28 January 2018
With the Regressive Left’s new dogmas on gender, we now see the actualisation of the Orwellian premonition of a world, in which we are required to accept that 2+2=5.
And, just as it would be the case if fundamental arithmetic were discarded, the same is true if we dismiss basic biology. The current perfidious trend that forces us to accept that “both sex and gender identity is a spectrum, consisting of many identities that are not limited to male, female, women and men,” can only inevitably result in absurd confusion and chaos.
The statement quoted above comes from a coalition of NGOs in Malaysia objecting to the purported government’s intention to perform a “gender test” on a prominent social-media celebrity, whose gender has been called into question by the public at large. They maintained that such a test would be “inherently intrusive, degrading, dehumanising and most importantly, unnecessary.”
Firstly, to put the record straight, the Federal Department of Islamic Development (Jakim) was merely advising the said celebrity on the procedures involved, medically, legally, and religiously, should (s)he wishes to have a finality in regards to his/her sex and gender. In no way could that be said to be intrusive.
As the leading agency in the management of Islamic affairs at the federal level, Jakim was merely there to offer solution, having in mind that one’s sex and gender would have far reaching consequence on other aspects of public and private life, especially (but not exclusively) on religious matters such as the fiqh on how to perform prayers and haj.
Being intrusive is the last thing that could be, since in the end, it was up to the said celebrity whether or not to carry out and go through the procedures advised.
Be that as it may, the key point here is their description by the pro-LGBT groups that the test as being “unnecessary.” The implication of the description is that “gender” is irrelevant, which, we suppose, you could concede to if indeed sex and gender are both spectrums and are both fluid; since gender or sex would at that point become practically unknowable. They might as well have said “impossible” instead of “unnecessary.”
But do the NGOs who backed that statement really want a world in which sex and gender are irrelevant? The coalition itself is comprised of gender-specific organisations like EMPOWER, Sisters in Islam, Women’s Aid Organisation and All Women’s Action Society. Surely these organisations do believe that being able to identify someone’s gender is “necessary,” since they advocate rights purely on gender-based criteria.
Is gender really unnecessary?
If, as they claim, “gender identity is not determined by our genitals,” then how are they able to determine whose rights to advocate? We wish we knew. Is it actually irrelevant to them whether they are assisting women or not? Is it irrelevant to their funders? If so, perhaps they should change their names and mission statements.
The All Women’s Action Society, for instance, declares they are “committed to improving the lives of women in Malaysia;” but how exactly can they even know who the women in Malaysia are if gender is unnecessary?
EMPOWER declares: “we advance women’s political equality towards justice and democracy centred on feminist and human rights principles. We are… a women’s rights organisation.” Yet according to their statement, anyone, apparently, can be a woman at any given moment, and there is no way to determine if or when that transformation has taken place.
So how can we be sure, for instance, that women do not already have political equality, unless we are guilty of assuming the genders of everyone in government?
Won’t “women’s rights organisations” be irrelevant in the near future in comparison to the “pan-gender rights” and “neutrois-rights” groups? These are merely two of the 71 gender identities now available on Facebook. And if such rights organisations eventually spring up to, say, fight prejudice and discrimination against their groups,
how will they know that they are being discriminated against on the basis of their chosen gender, when no one even knows what their gender is? Will a pan-gender person feel offended to be mistaken for a neutrois person?
And ultimately, if “gender identity is not determined by our genitals,” then one must wonder why anyone would spend tens of thousands of dollars on surgeries to change their “irrelevant” genitals.
We have to finally see how absurd and self-contradictory the statement actually is.
Transgender activists will say “all you have to do is ask” if you want to know someone’s gender. If gender is fluid, and for all intents and purposes, can change imperceptibly, we will not only have to ask but we will have to keep asking “what is your gender at this very moment?”
Can we not just acknowledge that what they are talking about here is not about gender, but is in actuality merely a mood?
Regressive left preaches falsehood
Gender is derived from biological sex at birth; it is a chromosomal reality. The notion that “gender is a spectrum” is just that; a notion. No one is obliged to agree with that notion, and the law does not need to accept your gender theory and political agenda as an established fact. Indeed, it would in fact be disastrous to do so.
Nur Sajat Kamaruzzaman, the entrepreneur celebrity at the centre of the current controversy, is either a woman, or a man who wants to be a woman. Any successful, high profile business woman tends to be lauded as a role model and inspiration for young girls, who aspire to professional excellence.
She proves that women are capable of achieving outstanding success in “male-dominated” fields; something, we assume, is dear to the hearts of the NGOs who signed off on the “gender doesn’t matter” statement.
So what if a successful business woman turns out to be just another successful business man? Is the goal of gender equality in the work-place satisfied if the men who disproportionately occupy the C-suites simply begin to wear make-up and dresses?
Without changing the personnel, parliaments, government cabinets, and corporate boards of directors could become dominated by women overnight, just because they claim it is who they are. Donald Trump could declare himself as a female and instantaneously become America’s first woman president.
And women’s rights organisations would become superfluous. The “patriarchy” they rail against could be converted to a “matriarchy” in an instant. Their “female oppressed versus male oppressor” narrative necessarily evaporates if we accept their theory that gender is unknowable and irrelevant.
Two plus two does not equal five, and xx does not equal xy, nor does xy equal xx.
Whether the liberal fascists who insist that this reality be denied realize it or not, they rely on this truth as much as the rest of us do.
So clearly, they do not believe what they say they believe. The NGOs who say that Nur Sajat’s gender doesn’t matter, were founded on an objective, perceptible classification of gender; they were founded on the reality that there are men and there are women, and that we ultimately know who they are.
Gender matters a great deal to them to be able to tell the difference; otherwise, these NGOs have no reason to exist.
Joint statement by:
Azril Mohd Amin, lawyer and chief executive of the Centre for Human Rights Research & Advocacy (CENTHRA) and chairperson of MACSA
Associate Professor Dr. Rafidah Hanim Mokhtar, president of International Women’s Alliance for Family Institution and Quality Education (WAFIQ) and co-chairperson of MACSA.