Tag Archive for: TransgenderIdeology.

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.

Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut, Sometimes You Don’t

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

The headline is taken from an old television ad and accompanying jingle to help distinguish between two candy bars: Almond Joy and Mounds. We would interpret this to mean that sometimes one feels like a candy bar with a large nut, chocolate, and coconut,  and sometimes you just want the coconut and chocolate. Such matters of taste and craving can be fluid and quickly changing. Clever and the jingle was catchy.

But should one’s legal sexual status, as it relates to legal documents,  be as fluid as choosing a candy bar?

In Europe, the answer seems to be yes.

The website iamexpat.com says that German law (if approved by Parliament) will allow individuals to state their “sexual identification” on legal documents once a year. This necessity to bend the law apparently stems from the “right to a self-determined life”. 

When does this right begin or end?  Are there any limits to these “rights?”

For every right, there is a responsibility. What are the responsibilities of a “self-determined” life? 

Maybe the Germans will instruct us.

What if I identify as Peter Pan? That is my determination of my life. Will I age or will I always be a child?  If I think I can fly, do I need to contact the FAA and file a flight plan? What kind of a craft am I?

Hmmm…since sex and gender are fluid concepts, is once a year really often enough?  It would seem that daily or hourly changes are more appropriate. Otherwise, one might be trapped inside another body for a year and that seems overly harsh.

The article goes on to say this simply gets German law up to speed with Denmark, Switzerland, and the country I think most appropriate to copy, Ithinkastan.

The idea that you really are what you think you are, and that this supplants DNA, hormones, and sexual organs, and what you previously thought you were; was first perfected in Ithinkastan, or at least I think so.

It has gone beyond demanding pronouns. Now legal documents that relate to gender, names, and descriptions, can be changed at will based on how you “feel” at least annually. 

How is this going to work in practice? I would presume that “legal” documents are legal, and binding to the law, right?

So, let us suppose I forcibly penetrate a young girl against her consent. A description is put out by the police and I am arrested.

I should be able to claim I am female, if that is how I feel, and I would most assuredly feel that way, facing prosecution. Since I am now not the person described by the victim, I cannot be prosecuted since I am no longer that person, legally speaking. If I am really a female, I could not possibly commit the crime of which I am accused. The crime was committed by a male, and I no longer think of myself as male, and therefore the law must recognize I am another person. The crime was committed by someone else.

Or let us suppose, I want to compete on a girl’s athletic team. I can change my sexual preference and get on the team, right? That is now accepted in the US by the NCAA and prestigious Ivy League Colleges. So, is the aforementioned hypothetical that far-fetched?

Women prisoners are being impregnated by other  “female” prisoners. Oh, so the example is not so far-fetched.

If I claim I am a woman, can I get lower insurance premiums because women live longer and thus I am entitled to the different actuarial table? This male swimmer for the University of Pennsylvania says he is a woman, how is his/her car insurance premium handled? Young women are not as reckless as drivers as males and often pay lower premiums.

What kind of havoc will gender-bending legal documents have on the law, actuarial science, and society at large?

Can I “identify” with different ages, and alter my birth certificate, as they now do with gender? If so, can I get Social Security at 22? Could I lower my age, become a minor, and thus have all my records sealed and get lesser penalties?

I mean, why should “self-determination” be limited to gender?

Can I get into medical school ahead of others, because my new gender/race/ethnic group is sought by recruitment boards seeking to fulfill their “diversity and inclusion” mandates? And since Facebook says there are 64 genders, can I keep rotating until I get the spot I want?

Seriously, why should “self-determination” be limited to gender? A whole subculture is developing of “furries”, or people that identify as cats and dogs.

So, if arrested, you could claim both different sex and a different species. That should throw the jury for a loop. If they don’t accept how you identify, they are clearly bigots of the worst sort.

We already have the case of people identifying with another race, and that did not end too well for the former Seattle head of the NAACP.

It seems the poor “woman” has had difficulty finding work. Why the difficulty of choosing a different race but you are celebrated if you choose a different gender, given the universal right to self-determination?

She was accused of being a “race faker.” Can one be a gender faker?

There used to be a concept regarding personal liberty that suggested, “you are free to swing your arms until it impacts my nose.”  

It suggests toleration for a broad swath of aberrant behaviors, as long as they are done privately and do not impact the law and harm the public that does not wish to participate in the given quirk, fetish, or identification.

I really could care less what people do “in the privacy of their homes.” I feel sorry for their mental illness. But these gender activists are doing mischief with the law, trying to influence our children and culture, altering sports competitions, and harming other people and their livelihoods. They can ruin your bakery, have you de-platformed, and have you fired. They are harming us.

This now is impacting all of our “noses.”

Worse yet, the medical profession, especially psychiatrists and healthcare workers, are either ambivalent or defending this nonsense. And, to suggest you are what you “feel”  is nonsense and not supported by any science until five minutes ago.

Sometimes you feel like a nut because that is precisely what you are.

Cancel Culture Is Helping Marxists Achieve Their Revolution in the West Without the Bloodshed

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Cancel culture is sometimes mistaken as the central problem in the life of the West. This happens, I have noticed, more among our U.K. cousins than stateside. Cancel culture, however, is merely a tool, the enforcement mechanism with which the woke left retains the cultural territory it has conquered.

The central problem facing citizens of Western countries is that a very hardcore, Marxian left has scored significant victories in its steady march toward the takeover of cultural institutions. This is a strategy first thought up by an Italian, Antonio Gramsci, who co-founded Italy’s Communist Party in 1921.

Gramsci taught Marxists that, to achieve Karl Marx’s goal of abolishing private property, the family, the church, and the nation-state, they did not need the bloody revolution that Marx had also called for. In Western countries, with their rich civil societies, it was better to infiltrate the cultural institutions, take them over, and indoctrinate the people into abandoning their love for the family, nation, etc., which Gramsci called “false consciousness.”

Indoctrination would raise their consciousness. This led to struggle sessions, which had harrowing results from China to the fields of Cambodia to the West in the 21st century.

Marxism needed coercion, despotism, and outright terror from the start, and Marx called for all three. In 1948, Marx spelled this out in his essay “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” where he wrote, “There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

In our Western societies, state coercion of free speech must be presented in less truculent a fashion. This is why Herbert Marcuse, the Frankfurt School neo-Marxist who did so much to promote critical theory and the sexual revolution in the United States, came out with something called—we kid not—“Repressive Tolerance.”

In a 1969 essay by that name, Marcuse wrote that “In this society … false consciousness has become the general consciousness—from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities.”

Marcuse then called for the “withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right—these anti-democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance.”

That was canceled culture in its germinal stage. What it does is prevent the retaking of the ground lost to the left.

That doesn’t mean it is less of a danger. When people’s lives are canceled, they can lose their freedom of expression, their ability to make a living, and sometimes even their friends. When you have been totally canceled, Franz Kafka becomes your best friend, for only that turn-of-the-20th-century master of the absurd can make sense of your henceforth Kafkaesque existence.

That this fate can lurk around the corner in the free West is something that should concern us all and give us the encouragement we need to fight cancel culture in every way we can. We should expose it for what it is, decry it when it happens, and also summon the courage not to repeat a lie because saying the truth may result in our own canceling.

An area where people have become very cautious of late has been transgender issues. To say that a person can never become a woman, and vice versa, can get you thrown out of polite society, virtual or physical. And yet, most of us know that no matter how many puberty blockers a person takes, or how many healthy organs are mutilated, a man cannot menstruate, conceive, etc.

Indeed, Twitter this week suspended the account of The Babylon Bee, a very popular satirical website that has 1.3 million followers because it gave a transgender man who is a Biden administration official its Man of the Year Award.

The transgender issue is smack in the middle of the culture wars in America. There are many willing to take a stand and say, “No, I won’t live by lies.” Cancel culture is the left’s instrument to force them to do so.


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

Transgenderism: Why Stop There?

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Editors’ Note: As the sign says, trans rights are human rights. By logical extension, if one becomes in law what one says one “identifies” as, there is no logical or legal reason why people cannot identify with another race, sex, nationality, or species. And if this is a “human right”, who are we to deny this right? This is more than just a slippery slope, this is a black diamond course on the way to total social and mental confusion.

“Identifying” as someone who one is not has become all the rage. If you think you’re somebody you’re not, the whole world is expected to nod its collective head, if not stand up and cheer.

This is especially true for gender identity, as William “Lia” Thomas has demonstrated so vividly in collegiate swimming pools. Unheralded male swimmer William Thomas became NCAA champion female swimmer Lia Thomas—Shazam!—just by saying so.

What a cool magic trick.

Gone are the days when a guy had to put some skin in the game to pull this off. Or, more accurately, pull something off to get some skin out of the game; namely, his penis. The old carving-station requirement for gender transition has gone the way of the rotary telephone. Today, mere affirmations will suffice.

“Hey, I’m a girl!” And you are.

As Yogi Berra might say, if he were alive and not in shock: “Only in America.”

Since simple declarations of identity can change people more swiftly than scalpels, what’s next after the triumph of transgenderism?

Why not transnationalism?

Visualize Lupita Martinez. She lives in poverty in Honduras. The mean streets of Tegucigalpa keep her at her wits’ end. A crime surge on public transportation is the last macaw that breaks the branch of her patience.

So, Martinez joins a caravan and heads north, to the U.S.-Mexican frontier.

When she comes face to face with a Border Patrol agent, Martinez says the magic words: “I identify as an American.”

“Welcome home, Lupita!” the federal agent says with a warm smile, as he waves this Honduran American citizen back where she belongs.

And why not transracialism?

Picture Ludwig Von Thannhausen, age 18. He lives in suburban Chicago with his native German parents who brought him to America as a baby. He has blond hair, blue eyes, and looks like a young man born in Oberpfaffenhofen who also happens to be white.

But Von Thannhausen can’t get enough of things black.

He is obsessed with the Harlem Renaissance. He knows the literature of Langston Hughes better than Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the paintings of Aaron Douglas more than Max Ernst, and the music of Duke Ellington deeper than Richard Wagner.

His heroes stretch from Frederick Douglass to the Tuskegee Airmen to Denzel Washington. He listens to everything from Motown to Parliament Funkadelic to Prince to Kanye West.

He dreams of majoring in black studies at Howard University in Washington, D.C., a historically black college. In fact, he’s applying as a black student and seeks scholarships intended for black applicants.

Von Thannhausen resembles a recruit for the Aryan Nation, but he said the secret words: “I identify as black.”

Who are we to disagree? If that’s his identity, that’s his identity.

And if his good grades, decent SAT scores, and impressive baseball record land him a spot at Howard, plus a $50,000 minority scholarship, then who are we to say that he is not really black?

But what would we say to the kid who actually is black (you know: dark skin, dark hair, etc.), applies to Howard, and misses out on admission, a scholarship, or both? If not for Von Thannhausen, those blessings would be hers.

Why not transindividualism?

Imagine that Bob Glenwood has multiple-personality disorder. He identifies as Bob Glenwood, but also as Steve Jones, Myron Shapiro, Jackie Washington, and Concepcion Gomez.

So, he fills out five voter registration applications and requests five absentee ballots.

Who are we to say that Glenwood deserves just one ballot? How dare we disenfranchise the other four people who live inside his brain? That would be Jim Crow 3.0.

As these (for now) fictional scenarios show, America will plunge into ever deeper chaos if we simply let people “identify” as those they are not and then deprive others of goods and benefits meant for people who legitimately embody those identities.

I identify as Walter Cronkite, and that’s the way it is.


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

Biden Administration Endorses Child Sex Changes On Transgender Visibility Day

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released guidance Thursday endorsing gender reassignment procedures for children.

The documents, “Gender Affirming Care and Young People” released by the Office of Population Affairs (OPA) and “Gender-Affirming Care Is Trauma-Informed Care” released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN), support a wide range of procedures including surgeries performed on adolescents.

The guidance goes beyond social affirmation and the use of puberty blockers, which the OPA document describes as “reversible” treatments, and extends to treatments that cannot be completely reversed, including hormone therapy and “gender-affirming surgeries.” (RELATED: ‘Metastasizing Like A Cancer’ — Parents Across The Country Sue Schools Over Clandestine Transitions)

“Today, the Biden Administration announced new actions to support the mental health of transgender children, remove barriers that transgender people face accessing critical government services, and improve the visibility of transgender people in our nation’s data,” the White House said in a statement on the guidance Thursday.

The NCTSN document says that “gender-affirming care” might involve “evidence-based interventions such as puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones” and also includes “access to opportunities that all children should have, such as playing team sports, safely using bathrooms in their schools and other public places, and positive relationships with supportive adults.”

Gender identity issues have arisen with the participation of transgender swimmer Lia Thomas in the NCAA swimming championships, allegations surrounding Loudoun County Public Schools covering up a sexual assault by a “gender fluid” student, and Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signing an executive order directing the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate situations where some gender reassignment procedures are used.

“The Texas government’s attacks against transgender youth and those who love and care for them are discriminatory and unconscionable,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement earlier this month. (RELATED: Judges Across The Country Have Denied Custody To Parents Who Refuse To Give Children ‘Transgender’ Medical Treatments)

Pro-family organizations have claimed that schools have been actively deceiving parents and secretly carrying out initial stages of the gender transition process, prompting litigation between parents and public school districts.

“[T]he Biden administration has adopted a policy encouraging harm to children, even funding it,” Ryan Bangert, senior counsel and vice president for legal strategy at Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. “This extreme policy will leave a legacy of pain and regret that no child should have to endure.”

HHS did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.


This article was published by The Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

Trans Tyranny in Public Schools

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Schools across the country have adopted a controversial policy of hiding the LGBT statuses of students from their parents. Sold to the public as an effort to protect children from abuse, the policy effectively circumvents parental consent and notification about their children’s health, safety, and well-being.

One Texas family told Chronicles how they fought to protect their children from transgender ideology. After finding out that staff of a public school had encouraged their daughter to transition to a male gender, they withdrew their children from the school. But that wasn’t the end of the story. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) came knocking at their door, demanding to conduct a safety assessment of their family environment.

In telling us his family’s story, the father, who we’ll call John, asked Chronicles to protect their identities, for fear of retaliation. He gave Chronicles copies of all the documents he received and sent to DFPS during the agency’s investigation.

What John and his family experienced is the result of a countrywide effort to push through schools radical ideas about sex and gender to influence children at their most vulnerable developmental stages. Even more sinister, their story shows how the enforcement arm of the government is being used to punish and harass those who resist. A war for the hearts, minds, and bodies of America’s children, which can often result in devastating and irreversible consequences—is being waged in every state, red or blue, and there is no opting out of the conflict.

John is a native Texan. He and his family live—or so they thought—outside Austin’s progressive sphere of influence. Over the last two years, John and his wife noticed their daughter, whom we’ll call Jane, acting strange. Jane cut her long, light brown hair to a much shorter, militaristic style during her freshman year of high school and adopted a more masculine style of dress. She withdrew from family life altogether, and her parents began practically begging her to interact with them as she used to do. Jane asked to start seeing a therapist, but wouldn’t explain why. Worried about her state of mind, they agreed to arrange mental health therapy sessions.

The truth about what was bothering Jane came out “in bits and pieces,” John said, but they never could have anticipated what was behind it all. The moment of revelation came when the family met with the high school guidance counselor last autumn. It was a routine appointment to review a catalog of classes and plan for their daughter’s future. John and his wife noticed that Jane had an uncanny rapport with the counselor. John said the counselor and Jane were finishing each other’s sentences and seemed privy to a whole world impenetrable to the parents. He appeared to have the kind of intimate relationship with Jane that John and his wife had lost and were struggling to reestablish.

After the meeting, John asked Jane about what was going on, and she revealed the truth. The guidance counselor and other staff at the school had encouraged their daughter to adopt a new identity as a boy, and to hide that from her parents. She had lived a secret life as a boy for her freshman and sophomore years, and the school staff had conspired to keep her parents in the dark.

The family decided the best thing to do was to prepare to withdraw their children from the school district. John and his wife did as much research as they could on homeschooling, even joining the Texas Home School Coalition. Then, one Friday last October, the kids spent their final full day in the district. John and his wife filed the proper forms with the schools, stating that Jane and her brother were beginning home schooling the following Monday.

When Monday came, John received a call from DFPS. Someone had filed a report “concerning the safety of the child(ren) in your family,” according to a later DFPS letter. A social worker showed up at their house the next day to perform a child welfare check that left the family confused and disturbed. Later that week, DFPS notified John that someone else had filed a second report alleging abuse.

It was easy enough to refute the allegations. DFPS personnel even told the family that the reports appeared retaliatory. Someone was trying in bad faith to get John’s kids taken away. Moreover, the charges were so specific that it made the family suspicious of how anyone could know so much about them.

John sat down with Jane and laid out the stakes. He said that the people who had filed these reports “were willing to tear you and your brother away from your family and probably separate you from each other, simply because your parents aren’t going along with this.” Her eyes widened, and the weight of what was happening dawned on her. John relayed what the reports alleged: that Jane had been kept in isolation, denied medical care, and locked inside the house with a security system. “But, we have our own codes to the security system,” she said, just as confused as her father. Then it clicked.

Jane remembered a counselor asking her leading questions, including whether she had been denied medical care. Jane mentioned that at a routine health check-up her parents had declined a doctor’s suggestion to put her on anti-depressants, saying they had enrolled her in mental health therapy instead. The counselor also asked about her living situation, including, oddly, about her house’s security system.

John and his daughter realized together that the leading conversation she had with the guidance counselor seemed to inform the allegations of child abuse, and that he had made an erroneous assumption that the security system was some kind of device to keep Jane locked up. They suspect a teacher at the school may have been involved as well, and may have filed one of the abuse reports. At any rate, it became clear that the school’s staff had exploited Jane’s trust and used it to attack her parents.

Unfortunately, this kind of subversion has become common in public schools everywhere. State by state, examples abound of teachers and administrators actively pushing LGBT ideology on children behind their parents’ backs, causing chaos and division within families.

Jeffrey and January Littlejohn, of Leon County, Florida, in October filed a lawsuit against their school district after discovering that the staff of their middle school had secretly met with their 13-year-old daughter to develop a transgender “support plan.” The Littlejohns’ lawsuit alleges that the district was involved in “training district staff to conceal from parents information regarding their children’s assertion of a discordant gender identity, including, inter alia, assumption of a new name, use of different pronouns, use of opposite sex privacy facilities and use of opposite sex lodging on off campus trips.”

The journalist and author Abigail Shrier reported in November on her Substack newsletter that Buena Vista Middle School teachers Lori Caldeira and Kelly Baraki “stalked”—a term used by Caldeira—students’ online activity to identify candidates for an LGBT club. Parents responding to Shrier’s story characterized the teachers’ efforts as “grooming.”

The Spreckels Union School District—of which Buena Vista Middle School is a part—now faces a lawsuit alleging teachers manipulated a woman’s daughter into changing her gender identity and kept it hidden under its “Parental Secrecy Policy.”

And, in November, a Wisconsin family and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm that tries cases on religious freedom and parental rights, sued the Kettle Moraine School District because of its policy allowing students to change their names and gender pronouns without parental consent. The lawsuit alleges that staff at the school’s mental health center didn’t help their 12-year-old daughter with depression and questions about her gender, but “quickly ‘affirmed’ that she was really a transgender boy and encouraged her to transition to a male identity.”

The proliferation of LGBT ideology in schools is connected to the expansion of “social-emotional learning” (SEL) curriculum. In a nutshell, parents and parents’ rights activists describe SEL as a Trojan horse for introducing children to “critical race theory and gay and transgender advocacy,” as the Washington Examiner put it. It also cuts out parents from caring for children’s mental health, shifting that responsibility onto those versed in SEL. In other words, teachers assume the role of parents.

For all their talk about family values, Republican politicians are reluctant to act. Three of them—Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and State Rep. Dade Phelan—took a combined $2.47 million in campaign funds from political action committees affiliated with pediatric gender-modification clinics, according to an analysis of Transparency USA campaign finance records by Katy Christian Magazine. The three later helped kill bills that would have prohibited the gender modification that goes on at such clinics.

John, the father from Texas, and his family were cleared by the DFPS of child abuse allegations in October. John said the agency’s caseworker told him that there have been more and more retaliatory actions against parents who don’t go along quietly with the highjacking of their children’s gender identities. Although the Texas DFPS keeps the names of those reporting child abuse confidential and protects them from civil or criminal liability, it is, nevertheless, a felony to falsely report child abuse or neglect under the Texas Family Code. Yet overzealous or disingenuous reporting is more common than people think. As the Houston Chronicle reported in 2018, a Texas judge ordered the state to pay a family $127,000 after caseworkers wrongly accused them of child abuse.

The formal process of uncovering who filed a report against John’s family takes months. In the meantime, they are left waiting and wondering. John believes the point of the reports was to threaten the loss of his children for interfering with the educational establishment’s vision of progress. He said he’s distraught at the thought that even if his family come out of this okay, other families may not. Some parents may lose their kids or be cowed into going along with gender transitions, hormone therapies and surgeries.

John said he is encouraged, however, by Jane slowly emerging from her shell. “My wife, my daughter, and I now all go to a family counselor because we want her to know she can open up to us,” he said. Above all, they want her to see that she was a victim of a dangerous ideology, one that nearly tore her family apart.


This article was published by Chronicles and is reproduced with permission.