Tuesday, 23 July 2013

The royal baby versus nonsensical gender drivel

By being born, the royal baby has managed to expose one of our contemporary Western absurdities.

Now as background we remark that before his birth, various politicians were promising to change the laws of succession if it was a girl, so that it would be guaranteed (should it survive long enough) to maintain its position as third in the line to the throne, regardless of whether any boys were born after it.

By being a boy, royal baby made all of that redundant.

But hang on a minute... how do we know that royal baby is indeed a "he" ? After all, it hasn't told us so.

You see, the thought-leaders of society had been telling us that gender is a social construct. It's only loosely, if at all, related to the body. Whether you're male or female is a personal choice, apparently. Hence, men can marry men. Whether they're sexually complementary has nothing, supposedly, to do with their bodies. Two women can raise a child as mother and father, so we're told. The present history of various countries (a bill is before the governor's desk in California to this effect, having passed through the legislature) shows that next on the agenda is to allow self-proclaimed women (who are really men) to choose their own locker-rooms, toilets, and sports teams - because allegedly to do otherwise would be to endorse outmoded gender stereotypes. It would be to oppress them.

Oh, whoops. The cat got out of the bag again. When you're talking nonsense, it's hard to be consistent.... at some point, the fact that you know the truth which God impressed upon creation will keep getting out. It turns out that you can look at the royal baby's bits and know that it is a "he", after all, even before it decides to tell us about it.

No comments: