Progressivism Targeting ‘Latinx’

As the United States further shifts towards progressivism under the Biden regime, new terminology has become popularized within the Latino community including “cisgender, genderflux and Latinx,” to name a few. Because Hispanic culture holds deep rooted belief in religion, primarily Catholicism, these terms do not accurately represent the views of the entire population.

A 2016 blog post published by Mr. Kevin DeYoung, (PhD, University of Leicester), Senior Pastor of Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina, discusses biblical philosophy surrounding gender identity. “The biblical understanding of male and female is more than just an assumption writ large on the pages of Scripture. We know from Genesis 1 and 2 that the categories of male and female are a part of God’s design for humanity. Indeed, when God created the first human pair in his image, he created them male and female (Gen. 1:27). He made the woman to be a complement and help to the man (Gen. 2:18-22). Far from being a mere cultural construct, God depicts the existence of a man and a woman as essential to his creational plan. The two are neither identical nor interchangeable. But when the woman, who was taken out of man, joins again with the man in sexual union, the two become one flesh (Gen. 1:23-24). Dividing the human race into two genders, male and female—one or the other, not both, and not one than the other—is not the invention of Victorian prudes or patriarchal oafs. It was God’s idea.”

Latino individuals who embrace the teachings of the Bible may be uncomfortable with leftist verbiage. These terms may potentially indoctrinate their children via the public education system, and contradict their genuine beliefs.

According to a bilingual survey of U.S. Hispanic adults conducted in December 2019 by Pew Research Center, “About One-in-Four U.S. Hispanics Have Heard of Latinx, but Just 3% Use It.” The emergency of this terminology in 2023 stems around a global movement to introduce gender-neutral nouns and pronouns into languages which traditionally use feminine or masculine identity.

To gain a better perspective, I have begun to survey the Hispanic community to solicit their feedback on the term.

“I do not agree with the term Latinx because ‘Latinos’ is the plural neutral noun we use for people of all Latin American descent. ‘Inclusive language’ is divisive because it fragments culture and common language. We learn through language, it forms how we think, and how we act. Changing language changes culture, and that is what ‘inclusive language’ tends to do. Instead, we should learn and embrace our common language which unifies our vast and diverse culture.” – Cesar Alvarado, Sonoma County.

Joel Oceguera, Sacramento, CA, stated: “My initial encounter with the term ‘Latinx’ occurred through a television program in approximately 2019. My immediate reaction was one of confusion and offense, as I perceived it as a foreign imposition on the Latino community, originating from individuals external to our own cultural group. As Latinos, we have not actively sought a gender-neutral terminology, and we remain content with the existing terms of ‘Latino’ or ‘Latina’ which adequately encompass our identity without any inherent issue.”

The Los Angeles Dodgers have recently faced backlash from the Latino community due to controversy encompassing The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

According to a 2015 article published by Yvonne Carrasco, Dodger Insider, “Fifty-four percent of Dodger fans are Latino, and each season the Dodgers play host to approximately 2 million Latino fans, the majority of which are of Mexican descent.”

These statistics have not been drastically modified as the bulk of Dodgers fans continue to represent a large Latino fan base.

As cited by The Heritage Foundation, “The Sisters, as you might guess from the name, is a group of vile, hateful anti-Catholic, anti-Christian bigots whose members dress as nuns, painting their faces white and with garish makeup, a form of mockery every bit as offensive as a White person in blackface.”

On Wednesday, May 17, the Dodgers shared via Twitter that they would be rescinding a community award they planned to present to the Los Angeles chapter of the drag group at the team’s 10th annual LGBTQ Pride Night on June 16. The reversed decision occurred after some conservative Christian groups campaigned against the award online, and claimed that the Sisters were offensive.

Per Datebook, “In an open letter, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio objected that the group ‘features men dressed like Catholic nuns who mock the (Catholic) faith with the motto ‘Go forth and sin some more!'”

Following backlash from local politicians and social justice groups, the Dodgers ultimately decided to reverse their decision regarding the invitation. According to Forbes,”The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California also pulled out of the Dodgers Pride Night, and the Los Angeles LGBT Center demanded the event be canceled unless the organization reinvites the Sisters.”

“The Dodgers pledged to ‘work with our LGBTQ+ partners to better educate ourselves’ and credited ‘thoughtful feedback from our diverse communities’ for their decision to reinvite the Sisters.”

This was not the sole occasion of controversy in relation to the Sisters. According to Influence Watch,”In 2019, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence created an event titled ‘Drag Queen Story Hour,’ to be held in a public library in Simpsonville, South Carolina. The event prompted a petition asking the library to prevent men dressed in drag from interacting with children in public spaces funded by tax dollars. A representative of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Natalie Shaik, defended the event, stating that it is designed for parents who want to expose their children to ‘different kinds of people.’

Similar “Drag Queen Story Hours” are currently being promoted across the state and have exponentially expanded during Pride Month. Sonoma County parents have recently expressed outrage online regarding a similar program being held at libraries across Sonoma County. These programs target young students, and conservative parents have shared concern surrounding the ultimate motives of these programs. The involvement of Latino parents with their child’s education is lacking due to overwhelming obligations, and guardians may be unaware of the influence to which their child has been subjected.

Just last weekend, a protest was organized in response to “Drag Story Hour” by Sonoma County Parents Stand Up For Our Kids, a Facebook group which made news in 2021 by organizing protests against mandatory vaccinations for children. Rather than allow dissenting views, the Petaluma Argus Courier deleted their entire original Facebook post about the protest, as the majority of commenters spoke against the Story Hour. The moderator of the Facebook page continued to highlight the full names of individuals, as they were banned from the page for sharing contradictory views. The publication’s response was intriguing, given that previous transgender performers enlisted for “Drag Queen Storytime” were convicted sex offenders. Confirmed by Snopes as factual, “Albert Alfonso Garza was convicted of sexually assaulting a boy in 2006, before taking part in “Drag Queen Storytime” in a Houston public library in 2017 and 2018.”

As we reflect on our nation’s history, the potential motives behind the LGBTQIA+ campaigns become clearer. I previously wrote an article in The California Globe titled: “Health or Heredity? COVID-19 Vaccines & California’s History of Eugenics.” According to The Guardian, “from 1909 to 1979, under the state eugenics laws, California forcibly sterilized about 20,000 people in state institutions who were deemed “unfit to produce.” The program disproportionately targeted the Latino community, women, people with disabilities and impairments – even those who had children out of wedlock. The mean age of victims was 17, and they included children as young as 12.”

As cited from Influence Watch, “The Population Council was incorporated in November 1952 by John D. Rockefeller III, and funded initially by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Ford Foundation, Markle Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and Rockefeller personally. The new council funded demographic and biomedical research and made grants to researchers and institutions to study ‘knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to family planning’ and artificial birth control in countries throughout the world.”

“Founding member of the council and secretary of the American Eugenics Society (AES) Frederick Osborn was Rockefeller’s successor as president in 1957. Osborn was a leading proponent of “reform eugenics,” which sought to distance itself from the racism and anti-Semitism of the eugenics movements popular in the U.S. prior to World War II and embraced by the Nazi regime in Germany. Osborn “did not hesitate to endorse compulsory eugenic sterilization of the mentally ill or restrictions on immigration, and to voice caution against miscegenation.” Osborn had written earlier that, “It is evident that the social conditions which affect reproduction might be modified in a number of ways, so that the dynamic influences of population change would be more in line with conscious social objectives. Eventually, if our dream of human progress is to be realized, rational social action must replace the operation of blind forces in this as in other fields.”

In the present day, the Rockefeller Foundation has been a key player to fund campaigns advocating for birth control, gender reassignment surgeries and protection for transgender rights. Do these billionaire philanthropists hold legitimate sentiments for social justice or do they possess ulterior intentions? Do elite families who formerly supported the concept of an Aryan race now desire prosperity for people of color?

“History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a farce.” -Karl Marx, Father of Communism