A court case is being pursued in the UK by an individual who wants to be officially recorded as the father of a child, even though (s)he is a biological woman and bore the child as a mother.
The case is symptomatic of a mindset which wishes to reinvent reality in terms of an ideological worldview. This world view (ab)uses the notion of individual rights to achieve and justify its totalitarian pretensions.
It is typical of the Marxist mindset that the law can be used by an ideologically “enlightened” minority to impose its paradigm, regardless of reality, and regardless of received norms of behaviour and conduct. Even when those norms are scientific fact.
In this Marxist mindset, our entire perception of the world is to be reinvented according to the materialistic and humanistic view that there is no Creator God; instead we are now ourselves our own god, and can determine our own standards and our own reality.
It is reported that the biological woman who is now certified as a man, obtained the certificate to be male under the terms of the Gender Recognition Act of 2004.
Within days of receiving the certificate, the individual concerned [referred to as “TT”] underwent artificial insemination by donor and became pregnant. On giving birth, “TT” relied upon the said certificate to claim that [s]he should be listed as the father, not as the mother. Of course, that is biologically impossible.
So the Registrar refused the request.
The Registrar’s action is in line with all known previous human experience.
“TT” disagrees and has called in aid the 1998 Human Rights Act, claiming denial of respect for private and family life.
This is a spurious issue, of course, and can only be understood in the terms of an ideological worldview as outlined above. It is complete nonsense according to the reality of what we are. And it is a sign of the state of official culture and judiciary, that this nonsense should be taken seriously in the first place.
This is not about Rights, but about an ideological abuse of the notion of Rights. The law and its process is being used to make a political point by someone who wants the world reinvented according to their conception of it.
Now, I certainly would not suggest any human being should be treated in any other way than as a human being, with due respect, regardless of who they are. I am also alive to the need for understanding toward someone who has issues concerning their psychological identity and its coherence with their physical identity.
But when someone wants to reinvent the world according to their particular viewpoint, and to impose their particular view on the rest of us, then that needs to be called out for what it is.
Each of the Acts of Parliament cited above in connection with this were undoubtedly an attempt to ensure fair treatment. For some MPs such law is an ideological issue; but for other MPs it is undoubtedly an attempt to address human issues in a humane way.
Parliament and the Courts are asked to address some very difficult human questions on behalf of us all. And by all, I mean the norms of the vast majority and the concerns of small minorities. Because in a free and open democratic society, no-one should be ashamed or feel second rate. Every one has an equal voice and right to participate in our democracy.
But Rights mean we have Responsibilities. We have a responsibility to behave responsibly and not to abuse our liberty.
“TT” evidently chose to become pregnant days after obtaining a certificate attesting “her” registration as male. [S]he then chose to become pregnant. [S]he then chose to make a point of asserting her legalised position as male to overturn all biological norms and the received norms of human existence.
To satisfy a special sense of identity, the rest of us must forsake scientific fact for an ideological and particular take on normality.
“TT” can do as [s]he pleases, but we must all abandon reality and adopt the same particular view and logic.
“TT” brings the law and the legal process into disrepute. “TT” brings the cause of people with genuine identity issues into disrepute. “TT” plays games with the public perception of people who need our compassion and understanding, not our contempt.
In common parlance, TT is pushing his (her) luck and taking the piss.
[S]he should be told where to get off, grow up, and take responsibility as a participant in an open and tolerant society. But it is evident from such behaviour that this person is not seeking tolerance, but dominance.
The Court needs to see the issue for what it is and throw this nonsense out – not get bogged down in PC sensibilities and misinterpretations of the situation. The facts must be made clear before any law can be invoked or interpreted.
The bottom line here is that this is a political case, not a matter of justice. But as a matter of Justice, “TT” needs to be faced with the truth of what (s)he has done. “TT” has claimed one thing, but done another.
Claiming to be a man, and being legally recognised as such, “TT” then reverts to the behaviour of a woman – behaviour only a woman is capable of – that is giving birth to a child. “TT” has made a false claim, prima facie. It seems to me, that the only sensible and reasonable court case here is for fraudulent declaration.
If such apparently calculated behaviour is not to pursue an ideological agenda, then the only alternative explanation here is that professional help is needed. “TT” wants to identify as male, gets certified as such, but then behaves as a woman …
Let’s remember that liberty comes with conditions:
“What is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue ? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice and madness without tuition or restraint.” – EDMUND BURKE