What is it about “gender issues” that drives the media/political elites mad?  The government of Canada handed gender activists the crucial precedent they need. As the BBC reported yesterday:

An eight-month old Canadian baby has been issued a health card without a gender marker, in what could be the first case in the world.

So serious are the issues of child abuse here that I must put them aside, possibly for another time. I want to confine myself to the manner in which what has to be called fantasy has permeated the ruling class when it comes to the denial of biology.

Now, it must be kept in mind is that this is an identity card, not a birth certificate. That struggle is coming.

Parent Kori Doty - a non-binary transgender person who identifies as neither male nor female - aims to allow the child to discover their own gender.

I am 100% certain Kori Doty has either two X-chromosomes or and X and a Y. That’s a binary fact of science. The BBC, I am certain, is all in favor of science.

I was also under the impression that the BBC was meticulous about grammar. But the plural pronoun “their” is applied to the singular noun “child.” But all those rules are out the window if people like Kori Doty can use the personal pronoun “they” (see below).  Has the BBC thrown grammar out the window as part of its contribution to the gender transformation crusade?

The health card has been issued with a "U" in the space for "sex", which could be for "undetermined" or "unassigned".

Kori Doty is fighting to omit the gender from the birth certificate.

Now wait a minute! I have been endlessly lectured for a long time now that gender is a social construct, while sex is biological. That is how they made the initial arguments in favor of transgenderism.

A government document should not record a social construct. If it is to mean anything permanent with the backing of the state, it must reflect biological reality. Yet this concept is also out the window, as many governments accept two females and other alternative parentage fantasies, the non-binary male-female ones, on birth certificates.  

The parent gave birth to Searyl Atli in November at a friend's home in British Columbia. Kori Doty, who prefers to use the pronoun they, argues that a visual inspection at birth is unable to determine what gender that person will have or identify with later in life.

“The parent”? Is this yet another world first? Parthenogenesis!  Do they expect us to accept the contention that there was no other parent that is embedded in this writing?   The BBC, I am certain, is all in favor of science. Unless something has changed, children are the products of two parents.    

I have a helpful suggestion for the BBC and the rest of the global progressive culture that wants to foist a redefinition of human biology upon the rest of us. They should use what proved to be a winning strategy for the gender revolution before, and invent a new term. The terms “cisgender” and “sis-male”/”sis-female” were invented to reflect biological reality, and allow the fantasy identities to stand as equals on ever-lengthening list of possible ender identities.

Is it time to create the term “cisbirth” to recognize that you need a sperm and an egg, and it matters where they came from when a new human being is created? I guess that is now cruel, since that particular barrier already fell for adoptive parents in the name of compassion.  

Our civilization is becoming unmoored from reality at its very first official recognition of the existence of a new life.  The customs and institutions around reproduction are the bedrock of every civilization in history, and when they falter, guess what happens?