An Open Letter to Dr. Keith Ablow

Dr. Ablow:

A recent article of yours on Fox News website takes a completely innocent moment of childhood, twists it completely, and brands it as the first step in a sweeping decent into apocalypse and glittery, glamorous dystopia.

The very picture of depravity.

Well, it may seem to be all fun and games now, when a man of supposed education writes chaotically unorganized and nonsensical tirades for alleged "news" companies, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the poor children whose parents follow your advice.

This article is a dramatic example of the way our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of sanity - homogenizing liberals and conservatives into one singular method of child-rearing when the outcome of such "psychological sterilization" is not known.

"Psychological sterilization". You use that term without explaining it. A tactic I find very common amongst close-minded, backwards people. Use scary words to freak people out so they listen to what you say. If I understand you, "psychological sterilization" is a fancy term for brainwashing. Brainwashing, to you, is the act of allowing children to freely express themselves. To you, there are two sets of human genitals (there actually aren't just two) and all parents must carefully observe these genitals in their children and indoctrinate them accordingly. I don't know about you, but I think the other of those two stands out more as a method of brainwashing...

Glazing over the fact Facebook and Prozac are somehow both contributing factors to this "gender crisis", I also don't understand how dressing little girls like adults contributes as well. In fact, this actually helps your cause. As much as I abhor the thought, sexualizing little girls only makes the distinction between men and women ever-clearer. Therefore, I do not understand how the lax morals of "prosti-tot" parents contribute to Beckett Lyons' desire to wear pink toenail polish.


"If you have no problem with the J. Crew ad, how about one in which a little boy models a sundress? What could possibly be the problem with that?"

If you have a huge problem with the possibility of Beckett wearing a dress, perhaps you should consider the horrors of a girl wearing bifurcated garments! Pants will absolutely never be an acceptable garment for girls, and they will never be feminine!

Heaven help us.

Well, how about the fact that by its nature Gender Identity is chosen, not given at birth. Just as a person cannot decide when they are born that they wish to be an investment banker or a farmer - unless of course it is the duty of our parents to indoctrinate our careers as well as our identities (both gender and otherwise) from birth? Are parents, too, supposed to decide for us our taste in music? Our sexual preferences?

Beckett may choose to paint his nails hot pink when he grows up, but saying he will submit to random amputations is a little far-fetched. If you were actually talking about sex-change operations (which I doubt you were since doctors are supposed to be professional about their fellow doctors), then shame on you for not even understanding the difference between gender and sex. I would have hoped that had been one of the first concepts they taught you in school. Not to mention that jumping to the conclusion that people will want to change their race once we let them choose their physical sex or gender identity defies any sort of logic one expects to obtain through the course of higher education.

If non-fiction always wins then why did you choose fiction as the subject of your article? Opinion is not a matter of fact, it is much more objective than that. You present no concrete evidence for any of your speculation. This article is complete and total fiction, and non-fiction will win when people wake up from this "flight of fancy".

I don't need to tell you that the items you claim as evidence of the "fallout" are shaky at best. Most them are displays of earnest sexuality, and thus enforce gender stereotypes by encouraging sex between men and women. Granted, reproduction is at the base of these, too. Does this mean, though, that anyone who ever has sex should be doing so only for the purpose of reproduction? Does this mean that any sexual act that does not contribute to the birth of a child strips away our gender? Does this mean that those who are unable to reproduce are not useful to society? Instead of waiting for your answer I'll just say that neither extreme is good. Reproduction is crucial to sustaining life, but the consequences of overpopulation are equally horrifying.

I don't see how women serving in the military is a fulfillment of "traditional" gender. By your account if boys can't play with dolls then girls can't play with toy guns. Can you explain why you're suddenly so anxious for women to go to war and why this stands in such stark contrast to your views on traditional gender? Should we teach our children that losing their lives or staying home and punching out more soldiers are the only two ways they can be useful to society?


"Jenna Lyons and J. Crew seem to know exactly what they’re up to. That’s why the photograph of Jenna’s son so prominently displays his hot pink, neon toe nails. These folks are hostile to the gender distinctions that actually are part of the magnificent synergy that creates and sustains the human race."
J. Crew, that cesspool of gender confusion. They clearly are the enemy! This ad completely cancels out everything else the company does. Above their separate lines of men's, women's, boy's and girl's clothing lines or the traditional New England aesthetic of their clothing they hold this one evil siren, drawing you to the rocks of gender catastrophe and psychological suicide. Hide your kids. Hide your wife. Otherwise J. Crew will fill them with the desire to have sex only for pleasure, wear nail polish, and eventually undergo surgery to change both their sex and their race in one fell swoop.

Oh, God... I can't tell them apart!!

Perhaps, sir, the enemy is not those persons who put these "dangerous" images out there for all to see. Perhaps it is those who draw unrealistic and questionably sane conclusions as to their effects on the whole of humanity. Perhaps, sir, the desires of children are not something suddenly being created by evil parents bent on destroying society. Perhaps they are in fact a liberation of those children from the suppression of their happiness for the sake of the comfort of people like you. Perhaps, sir, the desire to continue suppressing the happiness of these children comes not from a place of concern. Perhaps they come instead from a place of fear or even jealousy. However, I cannot draw these or any conclusions about you, having never met you, and I cannot say my words are anything more than speculation, since I present no other opinion or information other than my own.

I, too, wonder what Ms. Lyons would think if her son wanted to adhere to traditional values of masculinity by playacting as a cowboy with a gun. I would hope that she would be happy to see her child expressing what makes him happy and would allow him to do so. However, I'm also glad to see that she does not do this selectively based on her pre-conceptions of gender. As I hope any mother would tell her daughter that she is free to do anything her little heart desires, anything from being a homemaker to being president of the United States, I hope she continues to allow her child Beckett to wear pink nail polish if he so desires. True, some closed-minded people may choose to sneer and snivel and whine and complain about the decay of society, but what that has to do with Beckett's - or any other child's - happiness is beyond me. Maybe Beckett will outgrow this "fantasy" as you so call it, but wouldn't he have to outgrow the cowboy fantasy as well? Unless you think he should pursue "Gunslinging Vigilante" as a career. After all, non-fiction always wins, right?