Minneapolis Catholic School Shooting, and we ought to begin with the official details released this far. The two people killed in the attack were children aged eight and 10. Their parents have been notified, although their identities have not yet been released. Of the 17 people injured, 14 are children and three are adults. Two of the children are in critical condition, but all of the remaining victims are expected to survive. Minneapolis police chief Brian O’Hara also added that there is, however, a wide range of injuries.

The shooting took place just before 08h30 AM local time, during a worship service marking the first week of school. The assailant approached the outside of the building and began firing a rifle into the windows toward the children sitting in the pews. Law enforcement said that a rifle, a shotgun and a pistol all had been lawfully purchased by the shooter, adding that they believe the shooter acted alone; and also fatally shot themself behind the church. The shooter has been named as Robin Westman, aged 23, by local news outlets. Westman reportedly grew up in Richfield, Minnesota, and his mother worked at Annunciation School.

Then, FBI director Kash Patel has announced that the FBI is now investigating the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism and a hate crime targeting Catholics. Local police refused to be drawn on a motive for the attack. Officials further stated that the shooter had scheduled a manifesto to be released on YouTube. The police said it “appeared to show him at the scene and included some disturbing writings”. The content was then taken down with the assistance of the FBI. Then, finally, in light of the occurrence, US president Donald Trump has ordered American flags to be flown at half-mast following the mass shooting until the 31st of August. Here’s the statement that was given by the school principal, Principal Matthew DuBois.

WHY IT IS VALUABLE THAT THE FBI IS INVESTIGATING THE SHOOTING AS A HATE CRIME

I’ll be honest, while I am grateful that there is intent not to overlook the fact that the shooting occurred at a Catholic school, and thus recognising that there was intent to harm Christians, I am, however, upset at some of the ways that this case is being handled. However, let’s begin with why it is valuable that the FBI is investigating the shooting as domestic terrorism and a hate crime against Catholics. In essence, this reflects and implements a necessary shift away from bias against Christians in the FBI.

For some context, in February 2023 (which was during the Biden-Harris administration) an FBI intelligence document, referencing a January intelligence product from the Richmond Field office, was leaked that revealed FBI targeting of Catholics who adhere to traditional beliefs on abortion and other cultural issues. This led to an April 2023 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch along with CatholicVote Civic Action against the FBI and the Department of Justice after their failure to respond to a March 2023 requests for records about the FBI’s intelligence memo targeting what they called “radical traditionalist” Catholics.

Now, on July 22nd this year, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) released a new interim staff report on former President Joe Biden’s Catholic spy ring. Thanks to FBI Director Kash Patel, some of the information is new. And when pieced together with what we already knew, the picture that emerges is one of an FBI that went off the rails, while Christopher Wray, who led the FBI under Biden, bears much of the blame.

What the report indicates is that this targeting of Catholics by the Biden-Harris administration was not a mistake; rather, it was a well-planned effort to intimidate and harass practicing Catholics. [PAUSE] Once again, the FBI was apparently focused on “radical-traditionalist Catholics”, and concerning details emerged when the question was posed on: Who (exactly) are these radical-traditionalist Catholics, by FBI standards? First, according to the FBI’s own internal review of this matter, “investigators found that many FBI employees could NOT even define the meaning of ‘radical-traditionalist Catholic’ when preparing, editing, or reviewing” the Richmond Field Office memorandum that authorized the probe.

In other words, the FBI decided that Catholics were a problem, even though agents were unable to explain who they are. FBI agents were convinced that the so-called radical-traditionalist Catholics were “linked” to “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists.” What made them think this way is still a mystery, even though reports indicate that they found nothing. That’s because there is no record of very conservative Catholics linking up with violent persons. And so, indeed, on this basis alone there was no reason to investigate them. But, of course, this did NOT stop some FBI operatives from categorising “certain Catholic Americans as potential domestic terrorists.” They came to this absurd conclusion based on articles employees read. In fact, one titled (quote) “How Extremist Gun Culture Is Trying to Co-opt the Rosary” is one of the articles they named as evidence of the nefarious agenda of “radical-traditionalist” Catholics.

Then secondly, this latest report shows that the FBI proposed a probe of “mainline parishes.” It says that “FBI employees believed without evidence that mainstream Catholic churches could serve as a pipeline to violent extremist behavior.” And this was all without evidence! Also, “The FBI seems to have considered Catholic churches as a potential hot spot for radicalization and viewed investigating Catholic churches as an ‘opportunity.’” As an example of this mad search for wrongdoing, the FBI even investigated Catholics who evinced “hostility toward abortion-rights advocates.” In other words, Catholic activists who exercised fidelity to Church teachings on abortion — meaning they are called pro-life Catholics — they were considered a domestic threat by the FBI. Similarly, those who espoused “Conservative family values/roles” were labeled “radical.”

And so, this tells us all we need to know about the politicisation of the FBI under the Biden-Harris administration. In particular, it tells us of institutional rot that had very anti-Christain inclination, especially because it was not even dissident Catholics who expressed a desire to weaponise violence that the FBI was concerned about. It was simply Catholics who expressed views consistent with what they were taught about abortion and family values. But, before we proceed, kindly have a listen as Representative Jim Jordan challenged the controversial investigation into what the FBI called “Radical Catholics” – signalling a war on Christian values in the Biden-Harris FBI.

So, all of this is to say, that in investigating the Minneapolis Catholic School Shooting as domestic terrorism and a hate crime against Catholics, the FBI in this second Trump administration is necessitating and making practical a shift away from bias against Catholics in the FBI. In other words, this time around, the FBI has to help and see as a target for violence the same people that it was propped up to antagonise and vilify. And this shift should absolutely be celebrated in a society that was being moulded to wage a war on Christians and our values.

THERE IS A FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PATTERN OF TRANSGENDER SHOOTERS

This then brings us to the less satisfactory elements of the response to the Minneapolis Catholic School Shooting, and it is that the transgender (and possibly even the SSRI) discussion is less prevalent in official reports. For some context, the shooter has been identified as a transgender woman (meaning he is a biological male) who went by the name Robin Westman, but was initially known as Robert Westman before his so-called transgender transition. According to court documents, Westman had applied to change his birth name from Robert to Robin in Dakota County, Minn., when he was 17 years old, That name change was granted in January 2020; and the petition for the name change added that Westman (quote) “identifies as a female and wants her name to reflect that identification.” But, five years later, he seemed to have backed away from that identity.

So, why does this seemingly personal detail matter? Well, it matters because it proves a pattern that law enforcement has been casually skipping over for years now. In particular, in recent years in the US, both the Denver shooters, being Devon Erickson and Maya ‘Alec’ Mckinney identified as transgender. The Aberdeen shooter, Snochia Moseley, identified as transgender. The Nashville shooter, Audrey Hale, identified as transgender. The Georgia shooter, Colt Gray, identified as transgender. The Philadelphia Shooter, Kimbrady Carriker also identified as transgender. And perhaps to mix things up, the lowa shooter, Dylan Butler, identified as gender fluid.  But then the Uvalde shooter, named Salvador Ramos, identified as transgender, while the Colorado Shooter also identified as transgender. So, it would seem like there is a pattern, but also a parallel failure to recognise, or openly acknowledge this pattern.

And so, this is the latest in a string of mass killings carried out by members of the trans community, and the second against a Christian school. Rather than focusing on the victims, Minnesota authorities have chosen instead to prioritise exonerating the transgender people as a whole, with no mention of the hugely disproportionate number of mass killings that have been carried out by trans people over the last few years.

WHY IS THERE A PATTERN OF TRANSGENDER SHOOTERS IN SCHOOLS & BROADER SOCIETY?

So, let’s contribute to the discourse and actually ask the question on: Why is there a pattern of transgender shooters in schools and broader society? I think it comes down to two things, the first is that cross sex hormones and puberty blockers combined with mental illness is a seriously deadly combination.

For instance, a 2011 study originally claimed there were no mental health issues after puberty blockers. But, now, a re-examination of the data found that puberty blockers actually “reliably deteriorated” the mental health of more children than it helped.

But, that is one study among many that are rife with misrepresentations. In fact, a particularly egregious misrepresentation, which is repeated multiple times, is the contention that puberty blockers are completely reversible and generally helpful to the youth. Many so-called medical practitioners have stated and continue to state the same fraudulent claim in their private practices as well as their public appearances and in the media. BUT, this is an entirely false and extremely dangerous misrepresentation to make and advocate to the public, particularly since the affected audience are children and adolescents (and their families).

In truth, puberty blockers are KNOWN to impact children’s bone density and can lead to early onset osteoporosis and decreased bone density. AND… they can also impact a child’s mental illness. In fact, on the package insert for Lupron, which is one of the most commonly prescribed puberty blockers, it lists ‘emotional instability’ as a side effect and warns to “[m]onitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms during treatment” – which is a massive red flag, that should serve as a pre-warning against prescribing puberty blockers! In addition, Lupron has also been associated with and may be the cause of mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment, and sterility if the patient proceeds to take cross-sex hormones.

But, it does not stop there, because a leading expert on the subject noted in relation to a recent experimental trial of puberty blockers, stated that (quote) “There was no statistically significant difference in psychosocial functioning between the group given blockers and the group given only psychological support – thus proving that puberty blockers have NO positive impact on mental health related issues. In addition, there is unpublished evidence that after a year on [puberty blockers] children reported greater self-harm, and the girls also experienced more behavioral and emotional problems and expressed greater dissatisfaction with their body; THEREFORE, puberty blockers actually exacerbated so-called gender dysphoria, which is evidently a mental illness.”

But, there is actually a simple reason for this, which is that when you give puberty blockers to a developing child, you do not merely prevent the development of their reproductive organs, you fundamentally infringe on how that child’s brain also functions by trying to manipulate the child’s body from undergoing a natural physiological development, and thus also create a lot of detrimental hormonal dysregulation as well. And many people actually take for granted how interrelated the human body’s systems are. For instance, in research years ago, I discovered that a number of female body builders (in the course of training) become significantly thin, especially due to a restrictive diet and excessive exercise, and it can lead to a hormonal imbalance that causes menstruation to stop, which is a condition known as amenorrhea. And this happens because a restrictive diet and excessive exercise cause a mental stress trigger, where the body interprets a lack of energy and low body fat as a stressor, and thus enters what is called “survival mode”, where the body then lowers the production of essential reproductive hormones like estrogen. This can result in health risks such as bone loss and infertility. And so, similarly, if you suppress certain bodily functions, there are going to be ripple effects on the body, including how a child’s brian develops.

So, the impact of puberty blockers on the brain, are one of the reasons I think we see this pattern of transgender shooters. And when you watch the videos of Robert, the Minneapolis Catholic School shooter, he does not present as sane AT ALL. His manifesto videos included drawings where he was looking into the mirror but saw himself as the devil – he obviously was not sane.

Then, the second reason I think we see this pattern of transgender shooters is social contagion – and this matters in the event that Robert and other transgender shooters were not on puberty blockers. In light of social contagion, trangender persons are often of the far left or ultra-liberal end of the political spectrum. For instance, the Minneapolis Catholic School shooter had writings (including on his gun) that included “kill Donald Trump” and “Israel must fall”; and “Jew gas”.

Evidently, Robert sounds like the product of ultra-left thinking and violence mongering – much like that which celebrated Luigi Mangione, who shot the UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson. He is the product of Democrat leaders and notable figures openly talking about killing Donald Trump or locking up his supporters in concentration camps. And so, really, social contagion coupled with mental illness is also as deadly as puberty blockers coupled with mental illness.

The fact of the matter is that there are organisations and groups of people who wish to parent children, in the absence of objections from their parents, and socio-political indoctrination is one of the avenues they wish to accomplish this. For instance, while parents are being gaslit and told that their children will allegedly commit suicide if they are not allowed to socially or medically transition, not only awoke schools teaching children that they can identify as trees more that they are concerned about their grasp of alegra. Similarly, Democrats and other liberal actors are trying to convince children of their superior understand (even to the extent of challenging their parents), even trying to codify this into law by allowing schools to socially transition children without informing their parents – ALL WHILE the transgender and puberty blocker industry has become a multi-billion dollar industry!

“CONFIRMING A KID’S CONFUSION IS NOT COMPASSION, THAT’S CRUELTY”

But now, I genuinely believe that no sane parent ever does anything with the hope of potentially raising a child who will become a school scooter. And so, here is what I believe is crucial to note: whether with puberty blockers or as a product of social contagion, confirming a child’s confusion is not compassion – rather it is cruelty. And this is something that Vivek Ramaswamy has become famous for stating – and it is true. Parents have a categorical imperative to protect their children from socio-political nuances that have nothing to do with a godly, happy and optimistic upbringing. Children should not have to try to grapple with ideas of gender, or whether Donald Trump is a dictator who must be killed, or even whatever drag story hour is. And the absence of this protection of the socio-political innocence of children is to allow their grooming, especially to function as children of the state – something that the President of Loveworld incorporated has warned about. And so, ultimately, it is cruel to confirm a child’s confusion.

Finally, one of the details that were reported in light of the shooting features a boy aged 10 and his friend Victor. The boy aged 10 survived the attack and he told reporters that his friend saved him from bullets by lying on top of him. He said (and this is a direct quote) “I was like two seats away from the stained glass window,… My friend, Victor, saved me though, because he laid on top of me, but he got hit… My friend got hit in the back, he went to the hospital… I was super scared for him but I think now he’s okay.” It is always these stories that get me. First, because this reminds us of the Words of the Master Jesus in John 15:13, when he said “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.”; and it is inspiring to see this mindset appropriated by children, afterall the Master Jesus also said that “…the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these”.

The second reason why these stories get to me is that they highlight a painful reality where children have a better understanding of a protective duty than adults who are supposed to be responsible. As admirable as Victor’s actions were in laying on his friend to protect him, and taking the hit himself, the truth of the matter is that it should not have been Victor’s responsibility to take bullets at all! He is a child who is entitled to protection as well. And in failing to adequately recognise patterns that could improve how society and government as a whole respond to issues that lead to school shootings, Victor has had to grow up rather quickly in a space of minutes – robbing him of the innocence, sense of wonder and incurable optimism that all children should enjoy – which I certainly pray he never loses.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

THE U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES REFUTES THE CLAIM OF GENDER AFFIRMING CARE

And now onto our main discussion on the recent war against gender affirming care. To begin with, children diagnosed with gender dysphoria a condition defined by distress related to one’s biological sex or associated gender roles—are increasingly being offered powerful medical interventions. These include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in some cases, irreversible surgeries such as mastectomy, vaginoplasty, or phalloplasty.

Recently, an umbrella review from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) states that “thousands of American children and adolescents have received these interventions,” despite a lack of solid scientific footing. In addition, while advocates often claim the treatments are “medically necessary” and “lifesaving,” the report concludes “the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low.” It also cautions that evidence of harm is sparse—but not necessarily because harms are rare, but due to limited long-term data, weak tracking, and publication bias. But, ultimately, the review amounts to a scathing review of the assumptions, ethics, and clinical practices driving gender-affirming care in the US.

“GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” IS BASED ON A DIGRESSION FROM MEDICAL ETHICS

First, at the heart of the HHS critique is a reversal of medical norms. To appreciate this, we would have to consider that in many areas of medicine, treatments are first established as safe and effective in adults before being extended to paediatric populations. However, in the case of gender affirming care, the opposite occurred!

This is to say that despite inconclusive outcomes in adults, these interventions were rolled out for children without rigorous data, and with little regard for long-term, often irreversible consequences. This includes irreversible consequences such as infertility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone development, elevated cardiovascular risk, and psychiatric complications.

For example, puberty blockers, frequently marketed as a reversible ‘pause,’ actually interrupt bone mineralisation at a critical growth stage—raising the risk of stunted skeletal growth and early-onset osteoporosis. When followed by cross-sex hormones, as is common, the harms multiply. Known risks include metabolic disruption, blood clots, sterility, and permanent loss of sexual function. And yet, many clinics operate under a “child-led care” model, where a minor’s self-declared “embodiment goals” dictate treatment.

However, another issue with the child led model used in gender affirming care (in addition to its existence as a model), is the fact it is not based on any credible science – because children do not have a valid and objectively factual reason to claim gender dysphoria, without influence from environmental factors (i.e. social contagion, or the impact that contaminated food and pharmaceutical interventions have on hormones and biological development). This cannot be stressed enough, there is no such thing as organic gender dysphoria – there literally is no scientific basis for it AT ALL! RATHER, where its normalisation comes from is the intercession of medical science and social politics, meaning that it is the product of medical science being heavily influenced by pressure from those lobbying to make sectors of society bend towards political correctness and the LGBT agenda – thus leading to social contagion!

ARE CHILDREN CAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO LIFE-ALTERING MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS?

This brings us to one of the most critical issues to consider in the discussion on so-called gender affirming care – being child consent. More specifically, we ought to ask: Are children capable of consenting to life-altering medical interventions? Generally, we understand informed consent as meaning more than simple agreement informed consent requires a deep understanding of risks, alternatives, and long-term impact (meaning consequences of a choice or action).

This means that, by definition, children often lack full legal and developmental capacity for medical decision-making – because they do not possess sufficient maturity and mental reasoning or processing capacities to understand the gravity of irreversible decisions, beyond a temporary fixation of an assumed benefit. Therefore, when medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by an under-age patient!

THE DECEPTIVELY CONSTRUCTED “MATURE MINOR DOCTRINE

But, the medical industrial complex that benefits from these procedures created a loophole to this issue on minor consent, through collaborating with lawmakers to form the mature minor or minor consent doctrine in a number of states – starting with vaccination and thus creating precedent for gender transitions. In essence, “Minor consent” – which refers to a child being legally able to consent to vaccinations or other treatments without parental consent – exists in multiple US states. For example, in California, minor consent is legal for some vaccines beginning at age 12, while in New York, there is no set lower age limit for a child to consent to Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination. Washington State is among the most extreme. The pro-vaccine organisation Vaxteen describes Washington’s “mature minor doctrine” as follows. They state that: In Washington, minors of any age do not need their parent’s consent to receive all healthcare services, including vaccinations. This is called a “mature minor doctrine” and essentially means that if you talk to your doctor/healthcare provider and they decide you are “mature enough” to make your own health care decisions, you can.

Of course, it is still vague what mature enough would mean, and based on how proponents of child mutilation surgeries have run away from directly addressing the argument that children are not mature enough to make decisions on permanent or temporary health decisions, you can probably deduce that there is no objective metric to measure the maturity of a child.

Well, in an interesting shift in events, even members of the alphabet community are recognizing that there is no basis for informed consent in so-called gender affirming care. For instance, Jamie Reed testified on the 9th of May in Maine in support of bill LD380, which would require parental consent to medicalise a minor. She correctly differentiates between consent and assent, detailing that in medical procedures driven by minors, at best all those children can provide is assent, meaning agreement to allowing the procedure to take place. However, this does not amount to informed consent, because often the children do not know the extent of the changes and harm they are agreeing to. The pendulum is swinging towards common sense.

Based on this concession from even the alphabet people, it further emphasises that supportive parents cannot shield clinicians from ethical responsibility. Especially considering that any children who present for transition also have autism, trauma histories, depression, or anxiety all of which can impair decision-making. Yet clinicians frequently misread a child’s desire to transition as evidence of capacity.

But, once again, there is no such thing as organic gender dysphoria (meaning gender dysphoria that is not influenced by environmental factors). And not only is there no organic gender dysphoria, but the actual mental illnesses that children are struggling with are being ignored, in order to justify the claim of gender dysphoria. There was even a trend (especially among medical professionals) of not questioning the unstable nature of gender dysphoria claims, and rather affirming the so-called transgender children, in the name of compassion. But, Vivek Ramaswamy correctly stated that that trend was based on a false dichotomy, that resulted in the assumption that compassion can only come with affirming gender dysphoria claims.

Ultimately, there is a general consensus that children are not regarded as fully mature beings who are capable of complete expression or legal consent. The reason for this is that children, in all that they progressively learn, do not always fully appreciate the complex concepts (which is why complex concepts are simplified and taught at their level of understanding), and they are also not fully able to appreciate the consequences of actions, even when they are taught those actions are wrong or right: as I’ve said before, this is part of the reason why five year olds do not drive, or why children do not have legal standing to represent themselves in court, or even why it is considered negligent for an adult to leave a child alone near a large body of water. And so, what is claimed to be intuitive knowledge from a child when they claim to be “mis-gendered” can not be regarded as an objective fact. Furthermore, it is to fail the parental or medical duty to care when children are allowed to transition, while making permanent decisions based on temporary feelings.

“GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” REPRESENTS A MORAL PROBLEM IN MODERN MEDICINE AND LAW

Considering that the medical industrial complex has manufactured a doctrine of minor consent to perform mutilation procedures on children despite the irreversible harms, it becomes evident that the problem is not only medical it’s moral. In light of this, in the aforementioned HSS report, the HHS accuses the medical establishment of abandoning its core duty: which is to protect vulnerable patients. The HHS argues that ideology and activism have taken precedence over evidence and caution.

This is to say that the evidence of the benefit of paediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain. And among the most disturbing trends highlighted in the report is the sidelining of mental health support. Research suggests that most cases of claimed paediatric gender dysphoria resolve without intervention. Yet clinicians continue to proceed with irreversible treatments. Meanwhile, medical professionals have no way to know which patients may continue to experience the claimed gender dysphoria and which will come to terms with their bodies. This means that they perform treatments that aren’t based on a genuinely conceived mandate to care for the patient, but based on a careless disregard for their duty to care! A detransitioner adds to this account..

Well, you’d recall that in light of this, the Supreme Court in the US heard arguments of gender affirming care in December 2024, and indicated that the majority was leaning toward upholding a Tennessee law that restricts so-called gender transition treatments for minors. Now, this case (in essence) decides whether, under the US constitution, states are allowed to outlaw child mutilation in the name of gender ideology. But, now, a few years or even months back, this case would have been inconceivable because it was considered inherently wrong to allow children to consent to irreversible harm, which would be inclusive of the almost irreversible procedures that are conducted of so-called transgender children. Of course, what then happened is that trans activists intimidated people who opposed gender ideology (especially through the incorporation of cancel culture). What also happened is that there were a number of woke activist judges who were co-opted into the court system.

For instance, while the Supreme Court was hearing a case on whether banning the medical transitioning of minors violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, Justice Sotomayor argued that children denied “gender affirming care” may kill themselves or become drug addicts.

Let’s (once again) address this alleged threat of suicide, where children are denied so-called gender affirming care, as also articulated by Justice Sotomayor. I believe that this threat only has an impact because it is not actually analysed. And I do not necessarily blame parents for this: when a parent is told that their child is at risk of ending their life, that easily seems like the worst case scenario and thus has the potential to dilute their concerns about child mutilation, if they do not understand the full extent of the harms that child mutilation also brings. And so, compassion will likely move parents to want to save their children (at least as they are coerced to) – especially if they do not fully understand what the transition would mean for their children.

And so, to address this claim of suicide, let’s look at children (or former children) who are now speaking out against allowing minors to make choices that have an irreversable impact on them. SPOILER ALERT: these children and young adults are advocating hard against allowing minors to make such decisions because they are now dealing with the consequences of having been allowed to make decisions with permanent ramifications on the basis of temporary feelings. This is an excerpt from a documentary titled ‘THE GENDER AGENDA’, produced by the President of Loveworld Incorporated, and available on the Ceflix platform. He documentary zoomed in on cases of minors who were reflecting on having been allowed to make the decision to mutilate themselves.

What is interesting to note, is that children who opted for child mutilation, were actually coerced into it because even they were told they would end their lives if they did not transition! So, it appears that the threat of suicide originated from the medical practitioners who perform these surgeries of distribute the puberty blockers! SECONDLY, if children are not being told that THEY will end their lives if they do not opt for mutilation, they are often already struggling with mental health issues, like depression. Therefore, even in this instance, parents are not risking the lives of their children by refusing to opt for child mutilation – because the depression and mental health issue would exist independent of the option for mutilation or “transitioning”.

Finally, in refuting the suicide claim tha tis used to coerce parents, it is worth noting, especially from the young lady towards the end of the excerpt we just watched from the documentary, that a massive contributor to mental illness or depression is the regret that comes from having undergone the child mutilation processes and then realise that even when you detransition, you may never gain back your biological experiences and privileges, like starying a family. We all watched her weep and lament the sense that she does not think anyone can love her anymore, which I genuinely hope she knows is not true, because even if she was the only person on earth, Christ would have still died for her in his unwavering love for her.

THE GENDER ARE GENDER AS A WEAPON OF POLITICAL MANOEUVRING

But, seeing how gender affirming care has been systematically pushed, we also have to not miss that it has been organised as a political weapon – that is even being wielded by activist judges. And the idea that the gender agenda is a tool of political manoeuvring is not a mere statement or semantics – it really has become utilised in this manner. For instance, those who are proponents of the agenda use it to gain certain privileges or to institute changes in society that are to their favour – no matter how ridiculous. For instance, LA City in June 2024 took down a couple “no U-turn” traffic signs in Silver Lake, California because the signs are anti-LGBTQ. Really, it is almost disturbing how much this is a group that so desperately wants to be “oppressed” or “marginalised”, because that somehow validates their existence.

But, the use of the gender agenda as a political manoeuvering tool is not exclusive to privileges of the change to social standards and law; the gender agenda is now also mechanism for targeting those who dissent to it. In fact, we recently discussed the story of the DOJ’s charge against Dr Ethain Haim in Texas. More specifically, the DOJ unsealed an indictment against Dr Eithan Haim, who last year leaked evidence of cross-sex hormone procedures being performed at a Texas hospital despite the facility claiming to have halted them, with the surgeon facing four felony counts for alleged violations of a medical-records law that could land him in prison for up to 10 years. The DOJ announced on June 17 that it had charged Dr Haim for obtaining protected individual health information for patients who were not under his care, allegedly acting without authorisation and with intent to cause malicious harm to Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH).

We also discussed the fact that, in this case, the controversy actually centers on the fact that the TCH, which the largest children’s hospital in the country, publicly declared in March 2022 that it was halting “hormone-related prescription therapies for gender-affirming services” for minors, citing potential legal and criminal liability after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton declared that prescription of puberty blockers was “child abuse” under Texas law. And that, however, the documents leaked by Dr. Haim purportedly showed that the hospital continued to perform some “gender-affirming” therapies after the announcement, including one procedure on an 11-year-old three days after it made the declaration. And so, he was actually functioning as a whistleblower against an institution that was breaking the law in this case.

Written y Lindokuhle Mabaso