Writes Andrea Long Chu, in "Freedom of Sex/The moral case for letting trans kids change their bodies" (New York Magazine).
Note the suggestion that puberty is nature's sexual assault upon the child. The author doesn't quite say that, but she put the thought into my head. It would prove too much though. We wouldn't ask whether any given children can consent to take puberty blockers; we would ask whether all children should be required to take puberty blockers.
Also in this article is an acronym I'm seeing for the first time: TARL. This is a "trans-agnostic reactionary liberal":
He is neither radical nor a feminist; he is not so much trans-exclusionary as he is broadly skeptical of all social-justice movements.... The TARL’s primary concern, to hear him tell it, lies in protecting free speech and civil society from the illiberal forces of the woke left, which, by forcing the orthodoxy of gender down the public’s throat and viciously attacking anyone who dares to ask questions, is trafficking in censorship, intimidation, and quasi-religious fanaticism. On trans people themselves, the TARL claims to take no position other than to voice his general empathy for anyone suffering from psychological distress or civil-rights violations.... [T]he TARL will typically acknowledge the existence of a group of fully developed adults whose medically verified gender dysphoria is so persistent and distressing that the argument for compassionate care outweighs the Hippocratic prohibition on harming a perfectly healthy body.... Every trans-identified person is either a participant in a craze or certifiably crazy.... This line is as old as gender medicine itself, which for decades was careful to distinguish impersonators and fetishists from the “true transsexual.” So in most cases of gender variance, the TARL informs parents that it is perfectly healthy for boys to wear dresses and for girls to climb trees regardless of their biological sex, which need not be altered after all....
Posts
142 comments:
"Every trans-identified person is either a participant in a craze or certifiably crazy"
Are these mutually exclusive?
I hope this woman is not allowed access to sharp knives.
parents must learn to treat their kids as what they are: human beings capable of freedom.
serious question. As the parent of a 10 year..
if your child decided they identified as a face tattooed human.. Would you affirm their decision?
If you answered NO; WHY?
WHO is better off deciding if they want permanent face tattoos than the human being in question?
Seriously, WHICH is more permanent? a face tattoo, or bottom surgery?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv4Uhqbta0M&pp=ygUlYW5keSBncmlmZml0aCBzaG93IGNoaWxkcmVuIHBhcmVudGluZw%3D%3D
"You can't let a young'n decide for himself. He'll grab at the first flashy thing with shiny ribbon on it."
My Dad didn't consent to early-onset dementia. I wish he had known that was an option.
Consent to puberty? What a moron. Wait until she learns you also don’t consent to death. That will be a doozy.
Sophistry
What absolute SH*T!
If we are to recognize the rights of trans kids, we will also have to accept that, like us, they have a right to the hazards of their own free will.
The age of consent exists for a reason. It is "common(?) knowledge" that children are not able to comprehend the ramifications of some choices. Hence the age "line in the sand" that says "children" can not enter into contracts and/or do specific things until they reach an appropriate age.
When life was harder, kids grew up faster and [I believe] were more quickly pushed into adulthood and adult choices (as limited as they were). Today, kids are more coddled to the extent that many don't ever grow up. At the same time the choices have been expanded and become more complex. Now some folks want to push this expanded set of adult, life affecting/altering choices onto younger and less mature "children", all in the name of freedom and individual rights. That is but a smokescreen to allow them to take advantage of the naivety of this kids for their own purposes.
You would not let a 12 year old go into a bar and order shots but some want to allow that same 12 year old to cut off their dick or breasts. That is evil and insane.
Based on your excerpt, I can't really tell if the cited author is condemning the TARL position or trying to promote it. It is hardly "reactionary" except in the sense that the Left considers reactionary any resistance at all to whatever cockamamie scheme they came up with this time.
There is no freedom in a lie. In fact, the real problem is that these so-called "transgender" identified people are enslaved to that lie.
Moreover, every trans-identified person has full and equal access to healthcare. Again, the problem is that "transitioning" is the opposite of healthcare; it is taking a healthy body and making it dysfunctional.
It is monstrous what these people are doing to children.
if children are too young to consent to puberty blockers, then they are definitely too young to consent to puberty, which is a drastic biological upheaval in its own right
That kind of evil and idiocy is like saying that if children are too young to consent to puberty blockers, then they are definitely too young to consent to breathing or eating or becoming older as each day progresses. Puberty is the natural process of any and every human being.
I guess some people feel that TERF has been successful at intimidating some people to shut up about men in women's restrooms, so they are trying out TARL. Maybe the other side can come up with their own acronym for trans activists. Perhaps, a Transgender Radicalism Advocating Person, or maybe a Person Exhorting Dysphoria Obedience.
"If we are to recognize the rights of trans kids, we will also have to accept that, like us, they have a right to the hazards of their own free will."
If. But we (rightly) don't accept the rights of kids without limits. That is the very nature and contract of adults protecting the immature. You vote, drink, join the military, and marry legally when you reach a certain age. Letting an unformed mind decide if it should cut off its sex organs or impede its development with drugs should certainly fall under the same restrictions.
Also, taking a moderate and defensible position and giving it an acronym, TARL, is a way of undermining it.
This sad person also wrote a NY Times op-ed called "My New Vagina Won't Make Me Happy," which should be an Onion headline.
Link:
https://archive.ph/ooIdl
My thought is that plaintiffs lawyers are going to control trans kids access to care. Some portion of the kids who chose to transition are going to regret it later. Therapists, physicians and surgeons that provide care to minors are going to be sued and consent of a minor is going to be a substantial part of the suit. It might take several years but insuring minor transitions is going to be remarkably expensive or unobtainable.
"Are these mutually exclusive?"
The answer is no in the original article. I used the ellipsis to take that part out. The word "or" can be inclusive or exclusive, and it was inclusive there. Sorry to introduce the confusion, which I knew I was doing. Just trying to shorten what I was quoting.
She sounds like an idiot.
Gender is sex-correlated attributes (e.g. sexual orientation). Trans- refers to a state or process of divergence from normal. Boys in dresses is transsocial. Girls climbing trees is normal. Corrupting the body and reproductive capacity with forward-looking surgical, medical, and psychiatric treatments before the age of consent is wicked.
Chu made some reasonable arguements until she compared the natural consequences of growing up, puberty, to having someone inject a kid with powerful artificial hormones designed to block it. Kids don't have total freedom for very good reasons. Their minds are not fully formed. They are "partial humans" or maybe better stated "partial adults." Everything that makes up a well functioning human mind has not yet formed. The billions of neural connections in the brain are still being made. We wait until their mind is fully formed before we allow them the freedom to make permanent life-changing decisions.
"Based on your excerpt, I can't really tell if the cited author is condemning the TARL position or trying to promote it."
Sorry. Again, I had to shorten the quote. But the author does not like the TARLs. She calls them "the most insidious source of the anti-trans movement in this country."
I hope this woman is not allowed access to sharp knives.
It's women like her who play with the double-edged scalpel to destroy, abort "burdens" for social, clinical, criminal, political, and fair weather progress as determined by their ethical convictions. The transgender spectrum (e.g. homosexual) is just their latest playground for exclusion and profit.
If Chu had not had bottom surgery, no one would ever publish this blather. Only claim to fame is the wound that never heals.
Also in this article is an acronym I'm seeing for the first time: TARL. This is a "trans-agnostic reactionary liberal"
Oh, good- progressives have found other way to group people so they don't have to pay attention to the individuals they have labeled.
"Consent to puberty? What a moron. Wait until she learns you also don’t consent to death...."
Before writing this post, I had a conversation with Meade, and we were comparing puberty and death. Both are overwhelming, dramatic impositions coming from nature. There are similar philosophical questions about individual freedom.
So, you might want to say puberty/death must be experienced. That's just reality. There's no room for freedom. But there are some things that can mitigate this assault by nature. A person facing puberty might want puberty blockers. And a person facing death might want euthanasia or painkillers. The medical profession can mediate the encounter with nature and we have questions of medical ethics.
I was also thinking about childbirth. What a shocking imposition on the baby! If you were to do equivalent things — squeezing and pressing for hours — to a born baby, you would be committing horrific child abuse. It occurred to me that one could argue that all childbirth should be by c-section, to avoid this assault by nature on the baby.
Chu is actively evil, and I suspect she knows this deep down in places she doesn't want to look. All of these people wanting to let children take puberty blockers and have body-modifying surgery are evil- full stop.
Pregnancy and childbirth are huge impositions on the woman. It's nature and you might think she should just endure it and accept reality, but many people think she has a right to delete the pregnancy with abortion. That's freedom.
The part about consenting to puberty made me think of the woman who announced "I accept the universe"-- remembered today because of Thomas Carlyle's reaction: "Gad! She'd better."
The author should be specific about the class of transgender that is under consideration. Not all transgender orientations are equally unstable. The class in question is particularly unstable through puberty, and the prescribed solution permanently destroys their ability to function, let alone enjoy, normal sexual function. The Pro-Choice religion is a many wicked conviction.
"parents must learn to treat their kids as what they are: human beings capable of freedom."
David Browne: Well, Sheriff, maybe I do look at things differently than other people. Is that wrong? I live by my wits. I'm not above bending the law now and then to keep clothes on my back or food in my stomach. I live the kind of life that other people would just love to live if they only had the courage. Who's to say that the boy would be happier your way or mine? Why not let him decide?
Andy Taylor: Nah, I'm afraid it don't work that way. You can't let a young 'un decide for himself. He'll grab at the first flashy thing with shiny ribbons on it, then when he finds out there's a hook in it, it's too late. The wrong ideas come packaged with so much glitter, it's hard to convince him that other things might be better in the long run, and all a parent can do is say, "Wait. Trust me," and try to keep temptation away.
I rewrote the quoted passage (but only slightly; this has probably already been done on X by someone):
That underage kids’ access to MAP-type sex will in most cases be mediated by parents or legal guardians is an inescapable fact of the way our society regards children, rightly or not. For now, parents must learn to treat their kids as what they are: human beings capable of freedom. The freedom of MAP-type sex does not promise happiness. Nor should it. It is good and right for advocates to fight back against the liberal fixation on the health risks of MAP-type sex or the looming possibility of post MAP-type sex regret. But it is also true that where there is freedom, there will always be regret. In fact, there cannot be regret without freedom. Regret is freedom projected into the past. So it is one thing to regret the outcome of a decision, but it is a very different thing to regret the freedom to decide, which most people would not trade for the world. If we are to recognize the rights of kids wanting to engage in MAP type-sex, we will also have to accept that, like us, they have a right to the hazards of their own free will. This does not mean have a MAP bed every toddler who gets interested in genitalia. But if children are too young to consent to MAP-type sex, then they are definitely too young to consent to puberty, which is a drastic sexual upheaval in its own right.
Talk about slippery slope! I do wonder sometimes if the desire to have sex with children is ultimately behind a good chiunk of the Trans movememnt. So many keep getting arrested for child porn.
Wow that's spome top-level bullshit she's selling:
But if children are too young to consent to puberty blockers, then they are definitely too young to consent to puberty
The reason puberty does not require consent is because it is a natural process, like growing up, losing baby teeth and all the rest. To alter that, to require consent for nature to take its course is absurd and irrational as an argument, but freaking hideous in light of the damage done to these young bodies, damage that is irreversible, future options that are forever closed off.
But allowing puberty to take its course does not close off one's options for the future. Most successful "transitions" have happened after puberty when the actor had considered the alternative outcomes and had informed consent. Kids who are too young to give informed consent for tattooing, for adopting smoking as a habit, or for imbibing alcohol are too young and uninformed to alter their lives in such drastic ways.
Why are so many adults intent on letting children ruin their lives? Why do they project their own sexual feelings on children who are experiencing nothing more than their natural curiosity? Ms. Chu is a sick fuck and should be kept far away from children.
What a moronic discussion. The assumption that children can consent to changes in their sexual identity ignores the reality of children's intellectual development. Moreover, in a crudely analogous instance, sex with children below a certain age is considered sex below the "age of consent."
The left believes that the world can be shaped into whatever one thinks it ought to be, rather than accepting its constraints.
A woman has four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion. Abortion is the premeditated termination of a human life, it is murder past six weeks. The Pro-Choice religion denies a woman's dignity and agency.
The TARLs can’t be as persuasive, as a sufficient number of regretful de-trans could. And by sufficient, I guess it would have to be more than the number of deaths and adverse reactions attributed to COVID vaccine. Which by definition can never be large enough, since the dead can’t speak for themselves, as regretful de-trans could, if allowed. I say it would have to be larger because the so called vaccines are still available in the marketplace.
Some harms have to be real. They can’t be imagined. The imagination is insufficient to bring into our consciousness with sufficient force a memory or a feeling that has not yet happened. As I’ve come to understand, that is why is so difficult for alcoholics to quit for good.
"For now, parents must learn to treat their kids as what they are: human beings capable of freedom."
Just gender identity and "changing their body"? How about:
1) Freedom to skip attending school
2) Freedom from curfew
3) Freedom from alcohol age restriction
4) Freedom to swear
5) Freedom from having to eat what was put on your plate
6) Freedom from internet/online content and time restriction
7) Freedom from the vaccine cocktail
8) Freedom to get a tattoo
9) Freedom from liberal parents encouraging gender transition
10)Freedom to chose which parent you live with post divorce
11)Freedom from boundaries (how far you can go from the house)
There are all types restrictions imposed on children, by parents, in order to make them functioning adults in a free society.
I had to go look up the definition of agnostic. It is mostly theological though I did find one non-theological definition:
"One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."
So I guess I am trans agnostic, sort of. I don't care that much about it and I am pretty much always willing to let consulting adults do whatever they wish to their own bodies. So non-committal.
OTOH, I do care that I am being forced, though not very successfully, to pretend that men can become women and (more commonly) women can become men. I do care that I am being forced, sometimes successfully, to allow men to play in women's sports because they pretend to be women. I do care that men are allowed in women's private spaces like locker rooms. I also care that women, who pretend to be men, are allowed in men's locker rooms.
Am I a reactionary liberal? Sounds like sort of an oxymoron. I definititly claim to be a liberal (classical liberal libertarian if you prefer). I believe in maximum freedom. If you want to pretend to be a guy, fine by me. If you want me to pretend to believe you are a guy, go fuck yourself.
John Henry
The resolution of Nature's choice is to dedicate a class of men and women to donate sperm and act as womb banks, respectively, as we have to accommodate infertile couples, trans/homosexual couplets, and others who want a child without the commitment.
The author tries to advance the new pejorative of TARL and claim that people who merely urge caution about transitioning, especially in children are Radical Liberals, but ultimately her argument is the one that is steeped in Radical Liberalism. Her underlying position seems to be that any change that might occur to an individual whether it is exogenous or endogenous must be consented to. That nothing may affect a person without that person's consent. Talk about hyper-individualism. Even radical libertarians limit their idea of self-autonomy to negative rights, which protect against the actions of government or their fellow man, not nature itself. I don't even think it is thermodynamically possible for any individual to exist without affecting and being affected by the world at large. So taking her argument one step further, what if other people don't consent to being affected by a person choosing to transition or choosing to transition their child. That causes impositions on others. People are compelled to use new language they didn't consent to, people are compelled to experience worry or anxiety as new people enter private spaces they were previously prohibited from entering, and there is even evidence that some people are led into transitioning themselves who would have not but for the non-consented-to exposure to people who did transition.
Andrea Chu is an overweight man hating whatever with a really bad haircut.
From her Wikipedia page:
In an interview for the New York City Trans Oral History Project, Chu said that she was in a relationship with a "wonderful cis woman" who was very helpful in preparing for Chu's sex reassignment surgery.[22] Discussing the relationship, Chu stated, "[h]eterosexuality is so much better when there aren't any men in the equation."
We're supposed to take this person seriously when it comes to the health of young boys and young men? Is hatred now a qualification? From the quote above, she seems quite enthusiastic about penis removal.
Keep your kids away from this batshit crazy nut-bag. Unfortunately, it's people like Chu that are flocking toward the education system.
We're probably fucked.
I appreciate all the pushback on the Chu insanity. Of course, kids can't give informed consent on sex changes, and of course it makes no sense to talk about consenting to puberty, etc. etc. But the striking thing here is not the particulars of the absurdities, but the blithe touting of them, in an MSM outlet, as an edgy vanguard piece, following the logic of the trans-transformation. The meta-message is that for progs, anything sexual goes, there are no boundaries, the right to sex means sex for anyone at any time, bodily constraints are to be overcome at will, pure subjectivity must rule--and don't you dare stand in the way, you TERF or TARL, or else. One caveat: in good prog style, boundaries can be invoked to punish wrongthinkers and men making "unwanted" advances and Trump.
"Pregnancy and childbirth are huge impositions on the woman. It's nature and you might think she should just endure it and accept reality, but many people think she has a right to delete the pregnancy with abortion. That's freedom."
I'd imagine pregnancy and childbirth are huge impositions on the child, as well. If children have the right to cut off their dicks and tits, perhaps unborn babies should have the right to choose life? That's freedom.
We can also import males and females through immigration reform in order to sustain the population and expected quality of life in the breach. Meanwhile, Levine's Dreams of Herr Mengele are indeed forward-looking, Obama's conception of "burdens", too. Deja vu.
Does the article mention that the author is a guy pretending to be a woman? He apparently had the courage of his convictions to get a pseudo-vagina 6 years ago. It does not seem to make him happy. According to him. Thanks for the article link Lilly. Seriously weird. But his body, his choice.
Now he wants to impose his craziness on kids?
Nope, nope, nopity-nope. Consenting adults? No problem with me, though they, not medical insurance, should pay for it.
NOT kids.
I am a strong believer in parental rights but I am also a strong believer that we, as a society, need to protect our children from abusive or neglectful parents. I am sometimes conflicted about where the line should be drawn but never that there needs to be a line. This is as far past the line as a parent whoring out there son or daughter, refusing to feed or educate them, beating them or other abuse.
John Henry
But leave those kids alone.
Thanks
We're probably fucked.
Progressive liberalism is a recurring theme in history. No one ever believes it will reach its catastrophic conclusion in his lifetime.
Virtually all discussion I see on transing is about guys pretending to be women.
I seldom see anything about women and girls pretending to be guys.
Yet the latter outnumber the former 2-3 to 1.
Why do we seldom hear about this?
"Silence equals violence" Isn't that what they used to say?
John Henry
Blogger AlbertAnonymous said...
He sounds like an idiot.
FIFY
John Henry
Easy to find quotes from Andrea Chu:
"Getting fucked makes you female, because fucked is what a female is."
"The asshole is universal vagina through which femaleness can always be accessed."
Wow. And inspiration to young girls and boys everywhere.
"[W]e were comparing puberty and death. Both are overwhelming, dramatic impositions coming from nature."
Sure, there are some downsides to puberty. Zits, for one (or many). Worsened relationships with your parents and other older folks. Etc. Females have it the worst, I suppose.
But there are so many upsides. Discovery of sex, for one, and that's a big one for most of us. In the end, given enough time, better judgment about almost everything. Thank god teenagers aren't running the world, even if it sometimes seems like they are.
As to death, Woody Allen said it funniest: "Sex and death, two things that come only once in life. But at least after death, you're not nauseous." Poor Woody!
The slippery slope here is sick people like Andrea Chu will work their way into positions of power and remove children from the home if parents don't go along with the puberty blocking and genital cutting agenda.
In one generation it will be the republican/conservative peoples fault that they didn't stop this degeneracy.
I am astounded how fast a society can fall.
Chu kind of looks like John Belushi.
Again we are running in circles around children’s Freedom to chose Dr Mengele class medical experiments. It never ends. The only issue is attempted mass population reductions the old Eugenics way: sterilization.
"distinguish impersonators and fetishists from the 'true transsexual.'"
It's interesting that "transvestite" seems to have become the rough equivalent of the N-word with respect to sex/gender.
At the same time, "impersonators and fetishists" have all but disappeared, at least in name.
The science is that the human brain is not fully developed until age 25. To submit - as some kind of fact or positive good - that kids can make such a consequential decision is pure insanity.
Steve said...
"My thought is that plaintiffs lawyers are going to control trans kids access to care... Therapists, physicians and surgeons that provide care to minors are going to be sued..."
"Care" isn't the word I would use to describe child mutilation. It's experimentation. Mengele didn't provide "care."
Not old enough to vote, not old enough to cut your tits or dick off.
"But if children are too young to consent to puberty blockers, then they are definitely too young to consent to puberty, which is a drastic biological upheaval in its own right"
You have the consciousness you have, biology has thrust that on to you. But you can alter your consciousness. So, let's open the whole cocktail of booze, drugs and cigarettes (and more) to your ghcildren or adolescents and see how that goes...in the name of freedom for kids! And BTW is responsibility involved with freedom or do they just get freedom?
The author's argument is so illogical that the only conclusion is the author is (a) insane, (b) incredibly stupid, (c) an intellectual, or (d) some or all of the above.
Also, the argument justifies pedophilia. This person is evil.
On second thought Pelosi favors lowering voting age to 16.
Ann - This is Michael at 10:07. That was sarcasm. I know what she was saying, but she managed to make what she was attacking sound equally or more sensible than what she was promoting.
I think the big take away from this is; a writer will babble on about the most inane, stupid shit for page after page as long as there's a paycheck on the other end.
That gun kids’ access to firearms will in most cases be mediated by parents or legal guardians is an inescapable fact of the way our society regards children, rightly or not. For now, parents must learn to treat their kids as what they are: human beings capable of freedom. The right to bear arms does not promise happiness. Nor should it. It is good and right for advocates to fight back against the liberal fixation on the risks of owning firearms or the looming possibility of an impulsive shooting spree. But it is also true that where there is freedom, there will always be regret. In fact, there cannot be regret without freedom. Regret is freedom projected into the past. So it is one thing to regret the outcome of a decision, but it is a very different thing to regret the freedom to decide, which most people would not trade for the world. If we are to recognize the rights of gun kids, we will also have to accept that, like us, they have a right to the hazards of their own free will. This does not mean buying a machine gun for every toddler who looks at a war movie. But if children are too young to rock and roll on full automatic, then they are definitely too young to consent being unable to defend themselves or their families, which is drastic and dangerous in its own right...."
The 'moral case' for letting trans kids...
Once you have to argue morality you've already lost...
Failed design attempts for a device to detect this or that and respond included a regretter circuit, a humorous way to say that the designer realizes that it won't respond as desired sometimes.
It has happened more than once that small children who access a gun have killed someone with it because they do not understand a gun or death. We do not allow children to marry, vote, buy a house, join the army or any number of things BECAUSE they cannot understand the consequences of their decisions. Are we to allow 8 yr olds to buy booze now? To buy a gun?
"If freedom has wings," taught Reb Idrash, "it also has eyes, a forehead, genitals. Each time it takes wing, it transfigures a bit of both the world and man in the excitement of its flowering."
And Reb Lima: "In the beginning, freedom was ten times engraved on the tables of the Law. But we so little deserved it that the Prophet broke them in his anger."
"Any coercion is a ferment of freedom," Reb Idrash taught further. "How can you hope to be free if you are not bound with all our blood to your God and to man?"
And Reb Lima: "Freedom awakens gradually as we become conscious of our ties, like the sleeper of his senses. Then, finally, our actions have a name."
A teaching which Reb Zale translated into this image: "You think it is the bird which is free. Wrong: it is the flower."
And Reb Elat into this motto: "Love your ties to their last splendor, and you will be free."
Jabes, Book of Questions
Study published in the Journal of Urology found that "the attempted-suicide rate among transgender women who received a vaginoplasty in California was twice as high during the period after the surgery compared with the period before the surgery"
Twitter link to studyhere.
"The phalloplasty suicide-attempt rate was similar to the general population, while the vaginoplasty group's rate was more than twice as high as the general population."
In conclusion: If you sew a dick on a woman everything is fine. But cut off a man's penis and carve out a vagina and the will to live is diminished. Makes perfect sense.
The penis is a much valued object.
These people are sick perverts who prey upon children. They will not stop until they are locked up or exterminated.
I'm am very much looking forward to the verdict in Luka Hein v. University of Nebraska Medical Center.
One woman's freedom is another woman's death. In Ireland, they abort their Down Syndrome children for the sake of DEI. In China, they aborted their girls to spare them the "burden" of puberty, and share others in prostitution rings. In Democratic Greece, they would sodomize/rape their boys and girls in order to force them to take a knee. In socialist Germany, they experimented with gender equity, among other progressive ideals. In Aztec society, they would sacrifice virgins for climate progress. In America, they perform human rites for social progress. There are diverse precedents for modern ethics. Go along and just do it.
Don't be a GERP. This is a "Gun Exclusionary Radical Prog"
It's remarkable the mental gymnastics that thoughtful and educated people can perform to justify diabolical evil.
Do you still wonder how the "good Germans" that inhabited one of the most cultured, humane, educated societies on Earth could inflict such horrors on the world in the Nazi era? It's happening again, to the wild applause of people who would be shocked and offended at the comparison.
One of the most insightful explanations of evil comes from T.S. Eliot:
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm; but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."
The mothers (and it's practically always mothers) who inflict this mutilation, sterilization, and torture on their own flesh and blood are narcissists with a bad case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, eager for the validation of seal-claps from strangers on TikTok and Instagram. Look at that Hollywood bimbo with 4 sons, who claims-- what are the odds? -- that all 4 of them turned out to be "trans".
Ten thousand years from now, our era will be mentioned in the same breath as Dr. Mengele and the Nazis, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, and the child sacrifices of the Carthaginians to the bronze idol Moloch.
It seems that there's a lot of people who 'know' what kids need, with all sorts of interesting theories, who've never (apparently) actually had any contact with kids. Looking at the bio, there's no indication of any actual contact with kids. So any 'advice' this person puts out is suspect at best and harmful at worst.
Theory is all well and good - but it should never be taken for reality. The idea that kids/adults/whatever have to CONSENT to the changes life brings is really a neat idea but completely disregards the old saying...
"Shit happens."
And it doesn't care if you consent or not. Life just goes "Ready or not, here it comes!"
agnostic (n.)
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley, supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" (see a- (3)) + gnōstos "(to be) known" (from PIE root *gno- "to know").
TERF... TARL... homophobic... flame on.
Pregnancy and childbirth are huge impositions on the woman. It's nature and you might think she should just endure it and accept reality, but many people think she has a right to delete the pregnancy with abortion. That's freedom.
There are only two ways to die: natural causes, and homicide.
Abortion, by definition, ends a life before it has a chance to die of a natural cause. Nearly all abortions are elective.
"Deleting" a pregnancy isn't freedom, it is pre-meditated murder.
(There are all manner of euphemisms the pro-murder choice left uses instead of abortion. "Deleting" is the most vile yet.)
There is no moral case.
Next!
Blogger Biff said...
"distinguish impersonators and fetishists from the 'true transsexual.'"
RuPaul is perhaps the world's most famous female impersonator or drag queen. During another comment thread I wondered if he considered himself a woman and read a bit about him.
Nope, he is a fabulously gay male who only dresses as a woman onstage. He does not claim to be a woman and does not want to be a woman. He only wants to perform as a woman.
His long running TV show Drag Race used to not allow men who identified as women to compete. He said that if they were actually "women" they were not men performing as women.
You know that can't be permitted. He has since been forced to allow not only men who pretend to be women but know they are me to compete. He now has to allow men who pretend to be women and believe they are women (ie;crazy people) to compete.
Which makes absolutely no sense at all.
John Henry
Kids' brains are not nearly fully developed until they reach the age of majority, which, to be honest, should still be 21. The reason we let 18 year olds vote is because we were sending them to Viet Nam, the reason we use 18 year olds in the military is because they don't fully understand what they are getting into.
@DarkIsland: I had to go look up the definition of agnostic. It is mostly theological though I did find one non-theological definition:
"One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."
I'm going to propose a better definition: agnosticism is the correct response to any unanswerable question.
Whose music is better, Pink Floyd's, or Michael Jackson's? I know which I prefer, but there is no way to objectively answer that question. Therefore, I am agnostic on that subject.
Every answer to the existence of God requires at least one impossible entering argument: the question is unanswerable.
Regarding Ersatz genders, it is very possible to objectively arrive at a conclusion. Amputating functional body parts is wrong, full stop. Prescribing pharmeceuticals to interrupt a natural process is a clear violation of the Nuremburg Code.
Full stop.
If life is indeed a challenge, squeezing thru the birth canal is natures way of insuring we could… survive a mugging in the subway.
The interesting part is that this person is taken seriously and printed in major publications.
serious Question:
which would YOU rather have? a dead trannie, or a living son?
Benjamin Ryan
@benryanwriter
Study finds that the attempted-suicide rate among transgender women who received a vaginoplasty in California was twice as high during the period after the surgery compared with the period before the surgery.
New York Post: A landmark Finnish study is changing how we approach transgender kids
A major new study out of Finland found that providing cross-sex hormones and gender-transition surgeries to adolescents and young adults didn’t appear to have any significant effect on suicide deaths.
What’s more, gender distress severe enough to send young people to a gender clinic wasn’t independently linked to a higher suicide death rate either.
TRUST THE SCIENCE!
It's absolute nonsense. Total insanity.
As for TARLs being "the most insidious source of the anti-trans movement in this country," good. TARL just became my new favorite acronym.
The puberty/death comparison to me is apples/oranges. Puberty does not need to be blocked, mitigated, or any other thing; simply being a stage-of-life is its only commonality with death. To the great contrary, the hospice morphine drip is compassionate to the truly suffering at end-of-life.
I guess some people feel that TERF has been successful at intimidating some people to shut up about men in women's restrooms
To be a TERF means exactly the opposite of what you said here. Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are against the transgender tyranny of men taking over womanhood. What you mean is TRAs, trans rights activists.
Mason G said...
"Pregnancy and childbirth are huge impositions on the woman. It's nature and you might think she should just endure it and accept reality, but many people think she has a right to delete the pregnancy with abortion. That's freedom."
I'd imagine pregnancy and childbirth are huge impositions on the child, as well. If children have the right to cut off their dicks and tits, perhaps unborn babies should have the right to choose life? That's freedom.
3/12/24, 11:09 AM
THIS^^^^
Next up: freedom to vote!
“What a moronic discussion. The assumption that children can consent to changes in their sexual identity ignores the reality of children's intellectual development. Moreover, in a crudely analogous instance, sex with children below a certain age is considered sex below the "age of consent."
“The left believes that the world can be shaped into whatever one thinks it ought to be, rather than accepting its constraints”
On one hand, I see a push for the legalization of Pedophilia behind at least some of this. We now have a new term for this: “Minor Attracted”. Note though that the push is ultimately coming from adults who want to open up a pool of vulnerable kids and adolescents to their (to the rest of us) depraved sexual desires. And, yes, this seems more prevalent in the gay community. Notably, their depraved sexual desires are put ahead of the long term mental health of their victims. We have age of consent laws for a reason - one part of it is to protect 6minors from predators.
But also, this drive to destruction of societal boundaries is designed to destroy our culture and civilization. One step after another, as one societal norm after another is bulldozed. Interestingly, to me, the countries pushing back the hardest are the most authoritarian: China, Russia, Iran, etc. In Iran, trans behavior, including innocent cosplaying, is likely to result in a quick, brutal death. Catch a biological male in a female space, and they can probably expect to be raped first.
About 15-20 years ago the transgender (we used to call it transsexual) issue was considered universally to be wrong and a primary argument against homosexual marriage as being the first step in a slippery slope to requiring similar accommodations for transgenders. People on the left argued against that by saying that slippery slope arguments were both illogical and that it was absurd to think that there could be any such 'rights' for transgender.
Were they lying at the time? If not, how did it come to this?
With transgender rights now nearly universally acknowledged (except for the challenging case with regards to children), I see that society has now started focusing on the rights of the "polyamorous". It will not be long before polygamy is recognized, another of those points that were said to be on the slippery slope that were considered ridiculous. I suppose if we keep going down the list beastiality is next. Lest someone say that it is offensive to compare beastiality with transgenderism or polyamory, let me be clear that I am not saying that. I only mean that there is an escalating deviation from traditional norms and this is the next higher thing on the list that lies in the future.
For myself, I always thought the solution was to let people do what they want but there was no call to force others to go along with it. Instead, in both cases the solutions they want are compelling the rest of society to participate in their beliefs. I didn't sign that social contract.
If parents are free to mutilate their children then they are also free to prostitute their kids or have them work in strip clubs, get tattoos, be served alcohol at bars, etc.
Why is it only in this one very narrow and specific area that parents must be given free rein?
P.S. Radical liberals are sick fuckers.
Mental illness all the way down...
I agree with Virgil Hilts. The subtext here is obviously that if we can allow underage children the "freedom" to have their bodies mutilated, because THEIR BODIES, then how dare we say no if those same minors get groomed into thinking they're choosing to share THEIR BODIES with whatever kiddie-diddler can talk them into it?
15 year-old daughter wants to have trysts with her married, middle-aged, high school teacher? None of your business, Mom & Dad! She has the freedom to choose what she does with HER BODY! Even if it turns out to be a disaster and she has "regrets" later. It's just the chance we have to take now to keep the trans-activist lobby happy.
What a boon this will be for a certain perverted segment of our society.
Some so-called public figures (like this idiot) are so ridiculous they don't even merit further consideration, much less feedback. The best thing to do is ignore them after checking to be certain that they will never have access to any of your kids, or be in a position to make public policy.
There are several points I must make:
1. Most of this is being driven by a small group of activists.
2. People on the political left are jumping on this bandwagon just to stick it to Republicans.
3. Puberty is a normal part of life and actually necessary for the perpetuation of the species.
4. Many of these "gender affirming" procedures are not reversible and can actually cause long term harm to people.
5. Young people feel a desperate need for acceptance and this is one way to get that.
6. A lot of this is Munchausen by Proxy. The parent is forcing their child into this to get public sympathy and affection.
7. When I was in 5th grade, my parents had a meeting with the administrators at my school because I was very small and skinny for my age. They decided to make me do 5th grade over again. I really wish that they hadn't done that, but I'm also glad that they didn't pump me full of testosterone to enhance my "maleness."
8. The phrase, "let nature take its course" is very important. Decisions, like switching genders, should only be done after someone has gone through puberty and decided, as an adult, that they need a change. After all, you can still change your gender when you're an adult, so what's the hurry? (And, technically, you're not supposed to be sexually active until you're an adult; but hormones do have the tendency to get your motor running.)
gilbar said...
"Seriously, WHICH is more permanent? a face tattoo, or bottom surgery?"
Non sequitur. Your facts are unsupported.
It doesn't matter "WHICH" is more permanent. They're both bad ideas for minors.
Ann Althouse said...
Pregnancy and childbirth are huge impositions on the woman.
--
Takes me back to Sandra Fluke (so apt) and her framing of birth control akin to a vaccine or medicine to block such impositions. Pregnancy, the airborne disease.
All things trans seem to be in the news this week. What caught my eye was the expose about the leading trans-medical-activist organization (World Professional Organization for Transgender Health) using its leaked internal materials. Available at:
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/wpath-files
Lots of excellent reasons to be wary of the p-c narrative on this stuff.
Ann Althouse said...
"Pregnancy and childbirth are huge impositions on the woman. It's nature and you might think she should just endure it and accept reality, but many people think she has a right to delete the pregnancy with abortion. That's freedom."
I believe there is something out there called "birth control."
Huh. I'm surprised our hypothetical TARL is a "he/him" and not a "they/them".
How many parents would tell their kids that they have the perspective, wisdom and knowledge to decide to marry at 18?
Has Chu ever even met a child?
If New York Magazine had any wit, The Moral Case for Letting Trans Kids Change Their Bodies would be a blank sheet of paper.
Andrea Long Chu doesn't look as if becoming a woman has brought great joy, based on pictures. There seems to be one unsmiling, extremely pensive attitude available.
Puberty and death, like baby teeth to permanent teeth, are natural human passages. I suppose one could characterize them as 'assaults by Nature' but changing your sex is a life-changing step being treated like a lifestyle choice on par with inking, tongue piercing and skin braiding.
"I was also thinking about childbirth. What a shocking imposition on the baby!"
"Researchers now believe that when a baby is ready for life outside his mother's uterus, his body releases a tiny amount of a substance that signals the mother's hormones to begin labor (Condon, Jeyasuria, Faust, & Mendelson, 2004)."
The baby makes the call.
Weird coincidence.
Just out from the Guardian:
Children who have gender dysphoria will no longer be given puberty blockers, NHS England has said, ahead of a radical change in how it cares for them.
There is not enough evidence about either how safe they are to take or whether they are clinically effective to justify prescribing them to children and young people who are transitioning, it added.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/12/children-to-stop-getting-puberty-blockers-at-gender-identity-clinics-says-nhs-england
Somehow, English children will continue to subject to puberty. Is that fair?
"the most insidious source of the anti-trans movement in this country."
Living in flyover country, I must be isolated from the advertised 'anti trans movement.
Speaking only for me, What ever adults do to scratch their personal fetish itch, go to it. NO CHILDREN! should not even have to be mentioned, but now its seems that mentioning is not enough, threatening and carrying out physical violence is now in play.
I am to believe that children have the agency to take puberty blockers and undergo complicated surgery? Meaning ALL children have the agency to consent to sex with adults?
Because getting fucked is way less traumatic than getting castrated, and leaves fewer scars.
Nope, he is a fabulously gay male who only dresses as a woman onstage. He does not claim to be a woman and does not want to be a woman. He only wants to perform as a woman.
Transgender and transsocial spectrum. Live by political congruence ("="), take a knee by PC. It's a progressive path and grade with liberal directives. Human rites was a way stop to sequester the "burdens". We're past the point of no return.
Callousness dressed up as compassion.
There is not enough evidence about either how safe they are to take or whether they are clinically effective to justify prescribing them to children and young people who are transitioning, it added.
Johns Hopkins determined over 4 decades ago that unlike a homosexual orientation, the orientation that progresses with body corruption is not only unstable before puberty, but treatment of the great majority will fail, have marginal effect in a minority, and these outcomes cannot be predicted. After puberty, adults can and do choose their own path. The moral... ethics of the story is that age of consent is well considered. Still, whether it is transgender therapy, trans/homosexual grooming, or abortion rites are big business and will not be sacrificed anytime soon.
The baby makes the call.
Ready or not, here's Jenny. In China, Jenny would have been selected in favor of Jake. In Ireland, selection occurs fur quality of life. In America, there has been progress to revisit diversity, equity, and inclusion in a selective-child model.
Andrea Long Chu doesn't look as if becoming a woman has brought great joy
Neither merry nor gay, and everything looks like a "burden" h/t Obama. Abort. Cannibalize. Sequester... in, ironically, sanctuary jurisdictions.
Apparently there aren't enough trans people in society, more must be manufactured to satisfy the demand. My primary question, then, is who the heck is populating the demand side of this supply and demand situation?
I suspect this whole issue is nothing more than another leftist agitprop campaign demonstrating that the boot on your neck is there, and you must submit to it, no matter how absurd the requirements. In fact, the more absurd, irrational, counterfactual and nonsensical the requirements are to be an acceptable leftist the better demonstration of power one experiences. (Note: even then the boot remains firmly planted).
Mark said...
I guess some people feel that TERF has been successful at intimidating some people to shut up about men in women's restrooms
To be a TERF means exactly the opposite of what you said here.
I meant the insult TERF, not a person who is called a TERF. So in my example I am saying that people who use the insult TERF feel that the use of that insult has been successful in silencing people, who would otherwise object, from loudly objecting to males who identify as women being allowed in previously private areas for women. I'm assuming that lots of women in particular don't want to be singled out with a word that makes the person who is called it feel like she is the bad guy or mean. I don't think TERF would have the same effect on men. For example were I called a TERF, I would point out to the accuser that I am not a feminist but rather a dude, so technically I am a TERD.
Kate at SmallDeadAnimals says “trans is a stalking horse for pedophilia.” She could easily present this article as an exhibit. “So what if a thirteen year old doesn’t understand what a forever dose of herpes means, she must be free to choose!”
Read about the pain that her pedophile father caused Ashley Biden.
Let's go back to the old anorexia comparison. Your child comes to you and wants freedom from food. What do you do? Send her to a pro-Anna site to find some friends to slowly die with?
Anorexia also has the effect of postponing puberty, inducing infertility, and altering ordinary genital development.
Anorexia: it's the other trans movement.
Libtards might think this is sticking it to MAGA, but in fact they are garnering Trump more voters.
This means that Slo Joe will have to stuff more ballot boxes and recruit more foreign ripped military aged men to give Republican men AIDS and vote illegally.
Mumble mumble mumble evolutionary dead end mumble mumble mumble.
In 1,000 years, our present transgender era will be studied by historians and be the setting for a lot of salacious fiction. Nero. Caligula. Commodus. Marquis de Sade. Caitlin Jenner. Dylan Mulvaney.
These people are sick perverts who prey upon children. They won't stop until they are locked up or exterminated.
Wasn't there there a new post about Trump's tax returns?
I'm lost...
If prohibit adults from having sex with minors what are we doing consenting minors to alter their yet undeveloped sexual organs?
Make it make sense. As the internet is so fun of saying.
So in most cases of gender variance, the TARL informs parents that it is perfectly healthy for boys to wear dresses and for girls to climb trees regardless of their biological sex, which need not be altered after all....
So the psychotics start to show their hands. I mean, seriously, "girls to climb trees" means "they're not really girls"? All "tomboys" are in fact "trans-boys", not real girls who have more physical interests?
These people aren't 1950s reactionaries, they're 1850s reactionaries.
This is NOT liberal. This child abuse via radical leftwing progressive authoritarianism.
There is a subset of vapid progressives that rushes in to join the celebration of perversities like this one - it's the attraction of being part of that delicious societal Vanguard, don't you know. But in the final analysis, there are very few parents of any stripe that don't want to have grandchildren. It's the over-riding biological imperative that asserts itself, when you're no longer young and stupid. And that's going to make this 'exciting' cause a self-deflating one, ultimately. Nothing but a monster would condemn a child to a life of medically-induced painful maintenance, never to experience an orgasm, a mutilated, barren husk.
Andrea Long Chu is a sick and twisted monster. But she's really just taking leftism to its logical conclusion.
The whole fight about abortion boils down to "damn it, women should be able to fuck around 'without consequences' just like men do!" No, honey, men and women are biologically different, and that means that the biological costs of sex are going to be different for each sex.
Starting with the fact that the person who gets a dick put inside her body is going to be more likely to catch a sexually transmitted disease than the person putting his dick in someone else's body.
So just wants to ignore ALL biology, rather than just the biology of sex.
"consent to puberty". Puberty is how you become an adult. So what this malign monster is really demanding is that children remain permanently stunted sub-alts.
Apparently this sick and twisted creature isn't aware that Peter Pan is a fantasy
I think TARL was invented for Jesse Singal, who became a trans target when he wrote "When Children Say They're Transgender" in The Atlantic in 2018. It described parents trying to decide on hormones and puberty blockers in a thoughtful, "agnostic" way. Jonathan Kay writes about the "campaign of lies" against Singal in Quillette: https://quillette.com/2021/03/18/the-campaign-of-lies-against-journalist-jesse-singal-and-why-it-matters/
Althouse writes, "Also in this article is an acronym I'm seeing for the first time: TARL. This is a 'trans-agnostic reactionary liberal'..."
Othered again (sigh)... At least it's the liberals getting the othering for a change. The first othering acronym may have been WASP, originally coined by the editors of the Daily Worker to other the American bourgeoisie because the typical reader of the Daily Worker probably pronounced it BOWER-gee-oh-see and the typical writer for the Daily Worker couldn't spell bourgeoisie. Somewhat later WASP was adopted by the staff writers at The New Republic to other the readers of the National Review.
This one is amusing in that it contradicts a very long-standing assumption among soi-disant progressives, that reactionary is an adjective applied to conservatives when God damned Trump supporters might cause the speaker to lose thousands in dental expenditures.
Since othering has become very fashionable Quaestor submits a new othering acronym for your approval: SCUM. That stands for sexually confused underage minor.
Greg the Class Traitor writes, "Apparently, this sick and twisted creature isn't aware that Peter Pan is a fantasy."
A fantasy often re-interrupted. Disney's version oozed sexual awakening from every pore.
"Disney's version oozed sexual awakening from every pore."
Something always seems to be oozing out of that company. One can only hope it's not contagious.
Quaestor said...
Greg the Class Traitor writes, "Apparently, this sick and twisted creature isn't aware that Peter Pan is a fantasy."
A fantasy often re-interrupted. Disney's version oozed sexual awakening from every pore.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I learned from a YouTube video about Old West bordello rooms having a "peter pan" for clients to wash their...members...in before sex.
So maybe Barrie was secretly sending a message.
The thing you have to understand about Howard is that his genitals were shot off while patrolling the Mekong Delta, so he is an honorary transgender female.
"Note the suggestion that puberty is nature's sexual assault upon the child. The author doesn't quite say that, but she put the thought into my head."
"She"
Lots of comments. I think this helps us understand something "deep" in our time. It is better to embrace what is highly likely to be traumatic, as a matter of free choice, an individual or self choosing in a kind of meaningless void, than to passively accept the trauma that is an unavoidable or all too likely part of "natural," unchosen life. Generally speaking I think the boomers enjoyed puberty, and sort of wanted that transition stage, exciting, freed from the responsibilities of adulthood, to go on forever. There was also cruelty, a lack of innocence, and perhaps the young today (children or grand-children of boomers) are very aware of that, and want to hang onto pre-pubescence rather than pubescence.
I heard a talk by a chiropractor once in which he said anyone who's had trauma should see a chiropractor once a week for life. One example of relevant trauma is being born by being squeezed through the birth canal--not quite the way he put it. Fuck! Can you believe what we have to go through? Let's set up appointments to deal with our trauma--not really to resolve it at all, but to feel perhaps some momentary relief every once in a while.
Surely one reason women wish to have access to abortion is that it is better to freely choose something traumatic that is more or less predictable, and gives one control, than to passively accept either the dirty tricks of men (cismales) or the even more massive disappointment of the Curse of Eve, supposedly cooked up by the Big Guy.
Why have people signed up to be patients for the vast experiment that is modern medicine, where some degree of trauma is nearly certain, and there are many failed experiments? The whole history of surgery is a good example, and don't get me started on sheeplike acceptance of Tony Fauci's plans. Better to be part of something grim that is in a way freely chosen by human beings, than to just passively accept the usual--evil old-fashioned people would say natural or God-given--grimness, sickness and death.
I have been trained to think in terms of ancients and moderns. Why is Achilles so gung ho to die young, as long as it is in a noble way? He wants to lead in war, especially for a cause that is noble if one squints a bit. Better than waiting for the contemptible kind of death a lot of people put up with. Of course if you take a step back you could say this almost makes Achilles a sucker for the people who plan wars, just as many "patients" today might be suckers for careerists if not fraudsters. Homer's other hero is Odysseus or Ulysses, who doesn't die young. This is partly a matter of luck, but there is nothing suicidal about him.
Back to "us." We complain about our addictions, including drugs, but surely we are addicted to them in more ways than one. As long as we have an addiction, we have an ongoing trauma that is never cleared up, and we have in a way chosen it. We have a dramatic ongoing story to tell. Of course we flatter our favorite addicts by saying none of this is your fault.
Do we live in a time of anhedonia or Eeyorism in which we look for the bad in what is likely to happen, so we are afraid to be totally passive, yet our "free" choices, perhaps giving us a kind of dignity, can look somewhat suicidal or anti-life (allegedly trans people being mutilated and becoming sterile) because we are in the habit of expecting so little?
Thinking was simpler before Penicillin.
Good lord, what is this shit?
"f prohibit adults from having sex with minors what are we doing consenting minors to alter their yet undeveloped sexual organs?"
Oh, that prohibition is on the chopping block too.
There's a perverted billionaire(s) somewhere who is pushing this crap. They know if they stuff enough money into lefty institutions and tools in exchange for backing this weirdness, they won't have to suffer the fate of Jeffrey Epstein. Left wingers are fooled by this and go along with it, which shows what morally bankrupt tools they are. No? Have you heard any one of them standing up to this madness in any way?
Lloyd,
Great comment.
To paraphrase The Wiggles:
"Word salad. Dummy dummy."
"they are definitely too young to consent to puberty"
Plenty of kids at some point scream that they never asked to be born. Are we then morally obliged to provide them with death affirming care? Perhaps at school, free from parental interference?
Apparently children are "children", unless they question their gender, at which time they morph into full-fledged responsible adults capable of rational decisions concerning life-changing permanent choices.
They can't vote.
They can't drive a car.
They can't marry.
They can't enlist in military.
But evidently they should be able to terminate their sexual maturity, curtail their ability to have children.
Post a Comment