In my last piece, I presented evidence—which as far as I can tell, is irrefutable—that "sex reassignment surgery" (also now called "gender affirmation surgery") is a fraud. It is a fraud not only because it doesn't actually "reassign sex", but because it doesn't come remotely close over time to conferring the psychological, emotional, and spiritual benefits its proponents claim.
But to merely label it a "fraud" seems overly charitable. Some late night TV gizmo which doesn't work as advertised—some new kind of potato peeler, or air fryer, or hand vacuum—that's a fraud.
But this? This is a fraud, but also much more than fraud. It is radically invasive, large-scale, irreversible, permanently life-altering physical damage. The damage isn't limited to the amputation and mutilation of sex organs. For women trying to become men, it also includes damage in the form of hormone treatment which doubles the incidence of heart attack, stroke, and blood clotting (see also here and here). For men trying to become women...well, as one doctor put it, "There hasn't been a lot of research on the use of estrogen by transwomen. This is why there may be other risks that may exist that doctors aren't aware of". Hm.
In any case, the evidence—gathered from over a hundred studies conducted over many years—is stark and consistent: genital amputation, over time, does not alleviate the distress of people struggling with sexual identity.
...almost everyone in the, um, "scientific" establishment continues to support genital amputation as a genuine treatment option: family doctors, psychologists, psychiatrist, endocrinologists, urologists, gynecologists, nurses, therapists, medical researchers, everyone. Even though it doesn't work.
Surgeons continue to perform it even though it doesn't work.
Hospitals continue to host it even though it doesn't work.
Legislators avoid regulating or curtailing it as a fraudulent treatment even though it doesn't work.
The tyrants now steering our Giant Woke Monoculture, and all their local gauleiters on school boards and city councils and newspaper staffs, continue to demand we all celebrate it, even though it doesn't work.
More questions: How does continuing to recommend a "cure" which we know isn't a cure at all—especially one entailing complete removal of sex organs—qualify as "science"? And not, say, the most horrific form of superstitious barbarism and medical malpractice? How is it the product of reason or evidence? How does it represent "progress"? Or "compassion"?
Given that we know genital amputation does not work over time, how does its practice not violate the principle of primum non nocere—"first, do no harm" —at the heart of every solemn oath taken by every so-called "health professional" who recommends it?
And how does it not violate this sobering sentence from the current Hippocratic Oath: "Above all, I must not play at God"? If misleading someone into believing he can cure his distress by removing his sex organs and taking massive doses of hormones—and then actually performing the surgery and providing the hormones—isn't "playing at God", what would be?
And where exactly did any of these specific ideas come from, in the first place?
As to this last question, I am not really competent to answer. There's also the difficulty that every time you think you've discovered the origin of some line of thought, you discover that that "origin" is itself the product of previous lines of thought. Keep tracing, and eventually you get to: "Once upon a time, life began".
But in the case of our current madness, and our "medical experts" playing at God, I think it's fair to start by paying attention to one source in particular.
This source was a man. That man did indeed hate God. Some might say he eagerly "played at God". What might be more accurate is to say he "played at Satan". He devoted his entire life to warring against God—not only God as a superintending agent, but as the embodiment of a cosmic power no human being can ever supersede, and an ultimate reality no human being can ever change.
And because you all seem like a fairly indulgent audience, I want to riff on that for a sec.
You might recall the story of Moses and the Burning Bush. A voice calls to Moses, charging him with leading the Israelites out of captivity. A surprised Moses then says this:
"When I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you."
The Hebrew version of this divine autonym is אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (pronounced ehyeh 'ăšer 'ehyeh). How best to translate this enigmatic phrase into English has long been debated, but here are just a few things to consider.
First, it invokes the Hebrew verb, h-y-h, meaning to be. The phrase is a declaration of existence, above all.
Second, it defies tense. As Richard Elliot Friedman notes in his commentary on the Torah, "it cannot be limited to a past, present, or future time". It conveys being which transcends time.
Third, a Masoretic tradition asserts this phrase originally implied causal or creative agency. If that is true, then we might agree with another commentator, the late Leo Perdue, that the phrase "I cause to be what exists (or happens)" sits as another layer of meaning.
So, assuming there is something to this passage, what we have is an expression of God as ultimate being—ultimate being which embodies (and was and is and will be the cause of) all other being, reality, essence, existence. And that entails things like the laws of the universe, physical as well as moral. In short, in my view, what אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה really points to is an entity representing being no human being can fully comprehend; creative power no human being can ever exceed; and ultimate reality no human being can ever change.
Every concept of God enraged the man I referred to above—but especially this one. And it was in his lifelong war against God, however conceived, that he raged, humiliated, sexually abused, bullied, terrorized, tortured, destroyed, and performed experimental surgeries on infants similar to those performed by the Auschwitz "medical researcher" (and eventual abortionist) Josef Mengele. This man caused trauma so extreme, and so heartbreaking, I am unsure whether to even describe it in my next piece.
This man committed his horrors without any remorse. He spread ideas he knew to be false. He did so in the name of "cultural progress". He did so not only in the name of science (even though he was subverting everything science is supposed to be), but with the explicit approval and applause of science. He did so as one of the most celebrated medical experts of the 20th century. He did so under the auspices of one of the great universities of the world. He did so with invincible, pathological arrogance. He never apologized. He never acknowledged his fabrications. He was never sued. He was never prosecuted. He was never even fired from his job.
His colleagues knew what he was up to. They often observed his abuses first hand. They did nothing to stop him. To this day, his university has never repudiated him or his work.
Why mention him? Because the scientific establishment is still emulating his brand of malpractice, and still promoting his ideas as true, even though (like the claims for sex reassignment surgery) they have been proven false. Why?
More on that, and on the man I described above, next week.
Tal will be back here next week to continue the conversation. Mark Steyn Club members can weigh in on this column in the comment section below, one of many perks of club membership, which you can check out here.
Comment on this item (members only)
Viewing and submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here: