How Sex is being replaced by Gender and why all Sri Lankans should be concerned

 

 

Sex – What You Are Born With

 

Sex is biological – determined by your body, not by feelings.

There are two sexes — male and female — and, rarely, intersex (a birth-related sexual abnormality).

1. Amale has XY chromosomes, a penis, testes, and produces testosterone.
2. Afemale has XX chromosomes, breasts, ovaries, and a vagina.
3. Intersexis a rare condition (less than 1 in 2,000 births) where a baby is born with a mix of male and female physical traits — for example, chromosomes or hormones that don’t fit typical definitions of male or female. It is a biological condition, not a separate gender identity.

 

Your biological sex is fixed at birth. It determines how your body functions — ignoring it can be dangerous.

 

Examples:

• If a doctor gives medicine based on someone’s chosen gender instead of theirbiological sex, it could harm them, because male and female bodies process drugs differently.
• In sports, biological males generally have more muscle mass and bone strength. Allowing them to compete in female categories isunfair and unsafe.

 

Gender – How Society Sees You & How you want to be seen

 

Gender is social, not biological.

It refers to how people behave, dress, or express themselves in society.

 

A boy may like wearing pink, or a girl may enjoy sports — that doesn’t change their sex.
Gender roles change with time, culture, and fashion — they are flexible and learned, not fixed in the body.

The problem begins when “gender” replaces “sex” in education and health policies.
Children are being told they can “change” their sex when they feel different — but their brains and bodies are still developing until around age 25.

A girl who enjoys playing with trucks may outgrow that interest.

Similarly, a boy who likes pink may later prefer blue.

 

This is why many who took hormones or had surgery as teenagers now regret those decisions — these young people are called detransitioners.

Countries like Sweden, Finland, the UK, and the US are now reversing early gender-transition programs after seeing the harm — confusion, depression, and lifelong regret.

 

In Simple Terms

Sex is biology — real and unchangeable.
Gender is behavior — social and flexible.

 

Replacing sex with gender confuses children, misleads doctors, and weakens family and legal protections.

Even the countries that once promoted “gender identity” in schools are now realizing the damage it has caused.

 

How the World Recognized Sex – Not Gender – Throughout History

 

1. Ancient Civilizations: Society Built on Biological Sex

 

From the earliest human societies, roles, duties, and family structures were based on biological sex, not self-declared identity.

• Inancient India, texts like the Manusmriti and Arthashastra recognized purusha (male) and stri (female) as natural categories, each with biological and social roles.
• InGreco-Roman civilization, law and medicine were both built on biological distinctions — vir (man) and mulier(woman). Aristotle and Hippocrates described male and female anatomy and physiology as the basis for medicine.
• InBuddhist and early Christian teachings, moral and family order were organized around male and female complementarity — not fluid or self-declared identity.

No culture recognized “gender identity” separate from sex.
What varied were social expectations (how men and women behaved), not the biological foundation itself.

2. Medieval to Colonial Law: Sex as the Legal Basis

 

As nations codified law, sex became the legal and administrative reference point.

• English Common Law, which heavily influenced colonial and post-colonial legal systems, used onlysex — male or female — to define rights, inheritance, property, and marriage.
• TheMarriage Act (1753, UK) defined marriage as a union between “man and woman.”
• Medical and anatomical sciencesfrom the 16th to 19th centuries (e.g., Harvey, Vesalius) categorized human beings by sex for all research and treatment.
• Even during colonial administration, censuses, civil registries, and penal codes recorded onlysex, never gender.
• TheBritish Penal Code of 1860 (which influenced Sri Lanka’s Penal Code of 1883) criminalized acts based on biological sex distinctions (e.g., Sections 365 and 377).

There was no reference to “gender,” “identity,” or “orientation.”

 

In every field — medicine, law, governance, and education — sex meant biology.
“Gender” was only a grammatical term, not a human classification.

 

3. Post-Colonial Constitutions and International Charters

 

After independence, many nations retained the same legal language.

• TheUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and UN Charter (1945) used “sex” — never “gender.”
• “All are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to equal protection of the law, regardless of race, sex, language, religion…”(UDHR, Article 7)
• TheICCPR (1966), CEDAW (1979), and Sri Lanka’s Constitution (1978) all enshrined sex as the immutable biological basis of equality and protection.
• Article 12(2) of Sri Lanka’s Constitution prohibits discrimination “on grounds of race, religion, language, caste,sex, political opinion, place of birth or any such grounds.”
• There wasno mention of gender in any founding document of international or national law.

 

4. The Shift – When “Gender” Entered Policy Language

 

1. Original Meaning — Grammatical Only

• The word“gender” comes from the Latin genus, meaning “kind” or “type.”
• InEnglish, French, and Latin grammar, “gender” was used to classify nouns — masculine, feminine, or neuter.
• For over500 years, “gender” referred only to grammatical categories, not to people.
  • Example: “Table” is feminine in French (la table), masculine in German (der Tisch).
• So until themid-20th century, people spoke of sex (male/female) — not “gender” — when referring to humans.

 

2. Shift Begins in Psychology (1950s–1960s)

• The word“gender” was first used to describe human identity by psychologist Dr. John Money in the 1950s.
• He worked withintersex children at Johns Hopkins University and introduced the term “gender role” to describe how children learn to act male or female in society.
• He claimed “gender” could differ from “biological sex.”
• This was thefirst time “gender” was applied to humans — but it was a psychological, not biological, concept.

 

John Money’s experiments (such as the tragic David Reimer case) later became infamous because the child, born male and raised as female after a surgical accident, rejected the assigned “gender” and eventually took his own life.
This case exposed the dangers of confusing biology with social identity.

 

3. Feminist Theory & Social Sciences (1970s–1980s)

• Second-wave feminists in the 1970s (notablyAnn Oakley, 1972) adopted the word “gender” to separate biological sex from social expectations.
• Oakley’s bookSex, Gender and Society (1972) spread this new usage widely.
• Universities and NGOs began using “gender studies” instead of “women’s studies.”
• However,laws and international treaties still used the term “sex” to describe discrimination and equality — not “gender.”

 

4. Entry into UN & Global Policy (1990s onward)

• The term“gender” entered UN language formally at the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women, when “gender equality” replaced “sex equality.”
• Western NGOs lobbied to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” under the same umbrella — expanding the meaning far beyond male/female roles.
• Many nations, including the Holy See and several Asian and Arab states, objected and demanded clarification that “gender” referredonly to male and female as understood in biological terms.

 

The word “gender” entered the UN lexicon only after 1995, during the Beijing World Conference on Women, where activists and Western NGOs lobbied to expand “sex” to include “gender” and “gender identity.”

Foundational human-rights instruments used ‘sex’ as the legal category; ‘gender’ as a policy and identity term began to enter UN discourse and practice more strongly from the 1970s–1990s and was formalised at Beijing (1995)

 

After 1995:

• “Gender” began appearing in UNFPA, WHO, and UNESCO documents.
• “Gender mainstreaming” replaced “sex equality.”
• “Gender identity and expression” later evolved into arights-based ideology detached from biology.

 

This was a policy-level redefinition, not a scientific or legal necessity.
It allowed subjective feelings to replace biological facts in law and education — a dangerous shift that is now destabilizing institutions and nations across the world.

 

(a) WHO/UNFPA guidance introduces gender identity and

(b) medical/legal debates/caveats about youth interventions and detransition.

UNFPA/ITGSE and ICD-11 and detransition literature.

https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-and-transgender-health-in-the-icd

 

For thousands of years — across civilizations, religions, sciences, and legal systems — sex meant biology.
“Gender” as a social or psychological identity is a 20th-century political invention, formally introduced into global governance through UN policy frameworks only after the Beijing 1995 Conference.

 

Replacing sex with gender undermines:

• Medical accuracy
• Legal protection
• Parental rights
• Social stability

 

How international instruments used “sex” — and how “gender” / “gender identity” later entered UN policy and treaty-body practice

 

For most of modern international law the protected category was expressed as “sex” (male/female) — the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the core covenants that followed refer to discrimination on grounds such as “sex” (UDHR; ICCPR; ICESCR) and CEDAW (1979) frames equality specifically as elimination of discrimination against women (i.e., on the basis of sex).

 

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

 

From the mid-20th century the social-science term “gender” began to be used to describe social roles (John Money in the 1950s; Ann Oakley’s 1970s work), but it became a formal policy term within the UN system in the 1990s — most visibly in the Beijing Declaration & Platform for Action (1995) and the UN adoption of “gender mainstreaming.”

This is when “gender” moved from academic usage into sustained UN policy language.

 

https://www.icsspe.org/system/files/Beijing%20Declaration%20and%20Platform%20for%20Action.pdf

 

During the 2000s–2010s that policy vocabulary expanded further: UN Member-state fora and the Human Rights Council began to adopt resolutions and reports addressing sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) (notably HRC resolution A/HRC/17/19 in 2011 and follow-up reports), and OHCHR materials and a range of treaty-body statements increasingly address rights and protections for persons on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In short: treaty texts historically used “sex”, while later UN policy and committee practice began to interpret equality and non-discrimination to include SOGI.

 

https://www.right-docs.org/doc/a-hrc-res-17-19/?path=doc/a-hrc-res-17-19&utm

 

At the same time UN technical and health agencies incorporated the language into program guidance: UNESCO/UNFPA’s International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (2018) places sexuality education within a “gender-equality, human-rights” framework, and WHO’s policy pages use “gender” and “gender identity” terminology in health programming and in ICD-11 reclassification decisions (e.g., moving “gender incongruence” out of mental-disorders and into sexual-health-related categories).

These agency documents demonstrate how “gender” and related identity terms now shape education and health guidance.

 

https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/ITGSE.pdf

 

In short: the founding international human-rights instruments were drafted and framed around sex (biological male/female).

From the 1970s onward social science introduced “gender” as a concept; by 1995 it was institutionalised in UN policy (Beijing), and by the 2010s many UN bodies, resolutions and technical agencies were explicitly using “gender,” “gender identity” and SOGI in legal interpretation, programming and health guidance.

This shift — from sex in treaty texts to gender/SOGI in committee and agency practice — is factual and evidenced in the UN documents cited above.

 

1) How “gender” and LGBTQIA ideology became linked in international policy

 

• From the late 20th century the academic term“gender” (social roles) moved into policy language; by the 1990s the UN formally adopted “gender mainstreaming” (Beijing Platform for Action, 1995). That change made room in UN policy for rights-based approaches that explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) as policy targets.

https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/ITGSE.pdf

• UN technical guidance on sexuality education (co-authored/endorsed by UNFPA, UNESCO, WHO, etc.) frames CSE in a“gender-equality, human rights” paradigm and explicitly includes discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity as part of comprehensive programmes. That is the text that national programmes often adapt.

 

What this means: the shift from “sex” (biological) to “gender” (social/identity) in UN and agency guidance created a policy pathway by which discussions of LGBTQIA identity and gender identity became standard parts of education and health programming in many countries. https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender

 

2) WHO / ICD-11: de-classification as “mental disorder” and clinical implications

 

• WHO moved“gender incongruence” out of the mental-disorders chapter in ICD-11 and into a chapter on sexual health (ICD-11), a change WHO says is intended to reduce stigma and better enable access to health services.
• WHO explicitly links the ICD change to facilitating access and coverage for gender-affirming care.https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-and-transgender-health-in-the-icd?
• Why this matters for policy and markets:reclassification reduces medical/psychiatric gatekeeping in some systems, tends to make gender-affirming interventions more available through health systems or insurance, and has legal/financing consequences — which in turn drives demand for clinical services and related pharmaceuticals.

https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/gender/sogie—faq-final-08.10.2024.pdf?sfvrsn=ef076e29_3

 

3) The rise of a gender-affirming care market and industry involvement

 

• There is an emerging, measurablemarket for gender-affirming hormone therapies and related care. Market reports estimate the sex-reassignment hormone therapy market in the U.S. and globally in the hundreds of millions to low billions of USD and project growth over the coming decade. (market research summaries).

https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-hormone-therapy-market-report

• Pharmaceutical companies supply hormones and prescriptions used in gender-affirming care; private clinics deliver services. As demand rose in recent years, private clinics and some health systems scaled up services — creating a commercial ecosystem around gender-affirming interventions. (see market reports above and industry analyses).

https://www.novaoneadvisor.com/report/us-sex-reassignment-hormone-therapy-market?

 

The data helps us to understand why gender-affirming care has become a financially significant sector with stakeholders who benefit from expanded service provision.

 

4) Philanthropy, NGOs and foundations: who funded LGBTQIA/LGBTQ rights work

 

• Large philanthropic actors and foundations (Open Society Foundations, Arcus Foundation, others) publicly report grants supportingLGBTQ rights, advocacy, research, and programme work  These grants have played a role in building NGO capacity, research, and campaigning that promoted SOGI issues and inclusive education in many countries.

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/topics/lgbtqi

https://www.arcusfoundation.org/our-support/social-justice-lgbtq-grants/

Philanthropic support helped amplify and globalise LGBT/LGBTQIA rights work and educational programming; foundations funded local NGOs, research, litigation, and public-education campaigns. That funding network accelerated the spread of SOGI concepts into curricula and policy debates.

 

5) Media, corporate and platform roles

 

• Mainstream and social media carried coverage and campaigns normalising gender identity and sexual orientation; corporations (tech, media, brands) embraced LGBTQIA inclusion (PR, DEI, Pride sponsorships). This created an ecosystem of visibility and cultural change that reinforced policy shifts. (See reporting on corporate Pride sponsorships and media campaigns; examples are numerous in press archives.)
• The result: widespread cultural normalization through media coverage, corporate sponsorship, and social platforms—factors that influence youth perception and adoption of identity labels. (numerous media analyses)

 

6) Evidence of harms — detransition, regret, and policy reversals

 

• Peer-reviewed articles and investigative reporting documentdetransition and transition regret as real phenomena requiring study.
• A 2023 scoping/essay literature review and JAMA/Reuters investigations show increasing attention to people who later regret early medical transition, and call for better research, informed consent, and long-term follow up.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10322945/

• Because of emerging clinical uncertainty and reports of harms/regret, several countries and jurisdictions havetightened rules or paused certain youth gender-affirming services, and policy debates are active in Sweden, Finland, the UK (Tavistock changes), parts of the U.S., Denmark, and elsewhere. See country-level guidance and news coverage.

 

The existence of detransition and the policy reversals in some countries justify caution in introducing identity-based medical pathways for minors and strengthen arguments for stricter safeguards and parental involvement.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/  Why detransitioners are crucial to the science of gender care.

 

7) Cultural, constitutional and penal contexts (examples)

 

• Many countries retaincriminal prohibitions against consensual same-sex acts; ILGA publishes an up-to-date map of where consensual same-sex activity is criminalised.
• Sri Lanka’s Penal Code (Sections 365/365A) remains relevant domestically; other countries have constitutional protections that reflect cultural/religious positions on sex and family.

https://database.ilga.org/criminalisation-consensual-same-sex-sexual-acts

 

Over the last three decades a policy and cultural shift moved debate from biological sex to gender and gender identity.

 

UN agencies (WHO, UNFPA, UNESCO) now frame sexuality education and health in a rights-based, gender-inclusive way — explicitly including sexual orientation and gender identity in comprehensive sexuality education and public-health guidance.

 

That shift has coincided with large philanthropic investments into LGBT/LGBTQ advocacy, the rapid growth of a commercial gender-affirming care sector (market reports estimate hormone therapy markets in the hundreds of millions to low billions of dollars), and intense media and corporate visibility campaigns.

 

At the same time, peer-reviewed studies and investigative reporting document real harms for some young people — detransition and transition regret — and several countries have begun to tighten rules on youth gender-affirming care.

 

Given the legal, cultural and constitutional diversity among nations (including criminal prohibitions on same-sex conduct in many jurisdictions), these facts together argue for caution, parental involvement, stronger safeguards, and national policy-making grounded in local constitutional and cultural norms rather than wholesale adoption of foreign CSE templates.

 

 

HOW “GENDER IDEOLOGY” IS ENTERING EVERY SECTOR

 

1. The Coordinated Global Strategy: From UN Policy to Local Classrooms and Offices

 

After 1995, UN agencies, Western donor governments, and private foundations began embedding gender and SOGI(sexual orientation and gender identity) language across all systems — education, health, employment, and law.

This occurred in two major tracks:

• Track 1:“Gender equality” and “diversity” programs in workplaces (DEI).
• Track 2:“Comprehensive Sexuality Education” (CSE) in schools.

 

Both originate from the same ideological network, funded and promoted by overlapping donors, NGOs, and corporations.

 

2. WHO Introduced DEI — The Workplace Capture

 

Who drives it:

• United Nations (UNDP, UN Women, ILO)— launched “Gender Equality and Inclusion” frameworks for employers worldwide.
• World Economic Forum (WEF)— through its “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiative,” partners with global corporations to “redefine workplace culture.”
• Multinational Corporations (MNCs)— pressured to align with ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) and DEI metrics by:
  • BlackRock,Vanguard, and State Street Global Advisors, who manage trillions and demand DEI compliance through ESG investment ratings.
  • Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundationvia its “Corporate Equality Index,” grading companies on LGBTQ+ inclusion and pressuring compliance.
• US & EU Aid Agencies— such as USAID, DFID (UK), and European Commission — who attach “gender mainstreaming” clauses to development funding.

 

Mechanism:

• Governments and corporations are told DEI is “mandatory” for funding, trade access, or global reputation.
• DEI officers and “Gender Units” are installed inside ministries, schools, and private companies.
• DEI metrics then influence hiring, training, and even speech codes — enforcing ideological conformity.

 

Result:

• Biological reality and merit-based criteria are replaced by “identity categories.”
• “Gender identity” becomes a protected characteristic equal to race or sex, even when legally undefined.
• Workers are compelled to declare pronouns, attend “sensitivity” sessions, and affirm ideological beliefs — or risk professional penalties.

 

3. UNFPA & UNESCO Introduced CSE — The School Capture

 

Who drives it:

• UNFPA,UNESCO, WHO, and UNICEF — jointly issued the International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (ITGSE).
• Funded and promoted by:
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation(funding UNFPA and global education programs)
  • Open Society Foundations (George Soros)(funding “sexual rights” and “gender justice” projects globally)
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)and allied NGOs.
• Ford Foundation,Arcus Foundation, and Hewlett Foundation (supporting SOGI and education reform networks).
• These agencies work with local Ministries of Education, embedding CSE under “health” or “life skills” programs.

 

What is introduced:

• Children are taught that“gender is a spectrum” and “sex is assigned at birth.”
• Lessons introduce terms such astransgender, pansexual, intersex, and non-binary from as early as age 5–8.
• Biological reality (male/female) is replaced with “self-identified” categories.
• CSE programs normalize early sexual activity, contraception, and experimentation under “rights-based” language.

Why this is dangerous:

• It confuses children during formative brain development years.
• It undermines parental authority and religious values.
• It encourages self-identification over biological or moral reality.
• It erodes traditional family and national identity — replacing it with globalized ideological conformity.

 

4. The Financial and Ideological Network Behind Both (DEI + CSE)

 

Sector	Key Funders / Drivers	Mechanism of Influence
Philanthropy	George Soros (Open Society), Bill Gates, Ford Foundation, Arcus Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation	Grants to NGOs, universities, and UN agencies for gender/LGBTQ inclusion projects
Corporate	Google, Meta, Microsoft, Disney, Netflix, Apple	Pride sponsorships, DEI mandates, media normalization
Financial	BlackRock, Vanguard, World Bank, IMF	ESG ratings require “gender inclusivity”
Media	CNN, BBC, Reuters Foundation, Hollywood	Narrative promotion & censorship of dissent
Medical/Pharma	Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Endo Pharmaceuticals	Profits from puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries
Education	UNESCO, UNFPA, Gates Foundation	Global CSE curriculum reform, gender studies, and early sexualization

 

These actors coordinate through policy conferences, donor alliances, and UN frameworks to ensure ideological uniformity.

Their profits and influence grow as governments adopt their frameworks.

 

5. The Global Plan: Redefining Humanity and Authority

 

The overarching goal of the “Gender–DEI–CSE” network is social re-engineering — to detach identity from biology, religion, and national law, and to root it instead in fluid, self-defined categories managed by international governance.

 

In summary:

1. DEIreshapes the workplace → replaces biological and merit principles with identity politics.
2. CSEreshapes the child → replaces family and cultural guidance with UN ideology.
3. Philanthropy + UN + Corporates + Mediasustain the message and profit structures.
4. Legal reinterpretationsof “sex” → “gender identity” are used to enforce global compliance.

 

This transformation serves powerful interests:

• Expandingmedical markets (puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries).
• Expandingeducational control (curriculum standardization).
• Expandingsocial control (speech, thought, identity regulation).
• Weakeningnational sovereignty, family structures, and cultural continuity.

 

6. Why Nations Must Reclaim Definition and Sovereignty

 

To protect children, families, and constitutional law, nations must:

• Retain “sex” as the legal category in constitutions, laws, and policies.
• Reject “gender identity” and “gender expression” as undefined ideological imports.
• Audit and regulate foreign-funded programs (especially UNFPA/UNESCO CSE).
• Protect parental consent and national curricula from external agendas.
• Reassert moral and cultural values rooted in biological reality and local tradition.

 

Key Players & Evidence

Organisation / Individual	Role & Evidence	Link
Open Society Foundations (George Soros)	Major grant-maker for LGBTQ / gender identity legal, educational and advocacy programmes worldwide. Their grant portal lists thousands of grants for “LGBTQI+” issues. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/topics/lgbtqi	https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation	Invests heavily in “gender equality” and sexual/reproductive health; partnership with United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to expand supply of reproductive/contraceptive health products. https://www.unfpa.org/updates/new-partnership-advance-equitable-access-sexual-and-reproductive-health-products	https://www.gatesfoundation.org/our-work/areas-of-impact/gender-equality
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)	A UN agency that issues guidance and technical frameworks on sexuality education and gender; receives large grants from philanthropic and state sources. United Nations Population Fund+1	UNFPA – Grants
World Health Organization (WHO)	Adopted ICD-11 changes that reclassify “gender incongruence” and promote gender identity health services. This enables gender-affirming care as standard. https://www.unfpa.org/updates/new-partnership-advance-equitable-access-sexual-and-reproductive-health-products	https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-and-transgender-health-in-the-icd
Arcus Foundation (Jon Stryker)	Private foundation focused specifically on LGBT rights and social justice globally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcus_Foundation	https://www.arcusfoundation.org
Global Funding Data	Data shows large scale of funding to LGBT / gender identity projects: E.g., $905 million in 2021-22 globally for LGBTI issues. https://globalresourcesreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/GRR_2021-2022_WEB-Spread-Colour_EN.pdf	https://globalresourcesreport.org

 

Channels, Entities, and Mediums Used to Disseminate the Gender & LGBTQIA Agenda

 

Medium / Entity Type	Function / Role	Examples / Evidence
International Organizations & UN Agencies	Policy frameworks, technical guidance, advocacy; integrate “gender” & “SOGI” into education, health, and rights programmes.	UNFPA (CSE guidance), UNESCO (education), WHO (ICD-11 & health), UNICEF (youth rights). https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/ITGSE.pdf
National Governments & Ministries	Adapt and adopt international guidance into school curricula, health policy, and workplace legislation.	Ministries of Education adopting UNESCO/UNFPA CSE modules; national health ministries integrating gender-affirming care.
Schools & Universities	Deliver curricula and social messaging; integrate “gender studies,” CSE, and LGBTQIA themes; influence young minds.	University “Gender Studies” programs; secondary schools adopting comprehensive sexuality education modules.
Philanthropic Foundations	Fund NGOs, educational programs, research, media campaigns, and policy advocacy.	Open Society Foundations (Soros), Arcus Foundation (Stryker), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (gender equality & sexual health).
NGOs / Advocacy Groups	Local implementation, public campaigns, research promotion, litigation, policy lobbying.	ILGA, GLAAD, Human Rights Watch (SOGI advocacy), Plan International (CSE, gender equality).
Media (Mainstream & Social)	Normalize gender identity, LGBTQIA visibility; PR campaigns; cultural influence.	Netflix, Disney, BBC, social media campaigns for Pride & inclusivity; corporate-sponsored content promoting identity narratives.
Corporate / Private Sector (DEI Programs)	Promote workplace inclusion, employee training, and branding; influence public perception.	Google, Apple, Microsoft DEI initiatives; corporate Pride sponsorships; internal “gender identity” training programs.
Medical & Health Industry	Implement gender-affirming interventions; disseminate research & guidance; establish market demand.	Hospitals, clinics, pharmaceutical companies (hormones, surgeries); WHO guidance facilitating access to gender-affirming care.
Research & Academic Journals	Publish studies, legitimize gender-identity theories, provide citations for curricula and policy.	JAMA Pediatrics, The Lancet, Sexuality Research & Social Policy; gender-focused psychology and sociology journals.
Legal / Policy Think Tanks	Draft policy recommendations, influence legislation, and guide national adoption of international frameworks.	Center for Reproductive Rights, International Center for Research on Women, Human Rights Campaign policy briefs.
International Conferences & Platforms	Set agendas, formalize terminology (e.g., “gender identity”), and encourage adoption in member states.	Beijing World Conference on Women (1995), Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), UN Human Rights Council sessions on SOGI.

 

The agenda is disseminated and normalized through a multi-layered network combining international agencies, national governments, educational institutions, philanthropic funding, NGOs, media, corporate programs, health and medical sectors, academia, legal/think-tank networks, and high-profile conferences. Each layer reinforces the other, creating a coordinated ecosystem for embedding “gender identity” and LGBTQIA ideology globally.

 

WHAT THEIR PLAN IS – THE ENDGAME BEHIND THE “GENDER SHIFT”

 

1. Redefining Human Identity

 

The first and most critical goal is to detach human identity from biology.
If sex (male/female) can be redefined as “gender identity,” then:

• Objective science gives way to subjective feeling.
• Law and medicine lose the ability to ground reality in biology.
• The human person becomes a fluid, self-declared construct—easier to manipulate, market to, and politically mobilize.

 

When identity is no longer rooted in the body, it becomes a matter of ideology and policy—something governments and corporations can control.

 

2. Rewriting Family and Society

Once the biological family (mother–father–child) is replaced by “chosen families” or “parental units,” social authority shifts from home to state.

CSE and DEI frameworks serve this process by:

• Redefining motherhood and fatherhood as “parental roles,” not sexes.
• Reducing parental consent in education and healthcare decisions.
• Making state-approved “gender identity” the new moral reference point.

 

The long-term goal is a generation detached from national, cultural, and religious roots—loyal instead to globalized values dictated by external powers.

 

3. Centralizing Control Through Global Governance

 

Every redefinition—of sex, of family, of morality—strengthens the hand of international governance systems:

• UN agencies set global standards.
• Philanthropic and corporate partners fund “compliance.”
• National governments adopt these frameworks through aid conditions or trade incentives.

This turns moral and cultural questions into technocratic policy tools, monitored through “gender indicators,” “DEI audits,” and “SDG progress reports.”

 

4. Creating New Markets and Dependencies

 

Behind the moral language lies a powerful commercial engine:

• Medical marketsexpand via puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and lifelong hormone replacement.
• Educational marketsexpand through standardized curricula, NGO contracts, and teacher training modules.
• Corporate marketsexpand via DEI certifications, HR training, and ESG-linked investment products.

Each of these generates profit while promoting ideological compliance.

 

5. Replacing National Morality with Global Ideology

 

Traditional moral systems—rooted in religion, family, and national law—are being replaced by a “universal human-rights morality” that equates self-defined identity with human rights.

This ideology:

• Places “gender identity” on the same level as sex, religion, or race.
• Labels dissent as “hate” or “discrimination.”
• Silences cultural, religious, or parental objections through international pressure.

 

The end result is the erosion of moral sovereignty: what a country may teach its children or protect in its laws is dictated by unelected bodies abroad.

 

6. The Ultimate Transformation – From Biology to Bureaucracy

 

When the definitions of man, woman, and family are rewritten, power over human identity itself passes from nature and culture to bureaucracy.

• Birth certificates, school forms, passports, and laws now list “gender” instead of “sex.”
• Each “identity” becomes a policy category—recorded, tracked, and managed by international systems.

 

This is not liberation; it is reclassification—the administrative redesign of humanity.

 

WHAT THEIR PLAN IS – The Real Objective Behind Replacing Sex with Gender

 

The global promotion of “gender identity” is not a random cultural trend. It is a structured policy and economic project designed to reshape human identity, family authority, and national sovereignty under global governance frameworks.

 

1. The Strategic Objective — Redefining the Human Person

By replacing biological sex (a fixed natural category) with gender (a fluid, self-defined category), the very foundation of law, medicine, and morality is rewritten.

• If sex is no longer fixed, then words like “man,” “woman,” “mother,” and “father” lose legal meaning.
• If gender is self-declared, then truth itself becomes subjective — state and international systems can redefine reality at will.
• If identity is detached from biology, global institutions, not families or religions, become the new arbiters of human nature.

 

This shift allows international agencies and corporations to standardize people as flexible identity units — consumers, not citizens; subjects, not souls.

 

2. The Operational Plan — Control Through Policy, Economy, and Culture

The global “gender agenda” advances through a three-pronged system:

 

1. a) Policy Capture

UN agencies, donor governments, and private foundations write “gender-inclusive” standards and attach them to aid, trade, and education programs.
Every nation adopting those frameworks effectively cedes policy sovereignty to global regulators.

1. b) Economic Conditioning

Through ESG and DEI frameworks, multinational investors and financial institutions pressure governments and businesses to adopt gender and diversity metrics.
Access to loans, grants, and global markets now depends on compliance — creating economic enforcement of ideology.

1. c) Cultural Normalization

Hollywood, Big Tech, and global media normalize gender ideology through films, series, advertisements, and social media trends.

By shaping youth identity and social behavior, the next generation internalizes ideology before they can question it — cultural conditioning replaces family and faith formation.

 

3. The Economic Engine — Profiting from Identity Confusion

Behind the language of “inclusion” lies a multi-billion-dollar industry:

• Medical marketsfor puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender surgeries.
• Education and training industriesfor gender and DEI compliance courses.
• Corporate brandingthrough identity politics and Pride-linked marketing.
• Pharmaceutical dependencecreated by lifelong medicalization of healthy youth.

 

What began as “gender rights” has become a global profit chain — with young bodies and national sovereignty as collateral.

 

4. The Social Outcome — Fragmenting Family and Nation

When “gender” overrides “sex”:

• Parental authority is replaced by state and institutional control.
• Religious and cultural moral codes are labelled “discriminatory.”
• Children grow up detached from biological truth, moral stability, and national identity.
• Family units weaken, fertility declines, and traditional communities collapse — leaving individuals isolated and easily governed.

 

This is not liberation — it is social engineering.

 

5. The Long Game — From Identity Politics to Global Governance

Ultimately, the shift from sex to gender serves a deeper geopolitical purpose:
to dissolve fixed categories of human belonging — family, faith, nation — and replace them with universal identity management under international supervision.

Once identity becomes a matter of global definition:

• National constitutionslose their authority to define man and woman.
• Religious ethicsare overridden by “universal rights” defined abroad.
• Children’s educationis shaped by UN and corporate curricula, not parents.
• Sovereign lawyields to treaty interpretations and foreign funding conditions.

 

In short, who defines the human being controls the world.

 

6. What Must Be Done — The National Response

To protect the next generation and the integrity of law, nations must act decisively:

1. Reinstate “sex” as the legal and policy category— not “gender” or “gender identity.”
2. Audit foreign-funded education and health programmes— especially CSE and “inclusion” projects.
3. Legally require parental consentfor any material related to sexuality or gender in schools.
4. Ban medical interventions for minorson the basis of gender identity.
5. Strengthen cultural and religious educationto ground youth in biological, moral, and spiritual truth.
6. Assert constitutional sovereignty— reject external interference in national definitions of identity, family, and morality.

 

7. The Message to the World

Humanity’s strength lies in its roots — biology, morality, family, and faith.
Replacing sex with gender is not progress; it is a political experiment with human life.
True equality is based on truth, not ideology — on male and female, the natural foundation of society.

 

In summary, the push to replace ‘sex’ with ‘gender identity’ in education, health and workplace policy is not merely conceptual — it is operational.

 

Foundations such as the Open Society and Gates Foundations, UN agencies like UNFPA and WHO, and multiple private and corporate actors are actively funding, developing, deploying and profiting from a gender-identity paradigm.

 

The modules of CSE, the reclassification of gender incongruence, the DEI mandates in employers, and the global spread of these programmes form a coherent strategic ecosystem. Recognising the actors, funding flows, institutional conduits and market incentives is vital if Sri Lanka is to protect its children, culture, family values and sovereignty against an ideological import masked as education and equality.

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge