Amongst the broad coalition of individuals opposed to child sex change procedures there is a growing contingent arguing that the biggest problem with the transgender cult is that it amounts to homophobia or somehow accidentally promotes (gasp!) traditional gender roles. Not only is this panic totally laughable; it is also historically inaccurate. 

Nevertheless, this line of argument is seducing today’s right. Conservatives have been cozying up to the slightly less degenerate version of the current gender madness for quite some time now, presumably in the hope that this will stunt the progress of an even more perverse brand of gender-ideology.

For instance, transgender activist Bruce Jenner, who has changed his name to Caitlyn, is now a regular contributor for the right-leaning Fox News. Never mind that Jenner was one of the very first high-profile cases of a sex-change and that the media used his transition to normalize the practice. Never mind that Jenner stole an award from women in being named Glamour magazine’s “Woman of the Year” in 2015. Never mind that Jenner exemplifies the absolute selfishness of the entire movement, as his child remembers the traumatic experience of catching her father trying on dresses. 

Still, Jenner has come out against men competing in women’s sports and has attracted plenty of attention for making the abundantly obvious statement that men cosplaying as women are not “real women.” This is enough to get some on the right to happily embrace him and give him the attention he desires. His total endorsement of the concept of transgenderism itself is well-documented, but he thinks we should stop short of “forcing” it on children. Well, that’s a relief. One might say he is more “conservative” than Rachel Levine, making him—so these “conservatives” argue—an ally in the fight. 

The march of gender madness has veered so far to the left in such a short time, that individuals claiming that men dressing as women are doing nothing societally or personally detrimental are considered the sane ones in the transgender debate. 

Jonathan Van Ness, the reality television star of a program called Queer Eye, recently donned an ill-fitting green ball gown, covered his bearded face in makeup, and curled his long raven locks for the Golden Globe Awards. This sort of “gender-bending” stunt is as old as David Bowie’s antics but the celebration of it from some individuals who would usually oppose gender ideology was particularly surprising.

“When young boys are told dresses and makeup are not for boys, it signals to the boys who like dresses and makeup that they must be a girl then,” Sara Higdon, a self-described “transsexual” who writes for the right-wing outlet The Post Millennial, said on X. 

“This is actually fine. It’s called gender non-conformity and it’s what gender critical people allegedly support,” another user wrote.

That sex and gender are distinct concepts, an argument constructed by the most devious of medical practitioners, is the first and most essential concession that the practitioners of gender ideology demand we make. 

Known pedophile and sex change pioneer John Money also believed that “gender roles,” a term he coined in a 1955 paper, should be less stereotyped in order to make transgender-leaning individuals more likely to be content living in their unaltered bodies. 

Money is the father of gender ideology and is responsible for the notion of “gender” being decoupled from that of “sex.” Gender is a term which manufactures a concept of distinction between someone’s biological reality and the way a person expresses himself or herself. Money, who is credited with one of the first pediatric sex change procedures, made the argument that eliminating of the notion of sex-specific behaviors would make people less likely to seek out a transgender identity. Particularly, Money would agree with so-called “conservative trans people” that one’s expression of the opposite sex is entirely unproblematic, saying of those who disagree that, “they say masculinity and femininity are built into the genes so women should get back to the mattress and the kitchen.” Money is said to have wanted to “de-stereotype” sex roles, so that “a tomboyish girl prenatally androgenized grows up to be a career-minded woman not a transsexual who claims to need gender reassignment.”

For activists like Higdon, if Money had not been actively involved in transitioning kids, he might have been hailed as a conservative and a champion of gender-confused children.

Van Ness, for his part, enthusiastically supports child sex changes, but this should be no surprise to anyone paying attention to how and why our society has slipped into endorsing madness. The leap from a man cosplaying as a woman to make a statement about his views on sex and “gender,” to supporting child gender transitions is, in fact, little more than a skip. Van Ness was obviously trying to make a point about the “fluidity” of gender, an argument which is at the core of gender ideology itself. 

The conservative establishment’s uneasy alliance with the less insane elements of the transgender movement is bound to unravel and reveal the true allies of our movement are those sworn to protect children and the dignity of men and women as such. 

Conventional conservatives have tried allying with openly gay men in the past, insisting that “at least they believe in free speech.” But conservative darling Dave Rubin then purchased two designer babies with his “husband” and much of the right recoiled in horror. Rubin’s only mistake was in how quickly he made this switch after setting the bait. Perhaps if he had have given it two or three years, much of the right would have defended him because at least he and his husband didn’t give the babies sex-changes before they reached the age of five.