Reductio ad absurdum.

AuthorBarber, Matt
PositionWORDS & IMAGES - Gender identity

THERE WAS A TIME when planning a family was a relatively straightforward process. A young wife might ask her new husband, "How many children should we have?" To which he might reply, "Let's just try for one of each." A few years later--with a bit of luck--little Timmy and Tammy are at each other's throats, contesting rightful possession of the Fuzzy Wuzzy Brown Crayon, and so all is well in the time-space continuum.

Not so in today's "progressive" land of make believe. Political correctness now requires that objective reality sit on the bench while subjective silliness takes the field. For today's ubertolerant mum and dad-ahem, mom and mum or dad and dad--having a child of each "sex" (or acquiring one as biological limitations may dictate) apparently means a "family" that looks more like the bar scene from "Star Wars" than "The Donna Reed Show." It indeed is a brave new world.

The Washington Examiner reported that "the 60,000-strong Thomson Reuters media empire, in an effort to determine its diversity success, asked its staff of reporters, researchers, marketers, and others to pick their sex from nine choices, including 'gender-queer,' a category for identities other than man or woman."

"Identities other than man or woman?"--and only nine choices? Why not 10, or 37, or 3,654?

"According to the company's annual employee survey, choosing a sexual identity doesn't have to be based on a worker's actual sex, but instead 'a person's innate, deeply felt psychological identification,' "noted the Examiner.

The survey "asks employees to choose from male, female, transgender, genderqueer/androgynous, intersex, transsexual, FTM (female-to-male), MTF (male-to-female), and prefer not to say."

Reuters proffered the questionnaire to achieve a 100% rating in the "Corporate Equality Index," a political extortion scheme created by the so-called "Human Rights Campaign"--a Washington, D.C.-based sexual extremist outfit launched in 1980 for the sole purpose of pushing the radical LGBT political agenda.

Okay, first, the smaller question: how can anyone now be expected (as if anyone ever did) to take Reuters seriously? How can we trust this media giant to report objectively the news without bias when, as a matter of course, its "diversity" policy is rooted in hopeless absurdity? How can anyone ever again depend on Reuters to report accurately and impartially on matters of human sex and sexuality when it cannot even pass a second-grade biology exam and, more...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT