It's Not Just about Toilets

It’s not just about toilets. And it is not just about the sensitivity of one Congresswoman. The debate and discussion about transgenderism has produced some monstrosities, like a case that was just adjudicated in a California court.

The Gateway Pundit, aka Jim Hoft,  has the story (via Maggie’s Farm). A Texas father, named Jeffrey Younger, has been fighting with his ex-wife over her plans to biochemically poison and surgically  mutilate their twelve-year old son.

The mother in question, a pediatrician no less, by name of Anne Georgulas, moved from Texas to California because the latter prides itself on being a sanctuary state for parents who want to transition their children.

The father has refused to accede to her maniacal wishes and has fought her through the courts. Last week, he lost. A court granted Georgulas the right to approve a surgical and biochemical intervention on her son. 

Apparently, we are no longer a civilized country. We engage in barbaric practices, like child mutilation. 

How did the boy become transgendered? As Hoft reports, Georgulas had been grooming the boy since he was two and a half.

Younger, whose ex-wife, a pediatrician, began transitioning their son to a girl at just two and a half years old, has fought tooth and nail to protect his child. Despite video evidence supporting his concerns, courts in Texas and California have systematically stripped him of his parental rights.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that a video of James Younger when he was only 3 years old surfaced, revealing that his mother put dresses on him and painted his fingernails when the child was just an infant!

The abuse from the mother all started because James liked a toy from the movie ‘Frozen’ meant for little girls. It is totally normal for little boys to play with girls’ toys; it does not mean they want to be castrated and ‘transition’ into girls.

When asked if he was a boy or a girl, James, then only three years old, answered, “Girl.” He said his mom told him he was a girl.

Does this sound to you like child abuse? It sounds like it to me. The frightening part is that courts countenance this behavior. They affirm that a woman has the right to force a delusional belief on a very small child.

Considering how we are now acutely aware of the dangers of child abuse, one has great difficulty seeing why this does not count as such. Taking a very small child, a child who depends largely on his mother, and using her position to brainwash him strikes me as worthy of imprisonment.

According to the courts, the guilty party is the father who wants to save his son from irreversible mutilation:

Now, a California judge has permanently revoked parental rights from Jeffrey Younger due to his opposition to his 12-year-old son’s chemical and surgical castration, as requested by the boy’s mother, as reported by LifeSiteNews.

So, it’s not just the pediatricians. It’s the court system. 

Had they lived in Missouri, state law would have prohibited the practice. Yesterday, a court decided that the Missouri law was constitutional.

The New York Post reported:

A Missouri judge found that a state ban on transgender surgeries and hormone treatments for minors was constitutional Monday, just over a week before the US Supreme Court takes up a very similar case out of Tennessee.

Judge Robert Craig Carter highlighted the murky ethics behind the controversial treatments for gender dysphoria in his ruling on challenges from LGBTQ civil rights activists against the Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act, which was signed into law last year.

“The evidence from trial showed that the medical ethics of gender dysphoria treatment for children and adolescents are entirely unsettled,” Carter, who sits on the 44th Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri, wrote in a lengthy 72-page ruling.

“Any person — including a minor — would be able to obtain anything from meth, to ecstasy to abortion so long as a single medical professional were willing to recommend it,” he later cautioned.

As the story notes, a similar case is now going to the Supreme Court. We will see if the esteemed jurists can clarify the situation and return us to sanity.

As you might have guessed, the ACLU was appalled at the ruling.

Please subscribe to my Substack, for free or preferably for a fee.