It's alive

Do you know who (or what) you are?  Do you have a name?  An identity?  Are you animal or vegetable?  The thing is that most everyone is someone (or something). Their parents knew they were someone when they were born and the government recognized them as a type of person when they were born (i.e. male or female).  Heck, even the SCOTUS got into the act and says a fetus is human in the third trimester. Yet, even with all this, there is still someone out there who insists on relegating the individual as a non-element.

Such was my thinking when I read an article (online, this time) about a hospital who left the identity of a newborn blank.  It was neither male nor female.  Forget the internal plumbing - we're going to call this thing an "it" for (at least) the first 8 years.

The (or a) problem with this is that when you deny a person's natural identity (be it gender or a human), you devalue that person's very existence.  Heck, labeling a human fetus as a "blob of tissue" denies unborn human children the acknowledgement of life.  For goodness sake, a freaking Revolutionary War was fought to determine that 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

To be fair, the woman who bore this "it" of a kid is Canadian (and Canadians are pretty out there by most anyone's standards (heck, even their money is called "a loonie")). Thing is, there are a fair number of people in these United States of America that think this is a good thing.

So, uh, where might all this "it" stuff lead?

In the very least, it'll lead to a bunch of confused people.  No way to identify you so we'll just call you an "it."  An "it" is a non-element.  Dang but if you thought introverts were withdrawn, wait until you see what calling a bunch of kids "it" does to their psyche.

Then there is the government element.  Allowing society to call a human entity an "it" allows government to do anything it wants to "it."  They can experiment on/with "it," abort "it," deny "it" benefits that would be granted to a male or female, or ignore "it" when "it" comes in for a doctor's exam.  It's and "it," after all.  No gender, no rights, no existence.  Really, guys - you're OK with this?  

Maybe I'm out in right field with this stuff but when I read constitutional resources like:

• Understanding Constitutional Law (Lexis)
• Treatise on Constitutional Law: substance and procedure (TR)
• Modern Constitutional Law (TR)
• Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation: the law of section 1983 (TR)

...I start to wonder how far "we the people" will take "we the people" until "we the people" realize that "we the people" are just a bunch of neutered rats?  Remember Soylent Green? Yeah, great movie but what I got from it is that it's easy(ier) to control and ignore that people are people when you can simply reduce them down to a cracker (or a pronoun, as the case may be).