Sexual believers must leave the house of Adima alone

Piet Adema (ChristenUnie) is the new Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. At the end of last month, Adema signed the manifesto against the transgender law, which was co-founded by Bart Jan Spruit – author of Wynia Week. D66 is now asking the minister to express his support for the statement Withdraws. Adima replies that he opens the statement private address Signature: “Now I am a minister, and in this new role one thing is absolutely self-evident to me: as a member of the Cabinet, I follow the policy of the government, as well as on this subject.” Bart Collard says sexists should leave it at that.

Statement against the transgender law

The statement against the transgender law lists five objections. First, the practical point is that if a man could only have a V (not a V for the security guard, but a V for a woman) in his passport, he would have access to ‘women’s restrooms, changing rooms, support groups, women’s sports competitions or women’s prisons.

The second objection is that from a biological point of view, sex has a division and is therefore “not constructive or optional.” There are people who are born with gender traits of boys and girls, or something in between. This is a small group that you can classify as a mixed category. However, transgender people are often men or women who do not identify as such.

The third objection from the statement is that criticism of the bill is quickly dismissed as transphobic. This is a “serious threat to freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution.”

The fourth objection – to me the least significant non-believer – comes from religious circles who believe transgender people are trying to penetrate “the prescribed moral and natural order”.

The final objection is that minors can change their gender against their parents’ will. A 16-year-old is not allowed to buy rum or vote, but he can change his gender independently. Under the age of sixteen, the court decides, taking into account the “right of the child to self-determination”. Very dangerous. Surgery can cause irreparable damage to the body.

There is still a lot of mystery about transgender people

But even if the parents agree to the transfer of the minor, is this desirable? This week I heard from a live source how an acquaintance from America sends his 7-year-old son to school in a dress and administers female hormones, because the boy pretends to be a girl. What if the boy said he was born again after two years? Or perhaps worse, if the boy no longer dares to say it?

What I think is the biggest problem with transgender law is that there are still many blind spots in terms of transgender cognition. This is because debate – including academic debate – is very sensitive. Research into this phenomenon can already be considered as transphobic, and thus leads to cancellation. Critical questions about it are actually undesirable.

Author Douglas Murray addresses this matter clearly in his book Crowd madness. Gender, Race, and Identity. Is transgender a hardware problem (are transgender people born this way and is it a biological abnormality) or a software problem (did you know transgender people)? Murray cautiously points to research that may indicate that transgender people are socially contagious. Young girls in particular will be vulnerable to it and see it as a solution to their insecurities.

Transgenderism and liberalism

But if transgenderism is a software problem, why should we treat this phenomenon – at least for the time being – with such restraint? Does liberalism not presuppose the full industrial capacity of man? That what someone wants to do with their body should always be allowed?

That’s right, but the question in this matter is how much anyone really wants that. However, 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill warned that government should not ban anything because ban would be better for the individual in question. This patriarchy stands in the way of individual freedom and opens the door to government abuse of power.

If people want to modify their bodies, they should, right? Make-up? Temporary, so no problem. Well, the hole then? However, they often leave a small scar when taken off. tattoos? You have them for life, although you can now get them with a laser. Maybe not a big problem either. But what if I wanted to remove the distinct parts of my body? like my penis? Or my ears or my fingers, like The Black Alien? I’m going about my body, right?

However, there are signs that girls who think they are boys – or vice versa – are being misled. It still makes sense for a person to decide about his own body, but with such a drastic decision, wouldn’t it be right for a psychologist or psychiatrist to issue an advisory opinion? This can be discussed. For this reason, Adema’s signature on the statement should not be a problem.

Formal modification of types

In addition, the question arises – which is regularly classified as transphobia – to what extent someone belongs to the opposite sex after a sex change operation. Is the man without a penis but with a new C-tightened cup and a woman’s make-up vagina? Should society recognize its desire to change sex – whether it is justified or the result of a mental disorder? This presents a more complex issue than it appears. In transgender law, the gender process is not a requirement for a gender change.

A similar question is whether a person who thinks it is a dog should be able to apply for a dog passport. Or it can become property of the “owner”. If you find this example silly, I’m referring to the black alien mentioned above. This man wants to completely transform himself into an alien and has drawn almost his entire body, slashed his tongue, cut off his lips, fingers and ears. He is now planning to slit his penis. If this man wanted to officially register that he was not a human but an alien, would society allow it? Perhaps with a foreigner in the passport?

Shouldn’t we be allowed to say “dear” after “dear ladies and gentlemen” because that doesn’t include people who are considered aliens or dogs?

Adema does not have to withdraw support

The statement against the transgender law is not against transgender people: “No one wants to deny that gender dysphoria (discomfort with sex at birth) is serious business and that many people who suffer from it deserve appropriate counseling.” Nor does the statement contradict sexual surgery: “The current procedure provides safeguards against errors and abuse. Removing those safeguards is unnecessary, unwise and dangerous. It is now possible to prevent incompetent people from inflicting such damage on themselves.

The fact that politicians like Piet Adema criticize the transgender law is a good thing, because it benefits the debate. Now that he has become a minister, he may not cancel his signature. If a minister has to cancel all previous personal data, the wall is over. Sexual believers must leave Beth Adima alone.

Expert in criminology and terrorism Bart Collard It has been published several times a month in Wynia’s Week since the summer of 2022.

Winya week It has no paywalls and no paid subscriptions, but luckily it has more and more paying readers. These donors make our online magazine possible. are you with us Thank you!

Leave a Comment