CHAPTER 27: Pronouns and Pantheism Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier—Reality Is (forthcoming release August 2024) by Linda Goudsmit
https://goudsmit.pundicity.com/27902/chapter-27-pronouns-and-pantheism
The weaponization of language is not a new phenomenon. The politics of pronouns has dimensions in both form and content. Gender-neutral plural pronouns, the grammatical form for linguistic deconstruction, were introduced in America almost fifty years ago. The pro-pedophile advocacy group Child Sexuality Circle advocated passage of a Child’s Sexual Bill of Rights that included use of “the new unisexual pronoun…co for he/she/him/her and cos for his/hers” in January 1977.
Gender-neutral language that blurs male/female identity with plural pronouns derives its ideological content from the unifying sexual ideal of androgyny. The new sexuality that deconstructs traditional Judeo-Christian sexuality and replaces it with total sexual liberation and freedom from all sexual boundaries is an ideological return to ancient pantheism—the belief that God and the universe are one and the same.
Pantheism predates monotheistic Abrahamic religions by thousands of years, but the word pantheism was not used until the early 18th century. The word is derived from Greek (pan = everything, theos = God), and means “All is God, and God is all.” There is no distinction between the two; all things are connected and are ultimately of one substance. Pantheism is a belief system rather than a religion, comparable to the terms monotheism (belief in a single God) and polytheism (belief in multiple gods).
Pantheism revered the androgyne as the archetype of human beings before the Judeo-Christian recognition of man and woman as two sexes. The globalist wrecking ball is attempting to shatter Judeo-Christian religions with the narrative that they are not “true” religions, that before Judaism and Christianity, the true religions were monistic (the doctrine of oneness that denies duality between man and God, or matter and mind) and revered androgyny.
Infantile fusion, the inability to distinguish self from other, is the psychological equivalent of infantile political narratives seeking to obliterate any and all distinctions and boundaries between self and other, including sexual boundaries. The promise of boundaryless infantile bliss is being resurrected and exploited to seduce psychologically regressed millennials to reject their Judeo-Christian identities, embrace Marxist queer theory in all its iterations, and recast themselves as citizens of globalism’s New World Order.
Religious art is usually a reflection of an ideological ideal, and so it is with pantheistic art. In 2017, Dutch sculptor Femmy Otten’s life-size bronze hermaphrodite sculpture, And Life Is Over There,[i] was unveiled at The Sculpture Gallery in the city center of The Hague. It is a disturbing totem-like statue of a woman with long hair, full breasts, a penis, three arms, and a hybrid creature of a bear head and human body perched atop her head. The sculpture is a rejection of Judeo-Christian duality and a celebration of androgyny in pantheism’s singularity.
A press release[ii] from Stroom Den Haag art center identifies the title of the sculpture as a stanza from Emily Dickinson’s love poem “I Cannot Live without You.” The release explains that “the titles of Otten’s work often refer to the poetry of Dickinson, in which she recognizes a feeling of loneliness, a longing and disappointment and a desire to be (set) free.”
In the press release Otten describes the androgyne as the ideal state of being:
The Greek god Hermaphroditus was literally merged with his beloved. Ever since I started drawing and making my work genders have effortlessly merged into each other. For me this feels very natural. I can identify with the one or with the other. To me it feels strange to view men and women as separate entities—we are so deeply involved with each other and our lives are so intertwined. I myself feel a deep urge to blend.
In this sculpture I was very much concerned with finding the right posture, it had to be perfectly natural. No shame and no explicit pride—to me that was very important.
It is a shocking statement, and even more shocking as an ideological goal for an adult. Adulthood recognizes separateness as a desired state of physical, emotional, and psychological being. In a free society, the psychological adult has personal agency to decide when and if to blur the physical boundaries of self with another.
The brief blurring of boundaries during the fusion of sexual intercourse does not deny the existence of boundaries. Individual sovereignty embraces both physical separateness and the agency to control the boundaries of one’s physical separateness. It is why the violation of physical boundaries during non-consensual sex is a crime. It also explains how the elimination of individual boundaries reflected in unisexual pronouns advocated by the pro-pedophile group Child Sexuality Circle limits personal agency to control the boundaries of self, and why it was used as a tactic in the organization’s strategic effort to legalize pedophilia.
In a sane society of ordered liberty, Femmy Otten’s goal of infantile fusion would be considered insanity, yet it is exactly what the globalist sociopaths are trying to achieve. Men and women who cannot distinguish boundaries are as dependent and controllable as infants. Describing her work as a statement about freedom is simply Orwellian.
Psychologically regressed adults live in the subjective reality of feelings. They lack the adult critical-thinking skills required to examine the facts and consequences of a boundaryless existence in objective reality: that the total dependence of infancy requires either a caretaker family or a caretaker government. The tactical destruction of family awards control of children to the government.
When regressed parents take their children to drag queen story hour events, participate in the destructive convention of plural pronouns, and support their children’s demands for transgender transitioning, they are unwittingly participating in the totalitarian destruction of the family and ceding control of their precious children to the state by embracing queer theory.
Queer theory, discussed at length in Chapter 11, one of the species of the genus Marxism, rejects traditional Judeo-Christian heterosexual norms including the idea of childhood innocence. Instead, it promotes the pansexual transformation of society and embraces complete sexual liberation including children’s “rights” to sexual liberation, which is the end of childhood innocence. Queer theory supports abrogation of the age of sexual consent, normalization of pedophilia as legally and culturally acceptable, and the teaching of queer theory precepts, including pansexuality, in K–12 schools. Derived from the Greek prefix “pan” meaning “all, every, whole, all-inclusive,” pansexuality does not limit sexual choice to biological sex, gender identity, or even being human.
The deliberate effort to reorient children in American schools to reject their Judeo-Christian norms and accept Marxist queer theory is documented in a stunning 2018 research paper written by Judith Reisman, Ph.D., Director of the Child Protection Institute and Research Professor at Liberty University School of Law, and attorney Mary E. McAlister. Published in the Journal of Law and Social Deviance, Volume 16, 2018, “Gender Identity, Transgender Issues in Public Schools“[iii] explains:
In school districts throughout the country, the pansexual transformation of society has been stealthily making inroads into the minds of children. The latest manifestation of the decades-long revolution is the concept of gender identity now being integrated into non-discrimination policies, student codes of conduct and curriculum…. (p. 121)
The reformers have moved from promoting “safe” premarital sexual intercourse to teaching that masturbation, oral and anal sodomy, homosexuality and bisexuality are healthy and normal. Now concepts of “gender identity,” “gender fluidity,” “transgenderism” and similar terms will become part of the children’s lexicon, relegating “girl,” “boy,” and “man,” “woman,” much less “maiden,” “ladies,” and “gentleman,” to the dustbin of ancient history. New language is invading everything from “family life education” to English, social studies, science and math.
The invasion does not stop at classroom instruction. For at least 10 years the federal Department of Education (“DOE”) has cautioned school officials that sexual “innuendoes,” “graphic pictures” and “language” can create an environment that is detrimental to students. The DOE warns school boards that they can be liable for sexual harassment “when a teacher, school employee, other student, or third party creates a hostile environment that is sufficiently serious to deny or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s program.”However, during the Obama Administration, the DOE and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) pressured school districts to amend their non-discrimination policies to include “gender identity” or lose federal funding. By requiring that schools add “gender identity,” which does not have an accepted, objective definition, to school policies, the DOE/DOJ directive introduced “gender uncertainty” into children’s lives, as males who “identify” as females regardless of their biologically obvious physical genitalia were to be permitted to use females’ private spaces like restrooms and showers, and vice versa. Such policies would cause some students to be confused and distracted, many even frightened, by the appearance of students and staff who externally resemble one sex but say they “identify” as another. This would limit the student’s ability to participate in and benefit from the school’s program, i.e., create a hostile learning environment. The federal government not only created a Hobson’s choice, but was also actually encouraging students whom the American Psychiatric Association defines as “mentally disordered” to continue suffering rather than seeking assistance.
The Trump Administration rescinded the Obama Administration’s DOE/DOJ guidance on February 22, 2017.However, many school boards throughout the nation, including in Fairfax County, Virginia, caved to the DOE’s pressure and voted to add “gender identity” to their non-discrimination policy and student code of conduct.Those school boards also voted to train and test children in “sexual orientation terms,” including heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality—”and the gender identity term transgender,” as part of their “sex education” or “Family Life Education” curriculum. Students are trained/indoctrinated in the Kinsey-created theory that “sexuality evolves from infancy to old age.” The “FLE/sex education” curricula not only present the experimental construct of “gender identity” as scientific fact, but also hide from students and parents critical information such as that condoms only protect against certain limited sexually transmitted diseases if used properly each time during normal vaginal male-female sexual relations.
Many schools have been advocating training children that oral and anal sodomy are acceptable, even normal, variations of sexual activity and safe if condoms are used properly. In fact, condoms have had a sufficient failure rate when they were tested, so that no condom has ever been approved for the FDA for use in oral or anal sodomy. Now schools are poised to introduce a new gender paradigm comprised of “four parts—biological gender, gender identity (includes transgender), gender role, and sexual orientation (includes heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual).” This endangers children even further. While those advocating for sex education claimed that it would be the best “step in crime prevention” which states can make, in fact, violent crime has increased exponentially since sex stimuli education programs were launched. For example, in Illinois, violent crime per capita increased by 754 percent between 1965, when proponents touted sex education as the best crime prevention, and 2011. Now, introducing “gender uncertainty” so that boys can be girls and girls can be boys, and allowing private spaces to be open to all (including pedophiles and pederasts of any age), sex crimes will predictably increase, not decrease. Violent crime, especially sexual offenses, based on the empirical data, increases as protection afforded by sex-segregated private spaces are, by edict, removed.
School policies and curricula embracing “gender identity” as an “orientation” protected against “discrimination” are the latest manifestations of the theory, first widely touted by Kinsey, that “children are sexual from birth” and that there should be no boundaries placed upon human sexual behavior. Kinsey’s pansexual worldview has become predominant in academia, law, medicine, the media and other cultural institutions. There have been almost 17,000 citations to Kinsey in virtually every scholarly and mainstream publication since 1948. This includes more than 700 law review citations for Kinsey and 4,531 academic journal citations containing “Kinsey” and “gender.” Sexually radical scholars began setting the stage for the Kinseyan societal transformation almost immediately [after Kinsey published his research], calling for wholesale reform in laws, medical protocols and public policy to correspond to Kinsey’s findings…. (pp. 125–132)
The sexual transformation of society has moved to the public schools where the goal is to train the next generation in “Kinseyan sexology” under multiple stimuli as “education” guises, e.g., “family life,” “bullying,” “diversity,” “sex,” and myriad constantly changing politically correct masquerades. In many schools now, that training includes the concept of “gender uncertainty,” i.e., that a person’s sex is not limited to male and female, but can be one of any number of combinations based upon any number of factors that change throughout one’s lifetime, and might not have anything to do with their biological sex…. (p. 134)
Dr. Paul McHugh, the chief psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital who requested the study, said the research found that adult recipients of “sex reassignment surgery” … “had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled.”
We saw the results as demonstrating that just as these men enjoyed cross-dressing as women before the operation so they enjoyed cross-living after it. But they were no better in their psychological integration or any easier to live with. With these facts in hand, I concluded that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness. We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia. Based upon that study, Johns Hopkins discontinued adult sex re-assignment surgery in 1979…. (pp. 163–164)
Subsequent studies have confirmed the sanity, or wisdom, of Dr. McHugh’s actions, finding that just as there is no evidence of a “gay gene,” there is also no evidence that “gender identity disorder” is an innate condition justifying drastic medical intervention such as hormonal treatments and genital mutilation. Scientists have determined that “[a] baby is conceived genetically male or female. Prenatal brain development is influenced by the same hormones that trigger the development of the reproductive organs.” “The sex of each individual is encoded in the genes—XX if female, XY if male.” …
In fact, scientists now know that the DNA blueprint for a male versus a female brain is established eight weeks after conception. The hormonal changes that create a male versus a female brain are permanently determined at that time, in utero, even though many of the effects will not manifest until puberty. Therefore, contrary to [New Zealand–born sexologist] Dr. [John] Money’s theory, still being followed by those seeking to transform the culture, “we’re not psychological hermaphrodites at birth, potentially masculine or feminine—we are wired for one or the other in the womb.” Consequently, as Dr. McHugh’s studies found, those who express a sense of “disquiet” between their biological sex and their “sexual identity” are suffering from a mental disorder, not an innate abnormality, and should be treated with therapy, not with medical, surgical mutilation as intervention. (pp. 168–170)
Challenging boundaries might be exciting for adults who know the boundaries and can process risks associated with the challenge. However, it is traumatic and harmful for children, who have just begun to understand the concepts of “boy” and “girl,” and realize that they are one or the other. As Dr. McHugh said, subjecting children to such psychological turmoil is tantamount to child abuse…. (p. 179)
Introducing Gender Uncertainty into the Already Sexualized Classrooms Will Psychologically Traumatize Children.
Asking children to disregard biological reality and embrace a myth of gender uncertainty can be expected to create further dysfunction and even open new channels for acting out. Psychiatrist Keith Ablow has discussed the potentially traumatic consequences of instructing children to deny biological reality. “The mere fact that teachers and administrators will have to explain to kindergarten and first grade students that they might see girls in the boys’ restroom, or boys in the girls’ locker room, but that those really aren’t kids of the gender they appear to be, could do harm to their own developing sense of self by suggesting to them that their gender is fluid, that it well might change for them, too, and that they should be on the lookout for signs that they want to switch.” … (pp. 216–217)
Most importantly, children will explicitly and implicitly be told to question the truths they learn at home regarding their own identities as boys and girls.
Gender Uncertainty Will Further Undermine the Family and Create Cultural Conflicts.
As well as wreaking havoc with children’s mental and physical health, the continuing infusion of pansexuality, and particularly introducing the concept of gender confusion into the schools, wreaks havoc with the family, its authority, and culture. Schools will teach doctrine that directly conflicts with the students’ personal reality, but also with what they are taught at home and commonly in church regarding what it means to be male and female. Students are taught to disregard their physical and psychological makeup, what their parents tell them, and embrace the idea that gender is an identity that incorporates not only physical appearance, but also an amorphous gender identity, which is a person’s internal, deeply felt sense of being either male or female.Children whose cultural background teaches that a person with female genitals is a female and a person with male genitals is male, which comports with biological reality, will be told by their school teachers, librarians, counselors, lecturers, etc., that is not the case. Their parents provide them with the facts as established by medical science, but when they attend school, other trusted, paid, educated, professional adults will tell them that gender is different from sex and that some people look male but are not because they do not “feel” male while some others look female but are not because they do not “feel” female. Children might not have the courage to challenge such fraudulent claims made by those adults, who hold power over them, because they are captive, easily intimidated and manipulated. Students will also be told that there is something known as “gender expression,” which is “society’s perception of the external characteristics and behaviors that are socially defined as either masculine or feminine,” such as the way one dresses, speaks, or interacts socially. (pp. 222–224)
CONCLUSION
Scientific advances have proven the truth of the natural law concept that human beings are created either male or female, and that the sexual differentiation is complete in utero, not “assigned at birth.” Societal change agents seeking to further Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent, criminal pseudo-science used rare instances of children born with ambiguous genitalia, or tragically a boy whose genitals were damaged in surgery, to create a new social construct of gender identity and to deconstruct the barriers of gender binaryism.
Despite mounting evidence of the fallacy of their theories, the change agents have persisted in pursuing their agenda through orchestrated efforts to change public opinion, the law, public policy and academia. Now, the agenda is moving into the public schools, which are still reeling from the introduction of “comprehensive sex education” and the sexualization of the entire educational experience. Young students whose brains have not fully developed and cannot undertake the complex reasoning necessary to process sexual messages will be required to abandon biological reality and accept the idea that “gender” is a multi-faceted concept that does not necessarily correspond with a person’s physical, emotional and psychological reality. Women are again being driven into compromising positions, and put at risk of harm from the new sexuality that would again relegate them into the position of second-class citizens, exposed to harassment and rape to fit the newest pansexual ideology.
The consequences of this latest manifestation of the pansexual worldview are far-reaching and potentially traumatically devastating to the next generation. (pp. 250–252)
Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent research has been used for seven decades to support the pansexual transformation of American society, the sexual revolution, cultural Marxism, queer theory, queer pedagogy, the destruction of the American family, and the collapse of the Judeo-Christian norms that are our nation’s infrastructure.
Globalism’s war on national sovereignty targets the American family and its Judeo-Christian foundation as a competing ideology. Pansexual transformation, and the sexual perversions and elimination of sexual distinctions introduced by Marxist George Lukács to deconstruct the family in Hungary, are the same sexual perversions and elimination of sexual distinctions that are convulsing the United States today.
Sex and sexuality have been weaponized, and are being used as instruments of cultural mass destruction. The pro-pedophile Child’s Sexual Bill of Rights advocated by the Child Sexuality Circle in 1977 has been revitalized. The current linguistic blurring of male/female identities reflected in gender-neutral unisex pronouns is supported with destructive pornographic educational grooming, and glorified in artwork that idealizes androgyny.
The political campaign to legalize pedophilia is embraced within the woke tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The objective is to reclassify pedophiles as “child-attracted persons,” remove the stigma of their perversion, and erase the reality of pedophilia’s catastrophic harm to children.
It is very difficult for the civilized mind to process such malevolence. Adults in a civilized society are expected to protect children, but civility is a peacetime attitude, and America is at war. America’s enemy within considers childhood innocence to be an impediment to its political objectives. Childhood innocence is a political target, and children are intentional casualties of globalism’s war on nation-states.
[iii] Gender Identity, Transgender Issues in Public Schools;
Comments are closed.
