Liberals, You Can’t Pretend to Be ‘Pro-Science’ While You Claim That Men Can Have Babies


Matt Walsh:

Sometimes I like to fantasize that I live in a sane country filled with mentally stable people. It’s a nice thing to imagine, but I can never indulge the fantasy for very long. Reality has a tendency to intrude. Just recently I was awoken from such a daydream when I read that Bradley Manning, who is serving a 35-year prison sentence for espionage, will receive taxpayer-funded “gender reassignment surgery.”

To put it plainly, Manning will be castrated so that he can more fully live out the delusion that he’s a woman named Chelsea. Liberals have celebrated the news, declaring that it’s “medically necessary” to mutilate Manning’s genitals because he’s “really a woman inside,” and no woman should be forced to keep the penis that was assigned to her at birth without her consent.

Of course, this news comes only days after Brown University announced it will be putting tampons in the men’s room because, according to the Ivy League school, “not all the people who menstruate are women.”

And that move was made public around the same time that the NCAA decided to pull its championship games out of North Carolina to punish the state for not allowing cross-dressing men to pee in the ladies’ room.

And that news came to us a couple of days after Time published an article titled, “My Brother’s Pregnancy,” which tells the inspiring story of a woman who “became a man” and then decided that “he” still wanted to have a baby. Key passage:

But what if you are born into a female body, know you are a man and still want to participate in the traditionally exclusive rite of womanhood? What kind of man are you then?

Another way of phrasing that: What if you are born a woman, know you are a man, but want to remain a woman after you become a man? What then?

(Answer: intense psychotherapy.)

And all of this happened a few days before the leftist media threw a collective hissy fit because Donald Trump’s proposed maternity leave policy doesn’t include men. This “controversy” led to one of the more bizarre Twitter interactions I’ve ever seen:

Liberals used to whip out their trusty “This isn’t Mad Men” line when shaming conservatives for not demonstrating an appropriate amount of enthusiasm for the feminist agenda. Now they’re using it to mock us for suggesting that men can’t give birth.

They now treat biological facts with utter contempt and hatred, deriding anyone who so much as acknowledges them. It’s only a matter of time before anatomy textbooks are being burned in bonfires and those caught reading them are forced to publicly renounce their heretical belief in the female uterus.

And I suspect that even as liberals are barbecuing science books and dancing around the flames chanting LGBT slogans, they’ll still accuse conservatives of being the “anti-science” ones. “Stop hating science! OK, the fire’s ready. Pass me that science book.”

The funny thing is, I used to think the term “anti-science” was ridiculous. Nobody is literally anti-science, I thought. Some people might be wrong about science, or ignorant of it, or they may disagree about conclusions or methods or whatever, but nobody is actually against science in principle. Science is science, I would say to myself. You can’t be for or against it. It just is. That’s the whole point of science: to figure out what is. Even if you’re wrong about what is, you aren’t anti-science.

In a similar way, I thought, a person isn’t “anti-math” because they think 2 + 2 = 5. They’re wrong about math, but they aren’t against math. They’d be anti-math if they insisted that we shouldn’t try to ascertain the sum of 2 + 2, or if they claimed arithmetic is witchcraft and those who practice it should be scourged and beheaded.

You’re only “anti” something if you are opposed to it in general. So you’re only anti-science if you wish to censor or abolish or punish or discredit an entire field of legitimate scientific inquiry. But who is actually trying to do that nowadays, in this enlightened and modern country of ours?

Leftists often level this charge at conservatives because we believe in God and don’t believe in man-made global warming, but they’re being ridiculous, clearly. We aren’t telling anyone not to study the climate or evolution or whatever else — we’re just giving our view about what you’ll find if you do study those subjects. Even if we’re wrong (we’re not), we aren’t against science. We haven’t denied science or attempted to punish or interfere with it. Nobody is doing that, I used to think.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Sex Change operations should be banned

The scientific method is inherently conservative.
It is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
It is peer reviewable in that it’s conclusions can be replicated by ANY other scientist around the globe.

In 1993 the late Michael Crichton took on those liberals who were throwing out peer review in favor of ”consensus science,” in his Cal Tech lecture, “Aliens Cause Global Warming.”

The move away from science by Liberals was already well afoot by that time.
Now they are in bat-$#!+ crazy land.
They literally don’t know how to differentiate between observable reality and utter nonsense.

Liberals have an agenda that has many facts impeding its spread. The facts are routinely denounced in order to provide precedence of liberalism over the facts. It doesn’t matter if it is a fact of tradition, fact of history or fact of proven science; if it contradicts the liberal mantra, liberals have no hesitation to denounce a proven fact.

Want to have fun with a leftist?

Ask them if they believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution.

When they say, “Yes, of course,” smile and sweetly ask them to explain how homosexuality and transgenderism fit within evolutionary theory.

Try not to laugh too loudly as they sputter…..