I just came across a horrifying, although unsurprising, story of a boy in Seattle sent to a children’s hospital for treatment. This 16-year-old boy was used as a pawn in a bigger political game. His father recognized the game and so rescued his son, but not from the usual suspects, not from a James Bond type villain we would all clearly recognize, but from villains in white coats, villains who ostensibly take an oath to do no harm. And these villains are supported by our government and by many more among us who want their unreal version of reality to be crammed down on the rest of us.
Do you believe someone should be able to transform the gender of your child without your input or consent? Do you believe a doctor knows a child’s true intent better than a parent who raised that child for 16 years? Do you think it is acceptable to impose your belief of how society should be run on others who may have a confused child or a confused medical professional giving them questionable advice? Do you automatically take sides with those who claim they are for inclusion at the cost of individual lives? I will always defer to the parents to do their best unless they have proven themselves unfit. The father in this story did nothing wrong; in fact, he should be lauded as a hero for the manner in which he was able to extricate his son from this situation. I won’t go into all the details of the story but this excerpt gives you the flavor:
Now, Ahmed was worried that the white coats who had gently admitted his son to their care would refuse to return him.
“They sent an email to us, you know, ‘you should take your ‘daughter’ to the gender clinic,'” he told me.
“They were trying to create a customer for their gender clinic . . . and they seemed to absolutely want to push us in that direction,” he said when I spoke to him again this May, recalling the horror of last October. “We had calls with counselors and therapists in the establishment, telling us how important it is for him to change his gender, because that’s the only way he’s going to be better out of this suicidal depressive state.”
The father remained calm and played their game for long enough to get his son and his family to a “safe place”. He quit his job and left the state as quickly as he could; he made the sacrifices a good parent does to care for his family.
You could ask why I ignore the doctor’s opinions in this story? Who am I to offer an opinion about the boy when the doctor treating him up close and personally has a different take on it? If you believe the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is the civil rights cause of our time, then call me out for playing a political game, for being out of my league in offering an opinion, but the truth is I am not against LGBTQ+ rights. I am not against LGBTQ+ people. In this instance, I want what is best for the child, whether that is a win for the LGBTQ+ community or not. I am for parents’ right to decide what is best for their own children.
But more importantly what happened to reason in this instance? Do we not have the right to refuse treatment if not sure if it is on our best interest? If you have a tumor the doctor gives you options: radiation, chemotherapy, or wait and see; a mastectomy, lumpectomy, or neither. Hasn’t it always been our right to decide upon our own treatment after consultation with a doctor? How about the right to a second opinion? When I had cancer my oncologist encouraged me to a get a second opinion. I got a second and a third opinion and decided among three different options. Why are those rules thrown out when it comes to the sensitive topic of “gender choice”? How about the right to seek a doctor of our choice? Why does the state push Ahmed towards the doctors they want him to have? Why does the state push its weight around and take sides against parents? Ask yourself as well why are all the norms of medicine being ignored in this instance? Why is their no critical thinking among those who are so eager to find yet another candidate for gender transformation? It is as if they are keeping a tally. The boy’s father alone, not the doctors nor the state, looked at the situation clearly.
This is not an isolated case. There is increasing societal pressure to conform, pressure to accept people for who they say they are, or in the case of seven-year-old James Younger, who his mother says he is. James Younger, who came to the forefront last year, is the subject of dispute between his two parents, one who acted irresponsibly while the other acted more reasonably:
The Texan’s Daniel Friend has done thorough reporting from the scene at the courthouse. “You’ve heard of people who can’t agree if the sky is blue. These parents can’t even agree if their child is a boy or a girl,” Logan Odeneal, the lawyer for Jeff Younger, told Texas jurors, according to Friend.
The mother argues that the parents should be showing the boy “affirmation,” but the father prefers “watchful waiting” to see how the child develops and feels as years pass, according to The Texan. The mother is not seeking a medical transition, such as puberty blockers, at least until he starts puberty, according to the newspaper.
Let’s ask a few questions about this situation as well. How does a seven-year-old know who he is or what he is? How can his mother be so sure her son is really a girl? Is it moral for the medical profession to intervene in the natural development of a child and to prevent the onset of puberty? Few would dare to ask such questions publicly because of the labels that might be applied if they do. I think also these questions are suppressed because LGBTQ+ advocates are afraid of the answers. They are afraid candidates to their cause might not be good candidates after all. They seem to think it is better to sacrifice a few like Ahmed’s son and James Younger for the good of the whole. How, as a civilized society, can we countenance such things done to children? Younger’s mother appears to be manipulating this child’s thinking and living vicariously through him. I call it child abuse. She is the one who needs to the help, not her son. I am bothered by these things. How about you?
I don’t deny that there is such a thing as “gender dysphoria” nor do I think that adults should not have any choices available to them, but a seven-year-old child shouldn’t be dealing with these issues; a seven-year-old shouldn’t be allowed to be part of a mother’s dabbling in transgenderism. Blaire White is someone who seems to have genuinely made the gender transition, but even she calls out the insanity of what is being done to James Younger; she has much criticism for the LGBTQ political activists in general as well. James Younger and Ahmed’s son didn’t ask to be put on this path; they weren’t given the opportunity to reach adulthood to decide for themselves as Blaire White did. Why are these children being forced onto a transgender path that they might regret later?
What Happened to Sports?
The discussion over transgenders and their rights has spiraled out-of-control in the last year or so. Ben Shapiro in a recent podcast highlighted a different story, ESPN magazine’s cover story regarding a transgender basketball player, Layshia Clarendon. The story celebrates the fact that he/she/them is transgender and non-binary–and isn’t that a wonderful thing? I am not even sure what that means or why I should be interested in this person’s personal life, especially this person’s sex life. A transgender person changes one’s sex, but a non-binary person is one who doesn’t identify either as male or female. How can one be both? It doesn’t compute. Furthermore, the article refers to this person as he, she, and they. If Layshia is non-binary why use he and she as pronouns? Is ESPN deliberately trying to confuse us all? Shapiro calls this the “normalization of delusion”.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Layshia Clarendon (she/he/they), who identifies as transgender and nonbinary, uses he/him, she/her, and they/them pronouns interchangeably. We do so throughout this piece. We also introduce the preferred pronouns for others who appear in this story and for whom pronouns are used.
Layshia is averaging fewer than ten points a game, certainly not the female version of Michael Jordan, so how do they figure Layshia is the league’s most influential player? Is it because of Layshia’s politics and alignment with LGBTQ folks?
I believe Layshia is in reality a man because he fathered a child with another woman, although I am not entirely sure. The details of Layshia and his/her/them’s past life and current sexual preferences are deliberately obscured. This is designed to confuse. They don’t want us to know Layshia’s true identity. Ask yourself why. Does the emperor have no clothes? They would rather it not be so obvious.
The NFL, the most masculine of all sports, is now gay and transgender too. Who knew?
This latest NFL announcement is intended to celebrate the fact that one current player just revealed he is gay. Even though football doesn’t actually have any transgender players, according to the video, football is apparently transgender too. I hope you don’t think I am a bigot for thinking this is stupid or for having given up watching football. When all people, no matter their political stripe can simply watch and discuss the sport itself without drifting off into ancillary issues, then I’ll return to watching it. When I couldn’t talk politics with others, we could at least talk about sports because once upon a time it had nothing to do with politics. In the meantime, I am boycotting football because I agree with Shapiro; they want to convince us that reality is not what we think it is.
How Much Harm are We Causing?
If you don’t accept their version of reality, which is often delusional and often something that ought to be confronted not affirmed, you are deemed a bigot. New examples of insanity crop up daily. I don’t have to dig through the archives to find examples. In the last couple weeks, I found three more “The Emperor has no clothes” stories.
First, one woman complained to her local gym that there was a man who says he is woman parading around the ladies locker room, openly displaying his penis. The club’s position is that there is nothing they can or will do about it and this patron is rightfully indignant.
In order to preserve LGBTQ rights, our society is telling us we must allow men who think they are pretty to hang out in the ladies locker room. All women are supposed to accept this as if it is normal? Does this seem normal to you? It happened in California, but California is coming to the rest of the country soon. There is also a fear factor here used to force you to comply. If you don’t accept this you are homophobic or transphobic or something of the sort. The woman in this instance didn’t care about the blowback, but unfortunately too many others are inhibited into silence. Again I ask why is there not more outrage from us all? Tell them no. Let this woman who spoke the truth be your role model. And tell me, where are the men in this instance? Real men do not want their mothers, wives, and daughters exposed to this. Not even ten years ago, a man doing this would be arrested and shamed by the rest of the community. Why are we now being asked to accept such shameful behavior as if it is actually normal behavior?
Next, an Iowa swim club allowed a young teenage girl to go topless because she thinks she is a boy.
Again, there is nothing the club is willing to do to prevent this. Their policy, in fact, allows people to wear the clothes appropriate to the gender of their choice. Do they not think about the harm that can be done to this young girl by allowing her to do this? How many women have been victimized by having lewd photos displayed against their will on the internet? How easy it would be to victimize this young woman who is displaying her private parts openly? Does the swim club care more about the broader message of inclusion than it does about this young girl? Posting lewd photos is probably the least of the risks this young girl is exposing herself to. Are there no adults willing to advise her of how she can be victimized? What about the other children exposed to this? Shouldn’t this be considered pornographic? As a parent, I wouldn’t want to take my young children for a day of fun at the pool and have them exposed to this. And we are told to grin and bear it because this is the new normal? Also this is happening in Iowa, not California. This insanity is getting closer and closer to a neighborhood near you.
Finally, when I was growing up there was controversy regarding East German Olympic swimmers who took testosterone and looked more like men than women. Once upon a time this was considered cheating. The East Germans denied it while nobody believed them and they won a heap of medals. Now consider the story of Laurel Hubbard, a 43-year-old man who can’t win a gold medal competing against other men but may have a chance if competing against women. Many today consider such an advantage to be just fine. All one has to do is simply claim you are a woman and you are provided legitimacy. How times have changed.
How unfair is this to women who have spent years competing on a level playing field against their peers?
In each of these three stories it is women who are victimized the most. The oh-so-tolerant, the oh-so-caring Left who claims to be in the vanguard for women’s civil rights have completely abandoned women and left them fend for themselves while they to chase after the new girl named LGBTQ.
If you are someone who advocates for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, surely you can see the dangers in trying to be so inclusive of transgenders: how this harms women and how those caught up in all this swirl may be deluding and hurting themselves?
How much harm are we causing to children as well? It is one thing to tolerate the decision that adults such as Blaire White have made over their own lives, but is quite another to stand idly by while children are harmed and may do irreversible damage to their future. More on this below.
Perhaps you might say we should just agree to disagree on this matter. After all, there are many who think like me and many others who think it is about time we made progress on these issues. Perhaps we should do an experiment and see whose ideas win out? Perhaps we should all live and let live? But those advocating for such “inclusive” policies are not willing to agree to disagree. For them, it is not about “live and let live”; they can’t afford to let us each go our way in order to see which one prevails, not on this issue nor the issue of gay rights nor on the issue of gay marriage nor any similar progressive issue of our day. The state of California is making clear just how tolerant the political Left really is. California doesn’t like that other states have banned biological males like Laurel Hubbard from competing in women’s sports and so if you don’t agree with them they will punish you:
California is trying to shame half the country that doesn’t believe in what they believe and they are willing to use their economic clout to bully the smaller states. This is what constitutes political discourse on the Left today. California doesn’t just want to be the trend setter and stand out from the crowd. California wants everyone to join them in their stand. The goal is to make every state like California. You must stand with them or you are the problem; you are the bigot; you are the intolerant one. The fact is they can’t win any other way. These ideas are unpopular. If allowed to stand on their own, they would fade away quickly, but the Left wants to use the force of government to cram it down on you. They have to bully you; they have to make you afraid to speak up; they have to make you pretend that two plus two equals five or you will realize what a house of cards they have built.
Let me return once more to Abagail Shrier, the woman who told us about Ahmed’s son. She has researched and written extensively about the dangers of this new way of thinking. In the following video, Shirer tells how there is a recent explosion of young teenage girls deciding they are transgender. Her research shows that many girls decide they are transgender upon learning that one in their friend group is transgender. These girls aren’t really transgender but because of the empathy they feel for their friends they often convince themselves they are as a show of support for their friends. The interview is extensive, but she addresses this issue in the first minute of the video:
Even if you don’t agree with me on transgender issues, you surely would agree that it is not a good thing for a young girl to believe she is transgender when she is not? Surely, we shouldn’t be advocating for public policies that influences girls to find their true identity in something that isn’t actually their true identity?
I think perhaps this next story takes the cake. The author of this story in the Washington Post sees nothing wrong with exposing her children to overt sexuality in a gay pride parade:
Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on.
Why on earth would a parent expose children to such behavior? Why do children need to know so much about sexuality at such an early age? Actually, the author tells us why later in the article:
As much as I want them to spend time in queer spaces so they can be with families like their own, I also want them to know that they shouldn’t limit their understanding of what relationships or expression look like to whatever’s most familiar. I want them to see that they can make their own ways in the world — and know that they’ll be supported and celebrated by their community. If we want our children to learn and grow from their experiences at Pride, we should hope that they’ll encounter kink when they attend. How else can they learn about the scope and vitality of queer life?
Children who witness kink culture are reassured that alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are valid — no matter who they become as they mature, helping them recognize that their personal experiences aren’t bad or wrong, and that they aren’t alone in their experiences. I can’t think of a more relevant or important reminder for youth, who often struggle with feelings of isolation and confusion as they discover more about themselves and wrestle with concerns about whether they’re normal enough.
What is wrong with this is that there are no limits. What about children engaging in sex with adults? Is that an expression of who they are? It is defined as pedophilia and it has been taboo for all of human history, or at least it was until the Washington Post decided alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are okay. The author doesn’t actually condone pedophilia, but she leaves the door wide open by refusing to rule out any expression of sexuality. With the lines so blurred it is a very short step for someone with a more sinister agenda to take advantage. Like P.J. O’Rourke once said is it like having teenage kids and leaving the car keys in the ignition and a whiskey bottle in the front seat.
Would it also be okay for this woman and her transgender husband to engage in sex with their own children, also known as incest? Or perhaps they wouldn’t go so far, but would simply allow their children to watch them? I couldn’t imagine anything so horrible as watching my parents engage in sex. Would I be limiting their expression by pointing out there should be some taboos? This woman places absolutely no limits on human sexuality and no judgment of any individuals except those like me who would place limits on her and those of her community:
If this all sounds familiar, it’s because anti-kink rhetoric echoes the same socialized disgust people have projected onto other queer people when they claim that our love is not appropriate for public spaces. It’s a sentiment that tolerates queerness only if it stays within parameters — offering the kind of acceptance that comes with a catch. The middle-aged, White men who I grew up with said they were “fine” with gay people as long as they wouldn’t be subjected to PDA — as long as all signs of queer love could be outwardly erased. Queer people’s freedom to be themselves is, according to this logic, contingent on non-queer people’s freedom from exposure to it.
These days the term “safe space” is often used to help people avoid situations where people might encounter ideas that are judgmental or just plain different than their own. When Ben Shapiro spoke at UC-Berkley, the university provided “safe spaces” for adolescent students who might be “triggered” by his conservative rhetoric. Where is the safe space for this woman’s minor children? The fact is this woman knows she can’t convince people like me, middle aged white men who don’t want to be subjected to her PDA (public display of affection), so instead she seeks to convince children, her own children at first, but given that this is in the pages of the Washington Post (a safe space for people like her), your children as well.
This woman expects me to be tolerant of her behavior while she also dismisses the viewpoints of white men middle aged men like me who she sees as narrow-minded. I am tolerant of many things and many people, but I am not tolerant of what this woman is trying to do our children and their future. Furthermore, tolerance is not the virtue she thinks it is. Tolerance is simply an acceptance of something. You might tolerate something annoying. Some people tolerate me clicking my pen during meetings. I tolerate my wife’s penchant for turning down the A/C. I might even tolerate things which I perceive as harmful because I live in America and I recognize people have the freedom to live their own lives. I have known many gay people in my life, many of them fine people. I accept that they are gay and have the freedom to live their own lives, but I don’t condone or affirm gay marriage, so I wouldn’t attend their wedding if invited. Such a viewpoint is not hateful and it is not preventing them from getting married if they desire it. I simply withhold my affirmation. I will tolerate them and their viewpoints, but I won’t go any further. They desperately want my affirmation (and yours too), but I won’t give it.
I put the author of this Washington Post article in another category. Thank God I don’t have to live next to someone like her because my tolerance would be greatly tested. She sees people like me as the problem and I see her as the problem. Our divergent views cannot co-exist. She and I would agree on one thing: one of these views must win out and one must be expunged. All of us should take a stand. Which view do you support? Hers represents a vocal minority. Mine represents a majority, but a majority that is often unwilling to fight and willing to cede ground to the other side. Thomas Jefferson wrote these words 245 years ago:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation
We can’t sit on the sidelines while so many are willing to violate the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. We must win this battle to avoid a separation.
Maybe you think this woman is on the fringe and that voices like hers will be marginalized? Think again. Voices like hers are becoming more mainstream and your kids are the target more than ever. If they can’t convince you, they might be able to convince your kids:
How Many Genders are There?
I focused much of this discussion on the harm our changing norms are doing to others, but what about the harm that we have done to reality and truth? What about the “normalization of delusion” that Ben Shapiro refers to? Why are people afraid to speak the truth? Why are so many pretending that a false sense of reality is normal and sane?
Here we have the current Secretary of Education refusing to acknowledge there are two genders:
I suppose good people can disagree about the value of two plus two, but the Secretary doesn’t even acknowledge that this is a legitimate line of questioning.
“That is an example under your leadership that you are putting out to people,” the Illinois Republican said, referring to the document. “How many genders are there?”
Cardona quickly deflected, asking how Miller would “respond to a student who is nonbinary in your classroom,” but was pressed again by the congresswoman on the number of genders that exist.
“I won’t be answering your question,” Cardona fired back. “You can continue your line of questioning.”
Anger is often the response when one can’t answer the question asked, a simple one with an obvious answer in this case. The problem here isn’t just that we can’t seek common ground or have a real debate on the issue. The bigger problem is that dissent is not allowed. You want to claim there are two genders, something which we all have inherently known since before Kindergarten and you are told that position is not allowed. I don’t know how it could not be so. Here are a few examples of what might happen to you should you choose to publicly declare the earth revolves around the sun or that two plus two is four or that there are two genders, male and female:
The power of the state is being used to compel people into believing things the state wants everyone to believe. Enough people can already attest to that. Stand up now and speak out before you too find yourself threatened when speaking the truth. A few months ago, I wrote about the power of the state with regard to these issues. I talked about people in high government positions such as Rachel Levine and Merrick Garland as well other non-government officials in influential positions. They are indeed a vocal minority, but they are pushing hard for you to change and tolerate this new world view: What’s a Gender? – Seek the Truth (seek-the-truth.com)
So What is Right?
I think there is much here to call out, but what do we do when others confront us with these notions of transgenderism or when we encounter transgender individuals themselves? Certainly, I call out lies and deception when I see them, but I don’t want to condemn others for believing such things or condemn others who are caught up in all of this swirl. As a Catholic, I look to the Church to guide and advise us on how to best handle the situation when we are confronted directly.
I include a few links below which I think provide perspective. Don’t let anyone convince you the Church’s position is hateful or demeaning of transgenders. The first link is a lengthy document which delves into the issue in from a theological perspective. This is probably not for you unless you want to dig deep to analyze and study this issue. The second link summarizes the position and provides an objection as well. The last link I would recommend highly; Father Mike Schmitz in plain language explains what is wrong with the transgender view and the compassion the Church has in dealing with it.
America is an exceptionally tolerant country and we are an exceptionally tolerant people, despite what so many today want to tell you. We accept LGBTQ+ people and love them as we love any individual, but we cannot affirm their behavior. We cannot tell them that their beliefs and behaviors are good, yet we can tell them they belong and that they are loved. As Father Mike says, we can walk them on their journey. I don’t know why this simple view is not accepted, except that people want to lie about our views because the Church and the religious right are perceived as enemies.
We actually have more compassion for LGBTQ folks than the so-called activists who simply want to affirm aberrant behavior. Ask yourself what is the most compassionate thing you can do for a drug addict? I say it is to help him break his habit because of the harm it is doing him. Walk him on his journey until he comes out the other end. I wouldn’t advise someone like Blaire White to transition, but I would try to understand what they are feeling and offer alternatives to help them decide for themselves. Praise be to God now and forever.