For preventing the biological sex of children [aka penis-babies and vagina-babies] in American households, from being a burthen on their exploration of gender identity, and thereby benefitting the publick.
by Aubee Djinn, MD
In the 1720’s, Ireland was suffering under a disastrous famine. Jonathan Swift, Anglo-Irish author, was horrified at how British politics unfairly exacerbated the suffering of the Irish. Having made several unsuccessful appeals to Parliament to enact policies to relieve the famine, he turned to writing. “A Modest Proposal” called attention to a social ill by proposing an outrageous solution: eating Irish children.
Aubee Djinn (a pseudonym) is an American OB-GYN amazed at how social trends are obscuring scientific fact. With a nod to Jonathan Swift’s 1729 essay, this contemporary social ill is met with an equally outrageous Modest Proposal.
It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through our great hospitals, or travel in their maternity wards, when they see the hallways, the corridors, and the newborn nurseries crowded with infants whose differentiated genitalia are at odds with their undifferentiated gender identity. These infants instead of being allowed to naturally discover their gender identity as they mature, are forced to endure the suggestions of their parts and pieces, and of the external socializations that follow.
It is common knowledge that gender identity is separate from biological sex, yet the correlation of anatomy and identity is unfortunately strong enough to imply effect to the unenlightened mind. Infants attached to penises usually become men, and those with vaginae usually become women. However, any good scientist knows that correlation does not equal causation. If a parent is likewise woke, they will know that genitalia are not predictive of gender. In the absence of social constructs and family influence, penis-babies would be just as likely to discover they are girls as boys, and vagina-babies can likewise grow up to be men or women. However, when parents are not enlightened, they will assume that sex predicts gender identity, and risk irreversible damage to their offspring.
Witness the homunculus with neither penis nor vagina, and yet both simultaneously, that almost universally develops one or the other. As with embryology, gender identity is undifferentiated at creation, and takes form later in life. It is inconvenient that despite their variety of shapes and dimensions, genitalia lend themselves to neat dichotomous categories that the uninformed parent will naïvely extrapolate to the gender of their child. It is even more inconvenient that gravid women are told of these fetal bits during a sonographic exam at mid-gestation, and use the information to inform absurd celebrations of the implied gender of their fetus. Cupcakes, balloons, confetti, even an empty ale-can filled with colored powder and placed on a fence post for a musket ball … all of these rituals are celebrating the revelation of a child’s gender identity, when only its genitalia are known. Therein lies the rub.
Society is burdened by the downstream effects of such confusion. Parents impose social constructs upon their offspring based upon their genitalia, and allow stereotypes and misunderstandings to hamper their children’s natural development. Children see and even touch their genitalia and will naturally wonder what their genitalia means. They struggle to understand themselves in the context of this biology and the associated social construct. This explains the phlegmatic and bilious humour of today’s youth. It contributes to their melancholy, lethargy, and isolation, and is evidenced by high rates of substance abuse and, indeed, of suicide.
Our impaired youth are a scourge on society and threaten our future as a productive member of the global community. As a good and just society (which we have never been and yet strive to be), we should endeavor to abolish the horrific consequences of biological sex biasing the pure development of gender identity
But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of unenlightened parents: it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants born in our country. Since all children are born with undiscovered gender identity, then they should be permitted to develop without the influence of biologic sex. Other members of society are encouraged to change their appearance to match their gender identity, so I know no reason why infants should not be accorded the same basic human right. Since their gender identity is undetermined, so then should be their apparent biology.
My modest proposal is that all infants be unburdened of the external ornaments of their biologic sex, so that their gender identity may develop without the influence of parental expectations or societal norms. The first step is the outlawing of ultrasound to visualize the fetal bits, far less to hazard a guess at the gender (this has worked well in China and India). In the delivery room, this will necessitate the immediate but temporary separation of mother and child so that the mother remains unaware of whether she has birthed a penis-baby or a vagina-baby. Fortunately, the existing medicalization of childbirth should make this separation basically unnoticeable to the modern parturient.
For penis-babies, all the genitalia are external, and will be removed by phallectomy, scrotectomy, and orchiectomy. Urination will be by a urethral meatus remaining on the perineum. Some may argue against the expense of two million such operations per annum, but my calculations confirm that these costs will be offset by savings from the absence of circumcisions and also by the elimination of urinals from all elementary school restrooms.
For vagina-babies, the vaginal orifice may be narrowed by creating a smooth covering of skin, created by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and labia majora, and by clitorectomy. Sadly, American surgeons are not properly trained to perform such a complicated surgery, especially on an hours-old newborn. Fortunately, there are many expert surgeons in Africa and the Middle East, where these procedures are frequently performed. In the West, these surgeries are known as Class 3 genital mutilations and they are currently banned for their cruelty. Foreign surgeons would be glad for the opportunity to come to the West and rebrand their skills as gender-identity-neutralization surgeries, simultaneously reeducating our medical community and earning a handsome living.
Newborn ovaries and corpus uteri may be left in situ through childhood because in their quiescence they are irrelevant and invisible both to the individual and to society and would not influence exploration of gender identity, and also because they will be needed for the continuation of the species. Of course, by the age of 10 or 11, all children will need to decide on a gender identity, start on estrogen or testosterone, and embark on a gender-creation surgery, including choice of mastectomy or augmentation, phalloplasty, hysterectomy, or neovagina creation. After a genderless childhood, the choice of a gendered adolescence and adulthood will be a cause for celebration, in line with other coming of age ceremonies like bar/bat-mitzvahs or quinceañeras. In the event a child chooses no gender at all, they would have a smorgasbord of available medical options ranging from a clean perineum to, perhaps, both a penis and a vagina.
Unfortunately, some of these surgeries (especially the phalloplasty) do not currently yield the best results, neither cosmetic nor functional. In the event that we have not discovered how to manufacture sperm out of whole cloth by then, we will need to remember to keep our sperm vaults properly powered and staffed, lest the electricity fail and our species go extinct. It is my humble hope that by the time today’s newborns reach the age of decision, our scientific and surgical talents will be the equal of our enlightened minds. Even better, by then we will have perfected the uterus transplant and will enjoy a large supply of unwanted natal uteri to transplant into transwomen who desire to breed. Of course, this also requires that the fetus be exposed to anti-rejection medication and be delivered by cesarean section, and that the parturient eventually have the uterus removed once breeding is complete, but these are small sacrifices compared to the benefits of experiencing the full potential of one’s chosen gender identity.
For those readers who remain unconvinced, I offer some additional benefits for their consideration. Firstly, our society is plagued by masculine toxicity, presumably mediated by testosterone. Since all penis-babies will be castrati, the only testosterone in our society will be distributed by pharmacies. Therefore, we will have the opportunity to titrate the dosage of testosterone to prevent toxic masculinity. No more rape-culture. No more me-too. No more manspreading on the subway.
Secondly, we will no longer be confused by pronouns. Children in their first decade will be ungendered and will all be referred to as they/them/theirs. By the end of adolescence, every individual will have chosen their gender, and will have had bespoke chemical and surgical treatments so that their external appearances exactly match their gender identities. Third parties will not have to wonder whether the biological sex matches gender-identity, and won’t have to ask what pronouns to use. Gender identity is laid bare for all to see!
Thirdly, we will no longer be plagued by sexism. Because all women will have chosen to be women with full knowledge of what it means to fully be a woman, they should not resent any lack of opportunity, pay disparity, or what not.
Lastly, this modest proposal is only a beginning. Once we successfully sever biology from gender, we will have made the first big step towards a wondrous post-biological human existence where anybody can be anyone, and we are all equal in the eyes of our Creator and in the eyes of each other. There will be no reason to argue, struggle, and fight for our natural rights and deserved equalities … what the Creator has not provided, science will. A Brave New World awaits us!
I Profess in the sincerity of my Heart that I have not the least personal Interest in endeavouring to promote this necessary Work having no other Motive than the publick Good of my Country, providing for Infants, and curing gender dysphoria. I have no Children who might be directly affected by this proposal; the youngest being fifteen Years old, and my Wife past Child-bearing.
“A Modest Proposal,” by Jonathan Swift