Scott Tibbs

Biological facts are not "violence"

By Scott Tibbs, December 7, 2020

I think gender reveal parties are a bit silly and unnecessary. If that is your thing, more power to you. I'm not going to tell you how to live your life. The same cannot be said for New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow, who thinks such things are "violent."

This is what it looks like when you have no sense of proportion.

For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that gender is a social construct. Let's further stipulate that trans women are women, and that trans men are men. Even if we accept this as truth, there is no form of "logic" where parents joyfully revealing the biological sex of a baby gestating in the womb are commenting an act of "violence." There is no physical harm being done here, which is what violence is. There is not even any emotional harm, because a baby in the womb does not have any concept of his own sex.

Let's assume, based on what we stipulated in the above paragraph, that the baby eventually discovers he is transsexual as he ages. Trans women are women, and the baby "assigned" a male gender at birth is actually a "woman." There was never any harm to this "woman" in utero because there was a "gender reveal" party with blue balloons. There certainly was not any "violence" done to the fetus.

It is one thing to accept that trans people should be allowed to live as their "real" gender." It is another thing entirely to abolish biological sex and ignore anatomical reality. It is even worse to malign parents and party-goers as child abusers. So would Blow propose banning "gender reveal" parties, sending police to break them up and charging the parents with a felony? Blow is the one who said these parties are "violent," after all, and violent crime is (and should be) illegal.

This is not about affirming trans people in their identity. This is about the end of free speech. Anyone who says that someone who is anatomically male is male is committing a crime of "violence" and must be silenced - either by the culture or by law enforcement. The end goal is mandatory acceptance and endorsement of transgenderism, as well as abolishing the notion of biological sex.

Of course, no one has ever been "assigned" sex at birth. Neither the doctor or the parents can "assign" something predetermined by genetics. What a doctor, midwife or parents do is look at the baby's anatomy and then match that anatomy to a biological reality - male or female.

Attacking a gender reveal party as "violence" shows the inherent weakness of the transgender position. That is why a simple recognition of biological reality must be silenced. At no point in human history prior to the last ten years would revealing the sex of a fetus in utero be condemned by any serious person as an act of "violence." That is because claiming this speech is "violence" is totally absurd. But fraudulently labeling innocent speech by parents excited by the impending birth of a child as "violence" is the foundation for banning such speech. The cult of transgenderism cannot allow any heresy to its doctrine.

Opinion Archives

E-mail Scott

Scott's Links

About the Author