‘Birth Defects’ or New ‘Normal’? Depends on Which Answer Fits Leftists’ Agenda

What’s really going on in all this is that progressives have agendas to advance.

By Tom Gilson Published on July 21, 2017

You’ve got to hand it to leftists. They’ve got tremendous empathy toward their fellow human beings, especially the less privileged among us. I’m thinking of the way they treat people born with conditions making hard to tell whether they’re male or female. Some people view those conditions as birth defects. They wouldn’t dream of seeing them that way, though.

Their first reason, I’m sure, must be their sensitivity to the sting of that harsh word “defect.” To pin that label on someone who had no choice, who was born that way, would be terribly stigmatizing. But progressives are more sensitive yet: They won’t even take the milder approach of calling these conditions abnormal. People in this situation are just as normal as everyone else, they’ll say, for there aren’t just two biological sexes, there’s a whole range of them.

It’s become “normal” enough over the past few years to rewrite centuries’ worth of “normality.”

Progressives have even assigned these intersex conditions a normality more normal than the usual maleness and femaleness. Here’s what I mean by that. Consider how long the world has believed there were only two sexes. It takes a lot to overthrow such a long-entrenched, seemingly common-sense belief. But that overthrow has happened, and part of the reason is because of the message, “There are people who are born neither male nor female, and that’s normal.” It’s normal enough to rewrite centuries’ worth of “normality”!

Which is proof, surely, of leftists’ deep concern for those who aren’t quite like the rest of us; their deep compassion for the disadvantaged, whom they always rush to protect, whom they would never think of dismissing, denigrating, or allowing to be harmed just for being “abnormal.” Why, the very word is an affront!

Unless …

Unless the abnormality is Down Syndrome.

Or spina bifida.

Or that rare disease afflicting young Charlie Gard; the disease whose name I need not mention because it represents so many other hard-to-recall conditions for which young people may be killed.

In those cases it’s fine dismiss the child. That is, to kill him. In the womb or out of it. Such killings have become another newly rewritten “normal” of their own.

Celebrate the baby’s condition, or kill the child for it? How do progressives know which is which? It depends on which answer fits their agenda. Transgender advocates really do use biological intersex conditions to argue that male and female aren’t the only two categories of human sex. Katie Couric spent a long opening segment doing just that in her recent National Geographic propaganda piece on transgender.

We are embodied creatures. But we are more than our bodies. We are more than the difficulties we face.

And just try to disagree, if you dare. Try pointing out that CAH, Klinefelter (XXY) and AIS syndromes  were once considered birth defects. Progressives will recoil in horror. They wouldn’t dare attach such a negative label to a fellow human being. It would be wrong.

And they’re right, in a way; except it’s the wrong way. The right way is to label the challenge, not the person.

Let’s recall what birth defects really are: sad, often even tragic hardships that afflict some young people right from the start of their lives. I’ve known the reality of two or three such birth defects, up close, in people I love and respect greatly. They’ve faced steep obstacles, but they’ve kept on going, and for the most part they’ve overcome.

We are embodied creatures, but we are more than our bodies. We are more than the struggles we face. One who has a birth defect is not a defective person for it. Indeed, to rise above challenges is to be the very opposite of “defective.” Helen Keller was so much more than her blindness and her deafness. So it’s okay to call the challenge what it is: It’s a birth defect, even if it’s CAH, XXY, or AIS. Again: We label the challenge,  the person.

But of course what’s really going on in all of this is that progressives have agendas to advance — transgenderism on the one hand, and abortion on the other. If you’re looking for consistency, you won’t find it in their sensitivity to all humans with birth defects. You’ll find it in the ease with which they pretzel-bend their arguments to fit their agendas.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Olaf

    So true. I have little to add to this article. If Helen Keller was to be born now, or still in her mother’s womb, she most likely would be aborted, or euthanized after birth.

    • tasha63

      Helen Keller was not born blind and deaf. She suffered a childhood illness that left her with these physical challenges. Had she been a baby today, she would not have suffered an abortion because neither of these issues would have been apparent in utero. She was a typical infant.

      • Olaf

        thanks for the clarification

  • tasha63

    Quote: “If you’re looking for consistency, you won’t find it in their sensitivity to all humans with birth defects. You’ll find it in the ease with which they pretzel-bend their arguments to fit their agendas.”

    What about the inconsistencies often found in many on ‘the right’….stating they are pro-life / anti-abortion yet being for the death penalty and military might?

    • DCM7

      If you don’t understand why the “inconsistency” you name isn’t one, it’s most likely because you don’t want to.

    • Our position is inconsistent only if you take the simplistic view that the short-hand term by which we identify it is absolute. But “pro-choice,” the short-hand term by which abortion supporters identify their position, isn’t absolute: Pro-choice people don’t favor every possible choice do you? So why should the shorthand term “pro-life” be considered inconsistent if we don’t apply it to every conceivable circumstance?

      Or do you really suppose that “pro-life,” just those two syllables, tells the whole story of what we believe — that there’s nothing more to be said? Surely you’re more rational than to believe that!

      There are differences in principle between killing helpless, innocent babies and murderous adults. This should not be hard to recognize.

      • tasha63

        Many people, even ones on death row, have been exonerated through DNA evidence and the Innocence Project. Would you be willing to risk putting to death an innocent person? I’m not.

        “Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”

The Tiniest Casket
Jennifer Hartline
More from The Stream
Connect with Us