Human beings often talk about what moves them most deeply. Passion is the quiet fire behind our words and actions, urging us to speak and act when something touches the conscience. Over the years I have written and spoken about many subjects that provoke both reflection and disagreement. Some find resonance in my words, while others reject them entirely. That is the nature of honest dialogue, and as long as it is expressed respectfully, I welcome it. After all, if we truly value freedom of thought, we must allow room for different conclusions, not only those that mirror our own.
My life experiences have shaped me into someone who values examining ideas from more than one angle. I have never been comfortable accepting something simply because it is popular, nor rejecting something simply because it is uncomfortable. Life has a way of shaking our assumptions and reminding us that truth rarely lives inside echo chambers. It asks us to listen, observe, and think carefully.
I do not seek to impose my beliefs on anyone. If a person’s worldview helps them become kinder, wiser, and more compassionate, then it has clearly served a meaningful purpose. Human beings do not need to think the same way in order to coexist with respect.
With that said, I want to explore a subject that increasingly concerns me: what many people refer to as gender ideology. I approach this subject not with hostility but with concern—especially for children and adolescents who are still discovering who they are.
If you would prefer to listen to this topic, please feel free to use the link below, which will take you to my YouTube channel. With that clarified, let us continue…
Gender Ideology: A Debate About Children, Biology, and freedom – YouTube
The debate itself often begins with confusion. Some argue that gender ideology does not exist, while others insist it has become a powerful cultural force. Critics often describe it as the belief that gender is primarily a social or psychological construct rather than something rooted in biological reality. From that perspective, individuals are encouraged to interpret identity independently of biological sex.
Supporters, on the other hand, emphasize that gender identity deserves recognition and respect.
Between these two perspectives lies an important challenge: how do we protect both personal freedom and objective understanding?
BIOLOGY, CONDITIONING, AND CONSENT
Biological science has long described human reproduction and physiology as organized around two sexes—male and female—determined by chromosomes, reproductive anatomy, and hormonal systems. This framework forms the foundation of fields such as genetics, embryology, and physiology. Recognizing this biological reality does not require hostility toward anyone whose personal experience differs from it. But ignoring it entirely risks replacing inquiry with ideology.
The issue, in my view, is not self-expression. Adults should be free to express themselves, to love whom they love, and to shape their lives according to their conscience. The deeper concern arises when ideological certainty replaces open discussion, and when disagreement itself is interpreted as hostility or worst, labeled as hatred.
Healthy societies depend on the ability to question ideas without fear. When people feel compelled to adopt language or beliefs under threat of social condemnation, the space for thoughtful dialogue begins to narrow.
The groups promoting this agenda are correct in one point: humans are conditioned — culturally, socially, and even sexually.
But here is the question:
If conditioning is wrong, how is pushing a belief not also conditioning?
Is conditioning acceptable when it supports one viewpoint but wrong when it does not?
Until a child reaches maturity — cognitively, emotionally, neurologically — no one has the right to push them toward any identity conclusion for adult comfort.
Respecting that a child may grow to love someone of their own gender is not the same as denying biological reality.
If we promote something, promote real acceptance — not imposed narratives that compartmentalize young minds.
Children need space to discover their “I.” In a material world, a healthy sense of self is essential. We are spiritual beings, but we live in biological bodies that physiologically express as male and female.
I will always respect adults regardless of sexual orientation. What I will not support is the violation of children’s developing minds.
FREE SPEECH AND DOUBLE STANDARDS
Free speech is the right to express ideas and opinions without government censorship or punishment from other members of society- as long as laws are not violated. It is meant to protect open debate and allow different viewpoints to be heard.
A double standard occurs when similar viewpoints are treated unequally—such as when one side receives funding, institutional support, or platform access, while the opposing side is labeled negatively or excluded under the same system. In principle, free speech should be applied consistently and fairly—not based on convenience, popularity, or political preference.
A reporter in Argentina expressed disagreement with promoting an agenda — not people. He stated he did not want to live apologizing for being heterosexual. The network required him to repeatedly discuss gender ideology in a promotional way.
He was punished for polite disagreement. How is respectful dissent hatred? Since when did disagreement equal extremism?
If this logic stands, someone who feels hurt for not being affirmed could claim they are being hated.
Where does that reasoning end?
History shows repression does not solve issues. It intensifies them.
Suppressing problems rather than addressing them increases division….
This pattern is increasingly visible in our modern age. We appear not to have learned from history that when societies attempt to resolve tension by endlessly accommodating every emerging demand, they often create new fractures instead of stability. Well-intentioned efforts to demonstrate fairness can, over time, evolve into a system where group identity becomes the primary currency of legitimacy.
As has been observed by thinkers such as Jordan Peterson, if society continues to respond to every claim of marginalization by expanding special considerations, funding structures, or policy exceptions, it may unintentionally encourage an environment in which more groups feel incentivized to frame their concerns in similar terms. The result is not unity, but fragmentation — a gradual multiplication of competing demands, each presented as a matter of equal urgency.
Equality in a democratic society cannot mean bending endlessly in every direction to satisfy every individual claim. A society is not a single person with unlimited flexibility; it is a shared structure that must remain balanced to function. When too many adjustments are made in pursuit of absolute accommodation, the framework itself begins to weaken.
True fairness is not favoritism, nor is it perpetual concession. It is the creation of a stable, neutral foundation upon which all citizens stand equally before the law. The role of government is to provide that level ground — not to cater to every individual preference, but to ensure that rights are protected uniformly, without privileging one group’s demands over another’s.
When fairness becomes reactive rather than principled, society risks creating more divisions in the name of inclusion. History reminds us that systems strained by constant redefinition often develop cracks that are far harder to repair than the original disagreements.
Let me give you some cultural examples…
We live in a time that claims to value openness and inclusion, yet unresolved anger, passive hostility, and historical trauma often replace genuine equality. True equality does not ask anyone to live apologizing for who they are — whether because of skin color, heritage, gender, or belief. And this is not privilege speaking; it is a human being speaking — someone intimately aware of pain, of discrimination, and of the experience of being marked as different. My own family history includes injustice. One of my grandfathers was judged unfairly because of lineage. That treatment was wrong. Yet he did not respond with revenge. He stood for dignity, fairness, and equal opportunity. He understood that healing cannot emerge from perpetual punishment, nor from the constant pursuit of retribution. Constant retaliation does not repair wounds; it risks transforming the injured into reflections of the very harm they suffered. Within every community, there are individuals capable of hatred — even among those who share the same background — and we must remember that injustice is not confined to differences alone. Hatred is never justified, and retribution dressed as justice remains retribution. Another example appears in cultural traditions. During the holiday season, some institutions replaced greetings such as “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays.” I do not belong to any religion, yet Christmas holds deep meaning for many people, just as Hanukkah holds meaning for others. I do not feel threatened by either greeting. In fact, confidence in one’s beliefs should allow room for others to express theirs. When institutions feel compelled to suppress widely recognized traditions in the name of neutrality, it raises a question: where is the balance, and where is true inclusion? Educational institutions should reflect pluralism by acknowledging multiple cultural celebrations, not by erasing one to avoid discomfort. Inclusion does not require the suppression of identity, nor does equality demand that people silence their traditions in order to make others comfortable. Real equality is not about dominance or denial — it is about coexistence, mutual respect, and the strength to allow differences to stand without fear.
Reality vs. Delusion & the dangerous precedents we may set: reality is greatly influenced by perspective not delusion.
Sometimes examples help clarify the complexity of this issue. I once heard a simple analogy offered by a national leader that illustrates the principle well. He said, in essence: if someone wishes to believe they are a panda, they are free to believe that—but they cannot require everyone else to see them as a panda as well. In other words, you are free to choose your perspective and how you want to experience reality, you however, do not have the right to impose that on others.
Other analogies help illuminate similar questions. If someone sincerely believed they possessed supernatural abilities—such as the ability to fly—it would not be compassionate to affirm the belief uncritically if it placed them in danger. Compassion would involve helping them understand the difference between perception and physical reality.
Medical practice provides similar examples. A patient suffering from severe anorexia may perceive themselves as overweight despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Responsible care requires acknowledging their emotional distress while still recognizing the objective condition of their body.
The goal is not to shame the individual but to guide them toward health.
For this reason, discussions about identity must remain grounded in both empathy and evidence. When belief alone becomes the standard for truth, the boundaries that protect both individuals and society can begin to blur.
I often hear the argument that social conditioning shapes much of our identity. In many ways this is true. Culture influences how we dress, speak, and interpret the world. But if conditioning is harmful when imposed by one tradition, it does not suddenly become harmless when imposed by another. Replacing one form of social pressure with another does not liberate the individual—it simply changes the direction of influence.
Real acceptance allows individuals to discover themselves without coercion.
I have friends who are gay and lesbian—people whose dignity, intelligence, and kindness I deeply respect. They do not seek to force others to adopt their worldview. What they ask for is something far simpler: the freedom to live honestly and to be treated with fairness. That, to me, is genuine equality. Because if subjective identity alone defines reality, what prevents misuse? There have been disturbing discussions where individuals attempting to frame pedophilia as an identity claim as argument they are “children trapped in adult bodies”, therefore it is only natural they shall fall in love or be attracted to children. Society overwhelmingly rejects this — rightly so.
This example demonstrates why objective boundaries are necessary.
Without them, protecting children becomes impossible.
Clear lines are essential.
CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND NEUROSCIENCE
Adolescence is not adulthood.
The brain continues developing until approximately the mid-twenties.
The prefrontal cortex — responsible for reasoning, planning, impulse control, and long-term judgment — is among the last regions to mature.
During adolescence:
• The emotional brain develops earlier than the rational brain.
• The limbic system becomes highly active.
• The prefrontal cortex is still refining connections.
• Synaptic pruning reshapes neural pathways.
• The brain is highly plastic.
• Peer influence becomes extremely powerful.
• Reward sensitivity increases.
• Social belonging becomes critical.
• Identity experimentation intensifies.
This biological reality means young people are wired to explore — not finalize life-defining conclusions. The emotional centers mature earlier than the systems responsible for judgment and identity integration. During this period of profound neurological change, clarity and stability are not restrictions on development—they are the very conditions that allow healthy development to occur. We must distinguish exploration from cementing identity in children.
MENTAL HEALTH AND GUIDANCE
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that in the last 10 years nearly one in five adolescents experiences major depressive episodes, with rising trends in sadness.
The American Psychological Association documents increasing anxiety, loneliness, and identity-related stress due to ongoing social shifts and pressure. These trends have multiple causes — but the main ones were the result of social pressures and cultural shifts — Confirming one truth: Young minds require guidance, stability, and reality — not ideological certainty.
Mental-health research discussed by the American Psychological Association indicates that individuals experiencing identity disturbances benefit from supportive therapeutic environments that integrate experiences rather than reinforce distortions. Compassion means guiding toward health — not affirming every perception as fact.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Growing up, I was a tomboy, and so were my daughters. If I had been insecure or pressured, I might have steered them toward an identity conclusion.
Instead, I nurtured them without direction. I taught them respect for adults’ choices.
I told them that if they grew up to love someone of their own gender, I would support and love them the same. We forget that children desire to please and their minds are impressionable, and so they will do anything that will get them the “reward, love or attention” from their parents.
Let us not forget that brain maturation continues until approximately age 25.
That does not mean rejecting teenagers expressing same-sex attraction. It means understanding the difference between supporting mature self-expression and teaching very young children identity frameworks as predetermined.
Forcing heterosexuality through shame is wrong. Imposing ideological frameworks on children is also wrong.
Extremes are never the answer.
HEALING VS RETRIBUTION
We must avoid keeping wounds open.
Constant retribution does not heal societies.
False acceptance imposed by fear does not create equality.
Proper education, proper guidance, and humanity — not ideological tampering — will lead to genuine acceptance.
No band-aid solution will work.
CLOSING — THE CORE PRINCIPLE
The deeper challenge of our time is not one single issue.
It is our inability to disagree without dehumanizing one another.
Children deserve:
• Truth without fear
• Compassion without ideology
• Guidance without manipulation
• Biological reality respected
• Freedom for adults preserved
• Protection grounded in objective boundaries
If we protect developing minds, honor adult freedom, resist extremes, and remain anchored in clarity, we do more than preserve order — we cultivate integrity. We create the conditions in which equality is not performed, but lived; not imposed, but embodied.
Only then can the next generation rise in stability rather than uncertainty, in understanding rather than division — growing not from confusion, but from a grounded confidence that allows them to know themselves without being forced to become anyone else.
And in that clarity, society breathes again — not louder, but truer.
Eiros 