logo
‘Trans rights' has never been a civil rights issue

‘Trans rights' has never been a civil rights issue

Spectator5 hours ago

Indisputably a nutjob, Chase Strangio is the soul of nominative determinism. The lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union is a 'trans man' – meaning a woman, of course; one of the trans movement's lesser impositions is forcing consumers of pliant media to keep translating wishful thinking into real life, much as the unhip once had to keep remembering that 'super-bad' means 'super-good'.
Strangio is a rare example of sexual disguise that is reasonably persuasive. The 42-year-old woman passes for a certain kind of man: weedy, slight and very short, with narrow shoulders, Marx Brothers eyebrows, just-credible facial hair, a tight fade over the ears bursting into a cocky skywards coiffure, and a chronically smarmy, self-satisfied expression. Strangio comes across as nerdy, weak and perplexingly vain. Plenty of bona fide males out there fit that general description while to all appearances failing to embody the once-prized attributes of traditional masculinity. At a glance, Strangio belongs to that benighted class of weirdos, wimps and wusses – the ultimate swipe-left. So much trouble and expense lavished on passing as a male sissy, when the lawyer might have made a respectable broad.
Is it perversity or hypocrisy? Strangio resents that alphabet land is dominated by the 'gay white men' whose appearance she is aping, decries the Supreme Court – before which she has just appeared – as a 'vile institution', believes as a lawyer that law is 'not a dignified system' and, typically, is highly invested in the alchemy of having changed sex yet does not believe in the existence of sex. 'A penis is not a male body part,' she claims. 'It's just an unusual body part for a woman.' Behold, Exhibit B for the Democrats' foisting of crackpots into positions of responsibility (granted, Donald Trump has form in that regard as well). Naturally, Exhibit A is Admiral 'Rachel' Levine, who may single-handedly have convinced Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine, because the US military was then apparently a joke.
Before the Supreme Court, Strangio headed the ACLU case against Tennessee, which had banned puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and sex-change surgeries for minors. Last week's 6-3 decision in Tennessee's favour rescues similar laws in 26 other states, which prevent doctors from neutering, mutilating and disrupting the maturation of underage patients suffering under the contagious misapprehension that they are not the sex they are. Just like the UK Supreme Court's recent decision that in law biological sex trumps an imaginary 'gender identity', this is a big win for sanity, physical reality and common sense.
The ACLU argued that because puberty blockers are occasionally prescribed to arrest precocious puberty, banning their use to make sexual fancy dress more convincing in future amounts to discrimination. The logic is skewed. The world is full of things that are good for one purpose and bad for another. Nothing against picking crops, but if I used a combine harvester to vacuum your sitting-room carpet, I'd expect you to sue. There's a night-and-day medical difference between a double mastectomy to cure breast cancer and the linguistically sanitised 'top surgery' that lops healthy breasts off bamboozled girls who will never breastfeed their children in the unlikely event they can still reproduce.
From the start, this whole trans business has been sold as a civil rights issue. But there is no movement in the West to deny transgender people equal access to housing or employment, much less to 'kill trans people', as Strangio asserts. There are no water fountains or lunch counters from which trans people are banished.
This is a medical issue – specifically, a mental health issue – slyly packaged as a campaign against bigotry. We don't let children get tattoos, because they're too young to understand the concept of permanence and they could come to regret covering their limbs in dinosaurs. It's therefore just sensible safeguarding for the state to keep kids from opting to take powerful drugs that prevent their bodies from maturing or from opting to get their genitals carved up just because some poor excuses for grown-ups planted this fanciful notion that one can play swapsies with biological sex.
This movement's 'trans rights' decode as the rights to: compel other people to mouth lies that contradict what they see with their own eyes; impose the widespread adoption of dehumanising language such as 'menstruators' and 'birthing people'; force the well-adjusted to finance costly elective plastic surgery through taxation and insurance premiums; walk around women's changing rooms with one's wang hanging out; turn women's sports into a farce; and most importantly, it seems, coax children and mixed-up teenagers to make drastic, irreversible medical decisions which may well result in infection, reduced bone density, lifelong reliance on pharmaceuticals, poor ability to form relationships, sexual dysfunction, impotence and infertility. Perhaps also in searing regret – especially once this sick societal obsession finally subsides and its victims no longer constitute sacralised members of the avant-garde but the awkward residue of an old mistake.
We're making progress, but this festishistic ideology is perniciously entrenched. Children are still butchered in American blue states. Let's relieve insurance companies and the NHS of the obligation to provide gender-denying care. It's past time we restored the conviction you're really the opposite sex to being a mental illness, and one not necessarily that is best treated by humouring the delusion. Sure, men can wear dresses and women tuxes, but doctors who mangle fully functional body parts violate the Hippocratic oath.
Aren't we all to some degree 'born in the wrong body'? I'm an abysmal 5ft 2in, yet I identify as 6ft 7in. I also identify as 23, so that I expect you all to ignore my skin's telltale crenulation and to ask eagerly whether I'm planning to attend graduate school. I identify as beautiful, so watch the mouth. I identify as immortal, too, so that on my deathbed I am sure to identify like fury as an alive person, and if anyone makes a move to call an undertaker I will see them in court. Apologies to the jury in advance, for the smell is apt to be unpleasant.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

D.C. delegate in Congress insists for second time she's running for re-election. Her office again says no decision yet
D.C. delegate in Congress insists for second time she's running for re-election. Her office again says no decision yet

NBC News

time2 hours ago

  • NBC News

D.C. delegate in Congress insists for second time she's running for re-election. Her office again says no decision yet

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's non-voting delegate in the House, told NBC News on Wednesday she was going to seek another term in Congress. A short while later, her office walked back the remarks. It was the second time that's happened this month. Speaking to NBC News on Wednesday, Norton said, 'Yeah, I'm gonna run for re-election.' A spokesperson for the Democratic delegate later told Axios that "no decision has been made" about seeking another term. Norton's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The conflicting responses from Norton and her staff echo a similar proclamation from earlier this month. On June 10, Norton said she planned to seek re-election, telling NBC News"I'm going to run." She also brushed off critics who raised questions about whether she should seek another term, saying, "I don't know why anybody would even ask me." Hours later, Norton's office said that she wanted to run again but was "in conversations with her family, friends, and closest advisors to decide what's best.' The questions over Norton's future come at a pivotal moment on two fronts. The Republican-led Congress is seeking to impose its will on the District by repealing local laws on policing and voting, and some D.C. leaders have questioned whether Norton is the right person to lead the pushback. Meanwhile, Democrats are in the midst of a reckoning over age and power after President Joe Biden's ill-fated attempt to run for re-election last year and three House Democrats dying in office this year. At 88, Norton is one of the oldest members of Congress. A similar miscommunication over re-election plans took place with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who at the time was then the longest serving senator, and her staff after a statement announcing her retirement. Feinstein served in the Senate until she died in 2023 at age 90. Norton has served in the House since 1991. Before she was elected to Congress, Norton was appointed by President Jimmy Carter to serve as the first woman to chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in 1977.

Mexico's top court orders release of Ayotzinapa missing students case file
Mexico's top court orders release of Ayotzinapa missing students case file

Reuters

time4 hours ago

  • Reuters

Mexico's top court orders release of Ayotzinapa missing students case file

MEXICO CITY, June 25 (Reuters) - Mexico's Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the attorney general's office to release a public version of its investigation file into the 2014 disappearance of 43 students from the Ayotzinapa Rural Teachers College, one of the country's worst human rights atrocities. The case has been marred by missteps and interference, with Mexico's former top prosecutor arrested in 2022 in relation to the case. The court ruling, prompted by a request from a private citizen, requires the file to be made available on the prosecutor's website with confidential data redacted. For more than a decade, the government has promised action in finding those responsible, with investigations publishing varying accounts of what happened to the students from the southern state of Guerrero. In 2022, investigators acknowledged that local, state and federal officials had played a role in covering up their disappearance. International probes have ruled they were likely kidnapped and killed by organized crime members in cahoots with police. The attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. The Supreme Court did not specify a deadline for compliance. Victims' families have long pressed for justice, though no one has been convicted in connection to the case.

‘Trans rights' has never been a civil rights issue
‘Trans rights' has never been a civil rights issue

Spectator

time5 hours ago

  • Spectator

‘Trans rights' has never been a civil rights issue

Indisputably a nutjob, Chase Strangio is the soul of nominative determinism. The lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union is a 'trans man' – meaning a woman, of course; one of the trans movement's lesser impositions is forcing consumers of pliant media to keep translating wishful thinking into real life, much as the unhip once had to keep remembering that 'super-bad' means 'super-good'. Strangio is a rare example of sexual disguise that is reasonably persuasive. The 42-year-old woman passes for a certain kind of man: weedy, slight and very short, with narrow shoulders, Marx Brothers eyebrows, just-credible facial hair, a tight fade over the ears bursting into a cocky skywards coiffure, and a chronically smarmy, self-satisfied expression. Strangio comes across as nerdy, weak and perplexingly vain. Plenty of bona fide males out there fit that general description while to all appearances failing to embody the once-prized attributes of traditional masculinity. At a glance, Strangio belongs to that benighted class of weirdos, wimps and wusses – the ultimate swipe-left. So much trouble and expense lavished on passing as a male sissy, when the lawyer might have made a respectable broad. Is it perversity or hypocrisy? Strangio resents that alphabet land is dominated by the 'gay white men' whose appearance she is aping, decries the Supreme Court – before which she has just appeared – as a 'vile institution', believes as a lawyer that law is 'not a dignified system' and, typically, is highly invested in the alchemy of having changed sex yet does not believe in the existence of sex. 'A penis is not a male body part,' she claims. 'It's just an unusual body part for a woman.' Behold, Exhibit B for the Democrats' foisting of crackpots into positions of responsibility (granted, Donald Trump has form in that regard as well). Naturally, Exhibit A is Admiral 'Rachel' Levine, who may single-handedly have convinced Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine, because the US military was then apparently a joke. Before the Supreme Court, Strangio headed the ACLU case against Tennessee, which had banned puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and sex-change surgeries for minors. Last week's 6-3 decision in Tennessee's favour rescues similar laws in 26 other states, which prevent doctors from neutering, mutilating and disrupting the maturation of underage patients suffering under the contagious misapprehension that they are not the sex they are. Just like the UK Supreme Court's recent decision that in law biological sex trumps an imaginary 'gender identity', this is a big win for sanity, physical reality and common sense. The ACLU argued that because puberty blockers are occasionally prescribed to arrest precocious puberty, banning their use to make sexual fancy dress more convincing in future amounts to discrimination. The logic is skewed. The world is full of things that are good for one purpose and bad for another. Nothing against picking crops, but if I used a combine harvester to vacuum your sitting-room carpet, I'd expect you to sue. There's a night-and-day medical difference between a double mastectomy to cure breast cancer and the linguistically sanitised 'top surgery' that lops healthy breasts off bamboozled girls who will never breastfeed their children in the unlikely event they can still reproduce. From the start, this whole trans business has been sold as a civil rights issue. But there is no movement in the West to deny transgender people equal access to housing or employment, much less to 'kill trans people', as Strangio asserts. There are no water fountains or lunch counters from which trans people are banished. This is a medical issue – specifically, a mental health issue – slyly packaged as a campaign against bigotry. We don't let children get tattoos, because they're too young to understand the concept of permanence and they could come to regret covering their limbs in dinosaurs. It's therefore just sensible safeguarding for the state to keep kids from opting to take powerful drugs that prevent their bodies from maturing or from opting to get their genitals carved up just because some poor excuses for grown-ups planted this fanciful notion that one can play swapsies with biological sex. This movement's 'trans rights' decode as the rights to: compel other people to mouth lies that contradict what they see with their own eyes; impose the widespread adoption of dehumanising language such as 'menstruators' and 'birthing people'; force the well-adjusted to finance costly elective plastic surgery through taxation and insurance premiums; walk around women's changing rooms with one's wang hanging out; turn women's sports into a farce; and most importantly, it seems, coax children and mixed-up teenagers to make drastic, irreversible medical decisions which may well result in infection, reduced bone density, lifelong reliance on pharmaceuticals, poor ability to form relationships, sexual dysfunction, impotence and infertility. Perhaps also in searing regret – especially once this sick societal obsession finally subsides and its victims no longer constitute sacralised members of the avant-garde but the awkward residue of an old mistake. We're making progress, but this festishistic ideology is perniciously entrenched. Children are still butchered in American blue states. Let's relieve insurance companies and the NHS of the obligation to provide gender-denying care. It's past time we restored the conviction you're really the opposite sex to being a mental illness, and one not necessarily that is best treated by humouring the delusion. Sure, men can wear dresses and women tuxes, but doctors who mangle fully functional body parts violate the Hippocratic oath. Aren't we all to some degree 'born in the wrong body'? I'm an abysmal 5ft 2in, yet I identify as 6ft 7in. I also identify as 23, so that I expect you all to ignore my skin's telltale crenulation and to ask eagerly whether I'm planning to attend graduate school. I identify as beautiful, so watch the mouth. I identify as immortal, too, so that on my deathbed I am sure to identify like fury as an alive person, and if anyone makes a move to call an undertaker I will see them in court. Apologies to the jury in advance, for the smell is apt to be unpleasant.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store