Skip to comments.Our Crazed Sexuality Standards
Posted on 01/14/2014 6:51:29 AM PST by Kaslin
The New York Times brings us the "next frontier in fertility treatment." It's about dissolving the prejudice against transgender people having children. "Andy Inkster, a transgender man, had always wanted biological children. So when he embarked on the transition from female to male at age 18 -- changing his name, taking testosterone and eventually undergoing surgery to remove his breasts -- he left his female reproductive organs intact. In his mid-20s, he decided it was time. He stopped taking testosterone and started trying to get pregnant."
Baystate Reproductive Medicine turned Inkster away, explaining that it didn't have enough experience with transgender people to provide the hormones and donor sperm required. "Mr. Inkster eventually found another clinic that helped him conceive via in vitro fertilization and donor sperm, and in October 2010, he gave birth to a daughter, Elise. A month later, he sued Baystate for sexual discrimination." The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination agrees with Inkster.
I never thought I'd see the words "he gave birth to a daughter" outside of science fiction, and at the risk of seeming insensitive, I think Baystate fertility clinic was right. But it's not surprising that the civil rights commission of Massachusetts has taken up this cause. It occupies the juncture of two appalling trends. The first is an obsession with sexuality as identity, and the second is a devaluing of the best interests of children in favor of the self-expression of adults.
There are limitless identities that students could be encouraged to cultivate as they mature. A handful that leap immediately to mind: American, humorist, musician, athlete, debater, nature lover. Instead, our universities fall all over themselves to encourage unusual sexual identities, from homosexuality and lesbianism to transgender, bisexual, transsexual and other. It's all done in the name of "inclusion" and nondiscrimination, but let's face it, there's an element of fashion in it. Nontraditional sexual behavior is "in." There are academic courses on offer at major universities concerning "queer theory," pornography, and "lesbian gardening." (Truly.) How can any serious academic treat pornography as a fit subject for college study? It's more than a devaluation of the life of the mind; it's an assault on human dignity.
We have elevated sexual appetites, especially unusual sexual tastes, to an exalted status, worthy of study, defining our natures and experiences, and outranking other traits in importance. In many states, there are moves to outlaw psychotherapy that purports to change a person's sexual orientation. Without excusing or approving abusive efforts to brainwash gay people straight -- and there are some hair-raising stories out there of people subjected to "aversion therapy" and so forth -- it is interesting that we are being asked to deny people the opportunity to change in only one direction. No one is suggesting that if a straight person wants to become gay and consults a therapist who wishes to help him make this transition, that he should be prevented from doing so.
Yet children as young as 4 are being permitted to style their hair, wear the clothing and use the bathrooms of the other sex when they express the urge. This kind of change is one that liberal states approve. The state of California requires that students from kindergarten through Grade 12 be permitted to choose which "gender" to be associated with (Connecticut and Massachusetts have similar rules). If a biological girl decides at the age of 12 that she wants to be addressed as a boy, play boys' sports and use the boys' bathroom, state law requires that she be able to do so.
There are physicians who prescribe hormone-suppressing drugs to prevent preteens from going through puberty to better prepare them for gender-reassignment surgery.
This is child abuse. Children pass through phases. Nothing permanent should to be done to any child that is not medically necessary. Suppose a child decided that he wanted to be an amputee or a one-eyed pirate? We've lost all common sense in the face of this mania for sexual mutability.
As for Mr. Inkster and people similarly situated, the first thing a fertility clinic should say is that a child is not an adult entitlement. The best interests of the child should be paramount. Each child needs and, when possible, should have a mother and a father -- and not in the same body.
1. This lady still wanted to be a lady.
2. This had a baby....a woman had a baby...big deal
1. This lady still wanted to be a lady.
2. This lady had a baby....a woman had a baby...big deal
Has anyone given a thought for the children to be created by these tragically perverted people?
This is insanity on the parts of both the perpetrators and the tolerating society.
Our current culture is perverted and wicked. I fear what’s in store for America and pray for a Christian awakening before it’s too late.
As in so many things, Winston Churchill said it best, albeit in a different context:
“But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science”.
This is what you want, this is what you get.
Most people want to do what they want to do sexually, and they don’t want to face any social, financial, health, or legal consequences. No, not a single, “Tut tut,” from some old crank on the Internet, let alone permanent infertility, poverty, or disease.
Most people don’t want to mutilate themselves into a semblance of the opposite sex and then manufacture and gestate a baby, but the majority has to accept this without a single, “Tut tut.” Otherwise, they would have to acknowledge that it is legitimate to judge that some sexual and reproductive “choices” are wrong, and that might include their own.
I guess perhaps they are not within their rights to make the call, but the fertility clinic should have refused to help this nut get pregnant. I pity the child brought up in such a situation.
No. The children don’t matter.
What is important is what adults want.
This is perfectly clear throughout our culture and goes back in time (not a new thing). Children are merely collateral damage.
But liberals use “for the children” to promote expanded government, and the American people gullibly comply.
We have a problem.
The Marxists and Progressive lawyers have morphed the American concept of Liberty - the actions we should respect for the sake of Liberty - from something the law should not make illegal - which respects limited government - to something THE LAW (merely a “constitutional argument) SAYS EVERYONE must help provide to someone else, whether providing that help is contrary to the provider’s conscience and beliefs, or ethics or relative means, or not.
While at this stage of the technology, and regardless of my moral reservations of the whole artificial insemination industry, I understand the position that says our Liberty should mean it should not be an illegal act.
Smoking, pot or tobacco; or consuming alcohol and many other things are allowed to be legal out of respect for the Liberty of those who choose those products, wisely or not. But no where should there be (and no where, is, I believe) a widely held view that EVERYONE with any means for supporting them MUST support them whether they want to or not.
Yet, in the Maxist/Progressive supported causes of abortion and LGBTG “rights”, that twisting of LEGAL Liberty from merely a defense of a choice, to a LEGAL MANDATE AGAINST THE LIBERTY OF EVERYONE ELSE, a mandate that tries to say not only is it legally possible to find someone who will support YOUR choices, it’s legally mandated that everyone should accept and support them, willing or not. That is not Liberty, it is tyranny.
A truely “diverse” society well founded in Liberty is one that draws it’s social makeup from the freely given legally allowed choices of those supporting your choices, not from a government mandate that forces everyone to join you.
The Marxist/Progressive argument is for a mono-culture, not a diverse culture, where there are only the government’s choices and everyone must participate directly in supporting them.
Many self-proclaimed feminists are wont to claim that straight men suffer from testosterone poisoning; yet, they seem incapable of recognizing an actual case of testosterone poisoning. This young woman had been poisoning herself with testosterone for years; then she detoxed and became pregnant. At no point was she ever a “man”.
While this is true, some matters (IMO) should be viewed from the perspective of what is good for children. Just because liberals have appropriated that as a meme doesn’t make it less true for important topics such as family, abortion, etc.
Why should any fertility clinic be required to provide IVF to demonstrably mentally ill people? This woman’s exaggerated distaste of her own femininity cannot possibly be conducive to a healthy environment for a child, especially not a girl child.
This cultural celebration of sexually focused mental illness is incomprehensible to me.
Thirty years ago he/she/it would have been committed to a mental institution.
she did keep *her* reproductive parts, therefore was not a transgender, for lack of a better word, since we still dont have the technology to actually change the gender of a human being...
sure, we can lop off the crank or sew up the baby chute, but thats a looooooong way from manufacturing a working model that than procreate...
These people are sick. Maybe they shouldn’t be called people?
Proscribing or providing gender modifying treatment to a prepubescent child should be a crime on par with child molestation.