The latest leftist “it” accessory these days is not a choker for women or man-bun for (kinda) men. It’s not even designer embryos with pruned-to-perfection DNA being carried by a sturdy middle class woman with financial troubles. If a leftist wants to be gasp-out-loud edgy and in, she and she or she and he simply must have a transgendered child. The younger, the better.
Like being a vegan or a triathlete or cross-trainer, it’s not enough to have a transgendered child, everyone must know about the child this instant. The reason, of course, is because big Meanie McMeanipants Trump rescinded the most trollish of all troll moves President Benevolence Obama took at the end of his underwhelming tenure: using Title IX to ensure that the .0001 of the children in America who were confused about bathroom use felt included and that the rest of America felt irritated.
Obama’s rule was a solution in search of a problem and another way to jab the eyes of people who never could quite see his magnificence. Donald Trump saw the move for what it was and promptly reversed it, also by Executive Order. Now, America is being treated to steroid-fueled women beating other women up and gender confused tots and their moms who are outraged for them.
The Child as Prop
Enter abortion activist Jen Aulwes. Ms. Aulwes is the communications director for Planned Parenthood in Minnesota and North and South Dakota. The Washington Post didn’t care to mention that tidbit, when it ran her piece about her seven-year-old boy who wants to live as a girl. Could it possibly be that Ms. Aulwes has a political ax to grind and might that influence her perspective? Of course. But my point here isn’t about the power of the media to distort — it’s about the power of a mother to distort.
Ms. Aulwes’ story is about her 7-year-old son, Henry. Let’s start with this, though: No 7-year-old child can consent to have his sexuality discussed publicly. Ms. Aulwes and other parents like her are robbing their children of privacy for the rest of their lives. A seven-year-old can change his mind about himself and does daily. A 17-year-old can do the same.
Activist parents of transgender children believe their political views supersede their child’s right to grow up anonymously. The child is being used as a prop. It is exploitive. They use their child for political purposes, and the child can never have his anonymity and personal dignity back. It’s gone. His mother has participated in his exploitation. That alone will have serious consequences.
The Child as Developmentally Fixed
The next problem, even before delving into the specifics of the exploited child’s experience, is the notion that a toddler, child, or teen is developmentally fixed. Neurologically and hormonally a child is not finished growing into his or her late teens or even early 20s. Why do parents, educators, and irresponsible physicians (who know better) imagine that the child who has not physically matured is finished emotionally and sexually maturing — at the age of 3 or 7 or 17?
A toddler in the 2-4 range is leaving infancy. They’re at the beginning of their development — not the middle and certainly not the end. A toddler learns the notion of same versus different. One of those similarities or differences is sexual organs: “this is me — this is you.” As in, I have these parts, you have those parts. This is the age where children embarrass parents with innocent statements like, “Mama, look at the chocolate person!” “Mama, why does that man have such a big nose?” “Oooh, that is a BIG truck.” “A dog goes ‘woof,’ a cow goes ‘moo.’” A child is learning by categorizing. This is a more efficient process to learn: These are cars. These are trucks. This is green, red, blue, etc. It’s an efficient way to learn language.
Depending on the kid, the fascination with sex differences can be as perfunctory as a question or statement when in the bathroom with a parent or more involved with wanting to paint nails, wear sparkles or do whatever is perceived as the opposite gender. Here’s how most parents deal with it:
Boy: I want to wear a dress like Sister.
Mom: Only girls wear dresses.
Boy: But they’re sparkly and pretty.
Mom: Yes they are, but they’re for girls.
The end. This is not some existential desire on the part of the child at the age of three. This is normal curiosity. In the toddler years, a parent will say no to all sorts of silly or dangerous behavior. They’ll also say no to all sorts of indulgent behavior. That is, if the parent is a good parent.
A stupid parent indulges their child’s every whim. She’ll spoil him. She’ll never say no. She won’t set any boundaries because that would infringe on the child’s wants. See how my child defies the norms? I knew that gender was a social construct! Rather than letting the simple curiosity of a child be just that, the misguided parent decides that the child is struggling with his identity. But a child has no concept of gender identity — not in the way an adult does. Psychological mumbo-jumbo must be explicitly indoctrinated.
Children ages 5 to pre-puberty become focused on the rules of behavior. They are learning the structure of things. This is the stage where they’ll start haranguing a parent about the speed limit or get offended when the parent violates a family rule like “no swearing.” This age is the Little Professor stage. Children will develop interests — birds, robots, space, you name it — and pepper anyone who will listen about the facts related to their obsession. Children at this age are not sexually interested. In fact, it’s one of the most care-free stages of development, because friendships are not limited to one’s own gender. Boys and girls interact more at this stage than any other. Once puberty hits, the sexes start polarizing.
Parents who infuse childhood with questions of gender and sexuality are abusing their children. Period. They’re introducing ideas that promote confusion and deprive the child of innocence.
Worse, parents are setting a child on a difficult course. The child, as children do, may change his mind but then what? Will he be willing to disappoint his activist parent?
A Case Study: Jen Auwles
The first time we knew that Henry was different, she was 2. When she found her cousin’s Barbie doll, she lit up like a Christmas tree. “The hair, Mama,” she cooed. “Look at her looong hair!” Henry continued to show us, in every way she could, that she wanted to live as a girl. This was new territory. What do you say when your 3-year-old boy asks to be Rapunzel for Halloween? In our house, you say yes. So began a long journey: Elsa socks one day. A sparkly shirt the next. Soon, she was growing her hair out and loving nail polish and tutus.
Let’s break this down.
First: A boy child oohed and ahed over a Barbie’s hair at the age of two. Boy children can like long hair on a doll. Brushing it is fun. No big deal. It is not a gender-bending idea. In fact, the notion that liking and playing with a doll is female behavior is inherently sexist. Can’t a boy like a Barbie’s hair without being labeled a girl?
Next: What do you say when your 3-year-old boy asks to be Rapunzel for Halloween? You say, “No. Rapunzel is a girl. You’re a boy. Let’s look at boy costumes.” He might throw a fit, but that’s what 3-year-olds do. They throw fits. They want a toy at the store. They want to stay out and play in the dark. They don’t want to get out of the pool. They don’t want to hold your hand in the parking lot. They want to hit their sibling on the head when they get mad. They want a pony. Three-year-olds want all sorts of things and the answer is very often, “No.”
Finally: Sparkly shirts and long hair. Again, you say, “No.”
Why is this so difficult? The parent knows all sorts of things the child doesn’t. The parent knows that a boy wearing a tutu is going to experience social isolation. The parent knows that children go through phases and that it is unhealthy to encourage certain behavior because of where it leads. Developmentally, the child will go on to the next thing that interests him. Or not. Maybe the child will decide as he gets older that he wants to wear tutus, but then it will be his choice and he’ll have both the understanding and emotional maturity (hopefully) to deal with that choice.
The Child as ‘Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome’ Victim
Parents of very young supposedly transgender children are making life-changing decisions for their children — like hormonally delaying puberty. They are experimenting on their child. They’ll argue that the changes are something the child wants. Again, can a child understand the consequences to their reproduction, their psycho-social development, or their physiological changes — some of them permanent? How can they know that when full-grown adults have come to regret these changes later in life due to not fully understanding the causes and consequences of these decisions?
A child under 18 years of age cannot enter a contract. Why? Here’s a simple explanation:
The limitations on a minor’s ability to contract, however, are established to protect innocent third parties and ignorant or immature first parties. If a minor makes a foolish business decision out of immaturity or ignorance, the contract may be voided on the basis of a lack of capacity to contract.
How does a child get back a foolish decision about his sexuality made due to immaturity or ignorance? A parent’s role is to protect their minor child from those pitfalls.
Yet in the case of Jen Auwles and those like her, they’re making psycho-social changes in the child’s life. If they stay on the road, they’ll make physical-chemical-hormonal changes to the child’s life — all before the age that a child can consent or understand the consequences of those decisions.
Every parent currently allowing their pubescent child to be treated with endocrinological suppression is allowing their child to be a human guinea pig. There are no randomized controlled studies of these sorts of treatments because there can’t be. They are simply too dangerous. No one knows the consequences of these sorts of invasive procedures — physically, developmentally, psychologically or reproductively. No one knows the side effects. If they say they do, they’re lying. There is not enough evidence.
A child cannot undo those lost years. They cannot have innocence returned to them. With the permanence of the internet, they permanently lose the ability to make life-changing decisions in anonymity.
These parents need to protect their children: steer their children toward normal gender development and get them therapeutic help when they experience mental illness such as gender dysphoria. They need to do this privately. A child needs the freedom to develop into adulthood without the harsh, permanent spotlight of the world focused on him or her.
Of all the leftist social-norm-busting trends, this is the worst. Children are being exploited and used for political purposes and then physically and hormonally manipulated all the way into adulthood and all before the public eye. The media and entertainment industry promoting this abuse as normal distort the culture and participate in the exploitation of helpless children.
The Transgendered Children trend is one more way the culture is being degraded. Children are exploited and people cheer, but hey, what’s a child’s life when one can be praised for being the Biggest Victim of that evil Donald Trump? I mean, how trendy can a leftist be?
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.