Posts

BOOM: Exxon Prohibits LGBTQ, BLM Flags Outside Corporate Offices

The proof is the pudding or in this case, the numbers.

Report: Exxon Prohibits LGBTQ, BLM Flags Outside Corporate Offices

By Breitbart News, April 23, 222:

Exxon Mobil Corp. does not intend to fly an LGBTQ flag in front of corporate offices in June during pride month, according to a report.

Bloomberg News reports having seen a new Exxon company policy that prohibits “external position flags,” including the LGBTQ and Black Lives Matters flags, from being flown in front of corporate offices. “Instead, the rule permits a flag representing an LGBTQ employees’ group that does not prominently feature Exxon’s corporate logo,” according to the outlet.

The move has sparked outrage among the company’s PRIDE Houston Chapter, as members of the group are now declining to represent the company in the city’s June pride celebration, according to Bloomberg.

“Corporate leadership took exception to a rainbow flag being flown at our facilities” last year, stated employees in the group in an email. “PRIDE was informed the justification was centered on the need for the corporation to maintain ‘neutrality.’”

Exxon Vice President of Human Resources Tracey Gunnlaugsson provided Bloomberg News with a statement on the matter, which reads in part:

The updated flag protocol is intended to clarify the use of the ExxonMobil branded company flag and not intended to diminish our commitment to diversity and support for employee resource groups. We’re committed to keeping an open, honest, and inclusive workplace for all of our employees, and we’re saddened that any employee would think otherwise.

Of the company’s roughly 63,000 employees around the globe, 3,000 are part of Exxon’s pride employee resource group, according to Bloomberg News.

RELATED ARTICLE: Disney Has Lost $50 Billion In Value Since Woke War With Florida

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.

Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

CORPORATE PEDOPHILIA: Massive Protests Outside Disney After Meeting Leaked Of ‘Gay Agenda’ To Indoctrinate Children

Disney is a pedophile company.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Disney’s Business Model is Turning Kids Into Dysfunctional Adults | FrontpageMag

DeSantis broaches repeal of Disney World’s “special privileges” self-governing status in Florida

Disney Removes Use of “Girls” and “Boys” May Kill “Prince” and “Princess”

DeSantis: Disney ‘crossed the line’ for criticizing Parental Rights in Education bill

A Letter from Concerned Disney Employees…..

‘This Is Huge’: FOUR Woke Disney Employees Arrested in Human Trafficking Operation

Disney Sexualizes Little Kids As “Woke” CEO Bob Chapek Advocates For Sex Ed And Transgenderism in Kindergarten

NOT THE ONION: Disney World Cancels ‘Boys and Girls’ Greeting to Be ‘More Inclusive’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

With Americans Unable to Buy Gas, Biden Wants to Spend $2,600,000,000 on Global Gender Equality

Americans are struggling to pay for gas, buy bread and meat, but the progressive regime always has money to burn on its political causes.

President Biden will request $2.6 billion for foreign assistance programs that promote general equality worldwide, he announced on International Women’s Day on Tuesday.

How about promoting the ability of Americans to work, eat, drive, and be able to pay their bills?

“Ensuring that every woman and girl has that chance isn’t just the right thing to do — it’s also a strategic imperative that advances the prosperity, stability, and security of our nation and the world,” Biden falsely claimed.

No, moving money to assorted leftist international groups is not a strategic imperative for America, just for the Left.

It has nothing to do with our “prosperity, stability, and security”.

If Biden wants to aid our “prosperity, stability, and security,” he can start by stopping the spending machine so that inflation doesn’t eat Americans alive.

And if he wants to help women, he can stop smelling their hair, groping them, and sexually assaulting them.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s Handlers Want Skyrocketing Gas Prices. The EPA Just Revealed Why.

Saudi Crown Prince: ‘I do not care’ what Biden thinks

Saudi Arabia, UAE won’t lower oil prices unless Biden works with them in Yemen

Saudi, UAE leaders refuse Biden’s calls about the Ukraine crisis

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

The Red, Green, Black and Rainbow Supremacists in America

“We are trained Marxists.” – Patrisse Cullors, Black Lives Matter Co-founder.


QUESTION: Who are the true supremacists in America?

We know that the true supremacists in America label anyone and everyone who disagrees with them white supremacists, even if they aren’t white.

The true supremacists in America are associated with the colors: red, green, black and rainbow. Let us explain how the supremist domestic terrorist threat is multi-color, radical followers of Mohammed, non-binary (gender-queer), multi-cultural and multi-generational.

The Reds are Marxists/Leninists. The Greens are Islamists and the radical environmentalists. The blacks are Black Identity Extremists (BIE or BLM). The rainbows are the LGBTQ+ anti-science and anti-social extremists. What binds them together is the Democrat Party.

This eclectic group of supremacists are indeed strange bedfellows.

They are the epitome of the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In fact they are enemies of one another who have come together for one goal and one goal only, to destroy America’s unique Constitutional Republican form of government.

The Red Supremacists

The Reds fall under three categories:

  1. The Squad, the most radical members of the U.S. Congress. The six members of the Squad are Democrats: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY-14, Ilhan Omar (MN-5), Ayanna Pressley ( MA-7), Rashida Tlaib (MI-13), Jamaal Bowman (NY-16) and Cori Bush (MO-1). These individuals have lead the charge to push the Green New Deal, which has become the cornerstone of Biden’s BBB agenda, demonize Israel, embrace Iran and the Palestinians, embrace the LGBTQ+ agenda and attack white people. On July 18th, 2019 we wrote, “There is no doubt that the narrative of the Democratic Party is being driven by freshmen (no misogyny intended) Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley…The Squad felt empowered by then President [Trump] to take action to defend themselves. What has happened is that they have confirmed what President Trump tweeted [about them]. What follows is this Squad then works to control of the narrative of the Democratic Party. They instantly become the face of the Democratic Party via social media, news networks and headlines in print publications.” What we predicted has come true.
  2. Supporters of Communist China. We are looking at Communist China, not because of what Hunter Biden did there, but because his father is in full blown appeasement mode to kowtow to the Chinese when it comes to Taiwan and the South China Sea. Since the end of the Olympics China has ramped up its pressure on Taiwan. The  in an April 16th 2020 article warned, “Amid coronavirus upheaval, the Chinese government’s evasion and deception has remained constant. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) alone is responsible for the global pandemic and resulting consequential economic devastation. However, if the medical community had been skeptical of the totalitarian regime –and the World Health Organization (WHO) had not aggressively defended it –the outbreak may not have spread. Taiwan, kicked out of the WHO in 2017 at Beijing’s behest, was denied access to WHO data. Taiwan’s successful containment of coronavirus was an alternative possibility for the rest of the world; had Beijing’s reports been challenged instead of accepted…The most important CCP objective is to maintain control. Ultimately the party does not care about human rights, or even human lives. To protect itself, the Chinese regime suppressed life-saving information at the cost of 22,071 American lives, a number projected only to grow.”
  3. Supporters Russia and Putin. The Democrats and the Biden administration began by cutting our domestic oil and natural gas production and by doing so has turned the energy keys to Europe over to Putin and this has directly lead to the invasion of the Ukraine. Craig Rucker during a talk in Virginia said, “Efforts to go net zero have diminished the ability of nations to provide sufficient energy to meet demand, and this gives tyrants like Vladimir Putin an opportunity to provide that energy in the form of natural gas and rake in millions to fund his war machine.” Marc Morano took Biden to task on Fox and Friends explaining,  “Russian oil imports are at an 11 year high. We’re importing 600,000 barrels a day from Russia. And Russia’s federal budget is 40% based upon oil and gas revenue.” Finally we have seen Russia produces 3 times more gas than Europe produces.  Why?  Because climate activists, partly funded by Russia, blocked fracking.

Walt Disney appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1947. He warned about how his company and America was at risk of a Communist take over. Watch:

The Greens

The greens fall into two categories, the radical followers of Mohammed and the radical environmentalists. This combined green alliance, along with the Reds, has caused the following:

  1. Democrats and the Biden administration appeased the Muslim members of the party by taking a harsh stand against Israel and the Jewish people. On February 16, 2022, Biden killed the Israeli Pipeline Project thus empowering Russia’s energy dominance in Europe. According to The Hill, “The proposed pipeline would have given Europe an alternative to its heavy dependence on Russian gas. It would have conveyed about 10 billion cubic yards of Israeli and Cypriot natural gas to Europe via Greece and Italy each year.”
  2. The Radical Environmentalists. One of the first things Biden, via a January 20th, 2021 Executive Order, is kill the Keystone XL pipeline to appease the environmentalist lobby. The Executive Order titled “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis” effectively undid everything President Trump did during his time in office to make America energy independent, encourage drilling in Alaska, providing cheap and reliable energy to the American people and give leverage to America in negotiations with other oil and natural gas producing countries like Russia.
  3. Giving Iran the Green Light to go Nuclear. It was announced by the Russians that the U.S. and Iran have reached a nuclear deal. National Review on March 4, 2022 reported, “President Joe Biden vowed this week to isolate Russia, yet his negotiators stayed at the table with their Russian counterparts in Vienna, putting the finishing touches on an Iran nuclear deal 2.0 that will benefit Russia and Iran and endanger the U.S. and its allies. The new agreement is even worse than the 2015 deal made by the Obama administration. Biden’s version would lift U.S. terrorism sanctions on Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and leave Tehran’s illicit nuclear infrastructure intact without first demanding a full accounting of Iran’s secret nuclear work.” Death may finally be coming to America solely because of Biden’s appeasement of the mullahs.

The Blacks

Democrats continue to appease Black Identity Extremists (BIE). Black Identity Extremists were identified by the FBI as a threat to our national security. A report published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on August 3rd, 2017 stated, “The FBI assesses it is very likely that BIEs’ perceptions of unjust treatment of African Americans and the perceived unchallenged illegitimate actions of law enforcement will inspire premeditated attacks against law enforcement over the next year. This may also lead to an increase in BIE group memberships, collaboration among BIE groups, or the appearance of additional violent lone offenders motivated by BIE rhetoric. The FBI further assesses it is very likely additional controversial police shootings of African Americans and the associated legal proceedings will continue to serve as drivers for violence against law enforcement. The FBI assesses it is likely police officers of minority groups are also targeted by BIEs because they are also representative of a perceived oppressive law enforcement system.” Black Identity Extremists include Black Lives Matter, which was co-founded by a self-identified Marxist, some members of the Democrat Black Caucus and black members of the Biden administration and cabinet.

On September 29th, 2020 wrote:

The organization Black Lives Matter (BLM) is not about black lives. BLM is a Marxist organization disguised as a civil rights organization. Instead of improving race relations, BLM exploits racial tensions to collapse America from within and replace our constitutional republic with socialism/communism. BLM is the ultimate humanitarian hoax being perpetrated on unsuspecting Americans who still believe that BLM cares about black lives. They don’t.

Patrisse Cullors, Black Lives Matter Co-founder, said, “We are trained Marxists.”

The Reds and Black are all in this together.

The Rainbows

The Rainbow LGBTQ+ agenda. The LGBTQ+ radicals have many friends in the Democrat Party, the White House and in the Biden Cabinet. We did a series on how Biden, Democrats and the media have sissyfied America. Biden’s Gay Cabinet includes, Karine Jean-Pierre Kamala Harris’ chief of staff, Pili Tobar deputy White House communications director, Denise Juneau, Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation and Rachel Levine a four star general and the Assistant Secretary for Health. Non-binary, a.k.a. gender queer, individuals are running the Biden Build Back Better agenda and pushing public policies and legislation that empowers gays over straights. These individuals are harmful to traditional families and anti-Muslim, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.

Watch Woke Trans Activism = Communist Revolution:

Watch this video in which the globalists proclaim that “transhumanism” will eliminate free will and souls as if its a good thing:

The Rainbow LGBTQ+ agenda is anti-science, anti-feminist, anti-women’s rights and anti-social.

What is ironic is that those Democrats who are Muslim, Jews and Christians have fully embraced the LGBTQ+ agenda that has sissyfied our young men and put cis-gender males into women’s sports, on movie screens, in the Biden cabinet and in the Congress. Sodomy is a sin in all religions. Sin is now rising and has become a tsunami because of Democrat policies.

Watch Florida Governor Ron DeSantis take on this issue head on:

The Bottom Line

The current cancel culture/cultural war against America is Red, Green, Black, and Rainbow.

These minority groups have taken control of the Democrat Party and have lead to the election of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

You see the danger to America is not Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a Biden presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Biden, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.

Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Biden, who is, after all, merely a fool. The Republic is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

The Last Free-Thinker in Corporate America

This week brought the story of a courageous woman who sailed against the prevailing winds blowing through corporate America.  Jennifer Sey was ousted from her position as president of Levi’s for her outspokenness against school closures and mask mandates.  The company offered to make her CEO if she would just shut up.  When that didn’t work, they offered her a million dollar severance package in exchange for her silence.  She refused, in order to be free to speak her mind.  She told a news show:

“Well, for me, this whole thing [Covid-19 public health measures] has culminated [into] really being about the silencing of dissent and really not being able to hold a viewpoint that is outside whatever the mainstream narrative is – the ‘orthodoxy.’ I was very outspoken that closed schools were harming children – in my city, San Francisco, and in cities across the country – and that seemed like a very sensible position to me. It seems folks agree with that now, but it was unacceptable and I have to be able to say that. 

I don’t think schools would be open if parents like me weren’t saying that all along. So it’s a broader issue in the culture – it’s not a Levi’s issue, it’s not specific to Levi’s – the silencing of dissent is [a widespread issue].”

She pointed out that the Levi’s brand stands for rugged individualism, which suggests the company has turned its back on its long-held values.

There’s a lot of that going around these days, as corporate America has gone woke.  The latest examples include M&M’s going genderless, green for example losing the high heels and sultry voice.

Brother printers giving pro-LGBT books to preschoolers in Memphis.

Kraft Peanut Butter promoting preferred gender pronouns to kids.

Disney seeking to “transform culture” with its woke diversity and inclusion program.  Disney, it seems these days, never misses an opportunity to gratuitously insert a gay character into what is supposed to be family entertainment.  Critics call it ‘rainbow capitalism’.

American Express rolled out what is now standard issue Critical Race Theory training for its employees full of the usual microaggression and privilege blah-blah.  Workers are being told capitalism is inherently racist and, therefore, they are engaged in racist activity every day they show up for work.  CRT derives from Karl Marx whose goal was to replace all private companies with state ownership of the means of production.  I wonder if American Express executives know that.  I also wonder if woke corporations regret their contributions to the trained Marxists of Black Lives Matter now that its leadership has disappeared and $60 million has gone missing.

Then there’s Bed Bath & Beyond dropping MyPillow because they didn’t like Mike Lindell’s politics or his lack of confidence in election results, a view which just happens to be shared by one out of three Democrats.

The Kellogg Foundation is bankrolling a $500 a month guaranteed basic income to hundreds of illegal aliens in New Mexico. That’s a lot of corn flakes.

Don’t get me wrong. I like free markets. So do what you want.  If you want to play at left-wing activism instead of building shareholder value, fine.  Whatever sells.  If your soul sells, sell that, too.  Just don’t ask me to support you or buy your products when you’ve shown your contempt for me and millions like me on the political Right.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Florida House Committee Passes Bill Banning Gender Ideology Discussions In Schools

A Florida House committee passed a bill banning discussions about gender ideology and sexual orientation in primary level classrooms on Thursday.

The House Education and Employment Committee overwhelmingly passed the ”Parental Rights in Education Bill,” also known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, to prohibit teachers from discussing LGBTQ-related issues with primary level students. The legislation intends to protect the “fundamental rights of parents” to choose what their children are taught.

“A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students,” the bill states.

The legislation allows for a parent to pursue “declaratory or injunctive relief” against a school district that violates the new rules. The court may award parents attorney fees and court costs in the midst of the legal action.

The bill also requires school administrators to notify parents if there are any changes to a student’s “mental, emotional, or physical health or well being.” School personnel will be required to encourage students to openly talk with an adult about their wellbeing and are prohibited from withholding any information regarding their child’s physical and mental wellbeing from the parents.

The bill was introduced by Republican Florida state Sen. Dennis Baxley, who said the legislation “defends” a parent’s responsibility, according to The Hill.

“This bill is about defending the most awesome responsibility a person can have: being a parent,” Baxley said. “That job can only be given to you by above.”

Chasten Buttigieg, husband of transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, called out Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for allegedly making his state a difficult place for LGBTQ children to “survive in.”

“This will kill kids, @RonDeSantisFL. You are purposefully making your state a harder place for LGBTQ kids to survive in,” Buttigieg said. “In a national survey (@TrevorProject), 42% of LGBTQ youth seriously considered attempting suicide last year. Now they can’t talk to their teachers?”

A separate Trevor Project study found that LGBTQ students learning about the issue resulted in a 23% drop in suicide attempts last year. The Trevor Project’s director of advocacy and government affairs, Sam Ames, said the bill will harm LGBTQ students.

“This bill will erase young LGBTQ students across Florida, forcing many back into the closet by policing their identity and silencing important discussions about the issues they face,” Ames said. “LGBTQ students deserve their history and experiences to be reflected in their education, just like their peers.”

Jon Harris Maurer said teachings about sexuality and gender identity is “prejudicial” and insults LGBTQ students or those with LGBTQ parents. He argued that those that support the bill cannot call themselves “allies of the LGBTQ community.”

The bill requires the Department of Education to review and update school counseling, professional conduct principles and other guidelines to ensure they are in accordance with the new regulations by June 30, 2022.

COLUMN BY

NICOLE SILVERIO

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

K-12 Schools Bringing In Drag Queens To Teach Gender Ideology

Virginia’s Parents Revolted Against CRT In Schools. This Is What Their Kids Were Being Taught

Subverting Society by Replacing Biological Sex with Sodomy

Nebraska radical curriculum derailed after pressure by parent’s group

This transgender ‘folly’ is going to collapse, just as Eugenics did

“This very, very complex thing is being over-simplified,” says a world expert on the transgender phenomenon.


Dr. Paul R. McHugh is University Distinguished Service Professor in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, where he served as Director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1975 to 2001.

In a distinguished career that began with his training at Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Dr. McHugh has taught at Cornell, the University of Oregon, and since 1975 at Johns Hopkins. He was the co-creator of the Mini Mental States Examination, one of the most widely used tests of cognitive function, and he sponsored the work that resulted in The 36-Hour Day, a bestselling guide for families and caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s and other dementia conditions.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Dr. McHugh and Dr. Phillip R. Slavney published The Perspectives of Psychiatry and Psychiatric Polarities, which may be said to have embodied the tenets of the influential “Hopkins School” of the discipline. For the wider public, Dr. McHugh has published on psychiatry — both its findings and its failings — in The American Scholar, First Things, Commentary, Public Discourse, the Weekly Standard, and The New Atlantis. His books for general readers are The Mind Has Mountains (2006), a collection of his essays, and Try to Remember (2008), which concerns his role in debunking the “recovered memory” fad in psychotherapy. In 2015, the Paul McHugh Program for Human Flourishing was established in the Johns Hopkins Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.

I note that Dr. McHugh is not Professor Emeritus at Johns Hopkins, which is worth remarking upon because this week he turns ninety years old. He is still a full-time faculty member in the university’s school of medicine — teaching, mentoring psychiatry students, and caring for patients. We spoke on Monday after he had spent the morning in the psychiatry department’s weekly grand rounds.

Matthew Franck: In Psychiatric Polarities, you and Phillip Slavney wrote that “mental life is dependent on the brain. … Yet mind and brain are not identical. Indeed, they are so different that the nature of their relationship is the fundamental mystery in psychiatry and the source of many of its conflicts.” Would it be fair to say that the successes of modern psychiatry stem from work that recognises this mysterious relationship of mind and brain, while its failures stem largely from therapeutic interventions that ignore this mystery or try to explain it away?

Paul McHugh: I think that mystery remains a great mystery, but is perhaps best resolved at the moment by seeing mental life as an emergent property of the brain. It emerges from it, but it doesn’t emerge as smoke; it remains an interactive process.

There are some aspects of human disorders and human mental life that depend upon the brain for their sustaining, but they don’t depend upon the brain for their generation — things like grief, and maybe post-traumatic stress disorder, and things of that sort. They depend upon an appreciation of the person, of what was there and was lost (for grief), or what was there and was frightening (for PTSD). The brain follows the mind in that way.

So the fact is that the narrative capacity of the human mental experience can be the source of various forms of psychiatric distress that psychiatrists try to help the patient both understand and perhaps re-script in a way that makes living with it more easy. And none of that actually depends upon the psychiatrist directly tinkering with the brain’s substance or the material itself.

So when we were, in the Polarities, saying that this is the issue, these two things, we didn’t mean to say that everything that the psychiatrist could successfully do would depend upon his working with the brain. He could make lots of mistakes there, as the frontal lobotomy experience demonstrated better than any, and then some abuse of medications today demonstrates.

But he could also make mistakes in the narrative by presuming things that were not there in actuality but were put in by him, or her, the psychiatrist, because they made a better story. I don’t think all the mistakes that psychiatrists make are related either to the area of the brain they work in or the area of mental life and its trajectory. They can make mistakes in both places.

MF: I know that you and your colleagues at Hopkins have really merged these questions in neuropsychiatry so that you’re attending to both brain and mind. But there have been schools of thought in psychiatry that emphasise one overwhelmingly at the expense of the other.

PM: Yes indeed, and that is the thing that we’re trying to avoid by making it clear that there are different methods that employ one or the other, or sometimes both together in a coherent way. But you know, I did train in neurology as well as psychiatry. My teachers made sure that at least I was exposed to the ideas on both sides of that very interesting emergent property.

MF: In one of your essays in The Mind Has Mountains, you observe “the power of cultural fashions to lead psychiatric thought and practice off in false, even disastrous, directions.” Two such fashions that captivated psychology and psychiatry in recent decades were “multiple personality disorder,” also known as “dissociative identity disorder,” and the idea of “repressed sexual memories” from childhood that adults can “recover” under therapy. What accounts for such therapeutic fevers gripping the mental health professions?

PM: That’s a very good question. I’m not sure I understand why we’re so vulnerable to this. It may well be in part that we are a discipline that cannot often use bodily material, like an autopsy or something, to prove ourselves right or wrong.

We have to use the power of persuasion to persuade patients and others to thinking the way we want them to think. And although that’s the fundamental principle of psychotherapy — psychotherapy is a persuasive enterprise, after all, that’s what it is, it’s nothing else but persuasion — persuasion, not only in psychiatry but maybe even in a democracy, its great vulnerability, as Tocqueville said, is the tyranny of popular sentiments.

The tyranny of popular opinion can hold in thrall a whole population, after all, for a while. I think psychiatry is vulnerable to that because it works with phenomena of mental life and problems of mental behaviour, and therefore is liable, without another kind of tradition or another source of knowledge, to be carried away. It happens about every ten or fifteen years.

MF: I recall your saying as well in that book that psychiatrists don’t have the sort of grounded reality of specialising in the skin or the eye or something about which there cannot be endless arguments once the evidence comes in.

PM: That’s right. The material evidence of the physical body has a great salutary effect on people who have strong opinions about things, as William Osler said long ago. He said, you know the great thing about the consultant is, he comes in and does the rectal that you forgot to do. The great thing about doctoring is that it’s a fundamental business; you stand on the bottom of life, and it’s one of the joys of it.

Why, though, psychiatry gets swept by these fantasies is still a further question. In part, I used to just think it was the Freudian commitment to suspicion of other people and of society and everything — it was one of the schools of suspicion —

MF: Sure, that there’s a dark id everywhere you look.

PM: That’s right, that somehow or other we’re always under the control of somebody else. Nietzsche and Marx and Freud were all of the same kind of calibre. I used to think that. I also think there’s a love on the part of psychiatrists for being men of the secret and having their own magical secret.

If somebody comes along and tells you “Here’s a wonderful magical secret that will open to you the nature of the world and the nature of humankind,” it’s usually silly in the long run. That’s usually picked up by people who have no traditional background of their own. After all, it’s a kind of golden calf; you come down from the mountain and really try to bring them something, and what do you find them doing? Dancing around the golden calf.

MF: The appeal is to make some idol of a solution to some big problem.

PM: That’s right. And although Moses thought it was only his people, his people were — are, of course — all of us.

MF: In 2016, you and Dr. Lawrence Mayer published a 143-page monograph in the pages of The New Atlantis titled “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences.” This publication generated a good deal of controversy, coming not long after the Supreme Court’s creation of a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, and just as the issue of “transgenderism” was beginning to heat up. What prompted you and Dr. Mayer to undertake this project, and what should we take away from it?

PM: I was prompted by the idea that I ought to at least say something in this matter, because so many ideas were floating around, and if I couldn’t speak, who could? And when I looked at the scientific evidence of these things, the very idea that these things were immutable, and discrete, and people were “born that way,” it didn’t work from the science point of view, and they might, in our society, not be such good ideas, not good things for people to believe. So I thought, “Well, if I can’t speak at my stage and my development, nobody can speak, and I’ll see what happens.” So, it was very interesting. I found it extremely interesting.

It caused a ruckus, and that didn’t surprise me. But what did surprise me was how many people would say, well, you know, “This is just wrong,” but would never show me any evidence. Dean Hamer, whom I have admired and thought of as a very coherent geneticist and student of homosexuality down in NIH, said “This has all just been disproven, it’s bad science,” but he never pointed out anything or said, “Here’s the article that proves it.”

He was saying, “Look, this is the way we read the science today,” and he spent a lot of time talking about how this wasn’t a peer-reviewed article. Of course it wasn’t a peer-reviewed article. It wasn’t intended to be put out into the science literature. It was to try to evaluate what we thought the science literature taught to the ordinary public, like somebody would write in the New Yorker. And the useful way to refute such a thing is not to say “Those guys are stinkers!” or something. They should say “He’s overlooked something, and here’s the thing that he’s overlooked.”

It turned out that afterwards — long afterwards — people would say, “Well, you know, he’s right, but he shouldn’t have said it.” What it came down to was “He should have kept his mouth shut.” The reason they keep saying it is the usual explanation for not wanting to get all the truth out — that somehow it’ll encourage people to abuse other folks. Of course, we didn’t want that, and we don’t think that the truth is going to lead to anything other than further truth, as things go on.

MF: And better treatment of people. It’s interesting to me that you brought up that critique of peer review, because I had a follow-up on that front. I heard that a lot too when that long piece came out, that The New Atlantis is not a peer-reviewed journal, or that the work you and Dr. Mayer did was not peer-reviewed. And my first thought on hearing that was, well, of course not, what you and he did was the peer review. That is, you two, very knowledgeable in your field, did a comprehensive survey of studies in the field that had been peer reviewed in order to draw conclusions for a wider public about what we know and don’t know about sexual orientation and gender identity.

PM: It seemed to me they just didn’t want the conversation to go on. This way of calling it not peer-reviewed was to say that I was saying something that was supposed to be a new discovery. I wasn’t saying anything new, I was saying “This is how I read the literature.”

MF: People who dispute the way you and Dr. Mayer read the literature should not just say, “Well, that’s bunk.” After all, you were not reporting your own research but that of many, many others. They should point to these and those studies that you draw conclusions from and either show why they’re wrong or why you’re drawing the wrong conclusions from them.

PM: That’s right, and that’s what we said at the end of our article. We knew it was going to cause a fuss. Okay, go at it, and tell us what’s wrong.

MF: The bottom line of the monograph, it seemed to me, was that we still don’t know a great deal about the provenance of homosexuality and transgender or gender dysphoria. We have no particular reason to believe that either phenomenon is innate or biologically based or immutable.

PM: That’s right. Especially not immutable. That’s the most important thing.

MF: In a later piece in The New Atlantis, in 2017, you and Dr. Mayer were joined by Dr. Paul Hruz, a pediatric endocrinologist, in cautioning medical professionals against using puberty-suppressing drugs with children who present with gender dysphoria. Given the increasing incidence of patients presenting such psychological symptoms since that time, especially adolescent girls who wish to transition to “being” boys, as Abigail Shrier has written, this looks like it was a very timely intervention on your part. What is the concern, exactly, with these puberty-suppressing drugs?

PM: They come at a time when the person, the child, is not prepared to think about what their life would be like. Remember, puberty occurs between nine and fourteen when you’re a girl, and between eleven and fourteen when you’re a boy. These are children.

Anyone who’s had a ten-year-old girl or boy around knows that he or she is under your protective wing, in the sense not only of making sure he or she eats and is not abused today, but that he or she doesn’t make a mistake in their own decisions that will reverberate forever for them. We don’t let them get tattooed, we don’t — I wouldn’t let my daughter have her ears pierced until she turned sixteen. So these are very young children.

Secondly, this is a very complex process, puberty. Puberty is one of the great transforming neuro-endocrine events in anybody’s life. And we know only some parts of it; we do not know, for example, what triggers puberty. Back in 2005, the journal Science published its, I think, 125th anniversary issue, and they said, here are 125 big problems that remain for science. One of them was “What triggers puberty?” It’s a big mystery.

But one of the things we do know is that the human being is very different from the ordinary animal. With the animal, if they successfully go through puberty — and they go through it rather young — at the end of that, fundamentally, they are the complete being that they’re going to be. With human beings, some of the most interesting individuating characteristics of themselves occur only after puberty, probably with a combination of the intellectual powers and the energy that sexual development brings.

So I don’t think any child — and any parent, for that matter — can make an informed consent to permit the blocking of puberty and the transmission of another sex. That’s the first thing: you don’t have an idea what you’re doing. So how can you have an informed consent about it? Because nobody knows.

As important, and a reason for thinking that judgment is affected, is that children, young people, who believe that they belong in the opposite sex, if permitted to go through puberty normally, 85 to 95 percent of them will at the end of that time say “No, I am who I am.”

But if you give them the puberty blockers at age nine or ten, only 5 or 10 percent at the end of that time will say “I don’t want to go on further.” They always want to go on further. Something has changed in them. One of the things that change must be the way their brain is shaped when this triggering comes along for puberty. It gets thwarted. And the idea that it’s all reversible, that’s still very debatable.

Finally, the most important point is that scientists have one great vulnerability. They can be dealing with the most complex issue and try to oversimplify it and make it seem like a simple issue. In this case, we want to make a boy look like a girl — okay, so we’re going to do it with these hormones. Wait a minute: you don’t know this is a complex issue of the brain, neuro-endocrine relationships, hormones and — things that Paul Hruz knows even better than I. This very, very complex thing is being over-simplified.

MF: And there are real physical detriments that can come about in terms of bone mass, fertility, growth to mature height, all sorts of things.

PM: And who, at age eleven, knows? You might lose your fertility at age eleven; well, okay, you don’t know quite what that is. You might not know, given the other kinds of pressures that come into play. We don’t know all the pressures that are behind this gender dysphoria epidemic that we’re having, but we do have a lot of reasons for believing that social pressures on vulnerable and suggestible young people are at play there.

MF: In your own career, you’ve been standing athwart this for a very long time. In 1979, a few years after you came to Johns Hopkins, you directed the closing of the university hospital’s gender identity unit, responsible at that time for what we then called “sex-change operations,” and now it’s fashionable to call “gender-affirming surgeries,” after finding that such surgical transitions did not improve the overall mental health of patients. For this alone, you have been on the “enemies list” of transgender advocates for a long time. (Such surgeries were resumed at Hopkins in 2017.)

You have likened our “transgender moment,” as Ryan Anderson calls it, to other psychiatric fashions that ultimately collapsed under the weight of evidence against them — or due to the dearth of evidence for them. Transgenderism seems to be at peak strength today, in medicine, law, and public policy. Are you still sanguine about its ultimate collapse, like that of other culturally based phenomena in mental health sciences?

PM: I’m amazed at the amount of power and weaponry that it’s gotten behind it now, with the government and law and even medical organisations getting behind it, but I’m absolutely convinced that this is folly and it’s going to collapse, just as the eugenics folly collapsed.

Eugenics was quite as powerful, after all. I’m reassured that we psychiatrists have been everywhere before. Fortunately, Adolf Meyer, my predecessor at Johns Hopkins, was one of the few psychiatrists in the world, really, who said “I don’t think we can go this way with the eugenics movement.” And so I feel I’m in good company by saying this is going to collapse.

It’s going to collapse, particularly, in relationship to the injury to children, because these people are already beginning to build up evidence for the misdirection they were sent on. In Britain, the Keira Bell case that has just been handed down from their High Court is recognising the very inadequate psychiatric approach that was taken to leading this girl to now be a very damaged person. So it’s coming. And what’s going to happen in my opinion, at least with the young, the people under the age of twenty-one, will be that there will be huge lawsuits.

I can tell you exactly how the suits are going to play out. You know that person is going to wake up at age twenty-five and realise that that she’s got a five o’clock shadow, she’s had various mutilations in the body, she’s infertile, and she’s going to say, “How did you let this happen?” And then parents are going to say, “Well, the doctor said…” So they’re going to say “Let’s sue the doctors.”

They’re going to go to the doctors and say “What did you do this for?!” They’ll say, “That was a standard treatment for transgendered,” and the person is going to say, “But you see, I wasn’t transgendered, I was a child!” And they’re going to say “Holy smoke, you’re right, we can’t tell who’s transgendered, in truth.” And then the insurance companies are going to bail out, and a lot of people are going to be injured in reputation. But we’re going to be left with a number of much more injured patients. I’m very sure this is going to happen.

MF: In one respect, it almost seems as though psychiatry has confessed its lack of any answer to the problem of gender dysphoria and farmed out the solution to the endocrinologists and the cosmetic surgeons. They’re inviting those specialists in other fields to tinker with the body to conform to a dysphoria in the mind, rather than treating the dysphoria in the mind, which is the province of psychiatry.

PM: Exactly. And by the way, when I did actively close down the psychiatric role in permitting the gender surgery — after all, I couldn’t stop the plastic surgeons from doing it if they wanted — I just was saying that we in the department of psychiatry were no longer going to endow it with our permission. One of the plastic surgeons came up to me and did say, “Oh, thank goodness. How would you like it to get up in the morning, Paul, and face the day slashing away at perfectly normal organs, because you guys don’t know what’s the matter.”

MF: That’s interesting! So what you had the power to put a stop to was the referral to the surgeons.

PM: That’s right.

MF: And the surgeons would not proceed without it.

PM: That’s right. And the reversal [in 2017] was that the plastic surgeons came and said we’re going to take this up again. They didn’t wait for our permission to open a clinic at Johns Hopkins. In psychiatry, I was no longer the director, and our department didn’t fuss about it.

MF: So the resumption in 2017 was not owing to a decision in psychiatry but a decision over in surgery.

PM: That’s it, a decision over in plastic surgery. The nice thing is, the director of plastic surgery came and told me he was going to do it. But it was their decision, not ours.

MF: A slight change of topic here. As someone who has been a faithful Catholic his whole life, you have sometimes been characterised — I would say uncharitably — as a man whose professional outlook is unduly influenced by his religion. But the Catholic Church teaches, as you and I both know, that there is nothing science discovers that contradicts the faith. So what is really going on when this charge is aimed at you?

PM: I’m always surprised by that. I’m told that my views about repressed memory, that that was going to protect Catholic priests from being punished for abusing people. I never said that the truth wasn’t the truth with those men. I’m always very surprised by this charge.

I do say that I am an orthodox Catholic guy. Thank goodness I was raised with it, because of the wonderful Catholic realism that places you solidly on the ground in relationship to human nature and the human condition. But I never thought that in this area, it was my religion that was determining how I would think about it.

I suppose I have to say that when I was first fascinated by psychiatry when I was at the Medical School at Harvard, it might have been the relentless attacks by the Freudians on the nuclear family that shocked me, because I felt that the nuclear family was the source of all kinds of wonderful reflections on each other that permitted one to go out into the world. Instead, the suspicious Freudians saw it as a place of dominance and the like.

That may well have had something to do with my devotion to both my family and to the Holy Family that I had grown up thinking of as models. I would have thought if somebody wanted to say, “Look, his religion shielded him or protected him in this way, or blinded him in this way,” that would be an interesting conversation to have. But what does a tradition, a Judeo-Christian tradition, in particular, that honours the father and mother — how does it come at a discipline in medicine that begins to say that that’s the source of all your mental troubles?

But in these other matters, no-one can say what aspects of oneself affect how you think about a problem. Obviously, we’re creatures ourselves, and a lot comes out of where we are and who we are, and we don’t always completely know. But I believe that my positions on these matters, on these matters in particular, relate to the science and the psychiatry that matters. And that anybody of any persuasion or no persuasion at all will eventually come to agree with me.

MF: Yeah, “He’s a Catholic psychiatrist, therefore… ” seems to me to be a deflection from the discrete issues that should be directly tackled on the evidence and the arguments. Of course, there are many people in your profession, who are Jewish or Protestant or have no particular faith, who agree with you on the fundamental questions you’ve worked on in your career. But what you’re saying is that your Catholicism has actually made you in some respects a stronger, better scientist.

PM: I’ve always thought so. I think Christianity was the foundation of science. After all, “In the beginning was the Word” — the Logos. Well, that means something, to make science reasonable. That’s what I’ve always thought. But you know, I’ve been amazed, because I’ve been attacked this way now, even at Hopkins — which is a wonderful institution, by the way, and it has for the most part protected me. And I didn’t have these kinds of things said about me, at least right out, since I was in high school. So it was a big surprise. Although I’m sure that anyone would say that, as you go through life, you don’t know what other people are thinking about you.

I had a very funny one: when I was admitted to Harvard Medical School, I had to have an examination by one of the doctors there — a physical exam to make sure I was well and all. They did that for every medical student. And about ten years later I happen to come across my record that had been written by this chap, one of the doctors in Boston who said, “rosy-cheeked Irish boy who’s done well to come as far as he has.”

MF: I think we’ve found the title for our interview: “Rosy-cheeked Irish Boy Who’s Come a Long Way.”

PM: That was pretty funny. I mean, it does show you the climate that you’re in that you didn’t realise. I had no idea this was crossing his mind.

MF: One last question. Tell us, please, about the work of the now six-year-old McHugh Program for Human Flourishing. What do you hope that it will contribute to the future of psychiatry and to public understanding?

PM: I hope it’s going to be a rich contribution at the end of my career at Hopkins. My aim is to point out, and to help young psychiatrists, and all doctors for that matter, to understand that after you get somebody over a condition, often they have still a ways to go to be the kinds of people that they were intended to be when they were started off.

What began, for me, as a kind of public health hygiene, mental hygiene for the patient — saying “Look, this is the kind of thing you’ve got to do, you’ve got to think in terms of family life, work life, educational life, and community, and particularly often religious life, to be what you want to be” — has now transformed itself into an understanding of where the education of doctors tends to fall down. It tends to fall down in the very areas of the humanities and the understanding of human capacities that doctoring used to be founded on, before the sciences could really take it up and make it go.

So I’m hoping that people will see that an understanding of what human beings really can be emerges out of helping them through their physical as well as their mental illnesses, but then requires a continuing prescription for how they can continue in that way. And this way, I think, it will enrich the education of doctors in general, just like I think our Perspectives of Psychiatry has helped enrich an understanding of medicine in relationship to the conditions that afflict people mentally. So we’ve had a wonderful experience with it.

MF: Human flourishing is not a typical phrase in the vocabulary of medical professionals.

PM: It was a term that seemed to me to be the appropriate term. By the way, several people in my department thought it was a very Catholic term, I was surprised to see.

MF: If they think that Aristotle belongs to the Catholics, I guess we’ll take him.

PM: Right, that’s what I said to them, I thought it goes back to Aristotle.

MF: It’s a humanistic enterprise.

PM: It’s a fundamentally humanistic enterprise. Medicine is a humanistic discipline that uses science to accomplish what all human beings would like to see for themselves, in their capacity to sustain themselves. But ultimately it is to aim for a person who could be what God intended him to be. And, of course, it’s illuminating for me, like anything else in teaching. Once you start off on this, then you discover all the things that become important for yourself to learn.

MF: One really final question, for the record: Dr. Paul McHugh has no current plans to retire, correct?

PM: No plans to retire, no! Not me. I’m pressing on. I’m not retiring. I can’t carry on quite as much as I could before, but for the duties that I’m doing within the department, which are full-time for me, I’m going to continue as long as I can.

Republished with permission from The Public Discourse.

COLUMN BY

Paul McHugh

Dr. Paul McHugh, M.D. is the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. From 1975 until 2001, Dr. McHugh was the Henry Phipps Professor… More by Paul McHugh

Matthew J. Franck

Matthew J. Franck is Contributing Editor of Public Discourse. He is also Associate Director of the James Madison Program and Lecturer in Politics at Princeton University, Senior Fellow at the Witherspoon… More by Matthew J. Franck

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

INSANITY: Biden Releases ‘National Gender Strategy’

There’s no end to Democrat madness and their war on G-d.

Biden released a ‘National Gender Strategy,’ and it is every bit as ridiculous as it sounds

By: Conn Carroll,  Washington Examiner, October 26, 2021:

If the Babylon Bee had been asked to write a “National Gender Strategy” to be posted on the White House’s website, it wouldn’t look any different than the document the Biden administration actually released last Friday.

The “fact sheet” contains every buzzword and policy that you would expect to hear from a progressive activist with a degree in gender studies

The four-page document begins by identifying “gender equity” as a “moral and strategic imperative.” Thanks to COVID-19, “we are at an inflection point,” the statement reads, as the pandemic has “magnified the challenges” that women and girls face — “especially women and girls of color.”

Given that the document asserts without any evidence that women of color have been hit hardest by COVID, it isn’t surprising that the document also promises “an intersectional approach” that “considers the barriers and challenges faced by those who experience intersecting and compounding forms of discrimination and bias related to gender, race, and other factors, including sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and socioeconomic status. This includes addressing discrimination and bias faced by Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American people, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, and other people of color.”

To improve “economic security,” the document calls for investments in “care infrastructure,” but nowhere is any real infrastructure ever mentioned.

The document promises to “dismantle the barriers to equal opportunity in education” so that women can “compete on a level playing field.” Never mind that women now make up 60% of all college students and are awarded two out of every three college degrees .

Abortion is, of course, absolutely essential for the “health care” of women, according to the document, which also promises to “defend the constitutional right to safe and legal abortion in the United States, established in Roe v. Wade.”

If there is one document that best encapsulates how out-of-touch the Biden White House is with everyday concerns of voters, this “National Gender Strategy” may be it.

RELATED ARTICLES:

State Department Issues First Gender-Neutral Passport

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Gay Afghan Author Warns: Taliban Will ‘Weed Out,’ ‘Exterminate’ LGBT Community

The practice of killing gays is alive and well in many Muslim countries. The penalty for homosexuality is death in Islam. See HERE. The Taliban will certainly implement the directives in these texts with the utmost barbarity. The LGBT+ community will have to hide for their lives. The Taliban has already vowed to “crush gay men to death by pushing walls onto them.”

While “progressives” have been busy castigating Israel and the West, while capitulating to Islamic supremacists, gays do not live in fear for their lives in Western countries or Israel, as those countries uphold human rights and equality. Leftist women’s rights and gay activists have a blind spot when it comes to Islam.

Taliban will ‘weed out and exterminate’ LGBT+ people in Afghanistan, warns exiled gay author

by Patrick Kelleher, Pink News, August 17, 2021:

Gay Afghan author Nemat Sadat has warned that the Taliban will “weed out and exterminate” the LGBT+ community in Afghanistan following their seismic takeover.

There has been significant concern for the safety and wellbeing of women, girls and LGBT+ people in Afghanistan after the extremist militant group seized power.

The Taliban is expected to enforce its extreme interpretation of Sharia law across Afghanistan, which would see many women, LGBT+ people persecuted. Under it, queer people and women could be sentenced to death.

Speaking to PinkNews, Sadat said there is “no telling” how bad the situation will become for LGBT+ Afghans stuck in the country under Taliban rule.

Sadat and his family left Afghanistan when he was still a baby and they ultimately settled in the United States. In 2012, he returned to his birth city of Kabul to work as a professor of political science at the American University of Afghanistan (AUAF).

Widespread anti-LGBT+ sentiment meant that it was impossible for him to settle there. Warlords spread rumours that he was a practicing homosexual. Sadat reacted to the rumours by advocating for LGBT+ rights on campus and in his classroom.

Shortly afterwards, the Taliban got involved. The extremist group wrote a manifesto claiming AUAF had “become a bastion of gays and lesbians” because of Sadat’s activism, adding that he should be “targeted and killed”…..

RELATED ARTICLE: On the Same Day Taliban Vowed to Protect Women’s Rights, They Killed a Woman for Not Wearing a Burqa

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Gender Case, Gives Up On Protecting Basic Values

Our elected representatives and their appointees need to do their duties, even when it isn’t politically expedient. That’s why the Supreme Court’s recent actions are cause for concern.

Earlier this week, the court announced that it wouldn’t review a 2019 ruling by a lower court that granted a gender-confused female high school student in Virginia the right to use male restrooms. Notably, none of the three justices appointed by President Donald Trump argued in favor of considering the appeal. Last December, the court declined to review a similar case, when parents in Oregon tried to challenge school policies allowing gender-confused students the right to use opposite-gender restrooms.

The Supreme Court’s submission on this issue is deeply troubling. Six of the nine justices are supposedly principled conservatives who should recognize the risks of normalizing gender confusion. Girls and young women across the country will have to endure humiliating privacy violations, and free speech will be at risk if public schools cannot state simple realities about biological sex. Perhaps the heightened agitation around the issue during “pride” month made the justices too wary of a backlash. If so, they are abandoning their responsibility to protect basic freedoms to appease a small group of activists who will never be appeased either way.

This dangerous trend hasn’t just taken root in Virginia. In 2016, the Obama administration tried to force public schools across the country to let boys into girls’ private spaces or risk losing funding. And when North Carolina passed a law protecting the rights of private businesses – not government – to affirm the reality of biological gender, activists pressured corporations to boycott the state, and the Obama administration sued.

The Supreme Court must protect the right to call a man a man and a woman a woman. And it needs to ensure that the wellbeing of children – including young people driven to gender confusion – is protected by not normalizing transgender ideology.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: YouTube Won’t Let a Medical Doctor Say This Sentence . . .

“See, if you want to cut off a leg or an arm, you’re mentally ill, but if you want to cut off healthy breasts or a penis, you’re transgender.”

Those are the words of Dr. Michelle Cretella, a pediatrician with many years’ experience and the executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, in a Daily Signal video published in 2017.

It’s a sentence YouTube will not allow the doctor to say about children and gender identity issues.

The Daily Signal recently learned that our video of Cretella had been removed from YouTube. In its place, YouTube displayed this message: “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s policy on hate speech.”


The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>


Over the past few months, The Daily Signal worked with YouTube to try to reach a resolution. Ultimately, we were told the only way we could get the video back on YouTube was to delete the previously mentioned sentence.

In other words, we had two choices: censor the doctor’s words or have no video on the world’s biggest video platform.

This should horrify every YouTube user—and anyone who values the importance of a public square featuring a variety of perspectives.

Cretella’s words are no doubt controversial. She is no stranger to criticism, and neither is The Daily Signal. We welcome debate.

But we don’t want to be censored.

We agree with the spirit behind YouTube’s hate speech policy, which states, “Hate speech is not allowed on YouTube. We remove content promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on any of the following attributes” including “Gender Identity and Expression” and “Sex/Gender.” We believe transgender individuals, and any individual struggling with gender identity issues, should be treated with love and respect.

But we also believe that on a topic where medical treatments have such serious ramifications, from infertility to permanent alteration of body parts, it is worth having a robust, fact-driven discussion.

Cretella is a doctor. She is making a point in that sentence that may not be popular but remains true: There is no society-wide push right now to allow patients suffering from Body Integrity Identity Disorder to amputate limbs.

Furthermore, just this May—18 months since Cretella’s video was published—the World Health Organization removed transgenderism from its list of “mental disorders,” moving it to a section about sexual health.

But as of July, Cretella’s sentence—which did not even state transgenderism was a result of mental illness, but simply pointed out that our culture sees amputation of body parts differently depending on the body parts in question—is apparently so outrageous YouTube can’t fathom allowing it on its platform.

That is unbelievable.

We are especially disappointed with YouTube’s decision because other social media platforms have allowed the video on their platforms. In fact, the video has more than 70 million views on Facebook. It might have even more if Facebook hadn’t temporarily removed it in July 2018. After our appeal to Facebook, it was quickly restored and remains on The Daily Signal’s page today.

Here at The Daily Signal, the multimedia news arm of The Heritage Foundation, we believe that private companies, including YouTube, should be allowed to set and enforce their own rules.

But we also believe consumers have a right to protest. And if you are upset that YouTube—the biggest video platform in the world—is refusing to let a doctor speak without censorship on gender identity and children, please reach out to YouTube and its parent company, Google.

Tweet at them: @YouTube and @google. Leave a message on Google’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/Google/) or YouTube’s (https://www.facebook.com/youtube/).

Make it clear that while we may often be silent, many, many people want to have a free debate on controversial topics.

Join us in calling on YouTube to reverse this decision and allow this doctor to speak her mind freely on this vital issue.

This is not about how you think children experiencing gender identity issues should be treated, but whether you think there should be an open conversation on this topic, so that parents can make informed decisions about what’s best for their child.

Censoring a medical doctor doesn’t put YouTube on the right side of history. It just shows that it’s a big tech company prioritizing the preferences of the activist left over free speech for all.

This article has been corrected to reflect that Cretella is the executive director of the American College of Pediatricians.

COMMENTARY BY

Katrina Trinko is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal PodcastSend an email to Katrina. Twitter:

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Students Who Fight for Free Speech, and Win

The Absurdity of Thinking Disparities Prove Discrimination


A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal video with commentary is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

No, Mattel: Kids Don’t Want Your Gender-Neutral Dolls

Fox Business Network reported some news last week that may surprise business strategists as well as kids and parents alike: Toymaker Mattel has announced a new line of gender-neutral dolls.

The company cites new “research” finding that kids “don’t want their toys dictated by gender norms.”

So, for $30, children will now be able to outfit dolls with long or short hair, clothing that includes pants, skirts, or both—whatever the kids decide. The dolls are also available in six skin tones.

“Toys are a reflection of culture and as the world continues to celebrate the positive impact of inclusivity, we felt it was time to create a doll line free of labels,” explained the company’s senior vice president, Kim Culmone.

“This line allows all kids to express themselves freely, which is why it resonates so strongly with them. We’re hopeful Creatable World will encourage people to think more broadly about how all kids can benefit from doll play.”

It’s hard to know what to find more shocking: that Mattel has created a “gender-neutral doll,” or that the market—primarily made up of kids—is supposedly demanding one.

Somehow, it’s difficult to believe that young kids who don’t yet know the meaning of “gender neutral” would be demanding a gender-neutral doll.

A much more likely possibility is that Mattel is caving to progressive political forces that want “gender-neutral dolls.” In that respect, the new line of dolls tells us more about the politics of the present moment than the desires of kids.

Some might push back and say, “Calm down, they’re just dolls. Dolls aren’t meant to imitate real life.” And that’s true, to an extent.

Many toys are unrealistic—consider Batman, Spider-Man, Paw Patrol figures, and others. But the companies that manufacture those toys don’t pretend they are mimicking reality. They aren’t. They’re based on fiction and intended to ignite imaginative play, an important part of a healthy childhood.

But dress-up dolls are much more realistic than action figures, and they have often been used to promote gender stereotypes—for better or for worse.

With these gender-neutral dolls, Mattel is deconstructing the notion of sex in the minds of young children and teaching them an ideology that says there is no relationship between biological sex and reality.

This same radical gender ideology has proved disastrous when taken to its ultimate conclusion: pushing young people down the path of sex-reassignment with life-altering drugs and harmful surgeries

This ideology claims that since gender is simply a social construct with no basis in biological reality, it can therefore be fluid—hence the term “gender fluid.” However, a study published in 2017 in the Infant and Child Development journal suggests there is a biological basis for human behavior.

The study observed 1,600 boys and girls at play and found that when offered a variety of toys to choose from, under various conditions, boys and girls consistently preferred toys typed to their own sex, indicating biology’s persistent role in behavior.

Of course, kids shouldn’t be forced to conform to rigid sex stereotypes that dictate, for instance, that girls can’t play with trucks and boys shouldn’t play with dolls.

But it is a huge mistake to treat our sexed bodies as secondary to a subjective self-perception of gender. That is misleading at best, and damaging at worst.

The truth is that there are only two sexes, and toy companies should not mislead children to believe otherwise.

Gender dysphoria is a real condition, but the transgender community’s recommendations for medical treatment have been shown to be not only ineffective at resolving a person’s underlying distress, but actually harmful—especially to children.

Studies show this isn’t a safe process. Brand new data from the Food and Drug Administration shows that over 6,000 adults have died from the effects of a drug that is being used to block puberty in children who struggle to feel comfortable with their sexed bodies.

Progressive gender ideology isn’t helping Americans; it’s hurting them. It is not only nonsensical, but irresponsible for Mattel to create a line of gender-neutral dolls aimed at indoctrinating kids with this harmful ideology.

COMMENTARY BY

Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Victim Trap That Keeps People Down

Supreme Court to Decide High-Stakes ‘LGBT’ Cases Amid Partisan Scrutiny


A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

GAY IS ANTI-LIFE: They’ll even kill to commit sodomy.

TRANSCRIPT

Exactly 46 years ago today — to the day — the U.S. Supreme Court authorized the mass extinction of tens of millions of pre-born children — cloaking the genocide in a made up out of thin air, alleged right to privacy.

That right to privacy then went on to hatch even more destruction — against the family, natural law and so forth. One of the big issues it gave birth to was, again, a never before heard of right to sodomite marriage.

Well, those two issues linked arms and joined forces a few days ago in a “Catholic” setting as two homosexual men stood in front of a parish just before Sunday Mass with their little boy Cohen and presented a syrupy presentation about just how normal they are and how completely ordinary their situation is.

More to the point: They waxed on about how the parish was so welcoming and accepting and how wonderful all the people in it were. They were inspired to start going there regularly because on an earlier trip, they had seen a lesbian couple bringing up the gifts and being warmly accepted.

At the end of their seven-minute presentation — rife with heresy — they received a standing ovation from the warm, friendly, accepting parishioners who just ate it all up.

The normalization of not just homosexuality anymore in Catholic parishes, but now on top of it, the accompanying child abuse that occurs when a child is “born” of a sodomite pairing — yes, we said, “Born.” Because this child was not adopted. The little boy, Cohen, is a product of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and a woman whose womb the homosexuals rented because natural law prevents them from having sex, conceiving, bearing and giving birth.

So they used every technological ability at their disposal to simply skirt all Church teaching further and bring a new life into the world, willfully depriving that boy of his God-given right to a mommy.

And the pastor allowed this. And the crowd went wild. And the bishop, well, he did issue a statement expressing his displeasure and said he would be meeting to “discuss the situation” after he gets back from the March for Life events in D.C.

The diocese is the archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, the parish is St. Joan of Arc and the bishop is Archbishop Bernard Hebda.

The two clerical clowns who run the parish are the pastor, Fr. Jim DeBruycker, and the parochial vicar, Fr. James Cassidy — you wouldn’t even know they are priests.

These men allow this evil to take place — in fact, they encourage it. Every Sunday, whatever wild-eyed modernist who wants to ramble on about gay this or that, immigration, trans this or that, climate change is invited to get up and speak for a few minutes on just how Catholic their immorality is — how central to their faith.

For example, the gay lovers told the fawning audience — and at this point, that’s all this parish is: an audience — that it was good for Cohen to have to fathers.

They also simply passed right over the horror of IVF — again speaking of it in purely ordinary terms. And this is where the gay, anti-life crowd finds its footing.

Surely, these two sodomites posing as actual Catholics must know that the IVF method automatically results in the death of many other children as part of the process.

Various eggs (where did two men get female eggs?) are all fertilized, allowed to grow for a period and then the ones determined to be best suited to come to full term are then implanted — in this case in a rented womb.

The others — meaning the other humans — they are “discarded,” a short little euphemism for killed. If, as is pretty routine, more than one tiny human was implanted in the rent-a-womb surrogate, at some point, “selection” is made again and the “leftovers” are killed in utero.

This is malevolent. Are the two homo “dads” going to tell little Cohen that in order for him to come into existence, they had to kill off some brothers and sisters of him, because since all they can do is sodomize each other, they had to resort to science?

Are they going to tell him that they actively chose to deny him a mommy because, in the end, all they cared about was trying to make their sodomy look normal?

But perhaps most pressing: Is Archbishop Hebda going to move to laicize the clergy that promote this horror, and is he going to disband that parish — which doesn’t even call itself a parish — it’s a “community.”

Hebda did not necessarily cause this issue, at least not at this parish, but he is certainly responsible now for stopping it dead in its tracks.

If that parish is still around, if those priests are still around at the end of the month, that will tell you everything you need to know about Archbishop Hebda.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video with images is republished with permission.

Transgender Theory Enables Child Abuse

Pope Francis said teaching children about being transgender is a moral problem which he calls “ideological colonisation”. He said explaining gender theory to youngsters is wrong because it can change their “mentality”. The pontiff shared, “A father asked his ten-year-old-son: ‘What do you want to do when you grow older?’ The child replied: ‘A girl’. The father realized that in the school books the gender theory was taught. This is against the natural things.” Pope Francis declared gender theory is part of a “global war against the family”. 

Unexpected voices like renowned feminist professor Camille Paglia are saying well-meaning adults transgendering minors is child abuse. Professor Paglia actually called it “evil” to help troubled kids make permanent decisions for which there is no turning back. As commonsense normal thinking adults, our response to Ms Paglia’s comment is, “Well dah”.

Public radio show host Jesse Thorn identified his two-year-old son as a girl; dressing his son as a girl and calling him a girl name. Ponder that folks, a two-year-old. We all know this is insane child abuse. When comedian Owen Benjamin compassionately said Thorn was abusing his child, LGBTQ enforcers crushed Benjamin’s career. His tours were canceled and he was blacklisted in Hollywood.

Benjamin has a comedy special. Here is the headline of a hit-piece written to end Benjamin’s career. “Why is Amazon promoting this anti-trans alt right troll’s comedy special?” Do you see how this works folks. Benjamin courageously exposed the abuse of a child and he is branded an extreme-right nutcase hater. LGBTQ enforcers seek to shame and destroy anyone who dares to state the obvious truth that gender theory is child abuse hiding in plain sight

American College of Pediatricians president, Dr Michelle Cretella, wrote, “Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse.” Dr Cretella said transgender ideology is not rooted in reality. She said sex is hardwired before birth and it cannot change. Dr Cretella continued, “By feeding children and families these lies, children are having their normal psychological development interrupted. They’re being put on puberty blockers which essentially castrates them chemically – followed by surgical mutilation later on. This is child abuse. It’s not health care.”

Dr Cretella said we need to nurture children through natural puberty. “Our job as parents and physicians is to help children embrace their healthy bodies. And when this is done, once they get past puberty to late adolescence, as many as 95% will come to embrace their bodies – and identify with their biological sex.” 

Dr Cretella made this important point. “See, according to most mainstream medical organizations, if you want to cut off a healthy arm or a healthy leg, you’re mentally ill. But if you want to cut off healthy breasts or a penis, you’re transgender. Dr Cretella enraged LGBTQ enforcers by saying, “No one is born transgender.” Dr Cretella is under severe attack.

Folks, can you believe we live in such a crazy evil time in which stating scientific facts and publicly expressing a desire to protect children could cost you your livelihood and even your life (death threats)?

Every time I write about LGBTQ enforcers bullying the masses into submission, my frustrated wife Mary says, “Let people know they are only 3 percent of the population.” 

So this is where we are folks. We instinctively know LGBTQ indoctrination is child abuse. And yet, far too many are afraid to say it out loud. LGBTQ enforcers are using government, corporations, the medical profession, social media and mainstream media to bully the mainstream into allowing the abuse of children. How did such a tiny segment of our population (3%) obtain such dictatorial power?

God will severely judge those who lead new believers and children astray. “but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

God instructs parents to loving protect and raise their children. “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6) God does not want government usurping parental authority over America’s children.

It takes courage to stand in a culture which humiliates and high-tech executes all who refuse to kneel in worship to their god of debauchery. Shouldn’t abusing children be our red line in the sand?

RELATED ARTICLE: Pelosi’s Equality Act Could Lead to More Parents Losing Custody of Kids Who Want Gender ‘Transition’

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash.

VIDEO: The Ties That Divide

TRANSCRIPT

As we get into the new calendar year, all signs point to an explosive year for the Church, a great disruption, a great divide. The year was barely 48 hours old and the U.S. bishops had begun to meet on retreat about the scourge of sexual abuse among the clergy.

But even here, on this topic, there is a divide among so many of the bishops. A few well-balanced ones who don’t really have any connection to the errant theology and formation from the 1970s know and say that the problem is homosexuality.

But the vast majority of them, because they are slaves to that malformation of the 1970s, refuse to admit this reality even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

They are, frankly, a pitiful crew to behold. Even with the feds and state attorneys general raiding their chanceries looking for secret files covering up cases of sexual abuse of minors — 80 percent of whom were teenage boys — even still, they will not admit the reality.

And that’s because too many of the bishops themselves are gay. And let’s be very clear here: One gay bishop is too many. But in the USCCB, it would be the height of naivete to not understand that many of the men sitting in that room saying it’s not a gay problem are gay themselves, so of course they are going to say that.

Others who are not directly sexually attracted to other men are still complicit, because they refuse to either admit the horror of this sin, or, they turn a blind eye to it because they do not wish to face the wrath and rage of gay priests in their dioceses, like Abp. Allen Vigneron here in Detroit.

According to his own seminary faculty member, Mary Healy, who said publicly that he will not end the homosexual anti-Catholic group Dignity’s weekly Mass because he’s afraid to anger the gay priests here in Detroit.

He and others like him, however, never seem to be so concerned about angering traditional Catholics or people fighting for the Faith in their own lives. And all this with news now spreading that the much-anticipated $200 million fundraising campaign is going to be announced in the next week or two. It’s disgusting.

Here’s the gist of the problem on this question of “division.” It’s a smokescreen, the charge that someone is “divisive” or causes division. What a panty-waist accusation to hurl at someone. Seriously, from a bishop, “You are divisive”?

Do they not know how all the prophets and patriarchs, apostles, saints and martyrs spoke routinely? And, oh yeah, the Son of God. All these men were “divisive.” That’s the point.

But the limp-wristed, light in the loafers, emasculated theology of most of today’s bishops has as its greatest sin giving offense. Anything, and we mean anything else, is acceptable, worthy of a second, third or even fourth chance, but if you come off as socially impolite, you’re done.

The homosexual or homosexual-minded man should not be ordained in the first place, and all Hell breaks loose when they are consecrated to the office of bishop.

They sacrifice truth and its bold preaching to their own disgusting femininity and cowardice and lack of authentic masculinity and hide behind the skirts of calling people divisive.

Catholicism is all about division, bishops. Do you not understand that? What do you think Heaven and Hell is all about?

What do you think being in a state of grace versus a state of mortal sin is all about?

But see, the combination of their poisonous homosexuality and intellect-rotting malformation they got back in seminary in the 1970s has made them unable to see this truth.

They want the Church to be this big soft, squishy “all are welcome” cacophony of confusion so they hide in it and rationalize their psychological illness of sodomy.

If some of the collateral damage happens to be some teenage altar boys happen to get raped along the way, oh well.

If thousands and thousands of seminarians are driven from the seminary and lose their vocations, and even sometimes their faith, oh well.

And if some of these young men end up in lives of addiction and sexual exploitation and even kill themselves, oh well.

As long as we all get along and not say things that are divisive, that’s all that matters. The bishops themselves are the cause of the division in the Church, especially the homosexual bishops and their allied bishops who now exercise great control over vast portions of the Church.

They are a cancer in the episcopate, they are destroyers of souls, and without repentance, they will suffer outrageous tortures in Hell for eternity, which is why they spend so much time ignoring Hell or promoting the spiritually insane idea that we have a reasonable hope all men are saved.

That is homosexual-think, not sound theology, and bishops who say it, promote, defend it or let it slide need to be called out.

See, the Faith itself is always whole, always pure, always a unity. But too many of these men — many, perhaps most, but not all being homosexual — are the ones who have brought about the division and then stood on their sacred office and promoted it.

Then when faithful Catholics shine the light on the division they have caused, they accuse us of creating it. That’s exactly what you expect from the mind of someone who has given himself over to the demonic.

To reveal the already existing division in the Church caused by these bishops, to bring it to light, is the work of God. There exists today in the Church a great division, largely between a huge number of bishops and the faithful.

To be frank, we and they don’t believe the same faith, just like St. Peter and Judas did not believe the same thing about Our Lord. One said He was the Messiah, the Son of God, the other betrayed Him — not the same faith.

Father James Martin and I do not believe the same faith. Cardinal Blase Cupich and I do not believe the same faith. Cardinal Joseph Tobin and I do not believe the same faith. They obfuscate and deceive souls on the altar of sodomy and support of it. What they preach is not the authentic Catholic faith.

It is they and their ilk that divide; they divide souls, separate from the truth. In what manner could it be said we accept the same foundations of the faith? It can’t. Now, many of you watching this have the same reality, just because someone in your circle says they are Catholic doesn’t mean they are, and they should not be allowed to remain in that mindset.

They either need to understand that they are mistaken about Church teachings or, if they reject them, then leave the Church in practice, because they already have in soul. All of this has been brought you by the modernist heretics crowd, largely fueled by warped and sick homosexual bishops and those among them sympathetic to it.

Want to know where all the division is from, look there — not at faithful Catholics trying to expose it.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images by Church Militant is republished with permission.