Last week this website reported that ‘men’ are now giving ‘birth’ according to Medicare.
The story was picked up by the media. Firstly by the Sunday Telegraph’s Samantha Maiden, who had the courtesy to reference this webpage. And then it was ripped off by the Daily Mail, which managed to give the very careful impression that it was not plagiarising Samantha Maiden’s entire article by adding in a flourish at the start and leaving out any mention of this website.
Given the journalistic expertise on display, it is no surprise that the Daily Mail’s story began with these nonsensical words:
“Pregnancy is something which is traditionally only applicable to women, however new statistics reveal it may be becoming more prevalent among males.”
Oh dear. Where to start?
Pregnancy is not ‘traditionally’ applicable to women. It is always and only applicable to women. Period.
This is not something that can be changed. Not by wishing, not by whim and fancy and not by statistics. Any statistics that suggest men are going into labour are about as useful as a bull with the proverbials.
And yet we now have a Commonwealth agency with a dedicated data collection team focused on recording details of pregnant men. And if Medicare has a team of people pretending that men are women are men are whatever, then every other Commonwealth agency probably does as well. Fix that little problem and the ‘bigger’ issues that ‘conservative’ governments like to solve, like budgetary woes, will probably start to disappear altogether.
I thought ‘news stories’ were supposed to report ‘facts’. And, given it is a fact that men cannot get pregnant, the only fact that needs to be reported is that Medicare and a bunch of confused women are colluding to tell lies at taxpayers’ expense.
The other fact of importance is that previously women with beards were a bizarre sideshow at the $2 circus. And if one of these ladies did try to claim that she was a man, some social worker with a doctorate in basket-weaving would write a dissertation about the importance of breastfeeding babies for their long term mental health.
Ooops. I got that last bit wrong. Breastfeeding children is not just some hippie thing. The Australian Medical Association states that it provides benefits to infants and should be viewed as ‘the normal’ way of feeding them.
I guess it’s too bad then that the ‘mother fathers’ celebrated as the new normal are just hormone-popping women who have had their breasts removed. Don’t worry though. I presume that they feed their babies with the natural goodness of bottled milk formula from day dot. That’s ‘normal’ too these days.
However, I don’t think it’s so ‘normal’ for a pregnant woman to be told to lay off the testosterone pills during pregnancy because it causes foetal abnormalities. And I don’t think it’s great that women taking testosterone can and do fall pregnant.
But let’s not go down that path. Let’s not fret about some poor child spending nine months in the womb of woman who has been taking male hormones.
As one commenter on the Sunday Telegraph story wrote, let’s have bit more laughter and hakuna matata. After all, how does the decision by the taxpayer-funded bureaucrats at Medicare to let women pretend that they are men affect anyone else?
This is the comment left by ‘Tea’ on the Sunday Telegraph’s article on pregnant ‘men’:
Gee some people here really need to lighten up and chill.
How do these 54 births and men affect you and your daily life in the slightest?
Who cares what gender somebody identifies as and what gender box they tick? Male? Female? Trans? Other? None? Both? All?
The world is not always black or white, but many differing shades.
Learn some tolerance, better still acceptance that some people are different to you and the people around you.
If your lives are so squeaky clean and perfect, take a look at those skeletons in your closet… Might just show that you’re not so black and white yourself?!
I suppose ‘Tea’ will be all a gush with tolerance this evening, thanks to the ABC.
Hot on the high heels of pregnant men, Four Corners will tonight air a story about a young child who states that life will be miserable without the freedom to be ‘herself’. Except that this child was born a boy, is a boy and will always be male.
Campbell might think that changing his name to Isabel and wearing women’s clothing will make him female. But he will never be able to become a pregnant woman. Nor will he ever be a pregnant man, for that matter.
He will just be a confused man.
His parents are shoving him down that path. In conjunction with the national broadcaster, they are perpetuating the myth that you can be yourself by living as someone else. And the only possible way for this child to pretend that ‘he’ is a ‘she’ is if everyone else is forced to give up their freedom of thought and conscience and participate in a communal lie as well.
It goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. If you no longer have any freedom of thought or conscience, then you no longer have the freedom to be yourself. In short, Campbell’s ‘freedom’ to live as someone else is predicated entirely upon the idea that the rest of us should be forced to give up our freedom to be ourselves.
‘Tea’ should also ponder on the fact that the tolerance he proclaims is tolerance of a lie and complete intolerance of truth. Furthermore, ‘Tea’s World of Tolerance’ can only be found in a land where it is enforced with a brigade of Thought Police (funded by me and you too).
And these Thought Police are already affecting the rest of us.
Real people with real families are facing the loss of their jobs because they refuse to live in the gender-bending fairyland. Or, more precisely, they are incurring the wrath of the Thought Police because they don’t want take part in the stranger-than-fiction nightmare that is now sweeping our allegedly sane civil society.
For instance, a long-serving officer in the Australian Defence Force, with several commendations and multiple operational deployments, is currently under investigation and faces a formal censure. In effect, this officer’s career is now over and the Australian Defence Force may well terminate his commission anyway.
He referred to a man (another serving officer) as ‘he’.
And then, when ordered not to refer to this man as ‘he’, the officer asked this question:
“Given that [the other officer in question] is not female, please provide your specific order as to how I am to refer to this officer.”
The under-fire officer also made this point: he could not be forced (or ordered) to lie, but if the military was going to try and do so, it should at least put the order in writing first.
Yet even though the question has not been answered and the order has not been given, the military is taking administrative action anyway. It is now seeking to punish an officer for failing to adhere to non-existent orders and policies. That takes the Australian Defence Force’s contempt for natural justice and procedural fairness to a whole new level of crazy.
This all seems outrageous enough, even if it is in a ho-hum-we’ve-all-heard-this-transgender-stupidity-before kind of way.
But the other facts of this case highlight exactly how ‘protected’ the collective LGBT minority has become and how the rest of us mugs have no rights at all.
The ‘protected’ transgender officer has stated publicly that he is not a woman. He has also stated publicly that his birth certificate lists him as male and that he is not going to change it.
But it doesn’t end there. The ‘protected’ transgender officer also publicly attacked the reputation of the ‘unprotected’ officer. This attack was unprovoked. And it was directed specifically to the Chief of the Defence Force on a public forum. The ‘protected’ transgender officer stated that failure runs in the DNA of the ‘unprotected’ officer.
It was as a result of this public attack that the ‘unprotected’ officer wrote to his chain of command. And even though a Defence investigation into this matter found that the ‘protected’ transgender officer breached Defence policy and orders and that his public comments were unacceptable behaviour, it is the ‘unprotected’ officer who is facing serious and formal administrative sanctions.
Meanwhile, the ‘protected’ transgender officer has been promoted.
Just so you know, the ‘unprotected’ officer has never made any public comments about the ‘protected’ transgender officer. Not a single syllable. And the ‘unprotected’ officer’s military record is not one of failure, but of formally recognised achievement.
That’s just how it goes these days. Don’t question the unacceptable behaviour of the man hiding behind a skirt. Your job will be on the line if you do.
If Medicare is collecting stats on ‘mother fathers’ and if the Thought Police in the Australian Defence Force are scaring its officers more than a horde of Islamic State militants, then you’d probably be pretty safe in reckoning that no one is safe these days.
If your workplace doesn’t already do so, it will soon require you to accept that males can use female change rooms.
And if your school doesn’t already do so, it will soon require you to accept that your children will be taught to question their sexuality, just like the ‘mother fathers’ celebrated as pioneering heroes in Human Rights Month.
And if your sporting club doesn’t already do so, it will soon require you to accept that a bloke can play in the women’s team.
And if your childcare facility doesn’t already do so, it will soon require you to accept that your child can be cared for by a ‘woman’ with an Adam’s Apple, broad shoulders and bad lipstick.
And I have this question for the men, because it is their weakness and inability to say no that has led to this situation.
When the day comes and you are confronted by this, will you play along with the crazy? Will you become just one more part of the problem?
Or will you stand up and stand your ground.
Like men are supposed to.