Ruth Speaks Out

This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Submission to the United Nations

Ruth Institute Submission to the United Nations Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI)

A Response to the Call for Input to a Thematic Report:

“Gender, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity”

Submitted by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

Founder and President, The Ruth Institute

March 9, 2021

We offer the following items for the consideration of the Independent Expert:

  • 1. SOGI-based policies promote violence and discrimination – Attempts to impose a radical gender agenda are promoted as a way to protect individuals against violence and discrimination, but invariably lead to violence and discrimination against those whose only crime is to dissent from the ideology of the Sexual Revolution. It is easier to sell a cause as defensive, rather than offensive – as this most certainly is. Forcing women and girls to share showers and bathrooms with so-called trans-males is an assault on their privacy (modesty), hence a type of violence.Gender “non-discrimination” laws discriminate against adherents to the natural order. Catholic hospitals and physicians would be forced to provide hormone-blocking drugs and surgery (including the removal of healthy organs) in violation of their conscience.
  • 2. Gender identity laws would eliminate all sex-based protections for women and girls, which required decades to achieve – Gender identity would destroy women’s sports by forcing females to compete with males who say they’re women, with their superior strength, agility, speed and endurance. A man who says he is a woman who is also a rapist could be incarcerated in a woman’s prison and gain access to shelters for battered women, thus endangering the safety of women.
  • 3. Enshrining SOGI-based rights into law creates an open-ended redefinition of the meaning of unlawful discrimination – For instance, discrimination could potentially include failure to provide surgery, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
  • 4. SOGI-based laws have the potential to criminalize speech – What constitutes “violence and discrimination” when gender identity holds sway? Defining criticism as a crime will ultimately suppress speech. Criticism of government policy is a natural human right. We reject the idea that criticizing gender theory is a form of violence and discrimination. The theory that an individual can choose his or her sex ought to be highly contested. The theory that efforts to protect women’s spaces is the equivalent of inciting hatred is itself a type of bigotry. SOGI-based laws could also ban or redefine the use of gender-specific words.
  • 5. “Gender identity” is anti-science – The expression “gender identity” has only come in vogue in the past few years. It implies that the sex of the body is “assigned at birth” and is an artificial construct based solely on physical characteristics. The further implication is that individuals can chose their “gender identity” from a shopping list created by activists. (112 different “gender identities” are reported on Tumblr.) In reality, individuals are born male or female, with only a handful of medical exceptions. Someone born a male will remain a male until the day he dies, regardless of what he does to his body with hormones and surgery. DNA can’t be changed.
  • 6. SOGI-based policies undermine the family, which is entitled to protection, according to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights – The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted in 1948) acknowledges a number of inalienable rights. Article 15 describes the family as, “the natural and fundamental group unit of society,” which thus is “entitled to protection by society and the state.” So-called SOGI rights are a direct assault on the family. Their adherents push for gender indoctrination in the schools and media. Some want hormone treatments and surgery on minors administered/performed without parental knowledge or consent.
  • 7. SOGI is an assault on religion – Christianity, Judaism and Islam all hold that God created us male and female and endowed us with a nature based on our sex. Gender ideologues believe these ideas are antiquated and bigoted. In other words, if a person is born a male (with a penis and testicles) he can, nevertheless, choose to be a “woman” and by proclaiming that choice – with or without chemical or surgical alteration -- become every bit as much a “woman” as one who was born a woman. Along with science, religion is the primary force which denies transgenderism, which makes it a principal target of gender activists. We reject the idea that believers should be forced to deny the tenets of their faith. Christians and Jews should not be required to re-write Genesis (“Male and female, He created them,” in the words of the King James Bible).
  • 8. A gender regime would force people to lie about the reality of biological sex – Prohibiting certain types of speech is bad enough. Compelling speech is even worse. Compelling false speech and forcing people to lie, corrupts people’s consciences and sense of right and wrong.

Ruth Institute Press Releases on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity:

“Equality Act” Will Force Us to Lie Says Ruth Institute

Planned Parenthood Despicable for Medicating “Transgender” Youth--Ruth Inst. (

In Pushing the Trans Agenda, Biden will Make Obama Look Like Phyllis Schlafly (

Removal of Healthy Breasts from Adolescents is Unconscionable, Says Ruth Inst. (

New House Rules Erase Women, Says Ruth Institute

Ruth Inst. Outraged by Australian Drag Queens’ Suit Prohibiting Criticism (

Actress’s Name Change Doesn’t Alter Reality, Ruth Inst. Says (

Brits Ban Puberty Blockers: Ruth Inst. Cheers (

Ruth Inst. Applauds Court Ruling on Reparative Therapy Bans (

Barrett Didn’t Have to Apologize. Homosexuality is not Innate, Says Ruth Institute

American Journal of Psychiatry Corrects Pro-Transgender Surgery Study (

“Individuals with a Cervix” is the Latest Effort to Erase Women, Ruth Inst. Charges (

Ruth Inst. Rejects UN “Gender-Neutral Language” Manipulation (

Ruth Inst: Blatant Judge Bias in “Trans” Athletes Case (

Ruth Institute Petition Calls for Moratorium on “Sex-Change” Operations

Ruth Institute Questions Why Radicals Think Pro-Family Equals Anti-LGBTQ

Ruth Institute Petition Asks South Dakota Governor to Protect Children from Those Who Call Puberty a Disease

Opposition to Mutilation Isn’t Hate Speech (

Ruth Inst. Pres. Says Case of 7-year-old Boy is About More Than “Gender-Transitioning” (

Ruth Institute Senior Research Associate Writes on Study Which Refutes Born-That-Way Theory of Homosexuality

Ruth Institute President Says Teaching LGBT History is Indoctrination, Not Education

Ruth Institute President Decries “Gender-Fluid” Dating Show

“Once-Gay” Survivor of Pulse Nightclub Shootings to Speak at Historic Summit (

President of Ruth Institute Says Teacher Fired for Calling a Girl “She” Shows How the Power of Government Supports the Sexual Revolution

Ruth Institute Delighted to Sign Letter Affirming Biological Nature of Sex

Barrett Didn’t Have to Apologize. Homosexuality is not Innate, Says Ruth Institute

October 16, 2020

For Immediate Release

“Judge Barrett did not have to apologize at all for using the expression ‘sexual preference,’” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., “Homosexuality is not innate.”

Morse was commenting on an exchange in the course of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) objected to Barrett’s use of the expression (in regard to Obergefell v. Hodges) which she said was “offensive to the LGBT community,” whereupon Barrett apologized.

Morse remarked: “The LGBT community, so-called, can take offense at anything they want. We certainly can’t stop them. However, science has now proven beyond doubt that there is no ‘gay gene.’ Whatever combination of nature and nurture, choice and chance, may be at work for any particular person’s situation, hard genetic determinism is certainly not correct.”

She added: “Self-identifying as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ or ‘transgender’ is certainly a choice. Living a sexually active life with partners of the same sex is a choice, in fact, a whole series of choices.

“Unfortunately, we now have science by interest-group intimidation,” Morse charged.

In a commentary on a study in the August 30, 2019 issue of the publication Science, Fr. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D., the Ruth Institute’s Senior Research Associate, remarked that the study “explodes the false narrative that being gay is an innate condition that is controlled or largely compelled by one’s genetic makeup.”

Sullins explains: “Rebutting decades of search by LGBT scientists for a ‘gay gene,’ the study’s first author flatly concludes ‘it will be basically impossible to predict one’s sexual activity or orientation from genetics.’”

Morse added: “But this false narrative of gay at birth, or homosexuality as an innate condition, was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision mandating same-sex marriage in Obergefell. That’s why the LGBT movement and its apologists become hysterical at the suggestion that homosexual behavior is a choice, implied in the expression ‘sexual preference.’ For the Sexual State, there’s so much at stake here.

“Ironically, the same politicians who say ‘listen to the scientists’ when it comes to COVID, are saying ‘Don’t listen to the scientists; listen to us,’ when it comes to homosexuality,” Morse remarked.

On June 5, 2020, Morse interviewed Dr. Walter Schumm of Kansas State University on efforts to silence research on gay issues.



Support the Ruth Institute