Kate Middleton is pregnant. But you knew that, I'm sure. Hardly a day goes by, it seems, without something new about Kate in the news. The Duchess of Cambridge is going to have a baby, they tell me. Last week the news was all atwitter when she let it possibly slip that she was having a girl. Perhaps.
I have to say that I'm not getting any of this at all. Consider some of the fundamental beliefs currently in vogue. First, Kate is not carrying a baby. She is carrying a fetus. Whatever is currently there is not a baby or anyone with any moral sense would know that any woman who terminated the life of that baby would be a monster. And we know that's not the case, so, whatever it is, it is not a baby. Second, we're all becoming convinced that gender is a matter of perception. Girls are no different than boys. And even if they are, you are whatever gender you feel like you are. They call it "gender identity". Indeed, while in the past there used to be a simple thing -- male and female -- times have changed. It used to be that a doctor could flip the little newborn over and say, "Oh, it's a _____!" and accurately declare the sex of the child. Today, of course, we know better. There is male and female, but we don't stop there. It is possible to be male and believe you're female, or female and believe you're male. You can be male or female biologically and believe you are either both or neither. It's all good. You are what you think you are, DNA, chromosomes, and physiology aside.
So, back to Kate and the girl. Kate doesn't have a baby. She has a fetus. And despite advances in medical science, Kate cannot know what gender the fetus, when it is born, will end up believing it is. So, tell me again, what's all this talk about Kate having a baby and thinking she's having a girl? Or are we operating on mixed standards ... again?
9 comments:
Would it not be interesting if Kate made public some 3D images of her baby girl, and then announced a couple of months before the due date that she was going to have an abortion because she wanted a boy? Of course there would be those who would defend her "right" to do it, but you could imagine the reaction from regular folks.
I know longer know what "regular folks" would think.
Perhaps she should have stated,
"The fetus appears to be what was once universally identified as a girl, but we await that time in the future when the fetus will identify itself."
If we were seeking consistency, that would be required. "I don't know what it is, and I don't know what gender it is. We'll get back to you on all of that."
I know longer know? Did you do that on purpose for my sake? :)
Just trying to make you feel at home, Danny.
Because I'm pretty sure I do think I know what regular folks would think and it's not good.
I know its not the point of the post, but the reason her child's gender is such a big deal is because it is tradition for the royal family not to announce the gender until birth. But aside from that, yeah, not consistent at all.
Yeah, in truth the fact that it was Kate in question was irrelevant. Just a headline to hang the question on.
Post a Comment