It seems as if the entire world is squealing at the birth of the British royal baby. While there are some detractors of the global glee, there are also those who question whether it’s right to even assign a gender to a child who hasn’t opined on the issue him..uh.. her.. itself. How imperialist of the royal parents to declare their child a “boy” just because he has male genitalia?!
Thankfully, the internet is full of those well-versed in post-modern gender theory who can set us straight, or rather, set us transgender on the issue:
Ummm so about that royal baby, they shouldn't declare its gender so quickly! I kinda want them to raise it in such a way that it can choose.
— Money$ha K (@ManKan510) July 23, 2013
What if the royal baby got to choose its own name and how to express it's gender when it's older?
— Ian Duhig (@ianduhig) July 23, 2013
“Dove” is a person of transgender choice:
“Heteronormative” means imposing traditional standards of gender:
— Dave Arnold (@DaveArnold91) July 22, 2013
Of course the royal baby might not even have a binary gender.
— pi~ta (@crabsarehere) July 22, 2013
From San Francisco!
It may be a boy – depends on how they choose to express their gender if at all
— Myles C♨♨per (@MylesUSA) July 22, 2013
He got into a little tiff over it:
@AH_Jason take a human sexuality class please
— Myles C♨♨per (@MylesUSA) July 23, 2013
It's a bit early to assign gender roles to this royal baby… I hope they grow up to be a queen. Or, you know, whatever they want to be.
— ERN⚡CLFFRD (@ERiiiN) July 23, 2013
— Christopher J. Hogan (@Koko_Hogan) July 22, 2013
A “Queer Arachnofeminist”:
It’s a brave new world, friends. Full of wondrously confused people who demand you don’t impose your imperialist cisgender patriarchal definitions on what previously were clumps of cells. I’m actually kind of confused.
Some more on Storify. H/T @GenStuart