Polemicist Stella Morabito routinely claims insights that elude the rest of us. This time in Witherspoon Institute’s intellectually pretentious blog she asserts that the purpose for transgender accommodations is to create a “de-sexed” and “de-humanized” society. Silly me. I always thought it was about giving a few transgender kids a less stigmatized public school experience. What do I know? According to Morabito:
As usual, tyranny comes disguised as “civil rights.”
The latest exhibit of this general rule is President Obama’s directive that seeks to force a transgender bathroom, locker room and dorm policy on the entire nation, starting with schoolchildren. Many of us are taken aback by this news, but we really shouldn’t be. The order is merely the latest incarnation of a long line of social engineering. The goal, as is always the case with such movements, is to remake humanity. What the people behind this latest version won’t tell you is that their project requires each and every one of us to deny our own humanity.
So if Jazz Jennings or Caitly Jenner get to use the women’s facility that is tyranny and I have to deny my own humanity. Really? Morabito is obsessed with the notion that the purpose of political correctness is not common courtesy. Oh no. The purpose of requesting good behavior is to silence Stella Morabito. This was all part of her observations that there is a “transgender war against human rights, science and consent.” It is all part of a sinister LGBT agenda.
Morabito is also no stranger to crackpot theories. In April, 2014 she wrote: “Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage.” That was stunningly perceptive. After all who could deny the simple common sense of the gay community fighting to be included in civil marriage only to destroy it? Morabito would probably take some credit for the fact that her theory has not come to pass. She is right by being demonstrably wrong.
In October, 2014 she claimed that the singles rights movement had essentially joined forces with the gay community with the goal of abolishing all marriage. I never knew.
More recently, on February 16, she was the lecturer at what was called a transgender policy summit organized by the hate group Family Research Council. The title of the event was “Bruce or Caitlyn? Why Everyone Should Care About the Transgender Movement.”
Getting back to her current spew she writes:
The transgender movement has never been about “gender.” It’s all
about sex. Sex is the real target. “Gender” is merely the politicized
linguistic vehicle that facilitates a legal ban on sex distinctions.
There aren’t a whole lot of dots to connect to uncover the logic of
where this leads: if you abolish sex distinctions in law, you can
abolish state recognition of biological family ties, and the state can
regulate personal relationships and consolidate power as never before.
What she is saying is that there is a one-world-order-conspiracy to make us a unisex society in order to abolish familial structure. This (surprisingly) makes even less sense than her gays-want-to-marry-to-destroy-civil-marriage theory. Does this woman speak these words in her own head before she commits them to writing to be consumed by others? Yet she writes:
It will serve to outlaw speech that identifies males as males and
females as females. At the moment, it may not seem that way, since we
see people striving to pass as one specific sex or the other. But, trust
me, we’re all being forced to “transition” into conformity of thought.
In New York, you can now be fined if you don’t re-engineer your speech (and thoughts) to align with new and ever-changing pronoun protocols.
Yes, there is guidance from the New York City Commission on Human rights that the repeated failure to address people with the appropriate pronouns in the workplace, for example, constitutes harassment. You can read Volokh’s piece linked above and draw your own conclusions. In my opinion the well intentioned guidance goes beyond a reasonable goal. However, this is not enforced group think. It is obvious that a manager referring to the “Kike in accounting” is creating a toxic work environment. The same is true if someone continues to refer to a transgender man as “Miss” or “she.” Morabito completely dismisses the fact that gender identity even exists. She does so because she is a Catholic extremist and the pope is obsessed with what he calls “gender ideology.” She goes on to blather:
This puts us on the path to banning recognition of the reality that
every single human being exists through the union of one male and one
female. There are no exceptions to this reality. You exist as the union
of the two opposites through whom you were created.
No it most certainly does not. That is just baseless crazy talk. It is Alex Jones with a pseudo-intellectual veneer of respectability. Yet it is still the same thing as Jones referring to a tornado as a weather weapon possibly unleashed by the government.
What will happen when all of society is sexless in both language and
law? If the law does not recognize your body as physically male or
female—applying only the word “gender” to your internal, self-reported
self-perception—does the law even recognize your body? Every single cell
of you has either “male” or “female” written into its DNA, but the law
refuses to recognize such categories. Such laws will only recognize an
infinite, immeasurable “gender spectrum,” your place on which is
determined only by your mind. So what exactly are you after the law has
de-sexed you? In what sense is your body a legal entity?
Our friend Ryan T. Anderson edits this blog. Did he not read this piece to appreciate that his woman gets more batshit by the sentence. Society is not going to become sexless and none of that will happen because we try to accommodate a few transgender citizens. That is simply insane. Apparently Morabito has not had to defend her craziness in a normal environment.
The deep end seems to have no discernible depth:
In a society de-sexed by law, would the state recognize your
relationship as a husband or a wife? Mother or father? Daughter or son?
Those are all sexed terms. A system that does not recognize the
existence of male and female would be free to ignore the parentage of
any child. You might be recognized as your child’s “legal guardian,” but
only if the state agrees to that. Anybody can be a guardian to your
child if the state decides it’s in the child’s “best interest.” In this
vision, there is nothing to prevent the state from severing the mother-child bond at will.
Somehow the conspiracy theory includes the shattering of parental recognition. None of that is going to happen. Not one sentence in that paragraph is a lucid expression of reason.
I am going to stop here because this essay gets kookier by the word. In short, transgender accommodations are the end of civilization as we know it. Uh huh.
Let us back up for a moment. The ultimate goal of treating LGBT people (or any minority for that matter) with due respect is civility. We live in a diverse society. Our mores change as we appreciate the extent of that diversity. There is nothing new in the existence of transgender people. They have existed in literature for thousands of years. Scientific advances allow us to better understand this phenomenon that affects perhaps 0.3% of our citizenry. As a civil society we want to ensure that people who are different aren’t subjected to abuse just because they are different. Americans are fair minded people and we get better at it with time.
Ms. Morabito comes to this arena as a staunch defender of the faith. That is her choice. The one boy in a high school who identifies as a girl is not doing so voluntarily. For that child it is an unalterable reality. In a polite, civil society we should try not to demonize this kid. Is that really too much to ask? Must we really claim that being civil and polite constitutes the end of the world in order to conform society to scripture?