Even taking a generous view of the situation, it is clear that the US is deeply politically polarized when it comes to ideas about gender traits, which includes interpretations of gender identity.
The Democratic Party, which includes many older women, openly supports expressions of sexual deviance.
Hillary Clinton’s name springs readily to mind, but even Chelsea Clinton, the director of the Clinton Foundation, recently announced that she is considering a foray into national politics.
That party also includes Maxine Waters, who turned 80 on Aug. 15 — she was elected to the US House of Representatives from California’s 43rd congressional district in January 2013 and is the former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Probably not too many people remember how she sang the praises of the mob who came close to beating truck driver Reginald Denny to death during the 1992 riots in Los Angeles (in the end, 50 people were killed and the damages from the buildings that were burned totaled $1 billion).
Recently she claimed that Donald Trump had “isolated the United States from our allies and played right into the hands of two of our most dangerous enemies, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
Another Democrat is a slightly younger lady — 78-year-old Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, a Democrat from California’s 12th congressional district. She has a personal net worth of about $100 million, is an enthusiastic supporter of abortion rights and the LGBT community, and has managed to ensnare herself in several major political scandals over the course of her career (for example, over her excessive use of government aircraft at taxpayer expense).
But out of the ranks of the Democratic Party another new face of American political feminism has emerged — the charismatic 28-year-old Latina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who in the June primaries defeated Joe Crowley, the incumbent Democrat who was weighed down by heavy political baggage. In the US she is seen as even more left-wing than Bernie Sanders, who mused aloud about socialism during the last presidential election (but voted for Hillary Clinton). Ocasio-Cortez calls herself a Democratic Socialist and is popular with the American electorate. She is backed by a group known as the Democratic Socialists of America and, interestingly, like Trump she is an outsider who created an election campaign based on her own catchphrase. The last Democratic Socialist to be elected to Congress was Republican Ron Dellums, who served there from 1971 to 1998. Now after 20 years, this “vacuum” will once again be filled.
It will be interesting to see how she positions herself in regard to traditional family values, which are clearly in need of government attention. For example, the United States has the highest maternal morbidity rate in the developed world. Every year 700 to 900 women in the US die during their pregnancies, while giving birth, or shortly thereafter, and 65,000 come close to death due to the inexperience of the medical staff, physician errors, or the financial problems of their health-care institutions. This is partly tied to the larger strategy guiding the US medical system, which focuses more on the safety and protection of the child than on the health and well-being of the mother.
In the US it is abortion rather than medicine that is currently so politicized. The “pro-life” movement is opposed by the “pro-choice” faction. The first group wants to ban abortions (at least by prohibiting government funding for abortion in the US), while the second is trying to make the case that it is a human right to be allowed to make one’s own decision about whether to give birth to a baby or to kill it in the womb. Each state has its own specific rules and limitations. State-level prohibitions on abortion are perceived as a victory for the pro-life wing and immediately branded as manifestations of undemocratic tyranny by pro-choice supporters. It is telling that the Democratic base consists of pro-choice voters, who also enthusiastically support gay pride parades and illegal immigration. Meanwhile the right-leaning populace of the US troll the advocates for unconventional sexual orientations with claims that they are promoting pedophilia.
In this regard, one pro-life group even released a statement calling for more support for politicians who advocate for traditional family values, in particular — the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, whom the liberals are not exactly crazy about, to put it mildly.
But, looking at this objectively, what would result from the active support of abortion and sexual deviance, including changing one’s gender (incidentally, one gubernatorial candidate in Vermont is a transgender!)?
Liberalism as a political philosophy demands liberation from all variety of constraints, whatever those might be. Thus, beginning in the Enlightenment, many countries began to free themselves from the church, state institutions, social paradigms, and historical traditions. John Stuart Mill described this as negative liberty, as opposed to positive freedom. But even he could not define freedom itself.
Americans have also been quite good at discarding ethnic distinctions (at least in political discourse) and underscoring their freedom from religion, despite the fact that their own Founding Fathers were Christians — as exemplified by the new monument to Baphomet.
And today the issue of gender has risen to the top of the agenda. Obviously that’s something that needs to be jettisoned, because — as Donna Haraway, the author of “A Cyborg Manifesto” has pointed out — gender is discrimination. Gender must be eliminated in order to eradicate discrimination.
But what happens after a person is taught to change his or her gender, or at least to pretend that he or she does not possess the physical form and identity bestowed by nature and God (and hence the many odd terms that have been introduced to distinguish deviants or to create euphemisms for the sex organs)? In time, human beings themselves will top that agenda. After all, if one holds consistently liberal positions, one would then need to be liberated from one’s very human-ness itself, regardless of the fact that that is intrinsic to the meaning of life and the intent of history.