David French Doubles Down on ‘Castrating Childen is Not Abuse’+ Inadvertedly Gives a Defense of Abortion
‘David French, who we like to unaffectionately call ‘The State’s Fool”, is a self-proclaimed “conservative” Christian commentator who can always be counted on to give the worst take possible on any situation. This is especially true in a recent NYT Op-ed, where he chastised people who were decrying the chemical castration of children and labeling it as abuse, while also arguing that politicians need to stop passing laws making trans surgeries illegal.
After getting significant blowback, French doubledowned on Twitter. He protests that giving puberty blockers to children, encouraging them in their supposed gender dysphoria, and ultimately helping them cut off healthy breasts and penises is not “abuse” if it’s legal and doctors are willing to do it. This while havin gall to insist “I oppose medical interventions to transition kids.” His logic follows:
- We permit states to seize custody of children when their parents abuse or neglect them, such as beating them, cutting them, starving them, or sexually abusing them. This is actual abuse.
- Trans surgeries for children are not ‘abusive’, and it’s wrong to define them as such, particularly when they stem from parents, doctors, and caregivers doing their best to love their children.
- It is wrong to define trans surgeries and procedures as ‘abuse’ if doctors and legislators say it’s not abusive, and if labeling it as abusive will needlessly result in children being removed from their gender-affirming parents.
French argues that the definition of “abuse” should not be expanded to include genital mutilation in children, but this shows how broken and compromised this thinking is.
Labeling genital mutilation as abuse is not an EXPANSION of the definition, but rather refusing to include it and seeking to carve out an exception for it through some progressive medical rebranding is a SHRINKING of the definition of abuse.
French’s deranged stuttering is almost perfectly analogous to abortion. “I oppose abortion, but because legislators and the medical community say it’s not killing a baby and personhood is not settled, I don’t want the definition of “murder” to be expanded to include slicing off a child’s limbs and then suctioning the entrails. I also don’t want the civil government to make it illegal or restrict it or do anything about it, as that would be an infringement of the mother’s rights, who is just trying to do what’s best for her in consultation with her doctor.”
In making a defense for one he makes a defense for the other, all the while demonstrating he’s a caricature of himself.
About Author
This man is obviously a naive fool.
I fear he is less naive and more a fool