Welcome to the Culture War du jour, Nordic Style: Gaslighting, Agit-Prop, and the Return of 'da Science™' to Justify an Ideological Crusade--Nothing New Under the Midnight Sun
To say nothing about, say, the history of the past 200K years in terms of modern human evolution.
As to the notion of 'harmful gender norms', I recall that biological sex is evolutionarily older than, say, the central nervous system in early multi-cellular life.
Speaking of evolution, one might add, even though that would amount to pointing out the obvious, that the social constructivist notion of 'gender' is of more recent vintage (and, lest it needs to be spelled out), when taken to its logical conclusion--that is, the 'transgender', 'querying', and 'plus' aspects of the alphabet soup--this becomes patently absurd: however extreme as that may sound, those advocating for transgenderism are advocating a form of un-evolution, in particular as regards the proselytising for child castration ('gender reassignment surgery'): those who don't, or unable to, reproduce won't pass their genes down to the next generation.
Seen in this light, isn't it wonderful how open individuals who are taking themselves out of the evolutionary and biological lottery are parading their, in strictly evolutionary terms, unfitness? It should be blatantly obvious to anyone interested in what Richard Dawkins (in)famously) called 'the selfish gene', i.e., the innate drive (instinct?) to propagate, to figure out who and what to perhaps avoid getting too involved with.
To get even close to a percent, you need to be very creative with the definition of "intersex" which is a condtion that doesn't really exist other than shorthand for numerous disfigurements due to damaged chromosomes.
About 1/100 000 births, at the utmost is closer to the truth. It is exceedingly rare, though who knows what generations of exposure to hormone-affecting plastics/softeners, birth control pills, et c has done.
The terminology has been purposefully confused and weaponised by the gay groups acting as delivery-vehicles for normalising and sanctifying pedophilia, as is obvious to anyone knowing the history of the "gay rights movement"; male pedophiles have always been a prominent part of the movement and has always held leadership-positions. There are also very strong indications that there is a pedophile network masquerading as gay men in the European Parliament, something dug up by (among others, I'm sure) the swedish scandal-rag "Stoppa Pressarna" (https://stoppapressarna.se/) when they exposed how swedish parliamentarian Fredrik Federley had entered into a relationship with a man convicted of aggravated rape against two girls, aged 6 and 9 at the time - something known by Federley at the time. During this scandal, Federley's close relationship with other homosexual politicians (including some norwegian ones from Senterpartiet, same as Federley's) also convicted of sex crimes against minors pointed towards these politicians having three things in common which was the core of their mutual association:
Being homosexual, belonging to the same group in the European Parliament, and being either convcted pedophiles or associating closely with known such.
Anyone who has studied pedophilia knows pedophiles form groups, aiding and abetting each other in finding victims and egging each other on (Federley's boyfriend performed his rapes in front of live camera, taking requests from pedophiles watching). Pedophiles also always try to normalise their behaviour and always seek out children and try to:
A) Gradually normalise their advances, becoming aggressive when the child says no.
B) Separate the child from the parent or guardian, both physically and psychologically
C) Guilt the child into keeping silent
D) Award the child for obeying and "playing along"
The pedophiles using "drag queen story hour" to groom children hit all four marks. Noteworthy and further proof that "gay rights orgs" are vehicles for pedophilia is that they all oppose background-checks for employment in jobs with or near children. Speaking of, Sweden has such a law - maybe Norway does too? That would certainly be worth investigating, because if the event is on scheduled school-time or an assignement, and the "drag queen" employed or paid to read their pedophilia-normalising stories, that person must provide a specific document showing that they have no convictions for crimes against minors.
There are only two way to handle pedophiles once they have committed sexual acts against children: life-long incarceration under heavy medication or execution. They cannot be treated and cured because to them what they do feels natural.
Out farm/family dog, although bred with quite a pedigree (but we do note, in passing, that Border Collies aren't as over-bred as other breeds for the simple reason that they are work animals; one might say that our dog isn't as 'domesticated' as others), he failed to develop the scrotum. I suppose, as far as the rarity of such defects go, it's quite a hard thing to get to, all things evolution considered. He's, of course, nonetheless a wonderful companion and I wouldn't want to miss him for the world.
But let's fact it: while US-style identity politics, which is infesting out societies these days with a vengeance, has made it more palatable to talk about 'race' (in the US fashion) in Europe once again, its ill-fated companion, biological and/or other perceived of real differences is (yet?) lurking but in the background.
What do I mean by this? It's as sad as it's easy to spot: take, say, my dog's example--ask any breeder, dog-lover, or individual connected to objective reality: in purely evolutionary terms, our dog would be considered 'a failure'; in economic terms (via the breeder's perspective), his 'value' would be quite low (even though there was some money saved for those whose dog develops in such a way: no need to neuter the dog later on, even though hormone deficiency-related mood swings might be something).
But the tricky question, of course, becomes this: would anyone consider such an animal 'life unworthy of live'? It's a slippery slope, if there ever was one, and I suppose that, with no prejudice to the crude comparison, in purely analytical terms, this is the core question. Mind you, I'm not advocating such actions, no less agitating for them. All I'm doing, citing the example of our dog (which, I'd submit, kind of meets your definition of 'intersex') to get to the larger point you're making:
Pedophilia, which used to be a crime and no-go, as become somewhat of a cause celebre, with legacy media, mainstream politicians, and, of course, the utterly corrupt medical professions actively cheering the wanton castration of children and adolescents. The same, by and large, applies to the aspects of grooming you allude to: the notion of esp. same-(biological) sex attraction to minors is both an evolutionary dead end as it is a social problem. Take, say, a look at some of these books that are used, including, for example, the utter nonsense of 'gay' animals (penguins come to mind), to whom the same reservations apply as outlined above; why would that be a 'good' argument? It's of course no argument at-all, and the deafening silence from those institutions historically professing just enough moral authority to shape societal norms--esp. the Christian Churches--ranges from sickening sucking up to this agenda (pun intended) via blasphemy to silence while hoping no-one is asking them.
As to the legal issues, I'll have to check, but as far as I know (which is, admittedly, not that far), there is none. Over here, a ban on 'conversion therapy' (by which is meant attempts to 're-educate homosexuals') will get a majority in parliament, it was reported on the weekend. Needless to say, while 'gender-affirming care' for minors has been discouraged (via a public health 'recommendation' in March of this year), it falls, I'd argue, into that very same category; curiously enough, Austria, of all people, is debating such a 'dual ban'--but for once the Greens, who bought heavily into this transgender agenda, are appalled as their conservative partners-in-gov't insist on banning both for minors; we'll see if the conservatives will see this through…
........ "deconstruct harmful gender norms" ....... yes, right: those norms which have brought into being well over 8 billion people and counting.
Side note: I have cancelled my Instagram account in protest at their aiding and abetting of pedophilia.
To say nothing about, say, the history of the past 200K years in terms of modern human evolution.
As to the notion of 'harmful gender norms', I recall that biological sex is evolutionarily older than, say, the central nervous system in early multi-cellular life.
Speaking of evolution, one might add, even though that would amount to pointing out the obvious, that the social constructivist notion of 'gender' is of more recent vintage (and, lest it needs to be spelled out), when taken to its logical conclusion--that is, the 'transgender', 'querying', and 'plus' aspects of the alphabet soup--this becomes patently absurd: however extreme as that may sound, those advocating for transgenderism are advocating a form of un-evolution, in particular as regards the proselytising for child castration ('gender reassignment surgery'): those who don't, or unable to, reproduce won't pass their genes down to the next generation.
Seen in this light, isn't it wonderful how open individuals who are taking themselves out of the evolutionary and biological lottery are parading their, in strictly evolutionary terms, unfitness? It should be blatantly obvious to anyone interested in what Richard Dawkins (in)famously) called 'the selfish gene', i.e., the innate drive (instinct?) to propagate, to figure out who and what to perhaps avoid getting too involved with.
As to social media: a win for team humanity!
To get even close to a percent, you need to be very creative with the definition of "intersex" which is a condtion that doesn't really exist other than shorthand for numerous disfigurements due to damaged chromosomes.
About 1/100 000 births, at the utmost is closer to the truth. It is exceedingly rare, though who knows what generations of exposure to hormone-affecting plastics/softeners, birth control pills, et c has done.
The terminology has been purposefully confused and weaponised by the gay groups acting as delivery-vehicles for normalising and sanctifying pedophilia, as is obvious to anyone knowing the history of the "gay rights movement"; male pedophiles have always been a prominent part of the movement and has always held leadership-positions. There are also very strong indications that there is a pedophile network masquerading as gay men in the European Parliament, something dug up by (among others, I'm sure) the swedish scandal-rag "Stoppa Pressarna" (https://stoppapressarna.se/) when they exposed how swedish parliamentarian Fredrik Federley had entered into a relationship with a man convicted of aggravated rape against two girls, aged 6 and 9 at the time - something known by Federley at the time. During this scandal, Federley's close relationship with other homosexual politicians (including some norwegian ones from Senterpartiet, same as Federley's) also convicted of sex crimes against minors pointed towards these politicians having three things in common which was the core of their mutual association:
Being homosexual, belonging to the same group in the European Parliament, and being either convcted pedophiles or associating closely with known such.
Anyone who has studied pedophilia knows pedophiles form groups, aiding and abetting each other in finding victims and egging each other on (Federley's boyfriend performed his rapes in front of live camera, taking requests from pedophiles watching). Pedophiles also always try to normalise their behaviour and always seek out children and try to:
A) Gradually normalise their advances, becoming aggressive when the child says no.
B) Separate the child from the parent or guardian, both physically and psychologically
C) Guilt the child into keeping silent
D) Award the child for obeying and "playing along"
The pedophiles using "drag queen story hour" to groom children hit all four marks. Noteworthy and further proof that "gay rights orgs" are vehicles for pedophilia is that they all oppose background-checks for employment in jobs with or near children. Speaking of, Sweden has such a law - maybe Norway does too? That would certainly be worth investigating, because if the event is on scheduled school-time or an assignement, and the "drag queen" employed or paid to read their pedophilia-normalising stories, that person must provide a specific document showing that they have no convictions for crimes against minors.
There are only two way to handle pedophiles once they have committed sexual acts against children: life-long incarceration under heavy medication or execution. They cannot be treated and cured because to them what they do feels natural.
Fun factoid to reply to your larger point:
Out farm/family dog, although bred with quite a pedigree (but we do note, in passing, that Border Collies aren't as over-bred as other breeds for the simple reason that they are work animals; one might say that our dog isn't as 'domesticated' as others), he failed to develop the scrotum. I suppose, as far as the rarity of such defects go, it's quite a hard thing to get to, all things evolution considered. He's, of course, nonetheless a wonderful companion and I wouldn't want to miss him for the world.
But let's fact it: while US-style identity politics, which is infesting out societies these days with a vengeance, has made it more palatable to talk about 'race' (in the US fashion) in Europe once again, its ill-fated companion, biological and/or other perceived of real differences is (yet?) lurking but in the background.
What do I mean by this? It's as sad as it's easy to spot: take, say, my dog's example--ask any breeder, dog-lover, or individual connected to objective reality: in purely evolutionary terms, our dog would be considered 'a failure'; in economic terms (via the breeder's perspective), his 'value' would be quite low (even though there was some money saved for those whose dog develops in such a way: no need to neuter the dog later on, even though hormone deficiency-related mood swings might be something).
But the tricky question, of course, becomes this: would anyone consider such an animal 'life unworthy of live'? It's a slippery slope, if there ever was one, and I suppose that, with no prejudice to the crude comparison, in purely analytical terms, this is the core question. Mind you, I'm not advocating such actions, no less agitating for them. All I'm doing, citing the example of our dog (which, I'd submit, kind of meets your definition of 'intersex') to get to the larger point you're making:
Pedophilia, which used to be a crime and no-go, as become somewhat of a cause celebre, with legacy media, mainstream politicians, and, of course, the utterly corrupt medical professions actively cheering the wanton castration of children and adolescents. The same, by and large, applies to the aspects of grooming you allude to: the notion of esp. same-(biological) sex attraction to minors is both an evolutionary dead end as it is a social problem. Take, say, a look at some of these books that are used, including, for example, the utter nonsense of 'gay' animals (penguins come to mind), to whom the same reservations apply as outlined above; why would that be a 'good' argument? It's of course no argument at-all, and the deafening silence from those institutions historically professing just enough moral authority to shape societal norms--esp. the Christian Churches--ranges from sickening sucking up to this agenda (pun intended) via blasphemy to silence while hoping no-one is asking them.
As to the legal issues, I'll have to check, but as far as I know (which is, admittedly, not that far), there is none. Over here, a ban on 'conversion therapy' (by which is meant attempts to 're-educate homosexuals') will get a majority in parliament, it was reported on the weekend. Needless to say, while 'gender-affirming care' for minors has been discouraged (via a public health 'recommendation' in March of this year), it falls, I'd argue, into that very same category; curiously enough, Austria, of all people, is debating such a 'dual ban'--but for once the Greens, who bought heavily into this transgender agenda, are appalled as their conservative partners-in-gov't insist on banning both for minors; we'll see if the conservatives will see this through…
"Wearing clothing of the opposite sex is about empowerment—you get more agency than society permits."
Wait a minute - how can wearing womens' clothes be empowering if we are living under the evil patriarchy? These people are cognitive dissonance lvl99.
If it was 'only' cognitive dissonance, though.
Ignorance, ill temper, and a 'two year-old throws a tantrum'-like behaviour indicates past problems of socialisation.