This Fall, Virginia will eliminate father-daughter dances to make sure trans feel OK. Fathers and daughters have been around a long time, and transgenders are brand new. Yet, mental health professionals, after creating trans from some of their more disturbed clients, are demanding language, customs – everything be changed for their creation to thrive (and their clients to increase).

As with the fictional Frankenstein’s monster, their creation is incapable of biological reproduction and one of which the creators are afraid. These creators know they can’t make a girl out of a boy, trans realize it, and anyone can often quickly see the differences between a ‘trans’ and a real body. But the attention and power mental health professionals have garnered for their creation has led many to become trans so they can share trans’ attention and power. Thus, about 2% of high school boys and 6% of high school girls in 2017; and ~3% of college men and ~4% of college women in 2020, said they ‘were’ trans. That our kids are being taught that they might become transsexual is an experiment going terribly wrong. With trans’ sterility and massive costs, this is an increase threatening civilization.

Although professionals know the physical results are a lie, an “affirmative care” standard for transsexualism is being promoted by nearly every medical/psychiatric association. Thus, instead of going to the doctor for a diagnosis, the American Psychological Association [APA] mandates therapists affirm the client’s! Children’s claims are reason to inject hormones and perform surgeries! Talk-to-me professionals (e.g., psychiatrists, psychologists) claim the kids have an innate, immutable sense of incongruence between their anatomical sex and sense of gender.

Do these professionals really believe the mutilations they endorse transform one’s sex?

The great amount of learning involved in seeing suggests the amount of learning required is much, much greater to ‘become’ the sex you were born or develop a sexual taste. Dr. Susan Barry’s research on children cured of blindness examples how little sensation is ‘born into’ a child. Thus, Liam was born almost blind. At 15 years old he received treatments to see as you and I – that is, with the surgery his brain got the same information our brains do. But it took him over 8 years to learn to see almost [note the almost] as well as we do! Dr. Barry said:

“Although Liam can recognize many more objects today than he could right after his surgeries, he still struggles to recognize faces. Prior to receiving his intraocular lenses, he couldn’t see details on another person’s face; their nose and mouth were just a blur. Right after his first surgery, Liam was disgusted when he saw the way that his mother’s mouth moved when she talked. He knew that his mouth moved when he spoke, but it was a revolting shock to see the details of the red lips and tongue in others. Indeed, without a holistic sense of a face, it was impossible for Liam to recognize people from moment to moment. Their faces transformed entirely when they changed expression or talked. … To recognize a face, we need to see more than the eyes, nose and mouth. We must analyze the spatial relationships among all of these features. … Problems with recognizing faces and facial expressions are very common among people with long-term blindness who gain sight as adults. Even people blinded by cataracts from birth whose sight is restored within the first year show some deficits in face recognition. [Wall Street Journal 6/19/21]

She cited Michael Chorost’s hearing struggles with a cochlear implant, having: “to become an ‘athlete of perception.’ Only by tirelessly experimenting and practicing with his new sense, only by becoming an athlete of perception, could Liam begin to understand what he sees.”

Her research suggests that seeing is not ‘natural.’ It took years of intensive effort before Liam learned to interpret what he ‘saw’ before he could see much as you or I. His experiences, suggest babies are actively involved in learning to see, hear, etc. for years. While babies may have a few ‘born in’ aspects of sensation (e.g., they seem to innately track faces so they are not solely Locke’s ‘blank slates’), but by far the bulk of seeing or hearing, etc., is learned. Thus

babies are far from being creatures that eat and fill their diapers on the way to ‘becoming what they are genetically programed to be.’ Instead they are constantly engaged in the heavy lifting of interpreting the world so they can sense it and learn their place in it. As such, children are not particularly ‘knowledgeable ’(or born ‘good only to be corrupted by society’ as per Rousseau) but rather terribly ignorant and stupid (as Proverbs suggests).

If children are ignorant, how could kids, or even teens, ‘sense’ they were born in the wrong-sex body – sometimes at age 2, 5, or even 17? If kids aren’t born seeing or hearing as Barry’s research indicates, how could they have an ‘innate, immutable sense’ of their correct gender?

The ‘mad scientists’ who created this pathetic Frankenstein monster out of clients, tend to have higher suicide rates and lower birth rates: do they really know more about life? They act as if children can discern what is best for them – for the rest of their lives! These ‘please pay to talk-to-me’ professionals have endorsed bills that make it illegal for professionals to try to persuade kids who say they’re trans to change their mind!

Indeed, with the approval of the mental health establishment, nineteen states prohibit talk-therapy that tries to persuade kids away from homosexuality [e.g., conversion therapy], and they say questioning a patient’s self-diagnosis of gender dysphoria is conversion therapy as well. Dissenters risk losing licensure. Thus, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, well-published on gender dysphoria, would not reduce boys’ source of distress solely to dysphoria. In his series of 100 clients whose parents had not treated them as girls (as the mental health movement recommends), 88% ended their dysphoria. Assuming his ‘treatment’ sticks, society saved millions of dollars in hormone and surgical treatments and the boys were saved from mutilation and its risks and the never-ending ‘talk therapy’ that goes with it. Nonetheless, accused of practicing conversion therapy [the terrible ‘sin’ of ‘not believing children in this instance’], he was fired.

Why are we leaning on the theories of these professionals to teach kids that they might ‘go homosexual’ or ‘you were born in the wrong-sexed body’? That girls – who usually are the ‘rule followers and enforcers’ – are now becoming homosexual and transsexual more frequently than boys, suggests our society is really pushing kids to become deviant. In doing so, we are engaging in a monstrous experiment with our children. We just don’t know just how becoming attracted to the opposite sex and contemplating marriage and a family occur; but dating, having sex, getting married, and having babies all involve exceedingly complex desires and behaviors. Messing with this process could put our civilization so shy of babies it goes out of business.

Thousands of children are being swept into trans thinking – their bodies mutilated and their lives largely ruined. Many problems have been caused by trading the traditional (essentially Christian) worldview and the mentality and customs flowing from it, for ‘mental health’ philosophy and its’ evolving opinions and customs.

These two worldviews differ starkly on ‘trans:’ Tradition says you are born as one of two sexes [and the few that don’t fit are jammed into one or the other], with a duty to be productive (pushing adherents toward getting jobs, marrying and having kids). It holds ‘normality’ with spouse and children as the healthiest course for the individual and society. It regards the phenomenal world as real, and the usual processes (e.g., things fall down; plants grow up) as God ordained, and honesty as a great virtue. To be sure, tradition demands you believe in things beyond your senses: God, an afterlife with punishments and rewards. But is this less jarring than mental health professionals demand when they require you to believe something your senses tell you is false, namely, that professionals can make people into the opposite sex?

Mental healthism, though it strongly believes in learning (the therapist as ‘teacher,’ the client as ‘pupil’), inexplicably carves out an exception for trans. It tends to focus on what you discover about yourself and demands that, in the unique case of trans, society respect, protect, and fund the decisions of its clients.

The mental health take-over of a part of society is evident in academia, where everyone – students, professors, and administrators – on penalty of dismissal, must rejoice in student transgenderism and homosexuality. It holds that if you ‘really, deeply want’ to be the opposite sex, it is society’s responsibility to provide the wherewithal for what might be called a ‘semi-plausible pretense.’ It increasingly also demands that everyone treat trans – including what others call them – as though they were the opposite sex, or ‘non-binary,’ or whatever.

Tradition largely focuses on society, its well-being. It holds that you have your best chance of becoming well-adjusted and happy if you develop into a contributor. Mental healthism focuses on individuals, ignoring the larger questions of: 1) why the few trans should be accommodated instead of the far more numerous non-trans (or normals); and 2) how society is to survive as trans become ever more numerous and their childlessness weighs on the demographic while their share of medical costs grows.

When it comes to trans, we seem to have two choices:

1. go with those who charge money to talk with them about their theories, who are either deluded (because they so strongly believe in their theories they refuse to believe what their senses tell them), or lie (to ‘make a buck’? because they are afraid of what their creations will do to them should they admit trans are fakes?); or

2. go with the traditional, who tend to be optimists who believe there is a wonderful world after this one for the obedient.

The first choice is increasingly associated with a declining demographic and an uncertain future, the second with societies that produce enough children to go on.

Empirically speaking, the first group is full of either the gullible, the cowardly, money-grubbers or liars. And while we may have doubts about the second group as being overly optimistic, if we adopt the traditional viewpoint, our children and grandchildren would seem more apt to have a future.