Medical Establishment Lowers Age Guidelines for Experimenting on Children’s Sexual Identity

Many wishing to normalize the treatment of gender dysphoria through public health believe that they so obviously occupy the moral high ground that anyone who suggests otherwise deserves nothing but scorn and public shaming for their obvious inhumanity.

For them, the fact that the numbers of such persons are small is clearly sufficient to categorize it as a defence of minority rights; and appearing compassionate is more important than the question of what might actually be compassionate.

And yet this is where the poverty of the principles of the left are laid most bare.  People who are so confused about their sexual identity that they cannot live without fundamental alteration and self-denial present a true conundrum to the masses of people who have been taught that the sole principle of ethics is approval.

Most alarmingly of all, public policy has marched on with a speed that can only be explained by the widespread abandonment of moral scruple among the elite, and its devotion to pragmatism rather than principle.

Transgender advocates declare that they are defending a small minority of individuals whose rights have been violated by having a sexual identity ‘assigned’ to them at birth.

Of course, the law doesn’t work through special pleading.  If the human rights of the transgendered have truly been violated by having their sexual identity listed on birth certificates by the medical establishment, so has everyone.  It won’t be long before we can expect that sex will no longer be listed on anyone’s birth certificate, because sex is the greatest impediment to gender identity.  They cannot both be true.

The force of the argument justifying this revolutionary change is that the sexual dimorphism natural to the human body is irrelevant not only to the human identity of the transgendered, but by extension to that of every person.  If it were otherwise, it could not be deemed a human right.

The whole argument is not only highly dubious, even in the midst of the change, few have realized that its social approval stands to alter the understanding of human nature across the entire social and legal landscape.  [The entire women’s rights movement stands to lose in a few years what it gained over a few centuries.]

There is also the matter of its consistency.  One can only wonder why ‘assigning’ the sexual identity of the majority to be a matter of irrelevance (by insisting on the validity of gender identity) does not count as a human rights abuse as well.  After all, if recognizing an act of self-identification is the path of justice and determining another’s human nature is a crime, then surely transgender advocates enact that same crime on a far grander scale.

But the absurdity of the argument culminates in the final means proposed to remedy the original injustice.

Being forced to acknowledge the pronoun by which a person self-identifies – as Dr Jordan Peterson has refused to do – is now apparently insufficient. Society will also have to pay to transform the bodies of those who identify themselves as transgendered.  And woe betide the doctor with ethical objections.  Because it is a matter of human rights, after all.

This is not altogether new.  Some in the medical establishment, such as those at the Endocrine Institute mentioned in the article, have been arguing that the transgendered deserve to have their bodies altered through hormones and surgery as a matter of their human rights.  But their opponents have opposed it on medical and ethical grounds.

What is new, but probably not altogether surprising, is that the medical professionals willing to disregard biological sex as an essential aspect of human nature are also willing to abandon any moral reservations they might have had about experimenting on minors.

Those who have watched the sex-ed curricula being foisted upon families throughout the Western hemisphere will hardly be surprised at this latest step.

Apparently the physical appearance of the transgendered is so essential to their human nature – if it is changed, but not before – that the change ought to be publicly funded.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that our impious age will not cease its rebellion against God and the creature that bears His image, mankind, until our human identity becomes entirely arbitrary.  That is to say, it will not stop until human nature is considered to be a matter not of human being but of human becoming, a matter entirely within our power, and ethical objections to this nihilism made on the basis of the goodness of how God has created us are anathematized.

What will be left of human nature when all semblance of human identity has been ignored to satisfy this lust?

Nothing upon which a legal objection could actually be made.

Thus the greatest human rights abuse of our time is being enacted by its supposed defenders.