The following is from a New York Times article by Ruth Padawer, who "teaches at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism." Her article is eight pages long on the NYT. I linked to the single-page version. Now, let me say that the title of the article on the New York Times is not "What's So Bad About AN ABUSED/RAPED Boy Who Wants to Wear a Dress?" but rather "What's So Bad About a Boy Who Wants to Wear a Dress?" Before I explain why I added "AN ABUSED/RAPED" to that and in all-caps for emphasis, please read the following block quote:
Zucker's academic articles assert that while biology may predispose some children to gender nonconformity, other factors — like trauma and emotional disorders — often play a role. Other contributing causes he cites include overprotective mothers, emotionally absent fathers or mothers who are hostile toward men.
Transgender advocates and sympathetic clinicians argue that telling children in that middle space to abolish their cross-gender interests makes them more distressed, not less. There is also little to no evidence that therapeutic interventions change the trajectory of a child's gender identification or sexual orientation. Clinicians who oppose traditional treatments contend that significant gender nonconformity is akin to left-handness: unusual but not unnatural. Rather than urging children to conform, they teach them how to respond to intolerance. They encourage parents to accept their children's gender expression, especially because studies show that parental support helps to inoculate gender-atypical children against ostracism and deflated self-esteem.
Here's the deal concerning Ruth's 8 pages that is oh so telling of this Brave New World we've been entering. Please notice "trauma and emotional disorders" there. In Ruth's 8 pages, she never addresses that. What she does is promote just letting the boy be whatever he wants regardless of whether the reason he wants to cross dress is trauma.
Right now in California, there is a bit of legislation that has been working its way through the California House and Senate. It's called SB-1172. What SB-1172 intends to do is make it illegal for anyone under 18 to be treated for unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA). Ruth's article is full of parents wondering about whether SSA will result in boys who cross dress. It cites stats that some 60-80% of pink boys (cross dressers) become homosexual. It cites pink boys becoming homosexual regardless of some SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) having been attempted.
The article also states the canard that SOCE doesn't work because mainstream medicine, science, and psychology say so. No mention is made of the thousands of people who have successfully diminished and in some cases completely overcome SSA (Same-Sex Attraction). You are simply to believe the mainstream without knowing a thing about NARTH or others who have a demonstrably positive track record treating unwanted SSA and not by coercive/harmful means.
One of the things you will learn from NARTH and others if you will take the time, is that homosexuality in males truly is often the result of "overprotective mothers, emotionally absent fathers or mothers who are hostile toward men." It can be caused by homosexual molestation, abuse, and rape too.
Boys who never showed a bit of homosexuality, who never expressed an interest in boys in any homosexual sense, who liked girls and were attracted to them physically, can develop SSA as a direct result of the trauma of homosexual sexual abuse.
What was Ruth Padawer's reaction to that point by Dr. Kenneth Zucker? She didn't address it even slightly. She completely ignored it. Understand here that we are talking about someone who "teaches at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism" and whose article is in The New York Times. She knows full well that what she did there fails Journalism 101. Frankly, what she did there is gloss over children being traumatized and then, out of seemingly great care and concern for the children's self-esteem (ignoring the obvious confusion caused by abuse), promote cross-dressing.
If a child changes due to abuse (abuse is never without consequences), the last thing to do is blithely accept the change and especially without getting to the bottom of that abuse: the source. The fact that Ruth Padawer didn't even think it important enough to go into in her 8-page article speaks volumes about her hypnotic state and that of her readers who don't see the harm in glossing over homosexual abuse or worse, see it and deliberately rush by hoping someone won't notice.
The problem for them is, I noticed; but the New York Times isn't going to afford me eight pages to lay out a vastly superior article to Ruth Padawer's. Why is that? The answer is simple. They don't want you to know.
So, what are you going to do about it. How about if you speak out against SB-1172 for starters? How about you insist that society not simply accept everyone as he or she is but rather first determine whether there's abuse behind the confusion? If there has been abuse, how about we work on correcting the damage in the most enlightened, compassionate, loving manner possible rather than looking the other way for the sakes of the abused become abusers? You know whom I'm talking about.
How about we put an end to the amorality society has been rushing toward claiming it's science-based? It is wrong, immoral, to leave children with the symptoms of abuse rather than work to correct the underlying disease.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)