Can Democrats quit transgenderism?
Political movements ought to have a brain trust; the Democrats only have an emotive one
Some people say that no one over the age of thirty knew a trans person growing up, but I did. In my high school, the transgender terror of tenth grade was named Derrick.
The first week of school Derrick picked a fight with the nastiest girl in class—a temperamental gargantua called Nakita—during which he stabbed a No. 2 pencil clean through her cheek and everyone watched Nakita’s big hips scuttled down the hall with a pink eraser sticking out of her bloody face.
Someone in Derrick’s home must have done time, because that old prison trick worked. The whole school got the message to leave the tranny alone. I figured it out the day he pinned me against the locker with his scary fingernails after he heard I called him gay to another student.
“Well, aren’t you?” I wondered.
I didn’t get stabbed that day but Derrick reared back and shot a loogie in my eye, one that escaped from lips slathered in sticky pink gloss.
But Derrick’s cross-dressing didn’t seem strange enough to dwell on and no one gave it much thought. We didn’t need some guidance counselor to tell us that Derrick was a different stripe from the goth kids who wore makeup; or the towel-snapping girls commanding the softball field; or the easily excitable boys fluttering around the theater department. No, Derrick was a boy who wanted to be a girl—got it. And when we weren’t scurrying before the clomp of his platform boots coming down the hall, we mostly felt sorry for him.
Today, rather than a local oddball in high school melodrama, Derrick would be the poster child of a political movement, something called “trans youth,” a term that didn’t exist back then in the late 90s, and a contemporary cause célèbre so preposterous, so barbaric and demonic, that it may have brought down the most evil force on earth in the last election—which is to say, the Democrat Party.
For many, the scope of the “trans youth” contagion has only just become apparent. An October study published by watchdog group Do No Harm revealed that since 2019 U.S. hospitals have pocketed $120 million in providing sex change procedures to over 14,000 children.
Even The New York Times sensed the need for a transgender reckoning. “Some [transgender] activists say it is time to rethink and recalibrate their confrontational ways, and are pushing back against the more all-or-nothing voices in their coalition,” the paper wrote during the kick-off of soul-searching season for Democrats.
Don’t count on that happening. For one, it never goes well when the Times attempts to correct the behavior of the Democrat Party—after all, the whole reason the paper exists is to make its readers feel infallible.
While the left can hem and haw about what they ought to do going forward regarding moderate voters, they’re not prepared to quit transgenderism cold turkey. In fact, they’re doubling down. On a podcast last week, Kamala campaign senior staffer David Plouffe dismissed the trans issue, instead blaming Bidenomics for her loss.
Former Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki took to her MSNBC show a week after the election to call transgenderism an “obscure” issue “[un]worthy of a debate.” And while it was “a good thing” the Democrat party was doing some self-reflection, she said, they needn’t worry about pumping the brakes on transgender advocacy.
That same week, rat-faced foreign talk show host John Oliver told his audience it was “weird” for Democrats to focus on boys competing in girls sports and falsely claimed there’s no evidence males might have a physical advantage over females.
(Missing from the liberal monologues: a study from the U.N., of all places, that tracked 890 awards recently stolen by men in women’s sports).
When it comes to trannies, the Dems are hooked. And no one has asked how they got here. The Biden-Harris presidency was the first time Americans were exposed to Trans Gone Wild at the federal level. All those controversial policies—from trans in the military, to boys in girls’ locker rooms, to male inmates in female prisons—were late-stage Obama directives rushed into place during the last moments of his presidency. And while Trump, to varying degrees of success, paused or walked back Obama’s end-days trans-a-poolza, Biden jabbed it back into America’s ass like a giant dose of hormones.
Even if the Biden policies weren’t immediately felt, the optics sure were—in the form of a radioactive, luggage-thieving drag queen in the Energy Department named Sam Britton, or HHS creep Dr. Rachel Levine, lumbering around in his fake military uniform, compression stockings, and flats advocating for the sterilization of children.
(Levine, as revealed by the New York Times, had been working covertly under Biden to suppress inconvenient science and remove all age restrictions on sex change procedures.)
Kamala, for her part, had positions so bonkers that they could have been easily dismissed as right-wing conspiracy theories—had they not all been on video. Taxpayer-funded sex change operations for illegal immigrants in detainment? Free vaginoplasties for convicted child killers? They were that crazy and, yet, true.
“We have to be blunt: black voters came through for Kamala Harris, white women did not,” MSNBC’s Joy Reid croaked on election night. That was the message that went out across the Borg: blame white women for Kamala’s loss— “white” being an odd euphemism for “married mothers.”
Indeed, married women did turn out for Trump. A few weeks earlier, Kamala’s message to those women, in a now infamous October campaign ad, was this: It’s OK to keep your vote secret from your Republican husband.
They may have been keeping their vote secret, but it wasn’t from their husbands, rather, from the Cluster B psycho with the non-binary toddler in their book club.
And, yet, the Democrats are correct. White women are to blame for their Hindenburg, just not in any way they wish to acknowledge. If you asked A.I. to conjure up the quintessential preachy, chaotic woman who has taken over and suicided the Democrat party, chances are it would spit out an image that looked a lot like Annette Bening.
This week, the 66-year-old Hollywood actress appeared outside the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Justices are hearing a case challenging Tennessee’s ban on sex changes for children. Standing before a podium cascading in $10,000 worth of the finest pink roses, Bening said the quiet part out loud.
“To have a transgender child has made me so much more interesting,” she told the crowd, without a hint of irony or self-awareness.
It was a chef’s kiss moment for anyone who follows the wacky adventures of the women in her caste. She’s exactly the sort of person running things on the left. Political movements ought to have a brain trust; the Democrats only have an emotive one—and it’s gone helter-skelter.
The women running the party are not giving an inch and there’s no way to get rid of them. The cycle of destruction has just begun; trans supremacy is here to stay.
And with the Child Genital Mutilation Industrial Complex on trial at the Supreme Court, it wasn’t lost on me that the one “trans kid” I knew growing up, Derrick, wouldn’t have factored into this at all, really. He was far too black, too poor, too disturbed. His parents weren’t bragging about him at dinner parties; they weren’t gleefully paying those doctor bills.
Want to mutilate your body? You can wait until you're 18 (and even then that's too young to make such a permanent decision). But leave the kids alone. Get them therapy along with yourself if you're pushing them into it.