Letter from a politically correct civil servant
Dear child,
I have received your response to my previous letter to all children that have been, pardon my use of the phrase, conceived by artificial insemination of their mothers. In your response, you level a series of quite grave accusations against the government and state agencies involved in what you call a highly provocative and immoral infant production industry.
Allow me, first, to correct a few misconceptions. Above all, you should not use misleading terms like infant production industry. Can you see any factories, or, to be more precise, any medical institutions where such a production is taking place? Of course, your honest reply must and should be an immediate and unequivocal NO. Industry means the callous, systematic and cost-oriented manufacturing of inanimate items without any moral considerations for the 'materials' involved, or for the emotional well-being of the clients or recipients of the end products.
You see, your government and its agencies are not involved in a callous, immoral industrial production of human lives. What we have done, is first of all turning into law the obvious right of humans, to be more specific: couples of any sex, to procreate and secure offspring that will bear their names, and provide a framework within which each family unit can thrive, providing mutual care and support throughout the lifetime of each individual member. What can possibly be immoral about that?
Further, you also claim in your response that by allowing same-sex couples to make use of these state medical provisions, we are in fact legitimizing and supporting the idea that males are, and I quote "made to be redundant in family life in that their presence and support is actively discouraged: the state is, in effect, saying to the child, that as long as you have parents, as long as you receive the care and emotional backing that you reasonably can expect to get, you should be grateful. Grateful to the state for its involvement is helping your parents to conceive and deliver a very much wanted and loved child; irrespective of any male involvement, irrespective of mode of conception."
I trust that you have noticed and been made aware of, the recent progress in research pertaining to sexual orientation, the question of multiple genders and the existence of transgender role models. Contrary to the rather outmoded and therefore obsolete concept of 'two genders only', scientists of a vast swathe of various disciplines and fields of work are now on the brink of an enormously important break-through. They will shortly, most likely, be able to verify the general theory that gender cannot truly be determined on the basis of external characteristics, but rather on a parameter of various fluctuating psychological factors.
As I have tried to demonstrate in the above passage, I am only trying to help you gain new insight into the question of gender and the make-up of any eventual male identity. When you say that we are in effect "waging a broad-front war against males", you are - as I now hope you are beginning to realize - gravely mistaken. What is man? What is it that constitutes a male idenity, or, indeed, a true male behavioural pattern? Reality is often more complex that what religious textbooks make them out to be, and so you should not resort, without question or the presence of an open mind, to traditional views espoused in literature predating the scientific era.
We have always laboured for what you term, backed by your cultural tradition, a noticeable male presence in crucial social arenas as schools, publicly funded youth clubs, volunteer groups and so forth. We have done so in the conviction that the overriding principle should always be to provide the best quality care possible, whenever or wherever, and that people of all possible genders should be included in this work - excluding no one.
Isn't it much more important to provide people with their basic needs, including the emotional and material support that various family structures can provide, than to drone on about the unnaturalness of same-sex parenting? Who are we to reasonably allege that only a traditional father and a mother are fully equipped to engage in the fundamental task of raising and educating future generations of able, well-functioning children?
Your amaze me, dear child. You say that we are denying you the right to know your roots, and that you are, as a consequence, suffering emotionally. You claim, without backing your claims with any real arguments, that not knowing your father has had a profound adverse effect on your adult life. I trust it that both your parents, whom you address as Ada and Chleo, have shown you unflinching loyalty and support throughout your time with them? Then, certainly, the cause of any mental agony must lie elsewhere than in the absence of a male role model. Why don't you simply accept the counsel given to you by your psychologist, that you must abandon this infantile tendency to explain the root causes of any adversity by resorting to old paradigms?
You father, as you insist on calling 'him', could be anyone who, in the generosity of their benign natures, have donated sperm to various reproduction clinics across the nation. 'He' did this under the provision of the law granting him full anonymity for life. Why should you, in your selfish pursuit of your truth, disrupt the emotional balance of this new family unit of his? Why risk rejection at the hands of a person why has harboured no previous wish to know you in person?
For you own good, accept my advice and submit to reason: the idea of a father as being a male figure only, is obsolete. And if the elites of our universities have gone down that path, you are wise if you emulate their example.
Finally, I return the Bible you kindly sent me. This book contains little of interest or use to me. I take my cues, so to speak, from other authorities, other more illustrious and illumined minds.
Yours,
A, Nomos, Secretary of The Department of Truth
I have received your response to my previous letter to all children that have been, pardon my use of the phrase, conceived by artificial insemination of their mothers. In your response, you level a series of quite grave accusations against the government and state agencies involved in what you call a highly provocative and immoral infant production industry.Allow me, first, to correct a few misconceptions. Above all, you should not use misleading terms like infant production industry. Can you see any factories, or, to be more precise, any medical institutions where such a production is taking place? Of course, your honest reply must and should be an immediate and unequivocal NO. Industry means the callous, systematic and cost-oriented manufacturing of inanimate items without any moral considerations for the 'materials' involved, or for the emotional well-being of the clients or recipients of the end products.
You see, your government and its agencies are not involved in a callous, immoral industrial production of human lives. What we have done, is first of all turning into law the obvious right of humans, to be more specific: couples of any sex, to procreate and secure offspring that will bear their names, and provide a framework within which each family unit can thrive, providing mutual care and support throughout the lifetime of each individual member. What can possibly be immoral about that?
Further, you also claim in your response that by allowing same-sex couples to make use of these state medical provisions, we are in fact legitimizing and supporting the idea that males are, and I quote "made to be redundant in family life in that their presence and support is actively discouraged: the state is, in effect, saying to the child, that as long as you have parents, as long as you receive the care and emotional backing that you reasonably can expect to get, you should be grateful. Grateful to the state for its involvement is helping your parents to conceive and deliver a very much wanted and loved child; irrespective of any male involvement, irrespective of mode of conception."
I trust that you have noticed and been made aware of, the recent progress in research pertaining to sexual orientation, the question of multiple genders and the existence of transgender role models. Contrary to the rather outmoded and therefore obsolete concept of 'two genders only', scientists of a vast swathe of various disciplines and fields of work are now on the brink of an enormously important break-through. They will shortly, most likely, be able to verify the general theory that gender cannot truly be determined on the basis of external characteristics, but rather on a parameter of various fluctuating psychological factors.
As I have tried to demonstrate in the above passage, I am only trying to help you gain new insight into the question of gender and the make-up of any eventual male identity. When you say that we are in effect "waging a broad-front war against males", you are - as I now hope you are beginning to realize - gravely mistaken. What is man? What is it that constitutes a male idenity, or, indeed, a true male behavioural pattern? Reality is often more complex that what religious textbooks make them out to be, and so you should not resort, without question or the presence of an open mind, to traditional views espoused in literature predating the scientific era.
We have always laboured for what you term, backed by your cultural tradition, a noticeable male presence in crucial social arenas as schools, publicly funded youth clubs, volunteer groups and so forth. We have done so in the conviction that the overriding principle should always be to provide the best quality care possible, whenever or wherever, and that people of all possible genders should be included in this work - excluding no one.
Isn't it much more important to provide people with their basic needs, including the emotional and material support that various family structures can provide, than to drone on about the unnaturalness of same-sex parenting? Who are we to reasonably allege that only a traditional father and a mother are fully equipped to engage in the fundamental task of raising and educating future generations of able, well-functioning children?
Your amaze me, dear child. You say that we are denying you the right to know your roots, and that you are, as a consequence, suffering emotionally. You claim, without backing your claims with any real arguments, that not knowing your father has had a profound adverse effect on your adult life. I trust it that both your parents, whom you address as Ada and Chleo, have shown you unflinching loyalty and support throughout your time with them? Then, certainly, the cause of any mental agony must lie elsewhere than in the absence of a male role model. Why don't you simply accept the counsel given to you by your psychologist, that you must abandon this infantile tendency to explain the root causes of any adversity by resorting to old paradigms?
You father, as you insist on calling 'him', could be anyone who, in the generosity of their benign natures, have donated sperm to various reproduction clinics across the nation. 'He' did this under the provision of the law granting him full anonymity for life. Why should you, in your selfish pursuit of your truth, disrupt the emotional balance of this new family unit of his? Why risk rejection at the hands of a person why has harboured no previous wish to know you in person?
For you own good, accept my advice and submit to reason: the idea of a father as being a male figure only, is obsolete. And if the elites of our universities have gone down that path, you are wise if you emulate their example.
Finally, I return the Bible you kindly sent me. This book contains little of interest or use to me. I take my cues, so to speak, from other authorities, other more illustrious and illumined minds.
Yours,
A, Nomos, Secretary of The Department of Truth
Kommentarer
Legg inn en kommentar