What rights?

Vincent J. Curtis

13 Sept 23

RE: Forcibly outing children violates their human rights. Op-ed by Julie Malbogat. The Hamilton Spectator 13 Sept 23.

However daring this titillating headline is, the author makes no effort, beyond a bald assertion, to prove that “forcibly outing” children violates their “human rights.”  It takes little parsing, in fact, to demolish this silly assertion.

To begin, what does “forcibly outing” even mean?  It seems to mean that the policies of New Brunswick and other provinces, which require schools to inform parents if their children appear to express gender diaspora at school, causes them to be ‘outed’ by force.  If a child showed any other kind of sickness or mental illness at school, the parents would be, and ought to be, informed of the observation; and gender diaspora is a mental illness; but, strangely, this particular mental illness is the one illness that needs to be kept secret from parents.  Why?

The assertion answering why it must be kept secret is that it violates the “human rights” of the child.  I don’t see how informing parents of their child’s condition violates the child’s “human rights.”  Parents, however, bear heavy responsibilities in raising their children; and, with that, they also have rights concerning them, which the state ought not wantonly to violate.  If their child has done bad at school, parents will most certainly be informed of it.  If their child exhibits a communicable disease at school, the parents will be informed of it.  So what makes gender diaspora the secret that can’t be shared?

What makes incipient gender diaspora special is that a new recruit for the cause needs to be shielded from a potential cure.  Transgenderism is the latest, most avant garde, cause of the progressive movement.  It is post-modern deconstructionist to its core.  It is so far out of the mainstream that gays, lesbians, and feminists are distancing themselves from it; and yet men with male genitalia are now competing against women in women’s sports.  This is how reality-bending the justification for transgenderism must be.

The weirdness and reality-confusion of the article begins in its opening line: “My son, Zack, is transgender.” Being eight years old when he told his mother, and eleven now, his transgenderism is “strictly social: new pronouns, new clothes, new haircut, new name.”  After three years, there’s nothing new anymore; what she means to say is: feminine pronouns, girl’s clothes, girl’s haircut, and a girl’s name.  He’s still her son, not her “daughter,” however.  He casually told his mother, “that he was transgender.” Now, I can understand a boy telling his mother that he was a girl, or wants to be a girl, but where would this ‘transgender’ term have arisen?  Can a boy of eight even pronounce that polysyllabic modernism, never spoken in a family home in casual conversation?  Anyhow, mom never asked where; she just accepted it; perhaps because that’s what she really wanted: a daughter.  If the boy had said, “I’m a girl,” or “I want to be a girl,” mom should have said, “look in your pants, boy.  You’re not a girl, and never will be.  Every cell in your body contains an XY pair.  You’re marked forever as male.”  What did dad say about this? What dad thinks isn’t mentioned.

But the purpose of the story is to condemn Ontario Minister of Education Stephen Lecce, and everybody else who disagrees with her, of being transphobic haters.  Most people aren’t “gender-affirming,” which, here again is reality-bending: if she had told her son that he was a boy and will never be a girl -that would be gender-affirming.  But not in the topsy-turvy world of gender identity theory.  Does she hate her son qua son?  She must, for she wants him to be a girl.

She condemns parents who are “homophobic and transphobic, in the worst cases abusively so.” Not exactly clear what “abusively so” means, but it’s the term ‘abusive’ that she wanted to employ, like she did with ‘forcibly.’  Not exactly clean what transphobic and homophobic means in this context of raising prepubescent pre-teens either, but I’m sure parents want grandkids too; and they won’t get them if their children are homosexual or sterilized by “transgender affirming care.”  These are not, in general, happy lifestyles; and parents want their children to lead happy lives, which is why this story is so weird: the falling for an unhappy and irreversible lifestyle choice by a mixed-up mother who allegedly only wants her son to be happy.

The transgender lifestyle is unhappy; that’s why suicide is so prevalent among the gender confused.  Being sterilized, a transgender can’t have their own children; their genitals being removed, they can’t enjoy sex; they’re in for a lifetime of medical treatments; they’re creepy in person; and they expect you to live the lie they’re unsuccessful at telling.  People don’t like being lied to, and quickly find tiresome living someone else’s lie in their presence.  This pressure being put on other people to live the transgender’s lie is where the behavior of “transphobe” begins.

People who are creeped-out by transgenders, and who don’t want to live their lie, aren’t transphobes; but the child butchers who mutilate children by removing girls’ breasts, and castrate young boys in the name of “affirming care” deserve all the hated they get, and more.  They’re on par with Joseph Mengele and Adolf Eichmann, and I say this without a trace of emotion in my heart.

Not enough is being done to put down the madness of transgenderism.  People like Julie Malbogat have no right to fling around accusations of transphobe and hater at other people; it’s people like her who are guilty of child abuse, for not putting her child right the moment he got off the rails.

I’ll bet Zack is getting a lot more special attention after he told his mom that he was “transgender;” more than he was getting before.  So far, so good, Zack; but be careful when she takes you to the doctor’s office.

-30-