In June 2023, there was a drag march in New York. It achieved notoriety online overnight when the marchers took up the mantra “we’re here, we’re queer and we’re coming on your children” (warning: graphic).
The growing sexualisation of youngsters has grow to be one among the saddest and most distressing facets of progressive ideology.
It has taken some time for this technique to begin to emerge into daylight. As the progressive trajectory has developed and evolved as an engine of adjusting culture, each the results and ambition of the movement grow to be clearer.
Part of the issue was that nothing was what it seemed. What we saw, or were presented with, was not what we got. Beginning with a feminism that presented itself as a catalyst for equality and fairness, it as a substitute produced the masculinisation of girls. Motherhood and femininity were exchanged for work and the pursuit of power. Having turned their backs on the virtues of Christian marriage and youngsters, feminists were among the many foremost advocates of homosexual marriage, a move that sped up the de-Christianisation of culture.
Third wave feminism created a recent platform for reality. What was real was what you longed for or imagined in your head. It trumped objectivity and even biology and science. It ushered within the tsunami of transgenderism that was going to energise the mental illness of gender dysphoria, producing an exponential rise in referrals for sex changes, specifically amongst adolescents after which children.
It took a while for the typical person to understand that a central a part of the progressive strategy was the sexualisation of youngsters. We can see this within the extraordinary campaign by drag queens to read to children in public libraries through the phenomenon often called Drag Queen Story Time.
One of the critical changes that emerged within the progressive strategy was the gay turf war with so-called TERFS (transgender-exclusionary radical feminist). Lesbians reacted strongly against their newly won men-free zones being invaded by men pretending to be or presenting themselves as ‘women’. One of the results of this was to separate gay lobby group Stonewall.
Stonewall had been one of the crucial effective agencies for progressive change and moving the gay agenda from one among cultural inclusion to a more aggressive weapon of exclusion against anyone who remained committed to the concept and practice of Christian heterosexual marriage.
But under the leadership of a recent chief executive, Nancy Kelley, the transition to creating trans rights central to its campaigning strategy split its constituency and led to a civil war in Stonewall. Matthew Parris, one among the 14 original founders, wrote an article in The Times claiming Stonewall had grow to be “extremist” and must persist with LGB rights without the T. While gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell lept to the defence of Kelley and the brand new concentrate on trans, Prof Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy on the University of Sussex, claimed Stonewall had encouraged a definition of transphobia that was far too wide.
“Through its Diversity Champions scheme it’s disseminated this very widespread concept that an attack on the speculation – or an attack on the actual interpretation – of identity is an attack on trans people. And that has really made the entire discourse incredibly toxic, given its enormous reach inside national institutions,” she told the Guardian newspaper.
That reach inside the institutions, it has now been revealed, stretches so far as the Church of England. Anglicans were deeply disturbed when the Church launched an education policy entitled Valuing All God’s Children. Despite the deceptive euphemism of its title, its content suggests to primary children as young as five that they is likely to be born into the incorrect bodies and be ‘transgender.’ Astonishingly, the encouraging foreword was penned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, while Christians across the denominational spectrum found it hard to know how Justin Welby had been capable of put it on the market.
An answer to a proper query in a recent session of the General Synod of the Church of England has been illuminating. The episcopate had originally tried to deflect questions on Stonewall’s possible involvement, the Bishop of Durham, Paul Butler, having previously denied that Stonewall had written the report when faced with questions on it earlier. But that was only technically true; the incorrect query had been asked.
When the proper query was asked, Jonathan Frost, Bishop of Portsmouth, was forced to confess that what had actually happened was that Stonewall had funded it as a substitute. He refused to reveal how much money Stonewall had given the Church of England but we are able to guess that, as is usually the case with such funding, the entire point of the cash changing hands – definitely from Stonewall’s perspective – was to be sure that the Stonewall agenda was promoted by the Church of England. It is unlikely to have been a present with ‘no strings’ attached.
Miriam Cates, the Tory MP for Penistone and Stockbridge, quoted by the Daily Telegraph was excoriating in her criticism: “Activist groups mustn’t be enabled by any education providers to push their political agendas on schools…taking money for essentially allowing Stonewall to dictate the Church of England’ s policy is an entire failure by those in authority.”
The deception over who provided the funding and the try and hide the indisputable fact that the Church of England was acting as an ideological mouthpiece for Stonewall must be a matter of deep shame for the Church and a betrayal of its own people and values.
But worse still is the betrayal of the kids who were entrusted to its care. By its willing promotion of transgender propaganda it helped turn the intense and deeply debilitating mental illness of gender dysphoria right into a rampant social contagion amongst essentially the most vulnerable members of our society, our kids.
If, because the Gospels insist, we stand in the course of a battle between good and evil and are invited in our recognition of Jesus as saviour to select sides, it is difficult not to come back to the conclusion that on this matter, the C of E has modified sides.
