Is There a Constitutional Right to Castrate Children?

Where is child castration mentioned in the Constitution?

The closest that the matter came to the attention of the Founding Fathers was when Thomas Jefferson authored a Virginia state bill punishing rape with castration. What Jefferson thought fitting for rapists, modern day members of his party believe is fitting for young children.

The progressive child castration complex may be on the wrong side of history, sanity and decency, but so long as it has enough lawyers and judges, it will go on wielding the scalpel.

Trump’s “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” executive order had temporarily ended the practice, opposed now even by most Democrats, of performing experimental, deadly and destructive transgender procedures on minors.

In the latest New York Times poll, 71% of Americans and even 54% of Democrats opposed castrating kids in the name of transgender ideology. Only 10% of Americans and only 19% of Democrats supported the extreme leftist position adopted by most Democrat politicians of performing these experimental procedures on children as young as 10 years old. (In actual practice, transgender tracking is being practiced even on toddlers.)

However Attorney General Keith Ellison of Minnesota, a former devout member of the racist Nation of Islam, who had been accused of abuse by two women, Attorney General Nick Brown of Washington, a former Survivor contestant and Biden nominee, and Attorney General Dan Rayfield of Oregon, funded by tobacco money, didn’t get the memo and sued the Trump administration for the right to go on castrating kids.

“If the Order stands, transgender children will die,” the three attorneys general complained.

The ‘order’ being an executive order that banned castrating ‘children’ for their ideological pleasure. No child dies because he or she isn’t subjected to unnecessary surgery promoted by adults for political reasons that will leave him or her unable to have children or live a normal life.

The only thing that will ‘die’ from a castration ban is the lucrative income derived by some hospitals and doctors from performing these horrifying experiments on children, and what will also die is a major ideological plank of identity politics that insists sex is entirely subjective.

And women don’t really exist.

The British government already disproved the lie that a ban on experimental castration drugs (often misleadingly described as ‘puberty blockers’) leads to a rise in suicide rates. After lies spread by transgender identity activists, a review of the data in the UK showed no such rise.

The Trump executive order follows in the footsteps of similar moves in the UK and Europe.

Despite that three AGs for castrating kids argued that, “whatever interest the federal government may have in cutting off treatment to transgender kids during the pendency of this case pales in comparison to Plaintiffs’ irreparable harm.”

The interest of the federal government is in preventing irreparable harm to kids. Delaying castration meds or other destructive procedures does not cause harm to children. Acting on them does. The only irreparable harm in transgender procedures is in their implementation.

Despite that, Judge Lauren King, a Biden nominee, claimed that preventing hospitals from castrating kids for profit won’t survive “constitutional scrutiny” to the applause of a courtroom packed with transgender activists cheering for child mutilation.

Certainly if there’s anything that James Madison and the Framers had in mind for the Constitution was that it must absolutely protect child castration. And while those words may not appear in the text, surely they’re there in a penumbra, right next to a right to kill unborn children.

According to the three attorneys general and Judge Lauren, banning the castration of children, counts as discrimination on account of sex. This is a little confusing because those same people also claim that sex doesn’t exist. Or at least it exists only in its absence. If women don’t exist, they can’t be sexually discriminated against. However transgenders do exist and thus the entire body of sexual discrimination civil rights was really meant to protect transvestites.

Certainly if there’s anything the feminist leaders of the 1960s were after, it was protecting the rights of men to go into women’s locker rooms and drive them out of professional sports.

The stupid civil rights trick employed by Judge Lauren and transgender activists is to argue that a ban on everything from castrating kids to stopping male sex offenders from raping women in prison is discrimination on account of sex. And the only way to undo discrimination on account of sex is to let male boxers beat up women and Munchausen-by-proxy mothers turn their little boys into little girls. Anything else is a civil rights violation.

But if stopping assaults on women and children is a civil rights violation, then civil rights has been inverted into a horrid monstrosity that oppresses the weak and the vulnerable.

That seems to be the only option that Democrats are giving their own voters and supporters.

Judge Lauren complained that Trump’s “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” aims at the “erasure of trans individuals”. This isn’t judicial language, it’s activist rhetoric. The lawsuit and the ruling weren’t following the law, but following identity politics.

The truth is that identity politics invented a new victim class that it is sustaining with the suffering and mutilation of children and the abuse of women. That’s why even most Democrats have turned against the transgender movement. It’s one reason some of them voted for Trump.

There is no “erasure of trans individuals”. If a group has to be manufactured by imagination and medical intervention, whose only scientific basis is heated rhetoric, it doesn’t actually exist. It’s the transgender movement that is actually dedicated to taking healthy and functioning people and using them to erase sex differences and 99% of the population of men and women.

That’s why pronouns have been inflicted on 99.99% of society, why slurs like “cishet” have been formalized to make the normal seem abnormal, and why transgender ideology continues to be inflicted in the most destructive ways on the most vulnerable members of our society.

Rather than conducting a reckoning with the damage, instead of thinking of the children they have harmed, they cry to the courts, “won’t someone think of the castrating the children”.

And the courts answer, “sharpen your scalpels”.

Source: http://www.danielgreenfield.org/feeds/2131112999965525073/comments/default