An August 7 LifeSiteNews article offers us the latest example of moral zombies walking the earth, coming towards us hungrily and screaming “Brains! Brains!” Clare Chretien writes of
Trystan Reese, who identifies as a man and is married to a gay man. Thus, Reese and her husband Biff Chaplow consider themselves “accidentally gay parents” (Biff considers himself more of the family mom, though.)
Articles about Reese say she was “assigned female sex at birth”… and then go on to “assign” her new baby a sex: male.
If biological sex is totally irrelevant and gender is simply determined by one’s feelings, then why are Reese and Chaplow assuming their baby’s gender?
Chretien makes an excellent point. How heteronormative is it for these parents to look at the child’s penis and just assign him a gender! They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
How Do We Know It’s Human or a Baby?
But the scandal goes deeper. How do they know that the child identifies as a human? Or as a baby, not an adult? We have an academic now insisting on his right to identify as a hippo. We have a grown dad deciding to identify as a six-year-old girl. How do these parents know their child isn’t in fact (that is, in zir mind) a grown up lesbian hippo? Isn’t that just speciesism and ageism rearing their heads? Inquiring minds want to know.
Parents in Canada now have to fear they’ll lose custody of their kids if they don’t encourage “transgender” fantasies. But kids live in fantasy worlds half the time. What’s more, most fantasies fade. The American College of Pediatricians points out:
According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.
So again, let me ask the journos who wrote up all those puff-pieces about a “man” giving birth to a boy: What if that child sometimes identifies as a dog? If he crawls around going, “Woof! Woof!” and poops in the house. Why should the parents try to convince him otherwise? How long before Canada insists that they feed him Alpo and let him lift his leg on fire hydrants? If not, why not, exactly?
Your Vulcan Logic Is Useless Here
Such conservative counterarguments are fun to make. They’re logically sound. And pertinent. But they never seem to work. They result, at best, in liberal handwaving. At worst? They will get you “doxxed,” shunned, or fired.
Ever wonder why that is?
The way the left operates today is clear: They sniff out the grievance of some infinitesimally tiny group. Say, men or women who feel convinced that they’re “transgender.” Or coddled rich kids who aren’t male or white at an Ivy League school. They’re offended by a statue of Shakespeare. Or a Halloween costume. Or some Muslim economic migrant who claims that his support of sharia totalitarianism is protected by the U.S. First Amendment. Even though he’s living in Qatar.
Too many of us let our hearts overpower our heads. We want to help this person, whom a highly-trained writer or activist has carefully packaged for us — omitting the voice of skeptics.
The smarter leftists know that by championing these “victims,” they’re also promoting something else. Namely, highly dubious moral principles, which could and would lead to even crazier outcomes. If you gave us those principles baldly, most people would reject them. So their advocates wrap them in “human interest” sob stories that disarm our rational defenses. Too many of us let our hearts overpower our heads. We want to help this person, whom a highly-trained writer or activist has carefully packaged for us — omitting the voice of skeptics.
Those skeptics (people like Stream writers) point out the logically obvious: “If you accept that principle in this case, which seems really sympathetic, you’ll be sorry. It will get applied down the road by leftists in power in the following ugly ways. …” Then we show the real, alarming implications. For instance, we show that there’s no logical difference between claiming you’re a different sex than your genitals tell you and … insisting that you’re 30 years younger or older than your body seems to think. Or a foot taller. Or even a different species.
Security Will Escort You Out of the Culture
Do liberals take such objections seriously?
Of course not. They wave them off as “alarmist.” They call us “insensitive” or “heartless” for even bringing them up. The public, untrained in logic, goes on to side with the “victim.” And that crackpot principle gets established as law, or policy. Or else as the “decent” position that every “good person” should take. That is, if he wants to work in this country, for instance at someplace like Google or Firefox — hint, hint.
Then suddenly people stop making counterarguments. They just accept as mainstream a principle which even liberals would have admitted was crazy in 2005. A new “consensus” emerges. Some Jesuit or seeker church pastor finds a way to justify it from Scripture. Rinse and repeat.