‘Trans’-Cultism and Sex Selection Abortions
Anti-truth claims will always collapse into incoherence and self-contradiction, if not under the weight of the individual and cultural destruction that follows in their wake. Let’s look at the confluence of several “progressive” anti-truth claims and the intellectual and moral incoherence that results from embracing them:
- “Progressives” claim that the product of conception between two humans is not, in reality, a person while in the womb.
- Progressives” claim that objective, immutable biological sex has no relevance to either “gender” or “gender identity,” and no inherent meaning. “Gender” in their view is the aggregate of arbitrary socially-constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that societies associate with biological sex. “Gender identity” is one’s internal sense of being male or female.
- While rational people recognize that doctors identify or confirm the sex of humans at birth, “progressives” claim that doctors “assign” or “designate” the “gender” of humans at birth. (Do doctors really “assign” social conventions to newborns? Hmmm…)
- “Progressives” believe that “gender identity” supersedes in value, importance, and cultural relevance both “gender” (i.e., arbitrary socially-constructed conventions) and biological sex. “Gender identity” beats the non-gendered leg coverings off both sex and “gender.”
Since in the dystopian and incoherent world of “progressivism” (heavily laced as it is with radical subjectivism), the product of conception between two humans is not a person while residing in the womb, there is no moral reason to oppose having it killed. There is no more reason to oppose injecting digoxin into the hearts of womb-inhabiting non-persons (who oddly have human DNA and a sex) than there is to oppose the killing of a parasite that is feeding off the bodies of human hosts—you know, like the guinea worm.
One of the reasons some humans kill the parasitic non-persons with human DNA that are feeding off their hosts’ nutrient-rich uterine-linings is sex-selection. For personal and cultural reasons, many parents hosts prefer one sex over another. Since any reason or no reason is needed to kill parasites, only unenlightened tippy turnip-truck riders would object to sex-selection abortions.
But now things get thorny for the enlightened among us.
If the sex of humans has no intrinsic importance; and the socially-constructed conventions assigned to one sex or the other (i.e., “gender”) are arbitrary, unimportant, and often oppressive; and it’s impossible to know the “gender identity” of the non-person until at least age 3, does sex-selection abortion make any sense at all?
On the blog THINK, Jennie Pollock writes, “if we can’t know what gender the child is going to identify as until they’re, say, two or three years old, how can the woman be certain what she is aborting? It may look like a girl, but really be a boy.”
Hosts and their partners who want a male child but whose parasitic non-person’s DNA identifies as a girl can’t possibly know if that parasite will ultimately be a girl until it’s three years old or older. They could be aborting the boy they want.
We’re now learning that some persons don’t discover their authentic “gender identity” until adolescence. To complicate matters further, some persons are “assigned” male at birth, then realize they are actually female, and then later still re-realize that they are, indeed, male. Maybe they were delivered by doctors with crazy prophetic powers.
So, hosts (i.e., potential parents) who have a strong preference for either male or female offspring better wait till their children are about 30 years old before killing them. Maybe they can enlist the help of Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer who argues that parents should have about 30 days post-birth to decide whether they want to have their children killed. Maybe he can be persuaded to argue for an extension of that period to 30 years. Raising children with fluctuating “gender identities” is such a hassle.
First published at Illinois Family Institute
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.