Collectivist politicians always seem eager to “add extra value” to their harpy-like, hypocritical songs of freedom and “equality” – those disastrous socialist singalongs that actually have nothing to do with equal freedom -- and, this new move by more than 160 Democrat members of Congress might be one of the most stomach-turning examples. It’s about posturing, it’s about Constitutionally reserved state prerogatives, and it’s seen the DC gang use more of your money to push it all.
For a classic leftist take on the "trans" action, let’s turn to the Advocate, where Christopher Wiggins reports:
“More than 160 members of Congress have filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of defending transgender rights in America. The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, set to be heard this fall, will determine the legality of Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender minors. This marks the first time the high court will address the constitutionality of such a ban, and its decision could have far-reaching implications for transgender rights across the United States.”
Of course, this kind of “reporting” requires its own analysis, since it is loaded with assumptive terms and Orwellian Newspeak.
First, there’s the problematic term “transgender rights” and how the politicians define it. If they use the term to distinguish people who identify themselves as something that they are not – say, for example, women who think they are men or vice-versa – and who want special treatment in private places, the simple answer is that no one has a right to tell a private property owner how he can peacefully use his property, how he can open it to others, or close his doors to whomever he might please.
So, just like any other adults who want medical services, if confused adults and medical professionals want to freely contract for surgery or hormones to change the appearance of the confused adult, others have no right to stand between them.
Of course, this is about much more than that. By mixing the idea of purported state-caused harm through discrimination with the terms “gender-affirming healthcare” and the most glaringly alarming of the lot, the dangerous, self-contradictory term “transgender minors,” Wiggins and the DC politicians push perilous, propagandistic ideas in a seeming attempt to normalize very brutal and immoral activity.
Thus, those who want to defend children and hold onto the real meaning of words will want to consider key points.
First, there is no such thing as a "Trans Minor,” just like there is no such thing as a minor who can give consent to engage in sexual relations with an adult.
The idea that a child can consent to “changing genders” through surgery on sex organs, through hormone injections, “psychotherapy” and other activities, leaves open the pernicious idea that a child can consent to other sexually-connected activities involving adults.
If, for example, a person thinks it's morally unacceptable for an adult to prey on a minor in that sexual way, then how can it be acceptable for an adult doctor to mutilate a child's sexual organs? And if the proponent of "gender-affirming healthcare for minors" (better known as physical and mental MUTILATION) might claim that the sexual predator is different from the doctor because the sexual predator is getting "pleasure" from the predatory act, while the doctor is "doing a service," then how does one look at the doctor's payment and the satisfaction he or she might from that?
Just like a child cannot identify as “trans-age” a child cannot identify as “trans-gender,” and any adult engaging with the child in a sexual way – be it through intercourse or surgery on the sex organs – is sexually damaging an underage victim.
In other words, this “gender-affirming procedures for minors” nonsense must be fought, to protect minors from sexual predation.
And there are constitutional implications, implications that indicate the how ignorant these members of Congress and other advocates of the “trans-minors care” issue are.
Wiggins writes:
“A coalition of Democratic lawmakers led by Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, and Oregon U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley filed an amicus brief Tuesday urging the Supreme Court to strike down SB1. The brief, joined by 11 senators and 153 representatives, argues that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The brief highlights SB1’s discriminatory nature, stating that it singles out transgender youth for unequal treatment and is not based on sound medical evidence or practice.”
As I have told students and as I have written, the cited clause is the “Equal PROTECTION” clause, not the “Equal TREATMENT” clause. It was added to the Constitution to insure that if states had statutes that punished people for inflicting harm on the lives or property of others – any statutes purportedly passed to “protect” people --- then the states must “protect” people equally.
Related: High School Forfeits Girls' Field Hockey Game Against Team With a Male Player
For example, if the statutes allow for punishment of a man who drugs a woman and takes advantage of her while she is not mentally able to give proper consent, the states must protect all people equally in that regard.
Which brings us back to the minors, to statutes prohibiting sexual predation on minors (who, as we know, cannot make adult decisions because their brains are not fully capable of that activity), and to the DC-leftist idea that mutilation of a minor's sexual organs should not be prohibited by statutes in Tennessee or anywhere else.
Wiggings notes:
“The case before the Supreme Court seeks a review of a decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Initially, a district court judge in Tennessee had granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the enforcement of Senate Bill 1 while legal challenges were ongoing. However, last September, a three-judge panel from the Sixth Circuit lifted this injunction, allowing Tennessee to enforce the ban. The plaintiffs in U.S. v. Skrmetti are now asking the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit’s decision to lift the injunction, arguing that it undermines constitutional protections and unlawfully discriminates against transgender people.”
These are not “protections” of “transgender people.”
With only a tiny exception for rare biological anomalies, there are males and females, not “transgender people,” and, even if one were to grant people a portion of their play-acting fantasy to pretend, there never can be “transgender minors” who can be “legally” recognized as such.
By definition, that is something minors cannot decide.
Is it too much to ask these predatory political types to wake up to that fact, and to the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is about “protection,” not treatment?
The original understanding of the Founder’s concept was that government only existed to stop or punish person-on-person aggression, not to “equally give things” to people.
Do these proponents of “transgender” mutilation in Tennessee also want TN taxpayers to subsidize the crime? That remains to be seen. But the complicated ways that both the state and federal governments subsidize hospitals for many other things grants observers permission to realize that hospital budgets ultimately are fungible, and to remember that any government activity that takes from some people to pay for anything that another person desires, be it “gender-affirming” or to cover a broken arm, is an immoral taking and redistribution of wealth.
This is a big issue in Tennessee, and the constitutionally ignorant federal figures who are getting involved might want to stay out. In fact, Governor Mike Lee recently signed into law a bill that allows the state to punish people who knowingly take minors across state lines to get this kind of permanently injurious treatment.
The Supreme Court ought to remember state’s prerogatives here, understand the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and allow the state to protect children, otherwise, one wonders what other sexually damaging exploitation of minors leftist adults will claim the state should not prohibit.
Follow MRCTV on X!
Unmarried, childless millennial women are now throwing themselves “success showers” in a pathetic attempt to seem happy in their unfilling lives.
— MRCTV (@mrctv) September 13, 2024
https://t.co/sYHmCqb0jR