A Transgender Seven-Year-Old?
Progressivism is increasingly an ideology characterized by rank hypocrisy and internal contradictions.
Consider the following: Progressives claim to believe in “tolerance” above all else. But it is they who have proved to be the worst offenders when it comes to demonizing and vilifying those who deviate one iota from the shape-shifting progressive orthodoxy. The same progressives who incessantly talk about the value of “dialogue” are those who have spawned so-called cancel culture, in which mobs of their confreres conscientiously strive to drum out of polite society anyone who dares say – or believe – anything that is less than 100% “woke.”
Progressives champion the value of “modern science,” and decry religious fundamentalists. But then they turn around and demand immediate and unquestioning acquiescence to the pseudo-mysticism of transgenderism, which claims a person can change their gender merely by thinking it is so. If you dare to complain that none of this is scientifically verifiable, and indeed flagrantly contradicted by everything we know about biological sex, you will be summarily dismissed as a transphobe and a bigot.
Progressives lionize personal “freedom” and the “right to choose.” But they pour their energies into restricting the freedom of conservatives and religious believers to follow their beliefs. They will, for instance, demand that people use, on pain of punishment, newly minted “gender neutral” pronouns. They will ban grown adults from seeking therapy to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction or to leave the homosexual lifestyle. They will forbid Christian parents from removing their children from lessons that violate their beliefs. And they will force Christian bakers and photographers to celebrate same-sex ‘weddings,’ or lose their businesses. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Progressives say they are feminists who believe in gender equality. But they will happily shame young girls who are distraught that biological men are in their changing rooms or bathrooms, telling them to shut up and deal with it. Nor do they have any problem crushing the dreams of female athletes by allowing biological men to compete against them. Progressives deride gender stereotypes, but the moment a biological boy shows any interest in a sparkly dress or a “girly toy,” they claim that this proves that he must actually be a girl.
Progressives claim to oppose the exploitation of the vulnerable, but then applaud when little boys are dressed up like prostitutes, and paraded in front of adults in gay bars; or when children are subjected to experimental, empirically untested and life-altering gender transitions, involving chemical – and sometimes physical – castration, long before they are capable of consenting.
Progressivism Before Children: James Younger
Many of these contradictions and hypocrisies came to a head last month in the disturbing case of James Younger.
James is a 7-year-old Texas boy who has been tragically thrust into the tumult of his parents’ acrimonious divorce. But even worse, he has been thrust into the tumult of gender confusion. His “progressive” mother, Anne Georgulas, a pediatrician, has been telling James that he is a girl since the age of three. She began to do so after – and it boggles the mind – he made the mistake of showing a preference for the “girl’s” toy at McDonalds.
Jeffrey Younger opposes the gender transition for his son, as he clearly stated before a gag order was imposed. He quite reasonably points out that the boy is too young to decide something so complex and life-altering. Instead, he advocates a “wait and see” approach. Jeffrey also claims that when James is with him, he behaves and dresses like a normal boy, and even expresses a preference for doing so.
However, his ex-wife has attempted to gain sole custody over the boy, and to force Jeffrey to call his son “Luna” and “she.” Meanwhile, Georgulas has constructed every aspect of James’ life in such a way as to “affirm” James in the female identity that she has created for him. She shopped around to find a pediatrician who will treat James as a girl. She has also ensured that all of James’ teachers and friends at school refer to him as “she” and “Luna.” And while James is not yet on puberty-blocking hormones, she has expressed a willingness to consider chemical castration when he reaches puberty.
Presumably, if James were to continue along this trajectory, he would eventually be counseled towards physical castration – the permanent, irreversible mutilation of his body. All because he chose a “girly” McDonald’s toy when he was three.
The Progressive Case for Child Abuse
This case should be cut and dried. What is happening to James is child abuse, full stop. On this, I fully agree with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who responded to this case, saying: “They are abusing a child who cannot … decide for himself. To abuse him for their own — the ideologies of adults, of the depraved and even of this perverse gender ideology — it is, for me, a shame and a horrible abuse of a child.”
Jeffrey Younger has freely admitted that he has not been a perfect husband and father. But, as he put it bluntly in a recent interview, at least “I’m not trying to cut the penis off my son. And I’m not trying to cross-dress my son, and mislead him into thinking he’s a girl. And I’m not trying to push him into medical transition.”
This is just common sense. However, as we well know by now, common sense is no longer common. Last month, 11 out of 12 members of a jury voted against Jeffrey’s petition to gain sole custodianship of his son. In so doing, they paved the way for Georgulas to push forward with confirming her son in the fabricated identity of “Luna.” And Jeffrey would have been powerless to stop her.
It was only after national outrage, thanks to the hard work of independent, conservative media outlets who drew attention to the case, that the judge intervened, and overruled the jury decision. Judge Kim Cooks ultimately decided that the parents should have joint custody, and that both parents need to sign off on any medical procedures. This means that James is safe – for now – from the most drastic and irreversible interventions, which would rob him of the opportunity ever to live a normal life as the boy that he is.
But perhaps the most instructive thing about this case was the behavior of the mainstream media, and progressive activists. Initially, the mainstream media simply ignored the case. No media, except for two smaller conservative outlets, covered the trial at all. It was only after the jury decided against Jeffrey Younger, and national outrage had built to a crescendo, that they paid the slightest attention. But when publications like Forbes and the Washington Post did get around to reporting on the case, their articles studiously referred to James as “she” and “Luna,” and spoke of the boy as Jeffrey Younger’s “daughter.” So much for impartiality.
Meanwhile, progressive activists responded to conservatives’ trending hashtag on Twitter – #ProtectJamesYounger – with their own hashtag, #ProtectLunaYounger. The extremist group the Human Rights Campaign, published a letter accusing Ted Cruz – who had spoken out in support of Jeffrey and his son – of “betray[ing] your office, your responsibilities and all sense of decency.”
This is where progressivism has brought us – the point where progressives will defend subjecting an innocent little boy to dangerous and unproven medical procedures, making him a pawn in their social revolution. In this, their hypocrisy has been exposed. Progressivism can no longer claim to be about tolerance, freedom, science, or the protection of the innocent. Increasingly it is about dominance, exploitation, intolerance, and the blind adherence to an ideology that long ago lost touch with reality.
As Christians, we should not be afraid to push back against the encroachment of this ideology. As Bishop Schneider put it: “We have to join common forces of all people who have still common sense, even non-Christians, to make a coalition, [an] alliance, to defend common sense, to defend natural law, to defend the children in their…natural being as boys and girls, and marriage and family. This is our battle, for the sake, for the good of humanity.”