Gillette Strikes Again: Is This the Best a ‘Transitioning Man’ Can Get?
A Fortune 500 Company is promoting a lifestyle that is not just potentially hazardous to children; it could potentially be categorized as child abuse.
Before consumers had time to process the collateral damage from Gillette’s last piece of social-justice propaganda, devoted to combating so-called ‘toxic masculinity,’ the company has broken ground on another controversial theme, this time portraying a gender-bending adolescent, whose full name is Samson Bonkeabantu Brown, wielding the almighty blade for the first time.
In the video, entitled ‘First Shave, the Story of Samson,’ the transitioning male opens by saying, “Growing up I was always trying to figure out what kind of man I wanted to become, and I’m still trying to figure out what kind of man I want to become.”
Before considering the ramifications of that statement, it’s important to understand some terms and definitions first. In the wild world of gender studies, when an individual is described as being a ‘transitioning male,’ this is a person who was born a biological female, yet is now in the process of ‘transitioning’ to become a male. Conversely, a ‘transitioning female’ is a biological male transitioning to become female. For those who believe that ‘transitioning’ is feasible proposition, they argue a difference between the term ‘sex,’ which is what a boy or a girl is assigned at birth based upon genitalia, and ‘gender’ which is a more culturally determined status determined by what an individual believes himself or herself to be.
In other words, from the holy gospel according to Liberals, a person may essentially act as God by playing Creator with their own bodies, and heaven help the heathen who believes otherwise. Thus we hear ‘Samson’ in the Gillette commercial saying that she is “trying to figure out what kind of man I want to become” as if this were even a legitimate choice. Society is going to great pains to convince us that it is. Meanwhile, as far as shaving goes, which I suppose could be called a rite of passage to manhood for young males, this comes about as the result of a natural process known as puberty, which affects boys and girls in entirely different ways, of course.
Apologies for the Biology 101 briefer, but it seems necessary. In males, the changes associated with the onset of puberty involve the lowering of the voice, hormonal signals sent from the brain to the testes and the growth of facial hair, a natural phenomenon from which Gillette has profited handsomely over the years. In females, you have the onset of menstruation, the development of breasts, and so on. One need not be an investigative journalist to know that the growth of facial hair does not normally figure into the female puberty cycle.
This leads us to a question that Gillette fails to consider in its latest controversial advert: How exactly did it come to be that a young biological female found the need to shave her face in the first place? After all, in the past such spectacles were more commonplace to traveling circuses, where village folk paid a few cents to peek behind a curtain to view some ‘bearded lady.’ Now the rare phenomenon is being flaunted on television screens, in full view of impressionable children, as some sort of a natural occurrence. And that is exactly the point – it is not a natural occurrence.
The reason ‘Samson’ must have that first shave in the first place is due to the hormonal treatment – heavy doses of male testosterone for life – she is being administered on behalf of a medical community that is condoning such outrageous methods. That’s right. Adolescents who are just entering puberty – an extremely sensitive and emotional time of life that is filled with its own sort of physical and psychological discomforts – are no longer being offered psychotherapy if they admit to confusion about their sexuality. Instead, medical practitioners are now required to abide by the rules of so-called ‘affirmative care’ community, which demands that doctors essentially place children on the rough road to sexual transition. In other words, the doctor must accept the child’s ‘gender identity’ without suggesting psychotherapy as an alternative.
At this point, perhaps there are readers who feel that a middle-aged journalist is unqualified to discuss a subject that involves so much intense personal involvement on the part of the subjects. That is why I would encourage the reader to view the video below in its entirety. It provides the shocking first-hand insights and experiences of Walt Heyer, who underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1983, only to ‘de-transition’ in 1990 after many years of successful psychotherapy – exactly what is being denied the youth of today in order to cope with their feelings.
Heyer, who has written the book ‘Trans Life Survivors,’ which deals with the stories of 30 individuals and their personal stories of transitioning hell, says it is “child abuse” to affirm to a child that he or she is the opposite sex.
“We are manufacturing transgender kids,” Heyer says in the video. “We are manufacturing their depression, their anxiety, and it has turned into a huge industry that people are profiting from after kids’ lives are completely torn apart.”
“Why do we abuse [children] with hormone blockers and cut their bodies apart as a way to affect treatment. It’s insane, actually.”
Yet companies like Gillette, more interested in selling a crippling agenda than razor blades, has turned reality on its head, while the medical and advertising companies are only too happy to pander to this insanity.
“Powerful,” “heartwarming,” “beautiful” and “profound” are the adjectives that Adweek uses to describe the commercial. Other major media piled on with the accolades without ever mentioning the very real hazards associated with such life-altering transitions.
With powerful and influential companies like Gillette advocating on behalf of not simply a close shave, but irreversible life-altering operations, they should be held legally responsible for any children in the future who are led astray by their incredibly irresponsible messages.
By Robert Bridge
Source: Strategic Culture