Tag archives: Transgenderism

Keep Your Kids Home on Transgender Propaganda Day This Thursday!

by Cathy Ruse

February 25, 2020

Do you want your child to be psychologically manipulated at school on Thursday? Might be a good day for a Mommy Date at the museum!

The anti-Christian Human Rights Campaign and their pals at the powerful National Education Association are pushing public schools to recognize this Thursday as “Jazz and Friends National Day of School & Community Readings.” 

One of the books they are promoting is I Am Jazz, a transgender propaganda book designed for children. It is based on the real-life story of “Jazz,” a child who was convinced that he was born in the wrong body. As a child he was injected with hormones to block his normal sexual development, and recently he had radical surgery to complete his “transition” to another sex. Which, of course, is impossible.

Activists groups are trying to make the reading of this book an annual event. 

The day will be used to promote gender deviance and LGBT politics to vulnerable children. Not all schools are doing it. Yet. But some are.

In one Arlington, Va. school, “mystery readers” are scheduled to come and read to the children. The school has not revealed to parents who they are and what they will read. Wow.

Here’s what a group of concerned parents in Arlington are doing about it.

If you do find out your child’s school is hosting a “Jazz and Friends” event, you can also opt your child out. Here is a template for an opt-out letter to use.

Find out what’s happening in your school!

The Evidence Suggests Gender Transition Procedures for Minors are Experimental

by Peter Sprigg

February 13, 2020

Several states have introduced bills that would prohibit certain physical procedures that alter the normal development or body of a child or adolescent for the purpose of facilitating a “gender transition.” These laws (sometimes called “Vulnerable Child Protection Acts”) would ban the use of puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, or gender reassignment surgery in minors.

One of the arguments raised by opponents is that these procedures should not be restricted because they represent a standard of care that is “evidence-based.” “Evidence-based” is something of a buzzword in medicine, indicating that medical practices should not just be based on opinion (even “expert” opinion), but on sound scientific research.

But just how good is the “evidence” cited in support of gender transition procedures—especially for minors?

The Endocrine Society’s Influential Guidelines

One of the most recent and influential sets of guidelines for the medical care of transgender people was published in 2017 by the Endocrine Society (W. Hembree et al., “Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline,” Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism 102(11), November 2017, p. 3869-3903). This document explicitly sought to adopt an “evidence-based” approach:

The task force followed the approach recommended by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation group, an international group with expertise in the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines.

The Endocrine Society issued specific guidelines in five separate areas:

  1. Evaluation of youth and adults (5 guidelines)
  2. Treatment of adolescents (6 guidelines)
  3. Hormonal therapy for transgender adults (4 guidelines)
  4. Adverse outcome prevention and long-term care (7 guidelines)
  5. Surgery for sex reassignment and gender confirmation (6 guidelines)

Evaluating the Quality of the Evidence

The key question is—what is the quality of the evidence in support of the guidelines? I decided to examine that issue.

There are three types of guidelines:

  • An “Ungraded Good Practice Statement”—essentially supported by no evidence (beginning “We advise . . .”)
  • A “weak recommendation” (beginning “We suggest . . .”)
  • A “strong recommendation” (labeled “We recommend . . .”)

Only with the strong recommendations does the task force express “confidence that persons who receive care according to [them] … will derive, on average, more benefit than harm.”

Then for each of the “recommendations” (weak or strong) they give a rating of the “quality of the evidence” in support of that recommendation, on a four-point scale: very low, low, moderate, or high.

How Strong is the Evidence Regarding Gender Transition Procedures for Minors?

If we omit category 3 (which applies only to adults), there are 24 guidelines that are generally relevant to the procedures at issue in Vulnerable Child Protection Acts—puberty blockers, hormones for adolescents, and surgery.

Of these 24 guidelines:

  • 5 are ungraded good practice statements (no evidence);
  • 2 are weak recommendations with very low evidence; and
  • 9 are weak recommendations with low evidence.

That means only 8 of the 24 “guidelines” are even “strong” recommendations—one third of the total. Of those:

  • 2 are supported by very low evidence;
  • 5 are supported by low evidence; 
  • Only 1 is supported by even “moderate” evidence;
  • None are supported by “high quality” evidence.

Evaluating the Recommendations

Several of the “strong recommendations” and other guidelines relate to controlling the potential negative side effects of gender transition, rather than actually recommending the transition procedure.

For example, the lone guideline supported by even “moderate” evidence was one warning patients to look into “fertility preservation” (some method of storing sperm or eggs), because the procedures may permanently sterilize the individual:

1.5. We recommend that clinicians inform and counsel all individuals seeking gender-affirming medical treatment regarding options for fertility preservation prior to initiating puberty suppression in adolescents and prior to treating with hormonal therapy of the affirmed gender in both adolescents and adults.

Some of the guidelines actually support what Vulnerable Child Protection Acts would do. Very few procedures which actually follow the Endocrine Society guidelines would also violate South Dakota’s VCPA, HB 1057.

For example, they recommend strongly (with low evidence) initiating cross-sex hormone treatment only after confirming “sufficient mental capacity to give informed consent, which most adolescents have by age 16 years” (2.4). (Guideline 2.5 says there may be exceptions to this, but it is supported by “very low” evidence.)

In addition, a “weak recommendation” with low evidence (5.5) suggests “that clinicians delay gender-affirming genital surgery … until the patient is at least 18 years old.”

Another weak recommendation (supported by very low evidence) suggests the timing of breast surgery be determined case by case, because “There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific age requirement.” However, the lack of evidence would suggest that such radical, body-altering surgery should be postponed to a later age if possible, not accelerated.

Meanwhile, the key guidelines in support of puberty suppression (2.1 and 2.2) are only weak recommendations, supported by low evidence. The strong recommendation that some patients (over age 18) be referred for genital surgery is supported by “very low” evidence.

A Weak Evidence Base

In summary, the claim that these treatments are “evidence-based” is misleading, because the quality of the evidence in this field (even for the Endocrine Society’s “strong” recommendations) is low.

Until the quality of the evidence becomes higher, gender transition procedures must be considered experimental procedures at best.

Transgender Regret: The Rise of the Detransitioners

by Cathy Ruse

December 6, 2019

Transgenderism is a hotel you can check into, but if ideologues have their way, impossible to leave. States and localities are rushing to make it illegal for adults and kids to seek counseling for unwanted sexual and gender confusion.

If you’re a child and you are given puberty blockers, your development will likely be permanently stunted. If you are then given cross-sex hormones, you will be rendered infertile, permanently. If you pay a doctor to sever healthy organs, they are gone.

Such pressing issues were discussed at a recent conference in Manchester, England, the first ever “detransition” conference that also launched a new group, the Detransition Advocacy Network.

Charlie Evans, the Founder of the Network, is a woman who regrets the decade of drugs she took to try to appear as a man. Other detransitioners told their stories. Medical and scientific experts discussed the impact of this ideology on their profession and their patients. Clinical psychologist Anna Hutchinson talked about the grave danger to children of taking that first step, saying that 100 percent of kids who take puberty blockers move on to cross sex hormones.

A central focus of the event was the immense pressure that is put on children to transition, especially those who do not fit a narrow vision of femininity. Once upon a time, tomboys were allowed to be tomboys. In the past, they might have been pressured to identify as lesbian; today they are pressured to reject and mutilate their own bodies. This pressure comes from friends, social media, doctors, counselors, and even misguided parents (who are manipulated, too).

But of course, “sex change” is impossible. It is a fraud. And conference organizers were brave enough to say it, despite tremendous hostility in England toward anyone who challenges the new anti-science orthodoxy.

This is the rise of the “detransitioners.” Let us pray for their success!

America Needs a Reality Check on Transgenderism

by Lisa

November 19, 2019

*Editor’s Note: This true account is the final part of a 6-Part series. Read Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4, and Part 5.

No, my brother is not a woman. His name is not Melissa. He is simply a guy named Josh who wants the freedom to cross-dress in public. And he should have that freedom. This is America, after all. Whether I like it or not, he does have the right to put on a dress and parade around town. But what he does not have is the right to make the rest of us deny reality by affirming that him donning a dress makes him an actual woman.   

Therapists previously viewed many forms of cross-dressing as a temporary way to ease stress and anxiety. This is easy enough to understand. People do all kinds of things to ease stress and anxiety. They drink. They eat too much junk food. They self-harm. But any healthy person understands that we should never take a compulsion being used to ease deeper pain and begin celebrating that compulsion as someone’s primary identity. Yet that’s what’s being done with my brother and everyone else who transitions.

Now, girls as young as 3 who like sports and trucks or say imaginative things like “I’m a fairy…I’m a ninja…I’m a boy” are being told by doctors (and celebrity moms like Charlize Theron) that they need to transition. Now, books like I Am Jazz that erroneously claim girls can be born with a boy’s brain and vice versa are being pushed on every child in public school (my 10-year-old was just told to read it in her school library recently). Pre-pubescent kids across the country are being put on powerful, reproductive-ending hormones to stop the onset of puberty. Teenagers are having their breasts removed and their penises cut off simply because they’re into things that are traditionally associated with the opposite gender.

Gender non-conformity is the very thing scores of people fought against for decades. I personally owe a debt of gratitude to those people. Because of their efforts, I myself grew up a strong, confident female who embraced her many traditionally “masculine” qualities. I am direct and opinionated. I am not afraid of confrontation. I’d rather watch an NFL game than attend a baby shower any day of the week. I majored in criminal justice in college. I worked with gang members in Chicago. A lot of my personal interests and life experiences would not be considered classically “feminine.” But just because I have many qualities and enjoy activities traditionally associated with the opposite gender does not mean I should become that gender. How silly of an idea is that?      

Girls can be interested in anything boys like. And vice versa. I made all three of my girls watch a Formula 1 race recently. Why? Because girls should be exposed to race cars…and football…and extreme sports usually dominated by males. This should all be obvious. Boys, likewise, can grow up to be hair stylists and preschool teachers and fashion moguls. Men should be applauded for having classically “feminine” qualities like being nurturing, intuitive, warm, and kind. They should never be told that possessing those qualities might make them transgender.

Even as our culture continues to push a message of female empowerment, we ignore one large caveat: Anyone can be female. Even the dude walking past you right now, (depending on how he feels later this afternoon). Meanwhile, trans men are just beginning an era of sports dominance as they continue to smash one girl’s athletic record after another. Read this article for more details on that.

My brother will say that gender is just a tiny part of who he is. (If so, why change?) But for him to think that he will “still be himself” if he becomes a woman is perhaps the craziest lie perpetuated by the trans cult. My brother is no longer a man named Josh. A man named for my grandfather—a hard-working immigrant who came to America to build a new life. My brother is now a false caricature of a female—a female who requires you to use certain pronouns in order to stay in relationship with him.

Of course he has his same personality and preferences. That’s a no-brainer. But to claim that one’s gender doesn’t ultimately matter in the grand scheme of things shows just how far this madness has come. I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t have married my husband if he weren’t male. And, as a married woman, I wouldn’t be going to lunch with my girlfriend this afternoon if she weren’t female. Tell my mother that it doesn’t matter if the son she raised for almost four decades is now suddenly her “daughter.”  

The pain and suffering that my parents and our extended family and friends have endured as a result of this denial of reality could only be labeled cruel and unusual punishment.  

We love my brother dearly. We want him to get the professional help he needs. But because the trans lobby has co-opted the American Psychological Association, that is no longer possible. For a therapist to recommend anything other than a gender transition for someone like my brother is no longer an option. While LGBT activists are working to make it illegal for professionals to help someone who wishes to change from homosexual to heterosexual, the professions are moving toward making it virtually mandatory to assist anyone who wishes to change from male to female.

And now that the trans lobby also convinced the World Health Organization to eliminate the mental illness of “gender identity disorder” altogether, we are truly in new territory. According to therapists, my brother no longer has any problem at all. It is only those of us who won’t acknowledge that he is now a woman named Melissa who have the problem.  

My brother looks more and more like me with every month that passes. Cross-sex hormones are really quite effective. It’s stunning and disturbing. No family should ever be subject to what my family has experienced.  

It’s time someone stands up against the trans cult and says “no more.”

We cannot continue to deny physical reality simply because the therapists, doctors, and now the tech companies have all been co-opted by the trans lobby.

I love my brother. But love does not mean supporting him as he slowly destroys himself. I have a dear friend who’s an alcoholic. I love and support this friend. I do not, however, show my love and support by driving her to bars. Love means speaking the truth. Even if it gets you booted off Twitter. Even if it gets you death threats.

My brother, along with hundreds of thousands of trans people across the globe, are being grossly taken advantage of on their quest for a personal identity. They long for a group to belong to, a meaningful cause to work toward. My brother and his wife (like so many others) believe they have found these things in the LGBTQ community.

The trans cult has embraced them; and they now show their allegiance to this cult by spouting its dogma via lengthy social media diatribes about affirming your child’s preferred gender. My brother leads seminars on diversity and inclusivity even as he gives a decidedly non-inclusive ultimatum to his parents: Either acknowledge I’m Melissa or have limited access to your grandchildren going forward.   

My brother keeps saying this is “his” story to tell and his alone.

It’s not.

It’s my story.

It’s the story of my family—a family that’s been ripped apart because of one man’s choice to embrace his True Self. It’s the story of a community in the Midwest where each person was forced to make a decision: either support the transgender madness and win accolades in popular culture or refuse to deny reality and risk being called intolerant and “transphobic.” It’s the story of a country so lost and confused they can no longer even agree upon the very nature of reality itself.    

This is your wake-up call, America.

It’s time to take your story back.

The Regressive Cult of Transgenderism

by Lisa

November 18, 2019

*Editor’s Note: This true account is Part 5 of a 6-Part series. Read Part 1Part 2Part 3, and Part 4.

Our country understands that Scientology is a cult. But we still don’t seem to understand how much the transgender movement mirrors cults like Scientology. Scientologists call people who seek to “impede the progress of Scientology” suppressive people. Likewise, my brother and his wife deem people who don’t fully embrace Melissa “unsafe.” This would include both sets of their children’s grandparents. Why are these sweet, loving grandparents being called “unsafe”? Because they refuse to affirm my brother as Melissa and use she/her pronouns. In other words, they are impeding the progress of the transgender movement.

Calling everyone who doesn’t support the trans movement “unsafe” or worse yet, “transphobic” is beyond ignorant. People like me who strongly disagree with trans ideology do not have a “phobia.” I am not afraid of trans people. I love them. I am related to them. Anyone who mocks or threatens someone whose lifestyle they disagree with is obviously wrong. Trans people should never be made fun of or bullied in any way. They are dealing with enough as it is.

But all of America is now blindly embracing the trans cult and silencing those who won’t get on board. They tell us we’re guilty of “hate speech” if we “misgender” someone. I am told I am hateful even though I have nothing but love for my brother. I am sad that he believes this is the answer to his identity crisis when any thinking person can see it’s another dead end.    

A girl recently commented to me in an email how unfortunate it is that I’m not “getting along with my sister.” I do not have a sister. I have not had a sister during the 40 years I’ve been alive on this planet. Yet a few years from now, if we continue on the same track we’ve been on, I will likely be considered the mentally ill one for refusing to acknowledge I have a sister named Melissa.

My brother, on the other hand, will be sitting pretty. Quite literally. In his dresses, with his heels and makeup, playing the part of some old, outdated female stereotype that you would think had been long since eradicated from such a progressive, forward-thinking, equality-minded country.

Transgenderism reinforces everything feminists have spent their entire lives fighting against. It promotes ridiculously outdated gender stereotypes (being a woman means putting on a skirt and heels). Yet now, even life-long feminist icons are having their social media accounts suspended for saying things like, “A man cannot be a woman.”  

Sheila Jeffreys, a lesbian feminist scholar and former professor of Political Science at the University of Melbourne writes in Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism that sex reassignment surgery is actually “an extension of the beauty industry offering cosmetic solutions to deeper rooted problems.”

Amen to that.

Jeffreys argues that the “vast majority of transsexuals still subscribe to the traditional stereotype of women” and that by transitioning medically and socially they are constructing a “fantasy” of what a woman should be and are inventing “an essence of womanhood which is deeply insulting and restrictive.” Jeffreys believes trans woman are either “homosexual men who don’t feel they can be homosexual in the bodies of men” or are “heterosexual men who have a sexual interest in wearing women’s clothes and having the appearance of women.” (For more details on the latter, read Dr. Ray Blanchard’s work on autogynephilia.)  

Feminists have fought their entire lives to help real women who are being oppressed, tormented and abused by men. Now they’re being told to roll over and let a bunch of men join the group.  

This is part of why the original LGB community held off as long as they could before allowing the “T” in. Transgender individuals have a far greater likelihood of being diagnosed with mental illnesses when compared to their gay and lesbian counterparts. It was only after the trans lobby grew large enough to have a financial impact on LGB efforts in Washington that they were invited into the fold. Now even some gay and lesbian leaders are speaking out against the trans movement. They’re deeply troubled by what they see happening, especially as it concerns children being told to transition at increasingly younger ages after just a few visits to a therapist. Of course these gay and lesbian dissenters are having their voices silenced by the mainstream media and have had to join forces with conservatives to sound the alarm.

No empowered female could ever champion transgender ideology. It’s an insult to women the world over to suggest that because someone who has a penis puts on a dress and heels, it automatically makes him a woman. Any real woman knows we are not our clothes or shoes. We are not our hair or makeup. Outer beauty has nothing to do with us being female.

Read Part 6.

The Cultural Power of the Transgender Movement

by Lisa

November 15, 2019

*Editor’s Note: This true account is Part 4 of a 6-Part series. Read Part 1Part 2, and Part 3.

Telling a gender-confused person to transition is like telling someone with bulimia, “Look, we see you’re only 90 pounds and wasting away…but since you still think you’re fat, I guess you could get your stomach stapled if you think it’ll make you feel better.”

James Shupe, the first person to obtain a “non-binary” sex classification in America, has a lot to say about the evils of trans medicine. After taking cross-sex hormones for six years, he says it left him with an “eternally scarred psyche” and countless physical health issues. James’ therapist recommended he start on estrogen and testosterone blockers in 2013 because he was convinced he was a woman. In an article for The Daily Signal, James says, “I believed wearing a long wig, dresses, heels and makeup would make me a woman … The best thing that could have happened would have been for someone to order intensive therapy. That would have protected me from my inclination to cross-dress …  Instead, quacks in the medical community [said], ‘Your gender identity is female.’”

When James began the transitioning process, doctors and therapists told him he’d soon experience a boost in mental health. “It was just the opposite,” he says. “It destabilized my mental health because I was living in a false reality … I perfectly understand why this kills people and why there’s such high suicide rate … it’s the program itself that’s killing us.”

When becoming a woman didn’t provide James with the happiness he sought, he convinced a judge to declare him non-binary. As America’s first legally recognized non-binary individual, he shot to fame in the LGBTQ community. Their leadership rushed in to provide him with the money he’d need to fight additional legal battles (changing his name, changing the sex on his passport, etc.). Before long, millions of taxpayer dollars were being used to add a third “non-binary” sex option to driver’s licenses in 11 states.

But when James came out against the sterilization of gender-confused kids in 2017, the LGBTQ community immediately broke ties with him. He later de-transitioned and currently speaks out against trans medicine. He now admits, “All of my sexual confusion was in my head. I should have been treated. Instead, at every step, doctors, judges and advocacy groups indulged my fiction … the medical community is so afraid of the trans community … Trans men are winning in medicine and they’ve won the battle for language. Think of the word ‘transvestite.’ They’ve succeeded in making it a vulgar word, even though it just means men dressing like women. People are no longer allowed to tell the truth about men like me. Everyone now has to call us transgender instead.”

And James is right. Much as the language around addiction has been purposefully changed to absolve people of personal responsibility, the vocabulary around gender dysphoria has shifted too. It’s no longer politically correct to say a drug addict makes a choice to ingest opioids. We must instead say the person has a disease. We hear about the opioid “epidemic.” Language like this removes choice from the equation. Likewise, we can no longer call men who want to dress like women “transvestites” because that would imply they have a choice as to whether or not they cross-dress. The new lexicon demands we use the word “transgender” instead. This word implies that it’s not up to the person whether or not he cross-dresses. In fact, he has zero choice in the matter. His brain was born in the wrong body after all.  

As a 40-year-old female, I spent the last decade of my life after having children trying to get my hormone levels back on track. The ups and downs of estrogen and progesterone wreaked havoc on my body. Yet my brother is being prescribed these same dangerous and unpredictable hormones in large quantities. The host of health problems this can cause has been well documented and includes a reduction in fertility (and often sterility), plus increased risk of cancer, etc. Yet trans activists are now recommending that children start taking puberty blockers to stop their bodies from naturally producing any hormones beginning around age 8.  

One day hormone treatments and sex re-assignment surgeries will be recognized for what they are: the lobotomies of our time. We can now look back and see how insane it was to lobotomize thousands of Americans, but at the time the procedure made sense. Everyone was doing it. Read more about how the current transgender craze is like the lobotomies of yesteryear.

Read Part 5.

The Lies and Money Behind the Transgender Movement

by Lisa

November 14, 2019

*Editor’s Note: This true account is Part 3 of a 6-Part series. Read Part 1 and Part 2.

If we really believe that supporting others on their path to uncover their True Self is the best route for us to go as a society, what do you suppose our country will look like a decade from now?

Well, the number of “otherkin”—people who identify themselves as half-human, half other species—is growing. Men and women who believe they are half dragon, lion, or dog are popping up all over the globe. A man named John who identifies himself as a fox is requesting special legal rights that will accommodate him as an animal. A tech company employee who identifies as half cat recently filed an HR complaint with his employer for not providing litter boxes in the restroom.

If you support transgender rights and believe everyone should be allowed to self-identify as whatever they “feel” like inside, you must support otherkin rights. After all, who are we to say what someone’s subjective reality is?

Surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly), a significant percentage of “otherkin” also identify as transgender. And just like transgender individuals, many otherkin are having surgery to look more like the animal or entity they identify with. Eva Tiamat Legion Medusa (formerly Richard Hernandez) is a transgender woman (born a man) from Texas who also identifies as half-dragon. Eva has spent over $60,000 on surgeries to look more like a dragon. This includes having his ears removed, his nose removed and most of his teeth removed. He’s had eight horns implanted into his forehead, his tongue bi-furcated and the whites of his eyes permanently stained green.

Eva says on his Facebook page, “I smile and I look in quiet contemplation and I say goodbye for good for the man I used to be …” He goes on to explain that he is posting the final photo from his old life, his life when he was still a man and a father to his young son. He says, “In shedding this part of my life that makes me human, I swing the pendulum even more towards my goal of becoming 100% my true self as a reptilian.”

Sound familiar?

Like Eva, my brother will likely have countless surgeries to modify his body to better represent his True Self. But instead of a reptile, he’ll morph into the more socially acceptable female. Trans women often seek out breast augmentation surgery, facial feminization surgery, a tracheal shave, voice feminization surgery, and last but not least, a vaginoplasty.

Because personal identity is now deemed “fluid” (thanks in large part to transgenderism), you can bet that more animals and mythical creatures (like Eva) will start appearing and seeking more legal rights in years to come.  

And if you can legally change your biological sex just because you feel like it, logic follows that you must be allowed to legally change anything about yourself since you and you alone determine your personal reality. This is how we end up with people like Martina Big and Michael Eurwen from Germany—the couple has received melatonin injections for many years in order to make their skin darker. Why? Because although reality would tell us they’re both Caucasian, they personally identify as African. 

If you google Martina Big, you will immediately notice a few things… namely, that she, like Eva, may have some mental health issues that have gone unaddressed. Not only has she spent many years attempting to transform herself into an African woman, she has also had 23 breast implants. Body modification is once again a common theme. So the real question is: Should we all play along with Eva and Martina’s delusions because only they can tell us who they really are? Or should we try to get people like this the help they so obviously need?

Even as American culture continues to spout a message of “body positivity,” my brother’s therapist (in conjunction with the trans medical industry) insist that his body is his problem, not his mind. They tell him that he must modify his body beyond recognition in an attempt to move deeper into his delusion.

Why would my brother’s therapist (and therapists all over the country) tell men who have a history of cross-dressing to take their compulsive behavior to its furthest extreme by ingesting dangerous cross-sex hormones for the rest of their lives?

Part of the reason is because there’s big money driving trans medicine.       

After trans medical research became popular in Europe in the early 2000s, doctors gained a new understanding of how they could make a financial killing by peddling a new “treatment” for the psychiatric problem of gender dysphoria.  

It’s not that these doctors weren’t genuinely trying to help people with gender dysphoria. It’s just that once money came into the equation, the trajectory of the industry changed. If you study the history of trans medicine, you’ll quickly discover that, as the machine grew bigger and people realized how many millions of dollars could be made off of people’s mental health struggles, those who opposed the idea of sex reassignment were silenced. This includes well respected Ivy League professors and medical industry leaders like Dr. Paul McHugh. McHugh was the Johns Hopkins doctor in charge of the first sex-reassignment surgery program in the U.S. Once McHugh reviewed the data and realized that going along with a patient’s delusion was proving more harmful than helpful, he shut the Johns Hopkins program down.

By that time, it was too late. What began as two clinics (one on either coast) that recommended sex reassignment surgery to people experiencing gender confusion had already begun to expand. Now there are clinics in almost every state offering these surgeries, and at least 13 states cover transition surgeries under Medicaid.

The sex reassignment surgery market is estimated to reach $968 million by 2024. The country of Thailand alone attracts 2 million transgender people each year to undergo sex reassignment. As a result, the country has a $4 billion medical tourism market. Packages that include medical and surgical expenses plus hotel accommodation start at $9,770.

In When Harry Became Sally, Ryan Anderson explains that when they followed people who had sex reassignment surgery over 30 years in Sweden (a culture that is strongly supportive of transgender people), those who had the surgery still claimed to struggle with severe mental unrest. The suicide rate of those who underwent surgery was 19 times higher than their comparable peers. He concluded that transitioning to the opposite gender does not produce the happiness people seek. Perhaps this is because their problems go much, much deeper.

More than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals done by the University of Birmingham concluded none of the studies showed evidence that gender reassignment was beneficial. Even the Obama administration came to the same conclusion in 2016. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services conducted a thorough review of clinical studies and concluded there was not enough evidence to show that sex reassignment surgery benefitted its patients at all.

Read Part 4.

The Damaging Delusions of Identity Obsession and Erasure

by Lisa

November 13, 2019

*Editor’s Note: This true account is Part 2 of a 6-Part series. Read Part 1.

Now in American culture, instead of applauding people for showing restraint, we applaud them for throwing off restraint. Hence the thousands of Instagram followers now telling my brother things like “You go girl!” and “You’re going to make one beautiful woman!”

The logical problem with all this is that if a man is to be “supported and celebrated” as he embarks on the journey to his True Self, shouldn’t everyone be celebrated as they allow their true selves to flourish? If we do away with the concept of sin and human weakness and simply concede that everyone is inherently good, there is really no impulse that needs to be fought against. Ever. The porn addict may as well explore his True Self via his fetish of choice. The opioid addict too. And of course the married woman should be celebrated when she finally finds her True Self in the arms of another man. Then there’s the pedophile. What do we do with the man who claims (as many have) that their True Self is attracted to small children?

My brother and sister-in-law would immediately sayof course pedophilia is wrong.” Because, they argue, any behavior that would cause direct harm to others is automatically out of bounds. My brother would argue that the trans person, however, is not harming anyone by simply switching genders.

So let’s consider his argument. Would my brother—who has been a man for 37 years now—suddenly changing into a woman really not be harmful?

I suppose that depends on your definition of “harmful.”

Is it harmful to disrupt the mental, emotional, and physical health of dozens of family members and hundreds of friends for years and likely decades to come? Is it harmful to raise five young children in a state of psychological confusion in which the person that they thought was one thing (a man) has morphed into another, causing all of reality to lose any permanence? Is it harmful for five small children to try to comprehend how their parents—who were previously a heterosexual couple—are apparently now a homosexual one as their mom now refers to her husband as her “wife” and their dad refers to himself as a lesbian? Is it harmful for a husband who promised to love and cherish his wife to abandon all responsibilities as the man she thought she married? Is it harmful to deprive five children who previously had a father of any sort of father figure going forward? Is it harmful for a husband/father/son/brother to commit a slow form of suicide and then demand everyone accept some random woman take his place in the family?  

American culture currently says none of this is harmful. Why? Well, for starters they’d argue that the random woman who’s now asking to be part of my family has all the same likes and dislikes as the brother I knew before.

Is that what makes a person who they are? Their TV show preferences and favorite sports teams? If so, then most of my friends are interchangeable with millions of other people.

Ok, so maybe that doesn’t entirely work. Then, they’d say, the reason Melissa and Josh are the same person is because they share the same memories. It’s definitely a stronger argument. But once someone switches genders, they often attempt to erase a lot of their past history to some degree. They associate the person they were before (the person who wasn’t living as his/her “True Self”) with someone who was weak. My brother posted on social media that being Josh for 37 years was like one long “April Fools joke.” He called it the biggest joke of his life. So while Josh may share the same memories as Melissa, Melissa has made it very clear she would prefer not to ever think about Josh.  According to my brother’s wife, even hearing the name Josh makes them feel like they’ve been “punched in the stomach.”

This is why when you Google Bruce Jenner, you only get articles about Caitlyn. There is no Bruce. Bruce is gone. This is the story of everyone who falls under the spell of the trans cult. Their old life along with its past memories slowly disappear—first online and then everywhere else. I cannot find a single trace of the years my brother Josh spent on social media, even though he had a decade’s worth of Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram posts. He’s gone.

This is why my mother looks through photos from my brother’s wedding 18 years ago, lamenting, “He was such a handsome man.” That man has made it clear to us that he is no longer alive. Only Melissa and whichever memories she chooses to incorporate into her narrative are living now.

Read Part 3.

The Cult of Transgenderism: My Brother’s Crisis of Identity in an America Gone Mad

by Lisa

November 12, 2019

The Abandonment of Reality and the Embrace of the “True Self”

*Editor’s Note: This is Part 1 of a 6-Part Series. The author of this true account, a wife and mother of three, wishes to remain anonymous. All names in this account have been changed.

Last year, my brother Josh, a 37-year-old married father with five kids under the age of 9, announced he was becoming a woman.

His wife, in turn, announced that she not only plans to stay married, but that she is “more proud of him” than she’s ever been. Actually, she said she is “more proud of her than she’s ever been.” That’s because my brother Josh changed his name to Melissa and now requires everyone to use “she/her” pronouns when referring to him. If the grandparents refuse to do this, they have been threatened with limited access to their grandchildren.

My brother and sister-in-law claim that through several years of therapy, they came to realize the truth: that Melissa was Josh’s “true self” all along.

Thus, my tall, handsome, muscular brother began taking strong female hormones that transformed him into a different person. His facial hair stopped growing. He grew breasts instead. As part of his “social transition” he began wearing dresses, wigs, heels, and makeup in public. He will have to stay on female hormones until the day he dies. He refuses to answer to the name Josh now—the only name anyone’s known him as for almost four decades. He says Josh is dead. There was even some type of symbolic “burial ceremony” to say goodbye to Josh once and for all. Unfortunately, I didn’t get invited to that. Nor did my parents. No one sent us flowers. No one dropped off a casserole.

Basically, the best way to describe what happens when a loved one decides to swap genders is this: It’s as though someone murders your loved one and then the murderer gets extremely angry if you won’t let them take the victim’s place in your family.

My family and I are now called “transphobic” for not embracing Melissa with open arms.

When I told my brother, “I’m sorry…I love Josh, but I cannot move forward with this new Melissa girl,” he simply texted me: “So long then.” So long to almost 40 years of relating as siblings. So long to weekly dinners at my parents’ home. So long to our kids growing up with their cousins. But I do not fault him or his wife for this. They are victims. They have been brainwashed by the trans cult. It all began with a therapist’s advice and ended with lifelong payments to the trans medical machine. There’s lots of money to be made in telling people to become the opposite gender. Lots. (More on that later.)

Oddly, even in this #MeToo era, American culture now tells me that my brother—who’s spent 37 years as a Caucasian male—now deserves the same rights and respects that I, an actual woman, deserve. I’m a woman who’s been sexually harassed hundreds of times in my 40 years of life. My brother was a star high school athlete who had his pick of girls to date. While I was fending off unwanted stares and groping hands of males in my 20s, he was enjoying all the perks of being just such a male in the 21st century. While I was giving birth to three babies who will grow up to be women in my 30s, he was joining the fight to get legal access to their public restrooms.

See, if my brother was claiming to be an alien or a time traveler instead of a woman, our culture would never support it. But since it’s 2019 and the denial of reality when it comes to biological sex is en vogue—countless people are blindly embracing Melissa as my brother’s “True Self.” Even though reality clearly proves my brother is male, people unabashedly deny reality out of fear of being called “intolerant.” They’re terrified of being lumped in with all the “Trump-supporting, LGBTQ haters.” They say things like, “If Josh tells us that this Melissa is actually his ‘true self,’ who are we to argue?”

The “True Self” has become the final measure of all things. Every book we open, every show we watch, every internet meme we read suggests we can all attain greater levels of health and peace through a deeper understanding and expression of our “True Self.”

It sounds so right. How can it be wrong?

In his book The Road to Character, David Brooks explains that back in the day, there was something called moral realism—a worldview that put an emphasis on human sin and human weakness. Biblical figures like David and Moses were seen as great leaders who were also deeply flawed. Augustine and the early church fathers talked constantly about the depravity of sin and the need for grace. Then around the 18th century, moral realism found a rival in moral romanticism. Romantics like Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized the inherent goodness of man and rejected the concept of sin.

Fast forward to the 20th century when books like Rabbi Joshua Liebman’s New York Times best seller Peace of Mind (published in 1946) urged people toward a new morality based on the idea that you should never repress any part of yourself as sinful. Instead, you should “love yourself” and not be afraid of your hidden impulses. Humanist psychologists ran with this idea. They began arguing that the primary problem for humans was no longer sin, but rather the fact that we weren’t fully accepting of ourselves exactly as God made us. This line of thinking led to the advent of the self-esteem movement in 1969, and the core of that movement morphed into what Charles Taylor calls “The Culture of Authenticity.” That’s the culture we’re contending with today.  

The central belief of the culture of authenticity goes something like this:

At the center of every one of us is a Golden Figure known as “the True Self.” The True Self can always be trusted. You know that what you’re doing is right when you feel an inner peace inside your True Self. You know that what you’re doing is wrong when you do not feel inner peace inside your True Self.

Because the True Self is inherently good, there is no sin to be found in it. Thus, sin is now found only in the external structures of society that seek to repress the True Self or stop it from fully emerging.

Previous generations believed the development of character and the road to salvation came by struggling against the desires of the True Self. This is why traits like selflessness and self-sacrifice were considered most admirable. But not anymore. Our culture now has a new “salvation”—with the True Self playing the role of redeemer. 

The steps to this “new salvation” are as follows:

  1. Relinquish any previous struggle you had against your True Self.
  2. Allow your ego/shadow self to fall away so your True Self can fully emerge without any guilt or shame (both of which are constructs of old, outdated religious systems).
  3. Adopt a new lexicon in which words like “sin” and “evil” now refer to the external constructs of society that caused you to doubt your True Self was good and perfect in the first place. (Thus, the only real sin a man is now capable of engaging in is the sin of intolerance.)

Yet many influential thinkers of the past, including John Stuart Mill, believed the point of life was to struggle every day to sacrifice the True Self on the altar of care and concern for others. This is done by achieving a series of small, inner victories against your own desires because you know that acting upon those desires could result in dire consequences for others.

Because we are all bound together through our good and bad choices, the smallest decisions we make today can negatively impact everyone in our sphere of influence, even reaching forward into generations to come. Thus, we build character by a thousand selfless acts of restraint every day that no one ever sees or applauds.  

Our society once believed this sort of self-restraint was the best way to live. Men and women were encouraged to exercise self-restraint in building a life of integrity. But the ideals of selflessness and self-restraint are now seen as hopelessly outdated and must be discarded in favor of the True Self.

Read Part 2.

The Real “Fairness for All” is Freedom from Government Coercion

by Peter Sprigg

September 12, 2019

Concerns about religious liberty are one of the chief obstacles to passage of “non-discrimination” laws that would make “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (“SOGI”) into protected categories at the local, state, and federal level. Only 20 of the 50 states have enacted SOGI protections for both employment and public accommodations, and a comprehensive (and radical) federal bill, the Equality Act (H.R. 5), has stalled in the Senate since its passage in May by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.

Utah Rep. Ben McAdams, a Democrat who voted for the Equality Act, recently told that state’s Deseret News that he thinks the bill “still needs work”—and he supports a so-called “compromise” called “Fairness for All.” The theory is that both “LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights” and “religious liberty” could be protected by enacting a single bill that includes both SOGI protections and religious exemptions.

The model for “Fairness for All” proposals at the federal level is the “Utah compromise” that was adopted by that state’s legislature in 2015. It added SOGI protections to the state’s nondiscrimination laws regarding employment and housing (public accommodations were omitted), while creating exemptions for religious non-profit organizations and protections for some employee speech.

Unique factors in Utah—notably, the power and influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which endorsed the “compromise”—make it doubtful whether this approach could be replicated elsewhere. LGBT groups at the national level seem determined to press forward the existing Equality Act, which contains no religious liberty protections and explicitly strips away those that might be asserted under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Nevertheless, because some may be tempted to believe that such a “compromise” provides a “win-win” solution in the clash between LGBT rights and religious liberty, it is important to reiterate why we believe this would be a serious mistake.

First, the fundamental presumption behind “Fairness for All” is that there is a balance or symmetry between “rights” or “protections” for people who identify as LGBT and “rights” or “protections” for people of faith. This is a fallacy. The “free exercise” of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but there is no provision of the Constitution that references sexual orientation or gender identity.

The fundamental rights found in the U.S. Constitution—such as freedom of speech and the press and the free exercise of religion—do not place any limits on the actions of private individuals and organizations; on the contrary, they protect such actions against interference by the government. “Civil rights” laws that bar discrimination in employment and public accommodations, however, do not merely limit the government; they place a restriction upon the action of private entities (such as small businesses) in carrying out their private activity.

There is a place for non-discrimination laws (especially regarding characteristics that are clearly inborn, involuntary, and immutable, such as race). However, the burden of proof in every case must rest on those who seek to increase the number of categories or characteristics protected under such laws. That’s because the extension of laws against private discrimination is less a “win-win situation” than a “zero-sum” game. When one (such as an employment applicant) wins more protection, another (the employer) actually loses a corresponding measure of freedom.

The most publicized cases highlighting the clash between LGBT non-discrimination laws and religious liberty in recent years have involved businesses in the wedding industry that are owned and operated by Christians who prefer not to participate in the celebration of same-sex weddings. (Although one such business, Colorado’s Masterpiece Cakeshop, won an important decision at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, the decision was on narrow grounds and did not settle this area of the law.) It is not clear that religious liberty protections in any proposed compromise legislation would protect these businesses.

The wedding industry cases are by no means the only context in which this conflict arises, however. There have been cases challenging the right of Christian adoption agencies to decline to place children with same-sex couples; cases where Christian counseling students were punished for declining to affirm and support homosexual relationships; and cases in which Christian employees of government agencies were fired for privately expressing disapproval of  homosexual conduct. It is not clear that any of them would be protected by such “Fairness for All” proposals.

Further, “gender identity” protections would undermine the rights of organizations and businesses to set dress and grooming standards or have separate private spaces (e.g., in bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, dormitories, etc.) for biological men and women. These rights stand ready to be compromised by “Fairness for All” proposals.

Family Research Council believes that combining religious liberty and special privileges for sexual orientation and/or gender identity (SOGI) is unsustainable, for three primary reasons.

1)      It is wrong, in principle, to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories, because they are unlike historically protected categories such as race. Historically, protections were reserved for characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, and innocuous, such as race, and/or in the U.S. Constitution (such as religion). None of these criteria apply to the choice to engage in homosexual conduct or the choice to present one’s self as the opposite of one’s biological sex.

2)      There is no religious exemption that would be acceptable to LGBT activists and would also be adequate to fully protect against all the likely threats to religious freedom.

3)      Non-discrimination laws always implicate moral beliefs. They send the message that it is morally wrong to disapprove of homosexual or transgender conduct. For such laws to be endorsed by citizens who believe that it is morally wrong to engage in homosexual or transgender conduct is a logical contradiction.

What would truly reflect “Fairness for All” would be to reject SOGI laws containing special privileges, and allow real religious liberty—the freedom to hold to one’s personal beliefs and to act on them without government interference or coercion.

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
Archives