‘Nonbinary’ teacher pushes chemical castration for kids; Stuckey fights back with facts



Of all the debates raging between the left and the right, whether or not children should be allowed to medically transition is arguably one of — if not the — most important one.

Allie Beth Stuckey of "Relatable" has been unwavering in her position that children should not be allowed to medically transition, and she made her case during a recent debate with Desmond Fambrini on "The Ellen Fisher Podcast."

When Fambrini cites approval for puberty blockers from the American Psychiatric Association and the Trevor Project, Stuckey is ready.

“I would say, unfortunately, a lot of those institutions and the people in those institutions are captured by a particular ideology that really sacrifices the well-being of kids, so my answer to that question would be unequivocally no,” Stuckey says.

“If you’re thinking about puberty blockers, 10, 11, 12 years old, you certainly do not have the ability yet to understand the long-term consequences of what you’re putting your body through. Not only your body, but also your mind actually requires puberty to be healthy,” she adds.

Stuckey explains that these are “irreversible procedures and processes that kids cannot consent to because they do not have the mental ability to understand the long-term repercussions.”

One of those long-term repercussions is fertility, which Stuckey believes is one of the more important reasons not to medically transition children.

“Not everyone’s focus is fertility,” Fambrini fires back, before Stuckey explains that children don't know whether or not they’re going to want kids when they’re young — so to take that away from them is cruel.

“Also, for example, the decay of the uterus when you have too much testosterone in your body as a woman. All different kinds of physical maladies that come with trying to change your body into what it can never be,” Stuckey adds.

Not only are there physical maladies, but the pain of detransitioners around the world is hard to ignore.

“Not only did they detransition and realize, ‘Oh, I want to be a mom,’ they realized, ‘Oh, I really want to breastfeed. Now, I can’t do that.’ And unfortunately, the adults in their life had the same mentality that kind of you just expressed, that, ‘Well, if you can drive a car, you can decide to cut your healthy breasts off.’ And now they’re living forever with that guilt,” Stuckey explains to Fambrini.

When Fambrini notes that the stats reflect that individuals are happier after medically transitioning, Stuckey again disagrees.

“I am not basing my disapproval of and disagreement with transition on the rates of regret or not. I think it is objectively, morally, ethically wrong to mutilate your body, in particular as a child,” she explains.

“I am never going to be for the blocking of puberty or the chemical castration of a young person.”


Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Pro-family group's policy director gets Twitter suspension for supporting ban on chemical castration of children



The policy director for a pro-family advocacy group received a temporary Twitter ban after he called for South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) to support legislation that would prohibit the medical castration of children.

"Now we hope that governors will likewise be emboldened to continue the fight against the evil gender ideology being forced on America's children by joining Arkansas and Tennessee in banning the chemical castration and surgical mutilation of minors suffering from gender dysphoria," Jon Schweppe, the policy director for the American Principles Project, tweeted Tuesday.

Schweppe's tweet came in response to Noem's push for the state legislature to pass a bill that would prevent transgender women from competing in women's sports on both the K-12 and collegiate levels, according to a press release from the APP.

Earlier this year, Arkansas passed legislation that would outlaw the use of experimental genital mutilation procedures and hormone treatment for individuals under the age of 18, the Federalist reported.

The APP announced Schweppe's Twitter suspension Wednesday, taking screenshots of the platform's announcement that Schweppe's tweet had violated the platform's rules of use.

"BREAKING: APP Director of Policy and Government Affairs @JonSchweppe had his Twitter account temporarily suspended. For what exactly? Calling on governors to ban the chemical castration and surgical mutilation of children," APP tweeted.

BREAKING: APP Director of Policy and Government Affairs @JonSchweppe had his Twitter account temporarily suspended.\n\nFor what exactly?\n\nCalling on governors to ban the chemical castration and surgical mutilation of children.pic.twitter.com/oLHid9H5e1
— American Principles \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@American Principles \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1639605233

Twitter claimed that Schweppe violated the rules regarding "hateful conduct."

The rules state that an individual on Twitter may not "promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease."

Schweppe appealed his suspension; however, Twitter denied his request, determining that he had committed a violation of the platform's rules.

The APP posted a screenshot of Twitter's denial of Schweppe's appeal to restore his account and asked if Twitter supported the chemical castration of children in response to the platform's refusal to restore his account.

UPDATE:@JonSchweppe appealed his suspension, saying that he is \u201cadvocating for protecting children from violence.\u201d\n\nTwitter rejected him.\n\nDoes Twitter officially support the chemical castration of children?pic.twitter.com/m61B2PXWdR
— American Principles \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@American Principles \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1639608488

Schweppe has voiced his support for a legislative solution to Big Tech censorship issues, outlining what he believes is a small-government solution to an assault on free speech.

Schweppe wrote an op-ed published in February in which he advocated for clearly defining the difference between an online publisher and a platform. He articulated that once these lines have been clearly defined, only publishers should be granted "special immunity from civil liability."

"The open forum is presenting itself as a digital version of the public square. The publisher is not, and therefore it is reasonable for it to assume some legal responsibility for its content," he wrote.