CAL THOMAS COMMENTARY DECEMBER 13, 2023
THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECLINED TO HEAR A CHALLENGE TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON’S BAN ON GENDER CONVERSION THERAPY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE.
THE CHALLENGE WAS BROUGHT BY BRIAN TINGLEY, WHO COUNSELS CLIENTS ON GENDER DYSPHORIA AND STRESSES THAT “SEX IS A GIFT FROM GOD, INTEGRAL TO OUR VERY BEING.”
WASHINGTON’S LAW RESTRICTS COUNSELORS’ SPEECH FOR YOUTH DEALING WITH GENDER DYSPHORIA, MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO ENCOURAGE SOMEONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 TO EMBRACE THEIR BIOLOGICAL SEX. A VIOLATION COULD RESULT IN THE SUSPENSION OF ONE’S MEDICAL LICENSE AND A $5 THOUSAND FINE.
THIS IS WRONG ON SEVERAL LEVELS. FIRST IT IMPAIRS THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. SECOND, IF SOMEONE SUFFERING FROM GENDER DYSPHORIA SEEKS COUNSELING, NOT TO HELP THEM FROM A BIBLICAL POINT OF VIEW AND SUSTAIN THEM IN THE WRONG BELIEF IS HARMFUL.
THIRD, CONSIDER THE NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE TRIED TO SWITCH GENDERS, ONLY TO REGRET IT LATER WITH MANY FEMALES UNABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN.
THIS IS POLITICS, NOT SOUND MEDICAL PRACTICE. IT’S GOING TO HARM MANY YOUNG PEOPLE. THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HEARD THE CASE. I’M CAL THOMAS.
I agree with you 100 percent on this article. I can understand why the liberal justices would vote to allow it to stand, but what were Gorsuch, Roberts and Barrett thinking?
I have the idea that strict Darwinism would not be much more favorable to the blurring of gender roles than biblical Christianity. The idea is that distinctions based on race are incidental to the reproductive process (a Russian could pair with a Central American and have children), but those based on sex are fundamental (only in combining male and female is reproduction possible). Therefore those who would blur such distinctions are religious humanists with Darwinian evolution merely a halfway house.