The Biden regime’s January 20 executive order 分词定语demanding “equal treatment under the law, no matter [one’s] gender identity or sexual orientation” is just the first salvo in the next wave 分词定语pushing “LGBT rights.” The order will soon be backed by federal law, via the pending LGBT “Equality Act.”
状语从句While many are now warning 宾语从句that the order will destroy girls’ and women’s sports, its impact is much broader.
The enforcers will be given free rein to transform society in unimaginable ways, 状语从句given the undefined terms in the order and pending law: gender identity, sexual orientation, LGBT. Why has there been no pushback on embedding these sexual-radical concepts in our legal system?
Establishment conservatives have shied away from addressing this issue and denigrate anyone 定语从句who dares to confront it. They don’t want to be called “anti-gay” or “uncompassionate” toward the “gender 分词定语confused.” (In 2018, MassResistance was banned from CPAC for our outspoken opposition to the transgender movement.)
Yet now, conservative commentators complain about boys 宾不taking over girls’ sports and locker rooms. Too little, too late.
Biden’s LGBT Executive Order
Biden’s executive order (E.O.) targets “discrimination” 分词定语based on “gender identity and sexual orientation.” Anywhere existing statutes or regulations prohibit “sex discrimination,” the E.O. instructs all federal agencies to review and revise regulations as necessary to include “gender identity and sexual orientation.”
Justice Gorsuch’s absurd ruling in Bostock is cited as one basis for this E.O., along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The woke E.O. even references the radicals’ idea about overlapping areas of discrimination, called “intersectionality.”
The E.O.’s introductory paragraph is emotionally manipulative, mentioning respect, dignity, love, children, one’s true self, and people just 分词定语wanting “a roof over their head”:
Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, 状语从句no matter who they are or whom they love. Children should be able to learn without worrying about 名词从句whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation 分词状语knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of 名词从句whom they go home to or 状语从句because 主语从句how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes. People should be able to access healthcare and secure a roof over their heads without being subjected to sex discrimination. All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.
But nowhere does the E.O. define the new terms at issue.
LGBT “Equality Act”
(As of this writing, the so-called Equality Act has not yet been filed in the 117th Congress. See last session’s Equality Act bill here.)
The Equality Act’s stated goal is 不定式谓语”to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.” (What are the “other purposes”?) The bill employs the phrase “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (referred to as ‘LGBTQ’).” That’s as close to a definition 定语从句it gets.
Anywhere discrimination on the basis of sex appears in the law, the new terms gender identity and sexual orientation will be added. That includes laws on public accommodations, employment, housing, credit, education, federally funded programs, jury service, and child welfare programs.
One foreboding clause states: “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 … shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.” So destroying religious freedom on these issues is one of the “other purposes” of the Equality Act.
No Definitions
What exactly will be protected under the terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” in Biden’s E.O. and the Equality Act is left unanswered. So we must look elsewhere for hints.
Gender Identity
The whole idea of “gender” is a recent, irrational, and evolving theoretical construct 分词定语disseminated by sexual radical academics, political activists, and allies in the medical establishment. But 主语从句what we’ve seen play out so far under cover of “transgender rights” reveals it as pure lunacy.
Massachusetts law includes a silly circular definition of “gender identity.” The relevant section states:
”Gender identity” shall mean a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, 状语从句whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally分词定语 associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth. Gender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence定语从句 that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person’s core identity…
The Massachusetts attorney general explains, “In essence, gender identity is a person’s internal sense of their own gender.” So “gender” is just 名词从句what an individual thinks about himself, 分词状语unconnected to the reality around him. But we all must “respect” his delusion. Note the absurd phrase, “sex assigned at birth,” 定语从句which negates the scientific reality of the biological distinction between male and female.
The far-left Human Rights Campaign has an equally absurd definition:
Gender identity: One’s innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither — how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One’s gender identity can be the same or different from their sex 分词定语assigned at birth.
Already, we’ve seen this nonsense allow for glaring abuses in language, schools, sports, public accommodations, health care, insurance, and businesses. Children are being confused and indoctrinated; some are having their bodies destroyed and sterilized by puberty-blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical mutilations.
分词状语Lacking any rational legal definition, who can imagine what further demands will be justified under the “gender identity” umbrella?
Sexual Orientation
What is exactly is “sexual orientation”? Massachusetts law includes a disturbing hint of 名词从句what could come our way 状语从句if Biden’s E.O. and the Equality Act law are enforced: legalized pedophilia.
状语从句Where Massachusetts law mentions “sexual orientation” (as protected from discrimination), the term is immediately followed by the phrase, “which shall not include persons 定语从句whose sexual orientation involves minor children as the sex object.” Clearly, pedophilia can be considered a sexual orientation.
But the E.O. and Equality Act do not qualify “sexual orientation” in this way. Nor do they exclude other reprehensible and dangerous practices 定语从句that could be considered sexual orientations such as BDSM, polygamy, prostitution, bestiality, and pornography addiction.
The Human Rights Campaign defines sexual orientation as “[a]n inherent or immutable enduring emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to other people” — without any limitation on 名词从句who those “other people” might be. That syrupy reference to emotion and romance helps cover over the dangerous promiscuity 形容词结构定语common to many in the “LGBT community.” And the HRC repeats the false claim 同位语从句that sexual orientation is “inherent or immutable.”
LGBTQ+
The Equality Act uses the acronym LGBTQ without defining it. The longstanding words “lesbian” and “gay” are obvious — but what exactly are “bisexual,” “transgender,” and “queer”? And Biden recently gave an interview to Philadelphia Gay News (Oct. 2020) 分词状语promising the moon to the “LGBTQ+” community. He said, “It’s about dignity, plain and simple.” What does Q mean? What does the + (plus) mean?
Here is the Human Rights Campaign on Q for “queer”:
Queer: A term people often use to express a spectrum of identities and orientations 定语从句that are counter to the mainstream. Queer is often used as a catch-all to include many people, including those 定语从句who do not identify as exclusively straight and/or folks 定语从句who have non-binary or genderexpansive identities.
Newspeak
The ruling elite want free rein to keep expanding their reach without limit of legal definitions. That’s what the + means! We are living under Orwellian “Newspeak.”
It’s been going on for decades now. I continue to hope 宾语从句a leader on our side will call out the illegitimacy of embedding undefined radical terms in our laws.
Amy Contrada is with MassResistance, a nationwide pro-family activist organization. Early in the transgender rights onslaught (2008), she published a widely ignored analysis of the Massachusetts transgender rights bill.
