There have been horrific stories in the news of teenagers who were prescribed puberty blockers after a single consultation, or hustled into removing healthy breasts in lieu of treating underlying mental health conditions. Some of these brave young people are courageously telling their stories, opening themselves up to attack from the trans community and potentially shrinking their own future dating pool.
All of this seems to end up in the same place. Follow me down this rabbit trail...
The case of the teen born-female who wanted to become male, is a good example. The puberty blockers and cross sex hormones taken early on prevented the natural development of a vagina, which is what is typically needed to make a fake penis. The gender-affirming medical solution for this patient was to try to create the penis out of a section of colon. Ultimately it failed and the patient died from necrosis.
If the surgery had been a "success," the patient would still be sterile, never experience orgasm, and or for that matter any normal sexual activity. And what obstacles would the colon-penis have meant in dating conversations. To tell or not to tell?
That seems to be the place the stories always end up. Castrated males with imitation vaginas, will never produce children. Girls and boys who take puberty blockers for extended periods of time will be sterile. The potential dating pool for short, balding males with micro-penises and roid-rage, I'm guessing is quite small. As is the dating pool for husky women whose imitation vagina must be dilated 7 hours a day, while navigating a a 30 percent risk of infection related to the procedure.
The push to declare anyone who has an aversion to dating transpeople as transphobic or bigoted seems like a poor strategy for gaining social acceptance. Although it has worked in the past: remember how advocates bullied everyone into redefining marriage to have nothing to do keeping families intact.
Maybe people will fall prey to that strategy again, but I wonder.
It's hard to imagine the fathers of sports-active daughters allowing biological males to rough up their girls. Its hard to imagine any man who understands the predatory nature of male sexuality, putting up with males dressed as females following little kids into the restroom. Whatever foolishness the law may allow, I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows a LOT of dads who would step up to do jail time to keep their kids away from pedophiles.
Its also hard to make the case that its "good" or "responsible" healthcare to make permanent changes to the bodies of young people whose brains are incomplete. Brain science says they are literally incapable of grasping long-term consequences, and no amount of drama will make it so. How "responsible" is a parent or concerned adult who wants to make children sterile, less desirable as partners and employees, and pharmacologically dependent for life?
Its getting harder and harder to ignore the data indicating mental conditions, such as anxiety, depression and self-harm, which precede transition seem to persist after transition. If we really care about health (and I'm not saying we do -- after all, half the country calls fetal dismemberment, "healthcare"), wouldn't the most caring approach be to rule out all other options before doing something irreversible? Don't we want young people to have a shot at creating a healthy family, the one act which both stabilizes society and is the source of most wealth and long term happiness?
Maybe we don't.
The push to engineer people who can't reproduce, who are enslaved to Big Pharma, whose transition surgeries will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime and rarely come close to the expected results, only seems to excel at producing bullies with extreme cognitive dissonance, who want to tear down all of society.
I'm just asking: how is that a winning strategy?