Reflections Magazine June-July 2011
Home | About Us | Archives | Contact Us | Search | Join EBI | The Edmund Burke Institute

Imposed androgyny

Erasing individual distinctions

Imposed androgyny seems absurd, but it has arrived. The ultimate one-world, universal baby has been born and, “It’s a ... an it!”

Kathy Witterick and David Stocker of Toronto, Canada, have decided to raise their child, Storm, by keeping the baby’s gender a secret. John Lennon, President Barack Obama, and Gloria Steinem may now stand crib-side, hand in hand and proudly lullaby in one voice the 1970’s Coca Cola anthem “I’d like to Teach the World to Sing in Perfect Harmony.” This world without boundaries is the ideal of the Kumbaya camp: no gender, no race, no nationality, no religion, no creed, no belief, no identity—and only self-gratification.

Yet, traditionalists should shudder because the couple’s seemingly isolated anomalous decision is a clandestine guerrilla assault in the culture war. It prompts the question, “Do we serve God or mammon?”

“We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now—a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime...,” said Ms. Witterick and Mr. Stocker in an email to friends and family, announcing the New Year’s Day 2011 birth of their third child. The only people who know the gender are Storm’s brothers, Jazz, age 5, and Kio, age 2, a close family friend and the two midwives. Even the supportive grandparents have been kept in the dark, but they worry the children will be ridiculed.

However, Mr. Stocker says, “If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs.” His wife wholeheartedly agrees. “In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s(he) wants to be?'” she wrote in an email.

The unconventional couple also un-schools, a method of home-schooling based on the idea that learning should be driven by a child’s curiosity. There are no report cards, no textbooks and no tests. For un-schoolers, learning is about exploring and asking questions. The children have an abundance of input in everything they do. Both older brothers even wear their hair long, sometimes in braids; they also don pink and purple dresses, if they wish. “As a result, Jazz and now Kio are almost exclusively assumed to be girls,” says Mr. Stocker, adding that he and Ms. Witterick do not offer correction. It’s the boys’ decision, maintain the parents.

This androgynous experiment began when Ms. Witterick was pregnant with Storm and, “Jazz was having experiences with gender and I was feeling like I needed some good parenting skills to support him through that,” she said. Hence, Mr. Stocker found a 1978 book called “X: A Fabulous Child’s Story” by Lois Gould about raising not a boy or a girl, but X. After reading this book, they then decided not to reveal Storm’s gender. “It became so compelling it was almost like, how could we not?” said Ms. Witterick. Their theory is their baby should be able to develop its own sexual identity without having to conform to social stereotypes or bow to pre-determined expectations associated with gender.

Friends disagree and say the couple is imposing their political and ideological values on a newborn and setting the children up for a life of bullying. In agreement with this sentiment is California psychologist Dr. Diane Ehrensaft who believes parents should generally support gender-creative children. Dr. Ehrensaft authored the 2011 book “Gender Born, Gender Made Raising Healthy Gender-Nonconforming Children.” Yet, in this case she worries, “By not divulging Storm’s sex, the parents are denying the child a way to position himself or herself in a world where you are either male, female or in between. In effect they have created another category: Other than other. And that could marginalize the child.”

“Everyone keeps asking us, ‘When will this end?’” says Ms. Witterick. “And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?”

This entire situation is the culmination of the one-world, boundary-free ideology of the 1960’s and 70‘s that maintains the root of evil to be race and gender oppression. “Imagine there's no Heaven... no possessions... And no religion too ...You may say that I'm a dreamer ...And the world will live as one,” sings John Lennon in his globalist 1971 hymn “Imagine.”

“This is no simple reform. It really is a revolution. Sex and race because they are easy and visible differences have been the primary ways of organizing human beings into superior and inferior groups and into the cheap labor on which this system still depends. We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned. We are really talking about humanism,” said feminist leader Gloria Steinem on July 10, 1971 in her momentous Address to the Women of America at the National Women’s Political Caucus.

This worldview continues today even with the American President who is often focused on erasing national distinctions. Then-candidate Barack Obama introduced himself as a post-racial, post-partisan, transnational political leader. He declared he is a “fellow citizen of the world” in his July 2008 speech in Berlin, Germany.

Superficially, this all sounds peaceful, kind and rather pseudo-Christian. Yet, the leading Christian apologist of the Middle Ages, St. Augustine of Hippo, strikes down the fallacious reasoning in a simple sentence: “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” In other words, well-intentioned tolerance of anarchy is ultimately little more than injurious self-absorption.

Ironically, in an attempt to promote equality, the one-worlders are oppressing the beauty of the individual. “Yet not one of them has escaped the notice of God. Even the hairs of your head have all been counted. Do not be afraid,” says Jesus, in Luke 12: 6-7. Instead of imposing androgyny, we must embrace our natural uniqueness—which includes our gender and race—and proceed confidently with our God-given image into the world.

Orchestrated social leveling which attempts to erase all distinctions of gender, race and nation must cease. This imposed androgyny is not liberating but is a perverse form of self-denial. It is ultimately a form of individual and collective self-loathing.

-Kelly Kathryn Llobet is a writer living in Baltimore, a veteran Navy spouse and a proud mother of five.

Home | About Us | Archives | Contact Us | Search | Join EBI | The Edmund Burke Institute