And no, I do not accept the binary-choice argument

 I have been taken to task for the decision I discuss in the previous two posts here at LITD. Some have the position that staying home and not voting is irresponsible. 

Sorry, but I want the eternal record book to show that I participated in the furtherance of neither brand of darkness that prevails on our political landscape. 

When you vote Democrat, you sign on to this kind of thing:

The Biden administration is doing that now on what officials call "gender-affirming care" for young people who believe they are transgender. "There is no argument among medical professionals -- pediatricians, pediatric endocrinologists, adolescent medicine physicians, adolescent psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. -- about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care," Dr. Rachel Levine, who, as U.S. assistant secretary for health, is the highest-ranking transgender person in the administration, told National Public Radio Friday. The next day, Levine made the case in a speech at the "Out for Health" conference at Texas Christian University.

 

A month earlier, to observe "International Transgender Day of Visibility," Levine's agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, released an information sheet on "gender-affirming care" for youth. "For transgender and nonbinary children and adolescents, early gender-affirming care is crucial to overall health and well-being as it allows the child or adolescent to focus on social transitions and can increase their confidence while navigating the health care system," the department said.

The information sheet included a chart detailing "gender-affirming care." It listed four specific types of care, with a definition and comment on whether or not it was "reversible." The first type of care was "social affirmation," which it defined as "adopting gender-affirming hairstyles, clothing, name, gender pronouns, and restrooms and other facilities." That can be done "at any age or state," HHS said, and is "reversible." Indeed, while there is debate about the wisdom of such efforts, they are, in fact, reversible.

But the department listed three other approved treatments that are not reversible -- puberty blockers, hormone therapy and "gender-affirming surgeries." The chart defined the first as "using certain types of hormones to pause pubertal development," which it recommended "during puberty." It called such treatment "reversible," although there is great debate about that, and in any event, it is hard to see how delaying the age at which a child reaches puberty can be reversed, since the child will never be that age again.

 

HHS defined hormone therapy as "testosterone hormones for those who were assigned female at birth" and "estrogen hormones for those who were assigned male at birth," recommended from "early adolescence onward" and labeled "partially reversible."

 

"Gender-affirming surgeries" were defined as "'top' surgery -- to create male-typical chest shape or enhance breasts," or "'bottom' surgery -- surgery on genitals or reproductive organs," or "facial feminization or other procedures." Such measures are "typically used in adulthood or case-by-case in adolescence" and are obviously "not reversible."

 

Levine says there is "no argument" about the value and importance of these treatments. But in fact, all three of them -- puberty blockers, hormone therapy and "gender-affirming" surgeries -- are quite controversial. 

Got that? "No argument." 

This is a perfect example of the you-will-get-your-mind-right foundation of the way Democrats conceive of this nation's future.  

There is to be no argument over the obliteration of the basic design of the universe, nor about the primacy of identity politics in all aspects of public life,  nor about the notion that the global climate is in some kind of trouble requiring an abrupt abandonment of human advancement, not about the virtuousness of wealth redistribution.

I'm no Republican anymore, but I sure ain't on board with this agenda, either.