The Unbearable Autism of Gender Neutrality

New guidance issued from the New York mayor’s office now prohibits city bars and restaurants from refusing to serve alcoholic beverages to pregnant women. According to the the Mayor’s office, this refusal is prohibited by the New York City Human Rights Law which classifies pregnancy discrimination as “discrimination based on gender.” Thus, refusing to serve alcohol or raw fish to pregnant women constitutes rights violations. Quoth the legal wizards on the Commission on Human Rights, in part:

While covered entities may attempt to justify certain categorical exclusions based on maternal or fetal safety, using safety as a pretext for discrimination or as a way to reinforce traditional gender norms or stereotypes is unlawful.

Naturally, this development has been made possible by a confluence of factors: a culture so degraded that it has enshrined as paramount value the primacy of corrosive individualism, fanatic adherence to the ideology of gender egalitarianism, and the devaluation of the lives of the unborn. This guidance is the logical product of a society in which the individual is free to engage in any manner of life destroying acts while those who aim to preserve life are denounced as bigots. This is the perverse morality of a dying civilization. This is the logic of a society so collectively autistic that it views dysgenesis as an acceptable price to pay for complete equality between the sexes.

The logic implicitly operational here is that the genders are equal in every sense, so much so that any deviation from a common standard of treatment is per se suspect, even when there is a material physical condition present in one group that would militate for the disparate treatment in question. There is no functional difference between a man and a pregnant woman that would justify a bartender’s abstention from serving alcohol to a pregnant woman, even though the risks of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) are known to all and have been known to all for decades. We live in a world in which is exercising judgment is a crime and to make an observation is a sin.

But what else could one expect from a state that demurs to hold pregnant women accountable for willfully engaging in behaviors deleterious to the health of “the fetus”?

In 2003, a New York court found that child protection law does not apply to pregnant women whose actions could influence the health of a fetus.

If child protection laws do not extend to the child in utero, and the mother cannot be held legally responsible for conduct that harms the child while in utero, then why should it matter if a pregnant woman indulges in one, two, or even ten drinks?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s