Minnesotans are currently facing a fast and furious onslaught by the transgender lobby, which seems to be dictating policy to the Minnesota State High School League. The MSHSL decides policy for all extracurricular activities in public, private, religious, and home schools. It’s currently in the process of outlawing all sex distinctions in high-school sports. On December 4, it plans to install an athletic policy granting transgender students the choice to play on either boys’ or girls’ teams.
In this scheme, there would be no accounting for sex differences in high school sports on the field or in locker rooms, bathrooms, and hotel rooms. It forbids any camaraderie rooted in the biological reality of one’s sex, or any consideration of the reality of the opposite sex. In fact, to affirm that reality would basically be a crime. So the policy would ultimately abolish girls’ and boys’ sports alike.
Minnesota is a major trigger point for this policy’s application across the nation. If you haven’t noticed, the trans agenda is being pushed throughout the nation in a media shock-and-awe style intended to have folks get with the program, just like the proverbial teenager who says: “Well, everybody else is going along with it.” For the moment, on paper there will still be the illusion of male and female teams under this policy. . . . except that anybody claiming to be transgender can play on either the boys team or the girls team. In other words, there will not really be boys’ teams or girls’ teams. Follow me? No?
Okay, here’s the deal: there’s a minefield out there for the Gender Police. Let’s call the mines “concerned parents,” who have a problem allowing schools to subject kids to social experiments and invade their privacy. In fact, there’s already been a mishap for them because a group of those parents exposed the agenda in an ad in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, stating “A male wants to shower beside your 14-year-old daughter. Are you okay with that?”
So Minnesotans sent more than 10,000 protest emails to MSHSL and many showed up at the meeting. The MSHSL then tabled the decision until December 4. For the moment, they’re allowing the illusion that distinct “boys” and “girls” teams can continue under this policy.
What’s a Social Engineer to Do When Parents Get in the Way?
So, how do the Gender Police get around pesky parents who are in the annoying habit of protecting their kids? Its first line of offense, as always, is a Jonathan-Gruber styled reliance on a perceived “stupidity” of the electorate: to move super fast, avoid transparency, and get it passed under the radar. Of course, when they were prematurely exposed by the watchdog group Child Protection League Action, MSHSL regrouped.
Another strategy is to keep redrafting the policy to create a “moving target” that sets up reviewers for constant criticism if they quote the latest, say, fifth draft, without realizing there is a sixth, newly worded draft. Then there’s media manipulation, boycotts, trolls who badger editors for running ads of their opponents, and so on.
But how to really get around the minefield of concerned parents? Why, minesweepers, of course! And the transgender lobby does like to parade children who say they have gender identity dysphoria for this purpose. They’re just kids, after all, and everybody knows that. They have special stories they have learned to tell, stories that appeal to a sense of “fairness” and “equality” and most of all, the “anti-bullying” meme. The emotional script goes something like this: They only wish to play on the opposite-sex team. They refuse to play on the team of their biological sex. They will be denied their authenticity if “forced” to play on the team of the sex in their DNA. Except we’re not supposed to consider transgender students as ever, ever having been the opposite sex. Follow me? No? Well, let’s bring in something from the federal level to explain it all for us.
Enforced Gender Doublespeak
Here’s an excerpt from the National Federation of State High School Associations, to help “guide” organizations like the MSHSL:
It is important for policy-makers to understand that transgender girls (who were assigned a male gender at birth) are not boys. Their consistent and affirmed gender identity as girls is as deep-seated as the gender identity of non-transgender girls. The belief that transgender girls are not ‘real girls’ is sometimes expressed as a concern that allowing transgender girls to compete on girls teams displaces opportunities for ‘real’ girls to participate. [emphasis added]
Translation: No one is born a boy or a girl. That’s not “real.” What is “real” is what the child says or claims to believe (or, I daresay, is nudged to believe). The inconvenient facts of life like physical characteristics, DNA, and realities of sex are to be flatly ignored when identifying sex. Any attention to those characteristics is called “hate” and should be punished as such. Got it? This is just one example of the enforced surrealism and self-refuting nature of the whole transgender project. So much for a girls’ team.
We can’t afford to bury our heads in the sand hoping this doublespeak will go away. It will only get worse if we let it. Sure, giving in might seem easy at first. “Gee,” you might say to yourself: “It’s no big deal. They’re a small minority, after all. And, gee, I don’t want anyone to think I’m a heel.” But where does that get you? Just deeper down the rabbit hole.
A Dozen Reasons This Is Bad for Children and Everyone
- It’s totally anti-privacy. In letter and in spirit. There’s no getting around this. All students are required to surrender bodily privacy under this policy. If you think it doesn’t matter because there are few transgender students or there are practical ways around this (like using shower curtains) you’re wrong. It officially signs away students’ privacy.
- It drives children to consider physically unhealthy and drastic, irreversible options. This is not simply about allowing kids to dress or act unconventionally. It encourages children—however few or however many—to medically transition to the other sex. Doing so often means first taking hormone blockers so that they don’t go through puberty, and then later taking hormones of the other sex. The policy also nudges kids to consider surgery later, and they can end up regretting it. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, pediatric psychiatrist Paul McHugh cited studies indicating that 70-80 percent of children who reported transgender feelings spontaneously lost those feelings later. One blogger in particular has written a brilliant personal testimonial on this phenomenon.
- It encourages children to reject their bodies and discourages children from accepting their bodies. This is psychologically unhealthy and unfair to all children. This policy accommodates and rewards physical self-rejection and self-deception. And it actually sows gender confusion among children through the power of suggestion and semantic contagion.
- It’s psychologically destabilizing. Gaslighting is a type of psychological manipulation which detaches the subject from physical reality. This policy is similar because it requires all children, parents, and teachers to deny what a “real” male or female is. It messes with patterns of thought and will likely result in more social pathologies. Those who require us to agree that being male or female is somehow “assigned” to us at birth rather than identified at birth are telling us to deny our physical reality.
- It attacks the child-parent relationship. This policy strikes at the heart of family autonomy by opposing and punishing anyone whose stated values conflict with transgenderism. It sets up an authority that conflicts with and separates children from their parents by isolating and marginalizing anybody who affirms to a child that sex and sex distinctions are rooted in physical reality, not subjective perception.
- It shows no respect for child development. Especially a child’s brain development. It’s well-known that the frontal cortex of the brain—the center of decision making, judgment and self-regulation also known as “the area of sober second thought”—is not fully developed in human beings until they are in their mid to late 20s. Disrupting the process of childhood development by promoting childhood transitioning cannot be healthy. This applies not just to the transgender child, but to all other children because the MSHSL policy requires all other peers to “transition” by aligning with the project’s language and belief system, and conforming with the protean realities of the Gender Police.
- It’s totally anti-Title IX. A huge purpose of Title IX is to allow girls sports to thrive, to support and promote female sports. The MSHSL has been strongly implying that Title IX includes gender identity so that school districts are nudged into thinking they’ll be out of compliance if they don’t open up girls teams to biological boys. In fact, there is no legal mandate. Changing the definition of male and female here is akin to changing rules in the middle of a game. Title IX must die if biological males start playing on girls teams.
- It promotes a double standard about rights and responsibilities. Under the MSHSL and similar proposals on transgender inclusion, students who identify with their biological sex are held to a more stringent standard of responsibility than those who do not. The former are known to be biologically male or female. The latter are guaranteed an extra layer of privacy by which they are allowed to hide their biological sex if they wish. The former must adhere to stricter requirements of “anti-bullying” policies that require them to ignore their own sex differences while giving specially protected teammates a whole lot more space and respect in order to avoid punishment.
- It contributes to destruction of any universal code of human dignity. There used to be a commonly held ideal—not at odds with physical reality—that every human being is worthy of dignity and respect. Egregious violations of the human rights of certain groups were duly noted when laws such as the Thirteenth Amendment were instituted. But then we got into the lazy habit of identifying all different types of people as especially protected, now including those who have perceptions that diverge from physical reality. This constant categorization erodes any common understanding that all human beings are worthy of basic human rights.
- It creates unprotected categories for bullying. A study published in the Journal of Criminology last year noted: “bullying prevention programs were negatively related to peer victimization. That is, students attending schools with bullying prevention programs were more likely to have experienced peer victimization.” Let’s face it. Unless there is respect for human dignity across the board, bullies will always have radar for finding less protected individuals to target.
- Conscience protections are a lie. Anyone who really believes a deal can be worked out today to allow conscience exemptions might consider purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge from a social engineer. Conscience clauses ain’t what they used to be. Today they’re used primarily as a bait-and-switch tactic to get critical votes, such as Congressman Bart Stupak’s vote for Obamacare. In his case, the Department of Health and Human Services mandate overrode his deal, leaving Stupak stupefied and with a strong case of voter’s remorse.
- It assaults independent thought and enforces cult-like conformity. The MSHSL proposal promotes conditions conducive to campaigns of coercive persuasion. Margaret ThalerSinger’s book “Cults in our Midst” describes tactics very similar to those of the Gender Police that include: destabilizing a person’s sense of self; getting a person to alter his or her worldview and accept a new version of reality; cultivating dependency on new authorities; keeping the person unaware that there is an agenda to control or change the person and their thoughts; suppressing old behavior and attitudes; and instilling new behavior and attitudes. The atmosphere of coercion is reinforced by peer-modeled behavior (“Everyone accepts it, so I will too.”) and endless sloganeering (“Everyone is saying it, so I will too.”)
In the end, it’s really all about giving social engineers a license to bully. So Minnesotans have some basic choices to make. Will they support all girls and boys? Or primarily boys who say they are girls and girls who say they are boys? Will they side with special privileges for select groups or universal protection from bullying? They have to choose.