Matt Walsh: Liberal science: a pregnant woman is a man but the human in her womb isn't a person

I returned from vacation this week to see dozens of headlines in mainstream news outlets proclaiming something miraculous: a man has given birth to a baby.

Of course, the one very slight problem with these headlines is that they aren’t true and can never be true. The “trans man” who birthed a child is actually a woman. Granted, a woman who takes hormone pills and wears men’s shirts, but still a woman. If we were to adjust the headline to make it accurate, it would have to read like this: “Woman with inordinate amount of facial hair gives birth to baby.” Or just this: "Woman does thing that billions of women throughout history have also done."

If CNN is going to report that a “man” gave birth, they may as well report that a six foot tall rodent was spotted hugging children at Disney World. The fact that the giant friendly rat is actually a dude in a costume is about as relevant to the story as the fact that the pregnant man is actually a woman in a flannel. Which is to say, it’s very relevant. One might even say necessary. One might even go further and say that only a liar or a lunatic would recount the shenanigans of a cartoon character as if it were a real biological creature or write headlines about a “man” giving birth as if a man actually gave birth.

And this analogy works in more ways than one, because “transgenderism” has turned the sexes into something like mascots. It has made maleness and femaleness into costumes that a person can put on and take off when they please. But in this masquerade ball, we must all pretend that the masquerade is not a masquerade. We must act as though the man or woman in the suit actually is the suit. Perhaps CNN will soon be sending journalists to Halloween parties to earnestly report the urgent news that Dracula and the Harley Quinn were spotted sitting together on the sofa and drinking spiked apple cider. Maybe they'll report live from the scene of an NFL game in Atlanta, where a massive falcon has just flown into the stadium to cheer on the home team and engage in various hijinks. Or perhaps they'll air a prime time interview with my four-year-old son, who will tell the harrowing story of how he first discovered that he's Spider-Man.

You get my point. This woman is play acting in a man costume. And she's not even playing the part very convincingly. She says she feels like a man but she obviously has no idea what "feeling like a man" means because she believes that men commonly experience the urge to conceive and deliver children. I have spent the last 31 years as a man, in a practically unbroken streak, and I can say with confidence that I have never in my life felt that desire, nor have any of my male friends, nor has any mentally stable male in history. The only men who claim to have that longing are the ones who claim to be women. Indeed, we are told that a man who wants to conceive a child in his non-existent womb must really be a woman trapped in a man's body. So what of a woman who wants to be a man who wants to have babies? I guess she's a woman trapped inside a man trapped inside a woman, which is a very long and confusing way of saying that she's a woman with severe psychiatric problems. What certainly cannot be said about her is that she's a man, or even that she feels like one.

I have a headache just from writing that last paragraph. I need a nap and a shower and a rocket ship to a planet in a distant galaxy. But this is what the Left calls "science." And the "science" at work in the pregnant man story is even more perverse than it first appears. Just think about it: In the Left's version of things, a woman with a baby in her womb is a man, but the baby in the womb isn't a person. All it takes for the woman to be a man, despite lacking every physical qualifier, is that she wants to be one. But the baby, despite having every physical qualifier necessary to be a human, still does not get to be one. That's how we end up with a "man" carrying around in "his" womb a mass of magical tissue which will become a person at some undetermined point through some process nobody can explain. She's a man even though she's a woman, and she gave birth to a person who wasn't a person until he was born, even though he's the same person after birth that he was before.

"Science."

This is science.

And what is the "scientific" force responsible for all of these confusing and sudden transformations? Only the woman's (I mean, "man's") emotional desire. Her desire can grant or rescind humanity from her child. Her desire can grant or rescind her own femaleness. She is whatever she wants herself to be and her baby is whatever she wants it to be. She is like some sort of genie, wielding power that cannot be explained, proven, demonstrated, noted, studied, calculated, measured, or seen, and must be accepted as a matter of blind faith. Or, as they would say, as a matter of "science."

You have probably noticed something about this science: there is no science in it. Science can be defined as "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." But nothing in the Left's "science" of gender or pregnancy can be experimented or observed. There is no structure. No system. No study, for there is nothing to study. All of the physical markers are dismissed outright. They do not say that this or that bit of physical evidence points to a different conclusion, but that the evidence is irrelevant. They have not devised a different method for ascertaining the humanity of the unborn or the gender of an individual. Rather, they have rejected the scientific method entirely and replaced it with orthodoxy. They cannot prove that the woman is a man or that the child isn't a person, and they won't try. They will simply say that old methods of proof are heretical. Proof itself is heretical, they proclaim. All we are allowed to do is accept what we are told.

"Science."

No, this is not not science. It's religion. And, unlike Christianity, it is a narrow, unreasonable, and violent religion. It is the primitive religion of savages, where trees and beasts are worshiped, blood is shed ritualistically, orgies and sodomy are elevated as sacraments, and scientific advancement is written off as sorcery. But at least the superstitious pagans of old had ignorance as an excuse. Their modern cousins are not ignorant. They don't lack knowledge; they've rejected it. The secrets of the universe were opened to them, but they decided to shut the treasure chest and descend back into ignorance, and then insanity. Much can be said about the strange dogmas and ideas they have devised in the world of darkness and chaos they created for themselves, but we certainly cannot say that it is science.

It is anti-science. It is the death of science. It is the literal rejection of science. Funny that it comes from the "pro-science" side.

To see more from Matt Walsh, visit his channel on TheBlaze.