Not all people who identify as progressives are crazy, but progressivism is going rapidly down the road to Nutsville and threatens to take lots of people down with it. Another way of saying the same thing: If you are progressive, but not yet certifiably insane, it’s only a matter of time. Save yourself!
In ersatz president Joe Biden’s Fiscal Year 2022 Budget proposal, in the section on maternal health, human beings who give birth to other human beings are referred to as “birthing people.” I did not make that up.
During Senate hearings on the proposed budget, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget Shalanda Young defended the use of the term “birthing people”:
“There are certain people who do not have gender identities that apply to female and male, so we think our language needs to be more inclusive on how we deal with complex issues,” Young explained. “Our official policy is to make sure that when people get service from their government that they feel included, and we’re trying to use inclusive language.”
So, the scientific fact that only female human beings – individuals with two X chromosomes in their cell nuclei – are capable of becoming pregnant and giving birth to a human child is a “complex issue”? What, pray tell, is complex about it? Indeed, some male human beings – individuals with both X and Y chromosomes in their cell nuclei – are claiming of late that they can become pregnant and give birth, but their delusions do not change the scientific facts. Nor do the scientific facts change to accommodate women who “identify” as men and subsequently give birth. Notwithstanding their psychosis, they are mothers.
The purpose of language is to be exclusive, to differentiate between categories, quantities, and qualities of things. When language fails to facilitate those differentiations, it becomes meaningless, and when language becomes meaningless, humanity is over and done with and the serpent wins. We were created imago Dei, but sustaining that unique relationship necessitates that we fulfill certain responsibilities, one of which is to use our God-given capacity for language to accurately distinguish between truth and falsehood.
The truth is God’s intellectual property. It is not dependent upon man’s fickle understandings (see Proverbs 3:5). Arguing against the notion of immutable standards, Protagoras (490 – 420 BC), the Father of Progressivism, maintained that “man is the measure of all things.” That belief, the quintessence of “wokeness,” paves the road to hell.
To assert, per Protagoras, that man is autonomously qualified to define truth and falsehood is to say that every individual is so qualified, which is the operational definition of intellectual anarchy, the state into which we are rapidly descending.
A couple of years ago, I learned, courtesy of a very woke young woman – at least, she gave every appearance of being female – that I am “cisgendered.” I did not want to pursue conversation with her (she was making no sense, to be honest), so I thanked her for her concern or whatever it was and moved on. I later discovered that a “cisgendered” person is one who accepts that he or she is, in fact, “the gender to which he or she was assigned at birth.”
Assigned? The word implies some random process, as if the attending physician, upon assisting me through the birth canal, said, “We need more males, don’t we? Yes? Okay then. We’ll assign this one to male!”
No, male was not “assigned” to me by my birthing person or her birthing facilitator. It is a fact. I am biologically and therefore immutably male and any claim on my part to the contrary would identify me not as another gender but as having a major screw loose. Furthermore, I did not have a “birthing person.” I had a mother. And I did not have an “inseminating person.” I had a father.
Going back to Shalanda Young, if one reads carefully, one will discover that she or it or whatever pronoun she/it claims is a bigot posing as a liberal. She clearly says that “people” who seek government services need, above all else, to “feel included.” Young obviously assumes that all organisms seeking government services are “people.” That’s not inclusive at all! C’mon, man! An organism that appears to be human might actually identify as a rabbit or even an extinct Dodo bird and assuming, on the basis of something as superficial as a human face, that the organism in question is human would surely hurt the organism’s feelings, which the government must, at all cost, protect from insult of any sort. That, after all, is the primary function of government! Protecting people from getting their feelings hurt! Surely we can all agree on that!