Gender Ideology Is Destroying Academia

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by Free Black Thought on May 9, 2024. It is crossposted here with permission.

George Orwell is often credited with the maxim, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” I am not sure that the series that I am publishing here, which exposes gender ideology and cancel culture in academia, will be revolutionary, but it will tell a truthful story. The series centers on an experience that I had in the classroom a couple of years ago. It tells the story of my cancellation for speaking out against gender ideology.

Several days a week for a number of years, I used to get dressed in my professional attire. I would grab my pretty black business tote. I would lock up my cute little house. I would get into my cute little car and I would drive off to … the Twilight Zone. Some people might call this my place of employment. I have a different lens. You see, this workplace wanted so desperately to show its “progressiveness” that it transformed itself from a prestigious academic institution in the Deep South to, in my opinion, a place of sheer lunacy.

Why the strong language, you may ask? For one thing, my language is very intentional. I might not say every word that I want to say; however, every word that I do say, I want to say. For example, you will notice that I use the terms “gender” and “sex” interchangeably. We will get to that a little later in this series. For another thing, I cannot find a more appropriate word than “lunacy” to describe the nature of the topic I am presenting in this series. What a fascinating contrast we will find: the topic at hand is plagued with terminological errors, most notably, misnomers and morphological issues; however, the term “lunacy” so impeccably represents our current social landscape. The word “lunacy” means “extravagant folly.” Is there another word that better captures the notion that men can give birth?

To be as clear as I possibly can be, here it is: men do not give birth—not now, not ever, nowhere, no how, under no circumstances, under no name, in no way, for no reason.  This is a biological impossibility. While there are many people who profess that men can give birth—or have menstrual cycles or get pregnant or have uteruses—it is my belief that most of them don’t truly believe it. They have been propagandized by an ideology and are propagandizing it in turn. In contrast, those adults who genuinely believe this to be true are suffering from tragic cognitive impairments or profound mental illnesses, such as thought disorders.

My position is informed by my training in both research methodology and clinical social work. It is as a clinical social worker that I will present my case here. As therapists, we are trained to identify mental illnesses—their hallmarks, other symptoms, duration, clinical pictures, potential impacts on life functioning, differential diagnoses, and treatments. The most profound of all of the mental illnesses are the thought disorders, characterized by a full-blown break from reality. There is no mild grade of “break from reality.”  Clinically, this is called psychosis and it manifests in two predominant hallmarks—hallucinations and delusions. While hallucinations—that is, seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not present—are a particularly alarming psychotic feature, even more alarming are delusions.

Delusions occur when a person believes something to be true, despite all evidence to the contrary. Evidence. I emphasize that term because it is quite different from merely holding a belief that differs from another’s belief or having a differing ideological perspective or having a different experience or background than another. Evidence consists of facts, pieces of information that are verifiable. The term “delusion” is used so frequently—and recklessly—in general vernacular that its true meaning has been diluted and minimized. The magnitude of a delusional state should not be understated. When a person is delusional, that person could be at risk for serious injury, even death, and may cause severe harm to another.

Imagine a person believing that he or she is a bird. Let us say that this person, who believes his or her arms are wings, goes to the top of a building and decides to jump off and “fly.” Based on all of our available evidence for how arms work, we can predict that person’s end, if there is no intervention. Now, imagine someone saying to this person, “I affirm you. I celebrate you. Be your true self. Fly, birdie, fly.”

Apart from true delusions, much of what we are observing with gender ideology is propaganda. (Throughout this series, we will get to know gender ideology’s propaganda techniques quite well; I call a person who employs these techniques a “Prop”). Why is so much of our social world pushing an agenda that practically everyone knows is simply untrue? Why does political correctness prescribe that we should tell blatant fabrications to avoid offending others? What natural law is there that states that humans are not to be offended, and if they are offended, they will die? And why, if we do not subscribe to the agenda, are we being canceled? Why has this issue become so polarized?

Consider this: if you do not subscribe to the idea that men can give birth, you are called hateful, a bigot, homophobic, transphobic, and a host of other names. But the reality is that men cannot give birth. Indeed, lots of people cannot give birth. For example, women after menopause; girls before their cycles; women whose reproductive organs have been removed; deceased women; boys; and babies are just a few of the types of people who cannot give birth. Is it “phobic” to acknowledge that these groups cannot give birth? These are simply facts of life. These facts are part of the most foundational and fundamental truths about humanity—foundational in that, with gender, we have a planet filled with human beings, and fundamental in that, without gender, no human beings exist. Both sexes are equally needed and serve the purpose of promoting humanity; men provide the seed, while women provide the egg, and carry and nurture it when it has been fertilized by the man’s seed. This dynamic, which I call the male-female effect, is seen throughout the entire universe, from biology to chemistry to physics and beyond. It is seen in most connections between tangible items; look around your physical space and see how many things illustrate the dynamic of something being placed into or inside of something else. This is an undeniable, ubiquitous fact of our existence. And it is beautiful and good. Yet this fact is being challenged and outright condemned!

Imagine telling someone that believing that water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom is bigoted and hateful. But water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. To accuse someone of being hateful or a bigot for stating a fact that is globally acknowledged, with no evidence to support its contrary, but only one’s personal feelings, would be considered preposterous!

I have decided to write this series of essays exploring this topic because I acknowledge the full lunacy of calling anyone “hateful,” a “bigot,” or “transphobic” just for believing that a man is an adult human being who—unless maimed—has small, mobile gametes, which fertilize eggs, and that a woman is an adult human being who—unless maimed or postmenopausal—has large, immobile gametes, which are fertilized by sperm. Of note, it is not knowledge of the distinction between men and women that is creating the problem; it is acknowledgement of this distinction that is costing people their livelihoods, imposing shame, and silencing them.

In light of this, given our current social landscape, I feel it necessary to make the following statement. I do not hate anyone. I have worked with people of varying self-professed identities—in fact, many of my students are members of these very groups in question—and I respect and appreciate every one of them…well, except the ones who file frivolous complaints against me because I do not affirm their ideas.  Respecting and appreciating an individual does not mean that I must support every behavior that they might engage in or every idea that they might hold. No one needs to do that. And it does not mean that not supporting or affirming a behavior, idea, or self-professed identity means that I hate the human being. Not only is this foolish—consider how ridiculous it would be to assume that a parent’s disagreement with a child implies a parent’s hatred for the child—this is also a polarizing tactic. What is being said is this: agreeing with me means you love me; disagreeing with me means you hate me. Beyond polarizing this issue at hand, it is a propaganda technique used to compel or guilt a person into changing their beliefs or actions towards another or shutting them up. I expose it in this series of essays.

While I should not have to say that I mean no harm with this series of essays, I fully expect that those who endorse gender ideology will claim harm. My true goal is to use my voice, to tell the truth as I understand and believe it to be. To those who truly experience gender dysphoria, I express my deepest sympathies. I cannot comprehend your experience, but I desire healing for your spirit. I believe you should be treated with the utmost kindness, compassion, and care—the same degree of treatment that would be afforded to anyone who suffers from mental disorders. But to those who endorse the lie of gender ideology, which holds that a man can literally be a woman, to the point that you are willing to destroy another person’s livelihood and reputation just to display your vindictive protectiveness or to have your own self-professed identity “affirmed,” I say to you this: be offended; be very offended. Every word of this series will offend you, so wrap up in your offended blanket, drink your offended tea, and sit in your offended corner, fuming in your offendedness. The “harm” a person professes to feel—or has been told to feel—as a result of reading this series of essays is more reflective of an older term, and a quite beautiful one, at that: “conviction.” Sometimes, offense is the result of hearing the part we’ve been coerced into keeping quiet spoken out loud—the truth that many people have been manipulated and silenced out of saying.

So, again, I am not so sure that this series will be revolutionary, but it will tell a truthful story. And it will unveil what I believe is the insidious, propagandizing, manipulative, and deceptive nature of gender ideology and its use of cancel culture to enforce its worldview.

Let us begin—Part II of this series may be found here.

Photo Josie Elias — Adobe Stock — Asset ID#: 407463810


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *