A couple days ago this post included the following dilemma from the far left:

the activism of transgender students and their supporters raises complicated questions about the way we think about gender. Is it what we're born with or is it merely one of many roles we learn?

Well along comes Dennis Prager with an interview of Anna Montrose, a 22-year old student at McGill University in Montreal. It seems that 4 years ago Ms. Montrose was a normal, heterosexual teenager. Now, she isn't so sure, having written this:

It's hard to go through four years of a Humanities B.A. reading Foucault and Butler and watching 'The L Word' and keep your rigid heterosexuality intact. I don't know when it happened exactly, but it seems I no longer have the easy certainty of pinning my sexual desire to one gender and never the other.

This woman learned to be bisexual. And it's not only her sexuality that was muddled at McGill. She really has lost all perspective of what it means to love someone, because she has reduced relationships to sexual pairings. Check out her perspective on marriage:

Montrose: "Well, hope would imply that that would be ideal. But I'm not going to say that getting married would be ideal. But I'm also not against marriage; I mean you get insurance benefits by getting married so I can definitely see a case where I would get married."
Prager: "For insurance benefits?"
Montrose: "Yeah."
Prager: "That's why you would marry?"
Montrose: "And tax benefits as well. It's very convenient."

I don't know what tuition is at McGill University, but it is clearly a waste of money.