Grinding One's Axe on the Child

That's what I strongly believe is going on with the child mentioned here. Specifically, a second grader has announced that he's transgendered, with his family's support, and the school is obliged to support him in the decision.

So, where does an eight year old get a word like "transgender"? Where does a child that age get the concept that he isn't really the person he sees in the mirror? Even if it were true, it isn't an issue a second grader would be able to put into words.

That is, unless his parents jumped on the idea.

I could see a kid that age putting on Mommy's high heels and traipsing around the house saying "I'm a woman!" I've seen younger kids than that do it, because every child toys with the idea of pretending to be various role models. Every child I've ever known, by age two, tries on both Mommy's and Daddy's shoes... and big brother's, and aunt's... and any big person in his life. That is how they explore the idea that they will be big one day themselves. So, when a second grader comes up with the idea that it isn't fair that Sister has prettier clothes than he has, or wants to be just like Mommy when he grows up, it's not terribly surprising.

What is surprising is a parent who is so eager to display his axe to grind that when Kiddo says "I wish I could wear dresses like Mommy does," says "Woohoo, we have a transgender kid! Isn't it great? Now we can make our point to the world!!"

So now a kid who had an appreciation for gingham is suddenly assigned a lifetime of wearing girl's clothing and thinking daily about his own sexuality from this day forward. By age eleven, he will be deciding with whom to have sex. By age eighteen, he will likely commit suicide. The article doesn't mention that: that the majority of transgender people commit suicide.

But it's worth it, because it allows Mommy's and Daddy's soap box to be big and visible. Who gives a damn what it does to the child?

Anything for politics. Anything for politics. Anything for politics. Keep repeating that until you convince yourself that the child is less important than the issue.

Who's Really Benefitting?

Dawn Eden, in her usual delight of words writes a brief exposition of the lyrics of a song, in "From Bed to Verse." I highly recommend the read.

In it, she describes a feminist discussion about the meaning of the song, being the way men use women. Dawn describes the ache of sleeping with a person when words of love have not been expressed. All I could think was how very sad... not that men are using women in such a way, but that today women are asking to be so used. It's a "right" to be used and tossed. A right guaranteed by everyone from the abortion industry to many state governments.

I really cannot understand how people who purport to stand up for the "rights" of women can so highly recommend their emotional bruising and physical using as an expression of emancipation. If that's freedom, I'll pass.

This time, conservatives want the state to get out of their bedrooms.

Usually it is the Democrats who cry out over government intrusion into the bedroom. But some democrats, like Washington state representative Maralyn Chase, favor privacy only for liberal causes. The "Two or Fewer" bill she proposed upholds the Democratic and liberal perspective, so that invasion of privacy doesn't count as a genuine invasion.

The truth is that Ms. Chase's perspective doesn't hold up as consistent when more liberal issues are at stake. A defender of gay rights, she gets an A rating from the Snohomish County Elections Committee for Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgendered. Another pro-homosexual group lists her as one of the few Washington state representatives with an "A+" rating, rating her higher than 50% of the openly homosexual or bisexual representatives. Her views on privacy only extend to the privacy of groups represented by liberal causes and groups, apparently. It would be nice if she could represent her constituency more evenhandedly, by holding either a solid moral perspective or an unflinching respect for privacy for all. Some people would still disagree with her views, but at least they could not accuse her of hypocrisy.

Ms. Chase herself claims her bill is not an intrusion at all, because it does not advocate the actual restriction of family size, but only "education." She "She counts that choice among the most private and intimate decisions a couple can make." She speaks as though she is defending the rights of both sides; but it is only the promotion of negative population growth that her bill promotes. That isn't education, but propaganda.

And it is not just a matter of sexual privacy, but of religious freedom.

When she propagandizes against large families, not only is she committing a serious act of bigotry against a number of her own constituents, she is also making a religious statement that those religions that encourage larger families are acting harmfully to society. She is, further, encouraging others to join her in an idealogical crusade against those who have either personal or religious reasons for having larger families.

Then there's the more sinister question: how often does an idealogical crusade succeed without it eventually moving from words to action? It took China about 20 years to move from words to action, instituting a one-birth policy. And "progress" in multiple countries (particularly China and India) has shown that birth restriction, whether legally enforced or idealogically encouraged, tends to lead toward the degradation and even killing of women and girls. This is not a direction I, as a resident of Washington state, want to go.

Fortunately, neither do any other members of the Washington state House of Representatives. Unable to get a co-sponsor, the bill died for the year. I have a feeling that so will Ms. Chase's political career.