The New Sexual Utopia Of Genital Mutilation

I suspect that many people are like me and have avoided understanding or thinking about the “T” in GLBT, but it really needs some attention. GLB, of course, are the three homosexual groups: “Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual.”

The T is for Transgender. If you search for MTV show footage on YouTube or in many other venues, you will find an entire culture, protected and encourage by our political media class, of boys taking chemicals to feel like girls and vice versa. Parents, rather than expected to encourage their children to love themselves as they are, are supposed to wait silently and support their children in eventual genital mutilation, which is all OK because it is done by doctors.

So today I see a story about a couple that is admirably pushing back. Adoptive parents are suing the state of South Carolina for giving a child in state custody “sexual reassignment surgery” so that he had female genitalia. The story actually uses the word that needs to be used! The mother told a reporter, “Children’s bodies should not be allowed to be mutilated.”

Wow, what a controversial idea.

But the story itself shows the deep, perverse, body-hating, problem. It reports that the child was born “with ‘ambiguous genitals,’ and both male and female internal sex organs.” Nothing is said about whether or not the child had the y chromosome that designates a male. The entire issue is presented as a “feeling” or “want” on the part of the child now, at the age of eight, to be a boy. The only thing the state did wrong, according to the story, was deciding too early. They should have waited and let the child decide to be a boy or girl, just like we are now being told is the right of every child, even if there is no “ambiguity” in their genitalia.

But a closer look at the story reveals more.

“The physicians performed surgery despite knowing it carried the risk of destroying the child’s ability to reproduce or have normal sexual function, the lawsuits allege.”

And again:

“The lawsuits allege the defendants violated M.C.’s 14th Amendment rights by carrying out the procedure, knowing it could cause irreversible damage, including sterilization.”

So wait. It seems that, despite allegedly having “female internal sex organs,” a functioning set of ovaries or a uterus was not included in the package. On the other hand, by removing the male parts, the ability to reproduce seems to have been terminated. So the male genitalia may have worked. This was a boy with some extra girl-looking parts and the state decided to hack away at his man parts and “assign” him to be a girl.

The story is frustrating in its lack of information because it is now some kind of taboo to actually use biological tests to determine gender identity. Your “self” and your body are too different things so that no one must be forced to “submit” to the “tyranny” of a body when “deciding” their gender identity. But the above quotations seem to indicate this was a boy with some deformities. Naturally, such a case cannot be made in the modern, enlightened courts of the United States.

No one mutilated a boy or girl. They just prematurely took choice away from a “person.”