Rantz: Can a man get pregnant? Democrat state rep. says ‘it depends’
A man cannot get pregnant or give birth. This is a biological fact, unless you’re a Democratic lawmaker seeking to propagandize young kids in public schools with mandated sex education for kindergartners.
State Representative Monica Stonier (D-Vancouver) introduced legislation mandating sex education for public school students starting in kindergarten. But this isn’t just sex education; it’s anti-science political propaganda to instill a progressive worldview in the minds of students.
To make my argument, I asked Rep. Stonier if she agreed with teaching medically accurate information to students, regardless of their grade.
Gender identity is science, maybe
The work-group (with no ideological diversity) created to craft the curriculum implied a medically accurate standard was the benchmark for the coursework. But to Stonier, it’s not the only necessary guide to determine what students are taught.
“I think medically accurate is an important element,” Stonier told the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH. “I think that medically accurate also shifts over time just like other science-based facts. As we learn more, then when we know more. And so you know, I think that medically accurate means that we have to keep updating curriculum and standards in order to be reflective of what we know in science, and I think that that’s what our ultimate goal is here.”
I agree with this. But I sensed we were talking about two different ideas.
I asked if the concept of gender identity is based in science or a sociopolitical concept, given the kindergarten-12th grade sex education curriculum teaches the idea.
“I’m not a scientist, but I am a mom and an educator,” Stonier explained. “And what I would tell you is that all language in content like this should be inclusive of all people.”
This is important because the curriculum discreetly teaches students about gender identity at a young age. For kindergartners, the curriculum slow-walks concepts on transgender identity (page 8 of the curriculum).
By Grade 1, students read “My Princess Boy” by Cheryl Kilodavis (page 28). In Grade 6, students are taught about gender identity (page 191) with gender-neutral language like “‘someone with a vulva vs. a girl or woman.” The curriculum said the language “is intended to make the curriculum inclusive of all genders and gender identities.”
Men can get pregnant, maybe
With gender identity being taught as fact to students — falsely implying a boy can have a vulva — I wanted to see where Rep. Stonier stood on something that is beyond reproach: basic biology.
I asked if it’s scientifically accurate to say a man can get pregnant.
“Like I’m not gonna… it depends on the person’s identity and orientation,” Stonier claimed. “So I’m not a doctor. I don’t know how these terms line up.”
I’m also not a doctor, but I have a basic understanding of biology.
Men cannot get pregnant. Women can. Orientation and identity do not matter here. Transgender men can only get pregnant because they are biological women presenting as men. This isn’t controversial or disrespectful. It is a basic fact. And it’s an important one.
Rep. Stonier plans to introduce an amendment to deal with concerns over sex education in kindergarten, though the details (and support) remain murky. But her positions on gender identity appear to be in line with what the sex education would entail for other students.
Why this matters
The goal of sex education should be knowledge. The antithesis to knowledge is purposefully redefining basic concepts as means to promote a political worldview. That’s what this is about: Forwarding a political perspective to enact laws they believe protect transgender (or gender non-binary) individuals from discrimination.
I think protecting people from discrimination, regardless of gender, is important. But I don’t support the claim that gender is malleable in order to accomplish that goal. Not only does it forward a falsehood, but it can be weaponized against people who acknowledge simple biological facts. You can forward common sense anti-discrimination laws without denying basic biological facts.
We’ve seen the language police try to compel Canadians into using gender pronouns preferred by a transgender individual. I don’t want that to happen in the U.S., not because I wouldn’t use the pronouns (I use the pronouns that a transgender person identifies with), but because it’s uniquely un-American to compel (or censor) speech.
I also don’t believe in a blanket position that any and all transgender individuals should be allowed to compete in sports events with competitors of the opposite biological sense. It’s an issue being considered in the courts and I’m curious to see how it concludes. Though, if you read the curriculum (page 359), Grade 7 students are told the virtues of a transgender boy fighting to use the men’s bathroom at his school as part of the plan “Being the Change You Want to See in the World.”
It’s a debate
Progressives will pretend these issues are not complex so they can seem woke, but they’re very much in the minority. We should have this conversation openly; declaring biology malleable renders a debate impossible.
It would appear Rep. Stonier would disagree with me on this. Good. I welcome a good faith debate.
But we would be debating because this is an unsettled political issue, not settled, medically accurate science. It’s exactly why it should be left out of sex education in kindergarten.
Listen to the Jason Rantz Show weekday afternoons from 3-6 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (or HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the . Follow @JasonRantz on Twitter.
This content was originally published here.