British journalist tells Douglas Murray in his book The enraged mass the case of the Belgian citizen Nathan Verhelst.
Nathan had been born a girl and her parents had named her Nancy. Nancy had three siblings for whom her parents seemed to show a clear predilection.
When Nathan died in 2013, at age 44, his mother declared “when Nancy was born, my dreams were shattered, she was very ugly. His death has not affected me“.
At age 40, Nancy decided that her problems, including the one she had with her horrible family, would be solved if she were a man. So he started the hormonal treatment and underwent three sex change operations.
The result was not as expected. “When I looked in the mirror, I felt disgusted. My new bust was not what I expected and the penis gave symptoms of rejection.”
Nathan fell into a depression. In 2013, at just 44 years old, he requested euthanasia alleging “unbearable psychological suffering.” The same Belgian state that had operated on him to change his sex agreed without any major problems to kill him.
A week before he died, Nathan said goodbye with a party. In her, Nathan and his friends toasted “to life”. Shortly before he died, and always according to Douglas Murray, Nathan said “I don’t want to be a monster”.
Nathan’s is just one of the cases cited by Douglas Murray in his book and not even the most terrible of them. Murray imagines future generations wondering in surprise: “So the Belgian healthcare system tried to turn a woman into a man, went wrong and then killed her?“.
Then Murray asks those kinds of questions that Irene Montero and her babysitters from the Ministry of Equality have never been raised. What is being trans? Who is trans? What makes someone trans? Are we sure it exists as a category? Are we sure that it is always possible to physically convert someone from one sex to another or that this is the best way to tackle the underlying problem?
Of course, these are elementary questions. A civilized state, one that does not pretend, like the Belgian, cover up failed sex changes with express euthanasiaYou should be very clear on the answers to those questions before taking a single misstep in this area.
But the first of the questions that should be answered by those who, like Podemos, want sex change treatments to be carried out by the State to minors and without any requirement other than a simple request from them is from where to where trans transition.
Because if biological sex does not exist and everything is a social construction, In relation to what exactly do trans people feel at odds?
And what is the basis for the thesis that this discomfort with morphological characteristics that are attributed to something that does not exist (biological sex) is solved with its transformation into the morphological characteristics of something that does not exist (the opposite sex to sex? biological)?
In other words, and by focusing on only one of the two possibilities. If the characteristics that we conventionally attribute to the female sex are irrelevant because a woman can also be a human being with XY chromosomes, what is the point of transitioning to those external characteristics that the society attributed, apparently wrongly, to women?
And one more question, also nuclear. If gender is elective and the XX and XY chromosomes do not determine anything relevant, What sense then does feminism have? Either one thing or the other, but feminism and the thesis that biological sex is a social construct and therefore open to free choice cannot be defended at the same time.
What is the point of feminism if women do they not exist as a distinct category of men?
Until Podemos, and those who defend the Podemos thesis, have no answers to these questions, an elementary prudence I would advise against leaving what should be in the hands of science in the hands of activists and to be studied in depth rather than turned into a pastime of populist parties aspiring to apprentice biological sorcerers.
– .
