Call Me By My Dead Name?

I’m not the first, and I surely won’t be the last, to ask:

After lecturing us incessantly over pronouns and transgender names, why were the media in lockstep dead naming and misgendering (by persistent use of she/her pronouns) Nashville school shooter Aiden Hale?

Countless people across this nation have been harassed, been called bigots and transphobes, been canceled on social media, lost jobs, and been sanctioned at school and work, when they refused to knuckle under to the woke transgender religion.

It’s certainly polite and civil to call a person by the name they choose. But it’s also presumptuous, in my opinion, to demand that people call you by a pronoun that doesn’t fit your biology. Granted, though, it’s polite to do so, with the caveat that people who “slip” should be cut a good deal of slack.

There should be room for conscientious objection (note the root “science”), though, because nobody has a right to order people what to say or how to speak, much less demand that they hew to your new, unilaterally created rules of English grammar. (For example, “they” is a plural pronoun and is never correctly applied to an individual.)

All that being said, we’ve been suffering for years now under this oppressive regime of transgenderism, promoted by leftists but fully supported and enforced by the media. So why do they change their tune now?

Why is Aiden Hale dead named as Audrey Hale, and why is he referred to in stories as she?

Why is “biological female” now a thing? Have you read that phrase recently to describe any other transgender person in the news?

Do the media call Hale she simply because they want so badly to announce another first or rarity, in that Hale is apparently among the very few mass killers who were “assigned female at birth” and were, in other words, “biological females?”

In future, can we look forward to sports stories that call it like it is, whenever a “biological male” sets a record while competing in a women’s event? If only!

Will the media now, finally, refer to Rachel Levine as a “biological male?”

Don’t count on it.

So what’s up with this sudden reluctance to hew to their own mandates on speaking of/about “transgender” men and women?

Are they perhaps trying to avoid the inevitable question of what hormones, if any, Aiden Hale was taking?

Did high doses of testosterone contribute to this horrific event?

Legislatures across the nation are currently proposing, considering, and passing legislation that regulates “gender affirming care” for minors. Does this fact play a role in the odd about face we see in the media?

Do they really think that by calling Hale she or a “biological female” they will prevent the incident from being used in arguments over those bills?

Granted, Hale was not a minor, but was he on testosterone? That would seem to be a question to which legislators might want to know the answer, on the off chance that hormone “therapy” indeed played a role in Hale’s apparent suicidal/homicidal ideation and propensity to commit violence.

It should be asked in any mass shooting incident: What medications, drugs (legal or illegal), or other pharmaceutical treatments may have influenced the alleged shooter’s crime?

What effect does long-term use of testosterone have upon the female body and mind? Has anyone even studied this question before prescribing cross-sex hormones to people who believe they’re the opposite sex?

How much does Big Pharma lean on politicians and media to ensure that nobody asks questions to which they don’t want the People to learn the answers?

Many drugs currently prescribed to young people (for ADHD, depression, autism, e.g.) have warning labels indicating that they can and do cause suicidal and even homicidal ideation. Why, then, do autopsies of mass shooters and investigations into their violence seem to avoid the issue altogether?

We don’t need more therapies, such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormone treatments, to potentially cause even more incidents of mass violence.

#####

Advertisement