Activists continue to promote gender mainstreaming at every level in the United States, at the United Nations, and around the world – and they have expanded their demands to include transgender rights. All the while, groups have been organized to alert people about the dangers of these theories.
The clearest example of what those promoting gender theories have in mind can be found in the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
. The principles are intended to apply international human rights law
standards to address the supposed abuse
of the human rights
, and transgender
) people. The 29 principles – along with recommendations to governments, regional intergovernmental institutions, civil society, and the UN itself – were developed at a meeting of the International Commission of Jurists
, the International Service for Human Rights
and human rights experts from around the world in November of 2006 in Yogyakarta
, Indonesia. These principles have not been adopted by states in a treaty
, and are thus not by themselves a legally binding part of international human rights law. However, the signatories intended that the Yogyakarta Principles should be adopted as a universal
standard, affirming binding international legal standard with which all states must comply. Some governments have expressed reservations.
The principles define “sexual orientation” as referring to each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender.
“Gender identity” refers to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical, or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.
Besides calling for changes in laws on marriage, they call for acceptance into the military and police of transgendered persons and awareness training at every level – training to designed to force everyone to pretend that a man is a woman, or a woman a man, or to respect a person who doesn’t want to be identified as either.
The Yogyakarta Principles call on governments to “ensure that any medical or psychological treatment or counseling does not, explicitly or implicitly, treat sexual orientation and gender identity as medical conditions to be treated, cured or suppressed” – this in spite of massive evidence that gender identity disorder and same-sex attraction are associated with a number of other psychological disorders, with substance abuse problems, suicidal, ideation, and depression and that they can be treated. This so-called right would deny people with naturally disordered orientations the right to seek help while criminalizing the therapy they desire. Why? Because if one person changes, it exposes the lie that change is impossible.
One paragraph of the principles states that governments should “ensure that the exercise of freedom of opinion and expression does not violate the rights and freedoms of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.” How, one might ask, would one person’s freedom of opinion and expression violate another person’s rights and freedoms?
It seems that “persons with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities” claim the right to never have their feelings hurt and a right to never be told that same-sex attraction (SSA) and gender identity disorder (GID) are objectively disordered, and therefore any negative comments about SSA or GID would be violations of their rights and freedoms.
While the Yogyakarta Principles have not yet been added to a formal treaty, individual nations have accepted parts of it. Under President Barack Obama, the US government has put the full force of American power behind sexual and reproductive rights and gender mainstreaming, threatening to cut off foreign aid to countries that do not change their definition of marriage or legalize abortion. To forward this agenda, President Barack Obama signed a Presidential memorandum on January 20, 2013, entitled “Coordination of Policies and Programs to Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women and Girls Globally.”
At home, the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has created regulations for the new health insurance mandate that require every health insurance policy to cover contraceptives (including the morning-after pill) without a co-pay from the patient. Catholics, both clergy and laity, explained that this would violate their consciences and that they could not comply by paying for contraception. The administration countered saying that Catholic institutions – like hospitals and schools – did not have to pay for the contraceptives directly; rather, the insurance company could cover them for free. Catholics point out that this was not acceptable since the insurance companies would simply hide the cost. In addition, many Catholic institutions are self-insured – they are their own insurance company. Those from other religions recognized the threat to religious freedom posed by this situation, and have stood with the Catholics on this issue.
The Obama administration’s intransigence on this matter seems incomprehensible, since contraceptives are relatively inexpensive and free from certain clinics – that is, unless you understand the influence of Radical Feminists within the current administration. For them, free contraception is the sine qua non
of their ideologically driven agenda. They are refusing to budge and the matter is now in the courts.
Those pushing the redefinition of marriage have become more aggressive. In 1987, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen – two gay men – wrote After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1900’s
. The strategy involved portraying persons with SSA as victims of homophobic, bigoted, hateful extremists who were just like racists. Although it took longer than Kirk and Madsen projected, their strategy is now being implemented with a vengeance. Those in the media have forwarded this strategy. According to reporter for the Washington Post, “gay rights is the civil rights issue of our time.” Those who hold this view believe that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage have no more right to have their arguments heard in the public square than violent racists.
On the other hand, the Internet has allowed those defending the truth about the human person to organize and keep in touch world-wide. Here are a few of the many organizations working on these issues:
The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute
(C-FAM), under Austin Ruse, has done a masterful job of organizing lobbying at the UN. The entire bureaucracy of the UN, the combined weight of the EU and US are arrayed against the pro-family, pro-life forces, but C-FAM and its allies have miraculously kept the most dangerous proposals from being approved. Poor countries in Latin American and Africa are threatened by the nations that provide foreign aid if they don’t eliminate pro-life, pro-family, pro-man/woman marriage laws or if the stand up for these values at the UN, their funds will be cut off. Only the Muslim nations have consistently refused to cave to pressure.
-- an Internet newsletter published every day from Canada -- is the best source for everything that is going on around the world on these issues. They are accurate without being unnecessarily inflammatory. This information should be available in all languages and cover every nation.
In the US, the Constitution and Bill of Rights gives US citizens the ability to fight a government that wants to impose the gender agenda at every level of society through government fiat. Alliance Defending Freedom
(ADF – formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) and the American Center for Law and Justice
(ACLJ) and the Thomas More Society
are three of a number of legal defense funds which take on cases of those who are being sued or penalized for opposing aspects of the gender agenda. Such litigation can be extremely expensive and these groups cover much of the expense. Because they build their cases on fundamental constitutional principles, these groups have had a number of successes.
Because many professional associations have been taken over by those pushing abortion and gay rights, new organizations have been formed to challenge the false and misleading statements and policies by the co-opted associations. The American Academy of Pediatrics once supported the redefinition of marriage while admitting that there was evidence of harm to child, writing:
[E]ven if the empirical support for [harm to children] was strong, the argument is morally insufficient for denying state recognition to other types of relationships.
The newly formed American College of Pediatricians
called them out, saying:
It is shameful that this prominent pediatric group would deliberately trade the needs and well-being of children for the desires of adults… The AAP ignores solid evidence of health risks to children
Members of professional associations need to fight the take over of these organizations by activists who issue false and misleading statements, and to consider forming new organizations dedicated to true professionalism. Just as the supporters of gender theories work at every level to achieve their goals, in the same way the defenders of reality must use every tool available to them.
in advocating for the legality and legitimacy of same-sex marriage.