A colleague recently referenced an absurd article I thought was from our friends at the parody site Babylon Bee. But these days, you can’t assume anything is parody, particularly when it relates to gender.

The article, entitled “Can Men Get Pregnant?,” was posted in Healthline, a niche health and wellbeing journal, under the category of Parenthood>Pregnancy. Yeah, this gender-confused nonsense is finding its way into space that should be reserved for rational conversation.

The author, KC Clements, identifies as a “queer, nonbinary writer” who notes: “Their work deals with queer and trans identity, sex and sexuality, health and wellness from a body positive standpoint, and much more.” Yes, much more.

But hey, it was “Medically reviewed by Valinda Riggins Nwadike, MD,” so it must comport with the science! Right?

I decided to highlight this article because it is an exceptional example of the convoluted, contorted, and contrived gender-denial rhetoric emanating from heterophobic gender deniers now infesting some health information quarters. Recall that recently, even as the number of ChiCom Virus pandemic deaths this year surpassed all deaths in 2020, the CDC was prioritizing the use of inclusive language across its website platform.

The assumptions in this article, as with all such articles, are predicated on the supposition that it is possible to be “transgendered.” Of course, for those of us who actually follow the science, there are in fact only two genders, male and female, despite denial by adherents of gender-confusion ideology. According to the science, every individual, from conception to death, regardless of elective surgical alterations or personal pronouns, will irrevocably and unalterably be male or female. A gender dysphoric individual can call himself or herself whatever he or she wants, but asking society to standardize and comport with his or her gender disorientation is as absurd as the question posed by the referenced Healthline article.

So how does “KC” answer this absurd question? As with all cults, the “gender-fluidity” cult redefines standard word definitions and assigns new meanings. Let me hit the highlights.

KC: “Yes, it’s possible for men to become pregnant and give birth to children of their own. In fact, it’s probably a lot more common than you might think. In order to explain, we’ll need to break down some common misconceptions about how we understand the term ‘man.’”

Well, obviously we will have to get over those pesky “misconceptions” that cause heartburn for the gender-challenged.

KC: “Not all people who were assigned male at birth (AMAB) identify as men. Those who do are ‘cisgender’ men. Conversely, some people who were assigned female at birth (AFAB) identify as men. These folks may be ‘transgender’ men or transmasculine people.”

Fortunately, KC links to another of his missives defining “cisgender.” He notes, “The term cisgender was coined by transgender activists in the 90s to create a better way to describe people who aren’t transgender.”

KC: “Many AFAB [female] folks who identify as men or who don’t identify as women have the reproductive organs necessary to carry a child.”

That is because they are women.

KC: “Some people who have a uterus and ovaries, are not on testosterone, and identify as men or as not as women may wish to become pregnant. Unless you’ve taken testosterone, the process of pregnancy is similar to that of a cisgender woman.”

In other words, if you can bear a child, you are female.

KC: “To our knowledge, there has not yet been a case of pregnancy in an AMAB [male] individual.”

Actually, I am certain there has not yet been a pregnant man.

KC concludes: “With our understanding constantly evolving, it’s important to honor the fact that one’s gender doesn’t determine whether they can become pregnant. Many men have had children of their own, and many more will likely do so in the future.”

In this case, that would not be an “understanding constantly evolving” but “devolving.” And I thought we just cleared up the fact that no “AMAB [male] individual” has ever been pregnant.

At one time, the bulk of gender identity issues were limited to adolescent teenagers. Problem is, there are now leftist adolescent teenagers in their 60s.

Notably, there are examples of this gender distinction nonsense in far more distinguished publications than Healthline.

The Left’s struggle with gender confusion – simply defining the word “woman” and using it in context, manifested in this “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” entry from the “follow the science” experts at the once-esteemed British medical journal, The Lancet: “Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected.”

That’s right, you can avoid referencing the gender distinction of “woman” by noting “bodies with vaginas.”

The fact is, I have compassion for individuals who, due to a variety of familial gender exemplarity and/or psychological factors beyond their control, often including childhood sexual abuse, are gender dysphoric. But one of the great ironies of the woke supremacist culture is that it has abandoned these individuals in their misery. And that is a particularly grievous abandonment by “woke” churches such as most Episcopal congregations. For more context, read “Gender Disorientation — A Faithful Response to the ‘LGBT?’ Agenda.”

Finally, clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson offers this observation about the anti-binary cult attempting to unlink sex and gender, and the consequences for those who question that leftist agenda: “Mark my words: A very large proportion of the insistence on the distinction between gender and sex is undiagnosed (and self serving) narcissism. But by the time this is revealed clinically many medical careers and innocent lives will be destroyed.”

(Footnote: Some ideological gender redefinition activists refute binary gender claiming gender is on a “spectrum” because of a very rare birth defect resulting in an individual being “intersexed” — born without a clear anatomical indication of being male or female. But this condition is a physical genital defect — the individual is, as with all individuals, chromosomally either male or female. The binary sexuality of the individual is not in question.)

(Updated) Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776