|Natasha Chart claims to have a feminist
objection to trans people. It reads more
like conservative Christian boilerplate
Image via The Federalist
Wednesday, Natasha Chart posts: If Liking Dresses Makes A Boy Transgender, Half The Men In History Were Trans. The subtitle of this tantrum reads:
If liking dresses is enough to make a boy ‘really’ a girl, is disliking them enough to make a girl ‘really’ a boy? At what age should such an interest be counted as life-determining?
But first some background:
Natasha Chart is board chair of Women’s Liberation Front or (WoLF). While that might sound impressive, WoLF is a tiny Washington, DC nonprofit. It has revenues under $50,000 and its IRS ruling was only in February of this year. It doesn’t seem to actually do anything other than to agitate (and sometimes litigate) against transgender accommodations. It could very well have been organized for that purpose by a group like Heritage Foundation. I have no evidence of that but Chart’s arguments are the same as those offered by religious zealots.
As for the title of her piece, she has framed a rhetorical question, effectively asserting that we believe that boys who like dresses are transgender and that is untrue. The more accurate description is that children with gender dysphoria are sometimes compelled to affirm their gender and find relief from the stresses of their condition by presenting themselves in accordance with their gender.
For some reason Ms. Chart is taking on actress Anna Friel who plays a mother of a transgender child. Friel seems to understand the issue. Chart’s responses (to quotes out of context) are incoherent and do not seem to relate to what she is responding to.
For example, Friel discusses the use of medication in gender affirmation. She is speaking of puberty blockers and then hormones, grateful for the fact that children can be treated and taken out of the misery of their condition if untreated.
A lot depends on the question of how important it is whether a child likes dresses, such as public approval of giving minors “powerful hormones” with uncertain side effects. Instead, organizations like the U.K.’s All About Trans would prefer for you to stop thinking about this topic immediately and repeat after them that boys must be girls if they simply want it very badly.
As I said, she is incoherent and she is stuck on defining children with this condition as boys who like dresses. Nor is it accurate to claim, as she does, that transgender children want “very badly” to be the opposite sex. They are irresistibly compelled to present as their gender in order to get relief from a serious condition. I am not the least interested in being informed by other groups but Friel needs a prop.
In point of fact, I am informed by the position of the American Academy of Pediatricians. In a recent, lengthy statement, which came in the wake of considerable careful research, the professional group determined that the best interests of gender dysphoric children are served with the gender-affirmative care model. In their very detailed statement the AAP cites nearly 100 articles published to rigorously peer-reviewed academic journals.
Instead of dealing with the realities of medical science, Chart creates a straw man (All About Trans) and engaged in a straw man argument.
After citing men who wore dresses, including Jesus Christ in his robes, Ms. Chart goes off the deep end:
It makes exactly as much sense as thinking that a little boy who likes trying on dresses at home probably needs chemical castration, using drugs prescribed to convicted sex offenders to manage their urges.
[ … ]
All These Men Didn’t Need Genital Amputation, Either
Were the many millions of boys and men who liked and were comfortable in these garments for so many centuries simply missing out, having been born before the day we could have their puberty stopped and their gonads amputated under anesthesia, with an antibiotic chaser? Devastating to 14th-century European men, if so.
This is idiotic to a point well beyond the shores of absurdity. I agree that Henry VIII’s attire might be considered a dress (more likely a kilt). However, that does not mean that Henry (or any of her other examples) had gender dysphoria. Once again, most males who favor dresses (now of historically) do not, and did not, suffer from gender dysphoria. The coupling of attire to a medical condition is insane.
Furthermore (in response to hyperbole on top of idiocy), young children with the condition are not “chemically castrated” and they are certainly not surgical candidates. Young children might be placed on puberty blockers which are fully reversible. Hormones are administered in their late teens and they might opt for surgery in the future.
These people have a condition for which there is no known cure. Are they supposed to suffer because someone who claims to be a feminist also claims (inexplicably) to be offended? Should they suffer because religious zealots, dependent upon Bronze Age texts for enlightenment, cannot accept that gender exists and. in rare cases, that gender is incongruent with natal sex?
Is medical science supposed to defer to faux feminists and religious crackpots? Think about the overall effect that would have on health care. Shall we start sacrificing bulls while voicing incantations as we become soaked in bovine blood?
The stupidity is boundless:
Beyond this illogical nonsense, where are we going wrong when it seems good for adults to send children the message that the most important thing about them is their taste in clothes? This is a message rejected by feminism, by the Bible, and typically by progressive counterculture, as well.
If you read this, Ms. Chart, get it through your head that this has nothing to do with clothes. Your attempts to thus downplay the effects of a medical condition to suit your unexplained and undefined agenda are spectacularly obvious. Moreover, having a medical condition is not a “message” and is certainly not subject to your approval, biblical approval or, for that matter, anyone’s approval. Definitely not your approval.
My guess, by the way, is that Chart has a religious objection; something she would vigorously deny but she shows all the usual signs. Objecting to transgender people due to feminism makes no sense whatsoever.
Clothes Play Is Not a Medical Issue
Why are we celebrating telling children that their clothing preferences are a medical issue? Why would it be the kinder thing to think that these preferences are so fixed and important that they can make a person’s entire life “miserable” if not constantly indulged, rather than that the person would be better served by developing his or her character and accomplishments? Why do feelings about modern fashion seem so important that they might override the common sense fears of a parent about the possible side effects of giving “powerful hormones” to children?
Clothes play is not a medical issue but gender dysphoria is not clothes play and gender dysphoria is a medical issue. Moreover, by the time a minor might receive hormones they are mentally capable of informed consent as are his or her parents.
The highly trained clinicians who treat these kids are not mad scientists. Nor are they commissioned hormone sales agents. They adhere to the highest ethical and medical standards. Their first and only concern is the best interests of their patients and their families. That’s it. There is no nefarious agenda.
There is more to this post but not any more to this post for me. I am done. Natasha Chart is just regurgitating what are usually offered as religious talking points. The approach is imbecilic.