When I was growing up during the late fifties and early sixties, there were lots of news stories about politics, war, crime, even an occasional article about a new dance craze.  Juvenile delinquency was in its embryonic stage, with crime stories about teenagers with switchblade knives and membership in small neighborhood groups who wore apparel signifying what gangs they belonged to.  There weren't any semi-automatic weapons available, so gang members might construct homemade pistols, known as "zip guns," which were made with rubber bands wrapped around a wooden frame, with a coat hanger or a car aerial attached.  The rubber bands provided the tensile strength to push the improvised hammer against a single pellet, sending it, very inaccurately, toward an intended target.  Possession of one of those primitive devices could get the youthful offender a year in a detention facility.

However, now that we live in the enlightened age of liberal policies toward criminals, and contempt for their victims, modern-day teens are equipped with high-velocity guns containing twelve or more cartridges in a magazine.  Cops aren't allowed to use stop-and-frisk techniques to disarm them because it might injure the sensibility of the little hoodlums.  Illegal guns are used thousands of times in cities across the country, and those arrested for using, or carrying, are often released before the weapon stops emitting smoke.

When there were more reasonable people in charge, there was something called a "three-time loser."  That meant that if you were found guilty of felonies for a third time, you would be imprisoned for enough years to make a point about recidivism.  Not anymore! Reading about felons walking the streets after being convicted 10, 20, even 30 times has become commonplace.  How many times should someone be convicted of serious crimes before he's labeled a menace to society?  Moreover, when one of those menaces gets killed during a police incident, it's more than an even bet that the cop will be the one going to prison.

Concomitant with the breakdown in law and order is the complete deterioration of what used to be cultural norms based on biology and other recognized sciences.  Nah, we can't allow thousands of years of knowledge in the fields of human experience to interfere with the most bizarre notions of left-wing orthodoxy.  As a result, we have countenanced an era in which every grotesque fantasy must be treated with tolerance, even acceptance, lest the "intolerant" be savaged by those who support those absurd incongruities.  Disseminating the idea that men can get pregnant is just one of those absurdities.  Attempts at reasonable discourse regarding the subject on social media will open you up to vicious displays of vulgarity and accusations of some sort of "ism."  In Texas, a man running for a seat in the Legislature was excoriated in a classroom for objecting to having his son turned into his daughter by his estranged wife.  A room filled with obnoxious, screeching, spitting, middle finger–waving incorrigibles greeted the embattled candidate.

Everything has been turned upside-down in this age of cultural decay.  This is what happens when an affluent society has become used to having all its basic needs fully satisfied.  That's when people begin to conjure up problems that, during a saner time in our history, would have resulted in psychological counseling for those who believe they were born into the wrong body.  Au contraire!  We must never use logic and reasoning on issues that the left has determined should be catered to, and even paid for, by those who believe in the natural order of things.

Although I've been admonished many times, on social platforms, to refrain from declaring that men can't give birth, I've asked my admonishers to contradict me with proof of paternal childbirth.  As of this date, I've never had anyone disprove my allegation.

Image: Rachel Gleaves via Pixy.