Coy, Transgender Activism, Identity Preference, and Hate

Parents sue for refusal of school to allow their son to use female restrooms because Coy identifies himself as a girl. Link here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/us/colorado-transgender-girl-school/index.html

When you tell your kids they can be what they want and pursue their wildest dreams, you may want to qualify such exhortation. If your son informs you that he wants to be an alien and take over the world, don’t laugh, you might be hating.

Does ontology matter anymore? I love how CNN accommodates the narrative when they say that Coy was born with “male organs.” Essentially, what Coy wants to be determines “true” gender, while actual ontology is of secondary value. What if Coy determines he wants to be a boy again? Should the parents happily accommodate? Even if it goes back and forth? Will the parents sue if he can’t play on the girl’s varsity basketball team? We’re moving to either a unisex society, or one that retains gender specificity, but accommodates whatever someone declares themselves to be – which will essentially dilute gender specificity. This transgender business is worse than egalitarianism because it doesn’t say “My gender is meaningless,” but rather “I want to retain gender distinction, just honor my decision to choose whatever I want to be.”

What if Coy grows up and pursues a man, not mentioning his male organs, because Coy was taught that it’s irrelevant, and they end up marrying? Would the husband have the right to annul the marriage after the discovery that Coy isn’t a girl? Or would this be viewed as discrimination? Would the husband even have the right to say that Coy lied about his gender and seek to recover expenses relating to the wedding? Or would this all be considered hate?

Also, who’s to say that identity will remain restricted to gender alone? People who identify themselves as Jesus, Hitler, and other historical figures are generally considered mad. Perhaps we’re haters for not encouraging them in their new identity. In fact, we should be suing others for their refusal to identify these folks as they wish. Right?

If the ontology of gender can be ignored, then why not go a step farther and view our humanity as arbitrary? If someone identifies oneself as an alien or animal, who are we to say that they are human? Ontology and objectivity don’t matter anymore, right? At least that’s what we’re being told by these folks, and oh they are so sly to liken it to civil rights.a I can be accused of fear-mongering the slippery slope,  but what we are accommodating today as civilized was considered madness not too long ago. Also, if identity is no longer objectively tethered to ontological reality, then this thing can really go wherever it wants and we would all be haters for saying otherwise, that’s if we were to consistently apply the mad ethic of the world. Buckle up, folks, and prepare yourselves for the hatred of a loving, open, and affirming world. Strange how that works.

© 2013, Rick Hogaboam. All rights reserved.

, ,

Leave a Reply