Author archives: Cathy Ruse

Boys Competing Against Girls Steal Another Win

by Cathy Ruse

February 25, 2019

Two boys finished in first and second place over all the girls in the 55-yard dash at the state track championship meet in Connecticut earlier this month.

Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood have dominated in their sport for two years. That’s because they are actually boys who are allowed to compete against girls.  

Given their times, these boys would lose if they competed against other males. They can only beat girls. This fact alone makes the biological differences between the sexes crystal clear. If a boy, with all of his physical advantages, can only beat girls, with her comparative disadvantages, there is nothing about this to be proud of. It is simply cheating, and girls are getting tired of it.

Martina Navratilova, the 18-time Grand Slam tennis champion and celebrated gay activist, has now been vilified and punished because she says it’s unfair to force women to compete against biological men. These new rules, she wrote in The Sunday Times, “reward cheats and punish the innocent.”

These boys are not only stealing wins from girls, they’re stealing coveted scholarships into female collegiate athletics. It is no surprise that one of the girls competing against the boys called it “demoralizing.” Selina Soule would have qualified for the New England regionals which would have allowed her to run in front of more college coaches, if the two competitors who identify as transgender hadn’t taken the top spots, according to the Associated Press.

This is what radical feminists call female erasure. Others refer to it as the male invasion of female space.

Rick Moran of the American Thinker asks:

Will there ever come a tipping point where this idiocy is exposed? It may be coming next year at the Olympics. Transgendered athletes will compete for the first time. Whether they win medals or not, they are taking slots meant for women.

When men who identify as women compete against women, they’re not achieving a sports victory. They’re just lying, cheating, and stealing.

The Cost of Sending Your Kids to Public School Just Might Be Their Souls

by Cathy Ruse

February 11, 2019

Recent decades have seen “Mommy Wars” about daycare and breastfeeding. Are we on the cusp of a new fight over whether to send your kids to public school?

If so, I say bring it on. It’s long overdue.

Should we pull our kids out of public school? Millions of parents with children in public schools can’t believe they’re asking this question. But they are.

Family Research Council hosted an expert panel on this question last week. Grab a cup of coffee and an hour and watch it here.

The panel features Mary Hasson, a lawyer and writer with the Ethics and Public Policy Center discussing her new book, Get Out Now: Why You Should Pull Your Child from Public School Before It’s Too Late.

The first consideration for people of faith is, well, faith. Does attending government schools impact a child’s faith as an adult? Hasson cited bracing research that suggests it does. In one study on Catholic children, only 5 percent continued to practice their faith as adults after going through public school as kids, compared to 40 percent who kept their faith after attending Catholic schools. Evangelical children experience a similar loss of their Christian faith.

Not only are American public schools hostile to religious faith, there are hostile to America. Hasson discussed how there is much less history taught today—less civics, but more activism. Capitalism is degraded, socialism is promoted—with your tax dollars.

But the game-changer, said Hasson, is the “fractured concept” of the human person that public schools now teach. Sex confusion and transsexualism are dogma. And this anti-science propaganda is producing disturbing results: some schools see up to 20 percent of their students identifying as LGBTQ, said Hasson.

Even when schools allow parents to excuse their children from classes about their changeable genders, “you can’t opt a child out of the school culture.” Schools have embraced the idea that, since any child can be “trans,” every child must be treated as potentially “trans.” This approach is “baked into the culture” of government schools today.

Activist and public school parent Meg Kilgannon provided another perspective on the question. There’s too much public money on the table to just leave it to liberals to use as they wish to ruin our nation’s children. While conservatives bicker endlessly about charter schools vs. vouchers, Leftists are happily spending our tax money molding the nation’s young minds in their image.

Kilgannon knows the fight in Fairfax County fight well. She is a parent activist par excellence who has stayed in the system but fought to protect her kids every step of the way.

If conservative and Christian families leave, what about the children left behind? These children, said Kilgannon, will be our nation’s future teachers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, presidents, etc. The future of our nation is inextricably tied to the state of our public schools today.

Both panelists agreed that there are good and faithful teachers and administrators who are faithful to their calling to educate and not indoctrinate. But they find themselves in a tenuous position if they question the radical sex ed or identity politics that their professional associations peddle.

Both agreed, too, that parents’ first duty is to their children.

Hasson’s final point has stayed with me more than any other. Every education choice bears a cost, she said. The cost of private schools can be a mountain of tuition dollars, the cost of homeschooling includes time and lost income. But the cost of public schools just might be your children’s souls.

Hotel Trans: Check In Any Time, But Never Leave

by Cathy Ruse

February 5, 2019

Transgender ideologues have tremendous power in our culture, and they’re wielding it against the least powerful. If children and their families can survive the pill-pushing gender clinicians, they still have to face the virtue-signaling politicians and their speech bans.  

It’s the Hotel Transgender: You can check in, but you can never leave.

Put Kids on Drugs, and They’ll Stay Trans

Last week I attended a panel of feminists, self-identified lesbians, and former trans-identified people at the Heritage Foundation, all speaking against the transgender agenda.

It was standing room only. The stories of what this movement is doing to women and children—and young men—are utterly horrifying. I challenge any mother to listen to these stories without crying.

Their stories are tragically familiar. Experts tell parents they must affirm their children’s sex confusion and put them on puberty blockers to “buy them time” to explore their true identity. This is now the default position. But “buying time” is a line no parent should buy.

Anecdotal stories abound of puberty blockers being the first step in an inevitable march toward the transsexual life. In the only study to date following gender dysphoric children who were socially affirmed and put on puberty blockers, 100 percent of the children continued to identify as transgender, and pursued further sex-change interventions.

One. Hundred. Percent. This stands in stark contrast to gender dsyphoric children who are allowed to go through puberty naturally. The American Psychiatric Association reports that up to 97.8 percent of boys and 88 percent of girls experience an end to their sex confusion and do not end up identifying as transgender adults.

Putting kids on puberty blockers does not let them choose anything. It makes the choice for them.

Outlaw Talk Therapy, and They’ll Stay Trans

Why are adolescents suddenly announcing they’re in the wrong body? Dr. Lisa Littman of Brown University examined this question in her study of hundreds of cases of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. She reported her findings in a peer-reviewed study that transgender ideologues tried (somewhat successfully) to squelch.

Some teens are rejecting their physical bodies because of trauma (like rape) and psychiatric distress (like abuse), but these influences are routinely ignored by gender specialists in their zeal to further the trans agenda. But the most eye-opening part of the study is the outsized role of social media and peer pressure in this phenomenon. The stories reported by Littman are tragic.

How do we help suffering kids who find themselves sucked into this dangerous “social contagion”? Trans activists are making sure we can’t help them at all.

They have persuaded fifteen states and the District of Columbia to pass laws outlawing talk therapy for teens who want to stop feeling they were born in the wrong body. These therapy bans, originally designed to deny help for kids who seek talk therapy to end unwanted same-sex attractions, have now been expanded to deny help for kids who want to accept their biological reality. New York is the latest to join this list.

The impact of these laws is nothing short of cruel. If a girl suffers from sex confusion, if she wants to find happiness living as a female, she has nowhere to turn.

But if she wants help living as a man, that she can find. The trans lobbyists made sure of that. These laws specifically allow “counseling for a person seeking to transition from one gender to another.”

Choose the right identity, children, otherwise the government won’t let you have a therapist.

That’s the transgender movement today. You can check in, but you can never leave.

The APA is Crazy: “Traditional Masculinity is Psychologically Harmful”

by Cathy Ruse

January 11, 2019

The American Psychological Association (APA) has decided that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful.”

That’s what should be known as traditional asininity. According to the APA, “[t]he main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.”

The APA’s report condemns itself. It should be read far and wide. But reader, be warned that you will encounter gibberish like this: “Though men benefit from patriarchy, they are also impinged upon by patriarchy.” 

Rod Dreher rightly sees this nonsense as yet another diktat from the elites: “The more I think about it, the more Soviet this seems. Dissent from gender ideology (not just the transgender stuff, but the establishment’s view of what men and women are)? Well, then you must be insane. Expert opinion says so!”

I agree with David French at National Review: “We do our sons no favors when we tell them that they don’t have to answer that voice inside them that tells them to be strong, to be brave, and to lead.” 

I have daughters, not sons. But I pray my daughters marry masculine men, not the kind the APA would mold.

The ERA: A Bad, Old Idea

by Cathy Ruse

January 10, 2019

Yesterday a senate committee in Richmond voted in favor of Virginia ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, I am speaking of your grandmother’s ERA.

The deadline Congress set for states to ratify the amendment has long since passed—nearly three decades ago. Proponents couldn’t convince enough states that it was a good idea within the deadline, and since then five states have withdrawn their ratification.

The issue is officially moot. But proponents hope they can convince enough states to go through the motions anyway, and then convince a lawless judge to ignore the deadline.

The Left loves lawless judges.

Women deserve to be treated with respect and fairness. We can all agree on that. But the ERA won’t deliver these things—in fact, it will undermine them.

The same lawless judges who might ignore ratification deadlines could also employ the ERA to eliminate the recognition of male and female. But that puts men in women’s shelters and prisons. It puts men in women’s bathrooms and showers. It puts men in women’s sports.

We don’t need that kind of help.

The ERA is not only anti-woman, but anti-children—especially the most vulnerable waiting to be born. 

Proponents say the ERA is not about abortion. But look at what they do: Every time a state considers ERA language that is abortion-neutral, they kill it. That’s because abortion is at the heart of the ERA.

Women deserve safe spaces, privacy, and a level playing field. Children deserve a fighting chance to be born.

When the Virginia Senate takes up the measure in the days ahead, they should waste no time in putting to rest this bad, old idea.

Parents Beware of Puberty-Blocker Propaganda

by Cathy Ruse

December 19, 2018

Transgender activists promote puberty blockers as safe, effective, and reversible.  A new column at The Federalist details why medical experts disagree.

Originally used to treat prostate cancer, puberty blockers are also used for endometriosis and “precocious puberty” (for girls under 8, boys under 9).

But using puberty blockers to stop normal puberty is “off label,” meaning no research has been done to prove the safety of such use and the FDA hasn’t approved the drug for this purpose.

Extreme Side Effects

One of the puberty blockers frequently administered to girls who identify as boys is called Lupron.

Even with on-label use, Lupron is associated with loss in bone density and weak and brittle bones. Tragically, and ironically, another side effect is severe depression and suicidal ideation. The transgender lobby likes to wag a finger at parents and say: “Do you want a transgender child or a dead child?” But look at the drugs they are pushing on children.

Lawsuits

Not sure if a drug is totally safe? Look at the lawsuits. Lupron manufacturer AbbVie has been sued by a woman who took Lupron 14 years ago for endometriosis and now has widespread arthritis and suffers constant pain: “My body is on fire.” Another lawsuit charges Lupron with causing extreme bone density loss in an individual who took the drug starting at age 17.

Other Cases

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports on another patient who took Lupron for precocious puberty at 10 after which she suffered such severe pain that she was put in a wheelchair in 5th grade. An Atlanta GYN who specializes in endometriosis reports many women suffering memory loss after taking Lupron.

Are Puberty Blockers Reversible?

No. The lost years of bone development cannot be regained, say medical experts.

According to endocrinologist Michael Laidlaw:  

There is an exquisitely timed release and change of multiple hormones during normal puberty. Among these are growth hormone and the sex hormones which account for the growth spurt including bone growth and development. It has been shown that puberty blockers interfere with the expected increase in bone density in adolescence such that the bones are not as strong as they would be had normal pubertal development been allowed. This is due to the effect of dropping sex hormone levels to subnormal levels. These lost years of bone development cannot be regained.

Why Some Medical Experts Call This Psychological Child Abuse

Up to 98 percent of gender dysphoric boys and 88 percent of gender dysphoric girls will experience an end to their sex confusion after naturally passing through puberty, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition.

That means only about 5-10 percent of effected children will pursue further sex-change interventions.

But how many children on puberty blockers pursue further sex-change procedures? One hundred percent, according to a Dutch study reported in The Journal of Sexual Medicine. The study, evaluating the impact of puberty blockers on 70 children, found that all 70 went on to take cross-sex hormones.

What This Means for Parents

Parents who visit a gender specialist for a suffering child, beware. Puberty blockers like Lupron are said to buy time to allow your child to explore his identity. But for many children—100 percent of them, according to a key study—they are a one-way ticket to transgenderism.

Pronoun Police Get VA Teacher Fired

by Cathy Ruse

December 10, 2018

The pronoun police have marched into small-town America.

A high school French teacher in the tiny Virginia town of West Point has lost his job. His offense? He asked permission to avoid pronouns when referring to a biological girl student who now identifies as a boy.

Peter Vlaming (pictured) was fired last week in a unanimous vote by the local school board (all Democrats) because of his Christian belief that God made humans male and female, and that a girl cannot become a boy.

Vlaming was willing to use the student’s new masculine name, and to avoid using pronouns altogether with this student. But he was not willing to use a false pronoun. “I did agree to use the new masculine name [and] to avoid female pronouns,” said Vlaming, but “I won’t use male pronouns with a female student.”

Keep in mind, Vlaming’s position was not a failure of courtesy. Third person pronouns are not used face-to-face, they are used when talking about a person who is absent. Vlaming was happy to use the student’s new masculine name. But that was not enough for the school. They ordered him to use male pronouns for the student even when he was not in the presence of the student. 

Students are allowed to remain silent during the Pledge of Allegiance, but this teacher was not allowed to remain silent when it came to pronouns. Use a false pronoun, or lose your job.

God bless this teacher—he would not speak in denial of God’s truth about male and female, and for his silence the government terminated him.

Starbucks for Coffee, Not Porn

by Cathy Ruse

December 5, 2018

Congratulations to Donna Rice Hughes and Enough is Enough (EIE) for their successful public online petition that put pressure on Starbucks to filter its public Wi-Fi services. The company recently announced it would stick to its promise to stop providing pornography through its free Wi-Fi starting in 2019.

Two years ago, the company promised to filter out pornography in its 14,000 U.S. shops. Enough is Enough called out that broken promise in a recent press release demanding that Starbucks “do the right thing.”

Protecting the innocence of children in America is even more precious than green efforts and paper straws,” Hughes said. “By breaking its commitment, Starbucks is keeping the doors wide open for convicted sex offenders and others to fly under the radar from law enforcement and use free, public WiFi services to access illegal child porn and hard-core pornography.”

Customers deserve a porn-free coffee stop—especially children.

Having unfiltered hotspots also allows children and teens to easily bypass filters and other parental control tools set up by their parents on their smart phones, tablets and laptops,” said Hughes.

EIE has had other successes in its SAFE WiFi campaign to persuade major public service companies to filter out pornography, of which Family Research Council is a part. In 2016, McDonalds adopted a Wi-Fi filter policy.

It is greatly encouraging to see another one of our country’s biggest providers of free public Wi-Fi acknowledge, at least through its actions, the dangers of pornography. Five states have declared it a public health crisis.

Pro-Life Law Upheld By Another Federal Court: Dare We Say “Momentum”?

by Cathy Ruse

October 22, 2018

The Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges was recently upheld by the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Last month, a similar Missouri law was also upheld.

This feels like momentum. 

This column contains a good description of where the legal fight stands on requiring abortionists to obtain admitting privileges.

Good, but confusing, because the Supreme Court has confused things so much. 

Here’s my attempt at a shorter description:

Prior to the devastating 2016 Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt ruling striking down Texas’ abortion safety regulations, the Supreme Court had long used the “undue burden” standard from Casey (1992) to measure the constitutionality of state abortion regulations: A law could stand if (1) the state had a legitimate reason for the law, and (2) the law did not impose an “undue burden” on obtaining an abortion (meaning it did not place a “substantial obstacle in the path” to obtaining an abortion).

But the Hellerstedt majority did not follow this legitimate reason + no undue burden formula. Instead, it asked whether the burdens from the law outweigh the benefits from the law

This is a new balancing test, and there is a lot of room for judicial shenanigans in balancing tests.

As the majority in Hellerstedt saw it, many Texas clinics threatened to close, so that showed a large burden, and since abortion was already safe in Texas (the court’s conclusion), additional safety requirements would provide little benefit.

Importantly, the court disregarded the legislators’ position that hospital admission privileges do provide a health benefit for women. 

But the recent 5th Circuit’s application of the balancing test came out differently.

In Louisiana, only one of the five clinics threatened to close. On the benefit side, the court gave deference to legislative position that admitting privileges provide “a real, and previously unaddressed, credentialing function that promotes the wellbeing of women.”

The really gratifying part of the 5th Circuit opinion is when they call out these abortionists for not even really trying to get admitting privileges—for “sitting on their hands.” One abortionist apparently threatened to close if his was the only abortion clinic left, but then when he learned that another clinic would be remaining open, he changed his position and threatened to close if his was one of only two clinics left. This shows bad faith, and the 5th Circuit wasn’t going to be played for fools. 

It would be best, of course, if the Supreme Court got rid of the Hellerstedt balancing test altogether. Perhaps that will happen now that there are a majority of justices who aren’t keen to make up fancy new standards to get the results they want. 

But in the meantime, pro-life laws are winning, even under a bad standard. 

Man Steals Gold Medal From Top Woman in World Cycling Race

by Cathy Ruse

October 16, 2018

We don’t watch a lot of television in our household, but every July you can find us, adults and children alike, watching stage after stage of the Tour de France. Once, my daughter asked, “Has a woman ever won the Tour?” No, we told her. Women and men are different, and it wouldn’t be fair to make them compete against each other.

Transgender crusaders don’t care about fair.

On Sunday, a biological male won the women’s UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championship in Los Angeles in the 35-39 age category, taking the gold from the second-place finisher who is actually a woman (image below).

Rachel McKinnon, a biological man who identifies as a woman, has responded to critics of his win on Twitter, calling them “transphobic bigots.”

In January, McKinnon told USA Today that his crusade is “bigger than sports.”

It’s about human rights,” McKinnon said. “I bet a lot of white people were pissed off when we desegregated sports racially and allowed black people. But they had to deal with it.”

No, Rachel, you’re not fighting for human rights. What you’re doing is rigging the game. 

You’re rigging the game so that no girl will ever win a sports competition in school. No woman will want to devote her life to the pursuit of excellence in a competitive sport, knowing even before the competition begins that being the quickest/strongest/toughest woman may still not make you the winner. 

You’re killing sports for half of the human race.

But I agree with McKinnon: this is bigger than sports. I stand with the radical feminists who call it the very “erasure of women.” If a 40-year-old man can claim to be a woman, then being a woman has no meaning.

Archives