Main Edition
US
FR
April 17, 2023 - 10:15am
Robert Conquest’s famous Second Law of Politics states that “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” For the 21st century, it’s time to update that. We might call it Harrington’s law of cyborg theocracy: “Any organisation not explicitly sex-realist eventually becomes a vector for trans activism.” And as we’ve already seen with organisations whose previous remit was sex-based, such as the Women’s Equality Party, this usually means riding roughshod over the erstwhile mission.
The same apparently also goes for culture: for US comedy show Saturday Night Live, becoming a vector for trans activism has wholly obliterated the original remit of ‘being funny’. The appearance of the show’s first non-binary cast member, Molly Kearney, took the form of a lecture on trans rights, with all the forced jollity of a school theatre company hired to educate sixth-formers about internet safety or climate change.
But Harrington’s law of cyborg theocracy becomes more disturbing yet as it propagates through what the 20th century called “the rules-based international order”, which is to say the network of America-led institutions that have maintained relative international peace and political consensus since the end of World War II.
The most recent such instance comes via a new report from various United Nations bodies. Nominally aimed at tackling the spread of AIDS, the ‘8 March Principles’ call for the total decriminalisation of activities including drug-taking, prostitution and — in some contexts — adult-child sexual activity, all on human rights grounds. Trans activism is woven through the document like a stick of rock, with “gender identity” repeatedly referenced as a common “intersecting” ground for discrimination.
Two passages in particular amount to an explicit attack, by a major international body, on child safeguarding across sexual activity and gender experimentation alike. Central to this is the report’s emphasis on “adolescents’ evolving capacity to consent in certain contexts, in fact, even if not in law, when they are below the prescribed minimum age of consent in domestic law”.
This means that as far as the UN is concerned, it doesn’t matter what nations’ domestic law says; being below the age of consent doesn’t necessarily mean being below the age of consent. In a stroke, this undermines laws designed to protect children from sexual exploitation. And we only have to look at the way the trafficked girls of Telford and Rotherham were deemed by police to have “consented” to see where that goes.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Harrington’s law of cyborg theocracy: “Any organisation not explicitly sex-realist eventually becomes a vector for trans activism.” ”
Masterful. An instant classic! (And SO true)
It’s a rip-off of Conquest’s Law. Calm down.
It can’t be a “rip-off” when Mary explicitly referenced Conquest.
It’s not a rip off but it’s a subset. It just re-states Conquest’s Law in a less generalizable form, so why is it needed? It’s not so much a law itself, as an outcome of Conquest’s Law.
Some people *really* need to get out more…
I don’t mean to needle anyone, but this thread seems akin to a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
It’s 4.
It’s 4.
I don’t mean to needle anyone, but this thread seems akin to a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Some people *really* need to get out more…
It’s not a rip off but it’s a subset. It just re-states Conquest’s Law in a less generalizable form, so why is it needed? It’s not so much a law itself, as an outcome of Conquest’s Law.
It can’t be a “rip-off” when Mary explicitly referenced Conquest.
It’s a rip-off of Conquest’s Law. Calm down.
“Harrington’s law of cyborg theocracy: “Any organisation not explicitly sex-realist eventually becomes a vector for trans activism.” ”
Masterful. An instant classic! (And SO true)
For an evidence-based understanding of how this institutional creep is happening, see Bilek’s analysis below. As she repeats emphatically, follow the money to the individuals, “charities” and medical-industrial complex who are throwing money at this growing and lucrative business.
https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k
Many thanks for this. She is brilliant!
Please spread her work. She is liable to cancellation soon because she lifts the veil on their nefarious agenda.
Please spread her work. She is liable to cancellation soon because she lifts the veil on their nefarious agenda.
Many thanks for this. She is brilliant!
For an evidence-based understanding of how this institutional creep is happening, see Bilek’s analysis below. As she repeats emphatically, follow the money to the individuals, “charities” and medical-industrial complex who are throwing money at this growing and lucrative business.
https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k
“…Saturday Night Live, becoming a vector for trans activism has wholly obliterated the original remit of ‘being funny’.”
SNL has been crap for 30+ years. If they were a comedy show they would be lampooning trans activists rather than glorifying them.
“…Saturday Night Live, becoming a vector for trans activism has wholly obliterated the original remit of ‘being funny’.”
SNL has been crap for 30+ years. If they were a comedy show they would be lampooning trans activists rather than glorifying them.
There’s another more general law involved:
Any bureaucracy must expand and extend its authority into other areas or collapse.
I offer the UN, WHO, the EU as current examples plus the Hanseatic League as a historic example (which eventually failed). I expect other local examples will spring to mind, including many charities which now campaign rather than alleviate suffering.
Stonewall is an example. Once it’s original aims were achieved, those employed by it have had to find new areas of oppression to champion in order maintain funding. They successfully tapped into the trans gravy train (see link to Bilek article below), which is heavily backed by the for-profit medical-industrial complex.
Add NATO to the list.
Stonewall is an example. Once it’s original aims were achieved, those employed by it have had to find new areas of oppression to champion in order maintain funding. They successfully tapped into the trans gravy train (see link to Bilek article below), which is heavily backed by the for-profit medical-industrial complex.
Add NATO to the list.
There’s another more general law involved:
Any bureaucracy must expand and extend its authority into other areas or collapse.
I offer the UN, WHO, the EU as current examples plus the Hanseatic League as a historic example (which eventually failed). I expect other local examples will spring to mind, including many charities which now campaign rather than alleviate suffering.
Perhaps it is time to admit defeat; the UN once a bastion for good has been infiltrated and corrupted. It needs to be disbanded.
On the other hand, nature abhors a vacuum. Before we start dismantling the UN, we need to ask ourselves, who / what is going to rush in to occupy the space it leaves behind, and whether this is likely to make things better or worse.
On the other hand, nature abhors a vacuum. Before we start dismantling the UN, we need to ask ourselves, who / what is going to rush in to occupy the space it leaves behind, and whether this is likely to make things better or worse.
Perhaps it is time to admit defeat; the UN once a bastion for good has been infiltrated and corrupted. It needs to be disbanded.
Further reading on this wildly disturbing UN report:
“While on the surface, it may seem relatively uncontroversial, the report calls for sex between adults and minors to be decriminalized, so long as the minors “consent”:
With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual, in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.
Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.”
An article on the report, authors and scope
The report itself
The inclusion of 17 and 18 year olds in the definition of children is also a part of the ploy to confuse age of consent and allow more access to those with a currently criminal interest in children. It’s almost like our left are desperate to act the useless idiots and destroy our own countries at the behest of Russia and China so long as they can hurt the wicked right-wing people that refuse to think as they are told.
16 and 17 year olds are in a limbo position in terms of sexual assault. They are above the age of consent but below the age of majority. If they are not supported by their parents, or are kicked out by them for making a complaint, they have no support. They are not protected by the law but have no rights under the law either.
In England the Position of Trust amendment to the Sexual Offences Act goes some way towards rectifying this situation but, as teenagers are so immature nowadays, and both the school leaving age and the legal age for marriage are now 18, I think there is an argument for the age of consent to be 18 too. Then there would be no grey areas.
You put some good points forward, but raising the age of consent to 18 would effectively criminalise many 16/17 year olds who engaged in perfectly consensual sexual activity.
Of course, this happens below the age of 16 too, which only serves to indicate that requiring teenagers to wait a further two years to engage in what is a natural and healthy activity with their peers would bring the law into disrepute; or perhaps require that age group to keep their activity hidden (from their parents, for instance), which would be detrimental to all.
It’s only ‘healthy’ until the antibiotics stop working – at which point Victorian morality will be back before you can say; ‘oh look, syph1lis’.
I just knew someone would try to use STDs with a moralising tone. How would two young people engaging in their first consensual sexual encounter be carrying STDs? Are they more or less likely to be doing so than two married people trying to start a family?
Syphilis can be passed from mother to child from birth. A sadly very common Victorian phenomenon.
So are you saying that young people shouldn’t have a consensual sexual partner “just in case” their mother passed syphilis onto them? If that were the case, the human race would die out within a generation since no-one would have sex “just in case”.
And if you’re not saying that, just what is your point?
Why even have an age of consent at all? Doesn’t it impose a morality on them, which you seem to oppose at any cost.
Why even have an age of consent at all? Doesn’t it impose a morality on them, which you seem to oppose at any cost.
So are you saying that young people shouldn’t have a consensual sexual partner “just in case” their mother passed syphilis onto them? If that were the case, the human race would die out within a generation since no-one would have sex “just in case”.
And if you’re not saying that, just what is your point?
Why do you assume that these young people are conducting longer, monogamous relationships. Or indeed assume that a young person would be having sexual relations with someone their own age?
On this side of the Atlantic the usual “rule” (unofficial, I presume) is that if they’re both underage no charges will be filed. It becomes a whole different thing if one of them is older.
On this side of the Atlantic the usual “rule” (unofficial, I presume) is that if they’re both underage no charges will be filed. It becomes a whole different thing if one of them is older.
Moralizing tones? There are very few on this site that moralize less than you, Steve.
Well, what if it wasn’t the first sexual encounter for one of them?
You are presupposing that all young couples lose their virginity at the same time as each other, use condoms and remain faithful. That’s not the case. More than one of my friends caught the clap at university.
I’d wager quite a few people catch the clap at university. Lots of young people with the same social circles, they’re going to end up with each others previous conquests now and again.
Which was exactly what happened!
These things happen. As long as it gets treated what’s the issue?
These things happen. As long as it gets treated what’s the issue?
Which was exactly what happened!
I’d wager quite a few people catch the clap at university. Lots of young people with the same social circles, they’re going to end up with each others previous conquests now and again.
Syphilis can be passed from mother to child from birth. A sadly very common Victorian phenomenon.
Why do you assume that these young people are conducting longer, monogamous relationships. Or indeed assume that a young person would be having sexual relations with someone their own age?
Moralizing tones? There are very few on this site that moralize less than you, Steve.
Well, what if it wasn’t the first sexual encounter for one of them?
You are presupposing that all young couples lose their virginity at the same time as each other, use condoms and remain faithful. That’s not the case. More than one of my friends caught the clap at university.
In addition, for sex to be “healthy” and “natural” the girls will have to be made sterile.
I just knew someone would try to use STDs with a moralising tone. How would two young people engaging in their first consensual sexual encounter be carrying STDs? Are they more or less likely to be doing so than two married people trying to start a family?
In addition, for sex to be “healthy” and “natural” the girls will have to be made sterile.
It’s only ‘healthy’ until the antibiotics stop working – at which point Victorian morality will be back before you can say; ‘oh look, syph1lis’.
You put some good points forward, but raising the age of consent to 18 would effectively criminalise many 16/17 year olds who engaged in perfectly consensual sexual activity.
Of course, this happens below the age of 16 too, which only serves to indicate that requiring teenagers to wait a further two years to engage in what is a natural and healthy activity with their peers would bring the law into disrepute; or perhaps require that age group to keep their activity hidden (from their parents, for instance), which would be detrimental to all.
Quite.
How depressing.
Additionally, one particular aspect of the radical trans activist movement that I find super ironic (in a sad way) is that they keep claiming there is some kind of trans “genocide” happening — that wider society is trying to exterminate them. Of course there is absolutely no evidence that trans people are being targeted for genocide, that is an absurd claim …but…
how many of these kids they are brainwashing and “transitioning” are actually just gay, or autistic, or a bit quirky …and would have grown up to be perfectly healthy and reasonably well adjusted adults? Whats’s happening looks a lot like a secular form of conversion therapy against gay kids, and the sterilisation of all kids that are a bit awkward, or on the spectrum. This is condemned when religious groups do it, but embraced when trans groups do it? – aren’t they just trans’ing the gay away? The trans / secular version seems worse in a host of ways, as the drugs and surgeries usually lead to complete loss of fertility.
How is this not straight up (woke) eugenics? — deleting the gay / kooky and autistic kids from the gene pool by sterilisation. So one would have to say to the TRAs shouting about genocide …“How could we genocide you, when you’re already sterilising yourselves?!”
We truly live in an age of madness.
To answer your questions:
Most of them.
Agree.
Yes.
Maybe the answer to the last one is projection.
But less flippantly, I think that’s exactly what’s happening. I simply can’t believe that there was this enormous latent trans-ness out there over the last 50 years that those of us old enough didn’t see before.
It’s a social contagion amongst the kids and a parade of self deceiving virtue signalling amongst those who are pushing it.
“We truly live in an age of madness” – Seemingly it happened overnight. Social media strikes again.
To answer your questions:
Most of them.
Agree.
Yes.
Maybe the answer to the last one is projection.
But less flippantly, I think that’s exactly what’s happening. I simply can’t believe that there was this enormous latent trans-ness out there over the last 50 years that those of us old enough didn’t see before.
It’s a social contagion amongst the kids and a parade of self deceiving virtue signalling amongst those who are pushing it.
“We truly live in an age of madness” – Seemingly it happened overnight. Social media strikes again.
At the behest of countries that oppose all this nonsense? That’s stretching it.
Progressives are truly the ‘useful idiots’ of the worst ideologues.
16 and 17 year olds are in a limbo position in terms of sexual assault. They are above the age of consent but below the age of majority. If they are not supported by their parents, or are kicked out by them for making a complaint, they have no support. They are not protected by the law but have no rights under the law either.
In England the Position of Trust amendment to the Sexual Offences Act goes some way towards rectifying this situation but, as teenagers are so immature nowadays, and both the school leaving age and the legal age for marriage are now 18, I think there is an argument for the age of consent to be 18 too. Then there would be no grey areas.
Quite.
How depressing.
Additionally, one particular aspect of the radical trans activist movement that I find super ironic (in a sad way) is that they keep claiming there is some kind of trans “genocide” happening — that wider society is trying to exterminate them. Of course there is absolutely no evidence that trans people are being targeted for genocide, that is an absurd claim …but…
how many of these kids they are brainwashing and “transitioning” are actually just gay, or autistic, or a bit quirky …and would have grown up to be perfectly healthy and reasonably well adjusted adults? Whats’s happening looks a lot like a secular form of conversion therapy against gay kids, and the sterilisation of all kids that are a bit awkward, or on the spectrum. This is condemned when religious groups do it, but embraced when trans groups do it? – aren’t they just trans’ing the gay away? The trans / secular version seems worse in a host of ways, as the drugs and surgeries usually lead to complete loss of fertility.
How is this not straight up (woke) eugenics? — deleting the gay / kooky and autistic kids from the gene pool by sterilisation. So one would have to say to the TRAs shouting about genocide …“How could we genocide you, when you’re already sterilising yourselves?!”
We truly live in an age of madness.
At the behest of countries that oppose all this nonsense? That’s stretching it.
Progressives are truly the ‘useful idiots’ of the worst ideologues.
Everyone laughed when conservatives pointed out the term “minor attracted persons” was gaining currency a few years ago.
I’m reminded of Rod Dreher’s Law or Merited Impossibility. When any conservative points out the logical endpoint of a particular progressive policy: “oh, that will never happen… and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.”
Any time a euphemism must be employed to camouflage a word’s commonly understood meaning, you know they are trying to deceive.
Any time a euphemism must be employed to camouflage a word’s commonly understood meaning, you know they are trying to deceive.
The inclusion of 17 and 18 year olds in the definition of children is also a part of the ploy to confuse age of consent and allow more access to those with a currently criminal interest in children. It’s almost like our left are desperate to act the useless idiots and destroy our own countries at the behest of Russia and China so long as they can hurt the wicked right-wing people that refuse to think as they are told.
Everyone laughed when conservatives pointed out the term “minor attracted persons” was gaining currency a few years ago.
I’m reminded of Rod Dreher’s Law or Merited Impossibility. When any conservative points out the logical endpoint of a particular progressive policy: “oh, that will never happen… and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.”
Further reading on this wildly disturbing UN report:
“While on the surface, it may seem relatively uncontroversial, the report calls for sex between adults and minors to be decriminalized, so long as the minors “consent”:
With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual, in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.
Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.”
An article on the report, authors and scope
The report itself
Where is the UN report that defends the young criminal arguing that the young are not neurologically mature enough to be punished for criminal behaviour performed under the age of 25? Scotland has no difficulty regarding 16 year olds being mature enough to consent to self-mutilation, sterilisation and a lifetime of hormone support but not to criminal responsibility. The UN is behind the curve in failing to adopt all the lunatic ideologies going.
The triumph of Satan must be celebrated soon in all our institutions.
Agree. I think we all are missing the point by focusing on what “sanity” is. Today’s conversations and discussions about very serious topics are completely void of sanity. The left is winning these arguments very quickly by eliminating sanity and commonly understood language. The devil is the second most powerful entity in the world.
From ‘The UN is behind the curve in failing to adopt all the lunatic ideologies going’ to ‘The triumph of Satan …’ you didn’t even stop for breath. Satire at its finest.
Agree. I think we all are missing the point by focusing on what “sanity” is. Today’s conversations and discussions about very serious topics are completely void of sanity. The left is winning these arguments very quickly by eliminating sanity and commonly understood language. The devil is the second most powerful entity in the world.
From ‘The UN is behind the curve in failing to adopt all the lunatic ideologies going’ to ‘The triumph of Satan …’ you didn’t even stop for breath. Satire at its finest.
Where is the UN report that defends the young criminal arguing that the young are not neurologically mature enough to be punished for criminal behaviour performed under the age of 25? Scotland has no difficulty regarding 16 year olds being mature enough to consent to self-mutilation, sterilisation and a lifetime of hormone support but not to criminal responsibility. The UN is behind the curve in failing to adopt all the lunatic ideologies going.
The triumph of Satan must be celebrated soon in all our institutions.
How does the UN manage to represent a strange cult within the west itself? What are the other conservative countries doing here?
They’ll do the right thing and ignore it. Sadly Politicians such as Trudeau, Biden, Varadker, Yousaf, and if he gets in power Starmer, will embrace it.
They’ll do the right thing and ignore it. Sadly Politicians such as Trudeau, Biden, Varadker, Yousaf, and if he gets in power Starmer, will embrace it.
How does the UN manage to represent a strange cult within the west itself? What are the other conservative countries doing here?
Conservatives have been the champion of the “rules based international order” since WWII. So it’s a weird experience for me to read the France / China join statement and find myself cheering for Macron’s support for a multipolar world. But cheering I am, since my own country has become a global social contagion which must be stopped.
Capitalism thrives on competition, but today, the international stage is a ideological monopoly. Monopolies are bad. They produce bad social outcomes. They stifle innovation. They crush competition ruthlessly. Post cold war, the American ideological monopoly has done the same: used its military and economic power to limit ideological innovation and force the less powerful to adopt our ways. Applying classical conservative / libertarian principles to this problem: a multipolar world will invigorate ideological and technological competition, limit the ability of the ideological monopolist (US) to impose its will on other states, and likely improve life for everyone (except the monopolist ruling class.)
Enlightenment liberalism is dead. It jumped the shark when it forgot how to tell the difference between men and women. It may well have jumped the shark when it divorced itself from the Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian philosophical framework that midwifed its own birth… but that’s a separate article (read Patrick Deneen). The only question now is what’s going to replace it. A multipolar world is a huge step in the right direction. It’s going to happen. Whether the American ruling class can adjust to this reality or will require a true strategic defeat before they accept its inevitability remains to be seen.
Amen.
It isn’t Enlightenment Liberalism that can’t tell the difference between men and women. The culprits are the Progressives, who have adopted Postmodernist Gender Theory, and are actively attempting to get rid of the distinction. I’m ashamed of Liberals, but not because they’ve “jumped the shark”. Rather, it’s because they’re taking their marching orders from the Progressives, who are working to impose Gender Theory and Queer Theory as a religion. The cowardice of those who could band together and call it out for what it is, is appalling. There’s nothing Liberal about Postmodernist activism.
Amen.
It isn’t Enlightenment Liberalism that can’t tell the difference between men and women. The culprits are the Progressives, who have adopted Postmodernist Gender Theory, and are actively attempting to get rid of the distinction. I’m ashamed of Liberals, but not because they’ve “jumped the shark”. Rather, it’s because they’re taking their marching orders from the Progressives, who are working to impose Gender Theory and Queer Theory as a religion. The cowardice of those who could band together and call it out for what it is, is appalling. There’s nothing Liberal about Postmodernist activism.
Conservatives have been the champion of the “rules based international order” since WWII. So it’s a weird experience for me to read the France / China join statement and find myself cheering for Macron’s support for a multipolar world. But cheering I am, since my own country has become a global social contagion which must be stopped.
Capitalism thrives on competition, but today, the international stage is a ideological monopoly. Monopolies are bad. They produce bad social outcomes. They stifle innovation. They crush competition ruthlessly. Post cold war, the American ideological monopoly has done the same: used its military and economic power to limit ideological innovation and force the less powerful to adopt our ways. Applying classical conservative / libertarian principles to this problem: a multipolar world will invigorate ideological and technological competition, limit the ability of the ideological monopolist (US) to impose its will on other states, and likely improve life for everyone (except the monopolist ruling class.)
Enlightenment liberalism is dead. It jumped the shark when it forgot how to tell the difference between men and women. It may well have jumped the shark when it divorced itself from the Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian philosophical framework that midwifed its own birth… but that’s a separate article (read Patrick Deneen). The only question now is what’s going to replace it. A multipolar world is a huge step in the right direction. It’s going to happen. Whether the American ruling class can adjust to this reality or will require a true strategic defeat before they accept its inevitability remains to be seen.
We have an organisation in the UK which WAS “explicitly sex realist”. It’s called the NHS.
Less than 20 years ago, every organisation in the UK – yes, even Stonewall – was ‘explicitly sex realist’.
Less than 20 years ago, every organisation in the UK – yes, even Stonewall – was ‘explicitly sex realist’.
We have an organisation in the UK which WAS “explicitly sex realist”. It’s called the NHS.
Where is the UN report that defends the young criminal arguing that the young are not neurologically mature enough to be punished for criminal behaviour performed under the age of 25? Scotland has no difficulty regarding 16 year olds being mature enough to consent to self-mutilation, sterilisation and a lifetime of hormone support but not to criminal responsibility. The UN is behind the curve in failing to adopt all the lunatic ideologies going.
Where is the UN report that defends the young criminal arguing that the young are not neurologically mature enough to be punished for criminal behaviour performed under the age of 25? Scotland has no difficulty regarding 16 year olds being mature enough to consent to self-mutilation, sterilisation and a lifetime of hormone support but not to criminal responsibility. The UN is behind the curve in failing to adopt all the lunatic ideologies going.
What happened to their arline TWA? Trans World Airlines?
Great airline. Shame about TWA-800.
We should expect the name to be revived by some woke airline in thrall to trans activism some time soon.
Great airline. Shame about TWA-800.
We should expect the name to be revived by some woke airline in thrall to trans activism some time soon.
What happened to their arline TWA? Trans World Airlines?
Mary, your clarion admonition here effectively echoes an exclamation from the mouth of an observant child.
That child is the one who cried out, in an old story, what others were unwilling to declare, “The emperor has no clothes.”
In these presently unfolding circumstances, your clarion call effectively sends a similar admonition, “Children are being unclothed!” for devious purposes, no less.
Thank you for exposing this devious trend for what it is.
Mary, your clarion admonition here effectively echoes an exclamation from the mouth of an observant child.
That child is the one who cried out, in an old story, what others were unwilling to declare, “The emperor has no clothes.”
In these presently unfolding circumstances, your clarion call effectively sends a similar admonition, “Children are being unclothed!” for devious purposes, no less.
Thank you for exposing this devious trend for what it is.
SNL had Pat years ago, but they were just androgenist.
Although I disagree with much of the trans activist agenda and think affirmative care is harming children these matters are best left to doctors, parents and children. We live in a free society and if parents, on some quack doctor’s advice, want to let their children block puberty and mutilate themselves, I don’t see why I should give a damn. People get to make stupid decisions and they have to live with the consequences. Many children grow up to hate their parents and blame them for their unhappy lives. Children who transition at thirteen and regret it at thirty will have good reason to hate theirs. And when enough adults who detransition sue the quacks who set them on their path the medical professionals will change the standard of care. I don’t think the government has a role in protecting people from making bad choices whether it is consuming sugary soft drinks or lopping off body parts.
Although I disagree with much of the trans activist agenda and think affirmative care is harming children these matters are best left to doctors, parents and children. We live in a free society and if parents, on some quack doctor’s advice, want to let their children block puberty and mutilate themselves, I don’t see why I should give a damn. People get to make stupid decisions and they have to live with the consequences. Many children grow up to hate their parents and blame them for their unhappy lives. Children who transition at thirteen and regret it at thirty will have good reason to hate theirs. And when enough adults who detransition sue the quacks who set them on their path the medical professionals will change the standard of care. I don’t think the government has a role in protecting people from making bad choices whether it is consuming sugary soft drinks or lopping off body parts.
Who even gives a s..t? Who cares? Who gives a damn?
It gets clicks, so there’s that.
Everybody should care that the UN want to abolish the age of consent. See JJ Barnett’s post.
The statement in this article only applies to gender transition, no one is abolishing the age of consent. It is unlikely that an adolescent would be able to medically transition without a parent knowing.
But you have argued elsewhere:
So how do you reconcile believing minors incapable of consenting to sex, but capable of consenting to puberty blockers, hormone treatment and medical mutilation with lifelong consequences? I can only imagine there’s some seriously heavy-duty cognitive dissonance going on here.
But you have argued elsewhere:
So how do you reconcile believing minors incapable of consenting to sex, but capable of consenting to puberty blockers, hormone treatment and medical mutilation with lifelong consequences? I can only imagine there’s some seriously heavy-duty cognitive dissonance going on here.
The statement in this article only applies to gender transition, no one is abolishing the age of consent. It is unlikely that an adolescent would be able to medically transition without a parent knowing.
Perhaps anyone who lives with their child(ren)?
It gets clicks, so there’s that.
Everybody should care that the UN want to abolish the age of consent. See JJ Barnett’s post.
Perhaps anyone who lives with their child(ren)?
Who even gives a s..t? Who cares? Who gives a damn?