Crazy?
Yea, maybe.
Yet we're arguing over potties. We're having a discussion over how many genders there are. Some people are couching the argument in terms of "safety" or "uncomfortableness" and there is something to be said for some of those arguments. But that is not the fundamental issue.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is there are fundamentally two and only two genders.
Yet those of us who insist that are being beaten down with the cruel bludgeon of new-speak. It is like watching a retelling of that Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, "Chain of Command," where in Captain Picard is captured and taken to an interrogator, Gul Madred, who uses a number of torture methods, including sensory deprivation, sensory bombardment, forced nakedness, stress positions, dehydration, starvation, physical pain, and cultural humiliation to try to gain knowledge of the Federation's plans for Minos Korva. Picard refuses to acknowledge Madred's demand for information. Madred attempts another tactic to break Picard's will: he shows his captive four bright lights, and demands that Picard answer that there are five, inflicting intense pain on Picard if he does not agree.
You can watch part of the interrogation here.
The person trying to break Picard wants Picard to say there are FIVE lights even though there are plainly only FOUR. It's a small thing, isn't it?
"How many lights are there?"
"Four!"
Zap—pain induced. Picard falls down.
Isn't that the same thing going on with The Bathroom Wars and its related issues? It's not really that bad, is it? It won't really affect you, will it?
"How many genders are there?"
"TWO."
Zap—call out the media and the PC-police to take such a one down.
For the Christian this is an absolute. God spoke and made male and female and said that it was good. Any confounding of that issue is a ploy to undo what God has made. I'm not talking about the obvious exceptions. It is NEVER wise to design for the exceptions first. No, in programming as in science, design of code or of a model is geared to the majority of cases first, then the instances that do not fit are examined and further refinement of the code or the model happens to account for those.
Start with the majority of cases: male and female (men and women, boys and girls) then implement exceptions as necessary with all grace, dignity and decorum.
When did this become the battle cry and mantra:
"The needs of the One outweigh the needs of the Many!"
And one final point: "Self-identify"?
What sort of medicine allows patients to self-identify their disease and cure?
"Hello, I self-identify a case of strep- throat. Please ready a prescription of ampicillin for me. I'll be by to pick it up at 4 this afternoon."Yeah. Right. Sure.
Self-identify? Isn't that a bit like the inmates run the asylum? Has anyone really thought through the reality of what that means?
"I feel like a ........."The doctor should take that under consideration and then measure reality with observed symptoms.
"Self-identify"? Seriously? Then why can't people self-identify as another race? (Oh, they did and were laughed at.) Why can't they self-identify as another species? (Oh, they are and some are accommodating them.) Why can't they self-identify as..... [fill in the blank]. And then doesn't reality take a back seat to what the individual wants it to be? A grownup version of "You can be anything you want when you grow up!"
