Letter to the Editor

Nebraska’s State College Board of Trustees: Objective reality is not ‘discrimination’

Friday, November 12, 2021

Dear Editor,

The proposed revisions to Board Policy 5007, and new Board Policy 5012, incorporate “gender identity” ideology. These policies raise fundamental questions and concerns about: the truth of human sexuality; the First Amendment free speech rights of students and staff; and the privacy and safety of women.

It is an axiom of the Christian faith that we are not to judge the heart of another human being ... However, we are to judge the actions through the lens of objective reality. By “objective,” I mean objective truth - which deals with things as they are, as opposed to subjective reality, which deals with individuals.  In metaphysics there is the word ontological – the study of being: what the essence of a thing is, and its natural purpose. Human sexuality falls into this category because it is a characteristic of the human condition, it has a natural purpose / end – and thus qualifies as an objective thing.  This is why we say that homosexuality is an “intrinsically disordered” passion. 

To be clear, homosexual inclination in of itself is not sinful, although the inclination is so strong that its dominant tendency is to act on the disordered impulse. It is the act that is gravely sinful.  An action can and must be judged, not only by its end effect – whether the thing follows the purpose for which it was intended, but also as to whether the action harms the individual or the society.  This is the idea of the common good. Actions are either right or wrong, good or evil, and sometime neutral.  If society suddenly stopped judging actions, we would quickly descend into chaos.

Executive Memo Number 40, promulgated by the Nebraska State College Board of Trustees, demonstrates a dystopian obsession with the en vogue cultural wrecking balls of “equity,” “inclusiveness,” and “tolerance.” Despite an ostensibly well-meaning desire to create an atmosphere of inclusiveness and safety, policy directives that advocate or implement “gender identity” will: alienate as many parents as the policy is intended to attract; endanger the safety of students, and; threaten the fundamental rights of both. There will always be sycophants to march lockstep with the messaging of Madison Ave’s Mad Men, whose latest slogan – ‘Be Yourself’ – is designed to proselytize the masses with its novel “gospel of tolerance.” But what to this point have Americans not tolerated? Approval and participation are the real goals.  No matter one’s views, the end result is the destruction of an individual life, the corruption of society, and the non-realization of human potential. Rational creatures deposing their true selves in deference to imagined identities is a tragic irony, which the State College Board Trustees have either overlooked, or else have ignored in their zeal to substitute ideology for education.

Objective reality informs that a human is born either of the male or female sex. Gender and sex are not interchangeable terms; and it is deceitful to willfully confuse the two. Again, the issue is objective reality. In this case, the irrefutable truth is that human beings are conceived with one of two sets of sex chromosomes: ‘XY’ or ‘XX.’ There are no other combinations. “Gender” is a grammatical tool, where personal pronouns identify the sex of the subject in a sentence (he, she, him, her, it). Substituting “gender” for sex, so to avoid genetic reality, is a perversion of science and truth. 

“Gender identity” is pseudo-science. Giving this invention credence invites an accelerated descent into biological absurdities. “Gender fluidity” is a weapon against culture, a tool to muddy the truth with an ever-expanding litany of biological fictions whose origins are psychological, and hence the external expressions of mental disorder – not a biological reality to be championed as normal and celebrated as beneficial.  We do the patient no favor by pretending that their disorder is necessary to healthy self-esteem. Doing so is neither compassionate or tolerant; rather it is the epitome of indifference, the very opposite of love. “Be yourself,” indeed – but be the objective self whom God intended, not the counterfeit chimera of clever marketing.

Bruce C. Desautels

Stratton, Neb.

View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • A couple notes. Jesus thought that even lusting after a woman was a sin - the same as adultery itself. So, a misguided sexual inclination is itself a sin. Which is different than what Bruce says here. Also, again from the religious bible type perspective, Jesus passes on the opportunity to condemn homosexuals when he mentions them. Bruce is right about the XY and XX situation. But, genes have different expressions in different people.

    -- Posted by bob s on Fri, Nov 12, 2021, at 8:55 PM
  • Bruce C. Desautels is a pseudo-intellectual.

    -- Posted by AxolotlMom on Mon, Nov 15, 2021, at 12:50 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: