Good job, Sarah. The only thing I can think of that can halfway rationalize this nonsense is the ultimate goal to replace natural sexual reproduction with artificial reproduction; the kind of dystopian reality about which Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World. We do not possess the technology to do this yet, but the research is underway…
Good job, Sarah. The only thing I can think of that can halfway rationalize this nonsense is the ultimate goal to replace natural sexual reproduction with artificial reproduction; the kind of dystopian reality about which Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World. We do not possess the technology to do this yet, but the research is underway. Some researchers claim that we are ten years away from producing an artificial womb that will assist in the treatment of human fetuses who are in serious jeopardy in their mothers' wombs. But the research will not stop there. In fact, in a recent article, The Guardian seriously asks, "Will out of body gestation ever replace the experience of human birth?" https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jun/27/parents-can-look-foetus-real-time-artificial-wombs-future.
At first glance, this may seem absurd. But it cannot be doubted that public polices and social attitudes that are currently erasing women, substituting "birthing persons" for "mothers" and "chest feeding" for "breast feeding," seem directed toward eliminating any connection between women and the bearing of children, which has been the irreducible biological characteristic that has been recognized--since the dawn of the human race--as the primary physical distinction between women and men. Even in the face of this scientific biological fact, nonetheless, people claim that they are non-binary. They affirm that their genotypes and corresponding phenotypes are somehow irrelevant to their feelings and emotional choices. In fact, they claim that their choices should be normalized, not their genetic makeup. Despite this, at least at the moment, the next generation depends upon the binary heterosexual sharing of genes. Without this heterosexual sharing, the next generation will simply not be possible. For some reason, when the LGBTQ+ activists talk about normalizing their choices, they never want to talk about this.
So, unless some foresee--and are taking practical steps toward--a future in which childbearing can be mechanized and genetic mixing strictly controlled artificially to produce human characteristics on the assembly line, it is difficult to understand why women are being erased in this way. It is disrespectful. But if sex can be separated from the birth of, care for, and education of children, then the creation of a family becomes irrelevant to a couples' pair bonding. Pleasure becomes its only purpose, and nothing beyond that. Moreover, if children become irrelevant to the sexual act, then so do the sexes of the coupling partners. In fact, potential partners can mix and identify in any way that they wish as long as they have no intention to procreate. After all, procreation would be the province of some state managed bureau. Perhaps Aldous Huxley saw the secular vision with more clarity than we realized last century.
Good job, Sarah. The only thing I can think of that can halfway rationalize this nonsense is the ultimate goal to replace natural sexual reproduction with artificial reproduction; the kind of dystopian reality about which Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World. We do not possess the technology to do this yet, but the research is underway. Some researchers claim that we are ten years away from producing an artificial womb that will assist in the treatment of human fetuses who are in serious jeopardy in their mothers' wombs. But the research will not stop there. In fact, in a recent article, The Guardian seriously asks, "Will out of body gestation ever replace the experience of human birth?" https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jun/27/parents-can-look-foetus-real-time-artificial-wombs-future.
At first glance, this may seem absurd. But it cannot be doubted that public polices and social attitudes that are currently erasing women, substituting "birthing persons" for "mothers" and "chest feeding" for "breast feeding," seem directed toward eliminating any connection between women and the bearing of children, which has been the irreducible biological characteristic that has been recognized--since the dawn of the human race--as the primary physical distinction between women and men. Even in the face of this scientific biological fact, nonetheless, people claim that they are non-binary. They affirm that their genotypes and corresponding phenotypes are somehow irrelevant to their feelings and emotional choices. In fact, they claim that their choices should be normalized, not their genetic makeup. Despite this, at least at the moment, the next generation depends upon the binary heterosexual sharing of genes. Without this heterosexual sharing, the next generation will simply not be possible. For some reason, when the LGBTQ+ activists talk about normalizing their choices, they never want to talk about this.
So, unless some foresee--and are taking practical steps toward--a future in which childbearing can be mechanized and genetic mixing strictly controlled artificially to produce human characteristics on the assembly line, it is difficult to understand why women are being erased in this way. It is disrespectful. But if sex can be separated from the birth of, care for, and education of children, then the creation of a family becomes irrelevant to a couples' pair bonding. Pleasure becomes its only purpose, and nothing beyond that. Moreover, if children become irrelevant to the sexual act, then so do the sexes of the coupling partners. In fact, potential partners can mix and identify in any way that they wish as long as they have no intention to procreate. After all, procreation would be the province of some state managed bureau. Perhaps Aldous Huxley saw the secular vision with more clarity than we realized last century.