I’ve had a few days to digest the proposed legislation in California known as the Transgender, Gender-Diverse, and Intersex Youth Empowerment Act.
I briefly blogged about this a few days ago. You’ll want to check out that video.
The bill, if passed, would make it an offense for parents to refuse to affirm a child’s transgender identity, potentially leading to the loss of custody. This represents a dangerous shift in the definition of parenthood, not to mention an unimagined encroachment of the State into private family matters.
Obviously, State agencies like Child Protective Services (CPS) are in place to protect children from physical harm in the home, but these developments in California are different.
If passed, the state of California would consider any parent who rejected their child’s gender identity an abuser. It would be one “abuse” factor for the courts to consider in custody disputes, like parental drug addiction, or abandonment.
The bill is just one manifestation of the anarchic culture of identity, a societal trend where personal identity is judged to be fluid and wholly self-determined, often detached from biological realities. This identity culture is leading to a redefinition of parenthood from a biological relationship to a functional one, where parents are judged by their acceptance of their child’s self-identified gender rather than their biological role in the child’s life.
The bill defines this acceptance as intrinsic to the “health, safety and welfare of the child.”
Physical harm need not be present, only an unwillingness to use a preferred pronoun. According to AB 957 a parental unwillingness to deny reality becomes part of any future custody battle. Should the need arise. Typically custody battles are between two parents. But the language of this bill, and the assumptions built into that language, could one day be used by the State to take custody of a child over the objections of unaffirming parents.
Here we have a redefinition of the very essence of parenthood. “Parent” is essentially something you do. Not who you are. And is defined ideologically by the State. With this redefinition parental authority is diminished.
We shouldn’t question the motives of everyone involved. But, it must be said, some of them are like these sexual revolutionaries who seek to ‘re-educate’ our children.
Is this the world we want to live in?
Contrast this California bill with recent developments in Europe, developments my readers know well, where countries like the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, France, Norway, and the U.K. are reconsidering their stance on gender-affirming treatments for children and adolescents, citing unproven science and unclear benefits. For instance, Spain, despite its recent approval of a transgender rights bill allowing anyone aged 16 or over to change their gender on their ID card, has sparked a debate within its feminist lobby, with critics warning it could erode women’s rights. These European nations, once leaders in gender-affirming treatments, are now cautioning that such interventions may do more harm than good, especially for young people.
It seems this American push for gender affirmation is driven not by genuine concern for children’s wellbeing, but by a combination of radical, highly implausible, academic theories (Gender Theory, Queer Theory) and, it must be said, by the profit motives of the pharmaceutical industry.
Not that I would ever advocate for this, but if the State was really interested in protecting children’s mental health they should limit their exposure to social media and prosecute parents who give them smartphones. Social media is a primary tool through which the trans movement influences young minds. High levels of anxiety and low self-esteem spiked with the arrival of smartphones. Combine that with online pornography and you can see why many anxious girls give up on girlhood.
Parents, buy your children a flip phone. You'll still be able to text them short messages and they won't have the internet in their pocket!
The “trans madness” may end, but not without significant human cost. Those responsible for this “child abuse”—the doctors, clinics, and pharmaceutical companies—will hopefully face legal repercussions. Unfortunately this will only occur after the lives of many children have been irrevocably damaged.
The battle before us is a world-view battle. Many who do not share my particular world-view are recognizing, like the European nations I mentioned above, there are alternative approaches to these complex issues. We need to prioritize children’s mental health over political or commercial interests. The real problem resides in the mind, not the body.
Readers of this blog will know the work of Abigail Shrier. As a Californian and concerned parent she has a strong opinion about this bill and where it might take us.
Gender ideologues in California let the mask slip, or perhaps just tossed it away: A new bill, AB 957, directs family court judges to award custody based in part on “a parent’s affirmation of a child’s gender identity,” which the bill defines as intrinsic to the “health, safety and welfare of the child.”
It’s worth your time…..
Gender Cultists Make a Move for California’s Children
Companion Posts
+++