“Taking the testimony of LGBT patients seriously also means that parents should lose their veto over most pediatric care related to the transition,” according to a research article published by the National Library of Medicine. The article is written by a philosopher and bioethicist at Arizona State University, in a journal of medical ethics. Put simply, and cutting down on academic jargon, the article argues that the state should be responsible for children, not parents.
It’s easy to see how provocative the subject is. Consider the practical implications of this for parental rights. Parents cannot decide what is taught in schools. One can observe repeated incidents of parents in the United States rising up to take control of school boards or voting for politicians who are prepared to legislate against ideology in the education sector. This constitutes a popular rebellion against what many on the right have called state sanctioned propaganda. There are incidents where parents have been jailed for opposing the transition of their children. Now we have a journal of medical ethics which advocates that parents should have no rights over their children if they decide to change their gender permanently. A larger battle on this subject is also looming in Europe. For example, Hungary recently legislated that any depiction of LGBT or transgender relationships in shows targeting children will be considered propaganda. The EU responded by threatening Hungary, which has now led Hungary to declare a referendum to seek public approval for more such legislation.
But apart from political questions, a much larger issue that needs to be debated is the quality of the research on which public policy is formulated and the effect it has on democracy. To put it simply, if the research has an ideological bent, then can it be considered sufficiently valid for politics? So what happens when ideological research meets democratic resistance? Who are the responsibles ? Is this authority exercised by the ideological elites or the masses?
Various examples of political tilt by once neutral and objective scientific journals have been observed recently in the US elections.
Before the American elections, Nature came out with four different articles taking sides. On October 15, he argued that scientists should become more political if they are “tired of being ignored”. He also endorsed Joe Biden as president. Before that, on October 8, Nature published an editorial claiming that science and politics are inseparable. Around the same time, American scientist, the first American scientific journal, also broke its long tradition political neutrality to endorse Biden.
During this time, Lancet, one of the oldis medical journals, began publishing “Personal Opinion”, an analysis section that uses “Marxist ecofeminist” analysis to warn against the influence of “neoliberal capitalism”. Public intellectuals are now regularly pushing for profound and existential socio-economic changes, due to “climate science”. College admission processes are debated and questioned on flawed admissions data, which includes active discrimination against some deserving and intelligent students. Race-based health care is offered on the basis of “social justice and equity”, which in practice would be discriminatory on the basis of racial criteria. In Germany, erroneous social and sexual research has led to official government policies that foster children are placed under state protection and under the supervision of pedophiles. There was no consequence.
In the face of what appears to be an overtly ideological and increasingly totalitarian edifice, the natural reaction (so to speak), would be a predictable push for more direct democracy. Popular parental opposition to critical racial theories in schools in the United States, for example, is qualitatively similar to the referendum suggested by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on LGBT issues. One should expect more of that. In a democratic setup, when a significant portion of the population feels that its political representatives are acting like overlords and implementing policies based on dubious pseudo-scientific theories that divide or are dangerous, they elect people who would roll back those overlords. ideological policies. That would be the system that would work as it was designed. This leads either to a retreat of policies, or to a reduction of democracy by the liberal ideological edifice. Simply put, history suggests that we would either see more reactionary policies resulting in a more conservative system and form of democracy, just as we would simultaneously see liberals turning against democracy, as was observed in Great Britain. Brittany post-Brexit. The Liberals would then seek to deny the right to vote to voters who would go against their preferred mode of result. Either way, an important battle is ahead.
Dr. Sumantra Maitra is a National Security Fellow at the Center for the National Interest, a non-resident member of the James G. Martin Center, and an elected member of the RCT at the Royal Historical Society.