(1) Radical feminists banned by Twitter ... because they object to “transwomen” (2) Meghan Murphy banned from Twitter for tweets saying "men aren't women" (3) Jordan Peterson and Meghan Murphy to speak in Vancouver, despite pressure to cancel (4) Meghan Murphy denies that a Male can simply declare himself Female and it becomes so (5) Tasmania remove the requirement for Gender to be recorded on a Birth Certificate (6) ‘Trans women’ are women - merely because they affirm it (7) Socialist Worker Trots campaign for Trans And Queer Liberation (8) Mother dresses Son as Girl, threatens Dad with losing him for disagreeing (9) American Academy of Pediatrics backs Trans ideology (10) Debate on nontraditional pronouns for Transgender people (11) Feminists sue high school over Transgender bathroom policies
(1) Radical feminists banned by Twitter ... because they object to “transwomen” http://www.unz.com/proberts/the-disintegration-of-western-society/ The Disintegration of Western Society PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS • DECEMBER 4, 2018 Radical feminists are now being banned by Twitter not because they hate men, which is perfectly OK as far as Twitter is concerned, but because they object to “transwomen.” What is a “transwoman?” As far as I can understand, a “transwoman” is a male with a penis who declares himself to be a women and demands his right to use women’s toilette facilities anong with the women who are using them. The feminist, Meghan Murphy, twittered a statement and a question: “Men are not women.” “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between men and transwomen?” Twitter described this as “hateful conduct” and banned Meghan Murphy. https://quillette.com/2018/11/28/twitters-trans-activist-decree/ There you have it. Yesterday it was feminists who were exercising their special society-bestowed privileges to censor. Today it is the feminists who are being censored. As this insanity of “Western Civilization” continues, tomorrow it will be the transwomen who are censored and banned. [...] I sympathize with Meghan Murphy, but she brought this on herself and on the rest of us by accepting Identity Politics. Identity Politics gave Meghan a justification for hating men even, as she failed to realize, it provided the basis for moving her into the exploitative class that must be censored. Where does this end? It has already gone far enough that the American population is so divided and mutually hostile that there is no restraint by “the American people” on government and the elite oligarchs that rule. “The American people” are no longer a reality but a mythical creature like the unicorn. [...]
(2) Meghan Murphy banned from Twitter for tweets saying "men aren't women" Self-described feminist banned from Twitter says platform is setting 'dangerous' precedent 12/7/2018 Journalist Meghan Murphy said in an interview that aired Thursday on "Rising" that Twitter's practice of banning users for remarks it deems offensive is a dangerous precedent after she was banned from the platform last month. "I don't want to draw a line that ends up silencing people who have political ideas, or who are talking about ideologies, or who are challenging popular discourse that has been deemed offensive," Murphy, founder and editor of the website Feminist Current, told Hill.TV's Krystal Ball on Wednesday. "Now we're banned, we're silenced, and I actually think it's quite dangerous," she continued. "This is the new public square, and they know it. They've created this platform that they say is a place for people to share ideas," she said. Murphy was banned from Twitter after challenging views supporting transgender individuals, and posting tweets saying "men aren't women." It was revealed last month that the social media platform was officially prohibiting misgendering or "deadnaming" transgender individuals. "We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category," the platform's website reads. "This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals." News of Murphy's ban comes after conservative commentator Jesse Kelly has returned to Twitter after his account was suspended for unclear reasons. His ban, which lasted less than a week, sparked outrage from a number of conservatives. — Julia Manchester
(3) Jordan Peterson and Meghan Murphy to speak in Vancouver, despite pressure to cancel Free speech, hate speech, gender identity, and controversy: Jordan Peterson and Meghan Murphy to speak in Vancouver by Craig Takeuchi on December 2nd, 2018 A controversial University of Toronto professor, whose opinions about political correctness and identity politics have received both support as well as criticism and protests, and who has also garnered international media coverage, is returning to speak in Vancouver again. Jordan Peterson is a Toronto psychology professor and clinical psychologist. Peterson has stated in interviews that he will refuse to use the gender pronouns that trans or nonbinary people choose for themselves, such as "they/them". He was a vocal opponent of Bill C-16 (which was passed in June 2017) that enforces the rights of nonbinary identities on the basis of the potential for infringement upon freedom of expression. In May 2017, Peterson spoke at a Senate committee hearing about the bill, arguing that the legislation was ideologically driven. His followers regard him as a champion of free speech and civil liberties but numerous critics have slammed Peterson as transphobic and associated with the alt-right. However, he has stated that he does not affiliate himself with the right-wing or ultra-conservatives and considers himself an individualist. On November 2, CBC Docs POV released the documentary Shut Him Down: The Rise of Jordan Peterson by filmmaker Patricia Marcoccia takes a look at how Peterson has become the centre of a fierce debate involving issues of free speech and hate speech. [...] Meanwhile, a Vancouver-based feminist, who has expressed controversial opinions about trans people, will continue to hold a talk about gender identity and women's rights at the Vancouver Public Library (VPL) on January 10—despite outcry and incorrect information that the event was cancelled. CKNW reported on December 2 that the news station received an email that appeared to be from Feminist Current founder Meghan Murphy on December 1, stating that her event had been cancelled. However, CKNW updated the article to state that Murphy confirmed with CKNW that the email was not actually from her and the event will continue as planned. After numerous concerns were raised about Murphy's appearance at an event to be held at the library, the VPL issued a statement to explain that although it does not agree with Murphy's views, it will permit her and her publication, Feminist Current, to rent a space at the library due to their commitment to intellectual freedom and free speech. The library neither endorses nor will be hosting the event. The VPL also stated that it has contacted the Vancouver Police Department who will be monitoring the event for any violations of the criminal code. Murphy has come under fire for her critical views about and questioning of trans rights and identities.
(4) Meghan Murphy denies that a Male can simply declare himself Female and it becomes so https://www.thepostmillennial.com/millennial-interviews-meghan-murphy/ MILLENNIAL INTERVIEWS: Meghan Murphy Controversial feminist and founder of Feminist Current, Meghan Murphy joins The Post Millennial to talk about her ban from Twitter, trans activism and free speech. by Cosmin Dzsurdzsa December 5, 2018 Canadian feminist, Meghan Murphy has made the spotlight in recent weeks as trans activists attempted to cancel her talk at the Vancouver Public Library. In October, Meghan also spoke in Kitchener, Ontario for the Laurier Society for Open Inquiry in a talk titled “Does Trans Activism Negatively Impact Women’s Rights?” Meghan was also recently banned for Twitter for her views and persistence in questioning trans ideology. She is the founder of Feminist Current, a leading Canadian publication on feminism and the issues affecting women. DZSURDZSA: What was the exact reason that Twitter cited for the suspension of your account? MURPHY: They referenced a Tweet of mine that I’d posted on November 8th (the suspension happened on November 23rd), saying “Yeah, it’s him,” attached to a screen shot providing evidence of “JY’s” real identity. I was told I violated their rules against “hateful conduct.” DZSURDZSA: Do you think it has something to do with more than the reason mentioned, such as your past views or public profile? MURPHY: It absolutely was because of my public profile. I am one of the most high profile feminists speaking critically about gender identity ideology and legislation, and people were paying attention to what I was saying. Trans activists with connections at Twitter did not like that. Specifically, “JY” has been getting everyone who tweets his name or any information about him banned or suspended. He recently had my LSOI talk removed from YouTube. He desperately wants to stop this very incriminating information from getting out about him, but by attempting to silence everyone who speaks about him, it has clearly just made things worse, and really amplified the story. The trans activists connected to Twitter also desperately wanted to silence me, because my arguments have gained so much traction, and they know they can’t respond without revealing their ideology to be wholly incoherent. This is why they try to shut everyone up who asks critical questions or challenges gender identity dogma. They know it’s full of holes, but don’t want anyone to see it. DZSURDZSA: Recent changes to Twitter policy prohibit the practice of misgendering and “deadnaming”(using somebody’s pre-transition name) because it is perceived as a form of harassment. Why do you think Twitter is taking these steps? MURPHY: I think trans activists have a lot of power at Twitter and they want to force their ideology onto the public. I think for many of these men, they want to erase their past, which should ring alarm bells. What this ‘misgendering’ and ‘deadnaming’ thing does is to ensure predatory or dangerous men can erase their histories of violence and abuse and avoid accountability, and perhaps continue to predate. The ‘misgendering’ thing forces the public to play along with this lie that a male can simply declare himself female and it becomes so. They are literally trying to criminalize people who challenge this, refuse to play along, and continue to tell the truth about material reality. It’s frightening, to be honest. And dictatorial. [...]
(5) Tasmania removes the requirement for Gender to be recorded on a Birth Certificate Monica Doumit: Birth certificate Bill is the fruit of marriage redefinition By Monica Doumit -November 29, 2018 Share Boy and girl iconsAs many of you know, I spent the better part of last year working for the Coalition for Marriage; the official ‘no’ campaign for the same-sex marriage plebiscite. The key message of the campaign was that the redefinition of marriage would have consequences that extend far beyond the personal lives of the couple involved. In particular, we said that a removal of gender in marriage would lead to a push for the removal of gender in society. In return, we were called liars and scaremongers, and assured that none of the consequences of which we warned would manifest. Difficult as it was to be called a ‘liar,’ I would have actually been happy if it was true. I would have much preferred if what we predicted would happen in Australia didn’t eventuate and – as the ‘yes’ campaign continually promised – the only consequence would be more couples getting married. James Parker Former gay rights activist James Parker speaks at a debate on same-sex marriage at the University of NSW last year, as his interlocutor, Marriage Equality CEO Tiernan Brady, and moderator Monica Doumit look on. Photo: Giovanni Portelli But let’s look at where we are, a year since same-sex marriage became the law of the land in Australia. Last week, the Tasmanian House of Assembly voted in favour of a bill that, if it passes the Legislative Council, would go a long way towards making Tasmania a gender-neutral state. In the first place, it would amend all legislation to remove references to ‘mother’ or ‘father,’ replacing them with the gender-neutral term ‘parent’. Importantly, it would also amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1999 to remove the requirement for gender to be recorded on a birth certificate, instead making parents opt-in for the recording of their child’s gender in a separate application to the Registrar. As you can imagine, most new parents are busy enough keeping their children fed and clean (and themselves sane) to worry about additional forms, so it is likely that this change would make the default position in Tasmania a gender-less one for new births. It's ok to say 'no' sign Canberra teenager Madeline was fired after she posted a Facebook profile photo with an ‘it’s OK to say No’ filter during the 2017 same sex marriage debate. Even if the gender is registered at birth, the law also provides that a parent of a child under the age of 16 is free to ask to change the child’s name and/or gender as recorded, simply by filling out a form. Alarmingly, where the parents are in disagreement about whether a child’s gender should be changed in, or removed from, official records, the law would replace the “best interests of the child” test that courts would usually need to apply in child-related matters with a test of whether the changes were “consistent with the child’s will and preferences.” I’m not a parent, but I’m pretty sure that you parents out there would agree that sometimes, what is in the best interests of your child is a long way from their “will and preferences”. The effect of such a test would be to remove the rights of a parent trying to stop a child under the age of 16 from having their gender changed on all official records. The court would undermine parental authority by prioritising the child’s preferences over the decision of a parent as to the best interests of the child. It’s absolutely diabolical. A teaching resource produced by US activist group Trans Student Equality Resources. Same-sex marriage will make such teaching materials compulsory while parents who object to their children being taught beliefs which contradict their own family values could be designated ‘haters’ and face – for now – possibilities such as ejection from education systems. Removal of children from families who do not conform to the new dictates may follow – as is the case of Ontario’s Bill 89, enacted in June and which Canadian critics say empowers authorities to do just this.Photo Source: Trans Student Equality Resources For those aged 16 years and over, name and gender can be changed simply by making a statutory declaration. There would be no need for any type of medical assessment or confirmation that the person is suffering from gender dysphoria; the person’s own self-declaration would be the only criteria required. Indeed, the law specifically forbids the Registrar from requiring “any form of medical certificates or other medical documentation relating to sex and gender”. Additionally, if the person making the change requests it, there is to be no record kept of previous name or gender on a birth certificate. So, if this law is passed (and if I was a Tasmanian), I could walk into the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and ask that my birth certificate no longer say that I am a female named Monica Doumit, but rather a man named John Smith. My new birth certificate would not record anything different; it would be as if I was Mr John Smith from birth. This type of capability makes a mockery of the role of the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. It would no longer be an official record of the registered births in the country; rather it would become a record of people’s preferences. I don’t mind people having preferences about names and genders, I just don’t think it should be state-sanctioned and taxpayer-funded. Call me crazy. And for anyone who wants to argue that the changes have nothing to do with same-sex marriage, they need only look at title of the bill: Justice and related Legislation (Marriage Amendments) Bill 2018. Labour Party now admits men who identify as women on to all-women shortlists, without any necessity for a gender-recognition certificate To: Peter Mailstar <peter@mailstar.net> (6) ‘Trans women’ are women - merely because they affirm it https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/12/05/the-ministry-of-trans-truth/ The Ministry of Trans Truth The language of transgenderism is designed to silence dissent HEATHER BRUNSKELL-EVANS 5th December 2018 I’m fascinated by the way that concepts apparently arise from nowhere, take hold in the popular imagination, then become naturalised and beyond question. One such idea is that individuals can be ‘born in the wrong body’, so that men can be women. Since there is no scientific evidence, neuroscientific or otherwise, that an unambiguously biological male can in fact be female, how can society have arrived at a stage where people who question the claim ‘trans women are women’ are routinely labelled Nazis, bigots and transphobes? A new nomenclature has arisen which bifurcates women into two groups, ‘cis’ (biological women) and ‘trans’. This performs a linguistic sleight of hand that enables the idea that some men can actually be women. But no matter how cultivated their ‘feminine’ outward appearance, ‘trans women’ (as opposed to transsexuals) have penises. The concept that ‘trans women’ are women, and that we must believe this is so because they affirm it, is further translated into the idea that ‘trans women’ are even more oppressed by the patriarchy than their ‘cis’ sisters. Progressives routinely turn with vitriol on women who challenge this newly minted ‘Truth’, labelling them ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminists’ (TERFs), no matter how moderate, thoughtful, or indeed trans-friendly those women are. This new definition of womanhood is having bizarre effects on our political institutions. The Labour Party now admits men who identify as women on to all-women shortlists, without any necessity for a gender-recognition certificate. A number of these men have successfully applied to the Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme. Then there’s the misogyny. Labour continues to support Lily Madigan in the role of women’s officer for Rochester and Strood, despite his bullying of gender-critical feminists and other women. One of his latest Twitter missives states that TERFs ‘can go fuck themselves’, and he is allowed to say this with impunity not only by the party but by Twitter itself. Labour also (briefly) appointed the ‘trans woman’ Munroe Bergdorf to an LGBT working group. Bergdorf had recently been quoted in Grazia saying that many feminists are biological essentialists, because we apparently ‘summarise women as walking vaginas… a similar approach to that of misogynists’. A kind of informal Ministry of Truth has emerged around the trans issue – or rather, a Ministry of Propaganda, since it is responsible for the falsification of historical events and biological facts. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry creates and then spreads ‘Truth’ through the new language of ‘cis’ and ‘trans’. And in a chilling twist, it is now feminists who are the alleged extremist misogynists, purely because they don’t allow human beings with penises to control the political narrative. The statement – both mundane and tautological – that women don’t have penises is now considered inflammatory. When a feminist group distributed stickers making this observation recently in Liverpool, the police opened an investigation. A cold wind of authoritarianism is blowing through our allegedly progressive, liberal-democratic society. When telling the truth becomes hate speech, when oppression becomes ethics, when non-facts become Truth, we all better look out. Heather Brunskell-Evans is an academic philosopher and spokeswoman for FiLiA. Her latest book, Transgender Children and Young People: Born In Your Own Body, is available now. Follow her on Twitter: @brunskellevans
(7) Socialist Worker Trots campaign for Trans And Queer Liberation https://socialistworker.org/2018/12/03/how-can-we-win-trans-and-queer-liberation HOW CAN WE WIN TRANS AND QUEER LIBERATION? December 3, 2018 Isabelle Bartter, a member of the International Socialist Organization in Rochester, New York, spoke at the New York City Marxism Conference last month on Marxism and the struggle for queer and trans liberation. It has been edited and shortened for publication. IN 2013, a 53-year-old trans woman named Fatima Woods was stabbed in her home in Rochester, New York. She ran down the block to a gas station looking for help, where she collapsed due to blood loss. Witnesses said that EMTs arrived on the scene quickly, but did not start treating Fatima for close to 45 minutes, despite the protests of onlookers. She died in that parking lot. And we will never know whether the EMTs on scene could have saved her, because they never even tried. Fatima was a wonderful poet and a friend. Fatima joined Shaun Smith in Brooklyn, Tyra Hunter in Washington, D.C., and countless other LGBTQ siblings who have died due to the negligence and malice of medical professionals. I start with this story because I want to make perfectly clear what the stakes are when right-wing bigots fight for religious exemptions, which give essentially anyone a license to discriminate against queer and trans people. [...] Comrades have rightly argued in Socialist Worker and other forums that the fight for marriage equality was a major victory for our side, not just because it extended civil rights to millions of queer people, but also because the massive movement that was created and sustained to push for marriage equality was a demonstration of the power of our side. The National Equality March in 2009, for instance, drew 200,000 people. What must be learned from the transition from Obama to Trump is that nothing written on paper is set in stone. Without a mass social movement to sustain it, the LGBTQ rights movement, handed over to the Democrats, has either fallen by the wayside or been rolled back. [...]
(8) Mother dresses Son as Girl, threatens Dad with losing him for disagreeing Mom Dresses Six-Year-Old Son As Girl, Threatens Dad With Losing His Son For Disagreeing A Texas custody case splits a 6-year-old child’s gender identity in two. By Walt Heyer NOVEMBER 26, 2018 Six-year-old James is caught in a gender identity nightmare. Under his mom’s care in Dallas, Texas, James obediently lives as a trans girl named “Luna.” But given the choice when he’s with dad, he’s all boy — his sex at birth. In their divorce proceedings, the mother has charged the father with child abuse for not affirming James as transgender, has sought restraining orders against him, and is seeking to terminate his parental rights. She is also seeking to require him to pay for the child’s visits to a transgender-affirming therapist and transgender medical alterations, which may include hormonal sterilization starting at age eight. I learned of James’ plight on a recent visit to Plano, Texas, where I spoke to teenagers about my own transgender story. I lived through a similar scenario when I was his age. I was cross-dressed for two-and-a-half years by my grandmother, who made a purple chiffon dress for me. Somewhat like James, my cross-dressing occurred under one adult’s care, but away from grandma’s I was all boy with my mom and dad. Also, just like James, I found my way into the office of a gender therapist, who quickly started me toward transition. When his mother, a pediatrician, took James for counseling, she chose a gender transition therapist who diagnosed him with gender dysphoria, a mental conflict between physical sex and perceived gender. James’ precious young life hinges purely on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria by a therapist who wraps herself in rainbow colors, affirms the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and dismisses evidence to the contrary. Remove the “rainbow” from James’ diagnosis, and it crumbles under the weight of the criteria for the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The diagnosis is critical, because labeling a child with gender dysphoria can trigger a series of physical and mental consequences for the child and has legal ramifications in the ongoing custody case. Get it wrong and young James’s life is irrevocably harmed. James Does Not Fit the Gender Dysphoria Criteria The criteria for a diagnosis of childhood gender dysphoria are that a child be persistent, consistent, and insistent about being the opposite sex. James’s mom is “all in” on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and assisting with social transition. She used the name Luna to enroll him as a girl in first grade, and provides only female clothes. Meanwhile, Dad isn’t seeing signs of gender dysphoria. In the father’s home, James appears to be a normal boy and doesn’t identify as a girl. He has a choice of boy’s or girl’s clothes there, and he chooses to dress as a boy. The fact that James changes gender identity depending on which parent is present makes the diagnosis of gender dysphoria both dubious and harmful. The transition therapist has observed that James is not consistent, insistent, or persistent in the desire to become “Luna.” For example, a dossier filed with the Dallas court says that, under the skilled eyes of the therapist, the child was presented two pieces of paper, one with the word “James” and one with the word “Luna,” and asked to pick the name he preferred. When the appointment only included his mother, James selected Luna, the name and gender he uses at his mother’s home and in his first-grade classroom. When the appointment was only with his father, however, James pointed to the boy name James, not the girl name. The glaring disparity between a child’s preferred identity when in the presence of one parent versus the other should cause a therapist to reassess, perhaps nullify the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and terminate any steps toward transition. But in the case of James, this hasn’t happened. Using a Little Boy as a Weapon of War When James is away from his mother, he consistently rejects the idea that he is “Luna girl” or that he wants to be a girl. Because the court prohibits dad from dressing James as a boy or from teaching him that he is a boy by sharing religious or science-based teachings on sexuality, dad presents James with male and female clothing options and James always chooses, even insists on, his boy clothes. Dad told me, “James violently refuses to wear girl’s clothes at my home.” This is not a sign of gender dysphoria. Eyewitness accounts from friends corroborate dad’s observations of James preferring to be a boy. Bill Lovell, the senior pastor of Christ Church Carrollton, wrote: “Based on the three occasions I’ve spent time with him, I’d say he acts and looks unmistakably like a healthy six-year-old boy. … I am praying for James, an average six-year-old boy, a sweet-natured, intelligent, lovable and at this point particularly vulnerable young man, caught up in a titanic clash of worldviews.” Ellen Grigsby shared in an email her observations after meeting James and his fraternal twin brother for the first time: “They were both ‘all boy’ and were having a great time. Both boys were absolutely dressed as boys and behaving as boys.” Sarah Scott is a family friend and mother of three boys who frequently play with James and his brother. She and her husband are sensitive to allowing James to lead the way in gender choices such as names, pronouns, and clothing. I asked her the obvious question: “How do you know James does not want to be a girl?” Sarah responded in an email with several examples she’s seen of James’ desire to remain a boy: Friday, Sept. 21: We had the boys over. The boys took turns telling stories and James made up a story about five little boys (himself, his brother and my three sons) who were such good friends that they magically turned into pumpkins, so they could stay in the pumpkin patch together forever. He didn’t say kids. He specifically and happily referred to himself as a boy. Saturday, Oct. 20: We all went on a walk to the park. We had such fun! It had rained the night before. On the walk, James slipped and got his clothes dirty. He asked if he could borrow some of my boys’ shorts and if I could wash his clothes. I said sure! — and went to grab something he could wear. While I was looking, he said, ‘Guess what Mrs. Sarah? You don’t need to find a shirt because boys don’t have to wear them if you’re hot!’ I laughed and told him I guess that’s a good thing about being a boy! He said, ‘Yes, it is!’ Saturday, Nov. 3: His mother came to pick up the boys to take them to [his brother’s] soccer game. James hugged his dad and said, ‘Love you.’ He refused to go to the soccer game as a girl with mom and stayed with dad. That evening they came to our house. James exhibits no desire to be “Luna” the girl except when he is with his mother. The boy’s behavior offers a stinging rebuke of the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. This by all accounts is not a true or clinically correct diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Yet the therapist stands by her diagnosis and continues to keep “Luna” on track to gender transition. Is This Therapy or Manipulation? Unlike James, I was an adult at the time of my diagnosis. Grandma was gone by then, but the therapist, like so many today, affirmed my cross-gender identity and guided me through gender transition. He provided access to hormones and surgery and I soon had the full gender-affirming surgery and identified as “Laura.” I felt that my gender identity and biological sex were at odds, but what the therapist failed to consider were the other factors driving my desire to change gender, which needed to be addressed first. What this mom is doing to James looks very much like what my grandmother did to me by affirming me in the purple dress. My grandmother didn’t intend to harm me, but her actions destroyed my childhood and my family and consumed nearly 50 years of my life. James has no idea what he is in for or how his gender journey will play out, but with an incorrect diagnosis it will be ugly. I became very concerned about James because he is not exhibiting the diagnostic attributes of gender dysphoria. His gender preferences are not consistent or insistent, but flip back and forth, according to which parent is present. When James is permitted to relax around friends away from his mom, he seems natural and happy being a boy. If James truly had gender dysphoria, he would demand the proper pronouns, always dress as a girl and insistently, persistently, and consistently claim to be a girl in all situations, not just with mom. Instead, friends say he has done the opposite — he has insisted on being a boy. It is time to consider that the boy is not transgender. Misdiagnosing People Has Horrific Consequences Misdiagnosis of gender dysphoria happens around the world, and people’s lives are harmed when it does. I wanted people to see what I see, that people of all ages have been incorrectly diagnosed with gender dysphoria, so I wrote a book, “Trans Life Survivors,” that shares many first-hand stories of misdiagnosis of gender dysphoria and the heart-breaking results. Therapists are taking notice, too, of the increasing prevalence of people detransitioning and going back their birth sex, and suggesting a need for comprehensive psychological assessments, rather than fast-tracking children to transition. An article in The Atlantic shares interviews with Scott Leibowitz, a psychiatrist who treats children and adolescents in Columbus, Ohio, and Laura Edwards-Leeper, a psychologist at Pacific University and Oregon’s Transgender Clinic. Both believe as Edwards-Leeper shares, “that comprehensive assessments are crucial to achieving good outcomes for TGNC [transgender and gender non-conforming] young people, especially those seeking physical interventions, in part because some kids who think they are trans at one point in time will not feel that way later on.” Pediatrician Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, describes the pediatric community’s encouragement of sex change and hormonal treatments for children as “institutionalized child abuse.” If we do not save James from a misdiagnosis, his next step is chemical castration at age eight, only two years away. James needs a more comprehensive psychological assessment to explore why he identifies as a girl with mom and as a boy with dad. I want to do what I can to “Save James” from his gender nightmare, and to raise awareness about how easily children can be misdiagnosed and labeled as gender dysphoric and the extensive damage that can cause in their young lives. A questionable diagnosis locks a vulnerable child into an alternate gender identity long before they can understand what is happening or where it might lead. It’s up to the adults to observe the child carefully, consider and question the grey areas, and ultimately guard innocent children against hasty diagnoses and conclusions about something so fundamental as their gender identity. Walt Heyer is an accomplished author and public speaker with a passion for mentoring individuals whose lives have been torn apart by unnecessary gender-change surgery.
(9) American Academy of Pediatrics backs Trans ideology Dr. Michelle Cretella on Transgender Ideology: 'Institutionalized Large-Scale Child Abuse' By Christopher Doyle, Monday, September 24, 2018 "For most of human history, it has been pretty obvious that we determine our gender by our bodies. But today, more are beginning to believe it starts in the mind. It's troubling when an adult chooses this, but when children become involved, it's dangerous," stated Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, who moderated a panel on gender ideology and children at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. on Saturday. [...] Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, spoke boldly when she followed McHugh: "America is engaged in large-scale child abuse...and complicit in this is my field. People have a biological sex – we don't have something additional to that which is hardwired into our brains or our DNA. Sex is not assigned by people . . . it declares itself. Our bodies tell us who they are." When describing the pediatric community's encouragement of sex change and hormonal treatments for gender dysphoric youth, Cretella called it "institutionalized child abuse." "If you have a child as young as three who is confused about their sex, and the treatment involves changing their name and their dress...in the process, you are indoctrinating all of the children around them...we're not just stopping the body developing, we're also permanently affecting the brain...and now, 14 states and 44 counties have banned therapies for transgender youth, essentially forcing them into this condition." On Friday, before Dr. Cretella spoke, I had the chance to sit down and interview her about her work with the American College of Pediatricians and speech at the Values Voter Summit. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) new policy on gender identity and youth was just released in September 2018 and is titled: "Ensuring comprehensive care and support for transgender and gender diverse children adolescents." In the policy's introduction, it states: "Despite some advances in public awareness and legal protections youth that identify as LGBTQ continue to face disparities that stem from multiple sources, including inequitable laws and policies, societal discrimination, and the lack of access to quality healthcare, including mental healthcare." I found that last statement to be pretty ironic, considering that the AAP has been supportive of laws banning certain types of mental health interventions (e.g., so-called "conversion therapy") for youth who experience gender dysphoria that might wish to resolve those issues or change their gender identity or expression back to their biological/birth sex. What disparities in mental health care for transgender youth is the AAP referring to? The AAP is referring to resistance to transition-affirming counseling. In other words, the judgment on gender dysphoria and children is a foregone conclusion in that their approach is to treat it as though transgenderism is innate and unchangeable – just a variation of human nature – so the only reason they give for any of the health disparities between children with gender dysphoria and those without it is essentially "gender minority stress" which means, the stigma that comes with being a transgender youth is the only contribution to these health disparities, and if medical providers would simply affirm their desire to change their gender, the child's mental health issues would resolve. One of the interesting things that you said about the new AAP policy is that it is deceitful to say that it has been supported by 67,000 pediatricians, since it was basically drawn up by a committee and approved by less than 50 pediatricians. Correct, it was written by one author, and based on the committees listed at the end of the policy, 24 pediatricians contributed to the statement and would have had a vote on passage. Other than those 24, the policy would have been voted on by the AAP Board of Directors, which has 12 members. So, 36 members voted on it. 36 members, representing 67,000! Since there is never a minority report, we do not know how many of the 36 may have abstained from voting or rejected it (though most likely, they all did vote in favor). In other words, AAP membership is never consulted on any position statement, and the membership is made aware of statements only 24 hours before it's released to the media. [...]
(10) Debate on nontraditional pronouns for Transgender people The Interrogation of a TA University president apologizes after recording reveals how a graduate student was questioned over use of a video, which offended at least one student, of debate on nontraditional pronouns. By Scott Jaschik November 22, 2017 A recording of the way professors at Wilfrid Laurier University questioned a teaching assistant about her use of a debate video in class has set off a major dispute about academic freedom in Canada. The teaching assistant had shown her class a recording in which two professors -- one of them of late a polarizing figure in Canadian academe -- debated the use of nontraditional pronouns for transgender people. The course was in communications, and the video was part of a discussion on the significance of grammar and language generally. Lindsay Shepherd, the teaching assistant, did not endorse a position in the debate, but told students that this was a subject being discussed in society today. The recording now getting attention is one made by Shepherd as she was grilled days later by academics at the university who received a complaint about Shepherd showing the video. In the audio recording, Shepherd's superiors are heard asking her repeatedly why she showed the video and why she didn't condemn the professor in the video who opposes nontraditional pronouns. Shepherd was told that her actions were hurtful and "transphobic," and she was told that her actions were the equivalent of refusing to take a stand against Hitler or white supremacists. She was also told that she might have violated Canada's antibias laws. Shepherd tried to defend herself. "I don't see how someone would rationally think it was threatening," she said of the class. Students might be challenged in their thinking, she said, "but for me that's the spirit of the university." Shepherd asked those questioning her to show her the complaint so she could learn how she offended someone, and she asked to know the number of students who had complained, saying, "Was it one?" After being told that confidentiality requirements made it impossible to share the complaint, she asked whether confidentiality would be violated by her being told how many students complained. She was told that it would, and that the complaint came from one or more students. As the discussion went on, Shepherd said that she did not agree with the person who argued against the use of the pronouns many transgender people prefer. But she said her obligation to her students was to show them ideas that are in the world. "Can you shield people from those ideas? Am I supposed to comfort them?" Of her students, she said, "when they leave the university, they are going to be exposed to these ideas." Shepherd apologized for crying during her questioning but said that she couldn't believe she was being asked these questions at a university. Those who questioned her included two faculty members (one of whom supervised her work as a teaching assistant) and the university's equity officer. As Canadian press outlets covered the recording in the last 48 hours, many academics and others have demanded to know how Shepherd could have been treated as she was. Apology From the President On Tuesday, Deborah MacLatchy, the president of the university, issued an apology to Shepherd. "After listening to this recording, an apology is in order. The conversation I heard does not reflect the values and practices to which Laurier aspires. I am sorry it occurred in the way that it did and I regret the impact it had on Lindsay Shepherd," MacLatchy wrote. She vowed that an independent review would be conducted into what happened. Further, she said that freedom of expression is essential in higher education. "Let me be clear by stating that Laurier is committed to the abiding principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression," she said. "Giving life to these principles while respecting fundamentally important human rights and our institutional values of diversity and inclusion, is not a simple matter. The intense media interest points to a highly polarizing and very complicated set of issues that is affecting universities across the democratic world. The polarizing nature of the current debate does not do justice to the complexity of issues." David Robinson, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said in an interview that Shepherd had been "treated very badly" by the administration. While Shepherd was questioned by faculty members and an administrator, Robinson said that the administrator should have seen that the discussion was going off track and that any suggestion that Shepherd violated the law couldn't be true. Robinson noted that the video she shared in class came from Canadian public television, and so had arguably been produced by the government. He also said that Shepherd outlined a sound pedagogy that should not have been doubted. The Jordan Peterson Impact Robinson said that, generally, the culture wars that are a major force in American higher education have not been as present in Canadian higher education. But he said a few figures have been "quite polarizing," and that one of them is Jordan Peterson, who was the debate participant who opposed the use of alternative pronouns. Peterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, has said that his position isn't so much against the pronouns, but against efforts to persuade people to use them even if they don't want to. In March, protesters shouted down a talk of his at McMaster University, in Ontario. Then this month, Peterson announced a plan to create a website to list courses nationwide containing “postmodern neo-Marxist course content,” in an effort to decrease enrollment in those courses. Amid criticism, he abandoned the plan. "These kinds of issues seem to come up daily in the U.S., but they are still rare in Canada," Robinson said of the controversies surrounding Peterson.
(11) Feminists sue high school over Transgender bathroom policies My high school's transgender bathroom policies violate the privacy of the rest of us Alexis Lightcap Published 6:00 a.m. ET Nov. 29, 2018 Few students ever dream that they’ll sue their high school. But that is exactly what several of my peers and I had to do. Our school is Boyertown Area High School in Boyertown, Pennsylvania, and my reason for suing was to restore the bodily privacy we used to enjoy in locker rooms and restrooms on campus. Now, we have asked the Supreme Court to review our case. I’m OK with the school district’s desire to hear voices other than mine on this issue. But I have a voice, too — and Boyertown officials have little interest in my perspective. They didn’t even bother to tell me or the other students that they changed school policy to allow students to choose their locker rooms and restrooms based not on their sex, but on their beliefs about their gender. The moment I walked into our girls’ restroom and found a boy standing there, I turned and fled — the school’s surveillance video caught me running out. I tried to get the attention of administrators to explain to them how uncomfortable — how scared — I felt sharing the girls’ restroom with a boy. They wouldn’t listen. The principal simply wrote down my concerns on a Post-it note and said he’d contact me soon. He never did. Students deserve security, parents deserve knowledge My parents were no less shocked by this new policy. Boyertown officials kept it a secret from them, too. The administrators never sent home a memo saying that, from now on, our school locker rooms would be open to students based on what sex students believed themselves to be. Instead, our parents first learned of the policy when I found the boy in the girls’ restroom, and when others, like my classmates identified in the suit as Joel Doe and Jack Jones, were changing clothes in the boys’ locker room and looked up to find a girl changing clothes beside them. Hollywood movies and TV shows try to make that kind of moment seem funny. But in real life, it’s embarrassing and unnerving. Locker rooms and restrooms are supposed to be a refuge for students, and adults, too, for that matter. As a woman, I go through those doors looking for privacy — not to find a guy looking back at me as I’m changing my clothes. As a former foster child who bounced around through the system, I know what it’s like to be seeking an identity and trying to come to terms with who you are. As a black girl who grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood, I know what it’s like to be treated unfairly, picked on, and made fun of by insensitive people. I won’t accept anyone being bullied or discriminated against — and that absolutely includes my classmates experiencing gender dysphoria. They deserve our love and support. Even so, my privacy shouldn’t depend on what others believe about their own gender. Don't sacrifice a girl's right to privacy Why is it so hard for school officials to understand that young girls care about the privacy of their bodies? It’s natural for us and our parents to worry about who might walk in on us in a vulnerable moment. The school bureaucracy has no right to say my privacy is irrelevant. I had once lost my voice in the foster care system. And I was once again losing it in my own school: School officials withheld information from me and my parents, then silenced me by ignoring my concerns. Fortunately, my parents also taught me to speak up for myself, and I found my voice through this lawsuit. I recently graduated from Boyertown Area High School, so I’m not taking this stand just for myself. I’m speaking for my friends and my little sister, all of whom are having their privacy interests ignored by their own school — a school that should be protecting everyone’s privacy. That’s not fair to them. And whether school administrators intend it or not, their secrecy and silence create the distinct impression that they aren’t really interested in fairness at all. Schools can and should be compassionate in supporting students who experience gender dysphoria. So should other students. But a truly fair and genuinely compassionate policy doesn’t have to be kept secret from students and parents. And an effective policy would be one that secures the privacy of every student — which is nothing more than what every parent and student has a right to expect. Alexis Lightcap is a 2018 graduate of Boyertown Area High School in Boyertown, Pennsylvania. She and other students have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their student privacy lawsuit through their attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom. -- Peter Myerswebsite: http://mailstar.net/index.html |