There are 72 gender identities. This emerging classification indicates that we are not completely beholden to the conventional two-sex ( binary ) designation. It means none of us is 100% male ( XY ) or female (XX ). One day, a blood test will determine our individual male-female ratio, a tantalizing medical breakthrough of all time!
PART II
The Black Lives Matter ( BLM) movement began when a 17-year-old black teen, Trayvon Martin, was killed in 2012, followed by Michael Brown, Eric Garner and REika Boyd, among others.
The protests of all these racially motivated deaths prompted a quiet man’s dissent when Colin Kaepernick took to kneeling ( on one knee instead of standing during the national anthem before a football game ) on September 1, 2016, to protest racial violence and police brutality before the 49ers’ final preseason game.
The death of George Floyd, a Black man, in May 2020, pinned to the ground by his neck by Minneapolis police officer Derick Chauvin, touched a wave of protest in all 50 states and beyond. Kaepernick’s “Taking the Knee” has taken a new meaning since
Floyd’s death by Chauvin’s knee. It has become a universal means of racial protest and police brutality.
THE GROWTH OF “WOKEISM”
Although “woke” had been around for decades, the recent well-publicized racial violence put the term in the mainstream. It is defined as being socially aware of racial injustices and prejudices. It has evolved to include the treatment of ethnic, racial or sexual minorities. The culture of wokeism has now permeated every institution in America. Schools, Businesses and even the military have now taken an active interest in being “woke.”
Like many social movements, different groups took to different meanings of the new social construct. Politicians consider the liberal left ( democrats ) as “woke.” The term (it was initially black slang for being “awake” or being aware of the racial biases against them ) has taken a negative tone in Republican circles. Florida has even created a so-called Stop Woke ( Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees ) Act.
How did this seemingly constructive cultural concoction end up as a nullifying virtue? In a word, “politics” ( more specifically, U.S. politics )Being “woke” implied being well-informed on discrimination and prejudice against black Americans. It is still that, except that it has also become a watchword for many contentious issues on immigration, feminism and LGBTQ controversies.
So, the left and right took to “wokeism” to bolster their policies on these cultural issues. Inclusion and equality goals have become toxic when supporters overextend their perceived mandate. There are recent examples in Canada of how these public debates ended with actions by the left that left the right-wingers in a very sour mood. Toppling the statue of John MacDonald ( Montreal 2020 ), Canada’s first prime minister, because of his role inimplementing racist policies toward indigenous people.
The same protest with Queen Victoria’s and Queen Elizabeth’s statues ( Manitoba 2021 ) because of their roles in establishing residential schools in Canada and subsequent deaths of indigenous children within this system.
While these actions may have appeased the indigenous community, it leaves many in the Canadian population firmly on the other side of these protests.There is a current movement to rename the iconic Dundas Street ( a major east-west corridor in Toronto ) because of Henry Dundas’s role in prolonging the transatlantic slave trade. Three former mayors of Toronto wrote a dissenting argument against renaming.
A large segment of the Torontonians took a less supportive stance when the 9 M cost became public. Political correctness has taken a back seat against the price tag.
So, while the term “woke” has not caught up with the Canadian lexicon, many serious crusades have become divisive. The trend has labelled a large segment of the community as indifferent and without any social awareness and sensitivity to majorcultural concerns, being “asleep at the wheel” and having no business in the change process.
TRANS RIGHTS AND GENDER IDENTITY.
In article five, “Biology and the Bible” ( 2016 ), I envisioned an evolutionary outcome that could result in “multigenderdness.” I was not clear as to what context this could be possible. But one can never invalidate the possibility that humans would be capable of procreating beyond a binary sex.
that can alter human physiology so that new body plans may arise that may include unique genders. It could be a theoretical conversation of the future:*
Q. “She had three children, right?”
A. . “Yes”
Q. “How many were boys?”
A. . “None”
Q. “Were there any girls?”
When I wrote that piece in 2016, I was not deliberating any genders outside the physio-anatomical masculine/feminine convention we know today. The psycho-social construct of gender identity never was at play seven years ago. I was utterly taken aback when I found out that there are seventy-two (72 ) gender identities!
From “Agender “(A person who does not identify themselves with or experience any gender. Also called genderless or gender void) to “Omnigender” ( Having or experiencing all genders ). There are also “genderfluid”, “genderflux” or “Blurgender”. This emerging classification indicates we are not completely beholden to the conventional two-sex (binary ) designation. When I wrote “multigederdness” in 2016 ( even half facetiously), I was, in fact, ahead of my time!
For those of us who have been caught flatfooted on this issue of gender and preferred pronouns, fear not: if you are a typical “boomer,” you are, like me, the generation of “boy, girl,” “man, woman,” “he, she” period! It did not matter whether you were gay; you were either one of the two sexes, the one you were assigned to at birth.
The term “trans” ( as in Transgender ) is a modern articulation of gender expression. As a result of all these redefinitions and interpretations of sexuality, there is an inevitable clash between the traditionalist (parents/institutions) and the new generation (Gen Z ) of young people.
POLICY 713 IN NEW BRUNSWICK AND SASKATCHEWAN
The clash between parents ( governments) and schools’ ( students) more liberal attitudes on allowing students to dictate their preferred names and pronouns is at the heart of this cultural war. Intentional refusal to use someone’s correct pronouns could be construed as harassment and a violation of one’s civil rights. ( Gendered pronouns include she and he, her and him, hers and his, and herself and himself. )
Both N.B. and Saskatchewan now require students below 16 to have parental consent before the students’ preferred names and pronouns are adopted. Teachers need students’ permission before telling their parents about any changes in name and pronoun. It is intended to protect LGBTQ students who could face abusive situations at home. ( the high rate of homelessness in this group results from being kicked out of the house if parents find out. There is also a high rate of suicide with this group as a result of being forced out in the open ) With so much at stake, many students in this situation are keeping firmly in the closet.
What sets Saskatchewan apart from N.B.’s policy 713 is the threatened use of the “Notwithstanding Clause “to force the pronoun policy into law ( Bill 137, Parents Bill of Rights ) before the courts determine whether the action is constitutional. The Bill passed as of this writing to the chagrin of “trans” members, who took to the streets in protest.
ABORTION, THE PRIMEVAL CULTURE WAR.
While religion and race are the kings of cultural conflicts, abortion has been at the forefront of bitter wars between the pro-life and the pro-choice movement. It has been more than these two opposing groups. Many opposing subgroups have emerged, significantly more pronounced since the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade. ( it was a federally mandated decision that gave women in the U.S. a constitutional right to abortion.)
At least 25 States only favour reinstating it with a defining rationale. The Pro-Choice has been a substantial majority ( 55% ) vs. the Pro-life (44% ). In every category, the Pro-Choice forces show a considerable majority. The young, the college-educated, the higher income and especially the democrats (84% vs. 8% Republicans) show an overwhelming Pro-choice majority.
But now subgroups of opposing camps are warring. What are the restrictions? There have always been opposing camps for rape, incest or the mother’s life. Even the Republicans are unsettled about early or late abortion.
Religious die-hards parrot the traditional posture of “life at the moment of fertilization,” i.e. no abortion from conception. For that matter, no abortion for rape, incest and in some ultra-conservative positions, 8% say it should be illegal in all circumstances ( meaning: no abortion even if the life of the mother is on the line.)
In Canada, 56% are entirely pro-choice, 8% are completely pro-life, and in between is 41%. All political parties have adopted Pro-choice. Harper’s Pro-life conservatives have now supported the Pro-choice movement. Defending his Catholic faith, Justin Trudeau declared his Pro-life stance in 2011. In 2019, he stated: “I expressed something I no longer believe.” i.e. being anti-abortion personally but Pro-choice on behalf of women was a clear political “fence-sitting.”
ABORTION, THE PRIMEVAL CULTURE WAR.
While religion and race are the kings of cultural conflicts, abortion has been at the forefront of bitter wars between the pro-life and the pro-choice movement. It has been more than these two opposing groups.
Many opposing subgroups have emerged, significantly more pronounced since the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade. ( it was a federally mandated decision that gave women in the U.S. a constitutional right to abortion.)
At least 25 States only favour reinstating it with a defining rationale. The Pro-Choice has been a substantial majority ( 55% ) vs. the Pro-life (44% ).
In every category, the Pro-Choice forces show a considerable majority. The young, the college-educated, the higher income and especially the democrats (84% vs. 28% Republicans ) show an overwhelming Pro-choice majority. But now subgroups of opposing camps are warring. What are the restrictions? There have always been opposing camps for rape, incest or the mother’s life. Even the Republicans are unsettled about early or late abortion.
Religious die-hards parrot the traditional posture of “life at the moment of fertilization,” i.e. no abortion from conception. For that matter, no abortion for rape, incest and in some ultra-conservative positions, 8% say it should be illegal in all circumstances ( meaning: no abortion even if the life of the mother is on the line.)
Making the pro-choice declaration was an admission that he could not be on both sides of the issue. The once religious influence of the Christian church on abortion, as in many old issues, has now been replaced by a more sober reflection of the unwritten doctrine of “absoluteness.” The Catholic population of Italy is at 79%. Pro-choice, allowing abortion in all cases and with some restrictions, is at 70%. The predominantly Catholic Northern Ireland, staunchly anti-abortion, legalized it in 2020 ( up to 12 weeks ). The Republic of Ireland, also a bastion of pro-life, legalized abortion in 2019.
There has been a backlash against the pro-life forces where laws were passed in a blind attempt to prevent abortion at all costs. Case in point: Brazil, a highly Catholic country, passed a law that excommunicates the mother and imprisonment of 1 to 3 years for aborting outside of the permissible protocols.; the doctor performing it gets 1 to 4 years.
Only recently, “Zika” babies ( born brainless) became a legal reason for an abortion: too late for thousands of mothers who carried on with the pregnancy out of the church’s threat of excommunication. Anybody who thinks this is not senseless and cruel should adopt and raise a Zika baby.
What does the future hold? Are culture wars here to stay, or can we hope for better social cohesion? My sense is in the opposite direction; there is a newfound awareness of individual potential to shape the entrenched culture. ( witness how one U.S. congressman got the others to boot the house speaker.) Feminism is no longer just another social construct; bereft of the symbolism of old, they demand and expect equality and inclusion.
There is no better example of “Social Darwinism” than the LGBTQ + movement. A few years ago, they were no more than the annual “Pride” day. Today, they can move governments to invoke the “Notwithstanding Clause.” If you think this is not the last gasp of a crowd holding on to a doomed, vanishing culture, you need to pay more attention or be more sympathetic to the controversy.* This exchange actually happened in a courtroom between the prosecutor and defendant. ( sourced from a “bathroom” reader )*****
