It sounds crazy, doesn't it? You would think that pregnancy was inextricably linked to women, but liberals want us to use a gender neutral expression instead.
It's important to understand why liberals think this is a reasonable thing, in fact a moral thing, to do. We have to understand liberals to defeat them.
Liberals believe that the overriding good is that we get to autonomously define our own selves. We are to live our lives according to our own unique, self-chosen, self-determined schema.
Therefore, those aspects of life that are predetermined have to be made not to matter. This includes our sex. Being a man or a woman is not supposed to matter in a liberal society.
This is one part of the explanation for a liberal organisation to prefer a gender neutral term like "pregnant people".
And what does "inclusiveness" mean for a liberal? The moral equation for liberals is the idea that each individual should be able to define their own life schema as they wish, as long as it does not interfere with others doing the same thing. Therefore, liberals think that a good person is someone who proves their commitment to non-interference by being inclusive, non-bigoted, non-discriminatory, tolerant, open, supportive of diversity and so on.
So, a liberal will take seriously the idea that something immoral has taken place if someone is excluded from some possible life choice on the basis of a quality like their sex, race, sexuality etc.
Hence the British Medical Association not wanting to exclude those identifying as men from the process of pregnancy.
There is much more of the same in the BMA document:
Gender neutral language avoids stereotyping people according to their sex...You should avoid references to a person’s gender except where it is relevant in a discussion...if you aren’t sure whether someone identifies as male or female, keep your language neutral until you know what terms they prefer to use...You should also respect a woman’s preference to be referred to using the title ‘Ms’. A new gender neutral title ‘Mx’ is now being widely used by the Government and many businesses in the UK and should be included as a title option in any application or monitoring forms.
Liberalism has to be attacked at its roots. The antidote to liberalism is the belief that human life should seek to be ordered toward what is objectively good. Having an equal respect and tolerance for all behaviours and choices is not what makes you a good person. A good person is able to discriminate between what is higher and lower, and a successful community is able to find a way to harmonise what has been called the "tripartite order of existence," namely the natural/biological, the social and the spiritual within a positive moral framework..
"The moral equation for liberals is the idea that each individual should be able to define their own life schema as they wish, as long as it does not interfere with others doing the same thing." This is where Liberalism falls apart. Nobody lives in a vacuum or to borrow the opening line of the poem 'No Man is an Island' by John Donne "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." Our actions have consequences that affect everybody around us both negatively or more importantly positively. When we base our morality on the choice of freedom to define ourselves as individuals we run into the problem of moral relativism. The question becomes then who has the moral authority or who is given precedence to define their own identity over others?
ReplyDeleteProgressive Liberalism solves this by giving moral precedence to those they perceived to be the most marginalized in society. For example Feminism gives moral precedence to women to self-define themselves and create their own unique identity to the detriment of men; E.G. no fault divorce, abortion, a positive spin on sexual promiscuity, and promoting corporate careers over motherhood. Another example is the LGBT movement, in order to create a unique identity Christian Marriage must be redefined, our biological sex made not to matter. Finally, pulling headlines from today's news about refugees not being admitted into America is a prime example of Liberalism answer to the question: Refugees are marginalized and must take precedence over the citizens of the host country in which they intend to stay. However, this moral equation is not only limited to Progressive Liberalism, but is also allowed in Economic Liberalism and Libertarianism.
In Economic Liberalism, the entrepreneur/owner of business is given precedence over the community, family, and even the country/nation state in which they belong to. A prime example of Economic Liberal morality being applied to society would be the issue Donald Trump brought up during his election campaign; That owners of business would fire all their American workers and shut down the factories (Which would devastate local communities, families, and destroy marriages.) in order to build factories overseas and hire foreign workers while selling their product back to the American People without having to pay any tariff or tax. This is being done all In the name of profits and the bottom line to be given back to stockholders or as bonuses to the CEOs and board members of the company for a job well done. Other examples of Economic Liberalism are foreign worker visas being used by tech companies to replace American workers in high skill, high paying jobs. No thought is given by these companies, having been given all the blessings that their nation offers, are willing to understand the burden that they have placed upon their fellow countrymen. Thus the economic immigrant is given precedence over the citizen of the host country.
Progressive Liberalism solves this by giving moral precedence to those they perceived to be the most marginalized in society
DeleteGood point. I think this explains why feminists are so keen to police male behaviour. Feminists encourage women to let loose sexually but any sign of men doing the same is met with gasps of horror (e.g. the college men who rated women and were banned from sports). Not saying that men should follow the feminist example, but there is a clear double standard. It is all typically justified on the grounds that women are the oppressed group and men the oppressors - the assumption is that men already have all the autonomy they need and that women are just trying valiantly to 'catch up' - but the reality is that men are just being expected to fit in with whatever female choices happen to be.
Perhaps a pregnant women who is going to put her child up for adoption doesn't want to be called an 'expectant mother'?
ReplyDeleteA women who gives birth is a mother, whether the child is put up for adoption or not.
DeleteThe BMA's decision is clearly a manifestation of the current Left-induced insanity.
ReplyDeleteBut I struggle to think of this neo-Marxist poison as "liberal". Would the BMA's decision have been supported - or even understood - by Locke, or J.S. Mill, or W.E. Gladstone? By any normal definition they are all liberals - but this current madness has nothing to do with their worldview.
I don't think it would have been supported by those older liberal figures. But that's to be expected. The liberal principle has unfolded over time. One generation takes it so far and then thinks it has gone far enough. The younger generation thinks that there are still "injustices" or "inequalities" as defined by the liberal principle and so takes it several steps further. It is all thought to be part of a liberal progress to a condition of equal freedom.
DeleteBut I struggle to think of this neo-Marxist poison as "liberal".
DeleteTrue enough, but I struggle to think of it as Marxist. I hear don't much about the class struggle or economic justice or even the redistribution of income (in fact we've seen a redistribution of income towards the rich).
Cultural marxism is in fact anti-marxist. The aim of cultural marxism is not to bring about socialism. Its aim is to defend a particularly vicious form of crony capitalism. Cultural marxism is funded by billionaires and by Wall Street and they certainly are not aiming at bringing about the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Globalism is not even a wrong ideology. It's not ideological at all. Its only objective is to keep the power and wealth in the hands of billionaires and Wall Street.
I don't think it would have been supported by those older liberal figures. But that's to be expected. The liberal principle has unfolded over time.
DeleteI think the craziness and the evil consequences were inherent in liberalism right from the start. Liberalism always was la-la land thinking.