Christian Writer: We Are “Sexualizing” Children By Letting Them Be Transgender December 31, 2019

Christian Writer: We Are “Sexualizing” Children By Letting Them Be Transgender

Christian Post writer John Stonestreet, last seen condemning sexbots, really, really hates transgender people.

That isn’t exactly newsworthy coming out of his circles, but the way he calls out trans culture in a recent piece is just plain bizarre. Just look at how he lashes out against the trans “sexualization of children,” a thing that he totally believes is real but that has no basis in reality.

It’s been just four years since so-called same-sex marriage was instituted by the Supreme Court, and it’s now clear that the slope was a lot slipperier than advertised.

Normalizing the gender dysphoria of little boys and girls, and by that I mean imposing our radical new experimental ideas about sex and gender on children who had no say in the matter, has proven to be the means for sexualizing them. “They’re just expressing themselves,” we’re told, ignoring the fact that children have no business participating in any kind of sexual expression, least of all for the entertainment of adults.

That’s not at all how this works. Parents don’t have their kids take hormones on a whim. There are professionals involved. Kids aren’t “choosing” which gender to be, nor can parents magically change their kid’s gender if it’s not to their liking. It should go without saying that trans boys and girls dressing in the clothing that matches their gender identity is hardly a “sexual expression.”

There’s no “slippery slope” from homosexuality to being transgender, either. One identity does not somehow “cause” another; they’re completely separate, and they’re not new to human history.

People have been LGBTQ for as long as there have been people. The only difference is that now, as a society, we are progressively getting more comfortable talking about it.

With some exceptions, of course.

(Image via Shutterstock)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!