Gender unicorn: fantasy definitions and sexes validate feelings

Efforts to infiltrate fifth and sixth grade health courses with additional classifications of sex are popping up in public schools. With the help of unfettered political correctness, the Genderbread Person and the Gender Unicorn corrupt not only the English language but the basic biology of mankind. (I suppose using the Biblical reference of “mankind” will raise hackles among the super-sensitive “gender” police.) But let’s get one thing straight… gender is properly used as regarding grammar, i.e. masculine, feminine and neuter, if you speak German. The beginning of this whole fantasy of “gender identity” began its upsurge with the disuse of the proper term “sex” when identifying a person by their physical construction, be that male or female. And “fantasy” is the definitive word, here. There is an ideal reason why the trans, queer (their language, not mine, according to the Gender Unicorn worksheet) and “other” fractional minorities chose to express the alternative sexes using a fictional beast for outreach. Although it will be refuted, the whole concept of invented sexes was created in order to relate to and validate emotional proclivities. And denying one’s emotions, however they may affect an individual’s mental state, is anathema to those who recognize nothing beyond their feelings.

The crime is how a group comprising less than two percent of the population is being allowed to insinuate their self-indulgent ideas into classrooms full of prepubescent children. And it is occurring under the guise of science when there is no science supporting the non-biologically designated sexes. The only data, applying the term loosely, derive from subjective studies of emotional behaviors, most of which are expressions of self-determined choices. G.K. Chesterton had this insight regarding will (emphasis mine):

It is the existence of this negative or limiting side of will that makes most of the talk of the anarchic will-worshippers little better than nonsense. …Anarchism adjures us to be bold creative artists, and care for no laws or limits. Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe you must draw him with a long neck. If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into the world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump: you may be freeing him from being a camel.

In other words, you may imagine something to have the attributes of something else, such as an invented sex, but that cannot and will not free it from its true nature, for a loss of identity will follow. Additionally, an emotional response to reject one’s physical anatomy as not reflecting what they want to believe does not replace a true nature, it is only an expression of will. Artistic license is not license to change what God created, and just thinking something, including yourself, to have special or different characteristics, does not make it so, otherwise some of us would have the power to fly, wings notwithstanding.

---

There are two questions that arise in connection with the teaching profession’s acceptance of this addition of questionable material to class curricula. The first would be to ask the justification for teaching sexual behaviors to children at all. In the past, the purpose of these special health classes for the prepubescent was to give them a heads-up on physical changes that begin to occur at that age, not direct their thoughts regarding sex acts, and certainly not how to use a condom in order to perform them. The second question is how does society benefit from directing non-sexual children to consider the emotions of something they can’t yet fathom? It is unconscionable to make children bear the burden of adult decisions that torture the social fabric. The whole morass of different sexual orientation and subsequent invention of fantasy sexes is a result of reclassifying non-normal as normal in order to destigmatize actions that don’t agree with an individual’s natural physical anatomy. But children should not suffer the consequences of adult choices to operate outside of the social average. The abdication by parents of parenting to public institutions has resulted in the “village” mindset, which is now run by bully political correctness, to educate children to be non-judgmental and unquestioningly accept any and every social behavior. Societal de-construction is the final result and for what? To provide a feel-good “I’m okay, you’re okay” approval for what individuals engaged in “different” behavior recognize as not “okay.” Children are being indoctrinated to believe that God or nature (for those who revere something other than God) didn’t get the design correct; that the physical make-up of the human body is inadequate to the emotional detours of the mind. The confusion induced in these youngsters is producing one effect – the demolition of social mores and, eventually, society itself. All of it based on a fantasy of language, animal allusions and contrived sexes.