USCCB: Supreme Court has ‘redefined’ the meaning of ‘sex’

““Words matter,” the statement from leading U.S. bishops said. “‘Sex’ should not be redefined to include sexual inclinations or conduct, nor to promulgate the view that sexual identity is solely a social construct rather than a natural or biological fact.””


Yeah, just another example of how the far left is having a field day redefining anything and everything they please, and then reshaping and reforming it to their warped world view…

Oh, and way to go Neil Gorsuch!


The real issue is with GOD.

He forms a person in the womb as an intersex person.

Remember when suicide was an automatic one way trip to HELL, until science.

Remember when one could not even admit an attraction to the same sex until science.

Remember when it was heresy to believe in Aliens until science.

Now the Magisterium accepts all three.

Well this is science too.

The Supreme Court is just way ahead of the game.

What’s science got on the whole death thing? Making any headway yet?

1 Like

Intersex is a physical condition. This is different from someone identifying with a gender. It’s also not correct to conflate intersex conditions with someone without an intersex condition who has undergone surgery or taking hormonal drugs.

Can anyone verify this claim? Along with the others.


Transgender is not intersex. The ruling had nothing to do with medical conditions.

It just redefined the word “sex” to mean something other than male or female, which is what the legislators thought it meant in 1964 when it prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, or sex.

If “sex” can be read so broadly, then it might be illegal to discriminate against an employee who is engaging in some variety of sex activity two cubicles over. Can he or she be fired “on the basis of sex?”

1964 legislators thought they were prohibiting discrimination against women or men because they were women or men. SCOTUS just legislated something else.

1 Like

Even the word ‘discriminate’ has been redefined.

This is the power of academia which has been a source of hard modern day divisions in society.

The traditional definition meant to choose between two things.

Examples : discriminate between good and evil, or to be a discriminating shopper.

Then discriminating had an element of unfairness introduced to the definition so that it became a slur - ‘you discriminate!’ oh no, you’re bad’. Once this redefined word could be used as a slur it was unleashed on Christian morals in a one directional manner.

For example, if one favoured the wife to be looking after the children it was discriminating against women. If one favoured the wife working you were modern and progressive and supporting the liberation of women.

If one favoured people to be married to have children you discriminated against 'lifestyle choice. If one favoured babies outside of wedlock yet again you were progressive and supported the modern redefinition of family.

This has been a constant play of using existing words in the community with one meaning and then taking it over and teaching children through education a new politicised meaning.

In this way it is easier to mask the foreign and aggressive nature of new ideologies.

I think the church, which should have been the bulwark against clear attacks on Christian culture, should have been stronger in opposing this while they had the strength but the first step was to recognise who the enemy is.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.