From what asylum does Brian S. Brown find these idiots?
Marija Stajić has authored — for International Organization for the Family — New BBC documentary: child’s tears as a tool for garnering social acceptance of transgenderism. The subtitle of this diatribe reads:
When feelings replace facts, chaos ensues. And this chaotic “documentary” is an attack on children and the Natural Law.
Stajić is a dogmatist. She accepts Catholic doctrine as incontrovertible truth (“facts”) irrespective of evidence to the contrary. Among her “credentials” is membership in the Serbian Science Center which is not a science center. Rather, it is a Catholic anti-trans, anti-choice cesspool.
Ms. Stajić provides a synopsis of the documentary that she does not like:
“According to the science, gender identity is formed by about age two.”
Well! The BBC is evil. Evil, evil, evil!
[The documentary aims] to provoke empathy in viewers and thus lead to the social acceptance of transgenderism in children. The ‘girl’ Sasha is actually a boy who claims to be a girl, and wants to dress as such when he goes to school and elsewhere outside the home. The documentary was broadcast on the BBC’s children’s channel CBeebies, which targets young children between two and seven years of age.
“Targets” as in perniciously preys upon. I can assure Ms. Stajić that a documentary hasn’t the power to change anyone’s gender identity. Transgender persons (children and adults) do not pose a threat to anyone. She, on the other hand, is a real danger to trans kids as a result of her uninspired propaganda.
The full synopsis, by the way, continues:
Award-winning film-maker Sébastien Lifshitz captures Sasha’s story with a non-judgmental, insightful and subtle eye, including truly moving moments of joy as well as the many challenges she and family must face together.
“The religious nutters never give parents much credit for their intelligence and concern for the wellbeing of their children.”
You can guess where those “challenges” come from. After claiming that she has better things to do and that Sasha is a worldwide threat:
First, what does it mean that “all Sasha wants is to be herself”? What does a seven-year-old child know about what he wants to be when he grows up? Children at that age still find it difficult to grasp the concept of time, to distinguish reality from imagination and the present from the past and the future; to decide what they want to be when they grow up, let alone to understand sexuality, sex change, gender and all other identities and what not.
According to the science, gender identity is formed by about age two. Sasha knows that she is a girl. Gender is what it is. The presence of unhinged adults can make trans kids insecure.
Furthermore, her gender has nothing to do with her adult aspirations. Moreover, a cisgender boy is fully aware of his gender without understanding “sexuality, sex change, gender and all other identities and what not.” (Whatever “what not” means.)
Similarly, a seven-year-old child realizes when it is windy. That does not require him or her to understand the confluence of uneven heating by the sun and Earth’s rotation. Stajić is sophomorically attempting to create obstacles to a child’s understanding of their gender identity. This is an attempt to conform reality to religious doctrine.
The marginalization efforts continue:
The mother tells us that the boy was four when he first said, “Mom, when I grow up, I’ll be a girl!” I personally know examples of children of that age fantasizing about all sorts of things they will be when they grown up, and their wishes include various “identities”; most often those that gender ideology would call two-spirit. I’ve heard children claim they are cats, squirrels, doggies, mermaids, not to mention princesses, fairies, etc.
I do not know what medical care Sasha has received and neither does Stajić. I am forced to presume that Sasha’s mom sought a qualified medical opinion. In this country, before we even get to the components of a diagnosis, the child must have experienced significant distress for at least six months.
The religious nutters never give parents much credit for their intelligence and concern for the wellbeing of their children:
The parent is the responsible person and the child’s guardian. The parent is an adult who should provide guidance to the child during upbringing, and keep the child safe from harm. … [blah, blah, blah]
Ms. Stajić accepts parental guidance when it meets with her approval. Furthermore Stajić is too dense to realize that no amount of “guidance” will alter a child’s gender identity. What skills does Stajić possess that would make her opinions credible?
“A seven-year-old decides how she will dress. If the kid wants to wear pink then she can wear pink.”
Religious extremism places severe limits on intellectual curiosity and critical thinking. At the same time it encourages selective observation, intellectual dishonesty and a misunderstanding of objective truth.
After some bloviations about the credibility of a psychologist:
It’s as if all of this was just about allowing a child to let his hair grow long, put on a dress and take up ballet lessons!
No. That is false. It is intellectually dishonest. What this is about is allowing a child to explore her gender identity and to present in accordance with her gender if she chooses to do so.
The choice for a parent is often whether to have a miserable son or a happy daughter. I’ll take happy any day of the week. Over the next seven years or so, Sasha may realize a male gender identity. It’s not subject to influence or parental encouragement. There is no evidence-based science to even suggest that gender identity is subject to the influence of others.
Appealing to a stereotype of stereotype. I know of no better way to explain the following:
… transgender persons somehow always seem to resort to what they call “societal stereotypes”, because they need these stereotypes to confirm their “true” identity. Hence, it’s suddenly perfectly fine if we dress a transgender girl (actually, a biological boy) in pink. Only in this case is this not considered social conditioning and does not count as imposing a female gender role on someone!
The last sentence, above, is a grammatical challenge. It is part begging the question and part assertion. No. It’s not “social conditioning” (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). Moreover, it does not represent the imposition of a gender stereotype.
A seven-year-old decides how she will dress. If the kid wants to wear pink then she can and will wear pink. It would not surprise me if a trans kid wanted to avoid any attire that might be gender ambiguous. Furthermore, so what?
|I have written about Morgan Davies, a male trans youth who appears as a trans teenaged boy in Showtime’s “The End.” Contrary to Ms. Stajić, there is nothing remarkably butch about his attire. He is dressing according to what makes him comfortable.|
“Sasha has two parents and healthcare providers. Together (including Sasha), they will make decisions. Who asked for Stajić’s approval?
|I have also written about Kai Shappley. She was nine and she looks very normal to me. Kai is a pretty little girl. (Kai is about 11 now; wearing a jeans jacket in her Twitter profile).|
The reason that these kids look healthy and normal is that their gender has been affirmed and supported. The science is unambiguous. With gender affirmation, trans kids thrive.
Getting back to Sasha, Ms. Stajić has no interest in the science. The science is evidence-based objective truth. Stajić is defending her belief system with is based on faith.
While I am a nonbeliever, I am not denigrating faith, religion or belief systems. There are times when I wish that I could be a believer but I cannot. What is disturbing is not Stajić’s faith. Rather it is her dogmatism. The belief comes first. Then, through selective observation, manipulation and intellectual dishonesty she finds supposed facts to fit the belief.
Finding objective truth is just the opposite. It usually begins with a hypothesis followed by a search for evidence. Critical thinkers are content to base truth on evidence.
Moreover, Sasha has two parents and healthcare providers. Together (including Sasha), they will make decisions. Who asked for Stajić’s approval?
“The religious right is determined to scare parents and children out of transitioning.”
But what will happen when Sasha grows up and it’s time for him to enter puberty? Will the parents support the child’s fantasy and take him to one of those pediatric gender clinics that keep popping up everywhere, where he will be prescribed puberty blockers?
Whether or not Sasha received puberty blockers shortly after entering puberty will probably be decided by committee: Sasha, two parents, one behavioral health specialist and one endocrinologist.
Did I mention that the talking points are hackneyed?
If you tell a 12-year-old that you will give him something that will prevent him from entering puberty, and that later on he will get cross-sex hormones, and that all of this means that he will never be able to have children, what do you think he will say? How many children that age dream of becoming parents? How many children that age know what it means to be a parent, or at least to want children?
Allow me to enumerate the bull turds in the above:
- No child has ever received trans meds without his or her full and informed consent.
- The clinicians that I am in contact with are exceedingly careful in explaining the benefits and possible consequences of medications. That probably accounts for the fact that there doesn’t seem to be any medical malpractice litigation associated with trans medical care.
- Stajić is totally divorced from the benefits of puberty blockers. They prevent the formation of secondary sex characteristics which have the potential to cause considerable add distress to an already fragile youth.
- Puberty blockers are fully reversible.
- The use of cross-sex hormones (roughly four years later) is a separate decision. They are only administered when the youth is certain about his or her gender identity.
- And, yes, the youth and parents understand that the ability to procreate might be compromised. This is a re-tooled anti-marriage equality talking point.
- A 16-year-old is fully capable of understanding the potential downsides of hormones. Transgender people do form families. They marry. They have kids (naturally or adopted).
The religious right is determined to scare parents and children out of transitioning. It doesn’t work. However, in the process they are marginalizing trans kids. The crackpots are intentionally making trans kids insecure which is extremely detrimental to their health.
“The existence of gender identity is a scientific fact.”
After parroting Vatican disapproval of IVF, surrogacy and other options, Stajić is in great distress induced by her own country:
This past May, the most unfortunate, anti-constitutional, anti-family, and anti-scientific Law on Gender Equality was adopted in Serbia. We should now brace ourselves for the practical consequences of that law which are to be executed on our children.
Brace yourself! Stajić is confronted with the fact that public policy does not conform to Catholic doctrine; even in Serbia. Still, how does the existence of transgender persons create a religious dilemma?
I am Jewish. I do not believe that Jesus Christ was divine. From my perspective Christ was a rebellious rabbi. Nothing more. There are a whole lot more Jews in this world than transgender persons. That should create considerably more concern for Stajić. Perhaps it does but she knows that she cannot get away with airing that prejudice. Transgender persons are a softer target.
And oh my is she pissed:
… the inclusion of a scandalous lesson on gender identity in 8th grade biology textbooks.
Indeed! It is simply scandalous to teach kids about sexuality according to science. The existence of gender identity is a scientific fact. Stajić prefers indoctrinating kids with religious dogma. Now that would be scandalous. Making kids stupid and ignorant should be a crime.
“I simply cannot wait for the forthcoming jeremiad.”
Marija Stajić comes to a conclusion with a reference to the Manual for the introduction of a gender perspective in the teaching of the Serbian language for the first cycle of education.
Oh the horror of it all. Anyway Ms. Stajić promises that the manual will be the subject of her next post which will be an attempt to conform the real world to Catholic teaching. I don’t know about you but I simply cannot wait for the forthcoming jeremiad.