Gender Is Never Fluid

Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter

In the quiet moments between binge-watching episodes of whatever streaming service is currently holding my attention hostage, I've found myself captivated—not by the plot twists of fictional dramas—but by the real-life heart-tuggers that are the Shriners Hospitals for Children and St. Jude Children's Research Hospital commercials. You know the ones: those poignant appeals featuring brave kids battling childhood cancers, their tiny faces lit with hope amid the sterile glow of hospital rooms. As a parent, it's impossible not to feel a lump in your throat. These ads remind us of the fragility of life, the heroism of medical professionals, and the relentless pursuit of cures for diseases that strike without mercy. St. Jude, in particular, has made strides in treating acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a cancer that disproportionately affects children, turning survival rates from a grim 4% in the 1960s to over 90% today. It's a testament to human ingenuity and compassion.

But as I sat there, remote in hand, pondering these miracles of modern medicine, my mind wandered to other childhood ailments. Not the universal ones like the common cold or scraped knees from playground mishaps, but those sneaky, gender-specific diseases that lurk in the shadows of pediatrics. Take hemophilia, for instance—a blood-clotting disorder that's almost exclusively a boys' club, thanks to its X-linked recessive inheritance. Girls can be carriers, but it's the lads who often end up with the bruises that won't quit. Or Duchenne muscular dystrophy, another X-chromosome special that primarily affects boys, leading to progressive muscle weakness starting in early childhood. On the flip side, there's Turner syndrome, which only impacts girls, causing short stature, infertility, and a host of other challenges due to a missing or incomplete X chromosome. And let's not forget Rett syndrome, a neurological disorder that almost always strikes females, turning developmental milestones into heartbreaking regressions.

These conditions aren't just medical footnotes; they're stark reminders that biology doesn't play favorites but does draw lines based on sex chromosomes. XX or XY isn't some arbitrary label—it's the blueprint that influences everything from hormone levels to disease susceptibility. As I mulled this over, sipping my coffee that had gone cold from neglect, a peculiar thought bubbled up: If science is so precise about these gender-specific vulnerabilities in kids, how did we end up in a world where the same experts are now preaching that gender is as fluid as a spilled milkshake?

Ah, and here we pivot from the somber to the satirical, because nothing says "modern discourse" like watching academia's ivory towers leak their eccentricities into the mainstream media like a faulty faucet. It all started innocently enough in the hallowed halls of gender studies departments, where scholars in tweed jackets pondered the social constructs of masculinity and femininity over lukewarm chai lattes. "Gender is performative!" they'd declare, quoting Judith Butler like she was the Beyoncé of philosophy. Fair enough—roles and expectations do evolve. But then, like a viral TikTok trend, this academic musing escaped the lecture halls and infiltrated newsrooms, where journalists, ever eager for clicks, turned it into gospel.

Suddenly, "believe the science" morphed from a rallying cry against climate deniers into a blanket endorsement for every fringe idea under the sun. Remember when science was about empirical evidence? Double-blind studies, peer reviews, and all that jazz? Now, it's apparently flexible enough to accommodate the notion that a man can get pregnant. Yes, you read that right. In the name of inclusivity, we've stretched biology like a pair of yoga pants after Thanksgiving dinner. Pediatric physicians, those same guardians of children's health who diagnose gender-specific diseases with pinpoint accuracy, are now expected to nod along to the idea that gender is a spectrum, fluid and ever-changing, even as they prescribe treatments tailored to immutable chromosomal realities.

Picture this: A doctor in a white coat, stethoscope dangling like a noose of irony, explaining to concerned parents that little Timmy's hemophilia is due to his Y chromosome's lazy partnership with a faulty X. In the next breath, the same doc might affirm that Timmy could identify as Tina tomorrow, and poof—gender fluidity achieved! Never mind that hemophilia doesn't care about pronouns; it's stubbornly sex-linked. It's like telling a kid with peanut allergies that nuts are just a social construct—try explaining that to an EpiPen.

The humor in this absurdity peaks when you consider the contradictions in pediatric care. Organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issue guidelines on treating gender dysphoria in children, advocating for affirmative care that includes puberty blockers and hormone therapies. Yet, these same guidelines acknowledge the biological underpinnings of sex-specific conditions. How do you square that circle? It's as if the medical community is playing a game of Twister: Right hand on evidence-based medicine, left foot on cultural sensitivity, and somehow contorting to avoid offending the Twitterati.

Don't get me wrong—empathy for transgender individuals is crucial. Kids questioning their identity deserve support, not ridicule. But the leap from "be kind" to "rewrite biology" feels like we've swapped the scientific method for a choose-your-own-adventure book. Remember the uproar over "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women"? It's inclusive, sure, but it glosses over the fact that only those with uteruses (typically women) can gestate. If a trans man gets pregnant, great—congrats on the bundle of joy! But let's not pretend this erases the gender-specific risks, like how certain childhood diseases skip the queue based on sex.

This gender fluidity frenzy has trickled down to absurd policy proposals. Schools debating bathroom access based on identity rather than anatomy, while ignoring that some medical conditions (hello, urinary tract infections more common in girls) might complicate things. Or sports, where biological males competing in female categories spark debates hotter than a jalapeño eating contest. Science once told us to trust the experts; now the experts seem to be trusting the zeitgeist.

And oh, the media's role in this comedy of errors! Newsrooms, once bastions of fact-checking, now amplify every gender studies paper as if it's the Dead Sea Scrolls. "Experts say gender is fluid!" blares the headline, buried under which is a study with a sample size smaller than my family reunion. It's like watching a clown car unload PhDs at a circus of confusion. From CNN panels debating if babies have genders (spoiler: they do, but feel free to accessorize) to op-eds arguing that sex is assigned at birth like a bad Secret Santa gift, the nonsense proliferates.

But let's inject some levity: Imagine a world where gender-specific diseases get the fluid treatment. "Sorry, kiddo, your Duchenne muscular dystrophy identifies as a mild cold today—take two aspirins and call me in the morning." Or a St. Jude commercial reimagined: "At St. Jude, we treat childhood cancers regardless of gender identity. But if your leukemia wants to transition to a headache, we've got options!" Ridiculous? Absolutely. But that's the logical endpoint of decoupling gender from biology entirely.

In all seriousness (briefly returning to our starting tone), childhood illnesses don't discriminate based on feelings—they hit based on facts. Hemophilia won't pause for a pronoun check; Turner syndrome doesn't consult a spectrum. Pediatricians know this intimately, yet they're caught in a cultural crossfire, pressured to affirm fluidity while practicing precision medicine.

So, what's the takeaway from this meandering mental journey sparked by hospital ads? Perhaps it's time to reclaim science from the clutches of ideology. Let gender studies thrive in academia—debate away! But when it seeps into medicine, especially for kids, we risk diluting the very expertise that saves lives. Believe the experts, yes—but only when they're sticking to the evidence, not bending it like a pretzel.

In the end, as I click past another St. Jude spot, I'm grateful for the progress against childhood cancers. And for the reminder that while society evolves, biology remains delightfully, stubbornly binary in many ways. Let's laugh at the absurdities, but let's not lose sight of the science that keeps our kids healthy—gender-specific quirks and all.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!‘