Politico: Mutilate Children For Women’s Rights!

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Leave it to the radical left to turn a law protecting kids from irreversible “medical” procedures into the downfall of civilization as we know it. That’s the gist of an over-the-top article from Politico regarding United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court case addressing Tennessee’s ban on so-called “gender-affirming care” for children. 

The author, Naomi Schoenbaum, a professor at George Washington University, bizarrely claims this case is somehow a threat not only to transgender youth but to women’s rights and “five decades of sex equality.” Please.

Let’s get one thing straight: Tennessee’s SB1 doesn’t outlaw medical care — it protects children from permanently butchering their bodies before they’re old enough to understand the consequences. It’s common sense. It shouldn’t even be necessary or controversial.

Schoenbaum breathlessly claims, “Skrmetti could be the next Dobbs, adding another nail in the coffin to women’s legal freedoms — and freedoms we all enjoy regardless of sex.” 

Adopting Tennessee’s approach would undermine not only the interests of transgender minors in need of medical care, but a half century of legal precedent that has formed the cornerstone of women’s equality in law. 

Really? Then why are nations — ones considered more “progressive” than the United States — abandoning the practice of transitioning children? Across Europe, there is a growing shift away from transitioning children, with countries like the UK, Sweden, Finland, and France prioritizing psychosocial support over medical interventions. 

In 2022, London’s Tavistock Clinic closed due to concerns about insufficient mental health considerations, and the UK’s NHS banned most uses of puberty blockers and discouraged social transitioning for children. This trend is echoed by Norway and supported by the World Health Organization, which recently acknowledged a lack of scientific evidence for “gender-affirming care” for minors.

For our VIPs: Is the Tide Turning Against Transing Children?

And then there’s the bizarre attempt to connect this issue to abortion. The article claims, “Medical treatments that would reduce the fertility of trans boys and men threaten the idea of women being mothers first.” What? How does protecting kids from sterilization threaten anyone’s rights? The left constantly tries to conflate protecting children with some nefarious “anti-woman” agenda. It’s nonsense.

Scare tactics about girls renouncing maternity are part of anti-trans politics, with the cover of conservative critic Abigail Shrier’s book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, showing a young girl with a blank space where her uterus would be. These anxieties about women rejecting motherhood are the very same ones that motivate much of the opposition to abortion — and they are grounded upon the very same sex stereotypes that the equal protection clause is meant to abolish.

The idea of rolling back five decades of law critical to sex equality may feel like déjà vu. This is the court that gave us Dobbs, which reversed a 50-year-old precedent guaranteeing women’s reproductive freedom.

I guess she’s arguing that sterilizing young girls before they’re old enough to comprehend the consequences of their actions is just fine because it’s basically preemptive abortion. The argument is so nonsensical that this is the only conclusion I can draw. It seems the idea of abortion being a “choice” is conveniently ignored here because when a girl is led to believe she’s a boy and undergoes irreversible treatments, she’s being denied the very ability to choose whether to have children later in life when she’s old enough to know what she wants.

The truth is that the trans agenda is an assault on women’s rights. By blurring the distinctions between men and women, it risks undermining the recognition and opportunities that women have fought for, allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports and claim achievements and opportunities that rightfully belong to women. Last year, Johns Hopkins University redefined “lesbian” in its LGBTQ Glossary as “a non-man attracted to non-men.”

How did women end up being reduced to “non-men,” you ask? Simple: the concept of men and women apparently offends “non-binary” individuals. And in today’s upside-down logic, the solution is to erase women entirely to appease those who feel the need to reject biological reality in order to feel special.

The left is increasingly merging its top issues into a primarily pro-transgender agenda. Abortion rights, once justified as protecting women’s autonomy, are now being used to prioritize transgender-friendly policies that literally erase women.

Did you ever imagine we’d see the day?