identity. This is totally political. Dictionaries have been turned into political minefields by activists in this war on mind and body. We should all be able to see through this by now.

How Money Replaced ‘Sex’ with ‘Gender’

Apparently, the substitution of the word “sex” with the vague word “gender” was the hobbyhorse of John Money back in the 1950s. Money was the corrupt sexologist who is most notorious for utterly ruining the life of David Reimer by talking his parents into raising David as a girl after a botched circumcision left him without a penis. Money drooled at the chance to experiment on little David because David happened to have an identical twin brother who could serve as a control for Money’s little inquest. In the 1970s, feminists took off with Money’s new lexicon, and we’ve been sloppily repeating the word “gender” ever since.

“Gender” doesn’t mean anything concrete when applied to human identity because “gender identity” is all about a state of mind that’s not rooted in any objective reality. Sex, on the other hand, is quite definitely rooted in physical reality. Yet when “sex” makes an appearance in “gender identity non-discrimination laws,” it is masked as something that doesn’t exist in reality. A standard definition of “gender” is that it means someone’s perception of self (as male, female, both, or neither) “whether or not it aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.” Part of the premise of transgender law is to get you to believe that your sex was erroneously—and even maliciously—“assigned” to you at birth.

Jurisdiction after jurisdiction has signed on to that canard. It forces onto us a fraudulent premise that denies the reality of our own physical bodies. Ten Republican U.S. senators even signed on to this ridiculously false premise back in 2013. Neat trick, no? We now have hundreds of jurisdictions nationwide with laws that de-sex us. They essentially tell us that biological sex is not something any of us are, but something we have. Or don’t have.

In the past we recognized sex at birth or identified sex at birth. (Today we can identify it well before birth.) But now—voila!—our laws say sex is assigned to us at birth. How insane is that?

To be human is to be male or female. To be human is to be the living, breathing union of one male and one female. No exceptions. This is the case whether you are male or female or intersex, and, yes, even if you identify as transgender. Furthermore, our sex is not a body part. It is inscribed into the DNA of every cell in our bodies.

Denying the reality of one’s biological sex is, in a real sense, a denial of one’s whole body and mind. As society and its laws cover up these facts, we stray closer to a society that can decline to recognize the full humanity of any human being. This is not a good place to be. Not for anybody, including the LGBT folks who are being used as pawns to commit this virtual crime against humanity.

So what happens if we replace in our laws a concrete word like “sex” with an abstraction like “gender”? Can sex distinctions still legally exist?

Read More