Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

THE view that humans come in two kinds, male and female, is under challenge if not outdated.

In a rear-guard action, the Fatherhood Foundation launched a booklet, 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters.

Several politicians, including Prime Minister John Howard, dropped in to the launch and more or less agreed humans consist of men and women, and marriage should be between a man and a woman.

However, they are all swimming against the tide. Sex changes are everywhere. Grace Abrams was born a male but has changed to female and complains she can’t get an Australian passport as a female because he was married as a male.

Then 60 Minutes showed a boy who decided, as a two-year-old, that he was really a girl and dressed accordingly. He is now going to have hormones and surgery.

But the real insight into gender assignation comes from male fish in British rivers. About one-third of the male fish are developing female characteristics in a trend that could change the ecological balance of the waterways.

Concerned environmentalists are calling for a ban on pesticides, but the problem is not pesticides but estrogens from birth control pills.

Estrogens cannot be removed by existing methods of sewage treatment and, of course, we can’t do without the Pill.

Lest anyone think British fish are just being eccentric as the British are apt to be (boys will be boys, or in this case, boys will be girls) the situation is the same in Washington DC.

Washington is separated from British rivers by a substantial pool, the Atlantic Ocean. But scientists have found certain species of male fish in the Potomac River are showing female traits. They are developing eggs in their testes.

Fish pathologist Vicki Blazer says the trend may be caused by chemicals—read estrogen—in the Potomac.

Professor Charles Tyler of Exeter University is worried. “The soup of estrogen is responsible for causing these changes to the fish. It is abnormal. These fish should be male or female,” says the professor.

“The fact that we have such a large proportion across the country is not right.”

Not right? Is Prof Tyler making a value judgment on fish?

Whose values are these?

Why shouldn’t fish change sex, just as humans do, in response to their environment?

This moral judgmentalism by fish pathologists is evidence of heterosexism. They should be cautioned by their university boards.

Why shouldn’t a male fish change sex, just as Grace Abrams has, and be given a passport so it can migrate from British rivers to join transgendered colleagues in the Potomac?

The United Nations, at its Commission on the Status of Women in New York, way back in 2000, said the consensus was seven or more genders: male, female, bisexual, asexual, hermaphrodite, transvestite and transgendered.

The last group are further divided into those who are awaiting surgery, those who have had surgery, and those who have had surgery but are unhappy and wish to revert to their former condition.

Max Padilla, Family Minister of Nicaragua, was recalcitrant and refused to concede there were more than two genders, so the Swedish delegation said if Max didn’t change his vote, they would withdraw development aid to Nicaragua.

Nicaragua is a poor country, dependent on aid, so the minister was quickly ordered home. Economic coercion is an effective method of settling gender issues.

Only fanatical right-wingers think that if God made fish male and female, they should stay that way. As Peter Singer might say, fish have every right, just as we have, to change sex and enjoy the benefits of the Pill.