The right in the US - especially conservative Christians - are whipped up into a frenzy now over the thinking literally any acceptance or encouragement of trans kids is "grooming". And I think they've been able to accomplish this by taking the word "children" and completely warping it in order to create a narrative that is so incredibly divorced from reality.

So what's the reality regarding trans youth? I'm not an expert so comrades please correct me if I'm wrong but in the US it generally follows this shape:

  • Social transitioning for pre-pubescent youth (clothes, pronouns, etc). No medical interventions are done at this stage.

  • Puberty blockers at the onset of puberty (maybe right before? I'm not clear on this one).

  • Hormones can be taken after puberty blockers if the person eventually chooses. Puberty is different for everyone but I guess this would be around age 14 or 15? Specific ages I'm not sure about but we're not talking little kids here.

  • Then actual surgical interventions are pretty limited for under 18s. I think I've only really heard about top surgeries for trans men who are like 16 or 17. Of course cis teen women have long been able to get breast reduction surgeries and no one complains about that. But AFAIK that's about the extent of surgeries for under 18 folks - extremely limited, for good or ill.

So what has the right done? They've completely twisted this narrative into that doctors are performing bottom surgeries on like 5 year olds across the country. I once saw a meme that compared Boston Children's Hospital to the Island of Dr. Moreau. They are utterly convinced that every year there are thousands of little grade school age kids getting gender affirming surgeries. What they're actually doing is taking that very small number of surgeries done on older teens and putting it under the blanket of "children". The people who are leading this charge and might know better (like Matt Walsh) are purposefully pulling this little trick to try and get people enraged.

Not that hypocrisy ever mattered to the right, but I bet you these same people who talk about "children are being mutilated" will think it's super important to clarify "those aren't migrant children crossing the border! They're like 16, they're basically adults! The media calls them 'children' to gain sympathy!" Or encourage their 14 year olds to join ROTC and basically be the little Hitler Youth in order to pave the way to join the imperialist crusading US military at 18. Whatever.

And even when it's not about surgeries, the evangelicals especially talk about children being "tricked" into being trans. This is because theologically they have to believe that being trans isn't real. That being trans is not something inherent but is instead a trick of the devil.

And where are the libs to push back on all this? Of course they're silent. The left can push back as best we can but we simply don't have the numbers to try and show a significant push back (so far at least). The libs do have the numbers. They could be pointing out this little trick the transphobes are trying to pull with the word "children". They could point out the completely unscientific assumptions made by people who by and large think the universe is less than 10,000 years old and evolution is a lie. But no, they'd rather sit on their hands and pretend nothing's happening. Or that voting is the solution.

Goddamn liberals. We're on our own on this.

  • stalin_but_trans [she/her]
    ·
    2 years ago

    If someone has some deeper reading on the fascist fixation on "children" (or rather the bundle of ideology that they use children as a proxy for, because obviously they don't give a shit about actual children) I'd love to see it. It's bewildering to see fascists (of all eras frankly) clamor over protecting the youth and "securing a future" for them, while being the biggest proponents of child abuse, both on the individual and systemic level. Like how can you rant about protecting children while taking school lunches away? While forcing them into homelessness because their parents can't make ends meet? While taking their healthcare away?

    It's clear that they don't actually care about real, living human children, but idk what exactly they use "protect the children" as a stand-in for. Lately I tend to read it as "secure a future for the cishet. white people" given the people most likely to use it.

    I wonder if there's a citations needed episode on this, it kind of reminds me of the way "taxpayer" is used by right wing media types.

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      It reminds me of this quote:

      The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

      --Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

      Same idea, really. They don't really have a voice, and when they do it's easy to write off.

    • yoink [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      not protecting the children as in keeping them safe, but protecting the children as in protecting the purity of childhood as a concept

      obviously all the actually alive children have been poisoned and corrupted by the heathen gayfolk around them /s

      • yoink [she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        if you view children as they do, as blank slates that society then marrs, then protecting the children becomes about protecting the blank slate from errant marks, and the children themselves become entirely representative of society as a whole. Working backwards, if we can protect the slate so that only what we want written down is kept, then clearly society itself will be fixed in reflection.

        at least that's my take on their reasoning

        • mazdak
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator

    • emizeko [they/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I don't know which episode, but there's a CTH where Matt talks specifically about this. let me try to dig it out of the caves of my head