The scandalous seven
Who’s really teaching our children about sex?
Full access isn’t far.
We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.
Get started for as low as $3.99 per month.
Current WORLD subscribers can log in to access content. Just go to "SIGN IN" at the top right.LET'S GO
Already a member? Sign in.
Imagine appointing an arsonist to serve as the city fire chief or a flat-earther to run the Royal Astronomical Society. Well, something even more foolhardy has occurred in recent years when it comes to sex education.
Children are routinely exposed to cartoonish characters like the “Genderbread Person” to learn that their anatomical sex is supposedly different from their gender identity. Such doctrines are dutifully recited to children by educators whose own university education was likely infused with radical gender ideologies. Where did these ideologies come from? Who were its founding fathers? Did they have staggering expertise and sterling resumes to qualify them to shape how entire generations think about sex? Let’s meet the cast of characters.
Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956) wrote Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and the Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), which have been touted as the bible of the sexual revolution. Kinsey was one of the first to argue that gender is nonbinary. He loathed monogamous heterosexuality as oppressive. He was one of the most eager revolutionaries of the sexual revolution—and he lived out his own sick ideology.
Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) coined the term “Sexual Revolution,” promoting if-it-feels-good-do-it sexual expressivism to achieve liberation from repression, a running theme in today’s sex ed. Like Kinsey, he viewed monogamous heterosexual sex as an evil relic of religion. What are his credentials to inform our children’s view of sex? He practiced “vegatotherapy,” which included giving “massages” to naked patients, including children. He had multiple affairs, defended pedophilia, and died in prison.
Michel Foucault is considered the godfather of the queer theory being advanced in contemporary education. He advanced the idea that “heteronormativity” is a power structure that must be deconstructed. He argued for “consensual” sex between adults and children, campaigning to legalize pedophilia in France. When relocated to Berkeley, Calif., Foucault threw himself into the sadomasochistic homosexual scene, including “gagging, piercing, cutting, electric-shocking, stretching on racks, imprisoning, branding.” He contracted HIV/AIDS and continued to gratify his sexual appetites even after he knew he was infected. When Foucault said, “Sex is worth dying for,” he practiced what he preached, not only for himself but for unsuspecting others.
Harry Benjamin (1885-1986) is another important contributor to today’s sexual education. Benjamin championed today’s ubiquitous dogma that “the mind of the transsexual cannot be adjusted to the body”—making him the forefather of gender ideology and reassignment surgery. Should we rank him a hero or villain? Benjamin experimented on children’s bodies, causing irreversible damage to many. He was undeterred when his research assistant, endocrinologist Charles Ihlenfeld, revealed, “There is too much unhappiness among people who have had the surgery. Too many of them end as suicides.” Ihlenfeld’s point has since been confirmed with the tragic 19-to-1 ratio of likelihood of death by suicide for those who have undergone gender reassignment.
John Money (1921-2006) coined the term “gender identity” in the 1960s. For Money and today’s educators parroting his dogmas, gender is a mere social construct. He practiced hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgeries for children. In the infamous Reimer case, Money made 6-year-old twins strip and simulate sex with one another. He showed them pornography and inflicted sexual abuse on them. The Reimer case, which Money hailed as confirmation of his theories, was cited again and again to prove that gender is purely social and malleable, divorced from biology. These are now entrenched dogmas in sexual education, based largely on Money’s long debunked evidence. Both the Reimer twins later tragically committed suicide. Should a man who falsified research and inflicted sexual abuse on children have his notions about sex passed on to our children?
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) built the framework for much of today’s sexual education. Sartre argued that “man is nothing but what he makes himself,” the existential doctrine of radical self-definition beneath today’s transgender and queer theories. Sartre was a notorious womanizer. For him, sex was about “the sadistic conquest of another.” Sartre also campaigned for pedophilia, signing a vile 1977 petition seeking to abolish age of consent laws in France.
Lastly, comes one of Sartre’s biggest fans, Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), fellow signatory of the petition to legalize pedophilia. Derrida inspired today’s gender theories by deconstructing language as an oppressive power play. He/she, man/woman, male/female are false binaries, tools of “subordination.” Derrida described himself as “a horrible Mediterranean macho man.” Two of his sons disowned him for his many infidelities. He coerced more than one lover to have an abortion against her will. He refused to acknowledge the existence of the love-child of one of his many affairs.
Do such disturbing facts mean that these men had no insight about anything? No. Isn’t this an ad hominem attack to write off these men’s sexual doctrines based on their personal lives? No more than citing a record of reckless and drunk driving to disqualify someone from manning the steering wheel of the children’s school bus.
Why would anyone, left or right, allow the doctrines of men who atrociously failed to articulate a true and flourishing vision of human sexuality to shape our children? If you don’t want the likes of Kinsey, Reich, Foucault, Benjamin, Money, Sartre, and Derrida—the scandalous seven—molding your children’s view of human sexuality, then speak up. Ask teachers and administrators what steps they have taken to ensure that the ideology of pedophiles and deviants does not come within 100 miles of your children’s classroom. Demand answers. Defy gender ideology. Defend children.
If you enjoyed this article and would like to support WORLD's brand of Biblically sound journalism, click here.
These daily articles have become part of my steady diet. —BarbaraSign up to receive the WORLD Opinions email newsletter each weekday for sound commentary from trusted voices.