Vanity Fair claims Meghan Markle wants to raise a 'gender-fluid' baby, and royal spokesman vehemently denies it

On the surface, conflicting reports on the intentions of Prince Harry and wife Meghan Markle in raising their new baby look confusing, but it's really not complicated at all.  

Vanity Fair wrote yesterday:

With rumors swirling that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are expecting a baby boy — Meghan Markle is said to have told friends at her recent baby shower that they are having a son — there's a chance the public might know the sex of Baby Sussex before too long.

But it might not be a case of blue for a boy and pink for a girl according to a source close to the couple.  The duchess is understood to have told at least one friend that they want to raise their baby without gender-stereotyping, which means the nursery might not be filled with toy trains and cars if it is a boy.  The Sussexes have already planned a gender-neutral nursery and opted for whites and grays over conventional blue and pink color ways, and this seems to be in line with Meghan's ideas about how to raise children.

Of course, the sourcing is about as weak as it possibly could get: "understood to have told at least one friend[.]"


Meghan Markle in 2018 (source).

 

The denial from a spokesman at Kensington Palace was unequivocal:

Kensington Palace has dismissed reports that the Duchess of Sussex wants to raise her child gender fluid, branding them "totally false". ...

[T]he claims have been rubbished by Kensington Palace, which said in a statement: "This story is totally false."

Whatever the underlying facts turn out to be, and whether or not we ever learn them, the entire incident is part of the top-down effort to impose a radical agenda of denying the scientific differences between the two (and only two) sexes.  I have never seen a poll on popular opinion on the scientific validity or personal acceptance of claims of gender fluidity.  There is a  strong reason why: my guess is that most people recognize that it is fantasy, but they have been bullied into keeping their mouths shut because people get into trouble, being denounced as "transphobic" or "haters."  (See the example of Joe Biden denouncing his old friend Mike Pence on exactly those grounds.)

Consider the possible scenarios:

1. Markle really did tell friends, because that's what her Hollywood friends all think is cool.

2. Or, Vanity Fair, or more likely its sources, made it up.

Either way, the British monarchy has been associated with the concept of "gender fluidity."  In England in particular but worldwide as well, the royals are considered taste-makers.  Even if the baby is raised as Joe Macho (at least until the queen dies), the possibility of future "transition" is out there as a possibility.

Two other alternatives need to be considered, if the first scenario is true:

3. Perhaps the palace was not consulted.  In that case, Markle was deliberately provoking her in-laws.  That worked out really well, at least in publicity terms, for Princess Diana.  Someone who went into the acting (and therefore the celebrity) business should really love that.  Or:

4. The palace was consulted and refused, but she went ahead and planted the rumor.  The rebel, standing up for modern P.C. positions, earns even more credit from the media.

Under all these alternatives, the cause of mainstreaming and sanctifying unscientific nonsense utilizing major, prestige-heavy institutions has advanced.

It really is that simple.

On the surface, conflicting reports on the intentions of Prince Harry and wife Meghan Markle in raising their new baby look confusing, but it's really not complicated at all.  

Vanity Fair wrote yesterday:

With rumors swirling that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are expecting a baby boy — Meghan Markle is said to have told friends at her recent baby shower that they are having a son — there's a chance the public might know the sex of Baby Sussex before too long.

But it might not be a case of blue for a boy and pink for a girl according to a source close to the couple.  The duchess is understood to have told at least one friend that they want to raise their baby without gender-stereotyping, which means the nursery might not be filled with toy trains and cars if it is a boy.  The Sussexes have already planned a gender-neutral nursery and opted for whites and grays over conventional blue and pink color ways, and this seems to be in line with Meghan's ideas about how to raise children.

Of course, the sourcing is about as weak as it possibly could get: "understood to have told at least one friend[.]"


Meghan Markle in 2018 (source).

 

The denial from a spokesman at Kensington Palace was unequivocal:

Kensington Palace has dismissed reports that the Duchess of Sussex wants to raise her child gender fluid, branding them "totally false". ...

[T]he claims have been rubbished by Kensington Palace, which said in a statement: "This story is totally false."

Whatever the underlying facts turn out to be, and whether or not we ever learn them, the entire incident is part of the top-down effort to impose a radical agenda of denying the scientific differences between the two (and only two) sexes.  I have never seen a poll on popular opinion on the scientific validity or personal acceptance of claims of gender fluidity.  There is a  strong reason why: my guess is that most people recognize that it is fantasy, but they have been bullied into keeping their mouths shut because people get into trouble, being denounced as "transphobic" or "haters."  (See the example of Joe Biden denouncing his old friend Mike Pence on exactly those grounds.)

Consider the possible scenarios:

1. Markle really did tell friends, because that's what her Hollywood friends all think is cool.

2. Or, Vanity Fair, or more likely its sources, made it up.

Either way, the British monarchy has been associated with the concept of "gender fluidity."  In England in particular but worldwide as well, the royals are considered taste-makers.  Even if the baby is raised as Joe Macho (at least until the queen dies), the possibility of future "transition" is out there as a possibility.

Two other alternatives need to be considered, if the first scenario is true:

3. Perhaps the palace was not consulted.  In that case, Markle was deliberately provoking her in-laws.  That worked out really well, at least in publicity terms, for Princess Diana.  Someone who went into the acting (and therefore the celebrity) business should really love that.  Or:

4. The palace was consulted and refused, but she went ahead and planted the rumor.  The rebel, standing up for modern P.C. positions, earns even more credit from the media.

Under all these alternatives, the cause of mainstreaming and sanctifying unscientific nonsense utilizing major, prestige-heavy institutions has advanced.

It really is that simple.