Column by Paul Hein.
Exclusive to STR
The late Dr. Freud believed that a significant determinant of human behavior involved the sexual instinct. I believe he was mistaken. In my opinion--and we are talking about opinions here--an attraction to novelty explains much of what human beings do--at least some human beings.
There are always those who believe that if an idea has been held for many years, or even centuries, it might be a good idea to replace it. The consequences are not always good, although some who espouse such changes might become rich and/or famous in the process, which perhaps explains their enthusiasm for change.
Today we are seeing a very ancient idea--that of the distinction of the sexes--challenged. Appearances, it seems, can be deceptive. A person who appears to be a man can, if he so chooses, become a woman, and vice-versa. No proof is needed; a simple declaration will suffice. This strange new idea appeals to those who welcome change for the sake of change, as well as those who find in it a justification, of sorts, for behavior that might otherwise be regarded as foolish, or even criminal.
Then there are those who, in my opinion (remember, we’re talking about opinions) adopt strange new ideas, such as the one we’re discussing, as a sort of fad. Oh, how your friends will gasp when you appear before them, not in work pants and flannel shirt, but a taffeta gown and high heels! How very chic and trendy to announce that you are no longer George, but Georgette! What a pace-setter! How very avant-garde!
If this fad becomes popular outside of California and New York, it may, over time, come to be accepted as a fact that sex is determined, not by biology, and certainly not by anatomy, but by personal preference. It will come to be regarded in the same light as evolution, or global warming--sacrosanct, and not to be questioned except, perhaps, by the perennial lunatic fringe in the fly-over areas of intellectual darkness and social backwardness.
If your gender is whatever you declare it to be, and you have a right, despite all your manly physical characteristics, to be a woman if you want to be, it follows that there must be a guarantee that your right will be respected. There is no right, after all, without a corresponding duty. Enter the Rulers!
Inevitably, the full force and power of the Rulers, who have no respect for tradition anyway, (unless its observance will generate votes) will be brought into play, and your “right” to self-determination of your gender will be protected by “law.” Should someone attempt to prevent George from entering the women’s locker room, he, not George, risks prosecution. And so it should be, in a society where new ideas are welcome, where horizons expand beyond our hide-bound vision, and the behavior of human society is not chained to the past! Onward and upward! Especially if the adherents to the new fad--i.e., “law,”--are an organized voting group.
Say, here’s a new idea we might like to try: What if everything that I have is truly mine, and no one else has a claim upon it! Would my public servants, who enforce my right to transmogrify from Paul to Paulette also respect my right to transmogrify from subject to sovereign? Do you think that if we ran that up the flagpole all the “right” people would salute? Not all new ideas are bad, even if the bad ones get the respect! Nirvana beckons! Well, maybe.
