Phil,
I don't understand your question(s). Reading the op-ed piece however, it sounds like the author doesn't believe gender dysphoria is real, certainly doesn't want people to transition as children, maybe not even as adults, and thinks people should be viewed/classified as either male or female, period. That's not what you believe, is it? Such an attitude strikes me as hostile toward human freedom and possibility, not embracing of them.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
People should be free to do whatever they want subject to the NAP. But parents are legally responsible for their children (and liable for them) until 18. No one should have the right to intervene in that relationship except under the most extreme circumstances. How people choose to present themselves into the world is their business. But it is inappropriate for outsiders to mess with a parents' relationship to their child and the child's relationship to an X Y chromosome reality until they are adults.
Personally, I feel all this attention to gender identity, transitioning, cutting and surgical restructuring as opposed to working with your beautiful natural being and focusing on your spiritual consciousness, is a mental disease. It is a sign of a society so distorted and self-absorbed its use to the planet is questionable. No reason for any laws against it. It will simply end up in the dustbin of history.
Mike
Thank you, Mike. Beautifully expressed.
Marcy
Wow. I see this totally differently!
Exploring and cultivating one's gender identity is "working with your beautiful natural being and focusing on your spiritual consciousness". I don't see the body as divorced from the spiritual, but intertwined with it. Our bodies as we inherit them are always the starting point – how could it be otherwise? But the idea that such exploration/cultivation shouldn't involve technology is absurd – clothing, makeup, haircuts, working out on gym equipment, etc., all involve using technology to alter how we physically manifest in the world. These just happen to be older and thus more culturally accepted forms of technology. I see the natural/artificial distinction as ultimately an artificial or arbitrary one. To paraphrase Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a bird using feathered wings to fly is no more using a "natural" technology than a human using airplane wings to fly (or taking hormone pills to alter their makeup). To say that we should only use old technology, or technology with a limited capacity to change ourselves and realize our self-expression, seems to me akin to saying it's okay to repaint or redecorate your home but not to remodel it.
Far from falling into the "dustbin of history", I believe gender transitioning and similar choices represent the mere beginnings of a dawning technology-enabled transhuman evolution. It seems to me rather arrogant or speciesist to presume that historical evolution (or god's project of creation, as you will) has reached its endpoint in humans exactly as we are today, and that no further modifications are desirable. Change can be scary, but it is also exciting and the path to a better future.
As for parental relationships, the author of the article Phil posted was complaining about gender transitioning procedures being done with parental consent. "Messing with" a child's relationship to "an X Y chromosome reality" may be exactly what both the child and the parents want to do. In cases where a minor wants to undergo a procedure that their parents or guardians forbid, the young person has a choice: Either live with the parental restrictions, disobey them and face the consequences, seek legal and/or de facto independence, or use the existence of these choices to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome with their legal protectors. I will add the caveat that I don't think parents should be allowed to impose irreversible medical choices on children when they are too young to have an opinion, except to protect the health of a child, so to the extent this is being done in the name of gender transitioning or whatever, I would agree it should not be allowed. To the extent it is allowed however, adult children should then have the later right to sue their parents and win damages, should they come to feel a procedure imposed on them in childhood was harmful.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I'm shocked that you would feel that way Starchild. Smile
Not sure what you are reading but here is a quote from the article
"Imagine that you are the parent of a five-year-old boy who innocently informs you one day that he is a girl. Of course, the natural reaction would be to laugh, not phone up the nearest gender transitioning clinic. You have no idea how your little boy came to believe such a thing; possibly it was through something he heard at the daycare center, or maybe a program he saw on television. In any case, he insists that he 'identifies' as a female.
Eventually, possibly at the encouragement of your local school, you pay a visit to a physician. You hope this medical professional will be able to provide you and your child with some sound counseling to clear up his confusion. Prepare yourself to be disappointed.
Your doctor will be forced, according to state and medical dictate, to follow the professional guidelines known as 'affirmative care.' It sounds nice and harmless, doesn't it? In fact, the program could be best described as nothing short of diabolical."
Not hearing anything about parental choice.
We already have a society that doesn't respect reproductive sex. The society around us globally is collapsing. I probably won't be around to fully experience the disaster that awaits the planet once this starts happening. But believe me, this stuff is heading into the dustbin and traditional families will emerge the ideological and practical victors.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-13/demographic-doom-number-children-household-collapsing
In short, a (shrinking) world of growing extreme polarization - across wealth, income, ideology and political views - will also soon lead to a growing schism between the brand leaders and all the aspirational providers of goods and services who fail to become category leaders. This will ultimately accelerate the world's shift to monopolization as those companies that dominate market share will further flex their ability to redirect discretionary cash flow toward carving out even more defined "premium" niches, resulting in an increasingly challenging world for those who hope to attract the consumer's dollar with a race to the bottom in pricing terms. Whether this subtle shift to further entrench aspiring category monopolies will result in an sudden upward inflection point in prices remains to be seen, however if the bigger, and far more troubling trend of global "demographic doom" is left unreversed, it will have profound consequences on all aspects of modern life.
To paraphrase for those who can't understand. Disaster. Dustbin.
And now for some good news.
https://russia-insider.com/en/left-going-berserk-over-successful-pro-family-conference-verona-italy/ri26765
The Left Is Going Berserk Over the Successful Pro-Family Conference in Verona, Italy
The Tide will turn. The world will wake up to the disasters in China and Japan and elsewhere. And embrace family life. It's been working for a VERY LONG TIME.
Starchild....you can start doing your part to pitch your cause by having children and raising them to be just like you. That will increase the odds of you being right. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. To bad for you. You are such an interesting fellow. The world would benefit from having more of your DNA around.
Not that I'm that traditional or conservative. I tell my kids everyone of them started with mom saying "don't worry it's safe". Happiest accidents of my life. Was just lucky.
Smile.
Mike
Mike,
Perhaps I am misinformed, but I don't think physicians are allowed, let alone required, to force children to undergo gender-related procedures against their or their parents' wishes. Nor are parents required to visit a physician to begin with. The article seems to be seeking to create the impression that this is happening, but I don't see any solid claims that it is.
The author's comment about the "natural reaction" being to laugh at a child who appears male but says they are a girl, is also telling. It would be kind of like writing that the natural reaction to a child who is different, clumsy, obese, has an unusual name, or dresses in a manner incongruous with their apparent gender, etc., is for other children to tease and bully them. While that might in some sense be a "natural" reaction, just as "fight-or-flight" responses are "natural" in certain situations, this hardly makes it the most appropriate or desirable reaction.
We already have a society that doesn’t respect reproductive sex.
Oh? I think reproductive sex gets a lot more respect, and government encouragement, than non-reproductive sex. To give just one glaring example, look no further than the fact that virtually everyone is forced to subsidize the education of children, whether they themselves have children or not. There are obviously massive amounts of money involved in this subsidy.
If the biological destiny of humanity is solely dependent on biologically hereditary, Darwinian evolution, as your comments about my not having children (that I know of) seem to presume, we are massively screwed: I see little evidence that the people with the most desirable traits are, on the whole, the ones doing the most biological reproduction. Fortunately however, I don't believe Darwin has the last word:
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/technology-and-culture-our-accelerating-epigenetic-factor-driven-evolution
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/04/19/transhumanism-could-push-human-evolution-into-hyperdrive-should-we-embrace-it/
Darwinian evolution will of course continue at its snail's pace, but given the rapid and apparently accelerating pace of social and technological change, there seems good reason to think that its effects on humans in the coming decades will be minuscule when compared with the effects of epigenetics and bio-hacking.
So I am fairly confident that I will have an impact, via my social/political contributions to society and passing along my essence in the form of ideas/memes rather than genes, not necessarily any less significant than whatever biological legacy I might leave by having children.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild, I did not see anything about parental consent in the article either. I believe the point of the article was to note that educators and medical doctors -- the folks parents tend to approach when they have questions about their kids -- are biased against depending on chromosomes with which people are born. Chromosomes and the hormones that accompany them are irrelevant, while the whims of a toddler or teen are to be taken as gospel.
There is no better way to rule over people than to render them docile and obedient by distracting them with doubt and confusion. Confusion about one's own identity (gender, race, culture) is the ultimate triumph. All else is forgotten -- lousy schools, exorbitant taxes, individuals and the nation living on debt, monopolies that kill the competition that benefits workers and consumers, and of course once beautiful cities now sporting sidewalks covered with excrement.
By the way, all kids -- toddler to teens -- test and experiment. Nowadays, society seems to be taking advantage of that adventurous bent and locking kids into whatever experimental phase happens to benefit the controllers.
Also by the way, if parents or toddlers wish to perform gender migration (talk about double speak), I would insist they use they own funds, not taxpayer hard-earned cash.
Marcy
Starchild said
"So I am fairly confident that I will have an impact, via my social/political contributions to society"
Of course....but you can't discount the role of your fine rebel DNA.
I think you are mis-assigning the role of government education to supporting children. It is supporting propaganda at the expense of children.
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of Darwin. Evolution cannot explain life as it is.
And just give me that old time love, sex and family over epigenetics and bio-hacking anytime although I acknowledge some opportunity for curing disease. But for the most part, I'd rather trust a higher power.
Mike
One of my sister's grandchildren is transitioning from female to male. The grandchild is 16 years old. When he was in kindergarten, and teachers asked the children to line up boy-girl-boy-girl, he always wanted to be the boy. When he was 12 he started cutting his hair like a boy and dressing like a boy. When he got his first testostorone shot, he said was the happiest day of his life. A few days ago he had surgery to remove his breasts. The operation was a great success and he now has a nice masculine chest. He said that was the second happiest day of his life.
These things are not just whims. It takes tremendous mental energy to go ahead with such drastic actions. We do not know what their inner life is like. We should respect these individuals, trust them, listen to them.
Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
That’s fine….I hope he stays happy. The suicide rate among transgenders is 40 times the national average. Gays are 3 times as likely to commit suicide. It is often said it is because of discrimination. But black people and other oppressed minorities don’t have high suicide rates. After transgenders and gays, the next highest level of suicide is white people.
And all this serious irreversible cutting….my lord.
Again, I wish the best for him. But it still seems that fighting your own nature is a disease. The frontal cortex isn’t fully formed until the age of about 26. It shows up in statistics. Kids are crazy before that. My oldest son had a disease too from the age of 12-23. And then he snapped out of it. I think it is irresponsible for a parent to encourage a child to take that kind of radical and irrevocable control over their lives before their brain is mature when the statistics are so clearly working against him.
But it isn’t my kid. I’ll say a prayer for him that he survives happy and one for his parents that they don’t live to regret this.
Mike
Starchild said
“So I am fairly confident that I will have an impact, via my social/political contributions to society”
Of course….but you can’t discount the role of your fine rebel DNA.
I can't discount it, but neither can I credit it, being unaware of any particular tradition of political rebellion in the bits I know of my ancestral history.
I think you are mis-assigning the role of government education to supporting children. It is supporting propaganda at the expense of children.
Propagandistic and of a poor quality government education may typically be, but it is still a massive subsidy to people with children. We don't deny the existence of corporate welfare or government price supports on the basis that these subsidies arguably, on the whole, do more harm than good even to their intended beneficiaries.
To be honest, I’m not a big fan of Darwin. Evolution cannot explain life as it is.
Darwinian evolution alone cannot; I'm with you on that much. I think there's more to evolution than Darwin realized.
And just give me that old time love, sex and family over epigenetics and bio-hacking anytime although I acknowledge some opportunity for curing disease.
Ugh. I'm glad that the cultural stranglehold of family has lost much of its power in recent centuries. Without the progress embodied by this change, I doubt the levels of individual freedom that we know and celebrate today would exist.
In societies where family remains stronger, it tends to largely determine one's position in society. People, especially women, are expected to accede to the match chosen for them by their parents, rather than loving whom they choose. So much for love and sex under the cultural dominion of family! The whole cherished concept of romantic love that we hold dear arose generally outside of and in opposition to this institution.
But for the most part, I’d rather trust a higher power.
If there is a "higher power" in which I trust, it is the evolutionary progress of the universe. But while I believe that matter is gradually, though at an accelerating rate via the innovation of life and more recently humanity, organizing itself into better and better (more actualized) forms, capable of increasingly higher and more sublime levels of awareness and existence, my "trust" is not a faith that I as an individual will be taken care of, but simply a belief that the universe will continue to come alive and become more aware of itself regardless of anything I or any other individual may do. I think I would be foolish to expect this great project to confer any particular blessings on me personally, or those I care about, simply because I happen to recognize its existence and see it as a good thing.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
“There are two great powers, and they’ve been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit.”
— Philip Pullman, in The Subtle Knife, p. 319 (Book 2, His Dark Materials trilogy)