There is no denying that the face of our world is changing, and at a rate that most people have trouble keeping up with. For those of us raised to believe that men are men and women are women, successfully navigating our way through society has become an overwhelmingly bewildering experience. So many subjects have the potential to be politically incorrect landmines, that even making conversation has become a difficult endeavor. Gone are the days when a successful dinner party simply meant that nobody raised the subjects of politics or religion.
And one is now just as likely to have a “pretty” boy covered in makeup staring back at you from the cover of a glossy magazine as it once would have been normal to have a heavily made up woman doing the same thing. The phenomenon of boys wearing makeup and teaching others how to do so has slowly and quietly been gaining steam on social media, and the fashion world has taken note. Late last year, the cosmetics giant CoverGirl chose a male as the face of its brand for the first time in the company’s 60-year history. While some in the LGBT community would see James Charles, CoverGirl’s new “cover boy,” as a hero and symbol of “progress,” there are many, particularly parents, who are gravely concerned about the effects of a 17-year-old boy being held up as a model of “normalcy” to impressionable young men.
CoverGirl is by no means alone in embracing this new trend. Cosmetics powerhouse Maybelline, has adopted its own new male “face” of the brand in the form of Manny Mua, a young man who has proudly shared his transition from straight-laced Mormon boy to makeup wearing fashionista on social media and YouTube.
While this would once have been viewed as a disturbing trend, causing widespread controversy, particularly among conservatives, it is being accepted as the new “normal.” People magazine even included Mua in its annual Ones to Watch list.
Of course, these young men will be watched, by millions of young men and women across the country, and it will inevitably shape their view of the world. While some would argue that these young men should be left to enjoy using cosmetics if it pleases them, does that mean they should be paraded as examples to be looked up to, in ways that have a powerful effect on impressionable young minds?
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, describes transgenderism and biological subjectivism as “a politically correct demand that everyone agree to participate in the mental distortions of a few individuals who suffer from a psychological disconnect from their biological realities. Such ideologies stand in complete contradiction to the known science on biology and physical reality, and sadly, this mental distortion is now being thrust onto children as part of a sick, demented political agenda to appease the most lunatic fringe elements of the political spectrum.”
Schools, which are entrusted with the job of molding young minds, are jumping on the bandwagon too, adding to the confusion rather than helping children to understand their biologically assigned roles. In the U.K., a state school was started in the city of Manchester just for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. And most Americans are familiar with the gender-neutral bathroom debacle, which caused outrage across the country.
Though it may seem like progress and open-mindedness to some parents to allow their children to be indoctrinated with this thinking, the truth is that even the American College of Pediatricians has stated clearly that “human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait [not a choice],” and urged “educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.”
That really is it in a nutshell: Biologically speaking, we are what we are; that’s just fact. Presenting gender as a choice that has to be made by every young person is not enlightening; it’s just confusing.