Posts Tagged ‘New York City’

Reminders of Gender Ideology Irrationality

Monday, October 22nd, 2018

Every so often, news articles provide a valuable glimpse into the inner irrationality of gender ideology. Just to review, the basic argument of gender ideology is that gender is not determined by one’s biological sex, but is a separate matter that is defined according to the subjective beliefs of an individual. One’s biological sex is an arbitrary classification that is “assigned” at birth, and has no intrinsic connection with one’s actual sexual identity.

I’m not making this up. Here are the definitions that are contained in proposed New York City regulations relating to gender identity:

“Sex” is a combination of primary sex characteristics such as chromosomes, hormones, and internal and external reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics which appear at puberty such as the presence of facial hair, vocal pitch, and development of breasts, and gender identity.

“Gender” includes actual or perceived sex, gender identity, and gender expression including a person’s actual or perceived gender-related self-image, appearance, behavior, expression, or other gender-related characteristic, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth.

“Gender identity” is the internal deeply-held sense of one’s gender which may be the same as or different from one’s sex assigned at birth. A person’s gender identity may be male, female, neither or both, i.e., non-binary. Gender identity is not the same as sexual orientation and is not visible to others.

The separation of biological sex and identity is a bizarre and dehumanizing idea. It denies the unity of body, mind and soul, and it rejects the logical and scientifically undeniable understanding that biological sexual difference is essential to human nature. Science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that sexual difference is an innate part of human biochemistry, physical structure (not just our reproductive system, our brains and all other parts of our bodies to the cellular level), behavior, and psychology. But gender ideology treats the body as a mere physical shell that can be used or manipulated as one wishes — and even permanently mutilated, as happens with “gender reassignment surgery”.

Gender ideologues have been trying mightily to insinuate their ideas into the law in many ways. Federal civil rights laws, particularly Title VII (public accomodations) and Title IX (education), all use the word “sex”, not “gender” in banning discrimination. Congress has consistently rejected bills that would incorporate the word “gender” in those laws. But the lawless Obama Administration circumvented the legislative and regulatory process and issued internal statements directing that the term “sex” also should include “gender identity”, even though those terms are completely non-synonymous in the understanding of the gender advocates themselves.

But why let rationality get in the way of an agenda?

Now comes the Trump Administration. The New York Times has reported that the Administration is now considering proposed regulations that would define the word “sex” as based “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The draft definition that is apparently circulating in an internal  memorandum would say: “Sex means a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth.” and that “the sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.” Obvious common sense, right?

The Times, of course, is horrified, and is claiming in a hysterical headline that the definition would essentially erase transgender people. Of course, it does nothing of the kind — it merely returns the laws to the meaning that they originally had when passed by Congress. Ironically, it also would establish in law the definition of “sex” that is actually favored by gender ideologues — a characteristic based on biology — as opposed to “gender” or “gender identity”, which are subjective and can vary from biology.

But again, why let rationality get in the way of an agenda?

The incoherence of the gender ideology agenda is made clear by yet another news item from recent weeks. The New York City government, never content to be behind the curve on the progressive agenda, has decided that birth certificates would now have a third choice for “sex” — no longer just “male” or “female” but “x”. It’s not that the City has made a remarkable breakthrough in science, or there has been a dramatic leap in human evolution in the five boroughs. This is designed for trendy parents to feel good about themselves by adopting au courant gender theory and imposing it on their poor unsuspecting children, or for people to erase their actual biological sex because they have now decided to assume a different “gender identity”.

Of course, it makes no sense at all, even on its own terms. Remember, the City has defined “sex” to mean “a combination of primary sex characteristics such as chromosomes, hormones, and internal and external reproductive organs”. No matter what the City wants to believe, there still are only two actual choices that fit that definition, and neither of them is “x”. Nor can a new-born infant have any kind of “gender identity”, since they have other things on their minds and haven’t yet been “woke” to any kind of ideology. Nor does it make sense for a person’s “sex” to be retroactively redefined, since a person’s new “gender identity” has nothing to do with their biological sex.

In future years, I fully expect that people will wake up and realize how silly and irrational gender theory is. Certainly, some people feel a sense of discomfort and even distress about their sexual identity, and feel that they would be happier if they adopted some of the characteristics of the opposite sex. That’s at least an expression of personality or at worst a mental health condition that needs to be treated with compassion. Studies show that in the great majority of cases it passes away over time without ruinous hormone treatments or amputations of body parts.

Medical treatment and law must be based on reality. Gender ideology is a one-way ticket into irrationality and society must wake up to that reality.

The World of Ideological Blindness

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011

The facts, of course, are undeniable.  As we learned at the Chiaroscuro Foundation press conference last month, 41% of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion; 48% in the Bronx; 60% among African-Americans; almost 90,000 total.  It’s hard to imagine that anyone with a shred of humanity could be satisfied with these facts.

Of course, this is New York, a world unto itself, where abortion ideology always seems to trump reality.  Instead of trying to come up with ways to reduce the number of abortions, what is the government of the City of New York doing?

  • The City Council is bent on passing Intro 371, a bill that would make more difficult the work of crisis pregnancy centers  — agencies that offer women real help for their pregnancy and child-bearing.  How can you expect to reduce abortions if you won’t allow people to present alternatives?
  • The City Council is wasting time and energy passing resolutions calling on Congress to keep shoveling taxpayer money at Planned Parenthood — the evil organization that aborts over 300,000 children every year and has no apparent interest in making abortion rare.
  • The Mayor, who was silent about the abortion rate, instead found time to endorse full funding for Planned Parenthood, and he is expected to sign into law the bill that penalizes crisis pregnancy centers for their pro-life views.
  • The Public Advocate, who only seems to be able to advocate for those who have had the good fortune to have been born, denounced the billboard in Manhattan that committed the terrible sin of speaking the truth about abortion among African-Americans.
  • The Speaker of the Council, who is the driving force behind Intro 371 and the pro-Planned Parenthood resolutions, found the time to have a rally in support of unrestricted abortion rights, and in opposition to any kind of reduction in public funding for abortion.
  • Despite the evidence of horrors at an unlicensed abortion clinic in Philadelphia, our Department of Health continues to do absolutely nothing to inspect unlicensed clinics here in the City.
  • All this ignores the sentiments of normal New Yorkers.  A new poll from the Chiaroscuro Foundation shows that most people are very uncomfortable with the abortion rate:

  • 64% of all New Yorkers think that there are too many abortions in the City;
  • 57% of women who describe themselves as “pro-choice” agree that there are too many abortions;
  • 74% believe that there are too many African-American babies being aborted;
  • 81% of New Yorkers had no idea how many abortions were taking place;
  • Majorities of New Yorkers favor common sense regulations of abortion — waiting periods (51%) and parental consent for minors seeking abortion (63%) — that have repeatedly been blocked by the State Legislature.
  • In the real world, where democracy exists, these facts would be an indicator of a substantial disconnect between the electorate and those who hold public office.  Elsewhere in America, politicians are loth to be opposed to public opinion.  In normal places, legislators enact reasonable regulations on abortion, knowing that most people find the practice distasteful or morally unacceptable.

    But this is New York, the land of ideological blindness, where abortion holds a privileged status.  Here, it is sad to say, the commitment to abortion is so deeply ingrained in our political class that no facts, and no public opinion, seem to be able to penetrate.

    As a result, four out of every ten babies will continue to be killed in the womb, while our public officials will go on turning a blind eye to the tragedy.