You've already heard about the pregnant man. But what about the she-man fish? "Intersex" freshwater fish are all the rage. But unlike the pregnant man, these scaly androgynes didn't ask to take on the sexual characteristics of both genders: humans are doing it to them. (Where's the freedom to choose?!) And the reason these fish are doubling up could make hash of orthodoxies dating back to the sexual revolution.
Estrogen pollution from contraceptive and abortion pills could be the culprit behind these piscine switcheroos. And thus the two holiest of holies for the left may be on a collision course. It promises to be quite the show.
Starting a few years ago, in the Potomac River, male largemouth bass started popping up with eggs in their sex organs. The deformity usually makes reproduction impossible, ultimately hurting the fish population. Many scientists believe the problem could stem from hormones and other pollutants flushed into our nation's waterways from sewage-treatment plants.
In his book "The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About -- Because They Helped Cause Them" (Regnery, 2008), Iain Murray writes: "Why don't we have more outcries about hormones, and campaigns to save the fish populations? Why aren't environmentalists lobbying on Capitol Hill to keep these chemicals from being dumped into our rivers?" He answers his own question: "Maybe because the source of these chemicals is not some corporate polluter, but something a little more dear to the Left: human birth-control pills, morning-after pills, and abortion pills."
The contraceptive pill has fundamentally changed American life, making sex more casual, morals looser, husbands and wives more distant. Its messed with women's fertility. In short, it has been a game-changer, in some fundamental and not-so-good ways. And because its introduction came 40 years ago, at a time when American culture was enamored with Woodstock, feminism and free love, prescient warnings and cautions -- most notably from Pope Paul VI in his encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in the summer of 1968 -- went unheeded.
But we may soon have reason to regret our embrace of the little white pill. For the first time, mainstream culture and the left may be forced to take a look at the side effects of oral contraceptives. Never mind the women, of course. Never mind the men and children affected in various emotional and other ways. The fish! Have mercy on the fish!The turnaround won't come, however, without some whiplash. Ironically, the environmental groups have long been on the same page as the abortion-industry foot soldiers, embracing anything that assuages fears of overpopulation (no longer a worry, as Western countries, particularly in Europe, face plummeting birth rates). "The protection of the quality of our environment is impossible in the face of the present rate of population growth," and therefore, "Laws, policies, and attitudes that foster population growth or big families, or that restrict abortion and contraception ... should be abandoned; [and] comprehensive and realistic birth control programs should be available to every member of our society." That's not from Planned Parenthood; it's a Sierra Club resolution from 1970.
This is from Planned Parenthood: "Prominent women in the global environmental movement ... believe there are strong links between the health of the environment, the ability of women to engage and lead their communities, and their ability to exercise their inherent reproductive rights. Women have a stake in a clean environment because they are often the main providers of food and water, and their reproductive health can be adversely affected by environmental degradation."
But, Murray writes, "By any standard typically used by environmentalists, the pill is a pollutant. It does the same thing, just worse, as other chemicals they call pollutants."
So what does that mean for us and the fish? Nothing straight away, Murray tells me. There's more than pollution at stake here for the left, so, expect "outright denial at there being a problem, obfuscation of the science when strong arguments are presented, attempts to deflect attention onto much rarer and less harmful industrial estrogen, and ad hominem accusations, in this case an allegation of religious zealotry/being in the pay of the 'very well-funded pro-life industry' I imagine. The effort will be based on making it unacceptable to bring up the issue in polite conversation, such that anyone who does so will end up stigmatized (astonishing how often the left resorts to shame, rather than thinking about guilt). Some radical Greens may actually be honest enough to admit there is a problem. They will be marginalized by the environmental-industrial-entertainment complex (to paraphrase Fox Mulder)."
Choice needs to be based on information; it should always be the result of thoughtful deliberation. When you interfere with a natural process, there are consequences, not all of them good -- and you should be mindful of them. It's not just fish that end up getting hurt.