Transgender Children and Young People: Born in Your Own Body
Editors Heather Brunskell-Evans and Michele Moore have published a new book Transgender Children and Younger People: Born in your Own Body. Though grounded in secular post-modern perspectives, it offers a withering critique of the transgender ideology.
The Rev. Dr. Michael F. Bird has written a smashing review of the book:
[…] this book does not deny gender dysphoria, nor that transitioning and even gender reassignment surgery is often an effective treatment for extreme cases of dysphoria. It is rather, a critical and scientific critique of the transgendering of children as part of a discursive sociological project.
[…] Against this transgender activism and its enabling state actors the editors claim that “transgender children don’t exist” ( italics original) and their collaborative venture “examines the theories and politics of transgenderism, and the medical, psychological, legal and educational practices associated with it, for the ways they discursively construct ‘the transgender child’’.
[…] Their prima facie objection to transgendering children are: (i) Transgenderism treats biology as a social construct, while asserting that gender is a real thing located somewhere in the brain, soul, or body. To the contrary, they insist, it is gender not biology that is constructed. (ii) Transgenderism restricts children to traditional views of gender and the only escape mechanism is to reject pre-social notions of identity [i.e. biological notions of identity].
James’ father, Jeff Younger, has made these points many times to the court and the custody evaluator, Dr. Albritton. Advocates of transgender child abuse privilege abnormal gender self-expressions while aiming to suppress normal ones!
James presents as a girl with Anne Georgulas (on Facebook, on Twitter), but James presents as a boy with everyone else. James has a choice: normal gender or abnormal gender. The psychologists and psychiatrists have clearly privileged the abnormal gender expression. They do this full well knowing that it’s possible Anne Georgulas conditioned James to present as a girl in her presence. It’s preposterous, and profoundly dangerous for the children of Texas.
Bird goes on with his review, giving one of the book’s contributors a detailed treatment:
First, transgenderism is a socio-political movement with the characteristics of a religious cult […].
Second, the drive towards transgendering is driven by the normalization of crass stereo-types, boys like boy toys and girls like girl toys, so if a boy likes girl toys, then the boy must be a girl […].
Third, a further problem with transgender ideology is that it assumes a “child-knows-best” model of parenting where children are deemed competent to determine their identity and medical needs […].
Fourth, teaching children that their true and authentic self is disassociated from their body entails [unwarrranted] acceptance of a mind-body dualism […].
Eighth, transgender activists claim that biological sex is irrelevant to one’s true self and yet biological sex characteristics must be prevented from developing and be cosmetically altered […]. If biology and physical characteristics do not shape who I am, then what is the point in changing it with pharmaceutical treatment?
Finally, Bird summarizes his impressions and takeaways:
[…] transgenderism is riddled with incoherent claims:
- Gender is a purely a social construct, but transgender is an empirical reality to be protected;
- Sex is irrelevant to gender, but it is imperative to alter the sexual organs of bodies to match a person’s perceived gender; […]
- Science is the alleged basis of transgender ideology, but scientists who espouse a sexual binary based on biology or point to evolution as shaping facets of gender behaviour are engaging in either biological essentialism or hetero-normative stereo-types.
transgenderism can be dangerous in that:
- […] we must ask whether transgender children are found or whether they are (in many cases perhaps) created by social environmental factors […]
- […] Transitioning children prematurely is further dangerous considering: (i) There is no evidence for a biological cause of gender dysphoria, it is a psychological condition as far as we know; (ii) The negative long-term effects of puberty blockers; and (iii) the stories of de-transitioners, people who have experienced chemical or surgical transitioning, and have profoundly regretted it, are routinely dismissed or silenced by transgender activists.
Jeff Younger, James’ father, has made the same arguments to Dr. Benjamin Albritton in the Save James Dossier. One of the problems Mr. Younger faces is credentialism, the belief that credible arguments come only from people who’ve attained some number or type of educational credentials.
But the arguments I’ve given, like the arguments above, are logical arguments. Their truth is independent of any credential.
Will the court’s custody evaluator, Dr. Benjamin Albritton listen? Will he see the plainly obvious problems with child transgender theories? Does Dr. Benjamin Albritton have the will to oppose the most dangerous and most aggressive ideological movement in modern psychology?
Will he consider seriously whether Anne Georgulas (on Facebook, on Twitter) has intentionally socialized an innocent boy into a mental disorder about his gender identity?
We have to prove it in court. Please contribute to our efforts. Click the donate button below.