Parental Rights vs Trans Kids Rights?

Most reasonable people would agree that everyone in a free society should have the right to do whatever they want to do unless and until that right starts to interfere with the rights of others.  When there is such a conflict, which is often the case, it is important to put one's personal opinions aside in the interest of figuring out what is the greatest good.

The reason people do not have certain rights and responsibilities until they are 18 years old is because that is the age we as a society have determined to be the time when a person can reasonably be expected to know enough about the world to make decisions with full understanding of their implications.  

This is the reason that we have to wait until we are 18 to vote, get married, pay taxes, buy cigarettes... even older to rent a car or hotel room or run for office or buy booze.  Some decisions have been granted to slightly younger people - generally 17 year olds can enlist in the military and see an R rated movie, while 16 year olds can drive unaccompanied and apply to be emancipated from their parents if they can establish due cause.  There is obviously some wiggle room in the later teen years, as maturity levels vary widely between individuals, and we all know some 40 year olds that you would not trust babysitting your kids or house sitting for you.  But there are certain age restrictions nonetheless because what would the vote of a five year old really mean?  That they have mastered the art of eeney-meeney-miney-mo?

When it comes to issues of sexuality, things start to get a little dicey, as is the case among adults as well.  An 18 year old can be arrested for "statuory rape" of their 17 year old partner if the minor's parents have it out for them, even though the age of consent for sex is 16 in many places.  It can't be that the water in one state makes for more mature 16 year olds than in others.  So the age restrictions do seem to be rather abstract.  But the point is that all 50 US states have a minimum age of 16 for consent to sex, which means across the nation, no one agrees that teens younger than 16 are generally mature enough to understand the full reprecussions of sexual intimacy and the potential fallout, both physical and emotional of engaging in what many (myself included) believe is an activity best suited for adults married to each other.  But that's a digression.

Interestingly, we already see a disconnect between the laws on the books about minium age of consent and the age at which an adolescent can get an abortion without their parents' consent or knowledge.  If the teenager is of the age of consent in their state, then they must by extension be considered old enough to handle the ramifications of that decision, including an unintended pregnancy.  For instance, the state of Oregon does not grant minors under the age of 18 consent to sex, yet neither does it require parental consent or notification either.  This is a mixed message.  On the one hand, the state is saying that a 16 or 17 year old is not old enough to enter into a sexual relationship, yet that same state is saying that if they do anyway, they can then proceed to decide if an abortion would be the best course of action should they get pregnant.  Isn't the former much less involved than the latter?  Many people do regret their abortions, not to mention the invasiveness and potential complications from an abortion.  Shouldn't they be accompanied by their parents when making such a life-changing decision?

So already we see that the idea that 18 is a magical age at which a child becomes an adult is wrong.  There is no such magic moment.  It is a very nuanced situation.  And you know who can best help determine when a child is ready for the responsibility?  Their parents.  Not the government, and not the child themself. 

If a child or tween cannot consent to sex, how can they consent to anything else having to do with sexuality and gender?  How can they realistically grasp the ramifications of undergoing irreversible therapies such as hormones or surgery when they haven't lived long enough to get that they can't just click undo and go back if they change their minds?  And I think it goes without saying that adolesence is a time of self-discovery, when teens try on different identities in order to figure out which is the best fit for them.  To insist on the minor committing to the first identity they try on in the name of "allyship" is terribly misguided.

I of course have in mind here the idea that when a child expresses that they feel they are of a different gender than has been affiliated with their sex, we are seeing the government stepping in to interfere with how the child's parents choose to handle this ubiquitous growing phase.  That is not to say that children cannot know that they were born "in the wrong body".  But it is simply too soon to know for certain which children will stick with this identity realization, and which will try it on for a while and then move on to something different.  

For this reason, I support the idea of letting a child try on different genders so long as they do not require any permanent ramifications.  They can change their outfits, their hair, their name, their pronoun... all things that, should this turn out to be a phase, can be changed back.  And even if it is not a phase, and the child does end up not identifying with the gender associated with their sex, if we believe that gender is a spectrum, how do we know that the child may not grow up to identify as nonbinary, and any intentional, invasive treatments did more harm than good if they only forced the person to present more of a different gender, but still of a binary gender nonetheless?  

There is no reason to jump to life-long changes when a child expresses a desire to transition.  We can support them without making them responsible for decisions they are simply too young and immature to make on their own.  This is too great of a burden and it is irresponsible parenting to rush the process, and even more irresponsible governing to interfere in what should remain between the child and their parent.

What I know the retort to all of this is, is that "not everyone has the benefit of having compassionate, understanding parents".  I totally get this and sympathise, but what does that say about the state of our society that we presume that parents are not doing their job and therefore the child is better off with the state than with the very people whose role is to protect them and provide for them and prepare them for adulthood?

If we start bypassing parents, we might as well keep lowering the age of majority, until parenting is a mere 5 year stint that ends when the parents drop off their child at mandatory kindergarten, to be educated, indoctrinated, and essentially raised by the state.  

A Case for the use of "They" as a Universal Third Person Singular Pronoun

I have been erroneaously called by my husband's surname before.  This is a social convention that many people in the West are still accustomed to as being the norm.  The assumption is that when a woman gets married, she changes her name to that of her husband.  I did not. And I often got quite upset about being "misnamed", that people didn't bother to actually ask for my name, that their calling me by my husband's surname must mean they also are making other assumptions about who I am.  I was an angry feminist during this time.  I had little patience with people, extended no grace to them.  Rather, I took it personally and accused them of being sexist. But women taking their husband's surname was a common enough practice that most people simply don't think to question it until it gets pointed out to them.  After it gets pointed out a certain number of times, people slowly start to realize that things actually are not as they assumed them to be, or they're slowly changing and aren't as they used to be.  Then they adjust and instead of assuming, start asking before using a married woman's surname.  

We are now in such a time where more people are starting to realize that gender is the new version of this phenomenon.  Most of us have long assumed that there are two genders, based on the two biological sexes, and so we refer to people accordingly.  We do not mean to offend.  Many of us literally cannot comprehend a world in which there is such a thing as a gender spectrum.  Many people's first knee jerk reaction is to simply resist change and hold on to whatever is familiar at all costs. But as we get more and more exposure to the idea that some people transition from one gender to another, some don't believe either gender resonates with them, and some feel comfortable with both simultaneously, we, too, will slowly start to realize that there's a gender spectrum, rather than just assuming a person that looks a certain way must be one of two genders.  (Just like we used to assume that a woman must either have the surname of her father or her husband.)  Change to something as fundamental as gender, much like naming traditions, will take time.

Rather than getting angry, it behooves us to remember where we are in the scope of things.  We have to know whether our preferences are mainstream or not.  And if they are not, then it is our job to educate others, yes even tirelessly at times, about those preferences.  Because it will take time.  No amount of name-calling or cancelling of people for not being "woke" to the newest practices is going to help.  Rather, it's only going to force people to push back and get defensive about their position.  Most people are not trying to be intentionally hurtful towards others.  This doesn't mean that we should excuse hurtful behavior, but it also doesn't mean that we should fail to do our part to bring about change.  Change happens slowly, and it is more forthcoming when people feel safe to explore new ideas without fear of judgment or ridicule.

For instance, I do not understand the idea of nonbinary gender.  I understand "switching sides", I undersand non-conforming behaviors that resist gendered stereotypes, but I am struggling to appreciate the idea that some people simply do not have an attachment to either of the traditionally recognized genders.  Specifically, what I'm at a loss as to the changes taking place in how we talk about nonbinary people in the third person singular.

A living language can, does, and pretty much must change over time.  I also understand that different languages have different experiences with gendered language, and so they will have more or less problems adjusting to gender-neutral markers.  I have fought the use of "mankind" and the "universal he" to refer to humanity and unknown humans for decades.  I hate the practice of slapping a "Mrs." in front of a married man's first and last name to refer to his wife.  I actually found it perfectly acceptable to write "she/he" in academic papers in order to stay grammatical while also avoiding sexist assumptions (a practice that in recent years has gone by the wayside in favor of the "singular they", due to the alleged cumbersome nature of the latter).  But non-gendered third person singular pronouns are an entirely new can of worms for me.

I understand how a human being that does not identify with female nor male would resist using either of the gendered pronouns (she/he).  I undersand how said individual would nonetheless take offense at using the gender-neutral third person pronoun "it", as this connotes inanimate objects or perhaps animals in modern English (although there was a time when children were often referred to as "it").  I understand that a non-binary person may want to use "they" in place of "she" or "he", and in fact there is a precedent to do so in written English when talking about a person whose gender is unknown.  It is certainly more tricky to do so when referring to a known individual, because we are used to assuming that once we know a person, we can easily place them into one of two neat categories: she or he.  With time, this weirdness will pass.  

What I don't understand is the idea that different non-binary individuals get to "pick" made-up letter combinations, call them "their pronouns", and expect the rest of us to suddenly start using them as if they're words that are part of our everyday lexicon.  Xe, Co, Ze... these are not words anyone outside the trans community ever comes accross.  And if we're going to have a new word, which of course is perfectly acceptable, albeit awkward in the beginning, there needs to be a consensus, or the words must be interchangeable.  Otherwise, if Xe, Co, and Ze all refer to a non-binary individual in the third person, what distinguishes them from each other?  Are they not identical in meaning?  And if so, what is the point of having multiple words tasked with the exact same role in language?  This is highly inefficient.  Perhaps in other languages, the nuances might be ironed out.  In Spanish, for instance, there is a formal and an informal way to refer to the person you are addressing: "tu" or "usted".  Technically, they perform the same role, but the nuance of familiarity or politeness distinguishes them.  In English, we no longer utilize "thee" and "thou"; we only use "you".  So if the second person singular only has one word, and the third person singular already has three ("she", "he", and "it"), then adding not one but several more to the category is simply nonsensical.  

What makes more sense, actually, based on the history of the English language, is to collapse the third person singular pronouns that we are all already used to, rather than inventing additional ones.  People simply stopped using "thee" and "thou" because they were already comfortable using "you".  What if the same thing were to happen to the third person pronoun?  Instead of using "she" and "he" and "it", we could slowly start using "it" to refer to all people in the singular.  But this is actually not likely since, as mentioned above, there is a nuance between "she/he" and "it" in that only the first two are associated with human beings.  

Perhaps then, we can take our pointers from the second person pronoun again.  In English, we do not care if we are addressing one person or an entire group; we say "you".  Why couldn't we do the same when discussing people not present?  Whether the group is mixed sex or all same sex, we simply say "they" and no one blinks an eye.  What if we take the same "they" and tack onto it the singularity of the third person, just like we did with the singularity of the second person?  So now, everyone in the third person, singular or plural, female or male or otherwise, would all be referred to as "they".  And perhaps we keep "it" to differentiate inanimate objects in the third person singular, though they are already "they" in the plural, so maybe that would eventually go away as well.  In fact, in American Sign Language, the three pronouns are already the same sign; you simply point to the side and from the context of the conversation, you know if the sign means "she", "he", or "it".

Using "they" the way we use "you" would follow the precedent of the history of the English language, it would do away with distinguishing between genders within the pronouns used, it would utilize a word every English speaker is already familiar with, and it would honor those who do not identify with female or male genders exclusively.  Sounds like a win all the way around to me.

Modesty and Body Positivity

 So I have been teaching my children (daughter and son) how to present themselves in public in a respectful and appropriate manner (aka: modestly), while also encouraging them to speak up for themselves and feel free to speak their minds and confidently be who God made them to be.  Lately, it has entered my radar that there are people (a lot of them, apparently) who see the two as incompatible.

I understand that modesty is a tricky word, especially since it is culturally-bound and changes over time.  However, we do live in a particular time and place, so there's no sense in getting philosophical about it.  As long as we're living in North America in the 2020s, we will abide by certain boundaries around what is considered scandalous by the majority of others who share this part of the planet with us. 

That said, I also realize that my opinion is quickly becoming out-dated as more and more people associate exposed skin with confidence.  

Frankly, I believe that confidence is something that comes from within, and that if one is truly in possession of it, then what one does or does not wear will not affect it.  Now, one's reputability may be affected, but not one's confidence.

I'm thinking here of all the women who dress very modestly, even more modestly than I would think necessary - often due to their religious convictions.  And I am generally impressed with how poised they are, how certain of who they are.  They are not worried about getting external validation in order to feel comfortable in their own skin.  They are not "hiding", as nay-sayers often accuse modest women of.  (And I say women here because let's be honest, no one seems to care one way or another when a man is being immodest by going shirtless, for instance.  At least no one I know.)

And then I think of the women who supposedly are being "body positive" by posting images of themselves on social media, scantly dressed, often in provokative poses.  There is no question they are fishing for compliments. This is not confidence!  Confidence is going against the grain and doing your own thing and ignoring naysayers.  You know, like modest people often do.

But I didn't start writing this to judge or complain about others.  I'm actually trying to figure out where I stand on all of this.  I do not see confidence as a spectrum where modesty and body positivity are on opposite ends.  I see both as valuable, and I intent to continue to teach the value of both to my children and to try implementing both for myself.

What I struggle with, what I can actually help, is not how others choose to dress or present themselves, but rather, how I react to their choices.  There is a list of fashion choices that, when I notice them on others, always make me cringe. (This list is not sex-specific.)

Exposed thighs on anyone above toddler age.

Exposed midrift.

Exposed back.

Exposed shoulders, especially on men.

Exposed cleavage/chest.

Or skin-tight clothing in the "bathing suit" region. (I will say here that I only use the phrase "bathing suit" because it's commonly understood in my society.  I actually do not think what passes as swimwear is very appropriate either.)

Or visible underwear. 

I make this list not to shame anyone, but to share what is so common and therefore unavoidable for me to notice.  I am not in any way sexually attracted to people due to their immodesty.  That's not what this is about.  I know a lot of religiously-motivated pro-modesty folks use it as a reason to push for modesty, so as not to "cause your brother to stumble" (1 Corinthians 8:9, Mark 9:42).  

Rather, I feel put off by them, and distracted.  I think, are they aware of the effect they are having on others and just don't care?  Are they trying to make a point? (Perhaps a "body positivity" point?) Are they desperate for attention, any attention?

And now I added new questions to my usual list of inquiries: 

Why does it matter which of these, if any, is true?  

Why does it bother me?  

In what way am I personally affected by other people's choice of dress?

My first reaction is that this is merely a knee-jerk reaction to the judgmentalism that I am prone to in general. I grew up being compared to others as a way to locate myself, and I continue to do so even though I work hard not to.  If I want to be seen as modest, it's almost as if I'm on the hunt for people who are less modest than me, so I can reassure myself that at least I'm more modest than *them*.

But another reason, now that I'm a parent, is that I am on the lookout for anything that my children are exposed to that I may need to either shield them from or have a discussion about or otherwise help them navigate. So since I am trying to maintain certain standards in our home, when I see my children exposed to different standards, I worry about them thinking something is appropriate when it does not fit our family standard.  To be fair, we talk about situations when people are much more modest than us as well.  We talk about how others think it's inappropriate for a woman to expose her hair, for instance, which is why she may wear a head scarf, but we don't think it's inappropriate, and so we do.

Other people's immodesty bothers me for a variety of reasons.  I do not like to be around naked people.  I think a lot of people (perhaps not nudists) would agree with me on this point.  So when someone is dressed in a way that shows more skin than it covers, the line between "dressed" and "naked" gets blurred in my mind, I guess, and I feel uncomfortable around these "almost naked" people.  It does not matter to me if they're female or male.  Skin is skin, and naked is naked.  

Finally, I am personally affected by other people's apparent immodesty because I do not yet possess the type of confidence I spoke of at the beginning of this post.  I still do look to what others are doing to situate myself.  I look for approval of my own apparel, if not verbally, then implicitly.  And when there are people dressed drastically different from me in my vicinity, I take that as an implied comment on the appropriateness of how I am dressed.  Perhaps I subconsciously think I'm being judged for being too prudish, or not feminine enough.  In today's culture, it seems that the only way to be unequivocally "feminine" is to be "sexy".  So when my subconscious insecurities about being modest enough or feminine enough get triggered, these are expressed by my lamenting the dress choices of others.

It's easy for me to sit here and place blame on those immodest folks, and how I'm not the one asking for attention.  But I am the one in charge of my thoughts.  Believe it or not, we all are.  We cannot control what others do or don't do, but we do control what we think, feel, say, and do.  It isn't always easy, but it is within the realm of our own control. 

Modesty isn't the only manner in which I take issue about how others show up.  Cursing or other word choices is a point of judgment for me, as are artistic expressions in the form of piercings, tattoos, unnatural hair colors, or clothing styles that are not immodest but just "loud". 

Perhaps I can place all of these observations quietly into a little corner in my mind where I keep track of "things I don't like".  After all, I have a right to my opinion.  But it's not in my best interest to allow my opinion to take over how I see those around me.  And it would be prudent of me to teach my children to be more nuanced as well - we have certain standards, others disagree with us, and neither of us has to be "wrong".