Sometimes I like to fantasize that I live in a sane country filled with mentally stable people. It's a nice thing to imagine, but I can never indulge the fantasy for very long. Reality has a tendency to intrude. Just recently I was awoken from such a daydream when I read that Bradley Manning, who is serving a 35-year prison sentence for espionage, will receive taxpayer-funded "gender reassignment surgery."
To put it plainly, Manning will be castrated so that he can more fully live out the delusion that he's a woman named Chelsea. Liberals have celebrated the news, declaring that it's "medically necessary" to mutilate Manning's genitals because he's "really a woman inside," and no woman should be forced to keep the penis that was assigned to her at birth without her consent.
Of course, this news comes only days after Brown University announced it will be putting tampons in the men's room because, according to the Ivy League school, "not all the people who menstruate are women."
And that move was made public around the same time that the NCAA decided to pull its championship games out of North Carolina to punish the state for not allowing cross-dressing men to pee in the ladies' room.
The NCAA has pulled seven championship events from North Carolina, including opening-weekend men’s basketball tournament games, for the coming year due to a state law that some say can lead to discrimination against LGBT people. (Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images)
And that news came to us a couple of days after Time published an article titled, "My Brother's Pregnancy," which tells the inspiring story of a woman who "became a man" and then decided that "he" still wanted to have a baby. Key passage:
But what if you are born into a female body, know you are a man and still want to participate in the traditionally exclusive rite of womanhood? What kind of man are you then?
Another way of phrasing that: What if you are born a woman, know you are a man, but want to remain a woman after you become a man? What then?
(Answer: intense psychotherapy.)
And all of this happened a few days before the leftist media threw a collective hissy fit because Donald Trump's proposed maternity leave policy doesn't include men. This "controversy" led to one of the more bizarre Twitter interactions I've ever seen:
This may be the dumbest and most bizarre comeback I've seen this week pic.twitter.com/TjhaQCREkC— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 15, 2016
Liberals used to whip out their trusty "This isn't Mad Men" line when shaming conservatives for not demonstrating an appropriate amount of enthusiasm for the feminist agenda. Now they're using it to mock us for suggesting that men can't give birth.
They now treat biological facts with utter contempt and hatred, deriding anyone who so much as acknowledges them. It's only a matter of time before anatomy textbooks are being burned in bonfires and those caught reading them are forced to publicly renounce their heretical belief in the female uterus.
And I suspect that even as liberals are barbecuing science books and dancing around the flames chanting LGBT slogans, they'll still accuse conservatives of being the "anti-science" ones. "Stop hating science! OK, the fire's ready. Pass me that science book."
The funny thing is, I used to think the term "anti-science" was ridiculous. Nobody is literally anti-science, I thought. Some people might be wrong about science, or ignorant of it, or they may disagree about conclusions or methods or whatever, but nobody is actually against science in principle. Science is science, I would say to myself. You can't be for or against it. It just is. That's the whole point of science: to figure out what is. Even if you're wrong about what is, you aren't anti-science.
In a similar way, I thought, a person isn't "anti-math" because they think 2 + 2 = 5. They're wrong about math, but they aren't against math. They'd be anti-math if they insisted that we shouldn't try to ascertain the sum of 2 + 2, or if they claimed arithmetic is witchcraft and those who practice it should be scourged and beheaded.
You're only "anti" something if you are opposed to it in general. So you're only anti-science if you wish to censor or abolish or punish or discredit an entire field of legitimate scientific inquiry. But who is actually trying to do that nowadays, in this enlightened and modern country of ours?
Leftists often level this charge at conservatives because we believe in God and don't believe in man-made global warming, but they're being ridiculous, clearly. We aren't telling anyone not to study the climate or evolution or whatever else — we're just giving our view about what you'll find if you do study those subjects. Even if we're wrong (we're not), we aren't against science. We haven't denied science or attempted to punish or interfere with it. Nobody is doing that, I used to think.
I was an idiot, obviously. There is indeed an actual anti-science movement in America, and it's called liberalism. It's not enough to say that liberals are simply wrong about the basic biological facts surrounding sex and reproduction. If that's all there was to it, we could sit them down for the bird and the bees talk their parents apparently never gave them — explain that a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina, and when a man and a woman love each other very much they can get together and make a little baby, and the baby will grow in mommy's tummy — and hopefully that would be the end of it. But that's not the end of it for liberals.
It's fair to assume that liberals have already encountered these biological facts. After all, they only started with the "transgender" stuff about 15 seconds ago. We were all on the same page until they decided to rip the page out and incinerate it. They know they can't prove scientifically, biologically, that a man can "be a woman," so they have decided to reject biology wholesale. They've moved to actually abolish biological sex, claiming that nothing can really be known about a person based on their anatomy, chromosomes, reproductive capabilities or DNA. They are trying to throw out centuries of research and scientific discovery because they find it emotionally and politically unappealing. That's anti-science.
What they are doing is no different from a person who denies that mathematics can tell you anything about numbers, or that archaeology can tell you anything about history, or that astronomy can tell you anything about stars. Or you might say it's more equivalent to a person who says that numbers don't exist and outer space is actually a giant mural that someone painted on an invisible ceiling. With their gender theories, they have undermined and denied an entire field of science. They have come out against science itself. They have shown us what being "anti-science" actually looks like, and Lord is it a terrifying and bewildering sight.
AP Photo/Elaine Thompson
To make the whole thing all the more absurd, they frequently claim some mystical "scientific consensus" confirming that biology isn't real. Now, I admit it's true that a fair number of doctors and teachers and scientists have chosen to appease liberal superstitions rather than affirm reality, but that doesn't change the reality. And besides, not everyone is on board. The American College of Pediatrics released a report not long ago confirming what everyone in the world has known for millennia:
A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such.
It's rather tragic that it's reached a point where a group of PhDs have to actually come out and say this, and even more tragic that half of the country scoffs at it as if they'd just announced that the Earth's core is made of gum drops. But here we are. And it should be noted that the most crucial "finding" in their report is not merely biological, but logical. It's the definition of logic, in fact: A thing cannot be what it is not.
If you make such a radical declaration in front of a liberal these days, they'll ask you to prove it. And you can prove it. You could tell them to close their eyes and imagine that gasoline is soda pop, and then go to a gas station and spray the nozzle into their mouths to see if their emotions are actually capable of overriding physical realities. Or you could tell them to believe really hard that they can fly, like R. Kelly says, and then jump off the Grand Canyon to test the song's accuracy. But if you do that, you'll end up with a lot of liberals choking on gasoline or splattered all over the ground. That doesn't seem like the most Christian way to win an argument.
And anyway, you really can't win an argument when you're standing firmly in the real world and the other side is skipping through the meadows in Candy Land. In order for two sides to come to an understanding, both must basically acknowledge that reality exists and is knowable. Liberals will make no such concessions, and so our society slips ever more rapidly into madness. I'm not sure exactly how to stop it, but at the very least, in the mean time, we should stop letting the crazy ones pretend to be the "pro-science."