Mother dresses Son as
Girl, threatens Dad with losing him for disagreeing
Newsletter published on December 9, 2018
(1) Radical feminists
banned by Twitter ... because they object to “transwomen”
(2) Meghan Murphy
banned from Twitter for tweets saying "men aren't women"
(3) Jordan Peterson
and Meghan Murphy to speak in Vancouver, despite pressure to cancel
(4) Meghan Murphy
denies that a Male can simply declare himself Female and it becomes so
(5) Tasmania remove
the requirement for Gender to be recorded on a Birth Certificate
(6) ‘Trans women’ are
women - merely because they affirm it
(7) Socialist Worker
Trots campaign for Trans And Queer Liberation
(8) Mother dresses
Son as Girl, threatens Dad with losing him for disagreeing
(9) American Academy
of Pediatrics backs Trans ideology
(10) Debate on
nontraditional pronouns for Transgender people
(11) Feminists sue
high school over Transgender bathroom policies
(1) Radical feminists
banned by Twitter ... because they object to “transwomen”
The Disintegration of Western Society
PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS • DECEMBER 4, 2018
Radical feminists are
now being banned by Twitter not because they hate men, which is perfectly OK
as far as Twitter is concerned, but because they object to “transwomen.”
What is a “transwoman?” As far as I can understand, a
“transwoman” is a male with a penis who declares himself to be a women and
demands his right to use women’s toilette facilities anong with the women who
are using them.
The feminist, Meghan Murphy, twittered a statement and a
question:
“Men are not women.”
“How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between
men and transwomen?”
Twitter described this as “hateful conduct” and banned Meghan
Murphy. https://quillette.com/2018/11/28/twitters-trans-activist-decree/
There you have it. Yesterday it was feminists who were
exercising their special society-bestowed privileges to censor. Today it is the
feminists who are being censored. As this insanity of “Western Civilization”
continues, tomorrow it will be the transwomen who are censored and banned.
[...]
I sympathize with Meghan Murphy, but she brought this on
herself and on the rest of us by accepting Identity Politics. Identity Politics
gave Meghan a justification for hating men even, as she failed to realize, it
provided the basis for moving her into the exploitative class that must be
censored.
Where does this end?
It has already gone far enough that the American population
is so divided and mutually hostile that there is no restraint by “the American
people” on government and the elite oligarchs that rule. “The American people”
are no longer a reality but a mythical creature like the unicorn. [...]
(2) Meghan Murphy
banned from Twitter for tweets saying "men aren't women"
Self-described feminist banned from Twitter says platform is
setting 'dangerous' precedent
12/7/2018
Journalist Meghan Murphy said in an interview that aired
Thursday on "Rising" that Twitter's practice of banning users for remarks it
deems offensive is a dangerous precedent after she was banned from the platform
last month.
"I don't want to draw a line that ends up silencing people
who have political ideas, or who are talking about ideologies, or who are
challenging popular discourse that has been deemed offensive," Murphy, founder
and editor of the website Feminist Current, told Hill.TV's Krystal Ball on
Wednesday.
"Now we're banned, we're silenced, and I actually think it's
quite dangerous," she continued.
"This is the new public square, and they know it. They've
created this platform that they say is a place for people to share ideas," she
said.
Murphy was banned from Twitter after challenging views
supporting transgender individuals, and posting tweets saying "men aren't
women."
It was revealed last month that the social media platform was officially
prohibiting misgendering or "deadnaming" transgender individuals.
"We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs,
tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce
negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category," the platform's
website reads. "This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender
individuals."
News of Murphy's ban comes after conservative commentator
Jesse Kelly has returned to Twitter after his account was suspended for unclear
reasons. His ban, which lasted less than a week, sparked outrage from a number
of conservatives.
— Julia Manchester
(3) Jordan Peterson
and Meghan Murphy to speak in Vancouver, despite pressure to cancel
Free speech, hate speech, gender identity, and controversy:
Jordan Peterson and Meghan Murphy to speak in Vancouver
by Craig Takeuchi on December 2nd, 2018
A controversial University of Toronto professor, whose
opinions about political correctness and identity politics have received both
support as well as criticism and protests, and who has also garnered
international media coverage, is returning to speak in Vancouver again.
Jordan Peterson is a Toronto psychology professor and
clinical psychologist.
Peterson has stated in interviews that he will refuse to use
the gender pronouns that trans or nonbinary people choose for themselves, such
as "they/them".
He was a vocal opponent of Bill C-16 (which was passed in June 2017)
that enforces the rights of nonbinary identities on the basis of the
potential for infringement upon freedom of expression. In May 2017, Peterson
spoke at a Senate committee hearing about the bill, arguing that the legislation
was ideologically driven.
His followers regard him as a champion of free speech and
civil liberties but numerous critics have slammed Peterson as transphobic and
associated with the alt-right. However, he has stated that he does not affiliate
himself with the right-wing or ultra-conservatives and considers himself an
individualist.
On November 2, CBC Docs POV released the documentary Shut Him Down: The Rise of
Jordan Peterson by filmmaker Patricia Marcoccia takes a look at how Peterson
has become the centre of a fierce debate involving issues of free speech and
hate speech. [...]
Meanwhile, a Vancouver-based feminist, who has expressed
controversial opinions about trans people, will continue to hold a talk about
gender identity and women's rights at the Vancouver Public Library (VPL) on
January 10—despite outcry and incorrect information that the event was
cancelled.
CKNW reported on December 2 that the news station received an
email that appeared to be from Feminist Current founder Meghan Murphy on
December 1, stating that her event had been cancelled.
However, CKNW updated the article to state that Murphy
confirmed with CKNW that the email was not actually from her and the event will
continue as planned.
After numerous concerns were raised about Murphy's appearance
at an event to be held at the library, the VPL issued a statement to explain
that although it does not agree with Murphy's views, it will permit her and her
publication, Feminist Current, to rent a space at the library due to their
commitment to intellectual freedom and free speech. The library neither endorses
nor will be hosting the event.
The VPL also stated that it has contacted the Vancouver
Police Department who will be monitoring the event for any violations of the
criminal code.
Murphy has come under fire for her critical views about and
questioning of trans rights and identities.
(4) Meghan Murphy
denies that a Male can simply declare himself Female and it becomes so
MILLENNIAL INTERVIEWS: Meghan Murphy Controversial feminist
and founder of Feminist Current, Meghan Murphy joins The Post Millennial to talk
about her ban from Twitter, trans activism and free speech.
by Cosmin Dzsurdzsa December 5, 2018
Canadian feminist,
Meghan Murphy has made the spotlight in recent weeks as trans activists attempted to cancel her
talk at the Vancouver Public Library.
In October, Meghan also spoke in Kitchener, Ontario for the
Laurier Society for Open Inquiry in a talk titled “Does Trans Activism
Negatively Impact Women’s Rights?”
Meghan was also recently banned for Twitter for her views and
persistence in questioning trans ideology.
She is the founder of Feminist Current, a leading Canadian
publication on feminism and the issues affecting women.
DZSURDZSA: What was the exact reason that Twitter cited for
the suspension of your account?
MURPHY: They referenced a Tweet of mine that I’d posted on
November 8th (the suspension happened on November 23rd), saying “Yeah, it’s
him,” attached to a screen shot providing evidence of “JY’s” real identity.
I was told I violated their rules against “hateful
conduct.”
DZSURDZSA: Do you think it has something to do with more than
the reason mentioned, such as your past views or public profile?
MURPHY: It absolutely was because of my public profile. I am
one of the most high profile feminists speaking critically about gender identity
ideology and legislation, and people were paying attention to what I was
saying.
Trans activists with connections at Twitter did not like
that. Specifically, “JY” has been getting everyone who tweets his name or any
information about him banned or suspended. He recently had my LSOI talk removed
from YouTube.
He desperately wants to stop this very incriminating
information from getting out about him, but by attempting to silence everyone
who speaks about him, it has clearly just made things worse, and really
amplified the story.
The trans activists connected to Twitter also desperately
wanted to silence me, because my
arguments have gained so much traction, and they know they can’t respond without revealing their
ideology to be wholly incoherent. This is why they try to shut everyone up
who asks critical questions or challenges gender identity dogma. They know it’s
full of holes, but don’t want anyone to see it.
DZSURDZSA: Recent changes to Twitter policy prohibit the
practice of misgendering and “deadnaming”(using somebody’s pre-transition name)
because it is perceived as a form of harassment. Why do you think Twitter is
taking these steps?
MURPHY: I think trans activists have a lot of power at
Twitter and they want to force their ideology onto the public. I think for many
of these men, they want to erase their past, which should ring alarm bells.
What this ‘misgendering’ and ‘deadnaming’ thing does is to
ensure predatory or dangerous men can
erase their histories of violence and abuse and avoid accountability, and
perhaps continue to predate.
The ‘misgendering’ thing forces the public to play along with
this lie that a male can simply declare himself female and it becomes so. They
are literally trying to criminalize people who challenge this, refuse to play
along, and continue to tell the truth about material reality. It’s frightening,
to be honest. And dictatorial. [...]
(5) Tasmania remove
the requirement for Gender to be recorded on a Birth Certificate
Monica Doumit: Birth certificate Bill is the fruit of
marriage redefinition
By Monica Doumit -November 29, 2018 Share Boy and girl
iconsAs many of you know, I spent the better part of last year working for the
Coalition for Marriage; the official ‘no’ campaign for the same-sex marriage
plebiscite.
The key message of the campaign was that the redefinition of
marriage would have consequences that extend far beyond the personal lives of
the couple involved.
In particular, we said that a removal of gender in marriage
would lead to a push for the removal of gender in society.
In return, we were called liars and scaremongers, and assured
that none of the consequences of which we warned would manifest.
Difficult as it was to be called a ‘liar,’ I would have
actually been happy if it was true. I
would have much preferred if what we predicted would happen in Australia didn’t
eventuate and – as the ‘yes’ campaign continually promised – the only
consequence would be more couples getting married.
James Parker Former gay rights activist James Parker speaks
at a debate on same-sex marriage at the University of NSW last year, as his
interlocutor, Marriage Equality CEO Tiernan Brady, and moderator Monica Doumit
look on. Photo: Giovanni Portelli But let’s look at where we are, a year since
same-sex marriage became the law of the land in Australia.
Last week, the Tasmanian House of Assembly voted in favour of a
bill that, if it passes the Legislative Council, would go a long way towards
making Tasmania a gender-neutral state.
In the first place, it would amend all legislation to remove references to ‘mother’ or
‘father,’ replacing them with the gender-neutral term ‘parent’.
Importantly, it would also amend the Births, Deaths and
Marriages Registration Act 1999 to remove the requirement for gender to be
recorded on a birth certificate, instead making parents opt-in for the recording
of their child’s gender in a separate application to the Registrar.
As you can imagine, most new parents are busy enough keeping
their children fed and clean (and themselves sane) to worry about additional
forms, so it is likely that this change would make the default position in
Tasmania a gender-less one for new births.
It's ok to say 'no' sign Canberra teenager Madeline was fired
after she posted a Facebook profile photo with an ‘it’s OK to say No’ filter
during the 2017 same sex marriage debate. Even if the gender is registered at
birth, the law also provides that a parent of a child under the age of 16 is
free to ask to change the child’s name and/or gender as recorded, simply by
filling out a form.
Alarmingly, where the parents are in disagreement about
whether a child’s gender should be changed in, or removed from, official
records, the law would replace the “best interests of the child” test that
courts would usually need to apply in child-related matters with a test of
whether the changes were “consistent with the child’s will and preferences.”
I’m not a parent, but I’m pretty sure that you parents out
there would agree that sometimes, what is in the best interests of your child is
a long way from their “will and preferences”.
The effect of such a test would be to remove the rights of a
parent trying to stop a child under the age of 16 from having their gender
changed on all official records. The court would undermine parental authority by
prioritising the child’s preferences over the decision of a parent as to the
best interests of the child. It’s absolutely diabolical.
A teaching resource produced by US activist
group Trans Student Equality Resources. Same-sex marriage will make such teaching materials compulsory
while parents who object to their children being taught beliefs which contradict
their own family values could be designated ‘haters’ and face – for now – possibilities such as ejection
from education systems. Removal of children from families who do not conform to
the new dictates may follow – as is the case of Ontario’s Bill 89, enacted
in June and which Canadian critics say empowers authorities to do just
this.Photo Source: Trans Student Equality Resources
For those aged 16 years and over, name and gender can be changed simply by
making a statutory declaration. There would be no need for any type of
medical assessment or confirmation that the person is suffering from gender
dysphoria; the person’s own self-declaration would be the only criteria
required.
Indeed, the law specifically forbids the Registrar from
requiring “any form of medical certificates or other medical documentation
relating to sex and gender”.
Additionally, if the person making the change requests it,
there is to be no record kept of
previous name or gender on a birth certificate. So, if this law is passed
(and if I was a Tasmanian), I could walk into the Registry of Births, Deaths and
Marriages and ask that my birth certificate no longer say that I am a female
named Monica Doumit, but rather a man named John Smith.
My new birth certificate would not record anything different;
it would be as if I was Mr John Smith from birth. This type of capability makes
a mockery of the role of the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
It would no longer be an official record of the registered
births in the country; rather it would become a record of people’s preferences.
I don’t mind people having preferences about names and genders, I just don’t
think it should be state-sanctioned and taxpayer-funded. Call me crazy.
And for anyone who wants to argue that the changes have
nothing to do with same-sex marriage, they need only look at title of the bill:
Justice and related Legislation (Marriage Amendments) Bill 2018.
Labour Party now
admits men who identify as women on to all-women shortlists, without any necessity for a
gender-recognition certificate To: Peter Mailstar <peter@mailstar.net>
(6) ‘Trans women’ are
women - merely because they affirm it
The Ministry of Trans Truth
The language of
transgenderism is designed to silence dissent
HEATHER BRUNSKELL-EVANS
5th December 2018
I’m fascinated by the way that concepts apparently arise from
nowhere, take hold in the popular imagination, then become naturalised and
beyond question.
One such idea is that individuals can be ‘born in the wrong
body’, so that men can be women. Since there is no scientific evidence,
neuroscientific or otherwise, that an unambiguously biological male can in fact
be female, how can society have arrived at a stage where people who question the
claim ‘trans women are women’ are routinely labelled Nazis, bigots and
transphobes?
A new nomenclature has arisen which bifurcates women into two
groups, ‘cis’ (biological women) and ‘trans’. This performs a linguistic sleight
of hand that enables the idea that some men can actually be women. But no matter
how cultivated their ‘feminine’ outward appearance, ‘trans women’ (as opposed to
transsexuals) have penises.
The concept that
‘trans women’ are women, and that we must believe this is so because they affirm
it, is further translated into the idea that ‘trans women’ are even more
oppressed by the patriarchy than their ‘cis’ sisters. Progressives routinely
turn with vitriol on women who challenge this newly minted ‘Truth’, labelling
them ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminists’ (TERFs), no matter how moderate,
thoughtful, or indeed trans-friendly those women are.
This new definition of womanhood is having bizarre effects on
our political institutions. The Labour Party now admits men who identify as
women on to all-women shortlists, without any necessity for a gender-recognition
certificate. A number of these men have successfully applied to the Jo Cox Women
in Leadership programme.
Then there’s the misogyny. Labour continues to support Lily
Madigan in the role of women’s officer for Rochester and Strood, despite his
bullying of gender-critical feminists and other women. One of his latest Twitter
missives states that TERFs ‘can go fuck themselves’, and he is allowed to say
this with impunity not only by the party but by Twitter itself.
Labour also (briefly) appointed the ‘trans woman’ Munroe Bergdorf
to an LGBT working group. Bergdorf had recently been quoted in Grazia saying
that many feminists are biological
essentialists, because we apparently ‘summarise women as walking vaginas… a
similar approach to that of misogynists’.
A kind of informal Ministry of Truth has emerged around the
trans issue – or rather, a Ministry of Propaganda, since it is responsible for
the falsification of historical events and biological facts. In keeping with the
concept of doublethink, the ministry creates and then spreads ‘Truth’ through
the new language of ‘cis’ and ‘trans’.
And in a chilling twist, it is now feminists who are the
alleged extremist misogynists, purely because they don’t allow human beings with
penises to control the political narrative. The statement – both mundane and
tautological – that women don’t have penises is now considered inflammatory.
When a feminist group distributed stickers making this observation recently in
Liverpool, the police opened an investigation.
A cold wind of authoritarianism is blowing through our
allegedly progressive, liberal-democratic society. When telling the truth
becomes hate speech, when oppression becomes ethics, when non-facts become
Truth, we all better look out.
Heather Brunskell-Evans is an academic philosopher and
spokeswoman for FiLiA. Her latest book, Transgender Children and Young People:
Born In Your Own Body, is available now. Follow her on Twitter:
@brunskellevans
(7) Socialist Worker
Trots campaign for Trans And Queer Liberation
HOW CAN WE WIN TRANS AND QUEER LIBERATION? December 3, 2018
Isabelle Bartter, a member of the International Socialist
Organization in Rochester, New York, spoke at the New York City Marxism
Conference last month on Marxism and the struggle for queer and trans
liberation. It has been edited and shortened for publication.
IN 2013, a 53-year-old trans woman named Fatima Woods was
stabbed in her home in Rochester, New York. She ran down the block to a gas
station looking for help, where she collapsed due to blood loss.
Witnesses said that EMTs arrived on the scene quickly, but
did not start treating Fatima for close to 45 minutes, despite the protests of
onlookers. She died in that parking lot. And we will never know whether the EMTs
on scene could have saved her, because they never even tried. Fatima was a
wonderful poet and a friend.
Fatima joined Shaun Smith in Brooklyn, Tyra Hunter in
Washington, D.C., and countless other LGBTQ siblings who have died due to the
negligence and malice of medical professionals.
I start with this story because I want to make perfectly
clear what the stakes are when
right-wing bigots fight for religious exemptions, which give essentially
anyone a license to discriminate against queer and trans people. [...]
Comrades have rightly argued in Socialist Worker and other
forums that the fight for marriage
equality was a major victory for our side, not just because it extended
civil rights to millions of queer people, but also because the massive movement
that was created and sustained to push for marriage equality was a demonstration
of the power of our side. The National Equality March in 2009, for instance,
drew 200,000 people.
What must be learned from the transition from Obama to Trump
is that nothing written on paper is set in stone. Without a mass social movement
to sustain it, the LGBTQ rights movement, handed over to the Democrats, has
either fallen by the wayside or been rolled back. [...]
(8) Mother dresses
Son as Girl, threatens Dad with losing him for disagreeing
Mom Dresses Six-Year-Old Son As Girl, Threatens Dad With
Losing His Son For Disagreeing
A Texas custody case splits a 6-year-old child’s gender
identity in two.
By Walt Heyer
NOVEMBER 26, 2018
Six-year-old James is caught in a gender identity nightmare.
Under his mom’s care in Dallas, Texas, James obediently lives as a trans girl
named “Luna.” But given the choice when
he’s with dad, he’s all boy — his sex at birth.
In their divorce proceedings, the mother has charged the father with child
abuse for not affirming James as transgender, has sought restraining orders
against him, and is seeking to terminate
his parental rights. She is also seeking to require him to pay for the
child’s visits to a transgender-affirming therapist and transgender medical
alterations, which may include hormonal sterilization starting at age eight.
I learned of James’ plight on a recent visit to Plano, Texas,
where I spoke to teenagers about my own transgender story. I lived through a
similar scenario when I was his age. I
was cross-dressed for two-and-a-half years by my grandmother, who made a
purple chiffon dress for me. Somewhat like James, my cross-dressing occurred
under one adult’s care, but away from grandma’s I was all boy with my mom and
dad. Also, just like James, I found my way into the office of a gender therapist, who quickly started me toward transition.
When his mother, a
pediatrician, took James for counseling, she chose a gender transition therapist who
diagnosed him with gender dysphoria, a mental conflict between physical sex
and perceived gender. James’ precious young life hinges purely on the diagnosis
of gender dysphoria by a therapist who wraps herself in rainbow colors, affirms
the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and dismisses evidence to the contrary.
Remove the “rainbow” from James’ diagnosis, and it crumbles under the weight of
the criteria for the diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
The diagnosis is critical, because labeling a child with
gender dysphoria can trigger a series of physical and mental consequences for
the child and has legal ramifications in the ongoing custody case. Get it wrong
and young James’s life is irrevocably harmed.
James Does Not Fit the Gender Dysphoria Criteria
The criteria for a diagnosis of childhood gender dysphoria
are that a child be persistent, consistent, and insistent about being the
opposite sex. James’s mom is “all
in” on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and assisting with social transition.
She used the name Luna to enroll him as
a girl in first grade, and provides only female clothes.
Meanwhile, Dad isn’t seeing signs of gender dysphoria. In the father’s home, James appears to be a
normal boy and doesn’t identify as a girl. He has a choice of boy’s or girl’s clothes
there, and he chooses to dress as a boy. The fact that James changes gender
identity depending on which parent is present makes the diagnosis of gender
dysphoria both dubious and harmful.
The transition therapist has observed that James is not
consistent, insistent, or persistent in the desire to become “Luna.” For
example, a dossier filed with the Dallas court says that, under the skilled eyes
of the therapist, the child was presented two pieces of paper, one with the word “James” and one with the word “Luna,”
and asked to pick the name he preferred. When the appointment only included
his mother, James selected Luna, the name and gender he uses at his mother’s
home and in his first-grade classroom. When the appointment was only with his
father, however, James pointed to the boy name James, not the girl name.
The glaring disparity between a child’s preferred identity
when in the presence of one parent versus the other should cause a therapist to
reassess, perhaps nullify the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and terminate any
steps toward transition. But in the case of James, this hasn’t happened.
Using a Little Boy as a Weapon of War
When James is away from his mother, he consistently rejects
the idea that he is “Luna girl” or that he wants to be a girl. Because the court
prohibits dad from dressing James as a boy or from teaching him that he is a boy
by sharing religious or science-based teachings on sexuality, dad presents James
with male and female clothing options and James always chooses, even insists on,
his boy clothes. Dad told me, “James violently refuses to wear girl’s clothes at
my home.” This is not a sign of gender dysphoria.
Eyewitness accounts from friends corroborate dad’s
observations of James preferring to be a boy. Bill Lovell, the senior pastor of
Christ Church Carrollton, wrote: “Based on the three occasions I’ve spent time
with him, I’d say he acts and looks unmistakably like a healthy six-year-old
boy. … I am praying for James, an average six-year-old boy, a sweet-natured,
intelligent, lovable and at this point particularly vulnerable young man, caught
up in a titanic clash of worldviews.”
Ellen Grigsby shared in an email her observations after
meeting James and his fraternal twin brother for the first time: “They were both
‘all boy’ and were having a great time. Both boys were absolutely dressed as
boys and behaving as boys.”
Sarah Scott is a family friend and mother of three boys who
frequently play with James and his brother. She and her husband are sensitive to
allowing James to lead the way in gender choices such as names, pronouns, and
clothing. I asked her the obvious question: “How do you know James does not want
to be a girl?” Sarah responded in an email with several examples she’s seen of
James’ desire to remain a boy:
Friday, Sept. 21: We had the boys over. The boys took turns
telling stories and James made up a story about five little boys (himself, his
brother and my three sons) who were such good friends that they magically turned
into pumpkins, so they could stay in the pumpkin patch together forever. He
didn’t say kids. He specifically and happily referred to himself as a boy.
Saturday, Oct. 20: We all went on a walk to the park. We had
such fun! It had rained the night before. On the walk, James slipped and got his
clothes dirty. He asked if he could borrow some of my boys’ shorts and if I
could wash his clothes. I said sure! — and went to grab something he could wear.
While I was looking, he said, ‘Guess what Mrs. Sarah? You don’t need to find a
shirt because boys don’t have to wear them if you’re hot!’ I laughed and told
him I guess that’s a good thing about being a boy! He said, ‘Yes, it is!’
Saturday, Nov. 3: His mother came to pick up the boys to take
them to [his brother’s] soccer game. James hugged his dad and said, ‘Love you.’
He refused to go to the soccer game as a girl with mom and stayed with dad. That
evening they came to our house.
James exhibits no desire to be “Luna” the girl except when he
is with his mother. The boy’s behavior offers a stinging rebuke of the diagnosis
of gender dysphoria. This by all accounts is not a true or clinically correct
diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Yet the therapist stands by her diagnosis and
continues to keep “Luna” on track to gender transition.
Is This Therapy or Manipulation?
Unlike James, I was an adult at the time of my diagnosis.
Grandma was gone by then, but the therapist, like so many today, affirmed my
cross-gender identity and guided me through gender transition. He provided
access to hormones and surgery and I soon had the full gender-affirming surgery
and identified as “Laura.” I felt that my gender identity and biological sex
were at odds, but what the therapist failed to consider were the other factors
driving my desire to change gender, which needed to be addressed first.
What this mom is doing to James looks very much like what my
grandmother did to me by affirming me in the purple dress. My grandmother didn’t
intend to harm me, but her actions destroyed my childhood and my family and
consumed nearly 50 years of my life.
James has no idea what he is in for or how his gender journey
will play out, but with an incorrect diagnosis it will be ugly. I became very
concerned about James because he is not exhibiting the diagnostic attributes of
gender dysphoria. His gender preferences are not consistent or insistent, but
flip back and forth, according to which parent is present.
When James is permitted to relax around friends away from his
mom, he seems natural and happy being a boy. If James truly had gender
dysphoria, he would demand the proper pronouns, always dress as a girl and
insistently, persistently, and consistently claim to be a girl in all
situations, not just with mom. Instead, friends say he has done the opposite —
he has insisted on being a boy. It is time to consider that the boy is not
transgender.
Misdiagnosing People Has Horrific Consequences
Misdiagnosis of gender dysphoria happens around the world,
and people’s lives are harmed when it does. I wanted people to see what I see,
that people of all ages have been incorrectly diagnosed with gender dysphoria,
so I wrote a book, “Trans Life Survivors,” that shares many first-hand stories
of misdiagnosis of gender dysphoria and the heart-breaking results.
Therapists are taking notice, too, of the increasing
prevalence of people detransitioning and going back their birth sex, and
suggesting a need for comprehensive psychological assessments, rather than
fast-tracking children to transition. An article in The Atlantic shares
interviews with Scott Leibowitz, a psychiatrist who treats children and
adolescents in Columbus, Ohio, and Laura Edwards-Leeper, a psychologist at
Pacific University and Oregon’s Transgender Clinic. Both believe as
Edwards-Leeper shares, “that comprehensive assessments are crucial to achieving
good outcomes for TGNC [transgender and gender non-conforming] young people,
especially those seeking physical interventions, in part because some kids who
think they are trans at one point in time will not feel that way later on.”
Pediatrician Michelle Cretella, executive director of the
American College of Pediatricians, describes the pediatric community’s
encouragement of sex change and hormonal treatments for children as
“institutionalized child abuse.”
If we do not save James from a misdiagnosis, his next step is
chemical castration at age eight, only two years away. James needs a more
comprehensive psychological assessment to explore why he identifies as a girl
with mom and as a boy with dad. I want to do what I can to “Save James” from his
gender nightmare, and to raise awareness about how easily children can be
misdiagnosed and labeled as gender dysphoric and the extensive damage that can
cause in their young lives.
A questionable diagnosis locks a vulnerable child into an
alternate gender identity long before they can understand what is happening or
where it might lead. It’s up to the adults to observe the child carefully,
consider and question the grey areas, and ultimately guard innocent children
against hasty diagnoses and conclusions about something so fundamental as their
gender identity.
Walt Heyer is an accomplished author and public speaker with
a passion for mentoring individuals whose lives have been torn apart by
unnecessary gender-change surgery.
(9) American Academy
of Pediatrics backs Trans ideology
Dr. Michelle Cretella on Transgender Ideology:
'Institutionalized Large-Scale Child Abuse'
By Christopher Doyle, Monday, September 24, 2018
"For most of human history, it has been pretty obvious that
we determine our gender by our bodies. But today, more are beginning to believe
it starts in the mind. It's troubling when an adult chooses this, but when
children become involved, it's dangerous," stated Peter Sprigg of the Family
Research Council, who moderated a panel on gender ideology and children at the
Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. on Saturday. [...]
Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American
College of Pediatricians, spoke boldly when she followed McHugh: "America is
engaged in large-scale child abuse...and complicit in this is my field. People
have a biological sex – we don't have something additional to that which is
hardwired into our brains or our DNA. Sex is not assigned by people . . . it
declares itself. Our bodies tell us who they are." When describing the pediatric
community's encouragement of sex change and hormonal treatments for gender
dysphoric youth, Cretella called it "institutionalized child abuse."
"If you have a child as young as three who is confused about
their sex, and the treatment involves changing their name and their dress...in
the process, you are indoctrinating all of the children around them...we're not
just stopping the body developing, we're also permanently affecting the
brain...and now, 14 states and 44 counties have banned therapies for transgender
youth, essentially forcing them into this condition."
On Friday, before Dr. Cretella spoke, I had the chance to sit
down and interview her about her work with the American College of Pediatricians
and speech at the Values Voter Summit.
The American Academy
of Pediatrics (AAP) new policy on gender identity and youth was just
released in September 2018 and is titled: "Ensuring comprehensive care and
support for transgender and gender diverse children adolescents." In the
policy's introduction, it states: "Despite some advances in public awareness and
legal protections youth that identify as LGBTQ continue to face disparities that
stem from multiple sources, including inequitable laws and policies, societal
discrimination, and the lack of access to quality healthcare, including mental
healthcare." I found that last statement to be pretty ironic, considering that
the AAP has been supportive of laws banning certain types of mental health
interventions (e.g., so-called "conversion therapy") for youth who experience
gender dysphoria that might wish to resolve those issues or change their gender
identity or expression back to their biological/birth sex. What disparities in
mental health care for transgender youth is the AAP referring to?
The AAP is referring to resistance to transition-affirming
counseling. In other words, the judgment on gender dysphoria and children is a
foregone conclusion in that their approach is to treat it as though
transgenderism is innate and unchangeable – just a variation of human nature –
so the only reason they give for any of the health disparities between children
with gender dysphoria and those without it is essentially "gender minority
stress" which means, the stigma that comes with being a transgender youth is the
only contribution to these health disparities, and if medical providers would
simply affirm their desire to change their gender, the child's mental health
issues would resolve.
One of the interesting things that you said about the new AAP
policy is that it is deceitful to say that it has been supported by 67,000
pediatricians, since it was basically drawn up by a committee and approved by
less than 50 pediatricians.
Correct, it was written by one author, and based on the
committees listed at the end of the policy, 24 pediatricians contributed to the
statement and would have had a vote on passage. Other than those 24, the policy
would have been voted on by the AAP Board of Directors, which has 12 members.
So, 36 members voted on it. 36 members, representing 67,000! Since there is
never a minority report, we do not know how many of the 36 may have abstained
from voting or rejected it (though most likely, they all did vote in favor). In
other words, AAP membership is never consulted on any position statement, and
the membership is made aware of statements only 24 hours before it's released to
the media. [...]
(10) Debate on
nontraditional pronouns for Transgender people
The Interrogation of a TA
University president apologizes after recording reveals how a
graduate student was questioned over use of a video, which offended at least one
student, of debate on nontraditional pronouns.
By Scott Jaschik
November 22, 2017
A recording of the way professors at Wilfrid Laurier
University questioned a teaching assistant about her use of a debate video in
class has set off a major dispute about academic freedom in Canada.
The teaching assistant had shown her class a recording in
which two professors -- one of them of late a polarizing figure in Canadian
academe -- debated the use of nontraditional pronouns for transgender people.
The course was in communications, and the video was part of a discussion on the
significance of grammar and language generally. Lindsay Shepherd, the teaching
assistant, did not endorse a position in the debate, but told students that this
was a subject being discussed in society today.
The recording now getting attention is one made by Shepherd
as she was grilled days later by academics at the university who received a
complaint about Shepherd showing the video.
In the audio recording, Shepherd's superiors are heard asking
her repeatedly why she showed the video and why she didn't condemn the professor
in the video who opposes nontraditional pronouns. Shepherd was told that her
actions were hurtful and "transphobic," and she was told that her actions were
the equivalent of refusing to take a stand against Hitler or white supremacists.
She was also told that she might have violated Canada's antibias laws.
Shepherd tried to defend herself.
"I don't see how someone would rationally think it was
threatening," she said of the class. Students might be challenged in their
thinking, she said, "but for me that's the spirit of the university."
Shepherd asked those questioning her to show her the
complaint so she could learn how she offended someone, and she asked to know the
number of students who had complained, saying, "Was it one?" After being told
that confidentiality requirements made it impossible to share the complaint, she
asked whether confidentiality would be violated by her being told how many
students complained. She was told that it would, and that the complaint came
from one or more students.
As the discussion went on, Shepherd said that she did not
agree with the person who argued against the use of the pronouns many
transgender people prefer. But she said her obligation to her students was to
show them ideas that are in the world. "Can you shield people from those ideas?
Am I supposed to comfort them?" Of her students, she said, "when they leave the
university, they are going to be exposed to these ideas."
Shepherd apologized for crying during her questioning but
said that she couldn't believe she was being asked these questions at a
university.
Those who questioned her included two faculty members (one of
whom supervised her work as a teaching assistant) and the university's equity
officer.
As Canadian press outlets covered the recording in the last
48 hours, many academics and others have demanded to know how Shepherd could
have been treated as she was.
Apology From the President
On Tuesday, Deborah MacLatchy, the president of the
university, issued an apology to Shepherd.
"After listening to this recording, an apology is in order.
The conversation I heard does not reflect the values and practices to which
Laurier aspires. I am sorry it occurred in the way that it did and I regret the
impact it had on Lindsay Shepherd," MacLatchy wrote.
She vowed that an independent review would be conducted into
what happened. Further, she said that freedom of expression is essential in
higher education.
"Let me be clear by stating that Laurier is committed to the
abiding principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression," she said.
"Giving life to these principles while respecting fundamentally important human
rights and our institutional values of diversity and inclusion, is not a simple
matter. The intense media interest points to a highly polarizing and very
complicated set of issues that is affecting universities across the democratic
world. The polarizing nature of the current debate does not do justice to the
complexity of issues."
David Robinson, executive director of the Canadian
Association of University Teachers, said in an interview that Shepherd had been
"treated very badly" by the administration. While Shepherd was questioned by
faculty members and an administrator, Robinson said that the administrator
should have seen that the discussion was going off track and that any suggestion
that Shepherd violated the law couldn't be true.
Robinson noted that the video she shared in class came from
Canadian public television, and so had arguably been produced by the government.
He also said that Shepherd outlined a sound pedagogy that should not have been
doubted.
The Jordan Peterson Impact
Robinson said that, generally, the culture wars that are a
major force in American higher education have not been as present in Canadian
higher education. But he said a few figures have been "quite polarizing," and
that one of them is Jordan Peterson, who was the debate participant who opposed
the use of alternative pronouns. Peterson, a professor of psychology at the
University of Toronto, has said that his position isn't so much against the
pronouns, but against efforts to persuade people to use them even if they don't
want to.
In March, protesters shouted down a talk of his at McMaster
University, in Ontario.
Then this month, Peterson announced a plan to create a
website to list courses nationwide containing “postmodern neo-Marxist course
content,” in an effort to decrease enrollment in those courses. Amid criticism,
he abandoned the plan.
"These kinds of issues seem to come up daily in the U.S., but
they are still rare in Canada," Robinson said of the controversies surrounding
Peterson.
(11) Feminists sue
high school over Transgender bathroom policies
My high school's transgender bathroom policies violate the
privacy of the rest of us
Alexis Lightcap
Published 6:00 a.m. ET Nov. 29, 2018
Few students ever dream that they’ll sue their high school.
But that is exactly what several of my peers and I had to do.
Our school is Boyertown Area High School in Boyertown,
Pennsylvania, and my reason for suing was to restore the bodily privacy we used
to enjoy in locker rooms and restrooms on campus. Now, we have asked the Supreme
Court to review our case.
I’m OK with the school district’s desire to hear voices other
than mine on this issue. But I have a voice, too — and Boyertown officials have
little interest in my perspective. They didn’t even bother to tell me or the
other students that they changed school policy to allow students to choose their
locker rooms and restrooms based not on their sex, but on their beliefs about
their gender.
The moment I walked into our girls’ restroom and found a boy standing there, I turned and
fled — the school’s surveillance video caught me running out. I tried to get
the attention of administrators to explain to them how uncomfortable — how
scared — I felt sharing the girls’ restroom with a boy. They wouldn’t listen.
The principal simply wrote down my concerns on a Post-it note and said he’d
contact me soon. He never did.
Students deserve security, parents deserve knowledge
My parents were no less shocked by this new policy. Boyertown
officials kept it a secret from them, too. The administrators never sent home a memo
saying that, from now on, our school locker rooms would be open to students
based on what sex students believed themselves to be.
Instead, our parents first learned of the policy when I found
the boy in the girls’ restroom, and when others, like my classmates identified
in the suit as Joel Doe and Jack Jones, were changing clothes in the boys’
locker room and looked up to find a girl changing clothes beside them.
Hollywood movies and TV shows try to make that kind of moment
seem funny. But in real life, it’s embarrassing and unnerving. Locker rooms and
restrooms are supposed to be a refuge for students, and adults, too, for that
matter. As a woman, I go through those doors looking for privacy — not to find a
guy looking back at me as I’m changing my clothes.
As a former foster child who bounced around through the
system, I know what it’s like to be seeking an identity and trying to come to
terms with who you are. As a black girl who grew up in a predominantly white
neighborhood, I know what it’s like to be treated unfairly, picked on, and made
fun of by insensitive people. I won’t accept anyone being bullied or
discriminated against — and that absolutely includes my classmates experiencing
gender dysphoria. They deserve our love and support. Even so, my privacy
shouldn’t depend on what others believe about their own gender.
Don't sacrifice a girl's right to privacy
Why is it so hard for school officials to understand that
young girls care about the privacy of their bodies? It’s natural for us and our
parents to worry about who might walk in on us in a vulnerable moment. The
school bureaucracy has no right to say my privacy is irrelevant.
I had once lost my voice in the foster care system. And I was
once again losing it in my own school: School officials withheld information
from me and my parents, then silenced me by ignoring my concerns. Fortunately,
my parents also taught me to speak up for myself, and I found my voice through
this lawsuit.
I recently graduated from Boyertown Area High School, so I’m
not taking this stand just for myself. I’m speaking for my friends and my little
sister, all of whom are having their privacy interests ignored by their own
school — a school that should be protecting everyone’s privacy. That’s not fair
to them. And whether school administrators intend it or not, their secrecy and
silence create the distinct impression that they aren’t really interested in
fairness at all.
Schools can and should be compassionate in supporting
students who experience gender dysphoria. So should other students. But a truly
fair and genuinely compassionate policy doesn’t have to be kept secret from
students and parents. And an effective policy would be one that secures the
privacy of every student — which is nothing more than what every parent and
student has a right to expect.
Alexis Lightcap is a 2018 graduate of Boyertown Area High
School in Boyertown, Pennsylvania. She and other students have asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to hear their student privacy lawsuit through their attorneys with
Alliance Defending Freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.