The Little Mermaid Observatory had alerted us: under the guise of strengthening the fight against sectarian abuses, provisions had been introduced by the Law Commission of the National Assembly which appeared to be legal means provided to trans propagandists to prosecute therapists who hesitated to subscribe to requests for "gender transition" made by their patients, even if they were minors.

What, in the current Anglo-American gibberish, is called an "affirmation of identity" - meaning a subjective statement, a speech made by the patient concerning his or her feelings of sexual identity - could, as long as the practitioner does not blindly grant it, be assimilated to "conversion therapy", which is explicitly sanctioned by law (art. 225-4-13 of the penal code resulting from the law of January 31, 2022).

But above all, it was the new provisions concerning the ability of associations working in the field of cult-like abuses to act as civil parties that were of the greatest concern. Not only because they provided for the removal of the requirement of the victim's consent to "conversion therapy" when they are in a situation of psychological or physical subjugation - which has never been a simple observation - but also because this opened the door wide to the offensive and destabilizing maneuvers of pro- trans lobbies.

However, we already know how far such lobbies go to in order to make their views prevail. Mikhail Kostylev ^[1] , in a precisely documented analysis published on the website of the Observatory of Identity Ideologies, showed us how, under the guise – so to speak – of a collective of “conversion therapy survivors”, #NothingToCure , a few LGBT+ activists, gay and Catholic, did everything they could to try to have the Catholic Church condemned by accusing it of “acts of torture” on the grounds that it maintained its doctrine of “sin” with regard to homosexuality. Their lobbying of parliamentarians, supported by media campaigns, had almost borne fruit were it not for a last-minute intervention by the government, which recognized the likely unconstitutionality of the proposed law. This was especially true given that the alleged cases of torture had been investigated in the practices of a few evangelical sects in North America. But this will not be enough to disarm our activists, who will resume both their media campaigns and their pressure on parliamentarians.

It was therefore a similar undertaking that we encountered with the bill debated in committee. It will be adopted by the National Assembly on February 14, 2024, after significant debates, particularly concerning its highly contentious Article 4. The final wording will allay fears and will even tend to reverse the criminalization in favor of practitioners who exercise caution in matters of gender transition ^[2] . The text is now being sent to a Joint Committee.

If the hopes of transactivists were thus disappointed, it remains that their capacities for action seem limitless and most underhanded. Because this time it was less a question of discrediting the doctrine of a religious cult than of submitting a professional sector to the ideological rule of ayatollahs of transidentity. It was nothing less than forcing every therapist, whatever their specialty, to support the requester of "gender transition" and to behave purely and simply as a sycophant of the "transitioner". Which would have undoubtedly constituted a serious breach of medical ethics, particularly by increasingly transforming the "singular conversation" of the practitioner with his patient into an obligatory service counter. But beyond that, a form of totalitarian control of the medical profession would have been established by what has never been anything more than a core of totally self-centered activists who are largely insensitive to the real psychological problems of patients reporting "gender dysphoria."

Forcing a professional sector by law to adopt the most lax practices towards individuals declaring "gender dysphoria" can only be described as an authoritarian act. In this case, it would be an authoritarian act responding solely to the desires of a handful of trans activists obsessed with the outrageous demonstrations carried out by their North American counterparts and beyond, while, both from the perspective of medical authorities and parents of school-aged children, the most serious questions are being raised regarding the individual and collective effects of "gender transitions" that states, such as France, facilitate, if not encourage, among younger generations.

We know how, in order to remove the ideological barriers limiting individuals' freedom to live in the gender identity revealed by their dysphoria, many states facilitated medical and surgical sex reassignment, particularly within so-called gender transition clinics. Since then, many states have reversed course because ethical procedures were not always respected and the beneficial effects for those transitioning were not established. Moreover, over time, the decline in requests for "detransition" revealed how much public authorities, as well as a segment of the medical professions, had acted recklessly in this matter by too easily succumbing to the ideological siren call of trans activists ^[3] .

Furthermore, it is known that a growing number of parents of school-aged children are concerned about the presence of these same activists, disguised as sex educators, in schools. Sex education has indeed been enshrined in the Education Code since the law of July 4, 2001, and a 2018 circular further clarified its scope. However, by entrusting this education to approved but poorly regulated associations or private organizations, sex education for children and adolescents has become a gateway for trans propaganda targeting this demographic.

Add to this the powerful influence of social media influencers, and you have the epidemic of requests for gender transition among young teenage girls who doubt how they will be able to become balanced and fulfilled women in our societies gripped by a "war of belonging" (sexual and otherwise) that is insidiously taking hold. While the epidemic is contained, it is alarming enough that the National Academy of Medicine issued a statement to the medical community "on the growing demand for care in the context of gender trans identity in children and adolescents," making several recommendations in favor of caution, psychological support, and the development of scientific knowledge ^[4] "

It is therefore understandable that trans lobbies are working in all directions to spread their rainbow ideology, labeled LGBT+ and stipulated as "progressive and emancipatory," and they do not hesitate to use any means necessary to remove obstacles when they appear or when certain institutions begin to thwart their hopes.

Is it the fear of seeing the medical community take a closer look at its own practices in this area and possibly formulate more precise and clearer guidelines regarding children and adolescents who are potentially "transitioning," that has redoubled the zeal of trans advocates targeting parliamentarians? Whatever the reason, it is clear that they are trying to create a diversion by encouraging parliamentarians to consider any reservations expressed by a doctor or therapist faced with a request for gender transition, particularly from a child or adolescent, as equivalent to "conversion therapy." Parliament nearly succumbed to this strange semantic reversal, which threatened the medical profession with SLAPP suits—those repeated lawsuits that intimidate and paralyze action. If he had approved the recommendations of the National Assembly's Law Commission, he would have only acted as a Trojan horse on behalf of trans activist lobbies.