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.