It's Not Progressive To Mark "No Gender" on a Baby's Birth Certificate As Was Just Done in Canada
Transgender issues and stories are continuing to bombard us in the media, but some of us, self included, are not convinced that marking "no gender" on a birth certificate is progressive.
Personal friends of mine who are gay, aren't convinced either, and have stated that the Gay and Lesbian movement attached itself to the transgender movement all too quickly.
Milo Yiannopoulos, a Conservative activist, who also happens to be gay, is also questioning questioning the transgender movement.
Today, however, even more news surrounding a new issue. Beyond transgenderism, we now have no gender - even for newborn babies.
Yes, we have been hit with a new story media story from BBC that breaks new ground. In Canada, a baby has been issued a health card without the gender of male or female being marked. In the area that would normally be marked with an "F" or an "M", the space is marked with a "U", which means "undetermined" or "unassigned".
The parent is also is known as a non-binary transgender person, (one who identifies as neither sex), has decided to let the child determine his or her own gender.
The parent , Kori Doty, told CBC, "I'm raising Searyl in 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."
Although Kori Doty does not identify with being a male or female, we must assume this person is what used to be called a 'female' and is what we used to call the baby's 'mother.' However, I guess we would be wrong to use these terms.
Am I the only one confused by all of this? Is it even politically correct to refer to this parent, or baby, and say "him or her"? I suppose it cannot be, if this baby, like the parent, never does make any decision either way on whether to become male or female, or to identify as male or female.
So how does one even refer to this child? I suppose merely as "the child", then "the teen" and finally an "the adult", until "the child" decides what "the child" wants to become, if "the child" ever does decide.
Most likely, "the child" by nature, has actually been born with sex organs that would make "the child" either a boy or a girl. However, I am wondering if the very words "his" or "her" or "he" or "she" might be under fire in the near future, if this trend continues.
How far away are we from the day that Mother's Day and Father's Day will be politically incorrect and replaced with "Parent's Day"?
Names like Elizabeth and John will be considered "too gender specific" and swapped out for names like Kori and Searyl - brand new invented names that are not gender specific.
How far will this movement go?
And again, is this really progress?
Recently I watched a You Tube Video, a BBC production, with great interest. It was about a leading Canadian Child Psychologist who was fired for very controversial reasons, even though he had successfully treated more than 500 children with gender dysphoria (which is simply confusion), when it seems the new agenda is to allow them to simply change their sex, rather than counsel them to be comfortable in the sex they were born into. And when I say 'simply' I don't mean it. It's a long, difficult and expensive road to change one's sex.
And even after it's done, there is this other little known phenomenon, that rarely becomes a media story. It's called Transgender Regret. Read more about it here.
What does everyone think? Do you think this is progressive? And why?