Tuesday, July 04, 2017

Canadian baby must choose its own sex?

The essence [of liberalism] is that individuals are self-creating...
Professor Alan Ryan

Let's say that you believe that the highest good is for individuals to be self-creating. What would this logically lead to?

Well, it might lead you to think that people should get to choose their own sex. Hence this story about a Canadian parent who believes that their baby should not be assigned a biological sex because this would limit them:
A baby has been issued an ‘unknown’ gender identity health card in British Columbia, Canada, after the child’s parent fought to raise the infant with a neutral gender.

“I do not gender my child,” Doty said in a statement. “It is up to Searyl to decide how they identify, when they are old enough to develop their own gender identity.

“I am not going to foreclose their choices based on an arbitrary assignment of gender at birth."

Doty said that they are 'raising Searyl in such a way that until they have the sense of self and command of vocabulary to tell me who they are'.

'I'm recognizing them as a baby and trying to give them all the love and support to be the most whole person that they can be outside of the restrictions that come with the boy box and the girl box,' Doty told the news site.

Note how something predetermined, like being a boy or girl, is portrayed negatively as a restriction, as something that boxes in the individual.

As outlandish as the Canadian baby case sounds now, it fits the state ideology and so is likely to become more accepted over time, unless that ideology is effectively challenged. As mentioned above, the Canadians state has already seen fit to issue the baby with a health card that lists its sex as unknown:

13 comments:

  1. Can genderist guru Kori Doty homosexualize a healthy newborn? If Kori's baby Searyl is normal - if he or she is born with a natural and healthy opposite-sex attraction, which is unknowable until "it" passes way-points on mum's mapped route "out of toxic mythologies"; if he or she is normal, can mum convert Searyl? If it is not normal, can mum make he or she normal? Mum can certainly mess with baby Searyl's mind. Mum can control Searyl's environment and socialization. But, can mum actually alter the course of Searyl's developing natural sexual desire? Will a free-floating baby Searyl fix on same sex or opposite sex attraction, or neither, or both? With the toxic mythologies of masculine and feminine, males and females, removed from mum's map, how will unconstrained baby Searyl self-define? What mysterious non-influences will order the sexuality of baby Searyl?
    If mum is actually capable of removing "harmful" influences from baby Searyl's route to sexual indentity, what will we have learned about the sexual disposition of a newborn cisgendered human baby's journey to sexual maturity?
    Mum's anti-conversion, conversion therapy business model is based on a forced and precisely mapped radical autonomy that is predetermined within course content and resource sharing, either online or in community learning pods. Relationship structures, community driven support, tool kits for empowerment, including psychedelic support, equip the radically autonomous students to navigate through the minefield of toxic myths and the intersectional systems of oppression, connecting these radically-autonomous individuals within their community of "ancestors and teachers of path".
    Sadly, for baby Searyl, choosing "its" own mother is not an option.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In an era of radical autonomy, why shouldn't choosing one's one mother be an option, if choosing one's sex is? I bet the mother in question hasn't given that potential issue any thought - she will get a taste of her own medicine should Searyl decide to choose someone else as its mother, and how could the mother object to it without resorting to an unprincipled exception?

      Delete
    2. Anon, as a matter of logic, you are quite right. If the baby gets to choose something as radical as its own sex, then why not let it choose its own parents? A radically liberal mother has no principled basis to object to this.

      Delete
  2. If you remove belief in God, then everything is arbitrary. There can be no order or beauty without Him so we become just globs of ectomorphic cells with form or meaning.

    It's a verily depressing world view. I guess that is why they must find crazier goals each year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have in mind a sort of secular religion. Actually French social philosphers Rousseau and St. Simon invented and fleshed out secular religions and the Nazis had in mind a gradual conversion of Christianity to something secular.

      Delete
  3. "Let's say that you believe that the highest good is for individuals to be self-creating. What would this logically lead to?"

    It is a myth and so logically leads to social collapse which is precisely the intention. One cannot "self create" as the human body is formed at birth and then develops under the influence of genes and environment. One can only mutilate the body with surgery and chemicals but one cannot create it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no logic to genderism. It's by definition anti-logic. A belief in a fallacy is delusion, or a mental disorder. That this mentally disordered female has the natural right to raise her own child within a mentally disordered society and culture, reveals a general lack of a prophetic insight and a supra-natural morality unavailable to man who doesn't know God. Something well outside of man, or inculcated deep inside of him, is growing increasingly defiant of the natural order as we seem to understand it. I have long argued, as have others, that modern liberalism is in our genes. The opposite is recessive.
      Genderism is simply the latest manifestation of the growing defiance and denial of the natural order of our being (my definition of modern liberalism) that, to me anyway, is just the latest in the series isms that flawed and confused men are serially succumbing to.
      There is a kind of order or "logic" within the modern liberal paradigm of feminism, homosexualism, genderism. We discuss this all the time. The "gender" stage follows logically from homosexualism's successful institutionalizing of the modern gay lifestyle, as a healthy, welcome, and equal judgement free alternative. All but the very rare, and most freakish of trans who progress to self-mutilation or full-time charade, are no more than hyper-disordered homosexuals claiming the ultimate justification or excuse.
      As this "progresses" the simple and honest same-sex attracted male or female, who adopts a "relatively normalized" lifestyle, yet maintaining their maleness and femaleness along a range of mixed masculine and feminine; will be seen as being as normal and natural as anyone, always relative to the next step. The younger generation is already there.
      The next generation will embrace the trans people without giving one thought to fact that they are nothing more than same-sex attracted males and females, no matter what they do to their own bodies. They will be accepted and approved of as whichever sex that they pretend to be. Our language will adjust appropriately, as it always does, as it has with feminism and gaydom.
      Move along, nothing to see here.

      Delete
    2. These people -- cultural-Marxists, Liberal-Democrats, Progressives or, as I prefer -- Comteians -- seem confused. First they came up with the term gender to separate sexual identity from physical sex but now they seem to be trying to fuse the two terms back together! Except for intersex people, everyone has a clearly defined sex at birth. It is only gender that is not clear at that age.

      Delete
  4. There is no such thing as human gender. Words; pronouns and nouns have gender. People are male or female, period. So called intersex is a birth defects, often managed by surgery, which is too rare to play a significant role in the mass psychosis that is the modern liberalism "gender" disorder. It's a feminist/homosexual lie. Stop using"gender", and the confusion will disappear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Money had a long and prosperous career. He made history and remains a feminist icon. He lived to age 84. He should have died in prison.
      You say that they're confused. You then say that "they came up with the term gender to separate sexual idenity from physical sex". You concede to them a sexual identity that exists apart from our sex. You then say, correctly, that "except for intersex people, everyone has a clearly defined sex at birth". But then, you take it all back by saying "It is only gender that is not clear at that age".
      Human "gender" does not exist. Only words have a gender. People are sexed male or female. They range from masculine to feminine.
      Just for a moment, try to conceive of this issue as if the term "gender" does not exist. Reread any of a 1000 stories, blog entries, arguments, surveys, whatever...replacing every misuse of the term "gender" with "sex".
      What are we left with? We're left with what we started with: Same-sex attraction. That's all it is, in all of it's increasingly bizarre and continuously rationalized mental disorders. That is all that it has always, and will always ever be. You do not find males who dose female chemicals and have their genitals surgically removed, coupling with females. They're feminine or masculine males who want to have sex with males.
      You don't have chemically dosed females with beards and muscles and surgically exposed pecks, coupling with males. They're masculine or feminine females having sex with females.
      They're all, with the rarest of unconfirmed oddballs, same-sex attracted. They are homosexuals.
      Remember the mentally disordered Bruce Jenner, saying at one point (show biz) that he was conflicted about having his male junk removed because if he dated a woman he would be a lesbian, and being a homosexual is a sin?
      What form of mental disorder could align a female's intimacy with a Caitlyn Jenner?
      All but those very few who are tragically born with physical sex defects are mentally disordered. The tiny percentage of so-called intersexed can not account for the long history of sodomy, homosexuality, "gay lifestyle", same-sex marriage or the newest near-universal claim that humans self-assign their sex, their sexuality, and they construct their own mix of masculine vs feminine.
      Cussing at someone for using profanity makes more sense than using the term "gender" when talking about same-sex attraction.

      Delete
  5. Confusion is everywhere. It has us completely surrounded.
    "These people" have most people confused. They've been at for a long time. They're good at it. See "gay" history.
    Dr. John (Mengele) Money first appropriated "gender" from grade-school grammer books in 1955. He literaly wrote the book on "sex reassignment" surgery. He set up shop at Johns Hopkins for 50 years. He preyed on those with the rare physical afflictions, the so-called intersexed, who had ambiguous or damaged genitals or muddled chromosones. He experimented on the desperate and the innocent. He exploited the rare birth defective, developing their defects into a universal "gender dysphoria" {Freud and Reich couldn't have done better) that called every extra-disordered homosexual up onto the modern liberal stage. He gave the psycho-sexual homosexualist and feminist the keys to their new kingdom. He, along with others, opened another societal backdoor homosexuals. Now they're not homosexual, they're just in the wrong body. The highly respected Johns Hopkins paid Money to run this scam for 50 years.
    He was evil. He convinced distraught parents to have a twin son's testicles removed after his penis was damaged by a botched circumcision, and to raise him as his twin brother's sister. The brothers were repeatedly forced to engage each other naked, in Money's office, as Money took "research" photos. The twin brother committed suicide first. David defied them at age 14, knowing all along that he was a boy, he asserted his boyhood and took back his name. He tried to have genitals reconstructed. He made it to age 38, when he finally killed himself. He tried to live life like a man, until he no longer could.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My two part comment posted in reverse order.

      Delete
  6. My last two comments posted in reverse order. I'll never get this posting system right.

    ReplyDelete