The assertion that parents are inherently the primary educators of their children has stirred quite the debate, prompting a need to advocate for parental authority and natural truths.
At the heart of this discussion lies the contemporary phenomenon of children adopting genders different from their biological sex. This trend, endorsed in progressive education circles, has seeped into school classrooms. This situation becomes more concerning when it leads children to irreversible surgeries during their developmental years.
In a bid to safeguard children, Blaine Higgs, Premier of New Brunswick, has proposed a policy obliging schools to inform parents if their children adopt a gender distinct from their biological sex. This approach has sparked claims of prejudice, and educators are reluctant to disclose such information. Prime Minister Trudeau frames the issue as a human rights matter, standing by teachers despite being a parent himself.
While state intervention is necessary to protect children when parents fall short of their responsibilities, a distinction must be made between these situations and the notion that schools or state agents should predominantly safeguard children, sidelining parental authority.
Let’s look into the foundation of the universally accepted bond between parent and child. The parent-child relationship is an intricate interplay of nature and nurturing, pre-dating the concept of the state. While biology doesn’t encompass the entirety of the relationship, it sets a natural standard. This standard is exclusive, embedded in our genetic makeup. We often refer to it as a blood tie, regardless of occasional instances where parents or children may reject it. Barring adoption, the primary connection is biological and rooted in nature.
However, what happens when biological nature is whimsically discarded as a measure of truth? This action undermines the essence of the parent-child bond. When governments embrace and advocate for the redefinition of sexual identity based solely on an individual’s declaration, as Canada’s federal government does, the natural standard is rejected. Consequently, the basis of biological truth erodes, along with the language used to convey these truths.
Thus, the rejection of biology undermines the bedrock at the foundation of the parent-child relationship. As society moves away from a natural standard, the foundation of the parent-child link weakens, threatening parental authority and the family’s cohesiveness.
This abandonment of natural objectivity also signals a disregard for science, a foundation that cannot sustain a society dependent on scientific principles. Furthermore, embracing the idea that reality changes with words’ utterance places us in a world reminiscent of primitive societies where shamans’ words held magical power to alter reality.
Being subject to capricious declarations that supersede the natural standard is akin to living by enchantments, and this has profound political ramifications. It triggers a substantial power shift, where the state wields ultimate authority to enforce utterances. Without the limitations of nature, the state’s power becomes unrestrained. The state could, for example, arbitrarily “identify” as a child’s parent, leaving individuals with no recourse to any other standard.
This is why surpassing biological bonds and neglecting the natural order is more concerning than Mr. Harrison’s worries about optimal caregiving. Nature has historically stood as a resolute fortress for parental authority. Yet, this stronghold is under siege, and its foundation is eroding. Once biology no longer serves as a measure, families rest on the state’s whim to permit individuals to become adoptive parents to their children, should the state so choose.
Thus, the best defence of parental authority must include a defence of well-rooted scientific (biological) truths.
