I have a friend who works in the NHS. She is a middle-aged normal person.
She works with two other middle-aged normal people, one young person (woman) who self identifies as “they” and one other young woman, fresh out of university, who acts as enforcer of all that must now be deemed acceptable.
She doesn’t have a whip, but she would use it only for good if she did have one.
My friend found herself in a very important and time-pressured situation. Four of the five met together to discuss safeguarding concerns raised about the fifth person (the “they”). My friend led the conversation, trying to impart accurate information as quickly as possible.
Every time she used the terms “she” or “her” to refer to the “they” (even though the “they” is a “she”) the non-armed guard stopped her and asked her to refer to “them” by their chosen pronouns, even when they were not in the room.
A discussion about the importance of using the correct pronouns followed, before my friend could resume the crucial act of sharing concerns raised.
However, she accidently continued to use the terms “she” and “her” because that it what she has been accustomed to calling women speaking for over four decades. It looks like she will need further brainwashing until it becomes second nature.
Following the meeting, my friend, then, had to enter written details of the concern into a database. When she had finished, she was asked to rewrite it, because she had again made the mistake of accuracy by referring to the “they” as a “she”.
She duly rewrote the report accordingly, which with the corrected language (“they” instead of “she”), implied that there were a number of people involved in the incident rather than the one woman, as was the reality.
Seeing that this report could be misleading, the intolerant tolerance officer asked my friend to put a note at the bottom which read, “The report above refers to only one woman, who chooses to identify as ‘they’. The pronouns used should not be understood as referring to more than one person.”
And so that’s that then: Insanity-ville.
Last week, one resident of the town, Paul Murphy, TD (member of the lower house of the Irish Parliament) for the radically left-wing Irish political party People before Profit, told the Irish times that he is not getting much sleep because he and his (female) wife have just welcomed baby Juniper into the world.
He spoke about how, for a long time, they didn’t want kids because “the truth is that being a socialist activist is much, much more than a full time job and we didn’t feel the need for kids to fill our lives”.
For whatever reason (biology perhaps?), they found that they did in fact need kids to fill their lives and had little baby boy Juniper, who they, in their kindness, call “it”.
“We’re not gendering it,” he says of his newborn son. “We live in a deeply sexist and gendered society which creates certain expectations for boys and girls. We don’t want to limit the kind of future they will foresee for themselves.”
There is no acknowledgement from Mr Murphy that he has done exactly that. He and his (female) wife have imposed their own limits on the child. I have no doubt that they believe they are doing the right thing, and they are free to do such a thing, but any pretence that they benevolently operate in some kind of valueless neutral state in which their child can be one of a rare few who will emerge free to become its true self is just a load of old horse manure.
Mr Murphy is wrong. He’s wrong because, although he is baby Juniper’s earthly daddy, he is not the author of life. He is not the big daddy of us all. None of us can just decide what it is to be a boy or a girl. We receive our manhood and womanhood as a gift to be cherished, understood and revealed in true vocation.
Mr Murphy is not just wrong, but dangerous. Just as one shouldn’t plug a toaster in and use it as a bath toy, a boy should not be misguided in this way. In both cases it is the path to death.
There is, rightly, a lot of noise being made about the importance of female-only spaces as the trans movement takes hold, but male-only spaces have been systematically and successfully attacked by the feminists for decades.
There are almost no male-only spaces for young boys anymore, from scouts and football training to serving at the altar, it’s “girls allowed”, with some hell-bent on pushing female ordination.
I hope for the sake of my grandsons and granddaughters that men unapologetically carve out space where they can cultivate the virtues required to protect and provide for women, hold one another to account and respond to the innate need for brotherhood.
The collapse of the sexes into uniform totalitarian egalitarianism means death to the soul as it not only frustrates Gods plan for us but creates the very thing that Mr Paul Murphy is seeking to avoid.
The natural desire that men have for women to be feminine and that
women have for men to be masculine cannot be wished away, and if it is
not properly mediated by Christ in whom there is neither “Jew, nor
Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” (Galatians 3:28) then it doesn’t
just disappear, but instead ends up emerging as weird parasitic
versions of hyper-masculinity where violent and dangerous men become
idealised, and hyper-femininity where women dress as whores and lay
themselves open for use.