Every society should be judged first and foremost on the way it treats innocent children.  The sexualization of children in any form is a deep stain upon the adults who commit it.

In recent years, there has been concern about the media sexualization of little girls, especially for the purpose of entertainment or advertising.  This form of exploitation is psychological child abuse.  It involves dressing and making up girls in a manner inappropriate to their age and detrimental to their healthy psychological development.  In addition to drawing unwholesome, psychologically damaging attention to the child, a side-effect is that sexualized attire – heeled shoes, tight clothes, heavy makeup – prevents girls from experiencing unselfconscious joys like running, jumping, and playing games with other children.

Now there is an up and coming form of child psychological abuse in the service of the complex psycho-political delusional system summarized in the "LGBT" amalgamation: the transsexualization of young boys, which directly parallels the sexualization of young girls.  Sara Gilbert, executive producer of the Roseanne show, who is a lesbian, claims responsibility for the nine-year-old transsexualized character on that show named Mark.

Mark could have been written as a young man doing things boys are good at.  He could have been a computer prodigy leading his working-class family into the new world or a young savior of the planet building solar contraptions in the backyard, or perhaps an athlete with a shelf full of trophies, with all the financial struggles of his family to support his training.  But a lesbian executive producer is not going to tolerate a vital masculine character.  While such a character would be a beneficial model for other fatherless boys, he will not serve the LGBT spiritual malady as a transsexualized boy does.  It rings true that Gilbert, who will not produce a son with a man she loves, is politically if not erotically gratified to transform a vibrant boy into a tutued female simulant.  Gilbert typifies the entertainment business mindset that it is progress to give America a listless, sedentary, socially isolated, transsexualized nine-year-old boy imprisoned in a thick, sequined choker.

The commitment of the American entertainment industry to lesbian, "gay," bisexual, and "transgender" cultural and political dominance cannot be overestimated.  No dank, priest-ridden church could be more  dogmatic, no cult more intolerant of non-believers than LGBT doctrinaires.  The affirmative transsexualization of girls, the Shiloh Jolie-Pitt syndrome – girls dressed like miniature men in dark, rough clothing, beautiful hair hacked short around grim-set faces – is tragic.  It leads to sex identity confusion and plants seeds of rage watered by justifying the impossible demand to be honored as one's identity du jour.  The transsexualization of male children is a battlefront in the war on boys.  Draining away the masculine vitality and smudgy playfulness of boys is attempted psychological homicide.

Mark is literally marginalized in the show's cast photo, off to the side and unrecognizable as a boy.  This marginalization will be hard to overcome as long as he is a manikin for frocks and frills.  The amount of psychological energy used up by any form of transsexualization and the paralyzing psychosocial ambiguity it introduces into every human connection necessarily makes Mark a one-dimensional character.  Adult transsexuals who have turned away from the strongest challenges and deepest joys of their natural sex, but who cannot reach those depths of experience in the opposite one, suffer that same one-dimensionality.

The character Mark is not just a boy who paints his fingernails for a hoot.  He is transsexualized from the top of his pixie-style haircut to the bottom of his fringed skirt, sometimes decked out like a miniature RuPaul.  Since nine-year-olds cannot shop for themselves, or describe their preferred hairstyle at a salon, it is assumed that his mother encourages his female appearance.

In the 1950s, American women and girls escaped the limitations imposed by skirts and dresses.  Women did not have to live life side-saddle anymore.  LGBT politics, which produced the hoax called gender theory, is eager to be validated by pushing enfeebled boys like Mark back into skirts.

Mark tells his mother that the other kids think he's weird, and she replies that their whole family is weird.  That's a cruel falsehood.  Only Mark is weird in an obvious, pathetic way.  Of course he is a liability to other children; his transsexualization is a barrier to the easy flow of friendship with either boys or girls.  He is never going to slide into second base or buy cheap perfume at the drug store for the girl he has a crush on.  He moves like a ghost, floating around in his fat, loud, living family.

Gilbert congratulates herself on introducing the transsexualized character because it "represents the world" today.  This boy in skirts represents the way rich lesbian Hollywood types want to imagine the world is today.  If children are raised by parents who admire deviancy, abnormalities will develop.  The inhabitants of Sara Gilbert's world who buy tickets to listen to Hillary Clinton's rambling hatred are so insular, so smug, that they don't even know that the real world of American life exists.  In Gilbert's world, parents can afford expensive private educations that resemble treatment centers for kids like Mark who parented themselves and never told themselves "no."  In the real world, public schools and religious schools have dress codes that do not allow a student to dress in a distracting manner.

Sara Gilbert told the press the character of Mark is not "transgender," not "transitioning," and "he is too young to be gay."  What?  The first commandment of LGBT dogma is that "gays" are born that way.  She preferred to depict a straight boy who dresses head to toe like a girl every day, rather than a "gay" boy who dresses normally.  Isn't that homophobia?  Yes, but it's lesbian homophobia, so it doesn't count.  Regarding the character of Mark, Gilbert said, "We did a lot of research because we wanted to make sure and do it properly."  This means that Gilbert and her writers turned to an extant body of knowledge for guidance.  What literature did the creators of Roseanne study to "properly" portray a nine-year-old cross-dresser?  Did they view this as a moral question and turn to the foundations of Judeo-Christian  morality; to the Bible; or, perhaps under Roseanne Barr's influence, to commentary on the Torah? 

There is only one extant piece of literature that would normalize the transsexualization of this child.  It is a recent, utterly biased bit of pseudo-science, begun in the 1980s and written almost entirely by homosexual "researchers," called "gender theory."  Gender theory is high-toned psychobabble rationalization concocted wholly and solely in the service of LGBT politics.  I will donate $1,000 to the local domestic violence program if Gilbert provides the "research" she studied and the authors are not predominantly LGBT-oriented.

How many nine-year-old boys do you know who claim to be real boys "inside" but dress up like a girl for school every day?  If such a child existed, here's some real psychology provided by the great Alfred Adler decades before the world went mad that would help such a boy.  Adler said that to help troubled children, it is important to discover not the cause of their behavior, but the purpose.  He identified four purposes of behavior such as exhibited by Mark: 1) to gain attention, 2) to gain power and control over others, 3) to express anger, and 4) because of a sense of inferiority of masculinity.  If such a child as Mark actually existed, if his parents believed they were responsible for his well-being and were honest about the severe psychological, social, and health difficulties transsexuality causes, this theory would be a good place to start.