Tuesday, April 26, 2016
If you're male, and you love country-western music, you just might be trans-gendered.
If you're a woman, and you love watching football on TV, you just might be trans-gendered.
I read an article yesterday in which the author assumed that aberrations within traditional masculine and feminine hobbies could be sufficient justification for trans-genderism. Actually, the more widespread trans-genderism becomes in our sociopolitical narrative, I hear this assumption a lot. Especially from people who are supposed to know better.
In other words, according to this assumption, if you're a boy but you like music - which our society says is a feminine predisposition - then maybe you might be trans-gender. At least, that's the bottom-line rationale. And if you're a girl, but you like sports, then you're "butch," and very much on the brink of trans-genderism.
After all, true boys should enjoy manly things, and true girls should enjoy feminine things.
But when our likes cross these gender lines established by society, is that indicative of trans-genderism?
Isn't that notion something at which liberals used to scoff? And not too long ago, either. Remember the battle of the sexes? You mean women want to work outside the home? Conservatives used to be the ones who said that was a weird notion; that a woman's place was in the home. Liberals were the ones who claimed a woman could still be a woman even if she didn't feel fulfilled doing housework. After all, employment shouldn't be a question of gender, but competence, right?
But now, liberals say if you don't feel feminine, or masculine, then you're cross-gender.
See what happens when we let society write the rules?
Two friends of mine got married this weekend. One of them is a wonderful singer and performer in community theater. The other is getting ready to enter the police academy in suburban Dallas. Now, quick: which one did you peg as the bride, and which one the groom?
True, the bride recently graduated with a degree in music, but she's headed off to join the police department in Irving, Texas, where the Dallas Cowboys used to play. Her husband is a career fire-fighter for the city of Dallas, and as a hobby, he's sung in church choirs for years, and acted in local stage productions for almost as long.
They're both good-looking, and about as representative of their respective gender's best physical qualities as you could want. And yes, he's a man, and she's a woman, and they're definitely not trans-gender.
Hey, here's a progressive notion for you: It's okay for a guy to like acting in community theater and still consider himself a guy. It's okay for a beautiful woman to pursue police work, and still consider herself a beautiful woman.
Trans-genderism used to be a rare biological abnormality in which a person's original reproductive apparatus and chromosomes didn't all jive. But now, somehow, in a direct affront to those few people struggling with legitimate trans-gender issues, the liberal line is this: If you feel like a man, but you've got all the equipment necessary to give birth to a human being, then it's still cool to say you're a dude.
And if you're a dude, but you've got feelings for womanhood despite your lack of baby-birthing equipment, then it's warm and fuzzy to say you're a lady.
Folks, this is not science. This is nothing but twisted socialization. This is a perversion of ideas pertaining to what makes a man a man, and a woman a woman. Gender roles aren't about emotion, or hobbies, or talents. It's not even about the types of clothes in which you feel comfortable.
Do we have to start drawing pictures again? Don't they teach anatomy in school anymore?
You're not a man because you like football. And you're not a woman if you don't. Listening to songs about jilted lovers sung with a lilting twang doesn't make you a cowboy any more than it makes you feminine.
You'd think progressive liberals would be the ones holding the line against unfair gender-skewed presumptions here.
As it is, we've got yet another reason to acknowledge the obvious: Not only does our genitalia actually mean something about who we are, and who we aren't. But society can do a really lousy job with our socialization.
This isn't a theological issue, or a political issue, or a moral issue, as much as it is a basic issue of civilized maturity: Males have the insertion device, and females have the device into which the insertion device is, um, inserted.
Folks, I'm not being flippant here, but this is not difficult, or complex. It's really not. And because it's not complex, we've been able to survive pretty well using some fairly basic rooms with porcelain devices designed to accommodate basic bodily outputs and those output devices.
Until now. All of a sudden, choosing a public bathroom has almost nothing to do with actually eliminating bodily waste in relative privacy. Suddenly, being part of an "advanced" society has transformed going to the bathroom into a brave new social experiment.
With this type of myopic social regression, ISIS won't have to attack us to ruin Western civilization.