Before Robin Westman murdered two children and wounded many more at Minneapolis's Annunciation Catholic School, Robin was Robert, a troubled teenager whose mother worked for the parish.
Robert's mother approved the name change, but after Robert became Robin in 2020, the teen's psychological problems obviously didn't go awayhey — they led, five years later, to carnage.
A serious discussion of transgenderism, mental illness and violence is long overdue.
Earlier this year, the "Zizians," a cult notable for the transgenderism of its leader and many members, made headlines for their alleged involvement in a series of homicides, including the January slaying of U.S. Border Patrol agent David Christopher Maland.
Violent symbolism has lately claimed a prominent place in transgender political discourse:
The June 19 issue of Oregon's Eugene Weekly featured a trans cover star cradling an AR-15-style rifle, with blurbs proclaiming, "Some queer folks are armed and ready to bash back" and asking, "Are you triggered?"
In the state where Westman would later open fire on schoolchildren, Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, a Democrat, two years ago made a public appearance in a shirt emblazoned with a knife and the legend, "Protect trans children."
No one can say Westman didn't receive enough protection — the trans killer's victims are another matter.
One thing even liberals who broadly support transgender protections should consider is that blatant warning signs might get downplayed or ignored in cases like Westman's for fear that noticing them would be politically incorrect.
The liberal urge to defend anyone who claims to be transgender can turn into making excuses for disturbing behavior of all kinds that may or may not have anything to do with gender dysphoria.
All children are deserving of protection — which includes protecting them from adults who have a reckless drive to affirm any doubts a minor has about his or her identity.
The dangerous situation children face today has come about because too much abnormality and political radicalism has been accepted for the sake of being polite.
Shortly before Westman's rampage, I encountered an illustration of this.
A libertarian scholar at a college in a red state griped on Facebook about a Florida school district that terminated the contract of a teacher who used a student's "preferred" name —that is, a name signaling a change in sex.
This was a scholar I thought of as middle-of-the-road or slightly conservative, so I was shocked by the argument, which came down to the contention that calling a child by any name he or she wanted to be known by should never be controversial: that it's just like using a nickname.
As if calling William "Billy" is the same as calling him "Barbara."
Florida's law is actually quite liberal — it allows transgender-affirming names as long as parents provide explicit permission for the change.
The Brevard County teacher in question flouted the law and seized a role only parents are supposed to have.
Minors are minors precisely because they cannot make the most important decisions for themselves: they have to be under an adult's tutelage, mainly their parents'.
Yet even a red-state libertarian scholar, who should have been against a public-school teacher's usurping of parental rights under any scenario, believed this class of government employee should have more power over a child's identity than parents — and need not be accountable to the law.
This is wrong on every level.
For a teacher to encourage a child in adopting a new sex is at least as heavy an intrusion into that child's development as a teacher urging him or her to change religion.
If liberals and libertarians want to keep the state out of a child's religious formation, how can they say it's OK for state employees to get involved in deciding a child's sex?
And it's an invitation to grooming if a teacher can lead a minor down this path just by claiming the minor took the step.
The radicalism of the idea didn't surprise me: I expect the far left to advocate such things.
But this Facebook thread taught me I had seriously underestimated the extent to which far-left ideas had seeped into everyday liberal assumptions.
What was even more striking was the way this scholar tried to smuggle through the acceptance of an extreme idea — letting teachers regender minors on their own authority — under the cover of something as banal as calling anyone by the name they prefer.
Every state in the Union should have laws like Florida's.
Parents can certainly be too liberal, but safeguarding their rights is the first step to safeguarding children.
And parents themselves should be watchful — not only for signs a teenager's troubles run deeper than pronouns but for signs adults are contributing to a psychological crisis.
Daniel McCarthy, a recognized expert on conservative thought, is the editor-in-chief of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. He's also a regular contributor to The Spectator's World edition. He has a long association with The American Conservative, a magazine co-founded by Pat Buchanan. Mr. McCarthy's writings appeared in a variety of publications. He has appeared on PBS NewsHour, NPR, the BBC, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, CNN International and other radio and television outlets. Read more of Daniel McCarthy's reports — Here.