We did see this coming. With relentless force, the rebels have bulldozed through tradition, breaking down one moral challenge after another—and all in the name of physical and spiritual liberation. The trend of homosexual relationships started at the outset. Premarital intercourse was normalized, and consequently, illicit sex followed. Immorality became an “affair,” and an entire system of moral decency crumbled. And so it continued.
Within a few short decades, marriage was redefined, and humanity’s most fundamental institution was “expanded” to include same-sex couples. Then came the demands for full recognition and rights for homosexuals. This trend took time to gain momentum and traction, but eventually, it did. The modern LGBTQ movement stands as one of the two most significant achievements of the liberationists. Secondly, they leveraged identity politics to advance their agenda and gain political traction. Next, they capitalized on the ideological shift towards unfettered personal freedom to advocate for gender identity above nearly everything else, including science.
They gained so much ground, so quickly, that even the rebels and LGBTQ activists were surprised. The elites and the entertainment industry, who were incessantly pushing their agenda, championed their sexual identity ideology, proclaiming that the rainbow flag empire was unstoppable and would become ubiquitous. Their next demand—polyamory.
And then, everything led to the Pride parade. The T in LGBTQ became the sticking point. There were evident tensions within the coalition, but the biggest challenge for the Trans movement was that government support wavered, then stalled, then reversed—especially concerning children and adolescents.
On every other aspect of the LGBTQ spectrum, progress has been steady, and ground has been swiftly gained. On the trans issue, however, the movement has actually lost ground. An intriguing yet repetitive pattern emerged. Many Americans seem willing to let a 35-year-old assert their transgender identity and move on. Some Americans are undoubtedly fine with adults accessing so-called “gender affirming” medical procedures, both hormonal and surgical. Ironically, some people seem to understand very well that they are engaging in a kind of game. Many of our neighbors perceive a trans claim as an unusual and extreme form of identity play when it is made. Their response is not always support but confusion. You know the look.
But when it comes to children and adolescents, Americans are not ready to join the transgender rebellion, especially when it involves medical treatments, let alone surgery. This is abundantly clear from polling. Pulitzer Prize-winning transgender author Andrea Long Chu acknowledges the issue in a New York magazine: “But a growing majority of Americans also believe gender is determined by sex at birth, and almost 70% of them oppose puberty blockers for trans kids.
There it is, and it’s not just Americans. The British government is shutting down its identity clinic in Tavistock for children and adolescents. Other European countries are also adopting much more conservative views on hormonal and surgical “treatments” for young people claiming to be trans or non-binary. Significant concerns have also been raised by leading media outlets. New York Times columnist Pamela Paul recently penned a significant essay on young people who identified as trans and later “detransitioned.” More recently, Megan McArdle of the Washington Post asked, “When treating transgender youth, how informed is informed consent?” They are recognizing their setbacks. Americans, and American parents in particular, are increasingly skeptical of the argument that medical intervention (hormone blockers and surgery) is in any way appropriate for children and adolescents.
Andrea Long Chu doubled down with the New York magazine article just this week. Chu asserts that allowing transgender children to “change their bodies” is a “moral imperative.” Trust me on this—Chu means it. Even though Chu addresses some of the ideology underlying the LGBTQ movement and contemporary gender theory, the real thrust of the cover story is to dismantle identity constructs. There is no valid reason in Chu’s “moral” argument to deny a child or teenager radical hormonal or surgical treatment. We won’t be able to defend transgender children’s rights until we view them as full members of society who wish to change their sex, writes Chu. Chu adds: “It doesn’t matter where this desire comes from.”
The assertion is as categorical as it seems. There is no moral reason to deny any child any sex “reassignment” or “gender affirming” medical treatment. None. Ever. Period. Consider this argument from Chu’s essay: “The fact that trans kids’ access to care will in most cases be mediated by parents or legal guardians is an inescapable fact of the way our society treats children, rightly or not.” Clearly, Chu thinks “not.” Chu goes on to argue that, “For now, parents must learn to treat their kids as what they are: human beings capable of freedom.” We know what this means. So does Chu.
It would be tempting to dismiss this article and assume it is just a fringe argument from a transgender writer aimed at people living in a Manhattan artists’ enclave. But it’s much more than that. It is a major salvo in a great struggle over human sexuality, gender identity, and the future of our society. At a much deeper level, it’s about a battle for the hearts, minds, and bodies of our children. We had better be aware of what we are up against.
This article was first published on March 12, 2024, in WORLD Opinions.
