You shouldn’t have come for the kids, Andrew

Andrea Chu is enraged that the liberals have begun to question trans acceptance — it seems there is a bridge too far, even for the most inclusive

The transgender tipping point appears to have arrived, but not in the way Time magazine meant it a decade ago. What a difference ten years makes: what was once viewed and accepted as the new frontier for human rights is being revealed as something much darker. And trans activists are panicking.

“The political center has moved significantly on trans issues,” Andrea (né Andrew) Chu admits in New York Magazine.

It could have all been so easy if men like Chu could have kept their agenda under wraps — perhaps limited their demands to “acceptance” as women in society. No one seemed to mind much when they only wanted for people to “be kind,” and call them “she,” though some of us saw the slippery slope that became a landslide.

It turns out that even the accepting libs have a tipping point. Indeed, as Chu writes, “the nation’s first pangs of dutiful charity have rapidly subsided — in no small part because the focus has shifted from adults to children.”

While Chu acknowledges the religious right and the TERFs as opposition blocks, the trans questioning that concerns him most comes from liberals, as the liberal will see themselves merely as a “concerned citizen” rather than as the danger Chu claims they are. I don’t actually believe Chu sees those concerned about the impact of gender identity ideology as dangerous to the vulnerable, but rather as a threat to his own power. He, like other male trans activists, fears not violence, but loss of control over the conversation, institutions, the media, and the law.

His agenda is under threat, and that agenda, he’s made clear, is not just about a safe place to pee.

Chu labels this new danger the “TARL” —  “trans-agnostic reactionary liberal” — a threat on account of the fact these individuals are not just concerned with the impact of trans activism on society, but are also concerned with free speech and, even worse, the kids.

The root of his anxiety is revealed in his complaints about insistence on “public debate.” This has always been the primary concern of trans activists, who use every tool in the book, from violence, to firings, to prosecution to stop people from questioning their clownfish dogma. The demand has always been that we all stop talking about this and agree that transwomen are indeed women — just like any other red-blooded, sperm producing woman. But things have gone further than mantras, to minors, and the blanket of “no debate” has been ripped off.

While many have tried to sound the alarm about the harms of transing kids (only to be accused of “hate,” naturally), documents like the WPATH Files have removed any doubt that this agenda is dangerous. Now that the debate has moved to focus on kids, and whether or not it is ethical or necessary to medicalize youth who are experiencing regular youth things in such a way that leads to sterilization, removes their ability to experience orgasm or enjoyable sex down the road, and robs them of the future experience of having a normal intimate relationship or family — Chu is perturbed.

The question of whether or not men who enjoy masturbating in nylons are literally women as a result of this practice had been settled, he’d thought. The “kids” question has disrupted Chu’s fantasy.