Tag Archive for: GenderDysphoria

Identity Crisis

Estimated Reading Time: 8 minutes

In the early Spring I began working on a documentary series for Independent Women’s Forum called “Identity Crisis.” The project tells the stories of four mothers whose daughters fell victim to gender ideology, two detransitioners who now warn of the harms this movement is causing, and one mental health professional who rails against her profession for prioritizing political correctness over public health.

This series was inspired by the censorship and media blackout these individuals have faced. The number of transgender-identifying youth has nearly doubled in recent years, which has left politicians, educators, medical professionals, and the public at odds over what policies are best suited to protect the health and well-being of children. Despite the high stakes, the media is only telling one side of the story. We’re here to change that, and I’m here to shed light on some of the personal devastation that these individuals and families have faced.

The most recent story published in our series features Vera Lindner, an immigrant mother from California who says gender ideology drove her autistic, gender-confused daughter into a “catastrophic” mental breakdown. Her daughter faced a slew of mental health issues that needed to be addressed: she was diagnosed with autism, ADHD, depression, anxiety, and an eating disorder. But all the therapist who was supposed to be treating her wanted to do was “affirm” her new male identity. From the moment her daughter declared her transgender identity, the therapist started referring to her daughter as a boy. No questions asked.

This mother’s story explores a huge aspect of the transgender movement that politicians, medical professionals, media, and activists don’t want to acknowledge, let alone explore—the connection between autism and transgenderism. It’s malpractice.

The first story featured in our series involved Jeannette Cooper, a Chicago mother who lost custody of her 12-year-old daughter for insisting that she is a girl. After a regular custodial visit to her father’s house, Jeannette’s daughter decided she was trans and felt “unsafe” around her mom. In the last 3 years, Jeannette has seen her daughter for a total of 8 and a half hours. It’s been so long that Jeannette doesn’t even know how tall her daughter is anymore. She’s only allowed to communicate with her by postal mail. As Jeannette said, “People who are in prison have more communication with their child than I do. It’s wrong.”

Then came Jennifer, a mother from a Seattle suburb who in 2019 received an email from her daughter’s 5th-grade teacher. The teacher, a male, was using a different name for her then-10-year-old daughter. Jennifer thought it was a mistake—the teacher must have accidentally emailed the wrong parent. But Jennifer later found out that for six months, her daughter was meeting with a school therapist once a week who was treating her as a boy, using male pronouns and a made-up male name.

In February 2020, right before COVID-19 hit, that therapist emailed Jennifer to schedule a meeting where the therapist would assist her daughter in officially “coming out” to her parents as a boy, and to obtain parental permission to allow her daughter to stay overnight in the boy’s cabin for an upcoming school trip. At this point, Jennifer’s daughter was only 11 years old, so the school had to obtain permission. But had she been 13, Jennifer wouldn’t even have had a right to know because she lives in Washington state, where children as young as 13 years old can access their own medical and mental health services without parental knowledge or consent.

Parents in these cases are billed by insurance companies with no explanation of benefits, meaning they’re stuck with the tab but have no ability to know what services or treatments their child received. California is trying to take it one step further, making itself a “sanctuary state” for children to receive hormones, puberty blockers, and irreversible “gender surgery” without parental consent.

Next came Susie, a mom from Alaska who came face-to-face with the growing phenomenon of adolescent girls identifying as the opposite sex due to a social desire to appear transgender. Critics call the social contagion theory “unfounded” and “absurd,” but after returning in 2020 to the U.S. from a four-year assignment abroad, Susie’s family settled into a house on a street where two out of the eight girls identified as boys. At the local high school where their daughter would soon attend, at least another 10 girls identified as the opposite sex. Shortly after moving there, Susie’s oldest daughter, who had just turned 15, also said she felt like a boy. Susie’s daughter had previously never expressed any discomfort about her gender, but the Left considers this a complete coincidence.

Susie disclosed to her new school counselor in Alaska that her daughter was struggling with mental health issues including anxiety, depression, and gender confusion. Susie thought the school was on the same page with how she and her husband wanted to handle their daughter’s sudden transgender identification—by giving their daughter time to experience and explore her feelings, without changing her name or pronouns. But in fall 2021, at the start of the next school year, Susie found her daughter’s student ID, which featured her new, made-up name.

The fact that the school was socially transitioning Susie’s daughter behind her back came as a surprise to Susie, since the entire year, the school was communicating with Susie using female pronouns and her daughter’s real name. When she eventually decided to confront the school and ask how her daughter’s name would appear in the yearbook, school officials told Susie that she has no say over anything her daughter wants to go by or what’s in her record, erroneously citing federal Title IX requirements.

Every one of these mothers’ stories are different. They’re all horrifying in their own way. But all of them have a common theme: A deep and painful sense of betrayal.

The Serpent’s Sting

Mothers, many of them former Democrats, are sickened and betrayed by Democrat politicians whom they spent a lifetime supporting. Democrats who’ve chosen to affirm a toxic ideology that exploits vulnerable children instead of protecting them.

They’re sickened and betrayed by public school educators and administrators lying to them and changing their children’s names and pronouns in-secret, behind their backs. They’re sickened and betrayed by a legal system that was designed to protect children, but is instead using gender ideology as a weapon to sever one of the most fundamental bonds in life—the bond between a mother and her child.

They’re sickened and betrayed by health professionals who took an oath to protect patients from harm and injustice, yet perpetuate just that. They’re sickened and betrayed by a media echo chamber convincing the public that lying to children about their gender is the “kind” and “compassionate” thing to do, when doing so leads children down a path of lifelong doctor’s appointments and medical complications.

They’re sickened and betrayed by seemingly every adult with an ounce of authority, from so-called “support groups” to the President of the United States, sending this message: “We know better than the parents do what’s best for this child,” as if anyone in the world could know and love a child more than that child’s own parents.

I started working on this project when I returned from maternity leave with my second child. To be honest, I wasn’t ready at all to get back to work when I did—even with the privilege of being able to work from home. But I believe God purposefully put this project in my lap, giving me, a fellow mom, the opportunity to give these parents a voice. With a 4-month-old baby sleeping on my chest, I spent hours on the phone listening to these moms and wondering, “How did we let this go so far?” Then with my 2-year-old daughter knocking at my office door asking, “Mommy, are you done with work?” I looked at her through tears wondering, “What if this happened to her?”

I believe what we’re talking about today is a generation of young girls being manipulated and mutilated in a way not much different from female genital mutilation. Which is ironic, because my inspiration for entering this field of work in college was learning about exactly that. But when I was studying them in college, these abuses were always taking place in some far-off country. Never did I imagine reporting on them here at home.

As part of our series, I chose to also tell the stories of two young women who went down the path of a medical transition, only to regret it a few years later. One of them, Daisy Strongin, went so far as to chop off her healthy breasts only to realize shortly after that objectively, she could never actually be a boy. Just a few weeks ago, Daisy gave birth to a beautiful, healthy baby boy. It was the fear of never being able to conceive a child due to medical mutilation that ultimately drove her to give it all up.

During our interview, Daisy told me, “If you told me two years ago that in 2022 you would be married and pregnant, I wouldn’t believe you. My parents told me that I would change a lot, but I just could not conceptualize it.”

Daisy’s now happily married and a new mom. But she’ll never be able to breastfeed, she still grows facial hair, and her voice has been permanently deepened. She doesn’t know in what other ways the years of testosterone may have damaged her body, but she knows she’ll do everything in her power to stop her own child from going down this path.

Another detransitioner who I interviewed, Cat Cattison, told me this:

My parents didn’t affirm me, and at the time it did make me very angry. But looking back, I’m very thankful for that. I think that if I would have been able to transition as a child and gone onto puberty blockers, gone onto cross sex hormones at a young age and cut off body parts, I think I would be looking back and I would be thinking, how could you enable this? How could you have gone along with this when I was too young to consent? I do think that, in the future, we’re going to see a lot of children who have detransitioned being angry with their parents and feeling betrayed by them.

Making Up for Lost Time

Here, then, we come full circle. Not only are parents being betrayed, but children are, too. Thousands of parents are suffering at the hands of the gender ideology movement. But it’s their children who are the greatest victims in it.

As the mom of a young girl, I can sleep at night knowing I’m on the right side of this fight, despite the nasty attacks we face. But what makes it hard to sleep is knowing how as a movement, conservatives were too late. We have already failed thousands of vulnerable young girls, who’ve already started puberty blockers and sterilized themselves. We have already failed thousands of young girls who’ve already cut off their breasts or worse, cut off their own skin from their arms or their legs to make a fake penis.

Families have been ripped apart; parents, children, and siblings have been pitted against each other. Doctors, teachers, media, politicians, and activists have normalized young, healthy children mutilating themselves under the guise of tolerance and compassion. It’s literally normal for doctors today to prescribe gender confused children drugs, surgery, and medical treatments—as if it would ever be normal for doctors to prescribe anorexic girls gastric bypass surgery.

How did we get here? As a movement, we were too late. And even today, we’re not doing enough. But these parents and detransitioners aren’t giving up. They’re refusing to be silenced. They’re using their voices to fight for their children, and we’re doing everything in our power to support them. In some cases, like that of Jeannette Cooper, the Chicago mother who lost custody of her daughter simply for insisting that her daughter is a girl, they’ve made the ultimate sacrifice. They’ve lost the basic ability to even see their own child. Why? What makes these unimaginable costs worth it? Here’s Jeannette explaining, in her own words:

I see that my child is at sea in a boat. She is struggling. She is in tumultuous seas. I know that. I have seen that. And what I have been told is to follow her lead, to follow her in this journey.

I am not willing to do that. I don’t think that is good parenting. It is my responsibility not to hook my boat to hers. It is my responsibility to be a lighthouse, to be something stable that she can see, some guide that she has, that will always be there, that is consistent.

That is my responsibility. I still do that today even though I have no custody of her. I have no medical decision making. No educational decision making. And no way to communicate with her other than by mail. I don’t have her phone number. I know where she lives, but I’m not allowed to go there. I know where she goes to school and I’m not allowed there either. But this is parenting. What I’m doing, even though I have no real contact with her, I am still her parent. I am still her mother. And I am still parenting now.

I’ll close my remarks with this. As conservatives, we give a lot of attention to the idea of leftist policies teaching Americans to hate their own country—as we rightly should. But with gender ideology, the reality is far worse than that: leftist policies are teaching children to hate their own parents and to hate their own bodies. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. It’s perverse, destructive, and needs to be stopped.

This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

Federal Court Ruling on Gender Identity Upends Civil Rights Law

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

In a shocking and first-of-its-kind reading of a more than 30-year-old disability law, a federal judge ruled that the distress that results from a person feeling that he or she is of the wrong sex is a disability that must be accommodated under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

If the opinion is left to stand, it would open the door for those who consider themselves transgender and feel clinically distressed to receive public accommodations in bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, same-sex housing, and more.

U.S. Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote the majority opinion for the divided three-judge panel in Williams v. Kincaid, holding that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, gender dysphoria is a “disability.” Judge Pamela Harris joined Motz’s opinion to form the majority.

The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including employment, education, transportation, and in places that are open to the general public (public accommodations).

So, what is the practical impact of this decision? It means that those with gender dysphoria—an “incongruence between (someone’s) gender identity and assigned sex” that results in “clinically significant distress,” as the American Psychiatric Association defines it—are not only protected from discrimination because of that so-called disability but they are entitled to reasonable accommodations for it.

In the case of former Fairfax County, Virginia, prisoner Kesha Williams, that “reasonable accommodation” should have, according to the court, included sending Williams (a biological male) back into the women’s prison. Williams had filed a disability discrimination claim against various prison employees alleging mistreatment while incarcerated.

However, in order to reach this conclusion, the majority had to clear one very big hurdle: the language of the ADA itself, which explicitly excludes:

(a) Homosexuality and bisexuality

For purposes of the definition of “disability” in section 12102(2)?[1] of this title, homosexuality and bisexuality are not impairments and as such are not disabilities under this chapter.

(b) Certain conditions

Under this chapter, the term “disability” shall not include—

(1) transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders.

Because the statute clearly eliminates disability protections for “gender identity disorder,” Motz engaged in a contorted legal analysis to determine that gender dysphoria was not actually a gender identity disorder. To reach that conclusion, she did not look to the statute’s language at the time of its enactment, but to a much more recent change on gender-related psychiatric diagnoses—one not envisioned, anticipated, or incorporated by the ADA’s original drafters in 1990.

Motz relied heavily on a change made by the American Psychiatric Association in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, or DSM-5, in 2013. The DSM-5 is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States.

At that time, the APA replaced “gender identity disorder” with “gender dysphoria.” Because the change focused the diagnosis on the distress that some people who consider themselves transgender experience (and for which they may seek psychiatric, medical, and surgical treatments) instead of on a desire to be a gender other than the one they were born to, Motz determined that such a change was good enough to stretch the ADA well beyond the limits of what Congress determined it ought to originally bear.

She wrote:

In sum, the APA’s removal of the ”gender identity disorder” diagnosis and the addition of the ”gender dysphoria” diagnosis to the DSM-5 reflected a significant shift in medical understanding. The obsolete diagnosis focused solely on cross-gender identification; the modern one on clinically significant distress … Put simply, while the older DSM pathologized the very existence of transgender people, the recent DSM-5’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria takes as a given that being transgender is not a disability and affirms that a transgender person’s medical needs are just as deserving of treatment and protection as anyone else’s.

In sum: If you’re “distressed” about being transgender, then you’re entitled to all the accommodations you’d like in public life, whether in bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, or same-sex housing. The illogical conclusion, of course, is that transgender individuals who might be perfectly at ease with their underlying biological sex are not entitled to accommodations at all. As to how this will play out in modern America, one thing is for sure: It will be messy.

The court has not only established the possibility that employers, schools, prisons, hospitals, and other entities will have to make judgment calls on when an accommodation is required and when it isn’t, it also creates a loophole for those who consider themselves transgender who might want to demand future accommodations but who may not, in reality, experience any distress at all.

In his well-reasoned dissent, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum pointed out that the case was really a matter of simple statutory construction, and that the majority’s ruling wasn’t supported by the law’s text when it was enacted.

He wrote:

As Williams notes, some organizations have removed the phrase gender identity disorder from their publications altogether and clarified that distress and discomfort from identifying with a different gender from the gender assigned at birth constitutes gender dysphoria, not a gender identity disorder. But even if Williams is correct about such changes in understanding, linguistic drift cannot alter the meaning of words in the ADA when it was enacted. And at that time, the meaning of gender identity disorders included gender dysphoria as alleged by Williams … Under basic principles of statutory construction, Williams’ ADA claim should be dismissed … [W]hen the ADA was signed into law, gender identity disorder was understood to include what Williams alleges to be gender dysphoria.

While the decision only directly covers those entities within the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, and West Virginia), the court’s opinion has fanned the flames of controversy over transgender rights on a greater scale. It is also a prime example of why textualism—the interpretation of the law based on the ordinary meaning of the words as they were understood at the time of the law’s enactment—matters.


This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

The US Engages in LGBTQI+ Imperialism

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Sweden, Finland, and Britain are in America’s sex and gender crosshairs.


Ukraine and Russia are at war. China and Taiwan are throwing more than words at each other. North Korea is firing ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan. India and Turkey are making goo-goo eyes at Russia. Saudi Arabia is buying oil from Russia, a country that is seeing record oil revenue in spite of sanctions. China is making friends with non-aligned countries around the world.Pakistan and India have nukes pointed at each other. Afghanistan and Iraq took our magical elixir of trillions of dollars but continue to be sick countries. Britain’s energy crises is morphing into a socioeconomic crisis that will further weaken the country as a military and economic power. America is trying to emulate Britain in energy policies. Mexico is exporting fentanyl and cartels to the US.

The list goes on and on.

Don’t worry: The US State Department is on top of it. Populated with the best and brightest from Georgetown, Yale, and Harvard, the department excels at thinking strategically and tactically. No wonder students pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend these schools.

Actually, the State Department excels at thinking about LGBTQI+. (Did I get the letters right?)

According to a story in City Journal, Blinken and Biden (Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and President Joe Biden) have appointed Jessica Stern as Special Envoy to Advance the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons. She states that she goes by all pronouns.

Stern’s mission is to be stern with other countries if they dare to think for themselves about LGBTQI+.

Blinken, Biden, and Stern [BB&S] are particularly exercised about countries that have different opinions about gender conversion therapy, even if they are following medical science on the subject. 

The City Journal story gets into the weeds about what conversion therapy is and why there are disagreements about it. But the diplomatic issue can be distilled to one question: whether children with gender dysphoria, or just normal ambiguity or confusion about their gender identity, should undergo some sort of psychological assessment before being subjected to hormone treatments and other medical procedures—and before schools, other institutions, and society at large do everything possible to affirm a child’s first gender inklings, but only if the inklings are of the non-cisgender kind.

BB&S says no. Sweden, Finland, and Britain say yes.

City Journal claims that according to a leaked State Department internal memo, the department is thinking of accusing these countries of being human rights abusers, thus putting them in the same league as nations that stone to death gays, lesbians, and transsexuals.  

This sex and gender imperialism almost make one wish for the old-fashioned imperialism of gunboats.

Teachers Union Promotes Pronouns Cards for Students: ‘Hello, My Pronouns Are… ’

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

A “Student Identification Card” sounds relatively innocuous, like something that could come in handy for a field trip, emergency drill, or cafeteria hour. Such a card seems unlikely to serve a purpose in promoting LGBT indoctrination and deceiving parents. And yet, that’s exactly what it is now being used for.

This particular student ID card is available from sharemylesson.com, a “community-based site” that is “created and maintained by the American Federation of Teachers”. The resource appears to be developed by the site’s “Identity Affirming Classroom Team” and is classified as “social-emotional learning.” According to Share My Lesson, this card is a resource recommended for all grade levels.

The card provides students a space to write their “Government Name” and then a space for the “Name you would like to be called in class.” Below that is a space for any pronunciation tips. If the card stopped there, it might not be so bad.

“Government Name” is a bit of an odd choice, compared to “full name” or “given name,” but it still describes what should be written in the blank. The next blank could help teachers remember widely used nicknames (such as Katie instead of Katherine or Jack instead of John), students who go by their middle names, or students who select English names instead of hard-to-pronounce foreign ones. Pronunciation tips could also help with names with unusual or ambiguous spellings, particularly foreign ones.

But that’s where the card gets weird. “Can I call you this name outside of class?” it asks, giving the student the option to indicate “Yes” or “No.” That’s a strangely irrelevant question to squeeze onto a small ID card.

If that’s the name the student goes by, then what does it matter where they are? Do students use special names in class that they don’t use elsewhere—around their family, for example? Is the name a student uses in class a secret from that student’s family? Who cares if Johnny’s family knows he prefers to go by “Jack”?

Of course, if Johnny preferred to go by “Suzie,” then the change of name would carry much greater significance. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but a person’s name communicates much more about his or her identity.

Not least of the important characteristics communicated by a name (in most instances—apologies to the Jordans, Taylors, and Rileys of the world) is the person’s sex, which, for all of human history, has bifurcated mankind into two distinct but complementary groups.

That distinction between the sexes is clear in pronouns, too. Yet the card goes on to provide space for the student’s pronouns (a simple circle around M or F should have sufficed), and it cites as just “some examples: he/him, they/them, she/her.”

The pronoun section of the card occupies as much space as the name section and includes even more qualifications on their use. In fact, due to its prominence, this ID card may as well be called a “pronoun card.” The student can indicate “Yes” or “No” to these questions:

  • May I use these pronouns in front of the class?
  • May I use these pronouns when I contact home?
  • May I use these pronouns in front of other teachers?
  • Would you like to follow up with me about your name or pronouns?

For students who identify by standard pronouns or as standard genders, these questions are beyond unnecessary—they’re ridiculous. These options, then, are only included on the card to accommodate the students embracing gender identities other than their biological sex.

Their inclusion is designed to encourage these students by allowing them to experiment in private, with a teacher as their sole counselor. They don’t have to “out” themselves to their class, to other teachers, or even to their parents if they don’t want to. The natural timidity they feel—which is their conscience warning them against defying nature—is simply sidestepped.

These questions offer students one of the temptation’s classic lies: You can get all the benefits of sin’s pleasure and avoid all of sin’s consequences. But sin should come with the warning label: “I am Folly; I will always betray you and enslave you” (Proverbs 9:13-18).

Unfortunately, most school-age children haven’t lived long enough to see through the lie; that’s why God gave them parents to guide them. And that’s why their tempters and temptresses work so hard to exclude parental advice from their deceitful schemes.

The pronoun card contains one more section, pinched into the bottom 10th of the card’s face, almost as an afterthought. “Tell me three other things about yourself. This could be interesting facts, hobbies, things you want me to know about…” A child must be very succinct indeed to fit three statements into the tiny space provided.

The layout makes it clear: The pronouns a child chooses, and who may know about them, are far more important for a teacher to know than whether a child likes to draw, or wants a pony, or plays soccer, or has an allergy, or is a good juggler. Even if the ideal of teacher-student interaction were to maximize student affirmation (which it shouldn’t be), such information would be far more relevant for a teacher to know than a child’s gender identity.

If it were possible to make the pronoun card’s sinister purposes any clearer, the back of the card does just that. “So why are some educators having trouble with acknowledging students’ pronouns?” it asks. “Part of the answer is that we are often missing key information and qualitative data about what a pronoun is, why it’s important, and the impact of not acknowledging it.”

Part of the answer, which they apparently overlook, is that the made-up rules about when and where to use a student’s made-up pronouns and made-up name, and when to pretend like everything is normal, are way too difficult for anyone to remember.

The card further states that, “for queer, nonconforming, nonbinary, and transgender people, these pronouns [he/she] may not fit, can create discomfort, and can cause stress and anxiety.”

So, what happens when a student’s self-perceived gender identity changes—as happens often? What if, suddenly, the student determines that the pronouns marked on his or her pronoun card now cause discomfort, stress, and anxiety? Perhaps they could get a new card, or only fill out the card in pencil. But what use is an ID card filled out in pencil? Even more perplexing, should the teacher check every student’s card daily to make sure nothing has changed? It’s not hard to see this scheme resulting in bad outcomes.

So, why did someone from the American Federation of Teachers see fit to promote and create this card in the first place? The answer lies right in the center of the card. In between a student’s “government name” and one line of “tell me … about yourself” (paper-thin disguises both) is an elaborate system for students and teachers to secretly communicate about their gender identity, right under their parents’ nose.

The assumption is that students should suspect their parents, hide secrets from them, and do so in secret code. This isolates students from those who love them most, and compels them to emotionally rely upon, and open up about their sexual identity to, one adult only, an adult to whom they are not related.

Oh, I guess that code is not at all secret, but neither is theirs.


This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

NYT Columnist Admits Schools Are Grooming Children Into LGBT Identities

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

A New York Times columnist has again confirmed that social conservatives were right: educators are pushing LGBT ideology on students.


Is Michelle Goldberg a conservative plant at The New York Times? Although she claims to be a liberal feminist, some of her recent columns are essentially admissions that social conservatives have been right all along. In another entry in this genre, she purports to critique the “freakout over sex and gender identity in schools” — only to tacitly admit that schools are indoctrinating children into LGBT ideology and grooming them into LGBT identities.

Goldberg accuses conservatives of stoking a “moral panic” akin to the “‘satanic panic’ of the 1980s, a frenzy of accusations of ritual child abuse that resulted in the conviction of dozens of innocent people.” Yet she then demonstrates the current fears are reality-based.

Her evidence that this is a panic consists of highlighting some unfounded rumors about educators indulging students with a furry fetish. She then admits that “there’s been a great evolution in how students think about gender and sexuality” with “an even bigger generational shift with trans issues. Many middle-aged liberal parents I know have different ideas about gender than their more radical adolescent kids, and I assume the gulf must be even larger in many conservative families.” In short, the sexual orientation and gender identity revolution is real, even if a few internet rumors about it are not.

Similarly, in response to the huge increase in LGBT identities among the young, Goldberg writes that “It’s obvious that more kids are going to come out in high schools where they’ll be accepted and celebrated than in those where they’ll be bullied and abused.”

True, and it is also obvious that this does not explain the mass conversions of adolescents, especially girls, to rainbow identities. Goldberg herself relays, without dispute, the example of a summer camp from which “a third of the girls came back saying that they were nonbinary or queer or gender nonconforming.”

This self-refutation continues to Goldberg’s conclusion. She does reiterate her ugly victim-blaming regarding the infamous Loudoun County rape case — why is a supposed feminist shaming a teenage girl for being raped in circumstances inconvenient to the agenda of men in dresses?

Yet she ends with a quote the victim’s mother had given to the Daily Wire, noting how her daughter was still drifting along with the gender revolution: “’Where does she get these ideas? From school, obviously,’ the mother said. ‘It’s not from our home.’”

The Left’s Contradictions

Once again, Goldberg has confirmed that social conservatives were right: educators really are leading students in a sexual and gender identity revolution, which is then furthered by social media and peer pressure. Nonetheless, Goldberg is probably not a closet conservative writing esoterically to get past her editors.

Rather, she seems to be ensnared by the contradictions of the left’s current orthodoxy on sex and gender. This sort of confusion, along with her apparently unwitting confirmations that conservatives were right, is inevitable because the LGBT movement’s justifying mantra of “born this way” is false, as demonstrated by what is happening in schools.

The born this way creed posits that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate and immutable, and that an authentic and flourishing life requires accepting these inborn identities. Thus, teaching young children about sexual orientation and gender identity is necessary to help them discover and live as their true selves, otherwise they will be repressed, miserable, and perhaps even suicidal. This is the logic behind the constant references to “LGBT youth” and “trans kids,” as well as President Joe Biden’s support for chemically and surgically transitioning children.

The True Source of Gender

But this view has been discredited. There is no gay gene. Nor is there an established biological basis for transgender identification. The case for transition rests on shoddy social science; some researchers even lie about their results. This is why transgender advocates rely on the abusive emotional blackmail of suicide threats.

The truth is that sexual inclinations and one’s sense of gender arise from a mix of biological, environmental, and cultural factors, of which genes are only a minor part. The interactions of these elements are complex and are not the same for everyone. We may have predispositions, but no one is predestined to identify as LGBT.

We can see this complexity and fluidity playing out in our culture, especially among the young. It is not just that youth are much more likely to identify as LGBT, but that they are deconstructing and recombining sexual and gender identities, often encouraged by their educators and under the influence of social media.

Educators Pushing LGBT Ideology

Nonetheless, the legacy of the (very politically successful) creed of “born this way” persists. It encourages teaching children about rainbow identities at young ages, justified by the presumption that some of them are already among the LGBT elect, even if they don’t know it yet. But rather than drawing out and nurturing intrinsic identities, instructing young children in LGBT ideology shapes their identities. Activist educators claim to protect trans children, but they are actually helping create trans children.

Horrifying examples are emerging of educators pushing young children into trans identities, even against the wishes of parents (some schools even hide these changes from parents). The Libs of TikTok Twitter account exposes a steady stream of such abuses — and these are just the activists dumb enough to boast online about what they are doing. In New Jersey, new state teaching standards have school districts distributing sample lesson plans instructing first and second graders in gender ideology and sexual orientation.

The LGBT educational agenda has more red flags than the Soviet army, from teachers talking to young children about sex to school counselors helping them to keep sexual and gender secrets from their parents. Groomer is as good a term as any for pedagogues who are eager to inform five-year-olds about sexual orientation, or who respond to the gender confusion of a troubled adolescent girl by encouraging her to inject testosterone, grow a beard, and have her breasts amputated.

The youth LGBT revolution is not a natural development among children expressing innate identities. Rather, it is an artificial social contagion encouraged by adult ideologues indoctrinating students — a six-year-old does not conclude on his own that a boy can have a vagina and a girl can have a penis. This is why parents are in revolt against the education establishment and why a liberal feminist writer can’t help admitting that the grooming is real.


This article was published in The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

‘Transwoman’ Child Molester Is Going To Girls’ Juvy

Estimated Reading Time: 9 minutes

From Los Angeles, news from the Chosen People (I speak, of course, of the Transgendered):

A Los Angeles County judge on Thursday ordered Hannah Tubbs, a transgender California woman, to serve two years in a juvenile facility after she pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl in 2014.

Before doing so, the judge criticized far-left District Attorney George Gascon, whose office declined to prosecute the repeat offender as an adult.

Tubbs, 26, recently pleaded guilty to molesting the girl in a women’s bathroom eight years ago when Tubbs was two weeks away from turning 18. At the time of the crime, she identified as male and went by James Tubbs. She did not identify as female until after she was taken into custody, according to prosecutors.

“Tubbs is 26 years old. Unlike George Gascon’s false narrative, she is not a ‘kid,’” L.A. Deputy District Attorney Jon Hatami, assigned to the Complex Child Abuse Unit, told Fox News Digital.

“There was evidence presented at the juvenile proceedings which showed that Tubbs sexually assaulted two young girls in different incidents in the past. The child victims will suffer lifelong trauma. Tubbs also has prior violent convictions and conduct as an adult.”

Prosecutors say Tubbs walked into the bathroom of a Denny’s in 2014 and grabbed the 10-year-old by the throat, locked her in a stall, and put her hand down the girl’s pants. Tubbs stopped when another person walked into the restroom, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Because Tubbs began identifying as female after she was taken into custody, and Gascon refused to try her as an adult, Tubbs was sentenced to two years in a juvenile facility. In L.A. County, juvenile facilities can house both females and males, but in separate areas. Tubbs will be housed with the females.

“Because of George Gascon’s blanket policy against transferring any juvenile to adult court, even if the 17-year-old rapes or murders an innocent child, James Tubbs will not have to register as a sex offender, will not spend any time in county jail or state prison, will be 26 and housed with juveniles for a very short period of time, and will be released with no probation or parole monitoring. The victims will get no justice. The public will get no safety,” Hatami said.

This 26-year-old penis-having sex criminal lummox will be housed with juvenile females, because the judge’s hands have been tied by the woke DA, and the laws of the crazy liberal state of California. How long will normal people put up with this insanity? Hannah Tubbs is a man. “She” was born a man, and a man “she” will always be. And “she” — he — is a child molester. A child molester who is coddled by the Soros DA of Los Angeles, voted into office by liberal Los Angelenos.

Meanwhile, as if it didn’t have enough to worry about, the Catholic Church now has to watch out for transgendered pseudo-males applying for seminary. From Catholic News Agency:

Bishops should consider requiring DNA tests or physical examinations to ensure that all seminarians are biological men, said Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki in a recent memo sent to the members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

“Recently, the Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance was made aware of instances where it had been discovered that a woman living under a transgendered identity had been unknowingly admitted to the seminary or to a house of formation of an institute of consecrated life,” said the memo. Listecki is the chairman of the USCCB’s canonical affairs committee.

In one case, said Listecki, “the individual’s sacramental records had been fraudulently obtained to reflect her new identity.”

“In all instances, nothing in these individuals’ medical or psychological reports had signaled past treatments or pertinent surgeries,” he added. None of the biologically female seminarians received Holy Orders, said Listecki.

A reader who teaches at a major American seminary, whose name I am withholding, writes to say:

The issue of transgendered biological women applying, gaining entrance to, and attending seminaries in the US is back in the, or a, spotlight. A google search makes it apparent that primarily, if not exclusively, conservative Catholic sources are reporting it. It would seem easy, at a glance, to pick out the suspicious characters, the “Pats” if you will.

We have, for example, about [100-150] students in our seminary program and I am 99% certain that none of them are biologically female, though a handful, at least, are fairly odd characters. Sometimes being a weirdo–not fitting in–which may include a natural effeminacy, can lead someone to consider the priesthood who otherwise wouldn’t. And that man can become a good and holy priest, even if he remains an awkward person at the far end of seminary formation. Something similar could be said for men with homosexual tendencies successfully struggling to manage their urges, which is probably a significant slice of any Catholic seminary population today.

But a biological female pretending to be a man is surely a different…animal. Part of the wider issue is that seminaries experience a significant degree of pressure to please the bishops who send men (?) to them for formation. At the same time, seminaries can (and should) be usually blamed for graduating (= recommending for ordination) deviants, perverts, and sickos that have somehow made it through the five to seven years of intense spiritual and intellectual formation (I would even say scrutinization) that graduation entails. It’s really a tight spot: bishops can choose where they send their men (?) for formation. Given the low numbers of men (?) actually interested in the priesthood, one bishop pulling his guys (?) from your seminary can have a devastating effect. I wanted to bring to your attention this bizarre situation–rare yet revealing another facet of the crisis that is also status quo–seminaries are facing in the US. To my mind it captures well the apocalypsis Western civilization is facing, and traditional Christianity therein.

Can you imagine that it has come to this? And we just sit back and let it wash over us. Seems like Pope Francis’s Vatican might be rolling merrily along with the contemporary currents. The analysis from the Tablet (UK) is excited by the change of direction:

Pope Francis has not formally “changed” any official teaching but he’s opened the way to a more inclusive and pastoral approach to gay and lesbian people, and his letters encouraging those ministering to them are highly significant. It is the opening of a more “synodal” approach to this issue, where the Church listens, learns and opens up new pastoral avenues. Personnel changes at the Vatican’s doctrine office, announced on 10 January, also suggest movements are afoot.

Here is a story from the UK’s Daily Mail. Andrew Sullivan says correctly that you won’t see this in American papers, which are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Trans-Industrial Complex. Excerpts:

Sharing a locker room with transgender swimmer Lia Thomas has become a point of contention for some of her University of Pennsylvania teammates, who feel uncomfortable changing in the private space with someone undergoing gender transition, the DailyMail.com can reveal.

‘It’s definitely awkward because Lia still has male body parts and is still attracted to women,’ one swimmer on the team told DailyMail.com in an exclusive interview.

Lia has told her teammates that she dates women.

While Lia covers herself with a towel sometimes, there’s a decent amount of nudity, the swimmer said. She and others have had a glimpse at her private parts.

She stated that team members have raised their concern with the coach, trying to get Thomas ousted from the female locker room, but got nowhere.

‘Multiple swimmers have raised it, multiple different times,’ the UPenn swimmer said. ‘But we were basically told that we could not ostracize Lia by not having her in the locker room and that there’s nothing we can do about it, that we basically have to roll over and accept it, or we cannot use our own locker room.’

‘It’s really upsetting because Lia doesn’t seem to care how it makes anyone else feel,’ the swimmer continued. ‘The 35 of us are just supposed to accept being uncomfortable in our own space and locker room for, like, the feelings of one.’

Of course not. Lia Thomas is a total narcissist who, like so many other male-to-female transgenders, expects the entire world — particularly women in the world — to shut up and accept their own humiliation, and the theft of their opportunities to excel in athletics. This should never, ever have been an issue — and wouldn’t be if the United States weren’t governed by a morally corrupt elite.

Meanwhile, the Washington state legislature is working on a bill that would extend abortion rights to transgendered men.

And this from Canada:

The only thing that is going to stop this is parents who finally get sick and tired of the abuse and the craziness, and start speaking out — and filing lawsuits, like this California mom,and like these Florida parents. About the Florida case, the Washington Examiner writes:

The parents of a Florida elementary school student are suing their daughter’s school district after their child attempted to commit suicide following the school’s efforts to orchestrate her secret transition to a male gender identity.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida and claims that the daughter of Wendell and Maria Perez, a sixth grade student at Paterson Elementary School in Fleming Island, Florida, had adopted a male transgender identity at school with the support of administrators, who hid the girl’s gender dysphoria from her parents.

It was not until the Perezes’ daughter, identified as A.P. in court filings, attempted to commit suicide on school grounds for the second time in as many days that the Perezes were notified about their daughter’s male gender identity, the lawsuit says.

“Prior to the [suicide attempt], A.P. had not exhibited any signs of gender confusion or questioning of her biological sex,” the lawsuit says. “In fact, just before the incident she had told her mother that she believed that people who say they are transgender have a problem with their minds because ‘if you’re a boy, you’re a boy, if you’re a girl, you’re a girl.’”

The court filing says that A.P. and the school had sought to keep her parents in the dark regarding her transgender identity due to their Catholic faith, which teaches that sex and gender are immutable.

Folks, it will not stop until we force it to be stopped. This cannot be done painlessly. The woke have established their tyranny not by shedding blood, but by shedding tears. This is what it means for the therapeutic to have triumphed: it means 26-year-old male sex criminals who claim to be women get to live with juvenile females in jail. It means that women’s athletics are being destroyed by biological males, and women must shut their mouths and accept it. It means that the schools propagandize our children to hate their bodies, and then conspire to change their sex and deceive parents about it.

Enough. Enough! Fight the power! If you don’t know what your kid is being told at school, you had better find out. This California woman thought her daughter would be safe from gender ideology at a Catholic school — but she was wrong.Read more:

In May, the Pride Student Union at our daughter’s Catholic school announced that it would have another formal meeting on gender identity, the club president’s favorite subject.

As is the case with all school clubs, a faculty member was required to attend each meeting of the Pride Student Union. Given the number of meetings focused on gender ideology, this faculty member—and therefore the Catholic school—approved of teaching an ideology that is antithetical to the Roman Catholic Church.

I asked the club’s leader to stop emailing my daughter, as we believed that this club was indoctrinating my daughter further into the gender cult.

I met with the school principal, who I’ll call Ms. K, and the school’s chaplain, Father B. I told them my daughter’s story. I begged them to help me. Instead, they simply offered excuses.

Principal K and Father B said that the Pride Student Union’s most recent formal meeting on gender had not been sanctioned by the school, and may have occurred without faculty oversight. But I know that the faculty member was invited to an earlier meeting on gender, so I was skeptical.

Principal K and Father B tried to argue that the club doesn’t “teach” anything. I disagreed.

They went on to say that they couldn’t control what students do on their own time. They went so far as to compare the gender meetings to off-campus parties that weren’t sponsored by the school. It was obvious to me that they wanted to distance the school from the club to protect themselves from possible legal ramifications.

I asked Principal K and Father B to remove my daughter’s address from the club’s email distribution list. That request was denied. Students could join any club regardless of parents’ wishes.

I asked if they were aware of the information being presented at Pride Student Union events, specifically the formal meetings on gender, or whether they had queried the faculty monitor, the club president, or any members.

Neither Principal K nor Father B would answer that question, waving it off as if I had no right to be concerned. Yet, Father B told me that my daughter needed the club. He warned me that she might commit suicide without it, and said she needed a place to make friends.

I asked what Father B knew of my daughter. The school chaplain had never met her.

Father B. is just one step ahead of Pope F., sounds like.

And by the way, even if your kid is in a solid school, don’t think he or she is safe. Central European countries are socially conservative about LGBT matters compared to Western ones, and kids usually don’t hear this stuff in school. But they’re all being indoctrinated via social media. I’ve written before in this space about the Slovenian Catholic father who told me in Ljubljana last summer that his 12 year old daughter was suffering acute psychological distress because some older American teenagers she contacted over her smartphone had convinced her that she had better choose the correct gender. It had not occurred to this father and his wife that by getting their daughter a smartphone, they were opening her up to toxic strangers who would colonize their young daughter’s mind.

How certain are you that this isn’t happening with your kids?

A reader e-mailed to say that the average member of Generation Z has been raised on social media, with their information regimen carefully curated by Big Tech, and the indoctrination supported by schools, cultural institutions (high and low), and every entertainment source. With the woke controlling all the institutions, the question isn’t how could that generation be so far to the Left, but rather, how could it not?

UPDATE: Apple is releasing new emojis of Pregnant Man and Pregnant Person:

You might laugh at this, but this is the stuff of cultural revolution. Change the conceptual language people use, and you are far down the road of changing the world.

And by now, you had better know that to refuse to speak that language or to acknowledge that it signifies reality is to set oneself up to be persecuted. They will roll their eyes when you say so — but watch what they have done, these Wokes, where they have had the power to do so.


This article was published by The American Conservative and is reprinted with permission.

How To Remedy The Campus Groupthink That Targeted Us

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Academic freedom, free thought and free speech are under assault on our nation’s college campuses. And it’s not just conservative white men, or the Federalist Society at Ivy League schools such as Yale University, that are under attack. It is also women, including women of color, who are caught up in this new “cancel”-meets-“consequence” culture.

We are college professors/scholars who have experienced cancel culture’s swift and ugly rage, and we both suffered professional damage as a result. One of us is white. The other black. It doesn’t matter if you teach at a private Christian university like Baylor in Texas, where Dr. Crenshaw taught, or at a public university like Christopher Newport (pictured) in Virginia, where Professor Nelson taught and is currently a scholar in residence (the first black woman to hold such a vaunted title in the school’s 60-year history).

Both of us share a common Christian faith and more socially conservative viewpoints, but we are also champions for women’s rights, we believe in the necessity of discussing gender and race as it intersects for us as women, and we have been respectful and engaged for years in dialogue with other marginalized groups including the LGBTQ+ community, even when our respective values or opinions are in conflict. Yet, both of us were attacked by that very community for asking a simple question on Twitter (Nelson) and making a statement of biological and genetic fact (Crenshaw). We will address our stories further down in this piece.

The important point here, however, is that we are in the middle of a seriously flawed sociological and generational shift that has redefined the way we have courageous conversations (or not) on our college campuses. Free speech no longer exists if you do not lock, stock, and barrel embrace diversity and inclusion statements or the LGBTQ+ community.  We both have been told that we may have “free speech” but that there will be “consequences” to us professionally and personally for said speech. With all due respect, if those are the new rules of free speech in America, we don’t want to play the game.

This has been a decade-long slide as our nation bows to the power of the PC police and “wokeism.” In 2018 and 2019, we had the #metoo and #timesup movements, which highlighted the kinds of sexual assault and harassment contemporary women still combat in patriarchal systems like Hollywood, Fortune 500 companies and yes, in academia. In 2020, after the horrific George Floyd murder, we collectively recognized a need for increased national conversations on racial injustice, policing and racial reconciliation. But 2021 just might be the year that cancel culture defined the future of diversity of thought and opinion in academia. A brand new report by FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) spotlights “speech codes” on over 500 college campuses across the country. And the findings are troubling and chilling, to say the least.

Many American universities and some in the U.K. (see Sussex University) have embraced a culture of compulsory groupthink regarding certain “marginalized” groups and points of views; if we differ we can be publicly protested, threatened, harassed, slandered and demeaned by the very groups who loudly demand respect and acceptance from the rest of us. It’s hypocritical, and it must be challenged openly.

Let’s break down how campus cancel culture works because both of us are intimately familiar with the toxic experience. It usually starts with a professor or scholar who has a very visible social media presence or public profile. They innocently ask a question on said platform, as Scholar Nelson did on Twitter about a bisexual comic book character, or offer commentary on something controversial, as Dr. Crenshaw did by talking about transgender bathroom policies. Both of us were respectful and reasonable by all standards. But then a small but vicious mob retaliates first on social media with outraged responses, doxxing, and threats. And then they take it out of the public square and into the workplace at the university where none of what was said originated or has anything to do whatsoever with our students, the faculty, or staff.

The aggrieved use words like “unsafe,” “violence,” “triggered,” and it matters not if the accused offender apologizes, welcomes dialogue, or the like. The apology is attacked as insufficient. Then they destroy the professor’s professional reputation on campus, on the Internet, and to the media. They create damning online petitions, or actual campus petitions to have the “offender” fired and worse (they threaten your physical safety and that of your family, as was the case with Dr. Crenshaw). The mob eventually moves on to another target of their wrath but not before wreaking havoc on their canceled victims’ professional and personal lives. It is a very effective way to silence dissent.

If we are going to preserve “diversity” along with free speech and free thought, here are some recommendations for America’s college campuses:

  1. Redefine the language of inclusivity to be for all, not just so-called marginalized groups. The LGBTQ+ narrative demands inclusivity and espouses tolerance, but it does not reciprocate. That must change and all faculty and students must be protected and defended by university officials.
  2. We need to stop conflating the race and sex conversations; they are not the same. Segregating people on the basis of skin color is racist. Separating people on the basis of their biological sex is safe and honors our immutable differences apparent at birth.
  3. Work on free speech policies: Speech is not violence. Colleges have elevated micro-aggressions over macro-aggressions. There is a difference between speech that expresses an opinion and speech that levels a threat, and we have to discern the difference and respond accordingly. Not everyone can affirm or capitulate to every facet of the LGBTQ+ narrative or that of other groups. For many people of faith, for example, narratives around sexuality and gender identity infringe upon their religious interpretation and expression (as well as common sense and science).
  4. Develop campus dialogues that include all voices. Professor Nelson was silenced for weeks as a half-dozen forums were held without her being present and faculty/students publicly ranted and labeled her a racist, homophobic bigot. Dr. Crenshaw was called transphobic over sound comments she made as a parent about basic biology. The trans identity movement contradicts biology, but it has been protected by institutions such as the CDC, which now refers to pregnant mothers as “birthing people” who “chest feed.” Additionally, the ACLU had to apologize for revising the words of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to eliminate female pronouns and make them gender inclusive. This is how far we have shifted to protect groupthink.
  5. We need to practice correction versus coddling. Irate students and faculty have changed the culture on campus to one of compliance or consequences — faculty are now terrified, particularly conservative faculty, to speak out, get on social media or otherwise express opinions when they can be ruined for not holding fast to diversity, equity and inclusion policies. It’s thought control at its worst. What are we teaching students? Not how to dialogue and argue, but how to destroy other people’s reputations for disagreeing or sharing a faith position.

In the final analysis, we are teaching a new generation of students to attack good people rather than bad arguments. We are teaching them to destroy professional reputations and careers when their feelings get hurt. That is not a formula for success once they leave the college campus. Instead, we need to teach them how to make good counter-arguments, state their case beyond emotion, and make room for good people to disagree on the basis of freedom of religion and free thought.

Sophia A. Nelson is a scholar in residence at Christopher Newport University.

Christina Crenshaw is an associate researcher at Dallas Theological Seminary and a fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum.


This article was published on December 16, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from the Independent Women’s Forum.