The news article title is “Parents keep child’s gender a secret.”
In this remarkable but unsurprising news story we learn of two parents who have decided not to let the world know what kind of genitalia their child has. It is their goal to let their child decide for ‘itself’ whether or not it shall behave ‘as a boy’ or ‘as a girl’ when s/he is old enough to understand and decide. Unsurprisingly, the parents are thoroughly liberal progressives. And this kind of story is why I am a ‘conservative.’
My basic guiding principle has been that my views ought to conform to reality. Setting aside the probably legitimate observation that there has been some measure of unhealthy stereotyping and out of line discrimination based on gender, in reality some of what we call stereotyping and discrimination is not arbitrary at all. That is to say, if a human has a penis, we call that human a boy. If it has a vagina, we call that human a girl. This is not societal strictures pressed down on people. This is a biological fact wedded with a sane desire to communicate clearly.
In short, what we have here is a set of parents that is simply out of touch with reality.
The article reports the mother as saying,
“When faced with inevitable judgment by others, which child stands tall (and sticks up for others) — the one facing teasing despite desperately trying to fit in, or the one with a strong sense of self and at least two ‘go-to’ adults who love them unconditionally? Well, I guess you know which one we choose.”
Ironically, their approach seems to embody exactly the opposite. One aspect of WHO THE CHILD IS derives from “what’s between the legs” (their words). By not embracing this aspect they are not actually loving their child (named Storm) for who he/she is. If they were, they would not be ashamed of the fact that Storm had a penis or a vagina, whichever it is. Moreover, they would raise Storm to reflect the reality-driven aspect of what it means to be a boy or girl, for no matter how much one strains to deny the fact, boys and girls are different.
I mean, we must wonder how well Storm is prepared for reality when, at the ripe old age of 6, s/he chooses to be a boy, but at the ripe old age of 18 gets pregnant. Definitionally, that’s not the kind of thing that happens to men…
That’s really what you have going on here… you know, the old “A rose by any other name is still a rose” thing… a boy is still a boy by any other name, and likewise a girl… but you have some people who think that by throwing off definitions you can obliterate, change, or deny the underlying reality. Are there sometimes when definitions can be unhelpful? Sure, I can buy that. But there are limits to that observation. This is secularism: taking an observation into account but jettisoning the limits or notion of limits.
The same sort of thing is going on with homosexuality and ‘gay marriage.’ Definitionally, marriage is and has been that union between a man and a woman into a discrete societal unit under which children are created, raised, and sent off into the world. Definitionally- but not arbitrarily. It is a simple, biological fact that procreation requires elements from the male human combined with elements from the female human. An oppressive society did not press this fact down upon people. Quite the opposite- the realities percolated up from the people to shape society itself.
Hence we find the simple biological fact that two men cannot by themselves create a child and neither can two women by themselves. In a fun case of reverse-oppression, gay marriage advocates wish us all to ignore this simple biological fact and dispense with the word ‘marriage’ as connotating a societal unit that we understand children to ‘naturally’ emerge from, and allow ‘marriage’ to apply to just about anyone who ‘loves’ each other. Well, the traditional understanding of ‘marriage’ was not arbitrary. It emerged from the observed facts on the ground. By taking away this part of the definition, a hole will be created in our language: what word shall we now use to describe male-female union, since it so obviously and self-evidently and undeniably refers to something entirely different than male-male/female-female ‘union’? (I here pass on elaborating on the simple observation that in homosexuality you once again have an open defiance of biological reality… clearly the ‘parts’ don’t ‘fit’ in homosexual ‘unions.’)
It’s a bit like sitting down to catalog the parts of an automobile and getting to the tires, and taking umbrage at the oppressive nature of the word, and deciding henceforth that treads, cement blocks, and strawberries equally warrant the label ‘tires.’ Your car develops a condition whereby your normally inflated rubber round thing is deflated and so you go into the store and ask for a tire- and are directed to the produce department.
That is the kind of absurdity we are driven to by taking definitions, gutting them, and filling them with claptrap. In the end, reality wins. It always does. People tend to be happier when they conform to reality. For example, you might declare that one can enjoy getting run over by a bus going 60 mph but in reality you’ll either be dead or maimed. The declaration does not change the reality, and not stepping in front of the bus in light of reality, will probably leave you happier. Coming to terms with the reality of the fact that one has a penis or vagina will probably leave you happier. Understanding that penises and vaginas were made for each other, and not other penises and vaginas will probably leave you happier. Fathers understanding that they can be great fathers but never the best mother and mothers understanding they can be great mothers but never the best father will probably leave them happier- and their kids, too.
This is reality. And truth be told, specific language will emerge to reflect it no matter what people do. And likewise, there will always be people like myself who decide its best for everyone to take reality as it really is. That, too, is a simple reality.
So, all this reminds me that my ministry has partner published a book called “Contra Feminism: An appeal to the faithful remnant in Christ Jesus.”
I wish to be clear: I do not believe all that is maintained in this book. Nor do I accept many of the conclusions of the book. But the book does have this going for it: it insists on taking reality as it really is and takes aim at the social engineers that have been busy at work for the last century or so. It is written specifically for Christians, and I would submit it for their consideration. In particular, the stuff about the movers and shakers of the late 19th century- the socialists, communists, evolutionists, etc, who specifically advocated for social engineering aimed at denying reality- looks pretty good. I think you may be surprised at how many modern attitudes first had their origins in the anti-Christian slayers of millions upon millions.