Posted on

FAMILY FUSION: ‘Desexing our generation’


Reverend Haynesley Griffith, [email protected]

FAMILY FUSION: ‘Desexing our generation’

Social Share

“AND IT CAME TO PASS.” Those words are found 396 times in the Holy Bible and are often used to confirm pronouncements previously made by someone.

Today, however, I am making reference to those words within the context of expressions spoken by the late Paula Ettelbrick, renowned lesbian lawyer and chair of International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission. 

In The Weekly Standard, on August 4, 2003, she is quoted as saying: “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender and seeking state approval for doing so. Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and radically re-ordering society’s view of reality.” 

Ettelbrick seemed to have laid the foundation for what is now being played out on the world stage as it pertains to what I am calling the “desexing” of our generation. It is evident that just 13 years after her challenge to her followers and the rest of the world, her statement has borne much “fruit”, thanks to a relentless, strategic and systematic drive by her supporters and sympathisers worldwide to bring the LGBTQ objectives to pass.   

Phase 1 of her goal of “seeking state approval” came to pass on June 26, 2015 when the Supreme Court in the United State declared same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. So less than ten per cent of the entire population of the US persuaded the lawmakers to make a life-changing move away from the natural family. 

Once Phase 1 of Ettelbrick’s goal was achieved, it became very easy for Phase 2 – “transforming the very fabric of society” by “pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality and the family” – to take centre stage. A glance at the cultural changes pertaining to sex and sexuality should be enlightening.

CNN journalist Lauren Booker on April 13, 2016 brought into perspective what I am making reference to when she spoke to 26-year-old transgender popular musician Lee Luxion, who prefers to be called by the pronoun “they”, and not male or female. Luxion said she “might wake up as a man or as a woman, sometimes as both and sometimes as neither.

“How I express it is usually how I dress, how I do my hair. But then my mannerisms change. The way I speak might change a little too. There shouldn’t be a sense of what’s normal and what is not,” Luxion  added. “And (with) more representation of transgender or gender-fluid or non-binary individuals, the more likely it is that we are going to feel safe to also be that publicly.”

Sexuality defined

In speaking to Emanuella Grinberg of CNN on March 9, 2016, noted photographer Joseph Wolfgang Ohlert highlighted that gender was not about male or female but was a “spectrum”.

He said: “I realised that there’s no fixed aspect of my gender and my sexuality that I could define as ‘me’, but that it is fluid. You can drift. You’re not trapped at any one point even if you, as I do, define yourself for example as a ‘man’.”

The two examples I highlighted are now the “new normal” defining one’s sex and sexuality.

 But Ettelbrick’s goal appears in more recent times to be assertively playing out within the US’ school environment through directives sent to all federal-funded schools by the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice and the Department of Education on May 13, 2016, under Title 1X in reference to transgender students. The US departments define transgender as: “those individuals whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth”. They added that “transgender individuals may undergo gender transition at any stage of their lives, and gender transition can happen swiftly or over a long duration of time”.

The department goes on to emphasise that “when a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies that school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, that school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s identity.  Under Title 1X, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity”.

That directive therefore suggests that a student whose birth certificate identifies him as male, can walk into a principal’s office and say to him/her that he is no longer a male but a female. The principal, without any medical evidence, is required without any question, to adjust to the student’s subjective expression or have his educational institution lose federal funding.

 Journalist Ben Johnson, writing for LifeSiteNews on May 20 this year placed the thought in perspective when he said: “Just as there is no minimum threshold required to qualify as transgender, there is no maximum limit to the number of times a student can change genders. So, theoretically, one could be male during homeroom, female during gym class, then male again before he gets on the bus.”

Confusing? You be the judge. Scary? Analyse it. Something for principals and parents all across the world, including the Caribbean, to be concerned about? Scrutinise it.

Ettelbrick’s goal or Phase 3 of her documented plan appears to be long term in nature. For her and her organisation, the ultimate target is to “radically reorder society’s view of reality”. The only way that her clearly defined goal could be realised is to attack marriage and family as ordained by the all-wise, all-Knowing God.  God designed mankind, male and female (Genesis 1:27). Anyone seeking in their human wisdom to provide “true alternatives to marriage” could therefore be in a futile fight against the Creator of family life. 

Recently, senior contributor for the Federalist Stella Morabito said: “To be human is to be male or female. Our sex is not a body part. It is inscribed into the DNA of every cell in our bodies. As society and its laws cover up these facts, we stray closer to a society that can decline to recognise the full humanity of any human being. This is not a good place to be.” Profound.

• Rev. Haynesley Griffith is a marriage and family life consultant. Email: [email protected]

LAST NEWS