If I were to tell you that I think Dr. Anthony Fauci is a little authoritarian wannabe in a lab coat who got his jollies about wielding power not bestowed in him by the American people, resulting in a shutdown that we’ll pay the price for both in economic terms and in our psychological health and educational development for decades, I’m a science denier. Why? Because according to Fauci himself, he is science.

But when you consider another couple of issues that seem to be occupying the brain space of today’s leftists – abortion and transgenderism, science denying quite simply has been flipped on its head and you’re evil incarnate if you don’t accept the political hijacking of science, science that is as absolute as the laws of physics.

Since the Dobbs decision was handed down by the Supreme Court earlier this year, the left has been clamoring on incessantly about how a Constitutional right has been taken away. Never mind the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to take life away from someone else, nor is there a federal or state law on the books that blesses the taking of another life without consent. (I’ll leave the morality argument euthanasia supporters claim for another day.) In fact, the Declaration of Independence famously enshrines the three God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

At its foundational core, the pro-abortion argument has largely been that life in the womb cannot be considered to be life or else their position is eviscerated. It’s not a baby. It’s not human. It’s a clump of cells. When discussing life in the womb, the abortion crowd won’t use the baby’s preferred pronouns. No him, no her. It’s an it. To use gender pronouns would be to use imagery of personhood, and that can’t be permitted. Regardless of science showing amazing advances in prenatal care, including delicate in utero surgeries to correct defects, and increases in survivability rates of premature deliveries and even at earlier gestation times, the pro-abortion movement steadfastly refuses to look at science for what it’s revealing and holds onto their ‘it’s not life until it’s on the table’ mantra.

Now comes the transgender movement, another politically-inspired narrative that takes what we know about human physiology and biology and pretends science doesn’t really know what it’s talking about. I know that there are two chromosomes – X and Y. X is female, Y is male. I studied that in biology, a field of science. I know that archaeologists, when they come across the femur bone of a skeleton dug up somewhere, they can narrow down to which half of the human species that bone belonged by testing its genetic makeup. If you have two X chromosomes, you’re a female, and if you have and XY combination, you’re a male. That’s it. There’s no other combination. It’s one or the other. And if you don’t believe in that, you’re quite simply a science denier.

So what happens when in the pursuit of the transgender agenda you have to continually revise your argument that the desire to change genders isn’t just a fad, it’s not just the cool, new, hip thing to do, but something you’re born with? And if that’s not enough to win people over to your point of view, what’s next? In utero gender dysphoria? You might think I’m joking. But at Boston’s Harvard Children’s Hospital, they’re not. Watch this.

Resident psychologist Dr. Kerry McGregor has clearly bought into the fact that toddlers, who Piaget’s theory of cognitive development says have no self-awareness on the effects of their actions, are not only self-aware, but know what gender they’re really supposed to be. It’s agenda nonsense dressed up as medical science. But notice just in the first part of her video that she sticks the knife in the back of the abortion argument on the ladder rung above her transgender movement as it tries to ascend higher into the progressive liberal hierarchy. She says that “But a good portion of children do know as early as seemingly from the womb.” Wait, what? Is that science? Of course not. But what she has just done is put on video her scientifically-trained opinion that life begins in the womb.

We’re way past debating when you can detect a fetal heartbeat at six or ten or fifteen weeks now, aren’t we? If a baby in utero can have intelligent, coherent, lifelong thoughts and opinions about himself or herself, that regardless of how they were or are being formed they know what gender they really ought to be, and once they get out of their dark imprisonment and can learn the appropriate language skills necessary to consult strange grownups in school and medical facilities outside the knowledge of the parents who made him or her, then how in the world should it be legal to extinguish that life?

You can’t have it both ways if you’re a good progressive these days. You can’t on the one hand deny the right of the unborn to life because you refuse to accept it has personhood, and yet simultaneously hold the viewpoint that in the continuing development and advancement of what we know about transgenderism, it’s innate seemingly from conception. And if one still continues to hold the abortion on demand position, are they not now anti-LGBT and encouraging hate crimes by the taking of future transgender life? Shouldn’t there be a U.N.-sponsored international agency for the protection of all unborn life on humanitarian transgender grounds? Where’s the LGBT outrage at the pro-choice movement? Where’s the outrage from the pro-choice movement at the LGBT movement for shivving them in the kidneys?

I eagerly await this to be discussed on leftist cable news. Oh, wait, I forgot. Muh democracy. Never mind.