On September 27th, The New York Times published an article, entitled “Male, Female or ‘X’: The Push for a Third Choice on Official Forms.” The subject of the article is that the new sexual revolution has prompted some governmental entities to add a third option, ‘X,’ to the standard options of male and female on some documents, but that many other entities and documents still operate under the old binary system, and this inconsistency creates difficulties for people who identify as transgender.
The author, Andy Newman, labors valiantly to describe the situation of Charlie Arrowood, bandying about the cumbersome third-person plural as if it were a neuter singular, and referring to “Mx. Arrowood.” Charlie, we are told, transitioned from a female—but transitioned to what? Not a male, apparently. An ‘X.’ Now ‘they’ are going to capitalize on forthcoming legislative changes to get ‘their’ birth certificate changed by the Empire State. But ‘their’ driver’s license will not (yet) see a commensurate change.
This inconsistency of policies and forms is, indeed, bound to create confusion. But it marks something much deeper than bureaucratic inefficiency. It exists because the revolution has not, in fact, yet won the day. It marks the fact that efforts to root human identity in the subjectivity of feelings, rather than the objectivity of biology, have not yet triumphed. The way many cultural elites talk may give the impression that the transgender revolt against God, humanity, biology, and reason, has conquered; but, as the great 20th century philosopher Yogi Berra reminded us, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”
The concern of the individuals described in the article should remind all of us that this sort of thing does matter. It matters a great deal. Language is the tool we use to understand, and communicate our understanding of, our world. Language makes truth-claims with a subconscious facility. “What’s in a name?” Juliet asked. Sometimes a lot. What’s in a prefix or a pronoun? Quite possibly the sanity of a whole culture.
Charlie Arrowood hints at the truth. ‘They’ says, “You can’t keep accurate records if you don’t have an accurate representation of someone.” Indeed, an inaccurate representation of someone may even result in worse problems than confused records. Another individual cited in the article, “Mx. Furuya,” comes even closer to putting ‘their’ finger on the problem: having gotten a birth certificate change but not a driver’s license change, ‘they’ asked the DMV “Is this going to implicate me for lying to the government?” and received an uncertain reply.
Click here to read more.
Source: Christian Post