Gender reveal parties may reveal more than we even realize.
St. Louis may have its issues, but we are fortunate to be home to a great radio station — KFTK/NewsTalk 97.1 FM. The station presents center-right talk programming (with a smattering of apolitical content, as well) and features RedState contributor Chris Arps as a host (The Weekend Report) and regular guest on other shows. Even yours truly has made an occasional guest appearance.
One of their local conservative hosts/rockstars is Annie Frey — a conservative millennial (or, as she would put it, “centennial”) wife and mother. I’ve written about Annie previously (here and here). I listen to her show most weekdays from noon until 3:00 pm and usually find myself nodding in agreement — often taking to Twitter to verbalize it to her and her co-hosts directly. Annie is a red state gal living in a frustratingly blue state (Illinois), which gives rise to many an animated discussion over the policies her own state is following, particularly when contrasted with their next-door neighbors here in Missouri.
The beauty of Annie — and her show — is that she is unapologetically conservative. She is passionate in her defense of conservative ideals — ideals she approaches through her deeply held Christian faith. When challenged by callers who disagree, she will listen, respond with her own view, and — even if things get heated — never fails to express her appreciation for them listening. She’s one of those rare people with the gift of being able to disagree lovingly.
She also has a wicked fun sense of humor, which was highlighted this past Wednesday, when she and her co-host, Ryan Wiggins, and producer, Katie Fitzpatrick (both also conservative millennials), tackled the topic of gender reveal parties, given their recent coverage in the context of wildfires. The discussion can be found here, starting at the 17:20 mark. I was listening to it as I took my daily walk and cracking up almost the entire time — particularly when Ryan inadvertently veered away from gender revealing into race revealing.
— Susie Moore (@SmoosieQ) September 9, 2020
It’s at about the 26:20 mark where Annie got to the heart of the matter and drove home an extraordinarily salient point. She references this recent CNN article, written by Allison Hope, which discusses not just the potential physical hazards (to nature and people alike) of gender reveal parties, but another danger she sees in them:
Even when gender reveal parties don’t cause this kind of overt harm, these examples of death and destruction are still an apt metaphor for the detrimental effects of their deeper cultural message. A pyrotechnical display of pink or blue reflects a toxic glee at boxing our babies into binary gender categories that may not reflect who they are. By slapping a color code on our little ones (and plastering it all over the internet) before they even enter the birth canal, we are removing entirely their sense of agency to develop their own gender identities and to control that identity online. We are completely erasing the spectrum of social and biological diversity when it comes to gender.
Agree or disagree with this premise, one thing that cannot be denied is that it advocates for the “agency” of the unborn. The argument here is that even the pre-born deserve the right to self-determination, particularly when it comes to gender identity.
Annie’s response was inspired:
“I will surrender on the sacrificial altar of…gender fluidity all gender reveal parties from here, henceforth, if we can, in the same time…not rip away their agency — if we can also not rip their arms from their body, before they come out of the birth canal. Can we please acknowledge the fact that we are trying to talk about the agency to select their own gender from…inside the womb of the mother and we are not talking about their agency to enjoy the life that they absolutely have. Can we talk about that, too? I’m not saying instead. Let’s talk about both. I think that if we could do that, maybe we’d get somewhere. Stop burning down forests.”
Indeed. If we’re going to accept the contention that the unborn have the right to determine who they are, should we not also recognize their fundamental right to be?