A Swedish couple refuses to reveal whether their two-year-old child is a boy or girl, claiming that "gender" is a "social construction."

Sweden has long been known for pristine lakes and forests, long-legged blondes and ultra-safe cars, but it's now distinguishing itself in another, more dubious, way: as the nation of feminism on steroids. There was the Swedish elementary school that removed urinals from the boys' bathroom because the male practice of standing up while tending to nature's call supposedly constitutes "triumphing in masculinity" and is "degrading to women" (you just can't make this stuff up). There were the Swedish parliamentarians who proposed the "Man Tax," which men would have to pony up to cover the social cost of violence against women (I'm tellin' ya', you can't make this up). Of course, there was no mention whether men would receive a tax rebate for male-developed scientific and medical advances that enabled female life expectancy to surpass that of men. Nor was there a counter-proposal for a stupidity tax.

In light of the above, it didn't surprise me to hear the story of "Pop." No, Pop isn't a sparkling beverage, graying patriarch or Rice Krispies elf. Pop is a two-and-half-year-old Swedish child — a Swedish child with two very strange Swedish parents. Or, to be precise, two very strange parents. I cannot say if they're strange for Swedes.

They haven't earned this characterization by naming their child "Pop," a trespass which itself would be bad enough. In fact, Pop either isn't the child's real name or is, at most, a provisional one. So what have these parents done? They've decided to hide the sex of their child, in deference to the worn-out feminist theory of "gender neutrality." TheLocal.se reports on the parents' philosophy, writing: 

"We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset," Pop’s mother said. "It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead."

The child's parents said so long as they keep Pop’s gender a secret, he or she will be able to avoid preconceived notions of how people should be treated if male or female.

What about avoiding preconceived notions of how a person should treated if he's a freak?

Oh, okay, I forgot for a second. This is Sweden.

TheLocal.se then tells us, "Pop's wardrobe includes everything from dresses to trousers and Pop's hairstyle changes on a regular basis. And Pop usually decides how Pop is going to dress on a given morning." 

And Sweden, which gave us the world's first anti-spanking law, thinks corporal punishment is child abuse?

It's hard to know where to start with such a story. Part of me just wants to say "Beam me up, Scotty." Another part wants to root for the Muslims who, confronted with only feminized un-Vikings, are treating Sweden like their own private smorgasbord. But while Pop's story could be treated solely with well-deserved mockery, a more sober part of me will prevail, as there are serious issues here.

First, let's understand that, in a way, Pop's parents are correct about "gender" being negotiable. That is to say, if you believe in the concept of gender, they are correct. Understand that "gender" is not synonymous with "sex," although people have started to use the terms interchangeably. While "sex" is a biological reality, is what you are, the social sciences define "gender" as what you perceive yourself to be. It's the leftist idea that self-image is reality.

This image can encompass a wide range of "perceptions." For example, in the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing, it was said that a family could comprise as many as five different genders: male heterosexual, female heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian and bisexual. And since then other categories have been popularized, such as "transgender."

Now, if you don't like this sort of social engineering, do what I do. Don't refer to people using the term gender. Reserve it for words, as dear old grandpa did.

Next, let's talk about Swedish gender equality consultant (wow, there's a job we need more of) Kristina Henkel, who supports Pop's parents. According to TheLocal.se, she believes that "a child's sex can deeply affect how they are treated growing up, and distract them from simply being a human being."  

Henkel seems like someone who is educated beyond her intelligence. If we would worry that acknowledging a child's sex can distract him from just being a human being, should we consider that acknowledging he's human might distract him from just being a being? Make no mistake, the latter is no sillier than the former. After all, from a secular perspective, both sex and humanness are determined by genes; from a Christian one, they're both determined by God ("Male and female" He made them). So, if we should ignore the innate quality of sex, why not ignore that of species? Maybe Pop can more easily spread his wings when viewing himself as an eagle.

Of course, virtually everyone scoffs at Pop's parents' lunacy. Yet we should understand that we just may occupy a glass house. After all, the very gender-neutrality theory that they're applying in earnest permeates our civilization to the core.

Sure, most don't think about it, but many of our social norms were instituted based on the now-discredited idea that sex differences are only skin deep. Specifically, we long ago accepted the notion that sex roles are artificial, and that, when we nudge children toward them by treating boys and girls differently, we hurt them by putting them in a behavioral straightjacket.

Thus did we start encouraging girls to do masculine things and, to a lesser extent, boys to do feminine ones. We encourage girls to play sports like boys, cultivate career ambitions like boys and be "assertive." We have affirmative action and quotas designed to grease the skids for their entry into the workaday world, and we've conjured up pride-stoking phrases such as "You go, girl!" and "Girl power!" As for boys, we started listening to people such as William Pollack explain male violence (e.g., Columbine) by saying that we had to start "rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood" without even noticing that, when the "myths" were stronger, males were less violent. And girls were a lot less violent.

Of course, our modern paradigm for the sexes would perhaps be a good idea; that is, if gender-neutrality theory were valid. The problem is that science has now proven that there are innate behavioral differences between the sexes. Thus, we now know that boys and girls don't act differently only because we treat them differently; in fact, it's more logical to say that we treat them differently because they act differently.

This brings us to another theory, one so radical, so unfashionable, so inconceivable to the modern mind that, well, it just may be true. Maybe sex stereotyping isn't, as Pollack would say, a sex straightjacket — maybe it's sex guide rails. Perhaps we started applying those blue and pink stamps because we observed that the sexes have different characteristic virtues, different strengths. Maybe, just perhaps, we realized that sex-specific treatment allowed us to cultivate each sex' respective strengths, in just the way that sport-specific training turns a woman with talent for ballet into a great ballerina and a man with impressive natural strength into a great power lifter. Without the different treatment, all you have is unrealized potential. And without coming to flower as what you were meant to be — as a human being known as a man or human being known as a woman — happiness will be elusive.

What also is elusive is truth — especially when one is blinded by dogma. Our default assumption today is that the Pollacks of the world and last 50 years of psycho-babble are right: tradition's prescriptions are wrong. But outside the box of time and place lies that other possibility: the tradition of the ages is right, and today's parenting is hurting boys and girls.

As for me, I know where I come down. I'll take the pink and blue over gray — or the rainbow — any day.
 

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	Every day I wonder - - - - - - just what kind of new stupidity is going to be exposed. This has to be a number 10 on a scale of 1 to 5. If this isn't satanic confusion, then I guess I don't know what is. As far as a stupidity tax is concerned, I'm sure the nations of the world could retire their debts in a matter of months.
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 22, 2009
Votes: +1

SCHNORCHEL said:

UN Mandate on Gender Mainstreaming According to http://europeandcis.undp.org/g...990E8B4B9, there is a book published: Gender Mainstreaming in Practice: A Toolkit (2007, 3rd edition) The integration of a gender perspective into programming and policy-making – Gender Mainstreaming – has become a key priority of UNDP [United Nations Development Programme]. Towards this end, 'Gender Mainstreaming in Practice: A Toolkit' integrates a gender perspective into the analysis of work, home, and public life in order to improve policy-making and programming. This publication reflects the work of more than a hundred specialists, who have contributed their expertise to this collection of practical tools and guidelines, examples and illustrations. The toolkit targets public policy and development practitioners with varying levels of experience in this area; it also serves as a useful resource for NGOs and advocacy groups, students, project staff, gender specialists, and consultants. Available in English and Russian. Selwyn Duke has omitted the underlying driver of this evil: UNDP. He is only dealing with the symptoms. It is also interesting to note that the late Michael Jackson epitomized Gender mainstreaming as a role model: Neither Man, nor woman, and neither Adult nor Child.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 22, 2009
Votes: +5