Gender affirming care is child sacrifice and barbaric
Robby Starbuck said:
“I think it's honestly like barbaric on the same level as child sacrifice. And I think that humanity is gonna look back on it the way we look at child sacrifice.”
Invoking the judgement of future generations is a rhetorical move that has been used on the right side of history before, and the comparison to a universally condemned practice gives the claim a moral weight that can feel like conviction rather than hyperbole.
Gender-affirming care is not a fringe experiment or a cultural moment that will look embarrassing in retrospect: it is a clinical approach endorsed by every major medical organisation that has examined the evidence, developed over decades, and grounded in the documented experience of trans young people who suffer real and measurable harm when that care is withheld. The comparison to child sacrifice is not an argument; it is a rhetorical escalation designed to make careful, compassionate medicine unspeakable, and it works by replacing what actually happens in those consultations with something so monstrous that no parent could defend it. What actually happens is that children in distress are listened to, assessed over time, supported psychologically, and, where appropriate, offered interventions that the evidence shows relieve that distress. The people who pay when that language takes hold are the young people who hear themselves described as sacrificial victims, and the parents who are left too frightened to ask a doctor for help their child urgently needs.
What I said at the time:
“Well, let's see. I I will pray for you, though.”
Trans young people who hear themselves described as victims of something equivalent to ritual killing, and their parents who are shamed and threatened for seeking medical care for their children.