Just Like Roe, Marriage Isn’t Settled

In his first interview since winning the presidential election, President-elect Donald J. Trump assured the American people that he won’t advocate reversing the Supreme Court’s decision last year requiring states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Speaking with CBS News correspondent Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes, Donald Trump indicated that his administration will abandon efforts to overturn the controversial Obergefell decision. The news media has interpreted Trump’s support for same-sex marriage as a sign that the conservative movement has surrendered on the contentious issue.

“I’ve been a supporter [of the LGBT group],” Trump said in the interview this past Sunday. “[Marriage equality] is already settled. It’s law… These cases [regarding same-sex marriage] have gone to the Supreme Court, they’ve been settled, and I’m fine with that.”

In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as requiring states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Court’s decision to force states to give equal treatment to same-sex marriages “has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissent. “Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be…. Five lawyers have closed the debate [about same-sex marriage] and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

While President-elect Trump may be willing to accept the unconstitutional edict from the Supreme Court, Republicans and conservative Christians shouldn’t abandon efforts to restore traditional marriage.

Conservatives know that laws encouraging traditional nuclear families – consisting of a father, a mother, and their children – strengthen communities.

Furthermore, numerous sociological studies indicate that children raised within intact traditional families are healthier and happier. These children are also more likely to become successful, well-adjusted adults.

Our laws should reflect this social and biological reality. Just as our laws affirm that adultery and polygamy corrode the natural order and weaken families, so too should our laws reflect the truth that normalizing homosexual relationships isn’t conducive to maintaining a healthy society.

When trying to determine which approach should be used to oppose same-sex marriage, conservatives should be careful to avoid the pitfalls that derailed the movement against no-fault divorce. As states began adopting no-fault divorce laws during the 1970s and 1980s, many on the religious right articulately defended the sanctity of covenantal marriage, warning about the harm to children and communities caused by broken families.

Over time, however, the movement abandoned its role as prophet, conceding the issue of no-fault divorce to those who contended for the legal ability to divorce their spouse for any number of personal reasons. As religious conservatives began backing away from the issue, more states passed no-fault divorce laws, contributing to the near 50% divorce rate among married couples today.

Instead, conservatives concerned about the sanctity of marriage should mimic the tactics of the pro-life movement. Despite the monumental legal loss of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), people of faith have remained steadfastly opposed to the abortion on demand. Pastors, priests, and layman alike have lovingly explained how the inherent dignity of human life, created in the image of the Creator, disallows the notion that a mother has the right to choose to end her pregnancy. Likewise, researchers have published scientific studies detailing the capability of unborn babies to feel pain.

By mobilizing churches and congregations to advocate pro-life policies despite early legal losses, the pro-life movement has made significant gains over the last couple decades. In the wake of Obergefell, Christians should follow the model of political activism and social persuasion that has been so effectively utilized by the pro-life movement.

So here’s the bottom line, conservatives: Don’t give up on the sanctity of marriage just because the Republican in the White House refuses to get involved in the fight. We must continue agitating for a political order that better reflects natural law and the reality of the human experience, even when it’s not politically expedient. Sociologists, psychologists, other researchers should continue publishing empirical studies detailing how same-sex marriage adversely affects couples, children, and communities.

Marriage isn’t a lost cause. Although it may seem like society – including some prominent Republicans – is accepting the falsehood that same-sex marriage is a normal and healthy family arrangement, we must remain faithful to the truth, recognized for thousands of years, that marriage between one man and one woman forms the basis for resilient communities and healthy families.

Just like Roe v. Wade isn’t settled, marriage isn’t settled, either.

Blaine Conzatti is a columnist and 2016 Research Fellow at the Family Policy Institute of Washington. He can be reached at Blaine@FPIW.org.

Shoving Men Into Women’s Spaces Isn’t Progress

The day my dad enrolled me in an after school teenage boys’ basketball training program, I cried.

At age 13, I was already 5’11’’ and weighed 125 pounds — an awkward conglomeration of gangly knees, elbows, and a singular dark eyebrow that crept across my forehead like a gluttonous caterpillar. If I was going to be this tall, you might as well put a ball in my hands and see what happens, right?

Everything about the scenario was painful.

In retrospect, my dad had the right idea. He knew that practicing with boys would improve my game, and it did. I made the varsity squad as a sophomore, set a couple school records for shot blocking, and eventually earned a significant scholarship at a small college. I was a pretty good basketball player.

For a girl.

There, I said it. The feminist in me recoils at reading those words, but the truth teller in me can’t help but admit the biological reality that presents, in exaggerated fullness, during high school: there’s an undeniable physical difference between the sexes that cannot be overcome by sheer willpower or wishing.

On my own team, I never lost a set of lines, I finished first in most of the conditioning drills, and worked my tail off to be on the starting squad. But at after school training? Even the C-Team boys were lapping me on the track, beating me down the court, and lifting more than double my maximum efforts in the weight room.

I was overpowered. I felt “less than.”

Why am I telling you all this? I share it because it highlights one of the most prominent challenges so many females experience as they navigate life and especially as they navigate the oh-so-painful world of high school: we walk around with the keen understanding that, in many ways, we are perceived as “less than” our male counterparts. There are certain realms where we know we will have to work twice as hard to exist. There are other realms where we know it’s unlikely we will ever really have a role. Think, for example, of the NBA or the NFL.

Now don’t get me wrong; there are some phenomenal female athletes who can dance circles around men in certain areas. Serena Williams and Diana Nyad come immediately to mind. But as a whole, women innately know that they won’t be respected or validated in certain spheres. Thus, it becomes incredibly important for us to have our own unique qualities and experiences specific to us.

Men and women were created different in function but equal in value. But there’s a power differential in play, and women often end up on the losing side of it. That’s why Title IX came to exist in the first place — to carve out space for women like me to participate and thrive without being bulldozed or eclipsed by men.

But recent history has seen so many of these spaces being erased by pervasive and incredibly foolish gender identity politics that, 99% of the time, only really serve to benefit anatomical males who believe themselves to be female. I was irritated when I read that a 6’6’’ male was given a spot on the women’s basketball team at Mission College in California and that he went on to be named an All-American who led the league in rebounds and helped his team win the championship game. All I could think about was how some poor girl somewhere would not get a chance to play college basketball because someone decided to give her spot to a man.

I rolled my eyes when I read that a transgender man (a biological woman) had given birth to a child, as though this was somehow newsworthy. (Women have been bearing children since the dawn of time. It’s one of the many amazing things we were designed to do.)

And it upset me to hear that President Obama had decreed from on high that women’s homeless shelters (where abused women regularly go to escape men) will now be open to men.

But when I read that a high school in North Carolina had elected a teenage boy as its homecoming queen, I was admittedly surprised by the intensity of the emotional response the news solicited within me.

Gender identity politics are offensive on so many levels. For one thing, the widespread indulging of obvious delusion makes idiots of us all.  In fact, I shudder to think what the history books will say about this modern day retelling of The Emperor’s New Clothes and the seemingly epidemic courage deficit in rightly naming it. But beyond the obvious insult to our intelligence, the trans-agenda is essentially ushering in the erasure of women and obliterating the idea that females have anything unique to contribute to the world.

As previously illustrated, high school can be rough for girls who are struggling to find their place in the greater scheme of things, especially as it relates to the boys around them. In theory, a homecoming queen is supposed to be representative of the best of these girls — a female who navigates life with confidence, kindness, poise, and dignity. Homecoming queen is supposed to be a position to which girls can aspire.

What does it say then, when, of all the girls in the entire high school, none of them are deemed good enough to win the title of homecoming queen? What does it say when the best possible candidate to represent high school girls is actually a high school boy?  Most heartbreaking of all, what does it say about these girls when they choose female erasure for themselves?

The mainstream media covers this story from an angle that celebrates the open-mindedness and compassion of these high school students in their “bold decision” to “affirm and embrace” this boy’s illness. But it’s a shallow celebration, devoid of any wisdom or foresight.

True compassion should never require women to compromise the things that belong to their dignity. True compassion should never require people to compromise reality for fantasy. True compassion should never strip high school girls of one of the very few things that rightly belongs to them in order to give it to a boy.

Tammy Wynette hit the nail on the head when she sang, “Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman.”

It’s especially hard to be a woman when we are no longer legally allowed to clearly define what that means. And it’s going to be even harder when an entire generation of girls has successfully been trained to believe that their erasure is somehow progress.

The day we allow that to happen, we won’t just FEEL like we are “less than.” It will actually be true.

Not on my watch.

What in the World is Going on at UW?

CNBC Contributor and University of Washington student Benji Backer sat down with Joseph Backholm and Zach Freeman this week for a discussion on the University of Washington and their efforts to ensure that every students gets a button to wear that clearly shows their preferred gender pronoun.  Teachers are also being asked to add their preferred pronoun to their email signatures.

Of course, the University of Washington has not been known in recent days to have the most discerning policies in regards to privacy and safety, nor do its students appear able to take a stand on, well…anything.

Trans Activists Trying to Make Parents Decide: Castration or Suicide?

By Silence*

Disagree with transgender activists for very long at all and they’ll probably accuse of you of causing the deaths of transgender people.

That was the case when a feminist conference planned an event where they would sell cupcakes decorated to look like women’s genitalia. The organizers were told that linking the idea of women with female reproductive organs was, “literally the primary tenet of trans-exterminatory feminism* and that branch of feminism has literally killed** trans women.” They were told, “Trans women are dying and you are aiding and abetting in that. You are complicit in that. YOU ARE KILLING*** TRANS WOMEN WITH YOUR BELIEFS.”

To be clear, the deadly belief in question is that the word “woman” means an adult female human. Transgender advocates may insist that this idea originated with white colonialists**** and is now maintained only by religious people and radical feminists, a claim so silly it’s embarrassing to even repeat.

(But thanks for the idea about talking to conservatives, that was a good tip! Next thing you know, social justice overachievers will call for the abolishment of criminal penalties for rape, and I wonder how they’ll paint the cross-partisan opposition to that? Hold on. Sorry. Not funny. They have already begun to call for the abolishment of criminal penalties for rape. If you don’t agree, you’re “carceral.”)

After a flood of other abuse, the event was cancelled. It’s not the only time a like-themed feminist event was challenged for this reason. It’s hard to know what to say to people who claim to be mortally threatened by a simple cupcake party, without any threats made or any hate symbols displayed.

More recently, University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson declared that he didn’t want to be compelled by law to use the singular, gender-neutral “they,” or other preferred pronouns, for students. When accosted over these beliefs by a student who claims to be non-binary and wants to be called they, as this video shows, it only takes about three and a half minutes for the professor to be accused of being complicit in transgender homelessness, unemployment, and suicide. At the 4:28 mark, the student accuses the professor of creating alienation that results in suicide.

The transgender activist argument for disagreement as mortal threat has two parts.

In the first place, there are violent men who may assault or kill transgender people because they feel threatened by uncertainty about the other person’s sex. Often, these men are connected to the sex trade or other illegal activities. No one in transgender activism makes this connection, because they usually support the full legalization of the sex trade and so refuse to face the root of much of the problem. They also don’t want anyone talking about the death rates for prostituted women, which are similarly high because the sex industry is traumatic and the pimps and customers (graphic content warning) are often especially violent people.

Secondly, there are claims made that transgender persons have a very high suicide rate. The issue calls for discretion and respect; no one should do themselves harm nor be encouraged to do so. But a suicide threat made to compel obedience is a common tactic of domestic abusers. It is manipulative and cruel. A distinction has to be made between sensitively dealing with at-risk populations and giving in to abusive threats, or accepting deeply flawed excuses for terrible behavior.

As unnerving as such accusations of harm are, and they are routine in any disagreement with transgender activists, some people are more vulnerable to these comments than others. None more than the parents of minors who’ve come to believe that they’re trapped in the “wrong” body for their personality.

Public mob activism and misguided laws have made it increasingly difficult for therapists and medical professionals to recommend any option besides chemical castration for young patients who have trouble fitting into sex stereotyped roles. Institutions and practitioners have rushed to cash in. Some parents are enthusiastic about the idea of transitioning their children. Yet others still sometimes resist the intense pressure to treat their children’s psychological or social distress with sterilization.

For these families, there’s the suicide threat. Sometimes, peer encounters on message boards or elsewhere coach would-be transitioners to ask the question of whether the parent wants “a dead son or an alive daughter” (graphic content warning.) Sometimes, the dire warning comes from a medical professional, as it does in the following video, where Diane Ehrensaft explains how she convinces nervous mothers and fathers to accept the chemical castration of their young children.

Diane Ehrensaft: Parents need to be “worked with” to consent to sterilizing their 11-year-old “trans” kids from 4th Wavenow on Vimeo.

Never mind the questionable nature of widely reported statistics on transgender suicide. Never mind the simplistic and sensational reporting, which ignores all the recommended guidelines about preventing suicidal contagion. Never mind that some parents of autistic children, who are already at greater risk of suicide, worry that their children are being wrongly diagnosed as transgender.

No, it’s allegedly “child abuse” to ask any questions about whether transsexual medical experiments are an appropriate treatment for children. It’s not up for debate.

According to the transgender movement, everyone must just keep asking if they want children sterilized or dead. Sterilized or dead? Sterilized or dead? Sterilized or dead? Sterilized or dead? Sterilized or dead? Sterilized or dead? Sterilized or dead? Sterilized or dead? Sterilized or dead?

Though maybe, hear me out, a boy wanting to wear a Dora the Explorer costume isn’t a medical emergency?

* – There is no such thing as trans-exterminatory radical feminism. “TERF” is a slur (graphic content warning.)

** – Not true. Sexual dimorphism isn’t a feminist plot, deadly or otherwise.

*** – Still not true, or how can any of you survive the existence of biology textbooks?

**** – I’m not an anthropologist, but it seems to me that people from outside of Western Europe had also figured out how babies are made before white people showed up.


*Silence is the pseudonym of a radical, progressive feminist.

“For reasons of personal safety and livelihood, I cannot disclose my real identity. But I can tell you this much: I’m a progressive feminist who has spent years working on the front lines of the left. I have opposed conservatism my entire political life in the most strident of terms; under other circumstances, I wouldn’t admit to even reading this site.”

Donald Trump Could Make This One Problem Go Away Today

by Silence*

trumpIf you’ve found yourself outraged by the story of Donald Trump walking in on beauty pageant contestants in their changing room, while they were undressed, including minor girls, consider this:

Donald Trump could make this story go away tomorrow if he came out as a trans woman or non-binary and, in our current media climate, no one would ever bring it up again.

Why would it be news that a woman had walked into a women’s dressing room and seen other women naked?

Gender identity laws make just that much sense.

Meet Chase Strangio, an ACLU lawyer working hard to ensure that any man can walk in on women anywhere, just because he feels womanly sometimes. Whatever it means to “feel like a woman.”

“When pushed on the reality that there are no public safety risks to extending legal protections to trans people, anti-trans lawmakers have made clear that the core of the problem is just the very existence of trans people in single-sex spaces. There is, they contend, a privacy interest for non-transgender people in not seeing and not being seen by a trans person.

Here’s that last sentence in plain English: There is, they contend, a privacy interest for women in not seeing and not being seen by men, and vice versa.

Yes, I do contend that. I don’t want men walking in on me undressing without my permission. I don’t want to see men taking their clothes off unexpectedly. I don’t want laws protecting bodily privacy to be enforceable everywhere except bathrooms, locker rooms, women’s shelters, women’s prisons, OB/GYN offices, in the administration of urine tests, or during strip and pat-down searches where female staff could be forced to search biological males, or vice versa.

OB/GYN offices? Oh, yes. To see how far Strangio’s vision and that of the transgender movement diverges from most people’s understanding of the right to bodily privacy, consider this passage from the Lambda Legal briefing on the Equality Act, which has 178 cosponsors in the House and Senate.

“The Equality Act does not alter the general reach and applicability of the bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) defense. However, when a BFOQ is used to justify employment or training decisions on the basis of sex, individuals must be recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender identity. It is important to note that courts have deemed very few BFOQs to be permissible in practice.”

That sounds so reasonable. Here’s what it means: if a man says he is a woman and he works in a medical office, he has to be treated by everyone on staff as if he is a woman. This includes when a female patient at an OB/GYN office requests only female staff for her examinations, or asks for a female chaperone. Here’s a health care industry perspective on some of the very few BFOQs allowed by the courts.

“For example, although the BFOQ defense will not serve as a valid justification for an airline to hire only women as flight attendants to comply with male customer preferences, the privacy interests of psychiatric patients can justify a BFOQ for personal hygiene attendants of the same sex,” [Kimani Paul-Emile, JD, associate professor of law at Fordham University School of Law] says. “To this end, courts have held that for certain workers, such as nursing assistants, hospital delivery room nursing staff, and others involved in assisting individuals with dressing, disrobing, or bathing, gender may be a legitimate BFOQ for accommodating patients’ privacy or modesty interests.”

To get back to the beginning, Chase Strangio’s vision of the law means that when a female patient asks for a female personal hygiene attendant, it would be discriminatory to refuse care from a man who believes that he is a woman. Strangio and the rest of the transgender movement would like this to be the law of the land, and they have no problem with shaming even young girls who dissent.

I don’t know if all the Democrats who co-sponsored the Equality Act realize that this is the consequence of a policy that they have promised they will pass into law if they get the chance. Yet it constitutes an invasion of women’s privacy beyond even the apparently voyeuristic intentions of one, Donald Trump, who is also in favor of ending sex-segregated spaces through gender identity laws.

My friends on the left want women to be able to say no to unwanted invasions of our privacy, as well as to any unwanted touching. What to make of a policy that would allow men to walk into our changing rooms and strip in front of us? What to think about congressional Democrats telling women that they have to accept men helping them with their bathing and intimate care needs?

Have Democrats read the testimony on transgender prisoners in the UK that was submitted to a parliamentary inquiry on transgender equality by the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists?

“The converse is the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case. There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this…”

What do Democrats think about women in prison having to bunk with violent men who think they’re women (graphic content), or judges letting off male sex offenders because they’re now “women,” as can happen in the UK and other countries with expansive gender identity recognition laws?

To look at how it would go in the US if we adopted the same gender identity laws as the UK has, let’s take the case of the recently convicted Kryzie King, who brutally beat, starved, and tortured a 4-year-old boy to death in 2014, when Myls Dobson’s father was forced to leave the boy in King’s care. King is listed by the Department of Corrections as male, and was housed in a men’s detention facility while awaiting trial. But King claims to be a transgender woman. Here’s a headline reporting on the case: Woman charged in death of Myls Dobson said she ‘tried to show him the love’.

Kryzie King is male, and the State of New York knows it. Yet state employees and media reporting on the case have had to refer to King as if he were a woman, and leaving out significant details regarding his past. New York’s gender identity laws demand that everyone go along with this or be at risk of being charged with discrimination, possibly subject to fines of up to $250,000.

Right now, to the chagrin of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, King won’t be able to change his legal sex to female while incarcerated. Will this one protection for female prisoners in New York State be removed if the Equality Act is passed, or if court decisions render biological sex meaningless in the law? A 2009 study of 332 transgender male inmates in California determined that a total of 49 percent were incarcerated for crimes against persons, including the 20 percent of the study group who were registered sex offenders.

Do my friends on the left really want Kryzie King, who accepted a plea deal for a sentence of 22 years to life, to be able to change his legal sex markers and serve his time in a women’s prison? That’s something that even the State of New York, which has some of the most extreme gender identity policies in the nation, stopped short of allowing.

Kryzie King says he is a woman. Who are any of us to deny it if federal law insists that it’s discriminatory to claim otherwise. What does it matter if the women he would be housed with don’t want him showering with them, neither wanting to see him naked or to be seen naked by him? Will there be as much sympathy for these women as there is today for Donald Trump’s alleged beauty pageant victims?

I suspect Chase Strangio’s sympathies would begin and end with Kryzie King, with nothing spared for the women affected by him. Is that the true consensus of the Democratic Party and its members?

If it happens to be an awkward time for Democrats to bring this up, too bad. Women have been trying to warn them about these problems with gender identity laws for years and they have turned around and thrown us out of their politics for our troubles.

Not that it’s anything brand new.  If the men in the Democratic Party really cared about women, where are the charges filed against PR executive Trevor Fitzgibbon, whose firm closed down over widespread allegations of sexual harassment and assault? Maybe the women who spoke out against him know all too well what would happen to their career prospects if they took a liberal man to court for workplace misconduct. Transgender activism didn’t invent misogyny on the left, after all.

The question remains, will they listen before we have to come up with millions of stories about being assaulted by men who think they’re women, or will the incidents we’ve seen already be enough?

Women aren’t irrationally phobic of transgender people. We are afraid of men, because many of us have seen them behave badly towards us in private. There’s no evidence that men who think they’re women are any different than the rest. Democrats should stop pretending they don’t know what we mean, even as they ride to soaring heights in the polls on the strength of our outrage about male violence. That’s not okay with me.


*Silence is the pseudonym of a radical, progressive feminist.

“For reasons of personal safety and livelihood, I cannot disclose my real identity. But I can tell you this much: I’m a progressive feminist who has spent years working on the front lines of the left. I have opposed conservatism my entire political life in the most strident of terms; under other circumstances, I wouldn’t admit to even reading this site.”

October: Seattle Children’s Hospital to Prep Children for Gender Transition

Seattle Children’s Hospital will open a clinic for transgender youth sometime in October.

Doctors trained in “transgender care” will provide puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone therapy, and mental health support to children struggling with their gender identity. The Gender Clinic will refer children seeking sex reassignment surgery to other medical providers.

The clinic, which is funded by a grant from the Pacific Hospital Preservation & Development Authority, will serve children between eight and 21 years old.

Seattle Children’s claims that treating transgender children early in life allows them to better integrate into society, despite growing evidence that treating gender dysphoria with puberty blockers and hormone therapies can irreversibly harm young children.

In a statement entitled “Gender Ideology Harms Children,” the American College of Pediatricians outlines the risks associated with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapies.

Puberty blockers prevent a child from beginning puberty. Children using puberty blockers find their growth and fertility inhibited, sometimes permanently. Their sexual organs never fully mature, leaving them deprived of the ability to reproduce and without the physical characteristics associated with either sex. Heartbreakingly, this can leave them feeling as if they belong to neither biological sex.

There are also health risks associated with these treatments. Puberty blockers decrease bone density and may hinder brain development. Cross-sex hormone therapy increases the risk of high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, and cancer.

Dr. Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Medical Center, likened these medical interventions to “child abuse,” noting that “close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated.”

Other research summarized by the American Psychiatric Association suggests as many as 98% of boys and 88% of girls who struggle with gender dysphoria as children will no longer identify as the other gender after finishing puberty.

Troublingly, the majority of adolescents who will stop identifying as the other gender may be unable to revert to their biological sex if they received puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatments.

The American College of Pediatricians warns that “children and adolescents are incapable of making informed decisions regarding permanent, irreversible and life-altering medical interventions.”

We agree. Activist doctors shouldn’t encourage children to undergo unnecessary and potentially harmful and irreversible medical treatments – and that’s exactly why the news about the Seattle Children’s Gender Clinic is so concerning.

Blaine Conzatti is a columnist and 2016 Research Fellow at the Family Policy Institute of Washington. He can be reached at Blaine@FPIW.org.

The Important Difference Between Sex and Gender

By Silence*

Second trigger warning: Zack Ford

Earlier this week, we talked about how Zack Ford at ThinkProgress, an editor at one of the most respected publications in left-wing politics, has begun advocating forcible genital amputation for children.

Let’s get back to wondering how anyone can be as cheerfully self-satisfied as Zack Ford about promoting the sterilization of minors as an uncontrolled exercise in off-label intervention for body dysphoria, social alienation, or depression. Because there is almost no data available on the long-term effects of these treatments, since hardly anyone has been systematically tracking patients.

Medicare won’t even cover transsexual medical treatments because there isn’t enough evidence about patient outcomes.

The drugs used weren’t developed for this purpose. Patients receiving them haven’t been consistently studied for side effects over the roughly two decades that this type of treatment has been more commonly taking place. Calling these interventions “experimental” is praise they don’t deserve, given the way they have been haphazardly administered and monitored in these off-label uses.

Parents are diagnosing their kids off of YouTube. Kids are self-diagnosing off of Reddit forums where they’re told by complete strangers that if they’re questioning, they’re definitely transgender based on ridiculous stereotypes. Children are being diagnosed by their peers, who tell them that they’re doing gender wrong and seem more like the opposite sex. So when did schoolyard bullying become a clinical diagnostic tool?

One clinician tried to enact the “watchful waiting” protocol recommended by every major medical body that’s studied the issue, in light of the fact that well over 70 percent of children with gender or sex dysphoria eventually grow out of it. Trans activists threatened him, spread lies about him, got him fired, and got his entire clinic shut down.

Maybe dysphoric young people could be allowed to be a little different than their peers and no one would have to read much into it?

If conservatives were proposing that sex stereotype-nonconforming, mentally ill, or developmentally disabled kids be sterilized, liberals would be organizing capitol building shutdowns in protest of this alarming eugenics revivalbordering on genocide. But liberals are proposing it using words that make everyone feel like they need an advanced degree to just repeat them. So no protests.

The transgender activist lobby has done everything in their power to mainstream the radical feminist idea that sex and gender are different, which is true, as the American College of Pediatricians says. Your biology doesn’t have anything to do with wearing pants, putting on makeup, or playing with certain children’s toys. Your sex doesn’t have anything to do with whether you’re shy or like math. Sex doesn’t determine personality or ability.

Then these activists said that you couldn’t use the term transsexual because not everyone who isn’t a sex stereotype wants to get medical treatment to change their bodies. That’s also true. But then they started using sex and gender interchangeably, and confusingly, while normalizing medical treatment at ever-younger ages.

This chain of reasoning is hiding the fact that they’re trying to sell the world on the idea that there are transsexual children. Every time you read about transgender children, replace that term with transsexual, and see how you feel about it.

Ultimately, this all means that the gender identity activist lobby believes there are children who need sterilization and genital amputation as minors in order to not kill themselves. If this sounds terrible, that’s because it is. That’s probably why they don’t just come out and say what they want.

Where were these children before surgery was available? Where were all the boys who insisted that they would die if not castrated? Where were all the girls who insisted that they would die if they couldn’t cut their breasts off? Since when has it been conclusively proved that genital amputation is a good treatment for depression?

These medical procedures have been called everything from essential health care, to gender confirmation, to sex reassignment. One thing is certain about them though: they can’t make someone the other sex. They can chemically castrate you or amputate your gonads, but they can’t give you functional, opposite-sex reproductive organs.

Here are other things you should know about sex and gender.

2015 study of teenagers being treated at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles gender clinic showed that their hormone levels before treatment were normal for their actual sex. A 2013 study found no genetic anomalies in the sex-determining chromosomes for adult male transsexuals. The true intersex conditions that transgender activists cite as proving that biological sex is a “construct” only affect 0.018 percent of the population, and everyone else has an obviously male or female reproductive system. Intersex conditions are separate from, and rarely have anything to do with, gender identity claims.

A very robust 2015 study of brain differences by sex found that there is almost no brain difference by sex. Even differences in spatial rotation ability appear to be influenced by socialization and aren’t “hardwired.” In the words of one neuroscientist: “There is not one aspect of the brain even which if a scientist looked at it they could tell whether it came from a man or a woman.” If you can’t say that a man has a male brain, how can you say he has a female brain?

Yet Zack Ford holds up a thin review of several small studies as conclusive evidence that gender identity conditions are biological, in much the same way as eye color or height. This is from the introduction of that review:

“Gender identity is a fundamental human attribute that has a profound impact on personal well-being. Transgender individuals are those whose lived and identified gender identity differs from their natal sex. Various etiologies for transgender identity have been proposed, but misconceptions that gender identity can be altered persist. However, clinical experience with treatment of transgender persons has clearly demonstrated that the best outcomes for these individuals are achieved with their requested hormone therapy and surgical sexual transition as opposed to psychiatric intervention alone.[1] In this review, we will discuss the data in support of a fixed, biologic basis for gender identity.”

Do you believe that there are really transsexual toddlers and preteens? Do you believe that men who’ve married and fathered children, then transition to live as women, are the right people to treat as expert authorities on the need for the sterilization of children based on their own mid-life worries about appearance?

I’ve read a girl’s interest in toys like dinosaurs and Legos being taken as proof she was really a boy. This should be terrifying to any other grown woman who enjoyed Legos or reading about dinosaurs as a child. Would we now be tracked into testosterone treatment and a mastectomy? This isn’t progress. It’s a warning to children that they need to play with the “right” toys, and wear the “right” clothes, and not do anything to stand out from the crowd at school, or they may be socially transitioned and sterilized before they’re old enough to know what that means.

This August, a young woman who transitioned and had a mastectomy at the age of 17, at a clinic that now claims a 0% desistance rate in pediatric transition, asked other detransitioning women to answer a survey. She heard back from 203 of them, but transgender health professionals are already dismissing these experiences. It’s worth clicking over and reading through, because people like Zack Ford would like to pretend that these women don’t exist, and they should know better, because this isn’t new.

It’s just inconvenient for people who want to convince the public that there are children who were born needing to be neutered.

So if you have kids, you don’t have to be guilted by anyone into letting a doctor cut your daughter’s breasts off, or hollow out your son’s testes, because they might look wrong when they get older. You don’t have to let anyone tell your child that their entire body is “wrong” and a tragic birth defect, or be made to feel like a monster because you think they’re perfect as they are. You don’t have to believe, because it isn’t true, that a minor is ready to decide whether or not they might ever want children as an adult.

It’s not a hate crime to tell a child, as their parent, that you’re going to do your best to get them to 18 in one piece, in as healthy a body as they could have. It’s not a hate crime to refuse to treat teenage depression or anxiety, especially if it’s caused by bullying at school, with hormone blockers, cross-sex hormones, breast binders, or genital surgery.

Zack Ford thinks he’s protecting vulnerable people from bullies. What he’s doing is helping pressure vulnerable kids into thinking that hormones and surgery will fix the (common as dirt) feeling that they don’t fit in, and unethically holding the threat of suicide over the heads of worried parents. You don’t have to take his warped perspective seriously.


*Silence is the pseudonym of a radical, progressive feminist.

“For reasons of personal safety and livelihood, I cannot disclose my real identity. But I can tell you this much: I’m a progressive feminist who has spent years working on the front lines of the left. I have opposed conservatism my entire political life in the most strident of terms; under other circumstances, I wouldn’t admit to even reading this site.”

Gender Warriors Advocating Forced Genital Amputation of Children

by Silence*

Trigger warning: Zack Ford

Zack Ford’s recent post at Think Progress, where he comes out strongly in favor of sterilizing and/or amputating the genitals of minor children in response to the American College of Pediatricians, is so reflexively contrarian, I worry about what would happen if the ACP released a statement opposing jumping off cliffs.

Ford is the LGBT Editor at ThinkProgress.org, affiliated with the highly influential Center for American Progress. Think Progress is shared widely on Capitol Hill, and is a commonly-read news source for anyone working on the political left. Whether you’ve heard of the site or not, when an editor at Think Progress feels comfortable promoting chemical castration for misfit children, you can be sure that they’re speaking from within the political comfort zone of the highest ranks of the Democrat Party and its allies.

Putting aside the uncommon phrases and words you may see in stories about so-called ‘transgender children’, a large number of gender warriors ignore the fact that a common side effect of putting a young child on “reversible” puberty blockers, and then giving them high doses of cross-sex hormones throughout their adolescent development window, is lifetime sterility. That’s before anyone goes under the knife, though cosmetic genital surgery is being pushed at ever-earlier ages as well.

Transitioning teens are even being chemically sterilized in front of an adoring nation on YouTube and on reality TV. It’s a spectacle of depravity for entertainment unparalleled since the castrati sang to packed opera houses in Europe. In cruelty, it matches the British government’s chemical castration of gay WWII codebreaker, Alan Turing.

When you watch these “heartwarming” transgender child stories — the ones where the kids look like they’re 11 at the age of 14 because they’ve been on hormone blockers for years — of parents giving their children cross-sex hormones, you’re watching the likely chemical sterilization of a child as an entertainment. If you like to think of yourself as a nice liberal, you probably watch these videos to feel good about your own broadmindedness.

It’s as if Toddlers and Tiaras was co-ed and gave the pageant winner a free tubal ligation or vasectomy. Pass the popcorn!

Meanwhile, Zack Ford and the transgender activist movement seem to be suggesting that all the weird little kids need to be encouraged to have their gonads destroyed before they’re old enough to even try them out.

Here’s a seven-year-old who seems to be transitioning because he wanted a Hello Kitty backpack and had a history of liking the colors pink and purple. This sounds like punishing children’s fashion tastes with castration.

Here’s a six-year-old boy who likes Barbie and wearing dresses. Because no one wants to hurt his self-esteem by telling him that what he’s wearing is wrong, they’re prepping him for body modification as if his entire body is wrong. Why are clothing choices a medical problem?

Here’s a teenager who seems to be transitioning because she wanted to get out of shaving her legs. Why does she have to shave her legs? Why is the better option a possible lifetime of hormone therapy that makes the doctors for the former East Germany’s Olympics team look like hobbyists?

There’s a four-year-old being socially transitioned and prepared for medicalized sex alteration in Australia because … why? They are four years old. Who is standing up for this child to say that their guardians and doctors need to respect their bodily integrity?

Ford acknowledges the issue of permanent sterility but seems unworried by it because these children might otherwise look “wrong” when they grow up. This is a reason both sinister and shallow. Ford says that no families are consenting to irreversible procedures. This is wrong, but it isn’t as though he seems to care. He dismisses the question this way:

“ACP wants to force trans kids to go through the wrong puberty, which would guarantee changes that could intensify their gender dysphoria, to avoid the risk of one possible side effect if they don’t. It’s actually proof of the double standard that Serano outlined — that it’s okay for a transgender kid to go through the wrong puberty, but not a cisgender kid.”

The “wrong puberty,” in this case, means not attaining reproductive maturity at all. This is serious, where Ford and his compatriots seem utterly dismissive. It should be frightening to parents, educators, and medical professionals, who might have thought that surely no one would be cavalier about minors being denied the possibility of ever having their own children. To Ford, this is just “one possible side effect.”

So it’s worth thinking about what Ford means when he refers to transgender kids. Many people react to this term as though we’re talking about a newly discovered sex of person, or as though the word transgender meant a different species. If there were such a physical classification, there would be a lab test for it. There isn’t one, unless children’s self-reported dissatisfaction with the prospect of growing up now counts as a modern scientific revelation.

Instead, the majority of children who go through what has been classed as gender dysphoria, somewhere between 60 to 90 percent of them, once stopped identifying as the opposite sex. But according to the study Zack Ford quotes, the “best outcomes” for children with gender dysphoria, or extreme unhappiness with their expected social roles, come from hormone treatments and surgical sexual transition. In other words, he mainly means to class these children as transsexuals.

Yes, Zack Ford is pushing the idea that there are transsexual children who urgently require what are known as sex changes because they are otherwise doomed to unhappiness. Instead of suggesting treatment for what sounds like depression, transgender ideologues want kids on hormones. Though cross-sex hormones won’t give a person an alternate reproductive system, and “sex change” or “gender confirmation” surgeries can’t change sex. These treatments can damage or remove your gonads, but not give you new ones. Surgeons can remove your genitals, but replacing them is a work in progress.

I was a weird little kid once. So was Rupert Everett, and here’s what he said about that, “I really wanted to be a girl. Thank God the world of now wasn’t then, because I’d be on hormones and I’d be a woman. After I was 15 I never wanted to be a woman again.”

Statistically, Rupert Everett represents the most likely outcome for children with gender dysphoria: they grow out of it. The majority of them used to grow up to be as satisfied with their bodies as anyone else, before they began to be socially transitioned and put on treatments that block the adolescent hormone surges that act to mature the brain as well as the body.

Or too frequently, transitioning children have a condition on the autism spectrum, and they are often girls whose social delays and sensory integration problems make them feel like they’re failures at performing feminine social roles. Sometimes these young people are told lies in their so-called support groups, like that taking testosterone can grow male genitalia for biological females. When you fit in as badly at school as many autistic young people do, I can see wanting to believe that someone can give you a treatment that will fix it.

Now the misfit kids are too often being recruited and groomed at school and over social media to seek genital amputation and sterilization. Some of them are being recruited and groomed by therapists and other medical professionals. A child may end up surrounded by adults who are now forbidden by law to try to help them overcome discomfort with social expectations or their bodies, forbidden to oppose anyone encouraging them down a path of transsexual medicalization.

After an amputation or extraction of the gonads, someone who’s had a full course of transsexual medical treatment is likely to need a lifetime of urgent medical intervention.

Zack Ford writes of avoiding extreme medical intervention as “privileging” one type of person over another, as if it were discriminatory to allow puberty to take its normal, healthy course.

These children aren’t a new sex, they are girls and boys who are often being neutered, if not, groomed from a young age to seek medical de-sexing. How long will the manufacture of new labels for these children hide that from view?


*Silence is the pseudonym of a radical, progressive feminist.

“For reasons of personal safety and livelihood, I cannot disclose my real identity. But I can tell you this much: I’m a progressive feminist who has spent years working on the front lines of the left. I have opposed conservatism my entire political life in the most strident of terms; under other circumstances, I wouldn’t admit to even reading this site.”

Women and the Politics of Pornography

by Silence*

Content Warning: Every Link

Feminists used to be famous for speaking out against pornography. Then the left got mad at them for it. Liberals even accused them of working with conservatives in the 1980s, though it wasn’t true. Gradually, men affiliated with the left found more compliant women to be the public face of feminism, many of them either drawn from the sex industry or groomed by porn-worshipping male liberals to expect no better for themselves.

Newer waves of activist-minded women keep rediscovering that pornography is unethical, and that even nonviolent, real-world imitations of pornography culture are unsatisfying. They keep trying to fix it. It keeps failing. The enterprise is doomed because pornography is irredeemable and women aren’t benefitted by life as a sexual object, not even for supposedly enlightened, liberal men. Most of the women who called themselves feminists once knew that.

Now, like the existence of transgender male rapists, the fact that pornography is an exercise in torture for women is a truth that the left will no longer tolerate hearing. Women who speak out against any aspect of the sex industry get blacklisted by people like Lux Alptraum, who runs a major women writers network and conference. She seems nice, doesn’t she?

Lux

Alptraum is a major gatekeeper in feminist journalism. Explains a lot, right?

I know the word you’re probably thinking; I’ve heard it from the lips of Rush Limbaugh. But what I’m telling you is that this promoter of Nazi porn isn’t a feminist. She’s someone who has unrepentantly profited from the sex industry’s torture and degradation of women. And it’s important to realize that the so-called fantasies depicted in violent pornography — which is the majority of all pornography — are recordings of the torture and degradation of the women in the film, before it has been shown to anyone as a consumer product.

Torturing and degrading women, either doing it or being entertained by it, has never been feminist.

Alptraum and her cohorts demand that women not speak aloud the truth that Elizabeth Smart knows. Sex “positive” pornography enthusiasts like the Center for Sex & Culture, who sponsor the site Feministing, don’t want to hear about the negative effects the industry and its products have on women, both behind the camera and in the audience.

So you won’t see many feminists sharing or talking about Elizabeth Smart’s courageous statements. Even when they want to, they know it’s a risky proposition.

I know a lot of my friends would hate that I’m writing with an organization that opposes abortion. If you are wondering, I support it. We don’t have to talk about that here, but I bring it up as an example of how bad the relationship between liberals and feminists has become.

Because if you think about it, everyone who follows politics knows of male Democrats who we on the left would call “bad on choice,” by which we mean they would agree with conservatives about abortion. Are these men blacklisted? Do they get threatened with violence over social media? Does the entire left rise up as one to call them backstabbers?

No.

Male Democrats get to cross over on issues like abortion because everyone understands that they have to win a swing district. Or it’s about their faith. Or they had to trade a favor for a vote. They always have some excuse. Feminists grumble about it, but in the end these men are still part of the team.

A man crossing over to work with the right on a matter of conscience is a bipartisan statesman. A woman doing the same thing is treason. Especially on this subject. Because men love their pornography.

He can cheat. She has to be completely loyal. How feminist.

This is why women’s criticisms of the sex industry have become more marginalized within the left, even as pornography has become so much more extreme and violent than the pin-up posters of nude women that were the mainstay of the porn industry even 30 years ago.


*Note from the Author:

“For reasons of personal safety and livelihood, I cannot disclose my real identity. But I can tell you this much: I’m a progressive feminist who has spent years working on the front lines of the left. I have opposed conservatism my entire political life in the most strident of terms; under other circumstances, I wouldn’t admit to even reading this site.”

Pornography Hurts Women And Girls

by Silence*

Content warning: Every link.

A couple weeks ago, the Huffington Post was gushing about a new “feminist” pornography magazine, as if such a thing could exist.

It’s as if they all forgot about the time “feminist” porn performer and sex advice columnist James Deen raped his co-star, Stoya, and then several other women stepped forward with similar stories about Deen after she spoke out. It’s as if Pornhub — one of the largest porn sites in the world — hadn’t profited for two years from a video of a sexual assault, which they only took down after getting negative media coverage.

The concept of “feminist pornography” makes as much sense as feathers on a rabbit. It has nothing to do with dignity or freedom.

A few days after this marketing gimmick was announced, Elizabeth Smart — who was raped for nine months as the 14-year old abductee of a sex-crazed porn addict — spoke publicly for the first time about how pornography had made the living hell of abduction and sexual torture even worse. It would be five minutes well spent to click over and watch the video.

The Industry is Growing as it Becomes More Perverse

Pornography is now a $13 billion industry that thrives on sex traffickers filming and collecting royalties from acts of prostitution, often using naive, young women who burn out quickly from the abuse. But this is one big business that the men on the left — who are such great feminists, they insist — can’t stand to see criticized. They only want to hear from “sex positive” women.

Why is an industry whose most popular products are saturated with violence against women something that the left won’t speak against? Why is violence against us so sexy to them?

Let me ask a more pointed question: what is positive about videos with titles like, “Teen Destroyed by Dad’s Friends”? That’s the least bad title I turned up on the first page of a related Google search where the more common, incest-themed titles were even more horrifying. Why is incest seen as sexy, instead of violent and unacceptable? This is an awful thing to discuss, but it’s a serious public health issue when scenes like that are eagerly consumed by millions of viewers, including children.

If you know any survivors of childhood sexual abuse, you’re more likely to find that “destroyed” isn’t simply a metaphor for the women this happens to in real life.  

Presently, “teen” pornography is the most popular genre on the internet. The actors, costuming, and scenarios chosen go as far as possible to depict what looks like the rape of minor children. Much of it even contains lessons on how to groom and blackmail a child for sexual abuse.

“All the sites discussed so far… depict scenarios where the men do not use overt force to get the girl to comply with their sexual demands but rather seduce, manipulate, and cajole the girl into submission. … For perpetrators, this is a safer way than overt force since it does not leave visible scars, and because it is an act of breaking the child’s will, the victim is more likely to keep the abuse hidden for fear of appearing disloyal to the perpetrator. … Pornographers are well aware of the seasoning process since they do an excellent job of depicting it in their movies by showing a whole range of techniques …” Pornland, 2010, by Gail Dines

In Australia, this has led to an organized ring of pornographers recruiting male students to post nude photos of girls (often minors) and young women they attend school with after another site member nominates the unlucky girl or woman by name. As reported in the News Limited story, comments like these are typical on the sites: “I know this is a longshot, but who has nudes of [female name]? If anyone wants to go on the hunt, her t**s are mint and it’s worth it!”

Is [female name] supposed to be empowered by this? Does anyone think that she, or any of her other female classmates, will be treated with more respect by these male peers?  

What’s sexy, or positive, about minor girls being coerced into painful sex acts by male peers raised on a steady diet of pornography?

What’s sexy, or positive, about children being trained to think violence is a normal part of sex?

Pornography is the business of making the world a living hell for women and girls. Lots of us know that Elizabeth Smart is right about that.

This is part one of a two-part series on the pornography industry.  Look for Part II on Thursday, September 1.


*Note from the Author:

“For reasons of personal safety and livelihood, I cannot disclose my real identity. But I can tell you this much: I’m a progressive feminist who has spent years working on the front lines of the left. I have opposed conservatism my entire political life in the most strident of terms; under other circumstances, I wouldn’t admit to even reading this site.”