Time will tell, people should not complain in the future when Mr wolf who lives nearby decides to join the sheep and play the game of who is going to eat who.
I usually do not speak about this issue with people, because I always end up in a situation where emotions are far more important than facts. That's what happens when a nation does not strive to something greater and decides instead that boys wearing girl's dresses is the next breakthrough in human evolution. Throughout history, these kinds of human ideas always appear when a civilization arrives at its peak before falling. Things have changed, now the coward and the weak will have more chance to survive than the strong and brave, why you need testosterone?
There is a belief in political studies (especially realism) that in order to survive in the international area, a country needs to have a fierce and strong foreign policy (pro-war). As if peace is a dangerous thing for the survival of the nation. I am more interested here about peace than war though. Each time a civilization reaches its peak, we can see that the same things appear and cause its fall. If a nation does not have big goals, it will start to rot from the inside.
Maybe the western world has an identity crisis because outside Christianity, there is nothing really that can dictate if something is bad or good. How can we define really if something is acceptable or not? what is the difference really between a pedophile and a homosexual or a serial killer? Because in the eyes of Mother Nature, they are all just organisms. With this mentality, you can expect atrocities to become the new norms easy.
I think not having a higher cause, and a definite way to define what is right and wrong will is a big problem. You can make anything legal as long as there enough people supporting it. Unfortunately, the majority is not always right, but this is the price to pay for democracy I guess.
Forcing boys to act like girls is just the beginning, perversion does not have a limit
This is demonstrably true, as you pointed out in a previous comment. IIRC, you related the aphorism that hard times breed strong men who create good times which breeds weak men who create hard times. Historically, humanity has been strongly intersocietally competitive. War is a profoundly important feature of our species, and strongly favors eusociality. However, intrasocial competition notably encourages asociality, and even psychopathy, so tension between individuality and eusociality is continually maintained, if variable due to circumstances.
Notably, globalism is a consolidation of society, and while dependent on eusociality and war for it's success, reduces the encouragement of eusociality by potentially eliminating intersocietal competition, which overwhelmingly encourages individuality since intrasocietal competition then becomes the primary evolutionary force affecting socialization. Further, tech advance currently increases decentralization of means of production, nearly ubiquitously across industry. Physics isn't psychologically manipulable, and institutional controls aren't potential of what tech is possible.
Absent extinction, the advance of technology will render institutional power obsolete. I note the assumed genocide of ~7 billion people that is a central pillar of the ongoing globalization, and point out that such existential societal upheaval will strongly favor the most powerful individuals, which ever more depends on possession of means of production. While I can't possibly predict how this will play out, I can see no way this plays out without violent oppression, war, and genocide.
For this reason I have long strongly encouraged folks to adopt such means of production suitable to their circumstances, and of late try to encourage expedited adoption of all means potentially able to produce the necessities for survival, beyond consideration of quality of life.
There will be blood.