If you’re a regular guy or gal and fancy yourself normal, think again. Because since you’re not a hermaphrodite, you just may be an “extreme” manifestation “of the sex spectrum.”
That is, according to the University of Texas Southwestern (UTS) Medical Center.
This is essentially what it’s teaching students via its Human Structure curriculum, which, reports Fox News, defines “anatomical sex as the physical structure including chromosomes, genes, and products ‘as the most frequent anatomical variants traditionally termed male and female.’”
The curriculum authors add, “We are aware that there are anatomical variants that do not correspond to either of these so-called ‘typical male’ or ‘typical female’ anatomical variants of sex.” (“So-called”?)
“A video on the Human Structure Development of the Urogenital System shows the speaker refers [sic] to the ‘typical male’ and ‘typical female’ sex organs as the ‘two extreme manifestations of the sex spectrum,’” Fox continues.
Talk about turning reality on its head. As even medical entities such as WebMD acknowledge, the other “manifestations” are not extra “sexes,” but are abnormalities that afflict one sex or the other.
Ironically, though, and as is common with people trying to maintain a lie, the UTS is contradictory. As Fox further informs, the curriculum
also introduces that students will learn in more depth about intersex individuals and the continuum of the sex spectrum.
“As for other disorders and birth defects, disorders of sex differentiation should be briefly mentioned here. This is a whole complex of disorders in which the composition of sex chromosomes, internal genitalia, and external genitalia does not match or is ambiguous.”
“These disorders can have various causes. For example, legions of the SRY gene or loss of the entire Y chromosome. But also, hormonal defects.”
If at issue are “disorders” and “defects” — as the UTS admits — why does it then label these abnormalities as being part of a “sex spectrum,” which implies normal variation?
After all, there are babies born with no arms and no legs. Does this mean that one of each could be a happy medium and that people with two arms and two legs are “extreme manifestations” of the limb spectrum?
The rule here is simple: Using abnormality’s reality to redefine normality is insanity.
But one commenter at MSN.com, which posted the Fox article, can perhaps explain the contradiction. “They are playing with the language as a way of changing how people think,” writes poster Barry Kukulka.
Speaking of which brings us to what the Fox piece opens with, which is that UTS also “teaches med students that ‘gender is independent of physical structure, chromosomes, or genes.’” In the curriculum, the authors “explicitly acknowledge the differentiation between the terms sex and gender,” Fox relates.
“The latter is a psychological, social, and cultural construct, including self-identification,” the curriculum reads. “Gender is independent of physical structure, chromosomes, or genes.”
It’s common for people to roll their eyes at such claims, and it is an example of language manipulation — but not of the kind most may think.
The real issue is not that there are social engineers trying to convince us “gender” is not synonymous with “sex.”
It’s that social engineers long ago convinced English speakers to apply the term gender to people in the first place.
My 1975 American Heritage School Dictionary defines gender thus: “In grammar, one of a number of categories, such as masculine, feminine, and neuter, into which words are divided.” It says nothing about people. This is for good reason, too: Up until relatively recently, the term was rarely if ever used to reference people — only words. Why do you think we once called “transgenderism” “transsexualism” (though neither term describes a legitimate movement)?
The Left co-opted “gender” and applied it to people to, as the above commenter put it, play “with the language as a way of changing how people think.” So how should we respond?
Well, if social engineers embraced and encouraged their misuse of “gender” to pave the way for “gender ideology,” what’s the first step toward erasing “gender ideology”?
If you guessed, “Erase the social engineers’ misuse of ‘gender,’” go to the head of the class.
Just refuse to use the word — unless you’re talking about words.
This is why I don’t accept the term “transgender,” either, but instead use MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status). Just as how French people vying for cultural primacy with Germans in a geographical area couldn’t prevail if they all agreed to speak German, conservatives can’t hope to win their culture war if they use the other side’s language.
We’ll sometimes hear talk of how patriots must develop a parallel culture and economy; and parallel schools, businesses, social media, and entertainment. But perhaps this all starts with using parallel language.
After all, how can we expect things to go right if our tongues tilt left?
