Gender Affirming Care
Preface
While delving into an issue that has become such a societal third rail, a fair question to ask is “What is your purpose in doing so?” Another fair question is, “Why do you care?” Quite simply, I care because I have to live within this society and I feel this is an issue that affects the most vulnerable sect of the population, kids. As one side of this debate dominates public discourse, I believe it to be important to examine and discuss the evidence surrounding the issue. The other reason is simply that I am deeply interested in psychology, philosophy, politics, social-cultural trends, and the debate of nature versus nurture. It just so happens that this topic lies at the intersection of all of them. I have read and watched gender and queer theorists such as Judith Butler. I have read and watched the counterarguments against gender and queer theory. I’ve familiarized myself with the philosophy and medical literature on both sides of the debate so I feel that although while I may be right or wrong (A position I am perfectly willing to accept), I am in a position to posit a credible argument from a perspective often not able to be discussed.
Lastly, I do not believe that the general population really knows what’s going on with this trend that is skyrocketing among American youth and find themselves perhaps to weary to ask. For many, this is a human rights issue with “Rights being stripped away” leading to a “Trans Genocide” orchestrated by hate-filled and bigoted people. A claim of genocide and the passing and pushing of laws that allow the federal government to supersede the rights of parents deserves and even demands to be discussed. There are very few people willing to touch this landmine of a debate and those that often do, I feel, are not approaching it from a standpoint of goodwill and honest inquiry. Most do not understand the gender debate because the academic language that surrounds it is inherently and intentionally complex so that people are rendered indefensible in their positions, I am hoping to bridge the gap between everyday people and the academic, activist, and political class.
Within my researching of this topic, I read or watched testimonies of people who suffer from a disconnect between their bodies and their internal self, gaining a greater appreciation for the struggles these people live through. I want to be perfectly clear, I believe all people are born equal and that no one, regardless of any physical characteristics, is better than or worse than anyone else. I believe in equal rights for all. I do not know, nor could ever know the hardships associated with someone who lives through gender confusion nor what the parents of these children go through. Furthermore, I am not talking (or wanting to talk) about adult transitioners, because quite frankly, I don’t care and it’s none of my business. While in this piece I will be admittedly critical about the transitioning of children, it became clear to me through first-hand accounts and within the data that gender transitions do help a lot of people and have provided people with a better sense of peace. For this reason, amongst others, is why I am not against adult’s having the right to transition, that’s not what this essay is concerned with. Also, I am separating trans people from trans activists, this is a major distinction because they are not synonymous. One group is simply existing and wanting to exist in peace while the other is a radical political group demanding we tear down foundational structures within society to suit their list of demands. With that being said, I do intend to dissect parts of trans-and-gender ideology and the recent push for “Gender Affirming Care” because I do not believe that within a healthy society, topics are deemed off-limits out of the fear of repercussions or the fear of creating offense.
I hope that my honest inquiry is interpreted as such and as not as some hate-filled argument because that is not the position I am operating from.
Gender & Postmodernism
There seems to be a ‘Ships passing in the night’ element to the word and meaning of “Gender,” as it is defined within gender theory. Those that oppose tenants of gender theory often posit statements such as, “There are only two genders.” The issue with this statement, from the perspective of a gender theorist, is that it is technically incorrect. While there may or may not be only two sexes, there are an infinite amount of genders that are all part of a spectrum. Gender is a term used to describe characteristics that may or may not be linked to biological sex, it is more so in reference to “socially constructed” aspects of the masculine and feminine through language. To put it another way, gender (as defined by gender theorists) is not rooted necessarily in biology or the physical reality, but instead, reflects an internal characterization of an individual in a manner in which they view and express themselves. The relationship between sex and gender, according to gender theorists and social scientists, is a complicated one that is sometimes influenced by biology and sometimes gender operates completely independently from biological sex.
The root of gender, or gender theory, begins as an offshoot of the 20th-century philosophy emerging from France referred to as “Post Modernism.” To quote Britannica, “Postmodernists deny that there are aspects of reality that are objective; that there are statements about reality that are objectively true or false; that it is possible to have knowledge of such statements (objective knowledge); that it is possible for human beings to know some things with certainty; and that there are objective, or absolute, moral values. Reality, knowledge, and value are constructed by discourses; hence they can vary with them. This means that the discourse of modern science, when considered apart from the evidential standards internal to it, has no greater purchase on the truth than do alternative perspectives, including (for example) astrology and witchcraft”
A central tenant of postmodern philosophy resides in the idea that there is no objective truth and that everything is entirely subjective, so to a postmodern academic, there is quite simply no such thing as a man or woman because it means something different to every single person. Considered the “Godfather of Post Modernism” Michel Foucault, was a chief influence on Judith Butler who went on to write one of the foundational texts of Gender and Queer theory entitled, “Gender Trouble” where she argues that masculine and feminine behaviors are “Performative” and not rooted in biology or evolution, but instead, entirely constructed through language and environmental influences. Judith Butler who has professed at Johns Hopkins University, George Washington, Cal Berkely, and Columbia University, among others, is a feminist, critical, gender, and queer theorist, who argues that because gender identity is established through behavior and constructed through language (Not biology or anything innate), we can construct different genders through different behaviors. It is the elevation of subjectivity over objective reality, in other words, “I think and feel, therefore, I am.” Foucault, one of Butler’s greatest influences, arose from the heavily Karl Marx-influenced Frankfurt school where he was exposed and influenced by “Critical Philosophy” which is the source of critical race theory and gender theory, amongst many other prominent ideologies we hear of today.
To cite an article from Aero Magazine on postmodern theorists “These philosophers were indebted to the writings of Immanuel Kant, whose critical philosophy centers on the establishment of a priori conditions for knowledge claims. These conditions are foundational epistemological faculties, helping each rational individual to acquire knowledge about and reflect on himself and his place in the world. These philosophers were also indebted to Karl Marx: they were deeply concerned with the impact of social conditions on the ability of each potentially rational individual to make a rational knowledge claim. Their indebtedness to Kant and Marx emerges in their contribution to philosophy—Critical Theory, in which the central mission is to criticize the imposition of false views on individuals within a social setting.”
Foucault’s postmodern belief of there being no such thing as “objective morality” and “everything is constructed through language” led him to the rationalization that child consent laws are denying and oppressing children of their sexuality, since after all, to him, adults and children are the same and equal. Foucault petitioned French Parliament, in favor of legalizing sex with children, claiming a child can consent, saying, “Listen to what the child says and give it a certain credence. This notion of consent is a trap, in any case, what is sure is that the legal form of intersexual consent is nonsense, no one signs a contract before making love.” Additionally, the postmodern philosopher who was a widely alleged serial pedophile, is the most widely cited person in the American University today, most prominently within the humanities and social sciences departments. The irony is not lost on me that the same academic halls that are largely responsible for today’s “Cancel Culture” are those that espouse a man with the most cancellable offenses of all. According to google scholar, Foucault’s works have been cited 1,288,361 times, in comparison, Sigmund Freud has been cited 636,908 times, Noam Chomsky 477,740 times, and Karl Marx 406,908 times, names that everyone either knows or heard of. While it is true that Foucault was indeed a brilliant thinker, the greater excesses of his ideas were that of a mad scientist. Foucault’s postmodern philosophy lay at the bedrock of the modern system of higher education in the United States today and is directly responsible for the seed of an idea that led to the construction of gender theory, because after all, if there is no such thing as objective truth, objective reality, or objective morality, sex and gender, along with absolutely everything else, is entirely subjective and socially constructed.
This is how we get to the point today where we’re led to believe there is no advantage for biological males competing against biological females in athletics because of the belief that there are no innate differences between the sexes. The term “Gender Identity” originated in 1955 by another depraved mad scientist, John Money, began popping up in the 60s and 70s, and became more mainstream in the 80s and 90s with it first starting to appear in academic and activist circles, pushed by social scientists and feminists. We’re now to the point where the term gender is used more widely than the term “sex” to describe someone. For example, when expecting parents have a “gender reveal party” to find out whether they’re having a boy or a girl, they’re actually having a “biological sex reveal party” because as a gender theorist or trans activist would argue, the child does not yet have a gender because that is something discovered by the child themselves. While a doctor may issue a “Male or female” assignment, gender theory would posit this is not a fixed assignment and could later change because gender can and often does operate independently from biological sex. Notice parents aren’t popping a balloon to find out they’re having a non-binary (or “enby”) child.
So when people object to gender theory what they are actually objecting to is the elevation of “Gender” over “Sex,’ or the elevation of the subjective over the objective, because gender is an entirely subjective term constructed through language and “performative behaviors,” not biology. In fact, rather than modern society’s take on “men and women” coming from biologists, psychologists, or medical doctors making a grand new discovery, it came to society from academia’s English, humanities, and social science departments.
Cultural Androgyny
Some form of gender ambiguity has existed in most cultures and societies around the world seemingly forever. Gender theorists posit that not everyone fits neatly into gender roles that match with their biological sex, well no shit. Author and social critic Douglas Murray succinctly points this out in his book, The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race, and Identity. Murray states, “It [gender ambiguity] is not an invention of late modernity.” “In India there are the Hijras–a class of intersex and transvestite– knowledge and acceptance of whom dates back centuries. In Thailand the Kathoey is a type of effeminate male who is widely accepted to be neither male nor female. And on the island of Samoa there are fa’afafine, men who live and dress as women.”
While we know, and have known, that not everyone fits neatly into “traditional sex roles” as gender theorists, feminist activists, and trans activists proclaim, what we don’t know is whether or not gender confusion is what Murray would refer to as a “Hardware or Software” issue. That is, are people born innately trans as the popular LGBTQ+ anthem and Lady Gaga song, “Born This Way” proclaims, or whether transgenderism is environmentally created through environmental causes such as childhood trauma, sexual abuse, a breakdown of family structure, social influence, something else, or a confluence of many factors.
And it is here that we arrive at one of the early contradictions within the ideology. While theorists and activists claim that trans children are innately “Born this way,” out of the same breath they claim that differences between the sexes, that is, boys and girls and men and women, are entirely “Performative” and socially constructed through environmental influences within a “system of oppression against women.” In other words, if a child has interests that are traditionally viewed as interests of the opposite sex, then they may actually be of the opposite gender and their identity as trans is fixed and innate. But if a boy or girl exhibits characteristics and interests that align with their biological sex, such as a boy that enjoys playing sports, it is entirely socially constructed, as are all differences between men and women.
If this feels contradictory, it’s because it is, and while claiming that sex differences don’t exist, they reduce men and women to stereotypical behaviors. In some ways, it works directly against one of the goals of first and second-wave feminism which sought to separate stereotyped feminine characteristics from women. For example, the now infamous Tik-Tok personality and promotor of Bud light’s transgender ad, Dylan Mulvaney, within the last few years changed identity three different times. First, identifying as a gay man, then non-binary, and now as a girl, documenting this transition online. As part of Mulvaney’s “First Day of Girlhood” Mulvaney states in a video, “Day One of being a girl and I’ve already cried three times, I wrote a scathing email that I did not send, I ordered dresses online that I couldn’t afford, and then, uh, when someone asked me how I was, I said I’m fine — when I wasn’t fine [applies lip gloss]. How’d I do, ladies? Good? Girl power!”
While Mulvaney has absolutely every right to feel and express however Dylan pleases, I can’t help but think this is the exact type of characterization that trailblazing feminists of the past such as Germaine Greer, fought hard to have removed from the public perception of women. So while activists and theorists claim being a woman is a social construct, Mulvaney is at the same time reinforcing stereotypes of the stereotyped “Traditional woman.” In the same way comedians of the past would put on “Blackface” and act as a stereotyped characterization of black people, women such as the much-maligned J.K. Rowling would consider Mulvaney exhibiting “Womanface,” that is, someone who is not a biological woman sporting a costume and reinforcing degrading stereotypes. This is not to say “Men shouldn’t be allowed to assume a woman’s appearance” but instead that by simply resembling a woman’s appearance, it does not make them an actual woman as the claim “transwomen are women” professes. Again, the claim that Mulvaney’s identity, which has changed three times in three years is “Fixed and innate,” but women exhibiting feminine characteristics are claimed to only be a result of environmental influences within the oppressive structure that exists to oppress women.
Categories of Trans Identity
The term “Gender nonconforming” is defined “as denoting or relating to a person whose behavior or appearance does not conform to prevailing cultural and social expectations about what is appropriate to their gender.” What this broad term refers to are those that do not fit neatly into what we’d think of as traditional sex roles. Within the gender-nonconforming community, there are innumerable sub-categories or sub-communities. Referring specifically to the trans community, I believe that those on the outside typically paint all males or females who wear clothing of the opposite sex as trans, this, however, is not true. Trans individuals believe who they are does not match the body in which they have inhabited. Statements such as the aforementioned “Trans women are women” refers to biological males who have or have not transitioned physically and who insist they are women. The word “Woman” has been transformed from being defined as an “Adult, human female” into meaning “Anyone who identifies as a woman.” A popular counterpoint to this statement is, “What is a woman?” since the new definition does not define what a woman actually is but instead invokes the word as if this new definition is self-explanatory while simultaneously erasing the definition we’ve understood for all of existence.
There is a misconception surrounding Drag Queens that I keep seeing pop up by both those against the rising public trend and those who promote it. There is a conflation of males dressing up in women’s clothing and transgenderism. While it is impossible to know the breakdown, a huge percentage of males who dress in drag are simply gay men, not people who believe they are actually a woman or identify as transgender.
To break it down even further and separate men in women’s clothing from gay or trans people, more related to sexuality than “gender identity” is something referred to as autogynephilia. Autogynephilia is the “Sexual arousal that comes from imagining yourself in the role of the opposite sex. This may range from a man’s arousal at the thought of wearing an item of woman’s clothing all the way to arousal at the idea of actually having the body of a woman.” Autogynephelics are not necessarily homosexual nor exhibit observable signs of femininity although they can and oftentimes are and do. Individuals who fall within this demographic often times live their whole lives as heterosexual men, have a family, and then begin changing appearance or presentation in their middle or later years. The characterization of “AG” as a sexual fetish or a “Kink” has been resisted by the trans community who wish to separate sexuality from simply existing as a trans person. Lia Thomas, the now infamous collegiate swimmer who as a biological male was permitted to swim with women is more than likely autogynephilic as observed by the existence of an Instagram account dedicated to it and the fact Lia still sleeps with and is sexually attracted to women.
The Asexual gender identity, as defined by author Myra T. Johnson, is men and women “who, regardless of physical or emotional condition, actual sexual history, and marital status or ideological orientation, seem to prefer not to engage in sexual activity.” Asexual organisms that exist in nature are characterized by the absence of sex organs and with the means of being produced and reproducing achieved through binary fission, budding, fragmentation, etc. While I am not saying “you can’t claim to be asexual,” I can’t distinguish between the asexual identity and someone who is simply abstinent whether by choice or default being that they were created through sexual production and while they may not engage in sex, they maintain sex organs and gametes with the capability to reproduce.
Non-Binary is the gender identity that refers to people claiming to exist and operate outside of the male and female sex binary. While gender theorists and trans activists subjectively define “Man and Woman” as existing outside of biological sex, non-binary identity blurs that line, venturing into biology and insisting they’re almost an entirely new species of human. The “Queer” gender identity group is loosely similar to non-binary in that the claim is that it’s an identity that exists outside of the male-female binary however it can be described as a journey rather than a destination, with gender fluidity being a central tenet within the identity group.
The purpose of teasing apart some of the identities within the trans community is to highlight that there is nuance, not a blanket generalization to describe “Trans.” Even within several of the identity groups is a built-in element of fluidity and further sub-classifications. Many non-gender-conforming individuals transverse the spectrum, such as singer Sam Smith who over the course of the last three years identified first as a gay man, then a woman, and now non-binary.
An interesting dichotomy comes from those born intersex. Intersex people are individuals who are born with anatomical parts of both sexes and some estimates have found that this affects roughly 1 in every 2,000 people. Although they are loosely categorized in the “+” portion of the “LGBTQ+ community,” intersex has nothing to do with transgendermism. This is because intersex is a biological affliction and gender ideology has an inherently adversarial relationship toward biology. Intersex does not insist that the sex binary (male and female) does not exist like that of trans ideology, instead, it reinforces the belief in the sex binary because intersex is a combination of both sexes, not an entirely new species of human.
While it is not the responsibility of others to define a person’s sexual preference or gender identity, I do find the claim that “Children know they’re trans, accept it” to be somewhat contradictory. While yes, a child can experience a disconnect between their bodies and their internal self, how can a child “Claim to know” something that is inherently ambiguous and entirely subjective? A popular post-modern phrase of the day is “My Truth.” This is not something that is necessarily true in reality, but instead, an internal truth that no other person could possibly grasp or understand because they are not experiencing it. It is a “truth” that is entirely subjectively defined and as trans activists would have it, we must take children at their “truth” and “affirm their identity.” An issue within this idea is, how can we take children at their word when there are innumerable identities constructed around the idea of specifically “Not knowing” such as genderqueer. Furthermore, is it the responsible or irresponsible thing to do as a parent to affirm or to question the claims being put forth by a child confused about their gender? Trans activists and some social justice warriors claim that to even question a child about their claimed non-gender conforming identity is to “Deny their existence” and to “perpetuate a trans Genocide” by not instantly affirming their belief and assisting them down the road of transition.
While I know what social science says regarding sex, gender, and transgenderism, what does the actual science show us?
Gender Dysphoria
When trying to understand the disconnect between a person’s biology and their internal self, the most scientific place to begin is with understanding gender dysphoria. Gender Dysphoria is defined as an individual’s persistent discomfort with their biological sex or “assigned gender.” This is the feeling described as “Being in the wrong body.” Gender Dysphoria exists and has been studied for over a hundred years with the numbers estimating that it affects roughly 0.1% of the population, that’d be 1 in 10,000 people. According to Dr. Lisa Littman, a researcher in the Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences at Brown University School of Public Health, gender dysphoria breaks down into two categories, early-onset (pre-pubescent) gender dysphoria and late-onset (adolescent) gender dysphoria. In Littman’s study, she states,”Two types of gender dysphoria studied include early-onset gender dysphoria, where the symptoms of gender dysphoria begin in early childhood, and late-onset gender dysphoria, where the symptoms begin after puberty. Late-onset gender dysphoria that occurs during adolescence is now called adolescent-onset gender dysphoria. The majority of adolescents who present for care for gender dysphoria are individuals who experienced early-onset gender dysphoria that persisted or worsened with puberty although an atypical presentation has been described where adolescents who did not experience childhood symptoms present with new symptoms in adolescence”
Over the course of the hundred years of studying GD, data found that the population of those suffering from the affliction were almost exclusively and entirely comprised of boys and men with the overwhelming majority falling into the early-onset category. There was so little representation of girls experiencing early-onset gender dysphoria that there were little to no research studies performed before the year 2012 because the concentration was considered statistically insignificant or even non-existent.
In recent years, there has been a complete inversion of the data where we’re now to the point where adolescent girls are now out-representing adolescent boys at a ratio of 5:1. Abigail Shrier, author of the book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing our Daughters, stated, “For the first time in medical history, natal girls are not only present among those identifying– they constitute the majority.” To put into context how much this trend is taking off, Shrier obtained data from the world’s largest pediatric gender clinic, the Tavistock Clinic in the U.K. Between the years 2011-2012 and 2018-2019 (Less than a decade), the clinic saw a staggering 5,337% increase in referrals of girl patients, most of which experiencing late-onset (post-puberty) gender dysphoria. Again, 100-year history studying the affliction, 0.1% of the population, almost exclusively males with the majority of which experiencing early-onset GD. Not only has the trend reversed but has in fact skyrocketed amongst girls in the category of late-onset GD which was the great minority of all cases to the tune of estimates now showing between 1.4% and 2% of the Gen Z population identifying as gender nonconforming, a figure of 2 in every 100 representing a 200% increase, almost overnight.
One could make an argument against the data, arguing 2 in every 100 people have always been gender dysphoric but were afraid to admit it out of fear of public persecution and ostracization. This would be a fair point if not for the fact that this skyrocketing rate is only exhibited within the Gen Z and late-millennial segment of the population. Moreover, the demographics found by Dr. Littman were relatively clear. Littman found that 90% of the transgender identifying girls within the survey were white and within the middle-to-upper socioeconomic classes. Of the 256 parents of transgender children surveyed, the overwhelming majority identified politically as democrat or progressive including 85.9% being in favor of gay marriage, the majority of which claimed to be in favor before it became legalized. The political demographic of the parents is significant because a major reason activists say that parent’s should not have the right to intercede in a child’s transition is because the majority of trans children grow up in non-accepting or bigoted homes. There is only a modicum increase in the general adult population and of this population it is the demographics that we have always known about, primarily men who may or may not be autogynephilic which oftentimes does not manifest into social or surgical transition until adulthood. Caitlyn Jenner, for example, is the demographic of adults that are emerging as trans with very little representation from adult women, meaning the trend remained remarkably consistent. One could make a reasonable case that the fact that non-heterosexual adult women aren’t coming out as trans or as “men” is because they were not of adolescent age during the wave of social media and gender theory and as a result, these women are simply lesbians or are bisexual identifying women in primarily heterosexual relationships.
Abigail Shrier cites data indicating that nearly 70% of the time, children out-grow gender dysphoria and it resolves itself with the majority finding out they are simply gay men and lesbian women once they reach adulthood. It is with this statistic that I see a major division beginning to form between the gay and trans populations. If 70% of children outgrow G.D. with the majority ending up being gay, how is it morally acceptable to rush children into “Gender Affirming Care” when they may simply be confused about their sexuality? For instance, a girl or young woman who may or may not share the interests of the “Traditional female” and is attracted to other women was previously understood to be a lesbian, not that they are in fact a boy masquerading in a female body. Should we be telling little boys who exhibit feminine behaviors and girls who exhibit masculine behaviors that inside of them resides the soul of the opposite sex and in order to live as their true and authentic self, we must bring that little boy or little girl out? If the activist push is to categorize children who exhibit behaviors outside of “traditional characteristics” as being in the wrong body, what is a tomboy or an effeminate boy? While the term, “Trans genocide” is being put forth by trans activists and social justice warriors regarding the hesitation to transition children, one could reasonably ask, “When 70% of gender dysphoric kids grow out of it and the majority grow up to be gay, how is it not a ‘Gay Genocide’ or even a progressive-version of conversion therapy to turn gay boys into girls and gay girls into boys? How is it not the elimination of the gay identity in society when we tell adolescents, “You’re not gay, you’re just a heterosexual person born in the wrong body?” These are not unchartered waters. Iran, for example, is one of the world leaders in sex transition surgeries. Not because they are a highly-progressive society, but instead, because transition is seen to be less offensive to their culture and religion than to be gay where to be gay may mean suffering consequences far greater than forced, government-mandated medical transition. None of these questions can be definitively answered, of course, because the definitions are entirely subjective and as the activists would have it, “no one other than the boy or girl could possibly comprehend their Truth and by not simply going along with the whims of the children, a parent would be denying their existence.”
Prevalence
The polling service Gallup recently came out with a survey on the prevalence of LGBT identification within the population after conducting over 10,000 interviews with U.S. adults. Many interesting pieces of information jump out at me when breaking down demographics within the identification categories but the overarching theme is that far more adults within Gen Z and Millennial generations are identifying as LGBT. This is not to say, “This is a problem” or I’m not about to go on a tangent calling it a sin or being judgmental, it’s nothing like that. I am approaching the data from a social science perspective and part of that is evaluating how trends within society tend to break down in accordance with factors such as age and biological sex.
When examining the segment of the Gen Z population identifying as lesbian, there has been an increase of 46% compared to the millennial generation and a 340% increase compared to Gen X.
For the Gen Z gay-identifying adult population, there has been an increase of 55% compared to millennials and a 325% increase from Gen X.
When it comes to bi-sexual identifying adults, there has been an increase of 46% from Gen Z compared to millennials and a 718% increase compared to Gen X.
For the sake of brevity, I am going to combine the transgender and “Other LGBT” identification groups because although I am sure there are plenty of exceptions, chances are exceedingly high that “Other” would fall under the umbrella of gender-nonconforming. With 3.4% of Gen Z adults falling into this category, this represents a 184% increase compared to the millennial generation and an astounding 750% increase from Gen X.
A recent Washington Post article came out discussing the data compiled by Gallup, and while I am focusing on trans and gender non-conforming, the skyrocketing rate of bisexual identification jumps off the screen, especially considering the demographic that comprises it. The WAPO article states, “More than 1 in 10 U.S. high school youth identifies as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. And among them, 75% are female and 77% identify as bisexual.” According to data from Stanford University, they found among bisexual partners, 9 in 10 are married or in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex with only 1% married to a spouse of the same sex. When it comes to transgender, If we are to extrapolate the data found by the Tavistock clinic identifying that for the first time ever, girls are predominantly identifying as transgender and it’s at a ratio of 5:1, there has been a roughly 400% increase in Gen Z trans-identifying girls compared to millennials although I’d argue this is figure is higher. I’m not saying this is a good or a bad thing, however, if we’re going to take the claims “We’re born this way” and the idea put forth by those identifying as part of the political progressive left that there are no differences between boys and girls, then why, particularly as it relates to the bi-sexual, transgender, and “other” category, is it that the increases are so highly concentrated amongst girls compared to boys?
Social Contagion
To understand how seemingly overnight a trend can go from 0.1% of the population and almost entirely male to 2% of the population, primarily girls, you must first reject an insistence put forth by gender theorists and trans activists that there are no innate (natural) differences between the sexes, including boys and girls. This is not to say “all men are the same and all women are the same” or “men don’t exhibit feminine characteristics and women don’t exhibit masculine characteristics,” of course not, that’d be an absurd claim and a denial of reality. However, as anyone who has ever met a man or a woman or has raised a boy or a girl could tell you, there tend to be some differences between the sexes. This is why the far left continues to insist that there are no advantages to biological males competing in women’s athletics even though anyone with a set of eyes and a stopwatch could tell you differently.
One of the ways the differences manifest themself is found in how boys and girls express grief. Males, the sex with more innate aggression, tend to handle emotion and conflict externally through anger or violence. Girls disproportionately tend to wear and share the pain of others, creating a contagious spread of negative emotion. Littman describes social contagion as “the spread of affect or behaviors through a population. Peer contagion, in particular, is the process where an individual and peer mutually influence each other in a way that promotes emotions and behaviors that can potentially have negative effects on their development. Peer contagion has been associated with depressive symptoms, disordered eating, aggression, bullying, and drug use. Internalizing symptoms such as depression can be spread via the mechanisms of co-rumination, which entails the repetitive discussion of problems, excessive reassurance seeking (ERS), and negative feedback.” Girls and women tend to be more social, sympathetic, empathetic, and caring than boys and men, a trait linked to the innate nurturing instinct. This propensity manifests itself in the rates of other afflictions including anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, anorexia, bulimia, and more, where rates are far higher than that of males. One of the only statistics of this kind that males far outpace females is in suicide rate because while girls and women attempt suicide more often (Often linked to attention-seeking behavior), the male instinct of enhanced aggression and violence causes men to follow through with the act at a far greater rate. However, when looking at the example of eating disorders or body dysmorphia (A disconnect between a person’s body and their perception of it) for example, researcher Kathryn Kinasz of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience at The University of Chicago stated in a study, “The researchers studied 619 youngsters, ages six to 18, whose symptoms qualified for an eating disorder diagnosis. Most of the group – 560 patients – were female.” Another example cited in Abigail Shrier’s book used to point out the increasing rate of mental illness amongst young girls, ”Psychologist and academic Jonathan Haidt found the number of teens diagnosed with clinical depression grew by 37% between 2005 and 2014 and teenage girls experienced depression at a rate of 3x that of boys. [The] “Average rates of self-harm reflect the same spike: An increase of 62% since 2009, all among teenage girls. Among pre-teen girls aged 10-14, rates of self-harm are up 189 percent since 2010, nearly triple what they were only six years before.” Some estimates purport that 80% of girls claiming gender dysphoria were previously diagnosed with a different mental illness.
What we’re increasingly finding is that Gen Z is a case study on the effects of social media on mental well-being and it is primarily negatively affecting young girls. A major contributing factor in the dramatic increase in mental health issues among girls that Haidt points to is the fact that Gen Z was the first generation to have smartphones in middle school. For example, very publicly known are the issues surrounding “Unrealistic body expectations” that women and young girls are seeing on Instagram and elsewhere and how it is leading to mental health struggles including body dysmorphia and eating disorders. Dr. Lisa Littman believes this same phenomenon can explain the spreading of late-onset gender dysphoria amongst girls for the first time ever in human history. Again, social contagion is a well-established psychological and sociological trend known to exist disproportionately among girls. This is why, for example, in medical facilities clinicians keep anorexic girls separate from others because studies have proven that the affliction can actually spread within a social circle. Again, girls tend to wear and share one another’s pain.
In Abigail Shrier’s preparation of her best-selling book, she met with innumerable trans-identifying people and she found an overarching theme among their testimonies. These individuals discovered their trans identity online through influencers on social media who have millions of views and hundreds of thousands of followers pushing gender ideology and the glorification of non-conforming gender. Often times these influencers were describing feelings of social awkwardness, body insecurity, and other feelings that all children go through as they hit puberty and their bodies change, feelings that every single woman who went through middle school and high school can attest to. The influencers were attributing these feelings not to natural life processes and social development, but rather, to proof of being “Trans.”
Dr. Littman believes social media is creating an incentivization structure that pushes girls who may grow up to be heterosexual or lesbian but are confused about their sexuality or experiencing underlying mental conditions such as deep depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, autism, or have experienced childhood trauma including sexual abuse or a breakdown of the family structure to assign being trans or “transphobia” as the cause of their negative emotion. In other words, it leaves the possibility that there are deeper underlying issues that are being mischaracterized as gender dysphoria. Again, nearly 70% of adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria outgrow it, so is it the responsible thing to do to diagnose gender dysphoria at the first sign of confusion and to seek “gender-affirming care?” Especially in instances when there is no scientific or medical evidence outside of the claim put forth by the child.
Gender Affirming Care
As defined by the World Health Organization, gender-affirming care “encompasses a range of social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity.” The term itself is euphemistic, only to “affirm” the gender identity that the child believes they are, leaving no possibility that there may be something else going on outside of gender dysphoria. For example, if a young girl is exhibiting signs of body dysmorphia and claims to be obese despite weighing 100 pounds, a parent or a clinician would not “affirm” the girl’s claims by seeking out gastric bypass surgery, they would try to understand why they’re feeling this way.
There are two different avenues of affirmation, social transition and medical transition, both routes aim to “Bring out the inner boy or inner girl that is trapped inside.” Social transition involves raising the child as the sex opposite of their biology, changing their names and pronouns, and erasing any traces of identity related to their natal sex. Medical transition is undoubtedly the most controversial aspect of this debate.
Medical Transition
The truth regarding medical transitioning and sexual reassignment interventions is that they are largely entirely experimental. There are a grand total of zero long-term studies showing an improvement in mental health outcomes following transition in children. Although there have been published “long-term studies” showing improved mental health outcomes put out, all have since been changed or entirely retracted since being found incredibly flawed. A common tactic put forth by trans activists and social justice warriors is to emotionally blackmail parents into “affirming” the identity of a child. The statement put forth often runs something along the lines of, “A living son is better than a dead daughter,” an allusion to the high rate of suicide that exists within the trans community. What the activists leave out or don’t know, is that the only long-term study tracking trans people following transition found the highest rate of suicide is 7-10 years post-transition, higher than at any time before surgeries. While rates of anxiety, depression, suicide, etc, decline once the transition process begins, a refuting point made by Shrier in Irreversible Damage posits that the reason for this is largely attributed to hormones and medications and the euphoric feelings that happen as a result. Once the body adjusts to these medications and hormones, the feelings of negative emotion return with the highest point of suicide taking place, again, 7-10 years after the medical transition. This is an extremely significant insight because if the central point made for transitioning children is that it will lead to improved mental health outcomes and it is in fact the opposite where we’re finding transitioning may increase their negative emotions coupled with nearly 70% of children claiming gender dysphoria outgrow it, the entire argument collapses within itself.
The process of medical transition for gender dysphoric-identifying children begins with puberty blockers which are done with the use of Lupron, a drug that was used to chemically castrate convicted sex offenders. Proponents of youth gender-affirming care such as Dr. Michelle Forcier, claim Lupron can simply “Pause” puberty. Forcier is an Assistant Dean of Admissions at Brown University Medical School, a clinician at Folx Health, and a consultant for Planned Parenthood who specializes in gender, sexual, and reproductive health. In an interview Forcier stated, [Puberty blockers are] “wonderful because we can put that pause on puberty, just like you’re listening to music. ‘You put the pause on and puberty would go right back to where it was, the next note in the song, just delay that period of time.” The issue with this is quite simply that there are zero long-term studies completed on the long-term effects of puberty blockers on children. Lupron shuts down part of the pituitary that catalyzes puberty which effectively suppresses the development processes which may lead to early-onset osteoporosis, loss of sexual function, and an interference with brain development. Moreover, following a determined regimen of puberty blockers, gender-affirming care specialists will begin prescribing cross-sex hormones such as testosterone which leads to almost certain sterilization and a potential loss in sexual development and ability to ever achieve orgasm. An additional complication from testosterone is found in the fact that transitioning biological girls are often given testosterone levels ten to forty times greater than what their normal bodily levels would be, leading to an increased risk of heart attacks with some evidence indicating a five times greater risk than women and two-and-a-half times that of men.
From there, the list of medical interventions only becomes more invasive. Surgeries such as double mastectomies, phalloplasty which is the construction of a pseudo-phallus through a process of de-sleeving the forearm of the children, the shaving of Adam’s apple, voice surgery, orchiectomy (removal of testicles), facial feminization procedures, meditoidplasty (clitoral enlargement) and more. A vaginoplasty, or the construction of a pseudo-vagina, has a complication rate of 67% and (like many of the previously listed surgical procedures) leads to a high chance of future interventions because the biologically male body will always interpret the new vagina as an open wound rather than a healthy female vagina which leads to persistent infections and the risk of sepsis.
While democratic politicians and our sitting president are currently passing or wanting to pass bills that allow children to obtain these medical interventions without the knowledge and consent of parents, I can’t help but find it ironic that a rationale put forth by them regarding student loan “forgiveness” was that “18 was too young for students to understand the consequences of the debt they assumed” and yet, they’d claim a pre-pubescent child is able to understand the consequences of becoming sterilized and being left with an increased risk of long-term health complications including cancer and heart disease at early ages. When investigating gender affirming care for her book, Shrier spoke with many parents of transgender children and transgender people who transitioned themselves and she found a disturbing trend found in how mental health and medical professionals rushed children down the transition path. Rather than going through a more holistic approach including psycho-analysis and therapy, many parent’s were encouraged to begin the affirmation process immediately including the prescribing of testosterone upon the first visit. While I have no objections to adults seeking medical transition, especially considering the mental health outcomes are sometimes improved, I can’t help but feel this decision is one that should be withheld from children. In 2007 there was only one pediatric gender clinic in the U.S. and as of 2022, there were over 300 as it is an incredibly lucrative business venture with a high price tag and an often lifelong commitment to future surgeries for transitioners. However, much of the developed world outside of the U.S., including the U.K., Sweden, and Finland have all begun to reverse the trend of the gender affirmation model.
Tavistock
In July 2022, UK’s National Health Service announced the closure of the world’s largest pediatric gender clinic citing poor evidence, risk of harm, and operational failures. An article from SEGM (Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine), discusses the NHS’ decision to close the clinic stating, “The UK’s National Health Service will close the world’s largest pediatric gender clinic, the Gender Identity Development Service in London (GIDS) often known as the Tavistock, after the NHS Trust which houses it. An independent review condemned the clinic as “not a safe or viable long-term option” because its interventions are based on poor evidence and its model of care leaves young people “at considerable risk” of poor mental health. The clinic must close by Spring 2023.”
The article continues, “Along with this reorganization comes a belated recognition of the poor state of knowledge around endocrinological interventions for gender distress, especially the off-label use of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone agonist (GnRHa), often called “puberty blockers.” Dr. Hilary Cass, former President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, who is chairing the independent review, wrote to the National Health Service asking it to conduct systematic research. She emphasizes that there is “no way of knowing whether, rather than buying time to make a decision, puberty blockers may disrupt that decision-making process” and disrupt brain development “which could have significant impact on the ability to make complex risk-laden decisions, as well as possible longer-term neuropsychological consequences.”
Sweden and Finland, two of the most socially egalitarian societies in the world today, cannot be described as “Far-right bigoted republicans,” and yet, they have completely reversed course on their previous gender affirmation model. In February 2022, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) conducted a systematic review of the pediatric gender affirmation model. An article discussing the NBHW decision and findings states, “Following a comprehensive review of evidence, the NBHW concluded that the evidence base for hormonal interventions for gender-dysphoric youth is of low quality, and that hormonal treatments may carry risks. NBHW also concluded that the evidence for pediatric transition comes from studies where the population was markedly different from the cases presenting for care today. In addition, NBHW noted increasing reports of detransition and transition-related regret among youth who transitioned in recent years.” furthermore, “the NBHW has concluded that, at present, the risks of hormonal interventions for gender dysphoric youth outweigh the potential benefits. As a result of this determination, the eligibility for pediatric gender transition with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in Sweden will be sharply curtailed.”
Finland was the first of the three countries to hit the pause button on this medical intervention for minors, being reserved for only the most exceptional cases involving early-onset gender dysphoria as opposed to the now skyrocketing late-onset gender dysphoria. A SEGM article on the Finnish decision states, “new guidelines that state that psychotherapy, rather than puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, should be the first-line treatment for gender-dysphoric youth. This change occurred following a systematic evidence review, which found the body of evidence for pediatric transition inconclusive.”
In researching the relevant data regarding the medical transitioning of minors and even the counterarguments that were in favor of gender-affirming care, it became abundantly clear that despite claims made by gender specialists, no long-term studies showing transitioning children was beneficial for the collective and in some cases, the data indicated a net-negative in outcomes. When it comes to Finland and Sweden, we once again find ourselves in a disagreement of science and the interpretation of data. During Covid, the American political right was the segment of the population most against the health measures put in place by our institutions. The aforementioned Scandinavian countries are considered to be the most socially democratic countries on earth and yet, they resisted the measures put forth by the American left including sustained lockdowns and school closures into 2021. Finland and Sweden, rather than panicking or becoming entrenched in their political affiliations, observed what the data showed them and they were markedly better off than here in the U.S. including in covid death rate. It may be wise to once again take a look at what these countries are doing rather than once again becoming entrenched in political affiliation to the point that we accept claims and policies rooted in ideology, not science.
Babel
At the age of 4 or 5, I would wear a Superman costume underneath my clothes. I went so far as to tell my parents I wanted to only be referred to as “Clark Kent,” telling them when I was legally able, I was going to change my name. I would be “Clark” until it was time for me to go out on a crusade where I’d discard my outer clothes and become the Man of Steel himself.
One or two years later, I found myself living with my cousins for a short period of time. Because my brother was an infant at the time, I viewed my cousins (all of which were girls) as my de-facto siblings, and as younger siblings do, I wanted to fit in with the older relatives. My cousin was having a doll made in her image which included the attaching of your hair to the doll itself. Wanting to fit in, I got a haircut where I collected the discarded hair to send in with my order for the doll. My parents, being the good parents they are and remain, did not stop or discourage my wanting to acquire a doll, even if my dad referred to it as an “Action figure” in the barbershop while explaining to the barber why I am on the ground bagging my clippings. When it came time to place the order and submit the hair, I simply lost interest and never brought it up again. In an environment where I was allowed to step out of the “Traditional boy” role, I simply lost interest in doing so because it wasn’t what I actually wanted or was interested in, I simply wanted to fit in and be socially accepted by my peers.
Now imagine, if you will, that my parents “Affirmed” my initial claim that I was the son of Jor-el and of Kryptonian descent, allowing me to test my gift of flight from the roof of our house or step in front of a speeding train. Or, if two years down the line, they interpreted my desire to order a doll as “An expression of my true gender identity as a girl” and went down the road of socially or medically transitioning me as the trans activists would have it.
If a person’s identity is described as a Jenga tower with each block representing a part of who we are, one of the foundational pieces upon which the rest of the tower is built is found in our biological sex. Biological sex, and our understanding of it, is amongst the most “Fixed” aspect of our species. To remove this foundational piece, or worse, pretend it doesn’t even exist, the Jenga tower will collapse like that of Babel.
A term and a push within trans and gender ideology mimic the claim put forth by former Chinese Communist dictator Mao Ze Dong that all differences between girls and boys, men and women, are entirely socially constructed and therefore, we must raise them the same. The issue with this widely held belief of the radical left is many, but primarily it is that biology, anatomy, psychology, evolution, endocrinology, and other fields within the hard sciences demonstrate that on average, this simply isn’t true. Yes, it is true that males and females are indeed mostly similar and there are inherent “Grey areas” that we all exhibit such as having interests and behaviors that don’t align with a “Traditional representation” of our biological sex, but everyone knows this and it has always existed. Of course, some girls prefer sports to dolls, boys who prefer “Playing house” to athletics, masculine girls who will grow to be lesbians, or effeminate boys who will grow to be gay, and even children experiencing gender dysphoria whose biological sex does not match their internal self. However, the existence of non-fixed characteristics in relation to a person’s biology does not mean that on-average sex differences do not exist or that they are entirely socially constructed. At the most fundamental level, sex differences can be broken down at a genomic level with the existence of sex-specific chromosomes and with over 99.9% of the cells within the human body being marked either male or female. A fossilized skeleton, buried for thousands of years can have the sex determined immediately by archeologists without the existence of sex organs or a gender identity.
Aside from our DNA, interests and chosen job professions also tend to divide down sex lines, on average. A study published in 2018 in Psychological Science found, “Countries with greater gender equality have a lower percentage of female STEM graduates.” The significance of this study is that the disproportionately smaller representation of women in fields of science, technology, engineering, and math is not due to sexism or some patriarchal structure of oppression as posited by gender theorists, feminists, and social constructionists. Instead, the study found that the more gender-equal a country is, the less likely women are to enter fields of STEM because with the freedom to choose any field, women are more likely to choose fields most aligned with their nature such as healthcare and education. The opposite is true within societies with less gender equality, such as in the middle east, where there is a higher representation of women in STEM fields due to economic insecurity and not having the freedom to choose which fields to enter. Co-researchers Professor David Geary of Missouri University and Gijsbert Stoet, professor in psychology at Leeds Beckett University stated, “Essentially when you lessen economic concerns, as is the case in gender-equal countries, personal preferences are more strongly expressed. In this situation, sex differences in academic strengths and occupational interests more strongly influence college and career choices, creating the STEM paradox we describe.” Ask yourself, why is it that 99% of plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters are male while 97.6% of preschool and kindergarten teachers are female? Is it because there is a nationwide conspiracy involving an overarching matriarchal structure in preschool and kindergarten classrooms that exist and operate to oppress men? Or is it perhaps not quite that complicated and quite simply, men tend to be more interested in things while women tend to be more interested in people-centered fields?
It almost requires a slew of fancy graduate degrees to believe gender theory is handed down knowledge from on-high to be able to completely disregard what we all know and what every civilization on earth has known until 15 minutes ago, men and women tend, on average, to be different, not better or worse, but different. To take it a step further, an innate part of masculinity exists to protect and serve women, as to protect the more physically vulnerable sex to physical threats and harm. This isn’t specific to soldiers or even pre-civilized hunters and gatherers but is also found in our closest relatives within the animal kingdom, Chimpanzees and Great Apes with whom we share 99.6% of our DNA profile with. To cheapen femininity and womanhood to simply an appearance that can be worn, we are inherently degrading and cheapening a semi-sacred element within our wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters that ought to be cherished, for it is women that lay at the foundation of civilization and it is men who exist to protect and serve women so that we can continue growing and advancing as a species.
Radical Ideology
Mao, like communists before and after him, knew this truth regarding the foundational role of femininity within a society which is why he sought to eradicate femininity from Chinese culture. Moa depicted women in media propaganda only as highly-masculinized, as men, as means of destabilizing the family structure, creating a radical left revolutionary movement of primarily school-aged girls referred to as “The Red Guard” in the process. Notice the demographics of the trans activist movement today which is overwhelmingly white, female, college educated, politically progressive, and in fierce opposition to American values. Mao, drowned Chinese society with much of the same feminist ideology that we hear in our modern society today, such as defining “family” as an inherently oppressive structure, created by capitalists to oppress women. As Karl Marx puts it in the Communist Manifesto, “Abolition of the family!” “Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.” If it feels as if there is a growing sentiment involving the idea that children belong to “The Nation” or “Schools” and therefore the federal government, and not parents, it’s because it’s tangible within the words, beliefs, and literature of social justice advocates, activists, and academics of the far left. If it sounds like a conspiracy theory, you have not been paying attention. The same types espousing “Gender affirming care” are those who identify as progressive and use words such as “equity.” “Equity” is not equality but instead governmentally enforced outcomes through the redistribution of wealth and resources according to “Intersectional identities” such as race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Oft-used terms such as “Systems that exist to oppress,” chiefly, “capitalism” and the “cis-heteronormative patriarchal structure” are the means to undermine the systems in place that have brought us to this place of an unprecedented improvement in quality of life worldwide. Terms such as “Male Privilege” or “White Privilege” are neo-marxist terms that seek to define people through the lens of oppressor and oppressed like that of Lenin, Mao, or Marx before them. The central belief that all of this ideology roots back to is this, “If human beings are completely environmentally influenced, meaning there are no innate aspects to human nature, then all of humanity and greater society can be reshaped and perfected into the ‘great utopian society’ through environmental influence.”
To draw a quote from critical and critical race theorist Robin DiAngelo, author of the best-selling book, White Fragility, “They are social forces that prevent us from attaining the racial knowledge we need to engage more productively, and they function powerfully to hold the racial hierarchy in place. These forces include the ideologies of individualism and meritocracy,” now to compare this to a quote from author William Anderson when discussing George Orwell’s 1984. “Loss of individuality is seen as one of the major themes in 1984 and can be seen through the main protagonist, Winston. In order for the party, an autocratic totalitarian society, to stay in power, its citizens must deny their individuality and eradicate their independent thought.”
While we are passing laws allowing schools to “Affirm” kids’ gender identities without their parent’s knowledge, receive medical transition interventions without parental knowledge or consent, we also have laws in place that don’t allow children to get a tattoo, drink alcohol, drive a car, or vote because we understand that children’s brains aren’t fully developed and aren’t in a position to make potentially life-changing decisions. In Canada, for example, not only is “misgendering” against the law, it is now illegal for a parent to question their own child’s claim of being “Trans” and to prevent transition, a crime to which parents can and have been arrested. I promise you, these activists claiming to “Care and love” children that “Need their chosen gender identity to be affirmed” do not actually care about these children which they don’t know nor will ever know. The activists just want revolutionary “allies” in the fight to destroy the “cis heteronormative patriarchy.” It is the parents who know their children better than anyone and with whom a child belongs, not a politician, not an activist, and certainly not Hollywood. When 70% of gender-dysphoric children grow out of gender dysphoria, it is not trans activists or radical leftists who will suffer the consequences and regret of permanently disfiguring and sterilizing these children, it is the children and their parents who will suffer for the rest of their lives. The worst tyrannies throughout all of history didn’t present themselves as a wolf at the door, but instead presented themselves as “Compassionate for the oppressed.” This social movement does not intend to create an “Accepting and inclusive society” as they claim but instead seeks to attain power through ideological capture with the only thing standing in the way being the family unit.
Identity
It has been said by many brilliant people far more intelligent than gender theorists or myself, that life’s greatest mission is to know thyself, and to know thyself is the foundation of attaining wisdom. To formulate an identity is to gain an understanding of who we are. A part of who we are is found in our biological sex because our sex is something rooted in nature and one of the most fundamental truths that exists in a society. To discover our identity, that is, who we are, we must understand our nature, our relationship in accordance with nature, and the nature of humanity. By telling children, nay, insisting to children that innate human nature doesn’t exist and everything including who we are is environmentally constructed (Except if they’re trans, ironically), we are going to artificially create an epidemic of mental illness and nihilism beyond what anyone could imagine because the moment you remove the objective reality of nature, everything becomes random and meaningless, preventing children from beginning the integral process of identity formation, personal development, and social development.
Biological sex is binary with only male or female sexes. Gender, as it’s defined by gender theorists and activists, the best I can make it out, is simply personality traits often expressed through appearance and fashion. Sexuality, or “Gender identity,” is an incredibly unstable foundation on which to build an identity, especially considering a central tenant of gender identity is fluidity. This is not specific to sexual minorities or the “Gender non-conforming” population, either. If a heterosexual man or woman’s entire identity is centered around sexual identity, gender identity, or sexuality, this person is very likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and addiction, as they are attempting to fill the void of self-knowledge and identity through pleasure or delusion. Being trans, heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, or gender dysphoric does not define a person, rather, it is merely one trait of many that contribute toward the formation of an identity. As we navigate these waters that will undoubtedly become more treacherous, it is on parents to insulate their children from this ideological nonsense being forced upon them and to allow children to grow and develop without the interruption of ideologues seeking to use them as political pawns in the never-ceasing quest for power.
People expressing concern or urging caution in regard to transsexualism may not be ‘denying the existence of trans people’ or claiming that they should be treated as second-class citizens, let alone (the most catastrophizing claim of all) causing trans people to commit suicide. They may simply be urging caution about something which has not remotely been worked out yet–and which is irreversible.”
Douglas Murray