Open Letter to Liz Wolfe Regarding Chase Oliver's Views on Puberty Blockers for Minors

     1. Introduction

      [Author's Note:
     This article previously contained inaccurate information. Please scroll down, to the other author's note, if you wish to read it before reading the remainder of this article.
      The Aquarian Agrarian regrets the error.]

      On Monday, May 27th, 2024, the Libertarian Party nominated Chase Oliver to be its presidential candidate, at its national convention in Washington, D.C..

     Within the following several days, numerous Libertarian Party members - especially those who didn't vote for Oliver to be the party's nominee - expressed concern and disapproval regarding Chase Oliver's stance regarding puberty blockers for minors.

     Oliver has stated that, while he does oppose giving bottom surgery (i.e., genital surgery) to people under the age of 18, he does not think that the state should be in the business of preventing parents from, or punishing parents for, making the decision that puberty blockers are appropriate for their children.

      On May 31st - four days after receiving the L.P.'s nomination - Chase Oliver appeared on the "Just Asking Questions" podcast, hosted by Zach Weissmuller and Liz Wolfe, to discuss the issue. The "Just Asking Questions" podcast is affiliated with libertarian news outlet Reason Magazine, whose website is www.reason.com.

     That interview was published to YouTube, under the title "What does Chase Oliver believe about trans kids?". That video can be viewed at the following address:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obFBd8AAMNs

     I would urge my readers to watch that video before proceeding, as the remarks which follow below, are a direct response to the comments made by Oliver and Liz Wolfe in that interview.

     2. The Letter

 

     On June 12th, 2024, I sent an e-mail to Liz Wolfe, to explain why I agree with her concerns and criticisms regarding Mr. Oliver.

 

     [Notes about the formatting of this article:

     1. The portions of the letter below which appear in brackets, and/or italics, were added to the text after it was sent.

     2. For the reader's convenience, lengthy author's notes have been placed between brackets and appear in italics, in order to contrast against the original portions of the e-mail, which appear without either brackets or italics.]

     3. Single words which appear within brackets were either added, or edited (but without significantly modifying the meaning of the text).

     4. Paragraph breaks and spaces between lines have also been added for the reader's convenience.]

 

     That e-mail read as follows:

 

 

     Hi Liz. Thanks for pushing back against Chase Oliver in your recent interview. I appreciate your trying to get him to be consistent.

     I'm a former Libertarian and this is one of the reasons why I left.

 

     Oliver isn't even correct that bottom surgery is irreversible. Walt Heyer underwent bottom surgery, and then had it reversed.

     Not that that makes it OK, of course! The damage which bottom surgery and puberty blockers do to the body should not be underestimated, and Oliver was clearly trying to avoid discussing it.

     Some women have described testosterone as "poison to women", and one of the puberty blockers commonly used is Lupron, which is used to chemically castrate sex offenders. So we are treating "gender-questioning kids" like sex offenders, while ignoring the possibility that they feel that way because they were sexually abused as children.

 

     Oliver also avoided discussing how these forms of transitioning re-affirm harmful gender stereotypes (like the stereotypes that tall people cannot be feminine, and that short people cannot be masculine; and that if you are a boy who is attracted to other boys then you must really be a girl inside).

 

     The conversation also got nowhere near entertaining the possibility that diagnosing a kid with gender dysphoria tends to distract from any and all prior ailments from which they may be suffering, which may have overlapping symptoms with gender dysphoria, or which may have caused that dysphoria. Particularly, Dissociative Identity Disorder, general body dysmorphia, gender-based bullying and harmful gender stereotypes, and prior sexual abuse [as well as homosexuality, bisexuality, autism, fear of being sexually assaulted or abused or objectified, and/or desire to please adults to want to send the child chest binders]. In my book, ignoring previous sexual abuse is basically the same thing as pedophile enabling.

 

     Walt Heyer was forced to wear a dress by his grandmother, and raped by an uncle, and developed gender dysphoria. I suspect that Heyer internalized that harm, and reasoned that he might have an easier time getting penetrated by his uncle, if he were to attempt to transition to female.
     [Note: Heyer has stated that he desired to become a female in order to get away from the abuse, but in my opinion, it's possible that making the abuse easier on himself could have been a subconscious additional motivation. And even if he didn't feel that way, it's possible that other people who suffered similar fates, have felt that way.]

 

     Also, there is a man who is developing a line of swimsuits, for his gender-dysphoric "daughter", which tucks the genitals back.

     [Source:

     http://www.today.com/parents/dad-designs-swimwear-transgender-girls-daughter-t206361]

     I would be shocked to discover that that father did not sexually abuse his child.
     Even if he didn't, the sheer amount of attention being paid to the child's genitals is creepy, and amounts to indirect sexual abuse.

     But according to these "pro-trans" people (such as Briahna Joy Gray), wanting children to remain unmutilated is the only real form of "obsession with children's genitals".

 

     Oliver was clearly trying to suggest, indirectly, that your [i.e., Liz Wolfe's] concerns are motivated by the desire to paint all pro-trans people and gays as pedophiles and groomers.

 

     He claims to be against tattooing and giving plastic surgery to minors, but nowhere in his interview did he discuss what to do about it. I would say that he has a knee-jerk reaction to any attempt, by the state, to "make decisions on parents' behalf", but he is clearly biased when it comes to his own community.

     [Note: By "his own community", I am referring to "G.S.M.", an initialization which stands for "gender and sexual minorities". Oliver is a same-sex-attracted cisgender male; i.e., a homosexual.]

 

 

     And his admission that he'd support a "religious exemption" to a ban on circumcision for minors, is idiotic. There is a pedophilic cult called the Children of God. They have a [“]holy book[“] that depicts adults raping minors. I shudder to think what society would be like, if their book The Story of Davidito could not be legally banned from children's libraries, or if the Children of God were to receive a "religious exemption" to a ban on minors having sex.

     [Note: The possibility that bans on people under 18 years of age getting married or having sex, could be defeated - based on the need to account for the supposed need to provide religious exemptions - is not as far-fetched as some of my readers might imagine. In 2017, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie declined to sign a law that would have prohibited marriage for people under the age of 18, saying that it would "violate the cultures and traditions of some communities" if an "exclusion without exceptions" for parental and/or judicial consent were to become law.

       Source:
     http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-jersey-chris-christie-child-marriage-ban-fails-religious-custom-a7735616.html
     New Jersey is far from being the only state where judicial and parental permission can override the minor's lack of ability to consent; other states have this law too. The website of the Tahirih Justice Center has more information about various state laws regarding this topic. Governor Phil Murphy signed a law banning marriage for people under 18, without exceptions, in June 2018.

      Source:
     http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562018/approved/20180622b_child_marriage_ban.shtml]

 

     Also, his statement that parents should make decisions about transitioning, because "parents have unconditional love for their children", is patently absurd. My father raped me when I was [eight] and [nine] years old. He did not have unconditional love for me (unless you count lust as love).

 

     If I had been any stupider, or more gullible, or had become financially independent from my parents any later in life, then there is a good chance that I would have fallen for the lies told to me by my peers and family, which is that I seemed gay or effeminate, or that "If you decided to come out as transgender, we would support you." If I had not begun to recover memories of the childhood sexual abuse at the age of [twenty-seven], then for all we know, I might have begun identifying as gay or transgender out of confusion.

 

     There is a study that says 20% of minors with gender dysphoria suffered previous sexual abuse.
     [Note: The study to which I referred, which says that 19% (not 20%) of transgender minors experienced sexual abuse, can be found at the following address:

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8344346/]

     The same study says that minors with gender dysphoria are twice as likely as the general population to have suffered sexual abuse.

     These studies are out there, and Oliver either doesn't know about them, or doesn't want to talk about them.

 

     I don't know if Oliver is afraid to look like a "self-hating homosexual", or maybe he sees that there is a lot of money in being pro-transition (for example, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's "sister" Jennifer is the world's only transgender billionaire, and "she" has been supporting pro-transition causes).

 

     [Author's Note, added on July 15th, 2024:
     The following five paragraphs - including the first, which was sent to Liz Wolfe, and the following four, which were not - were based on incorrect information. This article previously claimed that "Oliver tweeted the message [']The age of consent is too damn high[']". That claim was based on a tweet that was actually sent by Democratic operative Harry J. Sisson, who was (and still is) posing either as Chase Oliver himself, or as a Chase Oliver supporter, using the username @ChaseOliver2024.
     The Aquarian Agrarian regrets the error, and plans to take Sisson to task for his deception soon.]

     It's also possible that Oliver is an actual pedophile. He said that "the age of consent is too damn high". (see attached image). Which he wouldn't say, if he knew about the "federal generic age of consent" of 16 years old. He wouldn't say that if he knew about the case of Esquivel-Quintana v[.] Sessions (which essentially held that state laws establishing an age of consent of 17 or 18 are now invalid, giving an incentive for 16-to-20-year-olds to traffic their victims across state lines, if they're less than four years younger; because then, it would be a federal case instead of a state case). He wouldn't say that if he knew that there are reduced penalties for someone between 16 and 20 if they rape someone less than four years younger than they are. This is why some people claim that the age of consent is actually twelve years old.

 

     Libertarians began this discussion, about [five] or [ten] years ago, by (appropriately) criticizing making teenagers into registered sex offenders for life, if they sext-message other teenagers and acquire nudes of other minors that way. But after that, they stopped paying attention to the erosion of the rights of the child, which ha[s] played out in the courts since then. He is probably not even aware that there are several states that have failed to establish an absolute minimum age for tattooing and marriage, because their laws allow judges and parents to make decisions on children's behalf. You read that correctly; there are states where an infant could theoretically get married (and have sex) or get a tattoo, if the parents and/or a judge are stupid or insane enough to allow it.

     [Note: In my opinion, many Libertarians fail to understand that some activities are so dangerous for children to engage in, that parental, judicial, and/or physicians' permission, could not possibly turn that dangerous activity into something that is safe, or wise, or harmless, as if by magic. I blame Libertarians' adoption of the idea that adults' permission can safely guide children through something harmful, on a line of thinking which I heard an approximately 70-year-old man say to a ten- or twelve-year-old girl at the 2018 Illinois Libertarian Party Convention: "There's a safe way to do everything".

     I suspect that this line of thinking is motivated by the idea that the approach which the government of the Netherlands takes towards activities such as drug use and prostitution. This holds true for adults, but unlimited freedom - and the freedom to take dangerous risks which carry lifetime consequences - is not for children; it's for adults.

     This regulatory approach is arguably indistinguishable from the approach which the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration undertook during the New Deal, when it closed banks and then opened them back up again just several days later, and then created the F.D.I.C. (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), in order to create the illusion that the regulations being passed, were really for everybody's benefit, and were really working, and were really being written and enforced by moral and well-meaning people. They weren't. And Libertarians, as some of the staunchest critics of the New Deal in America, ought to notice this. But sadly, most of them they haven't.

     Early libertarian C. Frederic Bastiat once said that people should not accuse liberals of wanting nobody to raise grain, simply because they don't want the state to do it. And that is a valid statement. But while some Libertarians wisely reason that the state shouldn't be trusted to solve a problem, they sometimes then fail to explain whom, aside from the state, should solve that problem, and so, the problem continues, and festers.]

 

     Please reach out to me if you have any questions or [need] clarifications. I am so tired of seeing people drastically oversimplify how age of consent and statutory rape laws work, and treat people concerned about kids as if they're full of hate.

     Thanks for reading and keep pushing back.

     - Joseph W. Kopsick
     jwkopsick@gmail.com
     618-751-3229

 

 

 

E-mail written and sent on June 12th, 2024.

This article originally published, in shorter form, on June 12th, 2024.

Edited, expanded, and completed - and most notes added - on June 17th, 2024.

Author's notes regarding Harry J. Sisson's fake tweet about Chase Oliver
added to this article on July 15th, 2024.

A Typology of Gender Identities: How Gender Roles, Genetic Sex, Gendered Dress, and Sexual Transition Intersect

 Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Author’s Note
III. Notes on Understanding Terms
IV. One Non-Queer Category, and Thirteen Categories of Queer Dispositions

Content

I. Introduction

     In recent years, there has been a lot of talk in America about "transgenderism" and "gender ideology". Many terms, related to gender and sex - which seem new to the average American - have entered the common American English lexicon lately.

     You might have read that “there are 71 new genders all of a sudden, because of Facebook”. Years ago, Facebook added gender identity labels to its personal descriptions, including terms like “asexual” and “demisexual”.

     There’s just one problem: Asexuality and demisexuality are not “genders”; they’re sexual identities. Asexuality might not even be a sexual identity at all, but a lack of sexual identity. And "asexuality" might not even be the best term for lack of sexual attraction, because the term "asexual" is typically used to describe a form of reproduction that occurs without the physical act of sex.

     The problem here seems to be an imprecision of language.

     Seventy-one genders aside, let’s just focus on the four big ones: “intersex”, “transsexual”, “transgender”, and “transvestite”.

     Because these terms are so similar (and overlap), it is necessary to define them, and necessary to distinguish them as much as possible. We can also see how they overlap.

     If we assign each of these four terms to a circle, it becomes possible to create an extended Venn Diagram – that is, an Euler Diagram (pronounced “OY-ler”) – that allows us to map the intersecting dispositions and alignments associated with genetic sex, gender roles, dress, and sex transition.

II. Author’s Note

     I have written this in the hopes of:

     1) Simplifying all of this “71 genders” stuff, so that we can know what we’re talking about when we use certain words;

     2) Figuring out which categories of people could possibly exist, according to the various ways to combine those four gender- and sex- related alignments or dimensions (that is; dress, gender roles, sexual transition, and genetic sex); and

     3) Communicating what I learned in my “human sexuality” sociology course at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in the early 2000s (or, more importantly, communicating those portions of the curriculum that I think are actually true, and are not just concoctions of insane gender ideologues who tried to pass themselves off as sex researchers and surgeons).

     I was taught that intersex people exist (which I dispute, but not completely); and that transsexuals, transgender people, and transvestites are different but also overlap (which I believe is true).

 

III. Notes on Understanding Terms

     Before proceeding to the Euler Diagram, some additional clarification is needed, regarding what I mean when I use these terms:

     1a. The fact that the term “transvestite” is not used today as often as is the term “drag” or the term “transgender”, does not mean that transvestitism is “not a thing”, nor does it mean that “transvestite” is no longer a valid term. It is an acceptable word, which should upset nobody, because “transvestite” literally means “cross-dresser”.

     1b. “Transvestite” is not a slur; while “tranny” is a slur. I avoid using the term “tranny” below, due to its being considered upsetting. I have also avoided using that word because it is too general a term to be useful for classifying (what I call) “queer dispositions”. That’s because “tranny” could refer to transgender people, transsexual people, transvestites, or all of the above. The term has no academic value aside from its etymological value.

     1b. Below, all references to “cross-dressing”, and “drag” refer to the act of dressing up in clothing which is typical of the sex not assigned to you at birth; while “transvestitism” refers to interest in doing so. A “transvestite” is someone who cross-dresses. “Drag” can be engaged in by not only men (“drag queens”), but also women “drag kings”.

     2. Below, “gender” and “sex” are not used interchangeably.

     2a. By “gender”, I refer to the masculine and feminine gender dispositions. These dispositions reflect the set of customs, expectations, and social roles which are based on the sex that someone was assigned at birth. This gender typification is made in accordance with the external physical appearance of the baby’s genitalia.

     2b. By “sex”, I refer to whether someone’s 23^rd pair of chromosomes (i.e., their sex chromosomes, or gametes) are XX or XY. There are alternative arrangements of sex chromosomes, but they are rare. Most people born with ambiguous genitalia can be described as “mostly male” or “mostly female” in external genital appearance, and this almost always aligns with the appearance that their sex chromosomes would dictate.

     2c. There is a condition called “de la Chappelle Syndrome”, in which a person assigned male at birth (because that individual has a penis) might discover, later in life, that they are actually an XX female who has an internal female reproductive system but has an abnormally large clitoris that appeared (to the delivering doctors) to be the penis of a male.

     One such individual discovered this fact about herself when she (back when she still believed she was a man) failed to impregnate her wife. It is due to this condition (which is caused by a gene called the SRY gene) that it becomes necessary to specify that someone was “assigned male” or “assigned female” (as opposed to simply “being” male or female).

     That is why use of the term “assigned at birth”, and believe that is valid, rather than a mere concoction of gender ideologues (which some people suspect). I could be an XX female with an abnormally large clitoris, and if you were assigned male at birth, then you could be an XX female too (especially if you have a micropenis).
     This is the only manner, of which I'm aware, in which a person could rightfully be described as neither obviously male nor obviously female upon physical inspection. But that does not mean that these "XX males" who have the SRY gene, are "not females"; they are females who have been living with males. Once that person discovers the condition, the person is presented with the choice as to whether to continue living "as a man" or "as a woman". We can only infer, from the XX sex chromosomes, that the person is female. And either way, any such person who does not identify as completely masculine or completely feminine, need not seek bottom surgery to "fix" anything about themselves. Many, many people - including people who don't identify as transgender at all - feel that traditional gender norms are constricting to them.

     If any of my readers are aware of any human being - who doesn't have Down's Syndrome or de la Chappelle Syndrome - who has something other than XX or XY sex chromosomes, who can be said to be, definitively, neither male nor female on the genetic level, please e-mail evidence about this condition to me at jwkopsick@gmail.com.

     I believe that people who are questioning their gender need genetic testing way before they need hormones and surgery; before they decide to transition, they might as well seize the opportunity to find out whether they are impotent, and whether they have different sex chromosomes from the ones they thought they had. Wouldn’t you want to know that?

     3. The use of the term “queer”, below, is not intended as a slur. The “Q” in L.G.B.T.Q. stands for “queer”. Many gay, trans, and gender-questioning people use it to describe themselves. It is only an “offensive word” when it is used in an intentionally offensive or upsetting manner. Homosexuals and non-binary people often use the term “queer” to refer to any and all sexual interests and orientations outside of “cis-heterosexuality” (i.e., outside of heterosexuals who are “cisgender”; identifying with the sex they were assigned at birth).

     4a. Categories of sexual orientation and attraction (that is, heterosexuality and homosexuality) are not depicted in the diagram below. This was not done for the purposes of excluding homosexuals, but in the interest of establishing a system of classification of queer dispositions and interests which go beyond the familiar categories relating to genetic sex (i.e., male and female) and sexual attraction (i.e., opposite-sex or same-sex attraction).

     4b. I do not believe that whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual is necessarily a direct function or result of that person’s genetic sex. I believe that the fact that consenting adults choose their sexual partners freely, voluntarily, and on an individual basis – and that experimentation sometimes occurs - means that genetic sex and sexual orientation are independent of one another (regardless of the fact that the majority of humans identify as heterosexual).  

     5. By “transsexual”, I refer to a person who undertakes efforts to physically reconstruct their body (and, most importantly, their genitals) in order to more closely resemble the sex that they were not assigned at birth. My mere use of the term “transsexual” should not be construed to imply that I believe it is possible to fully transition from female to male or vice-versa, in terms of one’s genetics, sex chromosomes, and gametes. I do not believe that transitioning sexes is actually possible, and I believe that it is very dangerous to lead children to assume (through lies of omission) that it is possible to change your sex in the most basic and important way (i.e., genetic sex / sex chromosomes / gametes). Therefore, all references to “transsexual”, herein, refer to people who decide or resolve to attempt to transition their sex.

IV. One Non-Queer Category, and Thirteen Categories of Queer Dispositions

     The first of fourteen categories consists of people whom were born with unambiguous genitalia, and whom have never cross-dressed, and whom have never questioned or contested the sex (male or female) or gender (masculine or feminine) that they were assigned at birth.
     Such a person could be termed “cisgender-cisvestite” because they identify with what they were assigned at birth (cisgender, the opposite of transgender), and they dress in accordance with the norms associated with the gender disposition (masculine or feminine) associated with their assigned sex (male or female).



#1. The Non-Queer Category

#1. Cisgender-Cisvestites:

     People born with unambiguous genitalia, who don’t wear the make-up or dress of the opposite gender, and who don’t get hormones or surgery. This is the only category of people who do not engage in either questioning or experimentation regarding dress, gender roles, genetic sex assigned at birth, or transition of sex.

     [Note: This category includes heterosexual cisgender people, homosexual cisgender people, and bisexual cisgender people alike.]

#2 - #5. The Four Basic Queer Dispositions / Singly-Occurring Queer Dispositions

     [Reminder: None of these categories specifies sex (male or female) or sexual orientation (heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual.]

#2. Transsexuals:                 

          

     People who decide to surgically modify their bodies – especially and most importantly through genital / bottom surgery - in an attempt to transition across sexes (from the one they were assigned at birth, to the other).

#3. Intersex Individuals:

     People who were born with ambiguous genitalia (that is, people whose sex is unclear because it cannot be easily deduced from the person’s mere external physical genital appearance).

     [Note: This includes babies born with de la Chappelle’s syndrome who might not discover their condition until they are adults.]

#4. Transvestites / Cross-Dressers:

     People who wear the make-up, hair styles, and/or clothing typically associated with the masculine or feminine gender role which does not match up with the gender they were assigned based on their apparent genital sex.

     [Note: People who cross-dress may or may not actually identify on the inside as the gender that they are modeling on the outside; people who do are called transgendered individuals. See Disposition #5 and Disposition #13 for more information.]

#5. Transgendered Individuals:

     People who wear the make-up, hair styles, and/or clothing (usually all of the above) typically associated with the masculine or feminine gender role which does not match up with the gender they were assigned based on their apparent genital sex.

     [Note: People who dress up, but don’t identify as the gender they’re modeling, and have no intention of transitioning, are not included in the category of Transgendered Individuals.]

#6 - #9. The Four Doubly-Co-Occurring Queer Dispositions

     [Reminder: None of these categories specifies sex (male or female) or sexual orientation (heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual.]

#6. Intersex Transsexuals:                         
     People who were born with ambiguous genitalia, who attempt sexual transition at any point in their lives.
     [Note: Includes people who get genital surgery / bottom surgery because they were born with ambiguous genitalia, and wish to live as either male or female.]

#7. Intersex Transvestites / Intersex Cross-Dressers:
               
     People born with ambiguous genitalia who dress in clothing associated with the gender (masculine or feminine) that they were not assigned at (or shortly after) birth.
     [Note: Such a person may or may not identify as transgender (see Disposition #12 for more information).]

#8. Transgendered Transvestites / Transgender Cross-Dressers              

     People who cross-dress because they identify with the set of gender roles and appearances (masculine or feminine) associated with the sex (male or female) that they were not assigned at birth.
     [Note: Intersex people, and people who have already had bottom surgery, are not included in the category of Transgendered Transvestites.]

#9. Transgendered Transsexuals                                      

     People who identify with the set of gender roles and appearances (masculine or feminine) associated with the sex (male or female) that they were not assigned at birth, and who – on that basis – undertake efforts to change their physical (and, most importantly, genital) appearance, to something more closely matching the physical characteristics associated with the sex that they were not assigned at birth.

     [Note: This category does not include intersex people, nor people who cross-dress but have no intention to transition their sex.]

#10 - #13. The Four Triply-Co-Occurring Queer Dispositions

     [Reminder: None of these categories specifies sex (male or female) or sexual orientation (heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual.]

#10. “Intersex, Transgender, and Transsexual; But Not Transvestite” Individuals

     People born with ambiguous genitalia, who identify with the sex that they were not assigned at birth, and so, seek to transition their physical (and especially genital) appearance to reflect that identification.

#11. “Intersex, Transsexual, and Transvestite; But Not Transgender” Individuals:

     People born with ambiguous genitalia, who cross-dress, and want to transition their sex; but whom do not feel that they have been assigned the wrong gender role.
     [Note: It’s possible that this category of people does not actually exist. The fact that the Intersex-Transsexual-Transvestite category can be conceived of, does not constitute proof that individual examples of it actually exist. Such a person would have to want to seek surgical sex transition even though they do not feel that they have been assigned the wrong gender role. As a reminder, such a person would also have to have been born with ambiguous genitalia. I would be surprised if even one such person has ever existed. I say this out of pure speculation, however; I do not wish any harm towards such a person, if they do exist.]

#12. “Intersex, Transvestite, and Transgender; But Not Transsexual” Individuals:

     People born with ambiguous genitalia, who wear make-up and hair and dress characteristic of the gender they were not assigned at birth, but whom do not make any attempt to radically alter their primary and/or secondary sex characteristics in order to transition their sex.

#13. “Transvestite, Transgender, and Transsexual; But Not Intersex” Individuals:

     People who don’t identify with the gender roles or genetic sex that they were assigned at birth; and so, wear make-up, hair, and dress customarily associated with the gender they weren’t assigned; and whom also change their physical appearance and undertake efforts to transition their sex.  

           

#14. The Quadruply-Co-Occurring Queer Disposition

     #14. Intersex-Transvestite-Transgender-Transsexuals

     People born with ambiguous genitalia, who wear make-up and hair and dress characteristic of the gender they were not assigned at birth, and make attempts to radically alter their primary and/or secondary sex characteristics in order to transition their sex.
     [Note: Again, anybody in categories #1 through #14 could be men, women, gay, straight, or bisexual. None of these categories specify sex or sexual orientation.]

     See the image below for a visualization of how (and "where") these gender and sexual dispositions intersect.

Click on the image above,
and open in new tab &/or new window
(or download, save, and open)
in order to view in full resolution.

Written and published on June 17th, 2023.
Edited and expanded on June 18th, 2023.

Protecting Children from Censorship: Why it's Unethical to Provide Puberty Blockers and Genital Mutilation to Minors

      Putting minors on puberty blockers is unethical.

     Aside from the issue of children not being able to give informed consent, parents cannot give informed consent on their children's behalf, unless and until they have become aware of all the potential negative consequences and risks (as well as the alternatives).

     Puberty blockers prevent skeletal growth.

     One reason why puberty blockers are administered to boys wishing to become women, is that it prevents the boy from getting too tall.

     Although this is done under the guise of helping the "patient" transcend gender and traditional gender roles, it is actually reinforcement of the gender stereotype that women are supposed to be short (and that tall people cannot be feminine, nor "pass" as a woman).

     It is also done in the name of helping the patient avoid the awkward, uncomfortable, humiliating, suicidal-thought-inducing process of going through the puberty associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. Patients are almost led to think that puberty is irreversible, when it is gender transition that is much more difficult to reverse.

     Despite the characterization of these medications, by some medical professionals, as “life-saving medications”, there is no evidence that indicates that suicidal ideation or gender dysphoria decrease when a child is encouraged to attempt to change gender or sex. Children who are questioning their gender identity, and are being led to falsely assume that changing one’s biological / genetic sex is yet scientifically possible, are being subtly programmed to adopt this line of thinking.

     They are also being led to assume that any refusal to support gender transition - even among children – constitute “trans genocide” (a genocide of transgender people). The rationale is that a generation of transgender children will be lost to suicide if their demands to be allowed to transition are not honored.

     These children are, thus, being led to believe that making suicidal threats is a perfectly acceptable method to get your way. This way of thinking is destructive to society, and to young developing minds. Such people will need to be taught the value of trying to convince others of their opinions without subjecting others to pressure, threats, or other forms of coercion in order to try to force them to agree. This is what is necessary to build a civil society which will respect the rule of law because it will have been founded upon needing to obtain the consent of the governed.
     Minors who have begun gender transition should be screened for Dissociative Identity Disorder, asked if they have been sexually abused, and told that nobody will be angry at them if they want to stop transitioning or need to come out as homosexual.

     One puberty blocker which is being administered to boys who want to become females, is Lupron. Lupron is used to chemically castrate child rapists.

     Apparently, the rationale of those promoting medical and surgical transition of minors, is that a "genocide" will be caused, if we don't confuse homosexual teenage boys into thinking that they're women, so that they allow doctors to administer medications that will make them sterile before they're old enough to decide whether they want to have families. Men don't have to be heterosexual in order to want to father children the traditional way; they can donate sperm to female friends or surrogate mothers.

     In some states, underage girls who want to transition are given less warning, about the potential negative consequences of getting sterilized (and having their breasts removed), than are women between the ages of 18 and 25. If young women aren't old enough to decide that they want irreversible surgery that will stop them from having babies forever, then people under 18 certainly aren't old enough.

     The right to freely debate health policy, or U.S. involvement in a foreign war, has been curtailed for adults. Adults are being exposed to censorship; while our children are being exposed to genital mutilation and suicidal ideation.

     Books containing drawings of teenagers having sex are being placed in our public school libraries, and the people defending it say they are doing it in the name of preventing censorship and protecting the freedom of speech.

     Instead of protecting children from being exposed to sex, we are protecting them from censorship.

     It's time that states craft policies allowing adults to modify their bodies, and dance in drag with other adults; but which also punish adults for exposing children to their naked bodies or to obscene material, or who promote genital mutilation and body modification to minors.

     Restrictions upon activities participated in by transsexual, transgender, and transvestite individuals must not interfere with the rights of those trans people who are minding their own business and are not actually attempting to groom children.

     If such restrictions do enable the authorities to interfere with the rights of those trans people who are not criminals or threats to children, then those Republican-supported statutes which were intended to protect children but also curtail the rights of adults, will continue to be (appropriately) criticized by Democrats who oppose the theological repression of sexuality.

 

     Bills are being debated, in the legislatures of California and Washington State, which would enable those states to take custody of children whose parents whose parents refuse to put them on puberty blockers (which potentially puts them on the track towards irreversible surgeries before they reach the age at which they are able to give informed consent regarding sexual matters).
     These children have been confused by their educators, and by the naive culture of reckless promotion of all things trans, which is all around them.

     From piercing and tattooing, to circumcision and female genital mutilation, to excessive vaccinations, to puberty blockers, to orchiectomies and child sex change surgeries, to double mastectomies (which are medically unnecessary when administered to teenage girls who don’t have either breast cancer or back problems due to excessively large breasts), child body modification has got to stop.

     Children and adults have different sets of freedoms, rights, and responsibilities. Sexual liberation is for adults, not children. Censorship is for children, not adults.

     You do not have to base your ethics on a religion in order to notice that this is wrong. Wake up.

Written and published on June 11th, 2023.