This Is A Timely Read On The Transgender Issue

“When Harry Became Sally” is a thoughtful, sensitive read sounding the alarm on the shortcomings of transgender moment.

The transgender issue is omnipresent today. I’ll confess, I try not to write about this issue as it could alienate people or put my reputation in jeopardy. Expressing even mere disagreement on this issue could incur serious ramifications—something that shouldn’t be the case in the 21st Century. That’s the world we live in today, sadly. However, I wanted to read and review When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Momentby Ryan T. Anderson, Heritage Foundation’s William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow, to show what thoughtful commentary on the issue looks like.

From shows like Lost in Transition to I Am Jazz, popular culture has portrayed transgenderism as commonplace and acceptable. Former Olympian Bryce Jenner—who now goes by Caitlyn Jenner—is perhaps the most noteworthy example of a public figure transitioning from one gender to another. (Defector and traitor Bradley Manning—who now goes by Chelsea Manning—has also traversed a similar path like Jenner.) In fact, if you fail to address someone by their preferred pronoun, it can incur a serious penalty and subsequent ramifications. Voicing any opposition to this or expressing doubts about it, moreover, can cost you your career or reputation. In addition, children who aren’t fully developed are being coerced into this issue without parental consent. It concerns more people than one would think.

If you’re unfamiliar with Ryan’s work and haven’t heard him lecture, you may think his latest work When Harry Became Sally is bigoted, insensitive, and right-wing hatred manifested in a book. Assuming this would be a grave mistake. Critics of the transgender moment like Anderson aren’t imposing their ways when articulating concerns; they are displaying sincerity and compassion for those who struggle with whether they’ve transitioned, contemplated transition, or struggle with their gender identity. I would urge even the most avowed critics of writers like Anderson to set aside their biases and read his book. Like me, you’ll find it to be a thoughtful, nuanced, careful examination into the transgender moment.

Anderson Notes Not All Medical Professionals Share a Consensus That Sex Equals Gender Identity

Throughout the book, Anderson relies on medical, psychological, and biological expertise to demonstrate the debate over whether sex can be equated to gender identity. He notes that the transgender moment came to be realized due to medical practice. He notes that some medical professionals at John Hopkins University advanced the notion that gender is a social construct without any ties to biology.

We have all heard this notion advanced in the media, scientific journals, and other mediums that purport these very ideas. In the last 50 plus years, this has become mainstream and gone unchallenged. However, another individual at JHU, Dr. Paul McHugh—professor of psychiatry—disagreed with the colleague who pushed this notion by urging caution over affirming transgender-affirming treatment and “sex reassignment” surgeries. What McHugh concluded is that enhanced hormones and reconstructive surgery cannot transform a man into a woman or vice versa. Despite his convictions, McHugh wanted to understand if those who transitioned surgically felt any different than before. As Anderson notes in his book, McHugh concluded that “while they surgery may have provided some subjective satisfaction, it brought little real improvement in well-being,” (17).

Medical consensus on transgender-affirming procedures isn’t unanimous, and Anderson highlights this. Does that mean those who question these procedures are heartless? Quite the contrary. Medical professionals like McHugh seem to care about the well-being of their patients.

Anderson Has Thoughtful Consideration for Trans People, But Showcases Detransitioners Who Still Struggle Post-Transition

​Transgender activists are keen on portraying a one-sided, positive view of the process of transitioning, but the stories of those with botched procedures—including individuals who still hold gender fluid perspectives—never gets equal consideration. Medical professionals like McHugh have noted that most surgeries provide momentary comfort, but have done little to improve mental wellness of those struggling with their identity.

Anderson notes a transgender man—born a woman, who exhibited tomboy tendencies—came to regret the procedure since they didn’t get the proper counseling needed beforehand. A 2017 op-ed in UK’s Guardian from this individual said, “I had assumed the problem was in my body. Now I saw that it wasn’t being female that was stopping me from being myself; it was society’s perpetual oppression of women” Once I realised this, I gradually came to the conclusion that I had to detransition.”

Anderson cited other stories of other individuals who similarly struggled with their gender identity who felt rushed into transgender-affirming procedures or surgeries and came to regret it. With each example, the author was thoughtful and careful to showcase what happens when individuals are rushed into transitioning without consultation from medical professionals or getting treatment for overarching mental health attributed to gender dysphoria.

Readers of all political stripes and views on this issue cannot help but feel sympathy for individuals who struggle with their identity. Even more so, readers will feel greater empathy for those who tried surgical means but suffered more in the long run. They deserve our respect—a notion Anderson emphasizes without belittling their dignity. You can disagree with this but still feel concern for them. That’s an important takeaway from the book stressed on various different pages.

Anderson Notes That Individuals Will Exploit Transgenderism to Inflict Harm Onto Women

What I found to be surprising about this book is seeing unified opposition to extending female protections to transgender women —men who identify as women—from radical feminists and Christian conservative women.

That is not to say transgender individuals aren’t entitled to legal protections; they certainly are. But for women, Title IX — which was originally intended to provide equal educational opportunities for women—can be threatened when sex is redefined to mean gender identity, Anderson argues. And he’s not incorrect in this assertion.

Anderson notes, “An amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Women’s Liberation Front highlights the strange transformation of Title IX into a means to deny privacy, safety, education opportunity, and equality to women…””The idea that women and girls must surrender their rights and protections under Tiel IX—enacted specifically to secure women’s access to education—in order to extend Title IX to cover men claiming to be women is a jaw-dropping act of administrative jujitsu.”” (190-191).

He further explained that WLF joined together with Family Policy Alliance in a joint amicus brief because “both recognize that the reinterpretation of “sex” to mean “gender identity” in Title IX and other anti-discrimination policies marks “a truly fundamental shift in American law and society,”” (191). He notes that this joint amicus brief was filed by these two polar opposite groups because they want to maintain the legal category of “woman” without further diluting it.

Like many others, I assumed this issue to be divided along partisan lines. However, that shouldn’t be presumed given the aforementioned example from Anderson’s book.

When Harry Became Sally is not for the faint of heart, but shouldn’t be ruled out of your reading list. If you want a comprehensive, objective, and thoughtful look into the transgender moment, Ryan T. Anderson’s book is an invaluable read on the subject.

Canadian Mother Wants Baby’s Gender To Be ‘Unknown’

This is liberalism in the 21st century.

Kori Doty of British Columbia gave birth to a baby girl last November. Despite the baby (named Searyl Atli) having female genitalia, Doty is determined to make the government recognize her as gender unidentified. The mother is fighting for the birth certificate to read “gender unknown” until the baby is old enough to make the decision on her own.

She spoke to CBC News about the purpose in what she’s doing (note: Doty refers to herself and her baby with the “they” pronoun):

“I’m raising Searyl in such a way that until they have the sense of self and command of vocabulary to tell me who they are, I’m recognizing them as a baby and trying to give them all the love and support to be the most whole person that they can be outside of the restrictions that come with the boy box and the girl box.”

Doty – who identifies as a non-binary transgender person and maintains a spotty beard – argues it’s a human rights issue. She believes it’s injustice for the government to force people to choose between only two genders. Strongly believing in her baby’s right to gender self-determination, she is currently lobbying the Human Rights Tribunal in British Columbia for the omission of gender identification in all government documents.

Currently, local government officials have allowed Searly to carry a health card with “U” for sex identification (meaning “unidentified”), but British Columbia is refusing to issue the family a gender-less birth certificate.

The mother explained her upbringing as transgender and how it lead her to make this fight:

“When I was born, doctors looked at my genitals and made assumptions about who I would be, and those assignments followed me and followed my identification throughout my life,” Doty stated. “Those assumptions were incorrect, and I ended up having to do a lot of adjustments since then.”

Doty has applied for a judicial review to exclude gender identification on birth certificates.

 

 

 

Canadian Liberals Are Fighting For a Gender-Neutral National Anthem

Progressive lawmakers in Canada endured a setback in their effort to change the country’s national anthem with more gender-neutral language.

Last summer, Canada’s House of Commons overwhelmingly passed legislation altering a line in their national anthem O Canada to be more gender-neutral and inclusive to women. The proposal called for replacing “in all thy sons command” with “in all of us command” in a bid to be more politically correct and not offend any women who may feel left out from the lyrics.

Fortunately, Conservative senators in the upper house successfully led a year-long delay of the bill. The legislation won’t be considered again until the fall (at the earliest) and may be in jeopardy of passing altogether. Conservative senator David Wells led the effort to block the change. He spoke with CBC News about the action:

“I’m trying to protect the tradition rather than, you know, water it down with a politically correct version that is historically inaccurate,” the Newfoundland and Labrador senator said.

“I’ll be working my hardest to delay this bill until there’s a full debate,” he stated. “I get a lot of emails, and many comments to me personally, from people who don’t want to see the anthem change, who see it as a part of our tradition and who see this attempt to change it as political correctness run amok. It is a slippery slope. Calls for inclusion will always be there, but my belief is all Canadians are already included in the national anthem.”

Wells and about 20 other senators oppose the gender-neutral language. Thankfully, they understand that altering something as important as a country’s national anthem only for the sake of pandering to politically correct ideology is utterly ridiculous.

The bill does come with its supporters. They had sorely hoped to have the language changed in time for Canada Day on July 1. Unsurprisingly, it was backed by Trudeau’s administration (a man so “woke” he wore Muslim-themed socks to a gay Pride parade). The Toronto Star wrote an editorial chastising Conservative senators for their blockage of the bill.

Ramona Lumpkin, the president and vice-chancellor of Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax, was super sad the bill has been delayed:

“We’re so close and I really regret that there are a few senators who seem to have dug in and decided to delay. I hope it’s not a permanent block,” Lumpkin said in an interview with CBC News. “It’s not as if the words were brought down from Mount Sinai on stone tablets like the Ten Commandments, they are words created by humans and subject to change as our social and cultural conditions change, and thank goodness they do,” she said.

In their editorial, the Toronto Star accused senators of standing in the way of “progress.” They really believe that striking reference to men in favor of a gender-neutral sentence would be a progressive step for their country and a step forward for girls.

This is breathtakingly naive.

What if Canadian lawmakers did change O Cananda to be more gender inclusive? What would this act actually do for women and girls? Will their salaries and quality of life rise immediately following its passage? Are Canadian women losing sleep at night because a lyric in their national anthem refers to men only? This proposal does absolutely nothing for women. It’s hollow virtue signaling with zero value. It’s flabbergasting to know this is a legislative priority for some in Canada’s capital.

Senator Wells said it best when he compared the bill to WWI pictures hung around the upper chamber:

“Would we now airbrush females into those pictures to accurately reflect what it might be today with those pieces of Canadians’ history? My answer is no, that would be an abomination, and I think that’s what it is with the anthem as well.”

Hasbro Throws Out Gender Categories For Toys

I have three nieces, aged 12, 9, and 8, and over the years they’ve played with plenty of toys, although they’re starting to get to the age where they play with them less. Naturally, they’ve most often gone for “girl toys” – baby dolls, Barbies, that sort of thing. Occasionally they’ve played with some of mine and my brother’s old toys that still live at my parent’s house, but time and time again, it’s the girl toys they’ve stuck with.

Now Hasbro has gone and done something they think is revolutionary: CEO Brian Goldner has announced that they’ve gotten rid of all gender distinctions for their toys.

“We look at our brands more inclusively than ever. In fact, we eliminated the old delineation of gender,” Goldner tells The Hollywood Reporter in a new interview.

“And if you think about a brand, be it My Little Pony, where 30 percent of our global TV audience is boys, or Star Wars, where we are launching [all-female animated series] Forces of Destiny with Lucas and Disney, you’re seeing people who want to be engaged in these stories.”

Now here’s what I know: they think they’re so cutting-edge, jumping onto the front seat of the gender-is-just-a-social-construct bandwagon. It’s easy to envision the Hasbro board patting themselves on the back for being so forward-thinking.

The first inclination of any right-thinking person is most likely outrage. After all, here’s yet another major corporation bowing at the altar of political correctness. But hear me out as to why the decision isn’t as revolutionary or crazy as either side of the debate is inclined to think.

Here’s what I’ve seen in my nieces as well as in other family members and friends’ kids over the years: boys are going to be drawn to masculine toys, and girls will gravitate toward feminine toys. Other than those kids whose parents shove the gender-neutral agenda down their kids’ throats, it’s human nature.

And yes, there are some toys that cater to both boys and girls. But the vast majority of toys don’t need labels to tell you which gender will want to play with them. Labels on toys telling consumers whether they’re for girls or boys simply aren’t necessary.

Guess what, Hasbro? You’re not as hip and edgy as you think by eliminating the unnecessary.

YMCA Lets Members Choose Gender and Locker Rooms

OK. This is just hilarious. Or at least it would be if it were not true.

The YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap counties in Washington state had implemented a policy earlier this year not to allow people who are confused about their gender to choose their own locker rooms.

But now they have reversed that decision. You are now free to move about in whichever locker room you choose.

“In October we released a statement asking our transgendered members at our family facilities to use private changing rooms,” explained Michelle LaRue, spokesperson for the Pierce and Kitsap county YMCAs.

LaRue said immediately those members felt targeted, alienated.

“So then this week we said we are not going to discriminate against anybody and that includes gender identity, that includes locker rooms….”

(Don’t even get me started on targeting after that bogus call on Joey Bosa in the New Year’s Day win by Ohio State over Notre Dame. No wonder we can’t defeat ISIS. We cannot even play football without fear of offending someone. But I digress.)

Why the sudden reversal after parent complaints prompted the policy in the first place? Here’s why: 

“The state Human Rights Commission wrote a new policy specifically for locker room use last month, and the Y said this makes it compliant.”

This is the same state of Washington whose attorney general Bob Ferguson attacked a 70-year-old docile florist, Barronelle Stutzman, for declining the opportunity to endorse a same sex ceremony. Now she is well on her way to having everything she owns taken from her in this unprecedented, vindictive action.

Just to the south in Oregon, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweetcakes by Melissa bakery, have been made to pay $135,000 after being driven out of business for the same reason–when same-sex marriages were illegal in Oregon!–while the state bureaucrats say they need to be “rehabilitated.”

Message received. The compassionate bullies will force you to care.

You will be made to choose sides. You will be made to bake cakes and arrange flowers or made to suffer. Your choice.

And you will be made to open your locker rooms to whoever wants to use them.

“Resistance Is Futile”

Don’t miss this: These YMCA counties policed themselves. Simply the implication of what could be done to them was enough to do the trick.

Once the compassionate bullies apply enough pressure to enough people, everyone else will get in line with their agenda.

But not to worry,  the YMCA says, they have a system in place to make sure no one uses just any locker room:

“The Y said it has safeguards in place to prevent that. Staff members are allowed to ask questions — if they see someone walking into the locker room, they can ask that person to verbally state their gender, then employees can check it in the computer system to make sure it matches.”

I. Kid. You. Not. 

First of all, no one in their right mind is going to ask and risk being sued for their troubles.

Second, what’s in the computer is only what the person already told them. So as long as the person’s own answers match…we’re good?

For the first time in the history of America, we are defining a class of people who are protected from any appearance of discrimination based solely on what they say they feel.

And here is where your dues are going: “The Y told KIRO 7 News that its board just approved a million dollars in upgrades to make the locker rooms more private for everyone.”

It remains to be seen how the national YMCA will respond. But they must respond.

If they permit this policy in one county, it will soon be leveraged to force others to comply. Just ask the Boy Scouts how this process works. Every local Y board had better get ready, because it is coming.

And if one “Christian” organization has done it, why shouldn’t all of them be made to do it?

Are you listening pastors?

The local YMCA is not the endgame. 

Perhaps it’s time for the Y to change its name from the Young Men’s Christian Association to the Young [insert your current gender preference here]’s Vaguely Religious Organization.

Or maybe it’s time to shut the doors and send everyone to Planet Fitness.

We know how tolerant they are.