Skip to main contentAccessibility feedback
Background Image

A Mother’s Madness, a Culture’s Lie

To call a boy “she” is a lie that attacks the heart of God’s most sublime creation

Most of our readers will have heard of the little boy in Texas, James Younger, whose father has been fighting in court to prevent his ex-wife from subjecting the boy to the surgeries and hormone treatments necessary for him to pretend that he is a girl named “Luna.”

To open up the flesh of this case is to reveal a seething mass of cancers and diseases. The father is no saint. This was his third marriage, annulled on the grounds that he lied to his wife about his education and his military experience. He was discharged from the Marines for homosexual behavior. He and his wife manufactured the boy and his twin brother in a glass dish via in vitro fertilization. The boy at age three can be seen on a video, telling his father that he “is a girl,” because he “loves girls,” and that Mommy puts him in dresses and paints his fingernails. Mommy and Daddy are pieces of work, but of the two, Mommy is the one set upon doing irreparable harm to a mere child.

Would a mother castrate her son? Bad people do bad things and it is not a new thing in the world that a parent should use a child to exact vengeance upon the other parent. But we are dealing here not with ordinary evil. We are dealing with breathtaking insanity.

According to Dawn Ennis, writing for Forbes Magazine, “Luna was given the name ‘James’ at birth in 2012, and, like her twin brother, presumed to be male, until 2016.” That’s the magazine named for its founder, the self-presenting conservative capitalist Malcolm Forbes. Keep in mind that the great corporate world will, along with its surly fraternal twin in government, seek to relegate religious faith to the pews, crushing whoever dares to question its motives or cultural directives. When Forbes flies the rainbow flag, the prince of this world laughs loud and long.

Return to the sentence quoted above. I presume that Miss Ennis is intelligent. She can write fair English, in short bursts of platitudes, misinformation, and moral enthusiasm. But she is quite mad. “Presumed to be male?” If a gorilla gives birth to a boy gorilla, do we “presume” that it is male? Don’t we notice that it is male? Does the doctor, after delivery, say to the mother, “I think it’s a boy, but we won’t be sure for at least another three years?” His sex is male, and that’s it. His reproductive system is male, organized for the male role. Every single cell in his body is marked for the masculine.

Look at the boy’s face. That’s a boy, there. The shape of the face, the jaw, even the thick hair that can give boys the look of a perpetual cowlick, all mark him out as an ordinary boy. What was not ordinary about him? Nothing, but a brace of bad parents, with a mother who evidently put in his mind that he was a girl, grooming and coaxing him, and certainly doing nothing to bring him gently into reality. In a sane world, even within recent memory, she would lose custody of the child for the cross-dressing alone. In a sane world, doctors who mutilate children, cutting off healthy organs, would lose their licenses, unless they were to practice pro bono publico among their mates in prison.

Miss Ennis says that the mother

wants to allow Luna to continue to transition socially from male to female by wearing girls [sic] clothing and going by a different name. Later, her daughter might take medical steps such as puberty blockers [sic], which temporarily pause [sic] puberty. This step is 100% reversible and often prescribed for children who may feel uncomfortable with their assigned [sic] sex, and it requires children’s informed consent, according to the Mayo Clinic.

The clinic’s webpage, all in for the madness, still does not say anything close to what Ennis suggests as to reversibility, and if you read carefully, you discover that the puberty blockers pose severe developmental problems to the child—quite apart from the effects upon the reproductive system—stunting the growth of bones, for instance. I suspect that we will soon be feigning shock, as we discover that flooding a child’s body with synthetic sex hormones outside of the natural timing and structure of masculine and feminine development was not a good idea. Carcinogenic, rather.

Medicine aside, what has been done to this boy’s soul? He has been fed lies. James Younger is not a girl. He can never become a girl. Even Miss Ennis and her editors did not dare to lead their article with a picture of the boy. Instead we see a picture, from behind, of a girl in a purple dress, walking down a path; the fine print beneath, which the eye might easily skip, identifies her as such. She is obviously a girl – you can see it in the shape of her body and the slenderness of her arms and legs. She is as obviously a girl as James is obviously not a girl. Who will tell James the truth? Who will tell him that if his mother continues in her vicious path, he will grow up to be a physical and emotional freak – not a girl whom a boy might love, not a boy whom a girl might love, but something neither flesh nor fowl, unable to beget or conceive a child, and attractive only to a few people with dreadful problems of their own?

It should never have come to this. It would never have come to this, in a normal world. In that world, the boy would be brought up as a boy, doing chores alongside his father, and building up the muscles and bones that will mark him as a man. Indeed, when James is not with his mother, but with his father and his twin brother, he seems to drop the pretense of being a girl, and is a boy among boys, as he should be.

Ennis decries the outrage among “conservatives and Christian fundamentalists,” who have moved to support James’ father and to block any castration, chemical or otherwise, and even, in Texas, to outlaw such procedures. But be advised. Right now, if you say, “Children should be brought up according to their biological sex, expecting to marry after the normal way of nature,” you will be called a “fundamentalist,” which is a piece of historical and theological nonsense; all it means here is that you are a bigot who opposes the latest metamorphosis of our sexual unreality. You will be tempted to find an intermediary position, keeping at arm’s length those who are most outraged, to continue “dialogue” with those who castrate boys and lop the breasts off girls. Lukewarm water, to spew out of the mouth. What can the compromise be, to cut off one testicle or one breast?

You will be tempted to give way on the matter of pronouns. Forget it. Even if James should change his name to Luna, he will still be male and not female. It is not a white lie to call him “she.” It is a lie that attacks the heart of God’s most sublime creation, man in his image and likeness, male and female. God is not the father of confusion. Do not take your cues from him who is a liar and the father of lies.

One last point. Christians may soon need to fashion a new Underground Railroad to support people publicly or privately who have been persecuted by the new ruling class. Meanwhile, pray unceasingly, and do not concede one inch of territory.

Did you like this content? Please help keep us ad-free
Enjoying this content?  Please support our mission!