Quid Est Veritas? Christ and Pilate, by Nikolai Ge. (from here)

Transgenderism is a dialectical ploy of the Left being used to create compromise in our schools that results in the moral breakdown of our society. According to progressives today, dialectical thinking is all about ‘change’, how we perceive it, and how we get rid of prejudices and rigid thoughts. The argument that kids who are transgender (TG) should be allowed to use the bathroom and showers of their ‘gender identity’ uses dialectical thinking to win their case.

Listen to their reasoning:

Change is thought as a unity of the opposites… When a person opens up to the idea of change, he opens up to dialectical thoughts. (

According to the dialectical scheme, there is a thesis or statement of an idea; an antithesis or contradiction of the thesis, and then synthesis in which the thesis and antithesis are resolved through compromise. So, let’s break down this argument by example and see it at work:

Thesis: The gender of boys and girls is determined at birth, male and female, and natural modesty.

Antithesis: Some boys and girls believe they are the opposite gender but equipped with the wrong genitalia.

Synthesis: Because that is part of their reality and citizen right, transgender (TG) kids must be allowed to use the bathroom/shower room of the gender with which they identify.

…and with that compromise, morality, modesty and decency go down the drain for the majority of the school population…and the decay of our society decays, which is what the social engineers are after!

Dialectical reasoning was promoted by Immanuel Kant and Hegel, who were the first modern philosophers to propagate this form of thinking. Karl Marx later adopted this method of reasoning. Understanding that ‘opposites are, in fact, relative concepts’ is the gist of dialectical thought. By definition, relative means “existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent” (

The Bible says of God that He does not change nor do the precepts contained in the Bible change. They are absolute. Our Constitution, original moral laws and system of government were based on the Bible. They are definite and founded on absolutes.

In the 60s, prayer and Bible reading were outlawed in the schools and our national scene. No God, no Bible means we no longer have absolutes by which to measure our behavior. Everything is subject to change as society changes. That makes every law, every policy, every decency relative or subject to change. To our detriment, relativism governs our thinking today.

With a frenzy, people want to throw off restraint and change our laws to suit their behavior. When a person opens up to the idea of ‘change’, he opens up to relativism and dialectical thinking. They reason as follows:

When we are brought up learning a particular line of thought (religion, for instance [my interjection]), or working in the same surroundings, or with minimum knowledge of the outside world, our thoughts are bound to be rigid. We are brought up to be biased. The mode of thinking which makes us break the shackles of rigid thoughts, and helps in achieving an ‘unbiased’ nature is, precisely, what can be termed as dialectical.   (

Is God rigid? Certainly, about principles that are absolute ad do not change. God says of Himself that He never changes. He is constant. He IS absolute! Is that why the Left and progressives consider believers in God and the Bible to be rigid and biased? You bet! And they’re out to change the principles, Biblical in origin, by which Americans govern our lives and society.

A front-line of attack on purity and morality is the whole scheme of transgenderism. It is a fallacy, defined as: “a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief” (

Romans chapter one describes the individual who rejects God and His absolutes and, therefore, adopts all sorts of sexual aberrations and perversions as a lifestyle and justifies their behavior.

Don’t be fooled by arguments that sound logical and persuasive. If they don’t stand up to the absolutes of the Bible, and the arguer wants to make radical changes to a principle founded on absolutes, refuse to accept the argument for it is false and salacious.

Think about this when you consider for whom you will vote on November 5th. Weigh carefully what candidates say and believe about important issues they would deal with in their prospective public office, particularly the school board. Probe their words by asking them pointed questions. Do not let proponents of dialectical ‘change’ represent you in any office of government. Vote carefully! Vote wisely—VOTE!

This is the first in a series of articles on the subject of transgenderism. Stay tuned for more to follow.

Revised for clarity

— Posted by Tom Salmon for Doris, a fellow member of the Prince William and Manassas Family Alliance

This entry was posted in 2019 Election, Doris' Posts, history, religion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Pingback: THE FALLACY OF TRANSGENDERISM — PART1 Revised | Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance

  2. ColorStorm says:

    Can’t stand this crap. If only more people SAID what they were thinking political correctness be damned-

    Keep saying what is right.

  3. Tom Salmon says:


    What bothers me is when people start foisting their fantasies on children. If an adult wants to pretend they are something other than their biological sex, there is much I want to do about it. I just don’t want to be forced to participate in their fantasy. However, children don’t need to have their heads messed up. Children already have enough trouble distinguishing what is real from fantasy without having to deal with crazy ideas like transgenderism.

  4. Pingback: THE FALLACY OF TRANSGENDERISM — PART 3 | Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance

Comments are closed.