Recently, I have heard Joe Manchin described as a non-binary politician. Why did he achieve this distinction? He does not conform to the standard description of what a Democrat is. He is a Democrat in a largely Republican voting state. It supposes that the word Democrat is not inclusive enough to accommodate the political philosophy that he embraces. If one is a Democrat, one must be this or that, and if Manchin does not fit under the somewhat restrictive umbrella, he must be something else.
This is not surprising. We have done the same thing with gender. We have limited the scope of what male or female means to the point of needing 35 gender designations. While to some this seems perfectly normal and awakened to the new reality, to me it seems an extraordinarily limited view of what it means to be either feminine or masculine.
Does it mean that all of the people who are in our culture who once thought they were gay were really victims of the “haphazard natal gender” to which one is born? Is that not insulting to all of the gay and lesbian children who may have interest in things traditionally considered interests of the opposite sex? Our Trans activists with great confidence are encouraging children who offer even the slightest alternative gender proclivities the chance, and in some cases the obligation, to assert their transgender status because they are victims of gender dysphoria.
Is this done after counseling and introspection? I have a question about this. How deeply does one believe a preadolescent child is able to contemplate this decision? In order to answer, it becomes necessary to dismiss much of the brain research that has been done about the developing mind and the formation of the prefrontal cortex. We know that this is the last aspect of the brain that develops and that it controls, among other things, decision making and impulsivity.
Many have laughed or sighed with friends and family when reflecting upon the outrageous behaviors of youth. How often have you heard the refrain, “we are lucky to still be alive.” We make laws in our culture based on the reality for the need of this development in the human brain. We have age of consent laws. We have age minimums for driving and for voting and for marriage and for the consumption of alcohol, tobacco other substances. We even have laws about this when it comes to the highly emotional decisions about abortion. What do we rely on? Is it not generally the age and mental competency of the person in question? Do we not temper the lack of impulse control with parental and societal guidance?
Is this standard applied to the young community who may be encouraged to pursue a transgender life? Are children encouraged to wait until they are capable of making an informed decision, or are they guided by a group who have great interest in proselytizing gender dysphoria at an earlier and earlier age?
Is the natural rebellious attitude that is part of preteen and teen years in our culture given the option of now voicing their rebellion by claiming gender dysphoria? Imagine the immediate satisfaction that comes from setting the adult world on its ear by making such a declaration.
Perhaps it is just a phase that kids now may go through. This is something that may or may not be real. In the in-tact parental structure of an atomic family, it can be accommodated, considered and ultimately accepted as being the case or not. In a family that is no longer intact, this is not the case.
There we are graced with the intervention of the family court system. Surely everything is being done that can be done to enlighten judges to this new sense of development, isn’t it? Or is the training being done, in large part, by Trans advocates who push an agenda of inclusivity that suggests that this declaration is cause for celebration and affirmation not introspection and counseling? Do they not tend to advocate or push the gender dysphoric agenda?
Perhaps it is a tempest in a teapot and maturation will continue to reveal its true proclivities. This would be true if maturation was allowed to continue at its normal path, but now we have the additional complication of tinkering with this development through the use of puberty blockers.
We are told that puberty blockers simply “postpone puberty” and can be a good psychological and physiological tool for gender dysphoric children. If this is true, there should be studies on the results for kids who took puberty blockers and then changed their minds. What happens to those children? Are there any studies? Are there any examples of kids who started these blockers and then stopped?
I have not found any. Some contend that is because puberty blockers are a one way ticket to a transgender approach to life. Some suggest it is a decision that is particularly difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. But we should be able to have this discussion with professionals who rely on such data in their decision making, shouldn’t we?
I have not found such studies but would be happy to read them when they exist.
So now let’s return to our political subject from West Virginia. Is democrat so narrowly defined as we need a new label for Mr. Manchin? Or have we become so narrowly defined that we cannot embrace the differences that naturally occur in political parties and in children?
There was an episode in The West Wing that illuminates this problem perfectly. A senator from a western mining state is pushed and insulted by the White House for not being democratic enough. The result was that he changed parties. This was not the outcome for which the White House longed. But in their hubris of knowing what felt right, it was what they wrought.
Are we really to do the same thing with our children?