Kensington Palace denies the story that a royal heir will be raised “gender fluid”. Apart from the symbolic and cultural leadership that such a choice would convey, the more important point is that such an idea even is seriously bruited.
Let’s briefly imagine where this line of thought leads. The mother and father no longer use those names, in this brave new world. They can’t identify themselves as “Mama” and “Papa” as they teach the infant who they are. They need new words. What will they be? In France, there is a draft law to eliminate the words “mother” and “father” from their laws, replacing them by the word “parent”. Will there be “parent 1” and “parent 2”? That discriminates, so that’s out. There are alternatives. Mama tells her child “No, I’m not your mother. I’m “host 1” (because she bore the child, but maybe she didn’t.) This person here with the penis (or maybe not) is “host 2”. Parent 1 might simply teach the child her name. “I’m Ann”. This man, I’m sorry, this “body” here is “John”.
Imagine the culture that is being tossed away by removing the concepts of mom and dad. “Respect your Parent 1 or your host 1 or your Ann,” the child is taught. “Your first grade teacher is “Miss Simonds”, sorry it’s “Teacher Simonds”. We no longer use any titles of respect that indicate sex. That discriminates along forbidden lines. Even “Teacher” discriminates.
“This person, (not ‘she’) is ‘Worker Simonds'”.
“Will Worker Simonds instruct me?”
“Big Bang forbid! Worker Simonds will help you develop and unfold your manifold possibilities.”
“Host 1, am I a boy or a girl”.
“Stop it! I forbid you to swear in this house! We don’t say ‘boy’ and ‘girl’!”
All language will be the appropriate language learned from Hollywood films, the apotheosis of political correctness.
“Where’s my f***ing coat, host 1”?
“On the bed where you left it, f***ing a***ole.” Now eat your f***ing cereal.”
Let us not delve into the many questions of raising children that arise when the words “brother” and “sister” are banished. Also, let us be content with only one statement about the position of family: “…the workers’ state will come to replace the family, society will gradually take upon itself all the tasks that before the revolution fell to the individual parents.”
Gender in language refers to masculine, feminine, common and neuter of nouns and pronouns. There is a correspondence of these to us as human beings: male, female, neither or both. Making all language use only “neuter” words aims at eliminating male and female differences. It’s an attempt to get “equality” through language modification. Even Neanderthals and lots of animal species distinguish male and female. There are likely to be very good reasons for this. We tamper with it at our risk.
Gender neutrality is making inroads:
“Should we stop referring to ‘girls’ as ‘girls’ and ‘boys’ as ‘boys’? If one Nebraska middle school has it its way, yes. In order to make its school more gender inclusive, handouts have been circulated to teachers at Irving Middle School, urging them to refer to students as readers, campers, athletes, purple penguins, and other non-gender-specific titles.
“It’s all a part of the ‘Gender Spectrum‘ campaign, which also recommends teachers don’t have kids line up by ‘boy’ and ‘girl,’ but rather by having them choose between things like skateboards or bikes, milk or juice, etc. It also suggests instructors ask students by which name and/or pronoun they’d like to be referred, discuss gender stereotypes when they arise, and strike out ‘All Boys’ and ‘All Girls’ signs and add ‘All Genders Welcome’ labels above doors.”
Without going to the “little girls’ room” and the “little boys’ room”, without distinguishing male from female, society becomes queerized, homosexualized, bisexualized and transgenderized. Males become feminized. Females become masculinized. Men become “girls” and women become “boys”. Is this good? Not if our survival and civilization depend intimately and strongly on the distinctions we are used to. Society depends on natural inequalities and upon inequalities that we naturally create. The division of labor depends upon inequalities. Specialization depends upon inequalities. Striving for excellence and profit creates inequalities. If gender-neutrality leads to the leveling down of such distinctions by further implementing an agenda of equality, the society will go downhill. This is a definite risk.
The gender-neutral movement is part of a larger agenda in which people are leveled down and basically communized and controlled by an elite cohort of social psychologists and scientists. The phantom of equality is partly the end and partly the means to the end of such social control.
The Cultural Revolution of Mao Zedong, former Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, made gender neutrality a policy, even if it was not carried through but was a tool of control.
If gender-neutrality becomes the ruling factor, then people will be addressed by functions, the Gender Spectrum people suggest, like readers, campers, players, managers, electricians, garbage collectors, etc. But since these make distinctions in status, job and pay, inequality remains. Eventually, the poisonous quest for equality will view these terms as prejudicial. Then society will descend further into communism.
When this kind of change succeeds in getting itself embedded in laws that force compliance, it’s not good at all. With or without the use of force, the thrust of the gender-neutral campaign is equality and behind that is communism.
“Mao’s slogan ‘The times have changed, men and women are the same’ (时代不同了, 男女都一样) was propagated as a powerful message to millions of Chinese women, in particular, that men and women were equal. Furthermore, women’s public roles as proletarian fighters and revolutionaries were glorified. For example, the image of Iron Girls – strong, robust, muscular women who boldly performed physically demanding jobs traditionally done by men, such as repairing high-voltage electric wires – was widely promoted as a symbol of the Maoist slogan: ‘Whatever men comrades can accomplish, women comrades can too’ (男同志能办的事情, 女同志也能办到). Traditionally ‘feminine’ imagery was essentially banished from public discourse to such an extent that discussions of sexuality became almost ascetic during the Cultural Revolution. Women were publicly reconfigured and reimagined as ‘gender-neutral persons’ (中性人) without a marked gender because there were no longer any permissible means to ‘express the softness of [women’s] femininity’.”9:26 am on March 2, 2019 Email Michael S. Rozeff