Why do some people recklessly repeat statements ad nauseam which are, in the end, simply not true? Because for many, the means justify the ends. Some people will believe anything if it is repeated enough, allowing proponents of claims such as those made about Mississippi’s HB 1523 to see them increasingly accepted as true. Unfortunately, this does not help our increasingly fractured society get along, but only cements intolerance toward many well-meaning Christians — who themselves would never act in such bad faith toward those who disagree with biblical truth.Since HB 1523’s challengers lost before the 5thCircuit after they were not able to show how the law injured them, they have now appealed to the Supreme Court — and have recklessly mischaracterized the circumstances surrounding this law in doing so.
Their petition opens by absurdly arguing that the religious exemptions in HB 1523 “demean” and “stigmatize” same-sex couples and deny them equal treatment under the law (ostensibly, because such exemptions allow some to withhold their approval of such conduct). In the petitioners’ view, “[t]hat is precisely the harm that Obergefell sought to rectify.”
This line of reasoning misleadingly implies that HB 1523 somehow was designed to undercut Obergefell. It wasn’t. The law simply provides exemptions for those whose consciences are implicated by Obergefell — which can be followed consistent with HB 1523; same-sex marriages are still fully treated the same by the state of Mississippi as other marriages. Just as objections to military service and abortion have long been protected in law despite fitting the petitioners’ notion of a “particular” religion (notably, the petition never really addresses these areas), the law can provide conscience exemptions in other areas too.
Nevertheless, the petitioners continue to try to condition the reader to the “goodness” of Obergefell and the nefarious nature of any religious objections to it (notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s own recognition to the contrary) — the warm sounding yet nebulous “promise” of Obergefell is discussed, HB 1523 is alleged to “repudiate central aspects of petitioners’ lives, families, and identities,” and the law is an “attempt to use religious exemptions to undermine rights to equality and dignity of LGBT people.” Even the Masterpiece case is subtly equated with “state attempts to limit Obergefell by creating unprecedented religious exemptions.”
Christians are trying to live with Obergefell, and just protect their own conscience by not being forced under penalty of law to celebrate something that is clearly contrary to scripture. Yet instead of trying to find a reasonable middle ground, opponents of HB 1523 are forging ahead and asking the Supreme Court to take this case with the help of none other than former Obama Solicitor General Donald Verilli — who famously admitted at oral argument in Obergefell that religious institutions that disagree with same-sex marriage could lose their tax-exempt status.
Those supporting HB 1523 and similar legislation might disagree with Obergefell, but they are not trying to change the ruling — they are just trying to protect themselves in the face of it. If only those who support Obergefell and disagree with HB 1523 would do the same.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/101117_transscotus_770x400-e1507764055572.jpg362640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2017-10-11 19:22:002017-10-11 19:22:56The Supreme Falsehoods of HB 1523 Opponents
Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.
The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”
Here are four of the report’s most important conclusions:
The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.
Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.
Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.
Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.
McHugh, whom the editor of The New Atlantis describes as “arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century,” is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. It was during his tenure as psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins that he put an end to sex reassignment surgery there, after a study launched at Hopkins revealed that it didn’t have the benefits for which doctors and patients had long hoped.
Implications for Policy
The report focuses exclusively on what scientific research shows and does not show. But this science can have implications for public policy.
The report reviews rigorous research showing that ‘only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.’
Take, for example, our nation’s recent debates over transgender policies in schools. One of the consistent themes of the report is that science does not support the claim that “gender identity” is a fixed property independent of biological sex, but rather that a combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely shape how individuals experience and express themselves when it comes to sex and gender.
The report also discusses the reality of neuroplasticity: that all of our brains can and do change throughout our lives (especially, but not only, in childhood) in response to our behavior and experiences. These changes in the brain can, in turn, influence future behavior.
This provides more reason for concern over the Obama administration’s recent transgender school policies. Beyond the privacy and safety concerns, there is thus also the potential that such policies will result in prolonged identification as transgender for students who otherwise would have naturally grown out of it.
The report reviews rigorous research showing that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” Policymakers should be concerned with how misguided school policies might encourage students to identify as girls when they are boys, and vice versa, and might result in prolonged difficulties. As the report notes, “There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.”
Beyond school policies, the report raises concerns about proposed medical intervention in children. Mayer and McHugh write: “We are disturbed and alarmed by the severity and irreversibility of some interventions being publicly discussed and employed for children.”
They continue: “We are concerned by the increasing tendency toward encouraging children with gender identity issues to transition to their preferred gender through medical and then surgical procedures.” But as they note, “There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents.”
Findings on Transgender Issues
The same goes for social or surgical gender transitions in general. Mayer and McHugh note that the “scientific evidence summarized suggests we take a skeptical view toward the claim that sex reassignment procedures provide the hoped for benefits or resolve the underlying issues that contribute to elevated mental health risks among the transgender population.” Even after sex reassignment surgery, patients with gender dysphoria still experience poor outcomes:
Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about five times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.
Mayer and McHugh urge researchers and physicians to work to better “understand whatever factors may contribute to the high rates of suicide and other psychological and behavioral health problems among the transgender population, and to think more clearly about the treatment options that are available.” They continue:
In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex. … Better research is needed, both to identify ways by which we can help to lower the rates of poor mental health outcomes and to make possible more informed discussion about some of the nuances present in this field.
Rather than respect the diversity of opinions on sensitive and controversial health care issues, the regulations endorse and enforce one highly contested and scientifically unsupported view. As Mayer and McHugh urge, more research is needed, and physicians need to be free to practice the best medicine.
Stigma, Prejudice Don’t Explain Tragic Outcomes
The report also highlights that people who identify as LGBT face higher risks of adverse physical and mental health outcomes, such as “depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and most alarmingly, suicide.” The report summarizes some of those findings:
Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.
Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41 percent, compared to under 5 percent in the overall U.S. population.
What accounts for these tragic outcomes? Mayer and McHugh investigate the leading theory—the “social stress model”—which proposes that “stressors like stigma and prejudice account for much of the additional suffering observed in these subpopulations.”
But they argue that the evidence suggests that this theory “does not seem to offer a complete explanation for the disparities in the outcomes.” It appears that social stigma and stress alone cannot account for the poor physical and mental health outcomes that LGBT-identified people face.
One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about five times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.
As a result, they conclude that “More research is needed to uncover the causes of the increased rates of mental health problems in the LGBT subpopulations.” And they call on all of us work to “alleviate suffering and promote human health and flourishing.”
Findings Contradict Claims in Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling
Finally, the report notes that scientific evidence does not support the claim that people are “born that way” with respect to sexual orientation. The narrative pushed by Lady Gaga and others is not supported by the science. A combination of biological, environmental, and experiential factors likely account for an individual’s sexual attractions, desires, and identity, and “there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation.”
Furthermore, the scientific research shows that sexual orientation is more fluid than the media suggests. The report notes that “Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80 percent of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults.”
These findings—that scientific research does not support the claim that sexual orientation is innate and immutable—directly contradict claims made by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in last year’s Obergefell ruling. Kennedy wrote, “their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment” and “in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”
But the science does not show this.
While the marriage debate was about the nature of what marriage is, incorrect scientific claims about sexual orientation were consistently used in the campaign to redefine marriage.
In the end, Mayer and McHugh observe that much about sexuality and gender remains unknown. They call for honest, rigorous, and dispassionate research to help better inform public discourse and, more importantly, sound medical practice.
As this research continues, it’s important that public policy not declare scientific debates over, or rush to legally enforce and impose contested scientific theories. As Mayer and McHugh note, “Everyone—scientists and physicians, parents and teachers, lawmakers and activists—deserves access to accurate information about sexual orientation and gender identity.”
We all must work to foster a culture where such information can be rigorously pursued and everyone—whatever their convictions, and whatever their personal situation—is treated with the civility, respect, and generosity that each of us deserves.
Our society and traditional values are at a crossroads. Gender issues and the decline of marriage and family stability is threatening society.
Sensitivity and political correctness are infecting our culture and reshaping our society. Government overreach into our families, local communities, and churches threatens our ability to live productive and free lives.
That is why it is our mission to ensure you receive accurate, timely, and reliable facts impacting our society today. Culture wars dominate the news, and for good reason.
The Daily Signal gives you the facts so you can form opinions, make decisions, and stay informed. And to do that we report clear, concise, and reliable facts impacting every aspect of society today.
We are a dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts funded solely by the financial support of the general public. And we need your help!
Your financial support will help us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and ensure you have the facts you need (and can trust) to stay informed.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/fake-news-1-e1485601063541.jpg360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2017-09-03 07:46:172017-09-04 07:11:30Almost Everything the Media Tell You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong
Tommy discussed Gays Against Shariah Rally in Manchester, announcing the march that will shed light on Islam’s teachings on homosexuality — and call out the Left and LGBT community on their silence and betrayal.
Gays Against Shariah and Gay Conservative Forum “The Outright” will be protesting in Manchester on June 10, 2017. They will be meeting at Manchester Piccadilly railway station between 11:00 am and 1:45 pm for a march starting at 2:00 pm. Visit their event page for all the finalized details of the rally. (Visit Tommy on Twitter at @EnglishTommy1).
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/UK-Flag.jpg383640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2017-05-03 06:39:142017-05-03 06:42:53VIDEO: Gays Against Islamic [Shariah] Law Rally in Manchester
The takeaway from this unprecedented war against our very way of life is “Islam is peace.”
This jihadi’s brother is serving life for plotting to behead a poppy-seller or a police community support officer on Remembrance Sunday.
JIHADIST HAROON SYED ADMITS PLANNING TO ‘BOMB ELTON JOHN CONCERT’ ON 9/11 ANNIVERSARY
A JIHADIST WHO PLOTTED A NAIL BOMB ATTACK AT AN ELTON JOHN CONCERT IS FACING A LIFE SENTENCE.
By John Twomey, The Express, Apr 27, 2017:
The teenager wanted to cause carnage on the scale of the 2005 London bombings which claimed the lives of 52 innocent victims.
Syed first opted for a devastating machine gun attack, the Old Bailey heard. But he switched to a homemade bomb with “lots of nails inside” when he failed to raise the cash to buy automatic weapons.
Syed also planned on targeting shoppers in Oxford Street
Searching the internet for likely targets, he singled out Elton John’s gig in London’s Hyde Park.
The brothers must make this bomb really strong. It has to be powerful
The concert, on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the US, was attended by 50,000 people. Syed’s brother Nadir, 24, is serving life for plotting to behead a poppy-seller or a police community support officer on Remembrance Sunday 2014.The teenager’s evil plan was thwarted by an MI5 spy who posed as a fellow extremist who could help him get hold of weapons and bombs.
Using the alias Abu Yusuf, the undercover officer chatted to Syed via an encrypted messaging service and later met him.Syed considered martyrdom but decided to slaughter as many people as possible with a remote-controlled bomb. He handed over £150 to Yusuf at a meeting in August last year and said: “The brothers must make this bomb really strong. It has to be powerful.”The MI5 man told Syed the device would be ready to collect in a few days, the court heard.Syed claimed he was addicted to violent computer games and treated the gun or bomb attack as a fantasy.Sfirst opted for a machine gun attack but then switched to a homemade bomb.
He claimed he never had any intention to carry out a terror attack and only wanted to see “how far it would go”.He accused undercover officers of entrapping him.Judge Michael Topolski, QC, yesterday refused an application by defence lawyers to exclude evidence gathered through his conversations with Yusuf from his forthcoming trial.His ruling prompted Syed, of Hounslow, west London, to plead guilty to preparing a terrorist act.He will be sentenced next month.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/haroon-syed-admits-planning-to-bomb-elton-john-concert-on-9-11-anniversary-797552.jpeg350640Pamela Gellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPamela Geller2017-04-29 06:41:052017-04-30 19:15:12Muslim plot to ‘bomb Elton John concert’ on 9/11 anniversary
Christopher Barron is one of the few brave gay voices in this country who will speak out against jihad and sharia. I have worked with Barron and know the intense criticism a gay person suffers from the totalitarians, goons and thugs on the left when he/she stands against gay-hatred under Islam.
Forget the bathroom war — anti-gay Islamic extremists are the real threat
By Christopher R. Barron, The Hill, March 30, 2017:
In April of 2016, former South Carolina Governor, and current United Nations Ambassador, Nikki Haley (R) said this about whether her state needed to pass legislation similar to North Carolina’s HB2,
“I don’t believe it’s necessary…. When we look at our situation, we’re not hearing of anybody’s religious liberties that are being violated, and we’re again not hearing any citizens that are being violated in terms of freedoms.”
Almost a year later, as the bathroom wars wage on, Haley’s words ring even truer. And as we watch this farce play out, a real — and deadly — threat to the lives of LGBT people across the globe, the threat of Islamic extremism, continues to grow.
The genesis of the bathroom wars was the passage, by the Democratically-controlled Charlotte, North Carolina City Council, of legislation expanding the city’s non-discrimination policy to include LGBT people.
Also included in the legislation was a controversial provision that gave transgendered residents of the city the right to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with regardless of their actual physical gender.
The provision had been so controversial that its inclusion had caused the legislation to fail just a year before, and members of the North Carolina legislature and the Governor himself urged the Charlotte city council not to include it.
The Democratic-controlled city council included the controversial provision because they wanted a war. They banked on the Republican-controlled legislature in North Carolina overreaching in their response — and that’s exactly what happened.
In March of 2016, Republicans in the North Carolina legislature took the bait and passed HB2. As expected, and at the urging of social conservatives, the legislature did more than simply nullify the controversial provision — they instead chose to create their own statewide bathroom law barring transgender people from using the bathroom of the gender they identify with. Even worse, they further nullified all city ordinances, across the entire state, that granted protections to LGBT individuals.
It was the over-reach the left had been hoping for.
After being on the losing end of the culture war for decades, the left in this country finds itself increasingly on the offensive – now that public opinion has changed on issues like LGBT acceptance and equality.
As the prevailing winds have changed, the same people on the left who rightfully told us how immoral it was to use LGBT people as political pawns now gleefully do the same.
This new bathroom front in the culture wars comes at a devastating cost to the economy, the taxpayers and the families of North Carolina.
After passage of HB2, the NCAA and the ACC announced they would move their college championship events out of the state. The NBA announced it was moving its previously scheduled All Star game from Charlotte to New Orleans.
Dozens of businesses — from PayPal to Deutsche Bank — announced they were cancelling expansions in the state. In the first few months after HB2’s passage, it was estimated the state lost nearly $400 million. A recent Associated Press estimate put the total losses for North Carolina’s economy — if HB2 isn’t repealed — at a staggering $3.76 billion.
Predictably, the bathroom wars haven’t been contained to just North Carolina. The Charlotte City Council’s actions and the North Carolina legislature’s response have sparked similar battles across the country.
While the faux battle over bathrooms rages on, a real war on the lives of LGBT people is being waged by Islamic extremists who have pledged the global elimination of LGBT people. Just this week, ISIS released photos of extremists in the Iraqi city of Mosul throwing a gay man to his death from the top of a building in the city.
Horrifically, the incident is not an isolated one.
And that kind of violence, as we know all too well after the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, is not simply happening in territory controlled by ISIS.
It is time that LGBT people stop being used as political pawns, it is time that we end the farcical bathroom wars and, most importantly, it is time to focus on the real threats to the lives of LGBT people worldwide.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/gay-sharia-afdi-apartheid-ad-e1491084424686.png385640Pamela Gellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPamela Geller2017-04-01 18:08:452017-04-01 18:11:07Gay leader: Forget the bathroom war — Islamic extremists are the real threat
John Stemberger, founder of On My Honor, Chairman of the Board of Trail Life USA, and President of the Florida Family Policy Council released the following statement in light of the Boy Scouts of America’s announcement that they would be allowing transgender boys (biological girls who want to become boys) to enroll in scouting programs:
“This is a profoundly sad but inevitable decision on the part of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). The “key three” leadership of the BSA assured its membership less than four years ago when they voted to allow openly gay boys in the program that this would never happen. Now untold thousands of boys in Scouting will be directly exposed to the serious psychological confusion that is characterized by those claiming to be transgender. As a society, we should have great compassion for children suffering from gender dysphoria while getting them proper counseling and professional help. Instead, the BSA is encouraging and facilitating a recognized mental disorder that has far reaching consequences to the health and safety of children.
Recently, the American College of Pediatricians released a formal position paper entitled “Gender Identity Harms Children” urging those working with children ‘to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex.’
Further, knowing that boys and biological girls will be showering, dressing and camping in tents together creates a clear child protection issue which is being ignored. It’s simply stunning that a leading youth organization which parents entrust the protection of their children with has opted to again appease political activists rather than follow clear, common-sense best practices for child protection.”
In light of this decision, parents across America are even more grateful for Trail Life USA, the distinctly Christian scouting organization for boys and young men, which focuses on adventure, character, and leadership in its 700 troops in 48 states across the country. Trail Life CEO Mark Hancock responded to the decision by saying, “Trail Life USA is saddened to see this decision by the BSA. We assure our members and chartering organizations that we are committed to the timeless Biblical values affirmed in our Statement of Faith and Values.”
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/boy-scout-gay-flag-e1485860631707.jpg395640Florida Family Policy Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFlorida Family Policy Council2017-01-31 06:04:442017-01-31 06:05:49Boy Scouts of America Decides to Allow Transgendered Boys [Girls] to Enroll in Scouting Programs
A sign posted at University of Kansas Libraries spells it out.
“Because gender is, itself, fluid and up to the individual,” the sign says, according to the Lawrence Journal-World. “Each person has the right to identify their own pronouns, and we encourage you to ask before assuming someone’s gender. Pronouns matter! Misgendering someone can have lasting consequences, and using the incorrect pronoun can be hurtful, disrespectful, and invalidate someone’s identity.”
Now some library employees are wearing buttons that announce their preferred gender pronouns, the Journal-World reported.
The “My pronouns are” buttons come in three versions: “He him his,” “She her hers” and “They them theirs” — the latter for those who don’t identify as male or female, the paper said.
What is most queer is the University of Kansas statement that “gender is, itself, fluid and up to the individual.”
Upon reading this article Brit Hume from Fox News posted the below tweet:
The definition of foolishness is “lack of good sense or judgment; stupidity.” This is what the University of Kansas is teaching our youth, to lack good sense and be stupid.
But the University of Kansas has foolish champions in the field of sociology, one of them being Dr. Zuleyka Zevallos. Dr. Zevallos is an applied sociologist and is the publisher of the Other Sociologist blog. Zevallos explains the difference between sex, gender and sexuality using the below infographic:
Dr. Zuleyka Zevallos
Note the foolishness in the Zevallos infographic. Let’s take each statement and analyse it:
Sex are “biological traits that society associates with being male or female.” Truth: sex is determined by science, DNA and the laws of nature, not society.
Gender is “cultural meaning attached to being masculine & feminine, which influence personal identities.” True in part. Culture and society is based upon science, DNA and the laws of nature, which by definition, associates gender with a person’s sex at birth. What is wrong is Zevallos listing “transgender, intersex, gender queer, among others” in the Gender category. The only two words that belong under Gender are man and woman.
Finally, Zevallos get it right when she defines sexuality as a choice a “sexual attraction” and “practices which may or may not align with sex and gender.” Sodomy is a choice. Sodomy in mutable. One’s sex and gender are immutable.
To believe that one can choose one’s gender is indeed foolish and believing that gender is fluid can be dangerous for the individual, a culture and society in general.
Biology, science and genetics, and therefore society/culture, are all in agreement that a male is in fact a male and a female is in fact a female. Changing one’s appearance does not change one’s sex. Believing one is something he or she is not is the definition of foolishness.
Homosexuals have been looking for any genetic reason for their behaviors. A person who changes their sex is violating biology, science and genetics. Homosexuality is a choice, one that does not demand special rights, rather homosexuals require treatment for their abnormality.
A new study should convince academics and the general public that there is no “homosexual gene.”
Two distinguished scholars at Johns Hopkins University have released a lengthy, three-part report concluding that there’s not sufficient evidence to prove homosexuals and transgenders are born in that condition – in other words, there is no “gay gene.”
“The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings – the idea that people are ‘born that way’ – is not supported by scientific evidence,” states the executive summary.
“The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex – that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence,” it adds.
“Homosexual activists have been desperate to try to say they’re ‘born that way’ because they believe this absolves them of their moral responsibility for their sexual behavior,” he shares. “And they know that if the public believes that people are – quote – ‘born gay,’ then the public is much more accepting of homosexual activism. And that’s exactly what we’ve seen in the culture.”
LaBarbera argues that the culture is getting false information from liberal academics and liberal media that present the “gay gene” theory as truth when study after study confirms there’s no such thing.
“I think the evidence is becoming so overwhelming that there is no gay gene that even liberal-minded academics are forced to concede this point,” he adds. “The homosexual lobby and a lot of people in it banked on the gay gene theory to win sympathy. It worked … but the evidence continues to mount against that theory.”
The 143-page report recognizes a corollary between same-gender attraction and sexual abuse as a child.
The Johns Hopkins experts also emphasize that sexuality is fluid – which means homosexuals can change; and many have, mostly through Christ. Seevideo summary below:
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men made up an estimated 2% of the population but 55% of people living with HIV in the United States in 2013. If current diagnosis rates continue, 1 in 6 gay and bisexual men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime, including 1 in 2 black/African-American gay and bisexual men, 1 in 4 Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men, and 1 in 11 white gay and bisexual men.
Gay and bisexual men accounted for 83% (29,418) of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total estimated new diagnoses in the United States.
Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 92% of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group and 27% of new diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men.
Gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 54% (11,277) of people diagnosed with AIDS. Of those men, 39% were African American, 32% were white, and 24% were Hispanic/Latino.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/gay-gene.jpg370640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-08-23 15:53:052016-08-27 11:27:40VIDEO: John Hopkins Study -- 'Gay gene'? No scientific evidence for it!
With reports of dead bodies and excrement floating in the water, the threat of Zika and the Russian doping scandal, the Rio Olympics appears the Frankenstein of athletic events. And now Rio seems dopey in another way: owing to political correctness, a runner with, reportedly, no womb or ovaries but internal testes will be allowed to compete with women.
This person is South African middle-distance competitor Caster Semenya. I wrote of Semenya in 2009, back when Semenya (I’m not satisfied that Semenya is female, so henceforth I’ll refer to the runner not with pronouns but as “CS”) was an 18-year-old phenom who’d just set a record while winning a world title, dusting female opponents in the process. These outstanding results, along with CS’s masculine physique, caused suspicion and led to tests to determine the athlete’s sexual status.
Now, I’d predicted that CS would be found to have internal testes. It wasn’t just the runner’s results and physique, which looked much like that of an 18-year-old boy. CS’s voice is so deep that a sportswriter who conversed with the runner on the phone said “I thought I was speaking to a man”; in addition, CS has masculine facial structure and very boyish mannerisms (video here; forward to 1:30). It was obvious from the get-go this was no normal individual.
When the predictable sex-test results came in showing CS was a hermaphrodite, the athlete was suspended, and I’d supposed that CS’s running days were over. Thus was I shocked to learn, just recently, that the South African would be competing in the Rio Olympics. They say CS is a shoe-in for a gold medal.
It turns out that CS’s suspension was temporary; the runner was again allowed to compete under the condition CS take female hormones to counterbalance CS’s testosterone levels, which were more than three times that of a normal woman.
This female hormone therapy, not surprisingly, had caused CS’s results to decline markedly, and the runner stopped making headlines. But now CS is back and, apparently as testosterone fueled as ever, has returned to CS’s previous form.
The issue is that the International Association of Athletics Federation’s (IAAF’s) rules limiting “the amount of naturally occurring functional testosterone for female athletes were suspended last year,” wroteEurosport. The reason? Get this: the site reports that “the Court of Arbitration in Sport [ruled] that the IAAF had insufficient evidence to back up the belief that excessively high levels of natural testosterone produced exceptional performances by women….”
So just ignore the man behind the curtain (or is it really a man?). It’s pure coincidence that when boys the world over reach puberty and their testosterone kicks in, they rapidly develop muscle mass and become dramatically more powerful; it also must be coincidence that in the rare cases of boys with conditions that prevent their entering puberty, this doesn’t happen. And perhaps now we can rescind rules prohibiting the use of steroids — artificial male hormones — because, hey, is there really any “proof” they enhance athletic performance? This all reminds me of noted feminist Camille Paglia’s incredulity at how dunderhead 1970s feminists would corner her on college campuses and insist that hormones didn’t exist and, even if they did, there’s no way they could influence behavior. And the Left calls conservatives unscientific?
Yet the political-correctness-induced irrationality surrounding this case doesn’t end there. The AP’s Gerald Imray writes, in a statement as foolish as it is fashionable, “Nobody can dictate to Semenya what gender she is.” Yet the issue here isn’t “gender.” Note that the psychobabblers who co-opted the term (it once was used almost exclusively in reference to words) and birthed the “gender” agenda tell us that “gender” and “sex” are not synonymous. The latter is a biological classification — and thus objective — while “gender” is subjective; it’s a person’s perception of what he is. The male/female division in sports, however, is based on sex. And when making objective judgments affecting everyone, one individual’s subjective (mis)judgments are irrelevant.
Imray also writes, “Opponents of the testosterone rule pointed to the natural advantages of other athletes that aren’t regulated, such as Usain Bolt’s fast-twitch muscle fibers, Michael Phelps’ big wingspan and former cyclist Miguel Indurain’s huge lung capacity.” But IAAF consultant Joanna Harper, expressing some rare common sense, “explained that sports competitions don’t have categories for athletes with slow twitch, short arms or small lungs,” Imray informed. Yet we do have separate categories for men and women.
So what we’re witnessing here is sophistry. If you believe division based on muscle fibers, arm length or lung capacity is warranted, lobby for it; if you think the male/female division is as silly as the old Negro Leagues, lobby to have it eliminated. But if we accept its legitimacy, then the central rule distinguishing the category must be observed.
Related to this, one argument of those opposing the “testosterone rule” is that as with height, strength or lung capacity, CS’s elevated testosterone level is a “naturally occurring advantage.” True. But here’s another “naturally occurring advantage”: being male. So why not let men compete in women’s sports? Oh, because then they wouldn’t be “women’s sports”? Exactly.
And this brings us to the point. My belief is that everyone is either male or female and that any confusion is the result of abnormalities; of course, today’s politically correct view is that sex is a “continuum” and that people such as CS are “intersex.” But if a continuum and nothing else exists, there can’t be the designation “female” — and then it makes no sense to have “female” sports. But if the designation is something real, then not only is the women’s sports classification lent legitimacy but also the rule distinguishing it: that it’s limited to women.
So what of the curious case of Caster? With a vagina but no womb or ovaries and undescended testicles (they normally descend into a boy’s scrotal sac during intrauterine development), CS could be an abnormally developed male. After all, CS certainly is in the male category in at least one respect: the runner is attracted to women and has a “wife.” And while knowing whether CS has an XY chromosome configuration would be instructive, political correctness prevents thorough examination of such matters; thus, a genetic test either hasn’t been conducted or its results haven’t been revealed. Then there’s the fashionable view that, as NY’s Daily Newsput it, “Caster Semenya…is a woman …and a man”; or, as the activists may say, is “intersex.” But this admission alone should close the case: it’s “women’s sports,” not “women’s and people in-between’s sports.” Definitions define — and limit. And if having internal testes doesn’t disqualify you from women’s athletics, what does?
This case speaks volumes about our time, in that it reflects the attack on the concept of normalcy. Because one to two percent of people are hermaphroditic or suffer with some other sexual abnormality, so-called experts contend that “defining sex is difficult,” as if 98 percent consistency isn’t enough to indicate normality. Speaking of which, what of that comparison between height or lung-capacity advantages and CS’s condition? Well, here’s a clue: height, lung-capacity and other qualities mentioned are normal variation. Having internal testes isn’t normal, not any more than is spina bifida or Down syndrome.
Yet as abnormal as conditions such as CS’s are, they now won’t be so rare in Rio, where, says IAAF consultant Harper, there may be “an all-intersex podium in the 800 [meter].” “Women’s” sports?
And that’s the irony: in a sense, liberalism gave us women’s sports. Now liberalism is taking them away.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Caster-Semenya-rio-olympics.jpg355640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2016-08-06 16:36:012016-08-07 07:17:59Athlete with No Womb or Ovaries but Internal Testes Will Compete with Women in Rio
I have written that Democratic Party policy is now being driven by three unlikely minority groups: the Collectivists (Socialists and Communists), the Homosexualists (both gay and straight) and the Islamists (those who follow the teaching of Mohammed).
It appears that these three forces came together in Dallas, Texas to slaughter police officers andother innocents. The leader of this Black Lives Matter protest was a gay man named Jeff Hood, who dresses link a Sunni Muslim.
Each of these groups are being given special status by President Obama and his administration. They now feel empowered to do whatever they need to take control. For you see this is all about control.
Jeff Hood, the organizer of the July 7th Dallas Black Lives Matter rally is a homosexual Islamist who calls himself a Christian pastor. To provide proper context– in 2015, after Americans protested the CAIR organized “Respect the Prophet” event in Dallas, Jeff Hood said: “I think that Texas Muslims are the real Christians.”
After the Paris attacks, he wrote a blog entry about “The Call of the Muslim Jesus” sympathizing with the Islamists and ISIS who are marginalized by society. He wrote:
“In our Islamophobic society, I have no question that Jesus is so intimately incarnated with and connected to our Muslim friends that he has become one. If we want to walk with Jesus in this moment of extreme oppression and marginalization, we will too.”
Along with this post, Hood advocates that Jesus converted to Islam– and posted a picture of Jesus as a Muslim…
5 Dallas officers slain, deadliest day for police since 9/11.
Breitbart Newsalso reported that the alleged pastor wanted to create a space for violence:
Breitbart points out that in a June 18 website post, Hood referred to Jesus being present to “Keep blowing sh#@ up baby!” He led a worship service about which he described:
Just this past week, I felt the hands again. One by one, the children of God at the Church at the Table in Fort Worth stopped to affirm and celebrate my ministry. In the midst of the reverence of it all, Jesus showed up. One of my dear friends shouted out, “Keep blowing shit up baby!” I will. Amen.
On his website, BelieveOutLoud, Hood describes himself as “the author of three books, The Queer: An Interaction with The Gospel of John, The Queering of an American Evangelical and The Sociopathic Jesus. A Southerner, Queer, and Christian, Jeff is a committed activist, visionary writer and radical prophetic voice to a closed society.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/jeff-hood.jpg517638Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-07-09 05:48:202016-07-10 05:55:12Organizer of Dallas BLM rally a 'gay Islamist' who wanted to 'create space for rage'
Since your election to the Florida House of Representatives in 2012 until now, I have always known your reputation as a legislator to be one of nothing but respect for the dignity of the institution, for the legislative process and for your fellow colleagues. Even those who firmly disagree with you on matters of public policy speak highly of you, of your talents as a legislator and the unique perspective you bring to the process.
However, after the tragic and despicable acts of evil which took place right down the street from my offices in Orlando on June 12, I was shocked to learn of your repeated statements accusing your fellow legislators of creating an environment that gives rise to such horrible violence when they speak out against any LGBT bills as bad public policy in the Legislature.
After the local NPR affiliate interviewed you, WFSU issued this report:
“Florida’s only openly gay legislator says Orlando’s mass shooting is an example of a deranged individual taking anti-gay political rhetoric to the, “next level.” Democratic Representative David Richardson of Miami Beach says attempts by religious conservatives to roll back recent gains in gay civil rights encourages extremists… “[P]eople who are prone to committing violent acts are emboldened by speeches that they hear from policy makers that want to roll back our advances.”
When I respectfully confronted you on another NPR affiliate radio debate for linking vocal opposition to new LGBT laws with violent acts such as the ones that occurred in Orlando, you initially denied these statements– until I read your words back to you on the air. Then, instead of retracting or apologizing for these irresponsible remarks, you doubled down and repeated the same very offensive and incorrect argument again. In that interview you said,
“I absolutely do think that people are emboldened, by the comments of certain lawmakers whether they are reacting in a violent way…”
While I realize the matter of the Orlando shooting and the topic of creating new LGBT rights are still raw, emotional, and highly personal matters for members of the LGBT community, this in no way justifies these inflammatory remarks which do nothing to foster good will, understanding or collegiality among fellow members of the Legislature, much less the general public. On the contrary, your comments breed divisiveness, sow discord and are an attempt to manipulate and silence robust debate among the other elected leaders of our Legislature on these important policy decisions.
Additionally, you have also stunningly stated:
“It doesn’t help when they go to Tallahassee and spew hatred and rhetoric that is harmful to our community. I really wish we could get to a place where everyone can get along and respect the rights of everybody.”
I personally know many of the members of the Legislature who are known to be the most vocal and the most actively opposed to these bad gay-rights bills.
I have been in some of their homes.
I know their families.
None of them, even in private or casual conversation, make comments that “spew hatred” toward the LGBT community. On the contrary, these are truly some of the finest, most loving and charitable people you could ever know. Do you have specific examples of Florida legislators “spewing hatred” when debating in opposition to the creation of new LGBT rights?
The primary push by gay-rights activists after the Orlando tragedy, as you know, is the so-called “Competitive Workforce Act” (CWA) which seeks to create a new legal protected class for sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. These laws are being used all across the country as weapons to punish Christians who want to live out their constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion in public life without government interference. Even more egregiously, this CWA bill would also allow fully biological men to freely use women’s locker rooms and showers in any facility declared a public accommodation like YMCA’s, camps, LA Fitness & health clubs and domestic violence shelters. This is a gross invasion of privacy, safety and security for women. The more serious problem created with the CWA has not so much to do with transgendered persons themselves, as it does with actual criminals (voyeurs, sex offenders and pedophiles) who are looking for excuses to go into women’s intimate spaces, which the latest version of this bill would unquestionably allow.
These are just a few of the many legitimate and compelling public policy and constitutional problems which compel legislators to speak out publicly and strongly oppose the CWA. For you to argue that when any legislator speaks out in debate against this dangerous bill they are “spewing hatred,” “encouraging extremism” and “make people prone to violent acts” is simply beyond the pale of decency for a member of the legislative branch of government.
Rep. Richardson, this sir– is not your finest moment.
Is there a way to disagree on these policies and not be judged as hateful or contributing to creating an environment of terror? If we cannot disagree in civility without being slimmed with such accusations, then our civil society has a real problem.
Unless you can provide real examples of such “hateful” behavior, rather than talking about it in generalities, you should stop making these assertions. It is not helpful to this important debate, it is manipulative and pollutes the work we are hopefully both committed to, namely building a better Florida, even in the midst of our disagreements.
You have correctly stated that, “it does not help when [people] go to Tallahassee and spew rhetoric that is harmful.” If you really mean that, please start by reexamining and reconsidering your own harmful words directed to your own colleagues and do not confuse “robust debate” with “hateful rhetoric” just because you disagree.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Richardson.jpg385640Florida Family Policy Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFlorida Family Policy Council2016-07-06 10:32:072016-07-06 10:43:32An Open Letter to Florida’s Only Openly Gay Legislator
Department of Defense Secretary Ash Carter has issued instructions to all military branches that transgender people may now join the military and serve openly as to what gender they identify with and those currently serving may disclose themselves without any repercussions, or problems. This paper is to bring to light that women, who identify as men, are looking to do a man’s job in the military.
The transgendered women who desire to become an artilleryman will face strength challenges. It is not so much as opening a powder canister, or screwing on a fuze, it is the lifting of the round itself (97.7 lbs, 155mm). Also, setting the weapon up for “action”, takes a lot of physical effort from swinging a sledge hammer, to a lot of pushing and pulling.
The person who loads the Howitzer is required to have the leg and upper body strength that is required to lift and chamber the round. The method of chambering a round is done hydraulically, if the Howitzer is self-propelled, manually, if towed, but the rest is the same.
The infantry is quite different. These people go on patrols, engage the enemy and they do this with an 80 pound rucksack on their back. The infantryman’s upper body must be in top form. They must also be able to carry their wounded to safety. This means carrying the weight they have and the wounded soldier’s weight and equipment. Women who transgender to men, can they fulfill these tasks which are primarily designed for men?
Secretary Ash Carter has said the military will pay for the sex re-assignments. Exactly, how does this fit into the roles of the military? It has no defense purposes and it hinders the purpose of being combat ready. Secretary Carter among other politicians are pandering and costing the taxpayers frivolous amounts of money by pandering to special interest groups. The statement of frivolous amount of money is really not frivolous at all. These surgeries are in excess of thirty to forty thousand dollars. Also, to find the cadaver is an expensive process in itself.
Secretary Carter does not understand the term, “lost time”. If a woman is re-assigned to be a man and if they are a member of the combat forces of the military, it may take them a year or better to return to normal duty status. This results in lost time. The taxpayer is still paying the person for a job they cannot do and it results in extending their enlistment to have the person do the work that needed to be done in the first place. Since Secretary Carter has allowed this, our armed forces will experience more lost time than ever before.
Due to the physical nature of the Army and the Marines, the ground combat forces will lose an insurmountable number of people to the Air Force and the Navy. While these two services have their own special combat operations, these two services are more technical within their job structures and do not rely as much with boots on the ground.
The Army and the Marines constantly rely on the physical aspects of getting the job done. Women who transgender to men every element of standards must be reduced to accommodate these transgenders. We must remember the women who participated in the Marine Combat Officers program. They were cut because they failed the requirements of the course. In the end, the combat arms element of the Army and the Marines will suffer great loses. The standards will be so far degraded a 5-year old will pass the requirements necessary to become an artilleryman, or an infantryman.
Men who transgender to women is not a primary concern of this paper because of the nature of the military; any job in the military can be done by a man.
Any job in any branch of the armed services that requires the physical element of their job and each service will face a myriad of lost time when a transgender undergoes sex re-assignment. Besides the cost of doing the re-assignment, it will cost the taxpayer in lost time wages because the healing process of this surgery may take up to two years for a full recovery and depending on the pay grade of the individual, the taxpayer can expect to pay out around $50,000 a year, or more in lost time wages, then expect to pay that much after the individual returns to full duty status. Because of the stupidity of Secretary Ash Carter, he has cost the American taxpayer more money that is required to support the military personnel in the performance of their duties.
Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner maybe the poster child for transgenderism, but this is an apples/oranges conversation. Jenner’s situation is that of a civilian. No military service member can be equated to Jenner’s position, or vise-versa. Every person in the military must maintain their fitness for duty and what Secretary Carter has done is allowing this to destroy the main purpose of the military which is to train and maintain their combat readiness for war.
We must also look at the possible disability status if something like this goes wrong. If a person becomes injured in some way during the course of their service to the country, on a normal basis, a disability claim can be made. If, one of these re-assignment surgeries goes wrong and it fails, the taxpayer will be on the hook for disability compensation. We as taxpayers must look at this as an elective surgery, not as a necessity. Look at this surgery as an elective it will have the propensity of releasing the taxpayer from all liabilities that are incurred from this surgery.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/transgender-military-e1467715507660.jpg360640Lloyd Beckerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLloyd Becker2016-07-05 06:46:112016-07-05 07:27:29U.S. Secretary of Defense Carter and Transgenderism
“You fundamentally can’t change sex… Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists,” said former “transsexual” Alan Finch in 2004. This is a truth; however, it has not stopped the advocates of an invented status from trying to change society,” writes Selwyn Duke in his column Missing the Point on the “Transgender” Bathroom Wars.
This is about socially reengineering society — about changing hearts and minds —by legitimizing made-up sexual statuses.
Transsexualism is a belief system, a dangerous one to both the individual and to society. President Obama has made it his mission to further Transsexualism and put American women and little girls at risk, both culturally and physically.
The American College of Pediatricians warns educators and legislators that “a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex” is dangerous for children.
In a strongly worded statement issued today, the professional association of pediatricians says “a person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.” It describes such thinking as problem that exists in the mind and not the body and “it should be treated as such.”
The college of pediatricians is joining a heated debate that increasingly pits concerned parents against school teachers, administrators, legislators, and transsexual advocates who are pushing the trans agenda in grade-schools, city governments, state governments, and the federal government.
Heather Clark reported, “A lesbian lawmaker [Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham] in Alabama suggested this week that the real safety threat for children is not men who identify as female using women’s restrooms, but faith leaders in churches and teachers in schools.”
This is Transsexualism writ large.
George Orwell wrote:
Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
Fr. Paul Scalia is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Va. He serves as the Bishop’s Delegate for Clergy.
Three times in his speech at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, Cardinal Sarah described gender ideology [Transsexualism] as “demonic.” More recently, Oklahoma City’s Archbishop Coakley used the same word addressing the issue. So did Bishop Paprocki of Springfield regarding gay marriage. A strong word, to be sure. But most people misunderstand why. Some take “demonic” for mere hyperbole. Something is not just bad, but really, really bad. Others see it as rash judgment of opponents – literally demonizing them. Still others take it as just an overstatement by religious fanatics, who are unhinged anyway.
But “demonic” is a sober and sobering assessment of the thought behind gender ideology. It’s not a judgment of people’s intentions. It doesn’t mean that those who endorse gender ideology are demonic or possessed. It means, rather, that the reasoning and results of that philosophy – no matter how innocently held – line up with the desires, tactics, and resentments of “Old Scratch” himself.
Satan and the damned in The Last Judgment by Giotto (di Bondone), 1306 [Cappella Scrovegni, Padua]
Gender ideology repeats the basic lie of the evil one: “You will be like gods.” (Gen 3:5) Of course, this lie lurks behind every temptation. Every sin comes from that prideful desire to supplant God. But in the arena of human sexuality, it has greater gravity.Read more.
Duke concludes with the following warning:
Unfortunately, the once-closeted is now exalted while the ethereal is closeted. Today we hear that “faith is a private matter,” a profoundly silly statement, while private matters are made public. If one’s faith is a lie, he should dispense with it; if it is the Truth, which is universal, there then is nothing private about it. And as we confuse the public with the private, Christianity is expelled from the public sphere and now even the private one, with businessmen told they can’t live their own faith in their own business.
And that’s what happens when closets aren’t used for the right things.
Is it time to put Transsexualism back into Pandora’s box? It it time to tell the truth?
2013:Cleric Sheikh Sekaleshfar gives a televised sermon at the Husseini Islamic Center Mosque of Sanford, FL. He says about homosexuality: “Death is the sentence. We know there’s nothing to be embarrassed about this, death is the sentence…We have to have that compassion for people, with homosexuals, it’s the same, out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.”
February 2015: Vandals set fire to a Church in Melbourne, Florida, spray paint “Allahu Ackbar” and a swastika.
May 2015: Boca West Country Club cancels a Palm Beach Republican Party dinner because controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is an outspoken opponent of Islam, had been invited to speak. They cited “safety concerns.”
September 2015: Police arrest 20-year old Joshua Goldberg in Jacksonville for a plot to bomb a 9/11 memorial. According to court documents Goldberg claimed to be in Australia and supporting ISIS, despite living in his mother’s basement in Florida.
EDITORS NOTE: Eleven of the nineteen hijackers on 9/11/2001 lived in Florida. Florida is mention over 50 times in the 9/11 Commission Report. Terrorist and terrorism is part of the Sunshine State.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/florida-flag.jpeg360640Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2016-06-17 15:24:012016-06-17 19:07:54Terrorism in Florida: A Timeline From 2003 to 2016
In an unprecedented move, an Oregon judge has allowed a so-called “transgender” man to legally change his sex from female (he had previously been allowed to choose female) to “non-binary.” It’s newsworthy enough to have made it to Drudge, but even that fact doesn’t do justice to the grave threat presented by Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Amy Holmes Hehn’s ruling.
I’ll cut to the chase. Even if you accept the legitimacy of “transgender” status (more on this later), here’s what must be understood:
Psychologists and transgender activists do not say “sex” and “gender” are synonymous.
Rather, they often take pains to point out — sometimes quite dogmatically — that “sex” is a biological distinction while “gender” is a psychological one. As MedicalNewsToday.com wrote in March, “In general terms, ‘sex’ refers to the biological differences between males and females, such as the genitalia and genetic differences. ‘Gender’ is more difficult to define but can refer to the role of a male or female in society (gender role), or an individual’s concept of themselves (gender identity).” You can find essentially the same definitions at Monash University’s website and numerous other places.
Even the man who petitioned Judge Hehn for the “sex change,” a fellow going by the name “Jamie” Shupe, has in so many words acknowledged the above. As The Oregonianreports, “I was assigned male at birth due to biology,” Shupe said. “I’m stuck with that for life. My gender identity is definitely feminine.”
Judge Hehn is clearly operating far above her pay grade. Like most people, she apparently views “gender” as a synonym for “sex,” oblivious to the evolution (or devolution) of the term and concept.
Up until relatively recently, “gender” was mainly used in grammar, pertaining to the categories into which words are divided, such as masculine, feminine and neuter. It was not traditionally used in reference to people.
This started to change with the now discredited quack psychologist Dr. John Money. In 1966, he originated the debunked “gender neutrality” theory and appears to have been the first person to popularize the application of “gender” to people. Even so, such usage of the term didn’t really catch on until the last 20 or 25 years.
And what was the purpose of this language manipulation? You couldn’t convince people many decades ago that there were more than two sexes, because that there are only two was rightly cemented in their minds. The biological distinction was the only thing people conceptualized and accepted. But “gender” was the perfect term as it included more than two categories: masculine, feminine and neuter. And thus did we see an attempt at the 1995 Conference on Women in Beijing to adopt language stating that a family could comprise up to five “genders”: male heterosexual, female heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian and bisexual (the attempt failed owing to Vatican opposition). Of course, that’s now old hat — the shape-shifting libertines now define scores of “genders.”
But no matter. Once the term caught on and most everyone accepted that a person could have “gender” — and once a minority had accepted that there could be more than two — the next step was to add to the concept the notion that a person could be “transgender” and transition from one to another. It’s incrementalism; step by step, inch by inch.
And now that even more people have accepted the fluidity of “gender” and virtually everyone confuses the term with “sex,” we’re witnessing the next step: the attempt to eliminate the concept of the biological distinction itself. The idea is that there will only be “gender,” and “sex” will just be a term describing what you do with a sentient biped (in most cases) who, hopefully, won’t transition in the middle of the act.
So first was just the correct concept of “sex” (biological), then the introduction of a new concept, “gender” (perception of what a person is). Then there was the confusion of the two terms attended by the expansion of the new concept and advent of another new concept, “transgender.” Now, with the terms long viewed as synonyms, we’re seeing the attempted elimination of the concept of “sex.” And just as the man on the street mindlessly adopted the term “gender,” expect to see a concerted effort to eliminate the term “sex’s” use in the legal realm.
And the proof is in the pudding. Note that among the more than 60 “genders” now imagined by the sexual revolutionaries is “cisgender,” whose definition is, “denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their [sic] biological sex; not transgender.” In other words, normality is now listed as just one of scores of flavors of the day along with abnormality. In this way of “thinking,” it’s no better to be a normal woman than a cross-dresser masquerading as a woman. So the first step was to try to normalize the abnormal, and now the effort is on to “denormalize” the normal.
Do you now see why I and a few others warned, for years and years and years and years, that we shouldn’t use the word “gender” in reference to people or embrace any aspect of the Lexicon of the Left? The side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate.
As for Judge Hehn, I doubt she’s sophisticated enough to understand any of the above. She likely was just operating on misconceptions and emotion. But as former “transsexual” Alan Finch said in 2004, “You fundamentally can’t change sex. … Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.” No, you can’t change sex. You don’t have “gender” unless you’re a word. And you shouldn’t be able to change sex in legal documents, either. You are what you are.
Judge Hehn’s ridiculous, destructive ruling should be overturned if possible, and she should be removed from the bench. Judges who can’t separate fact from fiction, emotion from reason or, even, boys from girls, need to be playing with blocks, not with our laws.