A judge has ruled that a five year old Oakville boy should be permitted to pick a gender that is at odds with his chromosomes. His parents are separated and his mother claims that the boy, to use a phrase I have come to loathe, self-identifies as a girl; the father disagrees.

The case has come before the courts and the judge has ruled that “the boy should be dressed as he wishes and not unilaterally pushed toward either a male or a female identity.” The case bears a passing resemblance to a much earlier one where Solomon ruled that a disputed child should be divided in half and each half given to the two women claiming to be his mother. Justice Sheilagh O’Connell, not having the wisdom of Solomon, did not rule that the top half of the child be dressed as a boy and the bottom half as a girl. It would probably have done little to shake the mother’s conviction that the objective reality of her son’s sex should not be a determining factor in his upbringing.

I was a guest at a wedding yesterday and had been asked by the bride’s father to take some candid photos of the event. When the time came to take a photo of all the men, I was preoccupied with photos of my own, so I missed being in the official men’s photo. A woman asked me why I wasn’t in it. The conversation went something like this:

Woman: Why aren’t you in the photo?
Me (deciding to have a little fun): Because I self-identify as a woman.
Woman (not in the least nonplussed): Well why weren’t you in the women’s photo, then?
Me: They wouldn’t let me.
Woman: That’s terrible.

The laughable thing about that is not only was I taken seriously, but the part that shocked the woman was that I, a not particularly effeminate man (I just verified that with my wife) – other than the long nails on my right hand used for guitar playing, an embellishment balanced by the chewed nails on my left hand – was not allowed to pretend to be a woman.

The next wedding I attend, I will be self-identifying as a poached egg to see how that works out.

The parents of the boy couldn’t understand the prohibition since girls attending the school use the same makeup.

I’m sure the fact that the boy’s parents are both women has no bearing whatsoever on his decision to wear makeup. None at all.

From here:

The parents of a Tampa Bay student have started an online petition asking for improved tolerance training after their son was castigated for wearing makeup on the last day of school.

The Tampa Bay Times reports Chris Martin decided to wear black eyeliner, eye shadow and lipstick on the last day of eighth grade at Meadowlawn Middle School in St. Petersburg.

Administrators told the 14-year-old boy he was violating the dress code.

You could never get away with that today.

In Sweden you can’t even depict boys holding toy guns and girls dressed up as princesses; it is gender discrimination.

From here:

Sweden’s largest toy chain has been forced to become ‘gender neutral’ by picturing boys holding baby dolls and girls brandishing toy guns in the pages of its Christmas catalogue.

Top Toy – which holds the franchise for Toys R Us – made the move after being reprimanded by the country’s advertising watchdog for ‘gender discrimination’ in a previous catalogue, which featured boys dressed as superheroes and girls playing princess.

All you need is a note from your psychologist – and most of them are daft enough to give you one – and, hey presto, your sex changes.

There is no mention of a limit on how many times you can switch, so gender could become a fashion accessory to be adjusted as whim dictates.

From here:

Transgender people in Ontario can now amend their gender on their birth certificates without first having to undergo gender confirmation surgery.

Ontario is the first province in Canada to scrap the requirement, a move that has been hailed as an important victory for the transgender community.

New rules that have now come into force allow transgender people born in the Canadian province to apply to have their documents amended by submitting a letter from a doctor or a psychologist.

From here:

A lesbian couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy who wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty — so that he can have more time that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender.

[….]

Thomas began saying he was a girl when he was 3 years old, his parents said in an interview with the Daily Mail. He was learning sign language due to a speech impediment, and one of the first things he told his mothers was, “I am a girl.” They say they thought he was confused or mistaken, and signed back, ‘No. No. Thomas is a boy.”

But Thomas insisted, they said. He shook his head “no” and repeated what he had signed.
They said Thomas threatened to mutilate his genitals when he was 7, and psychiatrists diagnosed a gender identity disorder.

One year later, he began transitioning to Tammy.

It can’t be a coincidence that a child brought up in an atmosphere of gender malleability has decided, at an age when most children are barely aware of what sexuality is, that he wants to change his sex.

The lesbians have made a creature in their own image; even if it was inadvertent, an act of consummate selfishness.

What better recommendation for not allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.

Or, to put it in Newspeak “old-fashion gender roles”.

From here:

Young Canadians are carrying around some gender stereotypes that seem more in line with what their parents or grandparents might have thought, a new global study suggests.

The report, released Thursday by the development agency Plan International, found 31 per cent of Canadian boys aged 12 to 17 believe a woman’s most important role is feeding her family and taking care of the home.

That compared to 15 per cent of boys in the United Kingdom, but well short of 73 per cent in India and 68 per cent in Rwanda, who answered the same way.

When the question was asked of Canadian adults, 24 per cent agreed that a woman’s primary role should be in the home.

Almost half — 48 per cent — of the Canadian adolescents polled said men should be responsible for earning an income and providing for their families. Among Canadian adults, 43 per cent felt the same way.

[….]

Joan Simalchik, a professor of gender studies at the University of Toronto, also expressed surprise over the results.

“That’s not what we see at universities, and it’s not quite what we see in the real world,” she said of the idea that so many young Canadians are holding out-of-date views on the sexes.

Obviously, the prodigious efforts that schools make at indoctrinating their charges out of “out-of-date views on the sexes” isn’t working too well.

Sometimes I love a backlash.