The trend toward a society that embraces non-binary, transgender, and (insert other gender nonconforming language here) is growing. In a piece in this month’s issue of The Cut, the author, Alex Morris, explores the idea of raising babies who are “theybies”: neither boy nor girl. As the “theybe” grows, the baby will determine his or her own gender, choose it when the baby wants, and then live that way — at which point, the parents will go along.
Inspired by a Canadian baby who had been issued a health card without a gender designation, the piece primarily features the story of one couple who, when they discovered she was pregnant, wanted to duplicate the “revolutionary” idea themselves. The father told hospital staff, “‘At minimum, do not describe the anatomy, or what you think the anatomy means, when this baby’s born.’ We definitely wanted to prevent them being gendered in any intense moment. And everybody was aware of that.’”
The couple joined a Facebook group who were busy raising theybies like they were.
Soon he was privy to the names, photos, thoughts, and conversations of a small but hardcore group of families who were raising theybies — babies whose parents had decided not to reveal their sex, who used they/them pronouns for their children, and whose goal was to create an early childhood free of gendered ideas of how a child should dress, act, play, and be.
As they went through the pregnancy, the mother, who was hesitant at first, slowly warmed to the idea of raising a genderless baby, or at the least, letting the baby “decide.” “How could she say whether the fetus growing inside her was a boy or a girl (or neither or both)? It was clear to her that sex (which is medically assigned) and gender (which is how someone identifies) were two different things,“ Morris wrote
Herein lies the rub: Sex is not assigned, like a name. Sex is observed. Genitalia is innate. With the exception of intersex people, who are born with “reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male,” and who make up a very small part of the population, body parts (sex), which then translate to gender (male or female) are already there.
The notion that sex is innate but gender is a societal construct is fabricated entirely by a progressive mindset that wishes to eradicate gender because their hatred for the patriarchy surpasses even science. Children don’t just express their gender because of societal constructs or pressure. This recent summary study found there were biological, sex-based origins for how children express gender. “Despite methodological variation in the choice and number of toys offered, context of testing, and age of child, the consistency in finding sex differences in children’s preferences for toys typed to their own gender indicates the strength of this phenomenon and the likelihood that has a biological origin,” the study says.
Even the child at the center of The Cut piece, who is named Zoomer and can now talk, recognizes this. “Zoomer does point to other people and say ‘Mama’ or ‘Dada.’” Instead of affirming this fact, the father will respond, “‘That person does have a beard like Dada,’ but I’m not going to say, ‘Yup, that’s a dad,’ because that would be assuming the person’s gender identity.”
Denying this biological reality, and easily observable fact, even for a toddler, seems cruel and disingenuous. The “party of science” is rejecting basic biology in favor of progressive ideas that are more harmful than they are hip.
Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She was the 2010 recipient of the American Spectator’s Young Journalist Award.
