Outside of the Supreme Court, transgender activists made many incompatible arguments. The different claims they offer seem to undo one another, but one thing is for sure: the movement has little concern with “doing no harm.”
That transgendering procedures do effect demonstrable harm on unconsenting children is the opposing side’s basic argument. Side effects, irreversibility, and grave psychological damage all inform this opinion — not to mention the obvious and intended instance of harm in destroying a child’s natural physical processes.
Activists could argue that, despite the physical changes, the transgendering procedure is worth undertaking for a child if only for the abundant mental benefits. It’s unconvincing but plausible. Were it not for the suppression of federally-funded research that shows puberty blockers result in no mental health improvements, that argument might by now be fully invalidated.
Incidentally, some transgender activists have moved a bit away from the self-determined mental health aspect, while others hold fast to it. Yet they claim the same camp. Chase Strangio, the lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court in favor of sex changes for minors, remains dedicated to the idea that transgender identity is a deep, personal recognition and that support of it is a good defense against suicidal ideation. One is not surprised to hear that Strangio is also a male-identifying biological female. The lawyer argued that children can know at least as early as two years old “exactly who they are” as transgender individuals.
Strangio’s perspective, however, seems at odds with the vehement denial of “detransitioners” espoused by many transgender activists. Most of the group has disowned people such as Chloe Cole, a detransitioner and anti-transgender activist, on the basis that it undermines the “goodness” of transgenderism. Theirs is an excellent example of “pro-choice” being “pro-one choice.” Some have gone so far as to say that detransitioning amounts to nothing but misdiagnosis on the doctor’s part.
In that case, no longer are a child’s deep feelings of longing for a different gender ever really certain unless confirmed by a doctor. And the doctor can be wrong, of course. The framing has shifted from transgenderism being a totally personal matter of belief to a concrete science that wants a specific diagnosis. After all, “you can’t detransition from something you never were,” said one transgender activist.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The logic is hard to follow because it constantly changes to meet legal needs. Even so, transgender activists are operating as a united front concerned only about alleviating pain. Such inconsistency might, and hopefully will, lead to the movement’s demise.
By the account that Strangio, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, gave, it is clear that the transgender movement has nothing to do with a child’s well-being. “It’s not the kids who are consenting to this treatment,” she said. “It’s the parents who are consenting to the treatment. And as a parent, I would say when our children are suffering, we are suffering.” The fight is for the ideology and the adults who cling to it. Children can take it up later when they are adults.