I want to be a woman

I was watching Monty Python’s Life of Brian the other day (an impulse buy Mr. Bookworm made at Costco), and was much struck by the scene below, in which one of the characters announces that he wants to be a woman.  Somehow it seems very apropos nowadays, given the bizarre extremes of gender politics (especially the stories about “men” getting pregnant, even though those “men” are nothing more than women with their breasts cut off and hormones to grow facial hair):

JUDITH:
I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG:
Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS:
Yeah. I think Judith’s point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man–
STAN:
Or woman.
FRANCIS:
Or woman… to rid himself–
STAN:
Or herself.
FRANCIS:
Or herself.
REG:
Agreed.
FRANCIS:
Thank you, brother.
STAN:
Or sister.
FRANCIS:
Or sister. Where was I?
REG:
I think you’d finished.
FRANCIS:
Oh. Right.
REG:
Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man–
STAN:
Or woman.
REG:
Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan. You’re putting us off.
STAN:
Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN:
I want to be one.
REG:
What?
STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.
REG:
What?!
LORETTA:
It’s my right as a man.
JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But… you can’t have babies.
LORETTA:
Don’t you oppress me.
REG:
I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG:
What’s the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
[trumpets]

You know you’re living in weird times when life imitates broad, farcical art.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. USMaleSF says

    Funny you should post this, Book. I just got back from a slug-fest on a gay site when I questioned the acronym LGBT, LesbianGayBisexualTransgender. One or two folks engaged me, but most just namecalled.

    After 30 plus years, I am a rank assimilationist. My sexual orientation is central to my identity and history, but it does not displace my identity as a man…or an American, or a host of other things. For a lot of LGBT people, not all, a transgressive identity is key and “challenging conventional gender norms” is their reason for getting up in the morning. Guess I’m too old for that.

    As I often say, with only a hint of a twinkle in my eye, I’m an old fashioned guy who believes that men and women are different and that men should have sex with men, just as God intended.

  2. says

    Excellent point about the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation. As I’ve often commented here, I have the deepest sympathy for people who, for whatever reason, cannot reconcile their internal sense of self with their own body’s reality. Nevertheless, as the Monty Python skit makes plain, their psychosexual confusion does not alter biological reality. The Monty Python sketch perfectly distills the insanity of trying to draft policy shaped around people’s desires rather than the world as it is (and always will be).

  3. says

    Back in the day, say the Ancient Greeks, man on man or man on boy relationships were quite common.

    It was stipulated that because women were intellectually inferior (they being incapable of reading or any number of other manish pursuits), true love, the love of one mind to another, could only spring up between one man and another.

    Of course, the innovation America put on the scene, and the innovation of the Spartans, to put women into the battle or have them bring as much a share to the virtues of honor, loyalty, and courage as a man, has nullified most of the Greek’s reasonings and explanations for an older man mentoring a younger boy until that boy grows to be a man and forms his own family.

    This is an important historical lesson to recall because when you compare that to the LGBT movement, what you will see is that the LGBT movement is set out to destroy society and not continue or “mentor” it. It is more analogous to the rebellion of a minority (majority in Judea) of Jews to the Roman Emperor Hadrian’s religious edicts that one must sacrifice animals on Temple Mount (A Roman practice dedicating sacrifices to ancestors, Greek Gods, Roman Gods, etc).

    The LGBT movement was not a mainstream movement enacted to explain a needed practice. They are not there to advocate for equality under the law for LGBTs. They are not there to provide for the progress of humanity. They are there to regress humanity to the dark ages. That is what they will accomplish and that is the only thing within their vision set.

    They have no philosophical arguments for their case. Not no valid philosophical arguments, just no philosophical arguments at all. Except the narcissistic “me, me” category. That’s what identity politics and victim classes produce. They band together because the group gives sanction to their actions and they want the larger mainstream group to do the same.

  4. Danny Lemieux says

    “Back in the day, say the Ancient Greeks, man on man or man on boy relationships were quite common”.

    I would dispute that point, YM, only in that this was true during the final stages of Greek civilization when the “Cult of Ganymede” became popular. It was not always that way. Greek civilization had already been in a long decline and thus became susceptible to conquest by the Romans, who (at that point in their own civilization) strongly disapproved of such behavior. Today, the Greek Church stands strongly against homosexual behavior.

Leave a Reply