The tremors that continue to drive a seismic shift in Western civilization where one’s gender is now considered “fluid and changeable” continue unabated. Piggy backing off such a twisted and abnormal philosophy comes a 69-year-old Dutch businessman who claims that if you can change your gender, so, too, for your chronological age.
When many folks are trying to reduce their waistline or perhaps their credit card debt, and maybe shrink their mortgage payments, Emile Ratelband wants a reduction in his birth year by at least two decades because, as he tells it, his true age is “cramping his dating prospects.”
This 21st century Dutch Casanova claims he has the face, body and attitude of a younger man, and since Dutch law permits people to legally switch their sex, Ratelband should be allowed to legally change his birthdate while subtracting 20 years.
Back when the world was a saner place and long before common sense attained virtue status, this ludicrous tale would have been a National Enquirer back page story that one may have skimmed while waiting to check out at the grocery store.
That isn’t true in the Orwellian 21st century, where moral and intellectual chaos reigns and where gender is no longer considered a binary concept based upon biology.
Ratelband received plenty of prime time ink, including a headline in that stalwart liberal fish wrap, The Washington Post, saying, “We can make our own decisions if we want to change our name, or if we want to change our gender. So I want to change my age. My feeling about my body and about my mind is that I’m about 40 or 45.”
For it is transgenderism and all its deceits and misconceptions that influenced and prompted Ratelband in his nonsensical quest. Identity politics polishes the fool’s gold of “gender ideology” where sentiments, temptations and feelings are the genuine indicators of your gender, and now to include your age as well.
Such nonsense has turned clear thinking upsidedown as the culture has divorced itself from the underpinnings of natural law.
Ratelband, however, might be on to something — for a liberal.
If one’s biological sex is malleable and governed by feelings, why not one’s age? Likewise, if gender is not determined by genitalia, why is race determined by skin color?
In both instances, there are no such legal grounds — for now.
Perhaps Ratelband stumbled upon the grand solution that would put an end to Social Security’s and Medicare’s impending bankruptcy by convincing about 30 million American seniors that they aren’t in their late 60s, but their late 40s. Then again, maybe everyone isn’t such a sucker as P.T. Barnum so infamously claimed.
How many millions of Millennials will start feeling like 65 after breaking a serious sweat and would then prefer to get an early jump on collecting a guaranteed income like Social Security and receiving Medicare?
Newly elected Millennial Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez couldn’t be happier with such reasoning. More on that next week.
Today, truth and honesty have surrendered to the politically correct dogma of “gender identity” and to an aging and wishful thinking Dutchman named Emile Ratelband.
The unrelenting mantra of secular society wants you to not only believe, but celebrate that everything is relative where right and wrong are shaped and influenced through feelings and emotion and where nothing is absolute — rules supreme.
This postmodern shift from absolute truth to individual truth undermines the very notion of objective morality. Biblical and traditional constructs, once taken for granted, have conceded to the prevailing notion that social science has rendered all moral judgments — subjective.
American theologian and author, R.C. Sproul wrote: “I do not want to drive across a bridge designed by an engineer who believed the numbers in structural stress models are relative truths.”
How about you?
There’s not much hope for humanity when reality becomes relative and when the ultimate source of reality — God — is ignored and dismissed. In doing so, we reject the harmony between faith and reason, fides et ratio.
This is more than a dangerous descent down a slippery slope. This is jumping off the cliff head first. Label it reality free-fall — or perhaps, reality free-for-all — as anything goes.
We “move forward” at our own peril.
(Maresca, a local freelance writer, composes “Talking Points” for each Sunday edition.)