Jiggyfly
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 9,220
A week of LGBTQ acceptance education in a middle school. Really?
- Thread starter fortsbest
- Start date
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,698
My primary question are when did this group of crircumstances suddenly hit critical mass and what brought it about?
I feel reasonably certain my memory span exceeds everyone's on this site and I cannot recall having this consternation until very recent times. I am led to believe that as a movement it is of recent vintage. I just do not recall such a need for these individuals to cross over to opposing restrooms or restroom of choice until lately. In fact I cannot recall until the recent past such an explosion of this type phenomenon.
There has been a few sprinkled within the population over the years but for the most part the individuals did their best to stay out of view. Now suddenly there is what seems like a movement that has sprung up whether from the feeling of oppression or sudden discovery of self awareness. What happened to create such a sudden awareness catalyst?
Is all as a legitimate protest or could it be that some see an opportunity to access a path to their deviated vices?
How did this come about almost suddenly? Real or imagined?
I feel reasonably certain my memory span exceeds everyone's on this site and I cannot recall having this consternation until very recent times. I am led to believe that as a movement it is of recent vintage. I just do not recall such a need for these individuals to cross over to opposing restrooms or restroom of choice until lately. In fact I cannot recall until the recent past such an explosion of this type phenomenon.
There has been a few sprinkled within the population over the years but for the most part the individuals did their best to stay out of view. Now suddenly there is what seems like a movement that has sprung up whether from the feeling of oppression or sudden discovery of self awareness. What happened to create such a sudden awareness catalyst?
Is all as a legitimate protest or could it be that some see an opportunity to access a path to their deviated vices?
How did this come about almost suddenly? Real or imagined?
Last edited:
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,698
Do you not recognize that the use of emoticons depicts sarcasm and humor? That is why they are here to utilize.
townsend
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 5,377
I think if you were trans in the past you either had to play the part of your assigned gender, kill yourself, or live on the fringes as a prostitute or something, since you probably aren't going to be tolerated in society, much less hired to work at a real job. So it isn't unusual to see more people in mainstream society coming out as trans, now that they've gained more acceptance.
The same thing happened with homosexuals. A bunch of them repressed themselves or did their thing in secret, then when the stigma became less severe they started coming out en masse.
Now that society is dismantling this new stigma, there's new rules expected to prevent discrimination against "out and proud" individuals who were expected to be hidden and ashamed of themselves in previous generations.
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,698
Coming out is one thing but I cannot explain the coming out behavior of forcing the issue on restrooms. That's not something that will enhance or detract from them revealing their "repressed " feelings. It's almost like this mode is an act of aggression on society.
Jiggyfly
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 9,220
What does it matter when it came about?
People were saying the same things about water fountains, lunch counters, bathrooms and swimming pools concerning black people in your lifetime.
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,698
What does it matter to you that I care to pose the questions? Do you feel better now that you got to play the race card? Your biases are peeking through.
NoDak
Hotlinking' sonofabitch
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 22,997
fortsbest
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 3,741
YOu and those who support this can keep trying dude, but using the black comparison is BS. A couple hundred years of slavery and mistreatment for the color of your skin (not only by whites, but by people of their own skin color as well) does not compare to a man or woman thinking they were born in the wrong body. One is a physical reality with years of history the other is a mental deficiency!
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 11,888
Yeah - we've been told for 50 years that one reason homosexuality is okay is because "They are who they are. They don't choose this." Ok. If we accept that premise, which our culture has done, you can't now come along and say "These people (trans) AREN'T who they are. They CAN choose."
Sorry. You can't have it both ways
Interesting take.
Sorry. You can't have it both ways
Interesting take.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,043
Oh snap. I like it.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 11,888
Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter
Peter Baklinski
TORONTO, March 4, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A biological man claiming to be ‘transgender’ so as to gain access to and prey on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed “indefinitely” last week after being declared by a judge a “dangerous offender.”
Pro-family leaders are pointing out that this is exactly the type of incident they warned of as the Ontario government passed its “gender identity” bill, dubbed the “bathroom bill,” in 2012.
Christopher Hambrook, 37, leaned on the ever expanding legal “rights” offered to people who “identify” with the sex opposite their biology. Under the name “Jessica,” he was able to get into the women’s shelters, where he sexually assaulted several women in 2012, the Toronto Sun reports.
Court heard how one woman awoke to find Hambrook assaulting her on her bed. “Her tights had been pulled down past her bottom and her bathing suit had been pulled to the side,” court documents reveal. “She yelled at the accused, demanding to know what he was doing. He simply covered his face with his hands, said ‘Oops!’ and started giggling.”
Court also heard evidence of Hambrook terrorizing a deaf woman living in the shelter. “The accused grabbed the complainant’s hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area while his penis was erect,” court heard.
The same deaf women reported that Hambrook would peer at her through a gap between the door and its frame while she showered.
Justice John McMahon imposed the “indefinite” prison sentence due to Hambrook’s long history of committing sex crimes.
RELATED: Man strips in front of girls in locker room, says transgender law allows it
Hambrook was a former stripper and escort from Quebec before moving to Toronto in 2009 and posing as a woman. While in Montreal he served four years in jail for a 2002 sexual assault of a five-year-old girl who was a family friend and for raping a mentally challenged 27-year-old woman while on bail for the first crime, reports the Toronto Sun.
The prosecution successfully convinced the judge that Hambrook’s out-of-control sexual urges put the public at great risk and that an indefinite jail sentence was the only way to protect the public.
“I am satisfied there is no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public from Christopher Hambrook,” said Judge McMahon.
Advertisement
Ontario amended its Human Rights Code to make “gender identity” and “gender expression” prohibited grounds for discrimination in 2012. The bill’s sponsors said at the time that the so-called “Toby's Law” would open the door to “social change” in Canada.
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
Family advocates argued at the time that the NDP sponsored bill would create a legal right for a man who calls himself ‘transgender’ to use rooms and facilities intended for women so as to exploit women.
The bill was subsequently dubbed the “bathroom bill” by its critics. Allowing a man who calls himself ‘transgender’ to enter a woman’s area has already proved problematic in the United States.
In 2012 a college in Washington state decided it would not prevent a 45-year-old man who presents himself as a transgender “female” from lounging naked in a women’s locker room in an area frequented by girls as young as six. Teenage girls on a high school swim team were using the facilities when they saw "Colleen" Francis deliberately exposing male genitalia through the glass window in a sauna. Police told one outraged mother that the university could not bar the biological male from the premises.
Brian Rushfeldt, president of Canada Family Action, told LifeSiteNews that Hambrook’s method of gaining legal entrance into the woman’s shelters proves gender identity legislation is inherently flawed.
RELATED: I was a transgender woman
“The Ontario law is dangerous. It is unacceptable that any country would allow a law which puts citizens at risk. It proves the law was ill planned and executed, and the government should be held legally responsible for these crimes.”
Jack Fonseca of Campaign Life Coalition told LifeSiteNews that it “didn’t take a brain surgeon to predict that letting men into women’s bathrooms and other private spaces would eventually lead to sexual assaults.”
“I wish we didn't have to say 'I told you so,’ but Ontario's party leaders and MPPs were warned that the transsexual ‘Bathroom Bill’ endangered women and needed to be defeated.”
Advertisement
“Of course this lunatic law could only make it easier for rapists and peeping toms to prey on female victims while masquerading as ‘transgendered.’”
Fonseca called for a repeal of the law.
“If this dangerous law is not repealed, we will only see a rise in male predators attacking women in spaces where they deserve the right to privacy like bathrooms, change rooms and women’s shelters.”
Fonseca took aim at Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak for supporting the bill, saying that he should take “personal responsibility for the attempted rape of those poor women in the shelters.”
“Hudak cannot escape blame: He supported this nonsensical law.”
QMI Agency’s Christina Blizzard wrote in an opinion piece last week that women have a “right to protection.”
“This is a bad law that allows heterosexual predators access to women in their most personal moments. Extra care should be taken to protect at-risk women in vulnerable situations, such as homeless shelters.”
RELATED: Transgender ‘female’ MMA fighter gives female opponent concussion, broken eye socket
Ezra Levant said that the gender identity law in Ontario has made the province become a “magnet for rapists.”
“Instead of women being protected in Ontario, instead of the law protecting women, the law serves up women to a rapist named ‘Jessica,’” he said on his show The Source.
Advertisement
A federal version of the “gender identity” bill currently sits in the Senate after failing to pass its third and final reading in August after the Conservatives shut down Parliament for a summer break.
Fonseca said that the federal legislation puts Canadian women at risk.
“We urge all concerned Canadians to phone, email and write Canada’s Senators pointing out that the Ontario version of this law allowed Mr. Hambrook to sexually assault two women, and to ensure that Senators do not make the mistake of granting legal cover to would-be rapists at the federal level.”
“Tell the Senators to vote NO to Bill C-279 when it comes up again.”
Contact Canada’s senators here.
10 Share this article
Share on Facebook
187.5k
Share on Twitter
Print this Article
Share via Email
Advertisement
Featured Image
American Life League
NEWSCONTRACEPTION
Wed Apr 20, 2016 - 4:47 pm EST
Obama admin’s HHS mandate case is ‘condescending’ to women: Little Sisters’ attorney
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
Becket Fund , Hhs Mandate , Little Sisters Of The Poor , Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 20, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Both sides of the Supreme Court's HHS mandate case filed legal briefs today, the final documents justices have requested before possibly making a decision on the controversial ObamaCare contraceptive mandate.
Justices asked both parties to submit plans for the government to furnish women with contraceptives, including the morning after pill, without relying upon the current arrangement. They submitted those briefs on April 12.
Today, the government and religious organizations submitted their responses to those filings.
A diverse, ecumenical coalition is suing the Obama administration over the opt-out process, saying it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Institutions with deeply held religious objections to providing contraception, sterilization, or abortifacient drugs must certify their views in writing. That triggers the insurance companies to provide those drugs – something the Little Sisters of the Poor, among others, say makes them a cooperating party in sin.
Religious petitioners asked for the government to allow insurance companies to offer separate insurance policies that cover only contraception. When religious employers do not purchase an all-inclusive health insurance plan, the insurance companies could contact female employers and offer the separate plan at no cost.
The government brief, filed by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., replies that requiring women to accept or activate such coverage would create a “barrier to the delivery of preventive services.”
“That's actually pretty condescending,” Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told LifeSiteNews during a conference call late this afternoon. Women are perfectly capable of “picking up the phone” and calling insurers, he said.
Verrilli's response also states that the Obama administration “specifically considered contraceptive-only policies during rulemaking proceedings, but adopted a different approach,” because some state insurance laws would make the policies “unworkable.”
Rienzi replied, “The Affordable Care Act expressly preempts any contrary state law” from taking effect. Besides, federal law supersedes state law, he said; that's just “the way the Constitution works.”
The Obama administration also argued that “it would be startling to hold that RFRA entitles a religious objector not only to an exemption, but also to insist on being exempted without notifying anyone.” (Emphasis in original.)
Advertisement
However, Rienzi said that the government brief essentially admits there are less restrictive means available than the current government scheme, which violates RFRA's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.
“The Little Sisters did not file a lawsuit early in this process,” Rienzi told LifeSiteNews. “They waited, because they trusted the government” would accommodate their consciences.
The Sisters have said from the outset that “all they want to do is be out of the process and focus on caring for the elderly poor, as they have for the last 175 years,” he said.
That was echoed by the nuns themselves. “We are so grateful that the [Supreme] Court asked to hear more about our case," said Sister Loraine Marie Maguire, mother provincial for the Little Sisters of the Poor. “We just want to focus on our mission of serving the elderly poor as we have for the last 175 years while being faithful to the teachings of our church.”
“This case is about the freedom of all Americans to follow their faith,” said Dr. Blair Blackburn, president of East Texas Baptist University. “We simply ask the Court to recognize that ETBU is a conscientious objector, and that the federal government is insisting that we act as a conscientious collaborator.”
Dr. Robert Sloan, president of Houston Baptist University, said he is “hopeful that the Supreme Court will let us continue to serve our students and others.”
Justices are expected to rule on Zubik v. Burwell in June.
17
5 RELATED ARTICLES
Poll: Most Americans think imposing HHS mandate on Little Sisters is ‘unfair’
A surprise ‘positive’ twist in nuns’ Supreme Court case against Obama admin.
SCOTUS justices grill Obama admin: Why are you ‘hijacking’ nuns’ health plan to offer contraceptives?
Click to view more
Advertisement
Featured Image
Fr. Linus Clovis of Family Life International discussed the "Impact of the new papacy on the pro-life and pro-family movement"
OPINIONCATHOLIC CHURCH, CONTRACEPTION, FAITH, FAMILY, MARRIAGE
Wed Apr 20, 2016 - 3:42 pm EST
Priest on papal exhortation: We must hold fast to the Tradition
Fr. Linus Clovis
Amoris Laetitia , Catholic , Communion For Remarried , Contraception , Divorce , Marriage , Pope Francis , Sex Education
April 20, 2016 (Family Life International NZ) -- Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation on the Family, Amoris Laetitia (AL) has been received with very mixed reactions ranging from positive jubilation to that of respectful reservation. It is a 60,000 word document that will require time, study and prayerful reflection in order to unravel all of its implications.
While the nuances, implications and applications of AL are being unravelled, it seems to me that we ought to remain calm and take the sagacious advice of St Paul of simply following the well established Catholic rule of holding fast to what we have received and always believed. In practical terms and, indeed, in line with Pope Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity, this means that AL must be understood and interpreted in light of previous magisterial teachings.
The principal areas where AL has provoked simultaneous reactions of jubilance and reservation are sex education (§§280-285), contraception (§222) and the admission of some civilly remarried divorced Catholics to the sacraments without a commitment to continence when separation is not possible (Chapter 8).
Specifically, AL seems to suggest that the classroom is the main, if not only, place where sex education is to be imparted to children, which, of course, is quite contrary to the Church’s constant teaching that this is the primary responsibility of parents (Familiaris Consortio, The truth and meaning of human sexuality 1995, Gravissimum Educationis, etc). In regard to contraception, the fountain head of much of the contemporary family dysfunction and sexual deviancy, AL only indirectly alludes to it and that without actually mentioning it. Further, AL not only glosses over of the seriousness of sins against chastity but also gives a strong emphasis to the role of the individual conscience in sexual matters without any corresponding affirmation of the duty of forming one’s conscience in accordance with the Church’s magisterium. The most controversial issue, however, is the exceptions being made for some of those living in irregular sexual relationship to approach the sacraments without due amendment of life. Here it seems that AL has departed from the Church’s clear bimillennial teaching as found in Scripture and Tradition, as has been confirmed by numerous popes, including St John Paul II and as is articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law.
Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!
These are undoubtedly very difficult times in which we live. Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, however, invites to a safe harbour by reminding us that “the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defence of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3). Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.” §8 Dei Verbum also affirms that “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (the magisterium) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. §10.
In a prayerful and charitable spirit, let us read, study, discern, interpret and apply, if and where possible the teachings of Amoris Laetitia.
Father Linus Clovis is the spiritual director and chairman of the board for Family Life International NZ. This article is reprinted with permission.
14 Share this article
Share on Facebook
200
Share on Twitter
Print this Article
Share via Email
Advertisement
Featured Image
NEWSHOMOSEXUALITY
Wed Apr 20, 2016 - 1:50 pm EST
Whole Foods sues gay pastor who claimed they put slur on his ‘Love Wins’ cake
Fr. Mark Hodges
Homosexuality , Whole Foods
AUSTIN, Texas, April 20, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Openly homosexual pastor Jordan Brown filed a lawsuit claiming that a Whole Foods in Austin added an anti-gay slur to a cake he ordered. Now, the chain has launched a lawsuit alleging he lied about the whole incident.
Brown said he asked for a cake that said "Love Wins," but after he left the store he discovered the cake said "Love Wins Fag."
In a lawsuit filed within hours of buying the cake on Monday, Brown said he was seeking damages and monetary relief for mental anguish, court costs and other expenses.
Whole Foods Market quickly produced a surveillance video disputing his story.
“Our team member wrote 'Love Wins' at the top of the cake as requested by the guest, and that's exactly how the cake was packaged and sold at the store,” Whole Foods Marketing Field Associate Rachel Malish responded.
"Our team members do not accept or design bakery orders that include language or images that are offensive," Malish said. "Whole Foods Market has a zero tolerance policy for discrimination."
According to Whole Foods, the employee who decorated the cake is homosexual. "We stand behind our bakery team member, who is part of the LGBTQ community,” they said, “and the additional team members from the store who confirmed the cake was decorated with only the message 'Love Wins.'"
"No team members, including the cashier who rang the guest up, saw this word on the cake,” the store said.
The Whole Foods Market company has taken legal action against Brown to protect its image as a left-leaning outlet in Austin, a progressive city in an otherwise conservative state.
"We believe his accusations are fraudulent and we intend to take legal action against both Mr. Brown and his attorney,” a company statement read.
Besides employee testimony, their security video shows Brown buying the cake, which had its UPC label pasted on the top of the box, while Brown's viral video accusation shows the UPC label on the bottom and side of the box.
Advertisement
Additionally, the letters "Love Wins" and "Fag" are different. One tweet analyzed, "Clearly not same icing tip used to create F-A-G as rest of letters. Much finer. Had to do double pass."
If Whole Foods is right, Brown joins an ever-expanding list of alleged anti-LGBT hate crimes that turned out to be fraudulent.
"This is not surprising. We've seen this before,” Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth told LifeSiteNews. “Sadly, some homosexual activists are so desperate to be seen as victims that they create their own fake 'victim crimes.'”
“It is the terrible truth that you could fill a large book documenting fake homosexual activists 'hate crime' hoaxes,” LaBarbera continued. “This says a lot about the homosexual movement, that it is forced to manufacture and politicize hate to win sympathy as supposed civil rights victims.”
In November 2013, lesbian Dayna Morales claimed that a couple wrote on their receipt that they would not tip her because they do not “agree with your lifestyle.” When the couple saw their receipt on TV, they produced the original receipt and their credit card charges, which proved that, not only did they not write the insult, they actually did tip the waitress generously.
In July 2013, lesbian "Charlie" Rogers literally carved a cross and anti-gay slurs into her own chest with a knife, claiming to be the victim of a hate crime. When her fraud was exposed, she pleaded "no contest" and received one week in jail.
In August 2012, homosexual Joseph Baken claimed three men beat him and called him names, but a video revealed he caused head trauma himself by doing a backflip and smacking his face on the pavement.
In 2012, Central Connecticut State University student Alexandra Pennell’s hate crimes claims sparked a major campus demonstration movement, until a hidden camera caught her planting the hate notes herself.
In May 2013, police charged a lesbian couple in Colorado with writing “Kill the Gay” on their own garage.
Lesbian Kaitlyn Hunt claimed to be the victim of hate, until it was discovered she herself was the victimizer, sexting a 14-year-old girl 20,000 times. Hunt was ultimately charged with sexual battery for repeatedly raping the minor.
Advertisement
The most famous fabricated “hate crime” was the attack of Matthew Shepard. The perpetrators killed him in a botched robbery and said they used a “gay panic” defense in hopes of getting a reduced sentence.
“The truth is, the gay movement is about disordered sexuality, not civil rights,” LaBarbera told LifeSiteNews.
5 Share this article
Share on Facebook
477
Share on Twitter
Print this Article
Share via Email
Advertisement
Peter Baklinski
TORONTO, March 4, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A biological man claiming to be ‘transgender’ so as to gain access to and prey on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed “indefinitely” last week after being declared by a judge a “dangerous offender.”
Pro-family leaders are pointing out that this is exactly the type of incident they warned of as the Ontario government passed its “gender identity” bill, dubbed the “bathroom bill,” in 2012.
Christopher Hambrook, 37, leaned on the ever expanding legal “rights” offered to people who “identify” with the sex opposite their biology. Under the name “Jessica,” he was able to get into the women’s shelters, where he sexually assaulted several women in 2012, the Toronto Sun reports.
Court heard how one woman awoke to find Hambrook assaulting her on her bed. “Her tights had been pulled down past her bottom and her bathing suit had been pulled to the side,” court documents reveal. “She yelled at the accused, demanding to know what he was doing. He simply covered his face with his hands, said ‘Oops!’ and started giggling.”
Court also heard evidence of Hambrook terrorizing a deaf woman living in the shelter. “The accused grabbed the complainant’s hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area while his penis was erect,” court heard.
The same deaf women reported that Hambrook would peer at her through a gap between the door and its frame while she showered.
Justice John McMahon imposed the “indefinite” prison sentence due to Hambrook’s long history of committing sex crimes.
RELATED: Man strips in front of girls in locker room, says transgender law allows it
Hambrook was a former stripper and escort from Quebec before moving to Toronto in 2009 and posing as a woman. While in Montreal he served four years in jail for a 2002 sexual assault of a five-year-old girl who was a family friend and for raping a mentally challenged 27-year-old woman while on bail for the first crime, reports the Toronto Sun.
The prosecution successfully convinced the judge that Hambrook’s out-of-control sexual urges put the public at great risk and that an indefinite jail sentence was the only way to protect the public.
“I am satisfied there is no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public from Christopher Hambrook,” said Judge McMahon.
Advertisement
Ontario amended its Human Rights Code to make “gender identity” and “gender expression” prohibited grounds for discrimination in 2012. The bill’s sponsors said at the time that the so-called “Toby's Law” would open the door to “social change” in Canada.
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
Family advocates argued at the time that the NDP sponsored bill would create a legal right for a man who calls himself ‘transgender’ to use rooms and facilities intended for women so as to exploit women.
The bill was subsequently dubbed the “bathroom bill” by its critics. Allowing a man who calls himself ‘transgender’ to enter a woman’s area has already proved problematic in the United States.
In 2012 a college in Washington state decided it would not prevent a 45-year-old man who presents himself as a transgender “female” from lounging naked in a women’s locker room in an area frequented by girls as young as six. Teenage girls on a high school swim team were using the facilities when they saw "Colleen" Francis deliberately exposing male genitalia through the glass window in a sauna. Police told one outraged mother that the university could not bar the biological male from the premises.
Brian Rushfeldt, president of Canada Family Action, told LifeSiteNews that Hambrook’s method of gaining legal entrance into the woman’s shelters proves gender identity legislation is inherently flawed.
RELATED: I was a transgender woman
“The Ontario law is dangerous. It is unacceptable that any country would allow a law which puts citizens at risk. It proves the law was ill planned and executed, and the government should be held legally responsible for these crimes.”
Jack Fonseca of Campaign Life Coalition told LifeSiteNews that it “didn’t take a brain surgeon to predict that letting men into women’s bathrooms and other private spaces would eventually lead to sexual assaults.”
“I wish we didn't have to say 'I told you so,’ but Ontario's party leaders and MPPs were warned that the transsexual ‘Bathroom Bill’ endangered women and needed to be defeated.”
Advertisement
“Of course this lunatic law could only make it easier for rapists and peeping toms to prey on female victims while masquerading as ‘transgendered.’”
Fonseca called for a repeal of the law.
“If this dangerous law is not repealed, we will only see a rise in male predators attacking women in spaces where they deserve the right to privacy like bathrooms, change rooms and women’s shelters.”
Fonseca took aim at Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak for supporting the bill, saying that he should take “personal responsibility for the attempted rape of those poor women in the shelters.”
“Hudak cannot escape blame: He supported this nonsensical law.”
QMI Agency’s Christina Blizzard wrote in an opinion piece last week that women have a “right to protection.”
“This is a bad law that allows heterosexual predators access to women in their most personal moments. Extra care should be taken to protect at-risk women in vulnerable situations, such as homeless shelters.”
RELATED: Transgender ‘female’ MMA fighter gives female opponent concussion, broken eye socket
Ezra Levant said that the gender identity law in Ontario has made the province become a “magnet for rapists.”
“Instead of women being protected in Ontario, instead of the law protecting women, the law serves up women to a rapist named ‘Jessica,’” he said on his show The Source.
Advertisement
A federal version of the “gender identity” bill currently sits in the Senate after failing to pass its third and final reading in August after the Conservatives shut down Parliament for a summer break.
Fonseca said that the federal legislation puts Canadian women at risk.
“We urge all concerned Canadians to phone, email and write Canada’s Senators pointing out that the Ontario version of this law allowed Mr. Hambrook to sexually assault two women, and to ensure that Senators do not make the mistake of granting legal cover to would-be rapists at the federal level.”
“Tell the Senators to vote NO to Bill C-279 when it comes up again.”
Contact Canada’s senators here.
10 Share this article
Share on Facebook
187.5k
Share on Twitter
Print this Article
Share via Email
Advertisement
Featured Image
American Life League
NEWSCONTRACEPTION
Wed Apr 20, 2016 - 4:47 pm EST
Obama admin’s HHS mandate case is ‘condescending’ to women: Little Sisters’ attorney
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
Becket Fund , Hhs Mandate , Little Sisters Of The Poor , Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 20, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Both sides of the Supreme Court's HHS mandate case filed legal briefs today, the final documents justices have requested before possibly making a decision on the controversial ObamaCare contraceptive mandate.
Justices asked both parties to submit plans for the government to furnish women with contraceptives, including the morning after pill, without relying upon the current arrangement. They submitted those briefs on April 12.
Today, the government and religious organizations submitted their responses to those filings.
A diverse, ecumenical coalition is suing the Obama administration over the opt-out process, saying it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Institutions with deeply held religious objections to providing contraception, sterilization, or abortifacient drugs must certify their views in writing. That triggers the insurance companies to provide those drugs – something the Little Sisters of the Poor, among others, say makes them a cooperating party in sin.
Religious petitioners asked for the government to allow insurance companies to offer separate insurance policies that cover only contraception. When religious employers do not purchase an all-inclusive health insurance plan, the insurance companies could contact female employers and offer the separate plan at no cost.
The government brief, filed by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., replies that requiring women to accept or activate such coverage would create a “barrier to the delivery of preventive services.”
“That's actually pretty condescending,” Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told LifeSiteNews during a conference call late this afternoon. Women are perfectly capable of “picking up the phone” and calling insurers, he said.
Verrilli's response also states that the Obama administration “specifically considered contraceptive-only policies during rulemaking proceedings, but adopted a different approach,” because some state insurance laws would make the policies “unworkable.”
Rienzi replied, “The Affordable Care Act expressly preempts any contrary state law” from taking effect. Besides, federal law supersedes state law, he said; that's just “the way the Constitution works.”
The Obama administration also argued that “it would be startling to hold that RFRA entitles a religious objector not only to an exemption, but also to insist on being exempted without notifying anyone.” (Emphasis in original.)
Advertisement
However, Rienzi said that the government brief essentially admits there are less restrictive means available than the current government scheme, which violates RFRA's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.
“The Little Sisters did not file a lawsuit early in this process,” Rienzi told LifeSiteNews. “They waited, because they trusted the government” would accommodate their consciences.
The Sisters have said from the outset that “all they want to do is be out of the process and focus on caring for the elderly poor, as they have for the last 175 years,” he said.
That was echoed by the nuns themselves. “We are so grateful that the [Supreme] Court asked to hear more about our case," said Sister Loraine Marie Maguire, mother provincial for the Little Sisters of the Poor. “We just want to focus on our mission of serving the elderly poor as we have for the last 175 years while being faithful to the teachings of our church.”
“This case is about the freedom of all Americans to follow their faith,” said Dr. Blair Blackburn, president of East Texas Baptist University. “We simply ask the Court to recognize that ETBU is a conscientious objector, and that the federal government is insisting that we act as a conscientious collaborator.”
Dr. Robert Sloan, president of Houston Baptist University, said he is “hopeful that the Supreme Court will let us continue to serve our students and others.”
Justices are expected to rule on Zubik v. Burwell in June.
17
5 RELATED ARTICLES
Poll: Most Americans think imposing HHS mandate on Little Sisters is ‘unfair’
A surprise ‘positive’ twist in nuns’ Supreme Court case against Obama admin.
SCOTUS justices grill Obama admin: Why are you ‘hijacking’ nuns’ health plan to offer contraceptives?
Click to view more
Advertisement
Featured Image
Fr. Linus Clovis of Family Life International discussed the "Impact of the new papacy on the pro-life and pro-family movement"
OPINIONCATHOLIC CHURCH, CONTRACEPTION, FAITH, FAMILY, MARRIAGE
Wed Apr 20, 2016 - 3:42 pm EST
Priest on papal exhortation: We must hold fast to the Tradition
Fr. Linus Clovis
Amoris Laetitia , Catholic , Communion For Remarried , Contraception , Divorce , Marriage , Pope Francis , Sex Education
April 20, 2016 (Family Life International NZ) -- Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation on the Family, Amoris Laetitia (AL) has been received with very mixed reactions ranging from positive jubilation to that of respectful reservation. It is a 60,000 word document that will require time, study and prayerful reflection in order to unravel all of its implications.
While the nuances, implications and applications of AL are being unravelled, it seems to me that we ought to remain calm and take the sagacious advice of St Paul of simply following the well established Catholic rule of holding fast to what we have received and always believed. In practical terms and, indeed, in line with Pope Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity, this means that AL must be understood and interpreted in light of previous magisterial teachings.
The principal areas where AL has provoked simultaneous reactions of jubilance and reservation are sex education (§§280-285), contraception (§222) and the admission of some civilly remarried divorced Catholics to the sacraments without a commitment to continence when separation is not possible (Chapter 8).
Specifically, AL seems to suggest that the classroom is the main, if not only, place where sex education is to be imparted to children, which, of course, is quite contrary to the Church’s constant teaching that this is the primary responsibility of parents (Familiaris Consortio, The truth and meaning of human sexuality 1995, Gravissimum Educationis, etc). In regard to contraception, the fountain head of much of the contemporary family dysfunction and sexual deviancy, AL only indirectly alludes to it and that without actually mentioning it. Further, AL not only glosses over of the seriousness of sins against chastity but also gives a strong emphasis to the role of the individual conscience in sexual matters without any corresponding affirmation of the duty of forming one’s conscience in accordance with the Church’s magisterium. The most controversial issue, however, is the exceptions being made for some of those living in irregular sexual relationship to approach the sacraments without due amendment of life. Here it seems that AL has departed from the Church’s clear bimillennial teaching as found in Scripture and Tradition, as has been confirmed by numerous popes, including St John Paul II and as is articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law.
Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!
These are undoubtedly very difficult times in which we live. Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, however, invites to a safe harbour by reminding us that “the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defence of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3). Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.” §8 Dei Verbum also affirms that “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (the magisterium) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. §10.
In a prayerful and charitable spirit, let us read, study, discern, interpret and apply, if and where possible the teachings of Amoris Laetitia.
Father Linus Clovis is the spiritual director and chairman of the board for Family Life International NZ. This article is reprinted with permission.
14 Share this article
Share on Facebook
200
Share on Twitter
Print this Article
Share via Email
Advertisement
Featured Image
NEWSHOMOSEXUALITY
Wed Apr 20, 2016 - 1:50 pm EST
Whole Foods sues gay pastor who claimed they put slur on his ‘Love Wins’ cake
Fr. Mark Hodges
Homosexuality , Whole Foods
AUSTIN, Texas, April 20, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Openly homosexual pastor Jordan Brown filed a lawsuit claiming that a Whole Foods in Austin added an anti-gay slur to a cake he ordered. Now, the chain has launched a lawsuit alleging he lied about the whole incident.
Brown said he asked for a cake that said "Love Wins," but after he left the store he discovered the cake said "Love Wins Fag."
In a lawsuit filed within hours of buying the cake on Monday, Brown said he was seeking damages and monetary relief for mental anguish, court costs and other expenses.
Whole Foods Market quickly produced a surveillance video disputing his story.
“Our team member wrote 'Love Wins' at the top of the cake as requested by the guest, and that's exactly how the cake was packaged and sold at the store,” Whole Foods Marketing Field Associate Rachel Malish responded.
"Our team members do not accept or design bakery orders that include language or images that are offensive," Malish said. "Whole Foods Market has a zero tolerance policy for discrimination."
According to Whole Foods, the employee who decorated the cake is homosexual. "We stand behind our bakery team member, who is part of the LGBTQ community,” they said, “and the additional team members from the store who confirmed the cake was decorated with only the message 'Love Wins.'"
"No team members, including the cashier who rang the guest up, saw this word on the cake,” the store said.
The Whole Foods Market company has taken legal action against Brown to protect its image as a left-leaning outlet in Austin, a progressive city in an otherwise conservative state.
"We believe his accusations are fraudulent and we intend to take legal action against both Mr. Brown and his attorney,” a company statement read.
Besides employee testimony, their security video shows Brown buying the cake, which had its UPC label pasted on the top of the box, while Brown's viral video accusation shows the UPC label on the bottom and side of the box.
Advertisement
Additionally, the letters "Love Wins" and "Fag" are different. One tweet analyzed, "Clearly not same icing tip used to create F-A-G as rest of letters. Much finer. Had to do double pass."
If Whole Foods is right, Brown joins an ever-expanding list of alleged anti-LGBT hate crimes that turned out to be fraudulent.
"This is not surprising. We've seen this before,” Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth told LifeSiteNews. “Sadly, some homosexual activists are so desperate to be seen as victims that they create their own fake 'victim crimes.'”
“It is the terrible truth that you could fill a large book documenting fake homosexual activists 'hate crime' hoaxes,” LaBarbera continued. “This says a lot about the homosexual movement, that it is forced to manufacture and politicize hate to win sympathy as supposed civil rights victims.”
In November 2013, lesbian Dayna Morales claimed that a couple wrote on their receipt that they would not tip her because they do not “agree with your lifestyle.” When the couple saw their receipt on TV, they produced the original receipt and their credit card charges, which proved that, not only did they not write the insult, they actually did tip the waitress generously.
In July 2013, lesbian "Charlie" Rogers literally carved a cross and anti-gay slurs into her own chest with a knife, claiming to be the victim of a hate crime. When her fraud was exposed, she pleaded "no contest" and received one week in jail.
In August 2012, homosexual Joseph Baken claimed three men beat him and called him names, but a video revealed he caused head trauma himself by doing a backflip and smacking his face on the pavement.
In 2012, Central Connecticut State University student Alexandra Pennell’s hate crimes claims sparked a major campus demonstration movement, until a hidden camera caught her planting the hate notes herself.
In May 2013, police charged a lesbian couple in Colorado with writing “Kill the Gay” on their own garage.
Lesbian Kaitlyn Hunt claimed to be the victim of hate, until it was discovered she herself was the victimizer, sexting a 14-year-old girl 20,000 times. Hunt was ultimately charged with sexual battery for repeatedly raping the minor.
Advertisement
The most famous fabricated “hate crime” was the attack of Matthew Shepard. The perpetrators killed him in a botched robbery and said they used a “gay panic” defense in hopes of getting a reduced sentence.
“The truth is, the gay movement is about disordered sexuality, not civil rights,” LaBarbera told LifeSiteNews.
5 Share this article
Share on Facebook
477
Share on Twitter
Print this Article
Share via Email
Advertisement
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 22,522
http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/21/drop-the-t-from-lgbt/
Drop The T From LGBT
Transgender people have high rates of psychological problems that contribute to their identity expression and victimization. The rest of the LGBT crowd should consider how that reflects on them.
By Walt Heyer
The post-marriage culture war is asymmetrical in the group known as LGBT. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual activists have carried the rainbow banner for transgenders for issues that truly matter, such as employment and housing. Now the time has come for a genuine sanity check for them to stop enabling kookier parts of the trans agenda.
The current bathroom policy debate illuminates the growing gap between the concerns of the transgender community and of the LGB community. Perhaps those who favor gay marriage do not want any part of enabling pedophiles in wigs having easier access to kids in bathrooms.
Trans activists paint the entire LGBT group in an unsympathetic light when they lobby for laws to criminalize such trivialities as misusing pronouns, as passed recently in New York City. Practical LGB members might want to take this opportunity to disentangle themselves from the lunacy of today’s trans-rights movement. This will disassociate their movement in the public eye from people whom research shows have high incidents of psychological disorders linked with their transgender expression, and offers an opportunity to protect transgender people from being exploited by high-priced medical quacks.
The differences between the groups now seem glaring. Let’s list a few.
Difference 1: Same-Sex Attraction vs. Gender Perception
Many transgenders are not homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual. Unlike people who identify as LGB, transgenders suffer from self-deception disorders (gender dysphoria). They are convinced that they are in the wrong body, and with the help of enablers and affirmers of their delusion, undergo drastic body-mutilating surgeries to enhance the deception and deny the plain and simple truth of their gender. While some LGB people may be transgender, too, the majority are not.
Difference 2: Bathroom Access
The transgender public restroom issue, a hot topic in the news today, is exclusively a transgender cause not shared by those who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Transgender bills being debated at the state and local levels exclusively address gender identity and have nothing to do with sexual preference. This includes bills to legally change one’s gender marker on one’s birth certificate without surgically altering the appearance of one’s genitals. It also includes bills to allow any man to use women’s public restrooms and locker rooms if he says he feels like a woman—no surgery or birth-record change required.
Many gay men don’t care whether transgenders get access to the public restroom of the opposite sex. But gay men might care that pedophiles and deviants invoke such laws to indulge their sexual perversions in public restrooms and in doing so, bring a backlash on the LGBT community. Most women, lesbian or not, prefer to keep a man who has his toolbox intact out of the women’s restrooms and locker rooms, no matter how much he insists he is a woman. This applies particularly to women who have been sexually assaulted in the past.
The freedom to change genders without surgery and to enter gender-segregated spaces is an open invitation to perverts to use public restrooms to indulge their sexual corruptions at the expense of women and girls.
Difference 3: Mental Disorders
Studies show the transgender population has a wide range of co-existing mental disorders. Besides the obvious gender dysphoria, they suffer at high rates from a wide range of undiagnosed and untreated mental issues: body dysmorphic disorders, sexual fetishes like autogynephilia (arousal at the thought of being a woman), and masturbation addictions, to name just a few.
We found 90% of these diverse patients had at least one other significant form of psychopathology,” says a 2009 study by the Department of Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University. The psychopathologies found were “mood and anxiety regulation and adaption in the world.”
A 2011 long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex-reassignment surgery concluded: “Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.”
People who are transgender have a higher risk of suicidal behavior, and suicide is known to be caused by depression and anxiety. The recommended treatment for depression, anxiety, or other mental disorders is not gender surgery.
The staggering number of co-existing disorders in the gender dysphoric population sets the transgender group apart from the lesbian, gay, and bisexual population. The deep psychological and psychiatric depression that results from the self-deception of gender identity and the untreated mental disorders has been the major contributor to transgenders’ position at the top of the most-likely-to commit-suicide list.
An Opportunity for LGB to Actually Help the T
Now that we’ve discussed some major points on which the trans agenda does not align with gay and bisexual priorities, let’s further discuss how gay, lesbian, and bisexual activists can benefit trans people by shifting their advocacy.
First, this will help reduce the political pressure that is currently resulting in gender dysphoric people being pushed into treatments that hurt rather than help them.
The high rate of mental disorders among transgenders has been well-documented for 50 years. But instead of diagnosing and treating those issues first, rushing the gender dysphoric person into hormones and surgery ignores any childhood trauma or other mental disorders that might be masquerading as gender dysphoria and leaps directly to the extreme measures of injecting cross-gender hormones and scheduling to remove the original "equipment."
In my own case, I was approved for surgery after one session with a gender specialist. That was in the 1980s. Today, according to the letters I receive, approval still happens that quickly, and the other psychological problems are deemed not important.
Perhaps when transgenders are considered apart from LGB there can be a fresh new insurgence of improved psychiatric screening, effective diagnoses of the underlining comorbid disorders, and effective treatment that does not include hormones and gender reassignment. That should reduce the number of suicides in this population.
Here is some more information about the history of medical treatments for trans people to help LGB folks understand why they need to step up now, and have done so in the past.
Trans Has Long Been Recognized as a Psychological Issue
In the United States, the practice of treating the gender-confused with hormones and surgery was started by Dr. Harry Benjamin, an endocrinologist and sexologist who is credited with coining the term transsexualism. Benjamin’s New York gender clinic was in full swing during the 1970s. From that clinic emerged some of the first signs that unhappiness with one’s gender and the desire to change gender largely evolved from untreated mental disorders, which hormones and surgery did nothing to relieve.
‘Whatever surgery did, it did not fulfill a basic yearning for something that is difficult to define.’
The leading endocrinologist at Benjamin’s clinic in the 1970s, a homosexual named Dr. Charles Ihlenfeld, administered cross-gender hormone therapy to some 500 transgenders over a six-year period. He came to the conclusion that the desire to change genders most likely stemmed from powerful psychological factors, and he left endocrinology (and Benjamin’s clinic) to begin a residency in psychiatry, a field in which he felt he could be a help to people with gender identity issues. Ihlenfeld said in “Transgender Subjectivities: A Clinician’s Guide,” “Whatever surgery did, it did not fulfill a basic yearning for something that is difficult to define. This goes along with the idea that we are trying to treat superficially something that is much deeper.”
Almost simultaneously, similar findings were coming from Johns Hopkins Hospital’s gender clinic, an early provider of gender reassignment surgery. Dr. Paul McHugh joined the clinic as the director of psychiatry and behavioral science in the mid-1970s and asked Dr. Jon Meyer, director of the clinic at the time, to conduct a thorough study of the outcomes of the clinic’s patients who underwent gender reassignment at the clinic.
McHugh says, “[Those who underwent surgery] were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled.” These two different reports came to the same conclusion in the late 1970s.
Research Has Continued to Make This Case
Fast-forward to July 30, 2004, when a review of 100 medical studies delivered another powerful rebuke of surgical genders. David Batty wrote in The Guardian in the UK:
Some have argued that transgenderism could be due to genetic factors, in a parallel argument to those suggesting a “gay gene.” So far, research has found no such thing for transsexuals. Studies from 2013 and 2009 showed no alterations in the DNA of the main sex-determining genes in transsexuals, proving born-male transgenders are normal males; not a smidgeon of abnormality in their genetic make-up causes them to be transgender. Gender issues are not inherent to the genetic makeup.
[h=2]Transgender People’s Lives Are On the Line[/h]Four studies published in 2016 alone show that nothing has changed since Ihlenfeld left Benjamin’s gender clinic in the 1970s: Mental disorders are prevalent among the transgender population.
The most commonly occurring disorders were major depressive episode, suicidality, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and alcohol dependence.
A studypublished in JAMA Pediatrics in March 2016 shows a high prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses in a sample of 298 young transgender women aged 16 through 29 years. More than 40 percent had coexisting mental health or substance dependence diagnoses. One in five had two or more psychiatric diagnoses. The most commonly occurring disorders were major depressive episode, suicidality, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol dependence, and non-alcohol psychoactive substance use dependence.
The study concluded that improved access to medical and psychological care “are urgently needed to address mental health and substance dependence disorders in this population.”
Another study comparing 20 Lebanese transgender participants to 20 control subjects (the mean age of both groups was 23.55 years) reported that transgender individuals suffer from more psychiatric pathologies compared to the general population. More than half had active suicidal thoughts; 45 percent had a major depressive episode.
The introduction of the third study says there is no consensus among medical professionals on the early medical treatment (giving puberty-suppressing drugs) for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. The current adolescent treatment guidelines published by The Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health recommend suppressing puberty with drugs until age 16, after which cross-sex hormones may be given, and deferring surgery until the individual is at least 18 years old. Some medical teams say these guidelines are too liberal and others say they are too limiting, which shows the wide range of opinions.
There is no consensus among medical professionals on giving puberty-suppressing drugs to children and adolescents with gender dysphoria.
This study aimed to gather input from pediatric endocrinologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and ethicists—both those in favor and those opposed to early treatment—to further the ethical debate. The results showed no consensus on many basic topics of childhood gender dysphoria and insufficient research to support any recommendations for childhood treatments, including the currently published guidelines. Nevertheless, many treatment teams using the guidelines are exploring the possibility of lowering the current age limits.
In the meantime, children are being given experimental treatment that has life-long consequences. Of the 38 referrals for gender dysphoria to the Pediatric Endocrinology Clinic at the University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, more than half had psychiatric and/or developmental comorbidities, says the fourth 2016 study.
[h=2]T and LGB Are Distinct Populations[/h]Reading these studies brings me to the conclusion that “T” is very different from LGB. The scientific community doesn’t comingle LGB with T in research studies because they know the obvious truth: people who are transgender are different from those who are homosexual.
Time to pull the “T” from LGBT. No good reason remains to co-mingle people with mental disorders with people who are homosexual. Nor is it necessary to continue to give social credibility to this tiny group of delusional people who need psychiatric or psychotherapy first and foremost, not pronoun protection or gender reassignment.
Speaking for the non-transgendered or recovered transgendered among us, I am through with the political correctness traps of preferred pronouns and allowing men access to women’s facilities and activities. It’s time to express our compassion for this group and stop participating in their denial. True compassion is acknowledging that serious mental disorders are found in this population and insisting that the medical community stop treating all gender-dysphoric people with hormones and gender reassignment before caring for their mental health.
A good first step is to remove the T from LGBT.
Transgender people have high rates of psychological problems that contribute to their identity expression and victimization. The rest of the LGBT crowd should consider how that reflects on them.
By Walt Heyer
The post-marriage culture war is asymmetrical in the group known as LGBT. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual activists have carried the rainbow banner for transgenders for issues that truly matter, such as employment and housing. Now the time has come for a genuine sanity check for them to stop enabling kookier parts of the trans agenda.
The current bathroom policy debate illuminates the growing gap between the concerns of the transgender community and of the LGB community. Perhaps those who favor gay marriage do not want any part of enabling pedophiles in wigs having easier access to kids in bathrooms.
Trans activists paint the entire LGBT group in an unsympathetic light when they lobby for laws to criminalize such trivialities as misusing pronouns, as passed recently in New York City. Practical LGB members might want to take this opportunity to disentangle themselves from the lunacy of today’s trans-rights movement. This will disassociate their movement in the public eye from people whom research shows have high incidents of psychological disorders linked with their transgender expression, and offers an opportunity to protect transgender people from being exploited by high-priced medical quacks.
The differences between the groups now seem glaring. Let’s list a few.
Difference 1: Same-Sex Attraction vs. Gender Perception
Many transgenders are not homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual. Unlike people who identify as LGB, transgenders suffer from self-deception disorders (gender dysphoria). They are convinced that they are in the wrong body, and with the help of enablers and affirmers of their delusion, undergo drastic body-mutilating surgeries to enhance the deception and deny the plain and simple truth of their gender. While some LGB people may be transgender, too, the majority are not.
Difference 2: Bathroom Access
The transgender public restroom issue, a hot topic in the news today, is exclusively a transgender cause not shared by those who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Transgender bills being debated at the state and local levels exclusively address gender identity and have nothing to do with sexual preference. This includes bills to legally change one’s gender marker on one’s birth certificate without surgically altering the appearance of one’s genitals. It also includes bills to allow any man to use women’s public restrooms and locker rooms if he says he feels like a woman—no surgery or birth-record change required.
Many gay men don’t care whether transgenders get access to the public restroom of the opposite sex. But gay men might care that pedophiles and deviants invoke such laws to indulge their sexual perversions in public restrooms and in doing so, bring a backlash on the LGBT community. Most women, lesbian or not, prefer to keep a man who has his toolbox intact out of the women’s restrooms and locker rooms, no matter how much he insists he is a woman. This applies particularly to women who have been sexually assaulted in the past.
The freedom to change genders without surgery and to enter gender-segregated spaces is an open invitation to perverts to use public restrooms to indulge their sexual corruptions at the expense of women and girls.
Difference 3: Mental Disorders
Studies show the transgender population has a wide range of co-existing mental disorders. Besides the obvious gender dysphoria, they suffer at high rates from a wide range of undiagnosed and untreated mental issues: body dysmorphic disorders, sexual fetishes like autogynephilia (arousal at the thought of being a woman), and masturbation addictions, to name just a few.
We found 90% of these diverse patients had at least one other significant form of psychopathology,” says a 2009 study by the Department of Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University. The psychopathologies found were “mood and anxiety regulation and adaption in the world.”
A 2011 long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex-reassignment surgery concluded: “Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.”
People who are transgender have a higher risk of suicidal behavior, and suicide is known to be caused by depression and anxiety. The recommended treatment for depression, anxiety, or other mental disorders is not gender surgery.
The staggering number of co-existing disorders in the gender dysphoric population sets the transgender group apart from the lesbian, gay, and bisexual population. The deep psychological and psychiatric depression that results from the self-deception of gender identity and the untreated mental disorders has been the major contributor to transgenders’ position at the top of the most-likely-to commit-suicide list.
An Opportunity for LGB to Actually Help the T
Now that we’ve discussed some major points on which the trans agenda does not align with gay and bisexual priorities, let’s further discuss how gay, lesbian, and bisexual activists can benefit trans people by shifting their advocacy.
First, this will help reduce the political pressure that is currently resulting in gender dysphoric people being pushed into treatments that hurt rather than help them.
The high rate of mental disorders among transgenders has been well-documented for 50 years. But instead of diagnosing and treating those issues first, rushing the gender dysphoric person into hormones and surgery ignores any childhood trauma or other mental disorders that might be masquerading as gender dysphoria and leaps directly to the extreme measures of injecting cross-gender hormones and scheduling to remove the original "equipment."
In my own case, I was approved for surgery after one session with a gender specialist. That was in the 1980s. Today, according to the letters I receive, approval still happens that quickly, and the other psychological problems are deemed not important.
Perhaps when transgenders are considered apart from LGB there can be a fresh new insurgence of improved psychiatric screening, effective diagnoses of the underlining comorbid disorders, and effective treatment that does not include hormones and gender reassignment. That should reduce the number of suicides in this population.
Here is some more information about the history of medical treatments for trans people to help LGB folks understand why they need to step up now, and have done so in the past.
Trans Has Long Been Recognized as a Psychological Issue
In the United States, the practice of treating the gender-confused with hormones and surgery was started by Dr. Harry Benjamin, an endocrinologist and sexologist who is credited with coining the term transsexualism. Benjamin’s New York gender clinic was in full swing during the 1970s. From that clinic emerged some of the first signs that unhappiness with one’s gender and the desire to change gender largely evolved from untreated mental disorders, which hormones and surgery did nothing to relieve.
‘Whatever surgery did, it did not fulfill a basic yearning for something that is difficult to define.’
The leading endocrinologist at Benjamin’s clinic in the 1970s, a homosexual named Dr. Charles Ihlenfeld, administered cross-gender hormone therapy to some 500 transgenders over a six-year period. He came to the conclusion that the desire to change genders most likely stemmed from powerful psychological factors, and he left endocrinology (and Benjamin’s clinic) to begin a residency in psychiatry, a field in which he felt he could be a help to people with gender identity issues. Ihlenfeld said in “Transgender Subjectivities: A Clinician’s Guide,” “Whatever surgery did, it did not fulfill a basic yearning for something that is difficult to define. This goes along with the idea that we are trying to treat superficially something that is much deeper.”
Almost simultaneously, similar findings were coming from Johns Hopkins Hospital’s gender clinic, an early provider of gender reassignment surgery. Dr. Paul McHugh joined the clinic as the director of psychiatry and behavioral science in the mid-1970s and asked Dr. Jon Meyer, director of the clinic at the time, to conduct a thorough study of the outcomes of the clinic’s patients who underwent gender reassignment at the clinic.
McHugh says, “[Those who underwent surgery] were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled.” These two different reports came to the same conclusion in the late 1970s.
Research Has Continued to Make This Case
Fast-forward to July 30, 2004, when a review of 100 medical studies delivered another powerful rebuke of surgical genders. David Batty wrote in The Guardian in the UK:
There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow.
The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham’s aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.
The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham’s aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.
Some have argued that transgenderism could be due to genetic factors, in a parallel argument to those suggesting a “gay gene.” So far, research has found no such thing for transsexuals. Studies from 2013 and 2009 showed no alterations in the DNA of the main sex-determining genes in transsexuals, proving born-male transgenders are normal males; not a smidgeon of abnormality in their genetic make-up causes them to be transgender. Gender issues are not inherent to the genetic makeup.
[h=2]Transgender People’s Lives Are On the Line[/h]Four studies published in 2016 alone show that nothing has changed since Ihlenfeld left Benjamin’s gender clinic in the 1970s: Mental disorders are prevalent among the transgender population.
The most commonly occurring disorders were major depressive episode, suicidality, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and alcohol dependence.
A studypublished in JAMA Pediatrics in March 2016 shows a high prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses in a sample of 298 young transgender women aged 16 through 29 years. More than 40 percent had coexisting mental health or substance dependence diagnoses. One in five had two or more psychiatric diagnoses. The most commonly occurring disorders were major depressive episode, suicidality, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol dependence, and non-alcohol psychoactive substance use dependence.
The study concluded that improved access to medical and psychological care “are urgently needed to address mental health and substance dependence disorders in this population.”
Another study comparing 20 Lebanese transgender participants to 20 control subjects (the mean age of both groups was 23.55 years) reported that transgender individuals suffer from more psychiatric pathologies compared to the general population. More than half had active suicidal thoughts; 45 percent had a major depressive episode.
The introduction of the third study says there is no consensus among medical professionals on the early medical treatment (giving puberty-suppressing drugs) for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. The current adolescent treatment guidelines published by The Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health recommend suppressing puberty with drugs until age 16, after which cross-sex hormones may be given, and deferring surgery until the individual is at least 18 years old. Some medical teams say these guidelines are too liberal and others say they are too limiting, which shows the wide range of opinions.
There is no consensus among medical professionals on giving puberty-suppressing drugs to children and adolescents with gender dysphoria.
This study aimed to gather input from pediatric endocrinologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and ethicists—both those in favor and those opposed to early treatment—to further the ethical debate. The results showed no consensus on many basic topics of childhood gender dysphoria and insufficient research to support any recommendations for childhood treatments, including the currently published guidelines. Nevertheless, many treatment teams using the guidelines are exploring the possibility of lowering the current age limits.
In the meantime, children are being given experimental treatment that has life-long consequences. Of the 38 referrals for gender dysphoria to the Pediatric Endocrinology Clinic at the University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, more than half had psychiatric and/or developmental comorbidities, says the fourth 2016 study.
[h=2]T and LGB Are Distinct Populations[/h]Reading these studies brings me to the conclusion that “T” is very different from LGB. The scientific community doesn’t comingle LGB with T in research studies because they know the obvious truth: people who are transgender are different from those who are homosexual.
Time to pull the “T” from LGBT. No good reason remains to co-mingle people with mental disorders with people who are homosexual. Nor is it necessary to continue to give social credibility to this tiny group of delusional people who need psychiatric or psychotherapy first and foremost, not pronoun protection or gender reassignment.
Speaking for the non-transgendered or recovered transgendered among us, I am through with the political correctness traps of preferred pronouns and allowing men access to women’s facilities and activities. It’s time to express our compassion for this group and stop participating in their denial. True compassion is acknowledging that serious mental disorders are found in this population and insisting that the medical community stop treating all gender-dysphoric people with hormones and gender reassignment before caring for their mental health.
A good first step is to remove the T from LGBT.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,043
Welp, I won't ever shop at Target again.
Jiggyfly
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 9,220
Played the race card?
What possible bias could you take from that?
Towns has brought up this same thing several times yet I am playing the race card.
Get real.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 52,638
I fully support Target's right to make that decision and I fully support people not shopping their as a result if they aren't ok with it.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 11,888
That's exactly how it should work. Force no one.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,043
100% correct. They have every right to lose my business.