The political Left in this country, an intrinsic part of which is the News Media, always tries to win the culture war with words and terminology that slant peoples' views of the subject. People who oppose the gay agenda are labeled "homophobes," as though such opposition is a neurosis. Supporting the killing of babies in the womb is being "pro-choice." How can anyone be against "choice"? And so on. The list grows daily.
So what about "gender-affirming care"? How could anyone oppose "care"? That sounds positively perverse. Affirming? Again, it's strikes a positive tone. So obviously, "gender-affirming care" is a good thing, right?
But what we are talking about is a delusion, and a harmful one at that. If your neighbor woke up one day and thought that he was the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, would it be a good thing to patronize that delusion? Would you call it "care"? Most rational observers would say rather emphatically that patronizing that delusion - affirming his belief in his own identity - would be harmful not only to him but to people with whom he comes into contact. The same would be true if he believed he were Jesus Christ.
A belief of a person that s/he is the opposite gender from what his/her sex characteristics and DNA indicate (there is no spectrum of genders) is a harmful delusion, both to the person and to those s/he would come into contact with. It stands in the way of normal interaction with other people, and could conceivably deceive others about the person's actual sex. Not good. No person born a male can ever conceive; no person born a female can ever father a child. Period. The proper "care" for such a person is to explore the reasons why they have a sexual delusion and to rectify it. And if it is rooted in homosexuality/lesbianism, at least understand that is what is occurring without taking steps to counter human biology.
Accordingly, the expression, "gender affirming care" is an intentional deception by its author. We are talking about chemically altering natural maturation, and physical mutilation of primary sex organs. It is no more "care" than amputation of a healthy limb at the request of a psychotic patient; indeed, it is exactly the same.
The more accurate term would be "gender mutilation and frustration." But like "pro-abortion" - another accurate expression - you will never see that printed in a "reputable" publication, will you?
So what about "gender-affirming care"? How could anyone oppose "care"? That sounds positively perverse. Affirming? Again, it's strikes a positive tone. So obviously, "gender-affirming care" is a good thing, right?
But what we are talking about is a delusion, and a harmful one at that. If your neighbor woke up one day and thought that he was the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, would it be a good thing to patronize that delusion? Would you call it "care"? Most rational observers would say rather emphatically that patronizing that delusion - affirming his belief in his own identity - would be harmful not only to him but to people with whom he comes into contact. The same would be true if he believed he were Jesus Christ.
A belief of a person that s/he is the opposite gender from what his/her sex characteristics and DNA indicate (there is no spectrum of genders) is a harmful delusion, both to the person and to those s/he would come into contact with. It stands in the way of normal interaction with other people, and could conceivably deceive others about the person's actual sex. Not good. No person born a male can ever conceive; no person born a female can ever father a child. Period. The proper "care" for such a person is to explore the reasons why they have a sexual delusion and to rectify it. And if it is rooted in homosexuality/lesbianism, at least understand that is what is occurring without taking steps to counter human biology.
Accordingly, the expression, "gender affirming care" is an intentional deception by its author. We are talking about chemically altering natural maturation, and physical mutilation of primary sex organs. It is no more "care" than amputation of a healthy limb at the request of a psychotic patient; indeed, it is exactly the same.
The more accurate term would be "gender mutilation and frustration." But like "pro-abortion" - another accurate expression - you will never see that printed in a "reputable" publication, will you?
