Category archives: Human Sexuality

Off-Label Use of Drugs Are Fine for Gender Transitions, but Not for Coronavirus, Say Liberals

by Peter Sprigg

March 31, 2020

Liberals and the media have been criticizing President Trump for touting the possibility of using some anti-malarial drugs to fight the coronavirus. Chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, or a “drug cocktail” combining one of those with the antibiotic azithromycin have been proposed as possible drugs to prevent and/or treat the coronavirus, and what the Washington Post referred to as “tantalizing early results” of research showed that they might have promise.  

However, although these drugs have been around and used safely against malaria for decades, they have not yet been tested and proven safe and effective for use against the coronavirus. This has led to shock and outrage on the part of some. The Post’s headline read, “Trump keeps touting an unproven coronavirus treatment,” and their article reported:

The effort has raised concerns among health experts about safety risks — including the danger of fatal heart arrhythmia and vision loss associated with the drugs — and of raising false hopes in the American public.

In fact, the Post was alarmed enough to print an editorial on the subject as well, explaining:

Widespread testing for drug safety and efficacy is essential … Normally in the United States, a set of controlled clinical trials would be required before a drug is approved by the Food and Drug Administration . . .

A Bloomberg headline read, “Trump Pushes an Unproven Coronavirus Drug,” and the article opens with this:

A tiny trial of a malaria drug may or may not have helped several patients in France fight off their coronavirus infections. The FDA has said it needs more study. Some expert doctors are skeptical. President Donald Trump is all for it.

Slate downplayed the drugs’ potential, saying, “Trump cited a report in a scientific journal that only studied 20 patients and was not a controlled clinical trial.” And the left-wing magazine Mother Jones headlined, “Trump Keeps Promoting Unproven Drugs: The cocktail carries significant risks and may not fight the coronavirus.”

It is true that the “off-label” use of a drug means that it has not been scientifically proven to be safe and effective for that particular condition. Such use is not illegal, however—and is fairly common. It has been estimated that one in five prescriptions written in America is for an off-label use.

And liberals have been far more enthusiastic about “off-label” use of some drugs—if they support one of their ideological pet projects.

The Off-Label Use of Drugs for Gender Transition

Take gender transition medical procedures, for example. Pre-teens who experience “gender dysphoria” (distress regarding their biological sex) are increasingly being treated with a regimen featuring puberty-blocking drugs (such as Lupron), followed by cross-sex hormones (testosterone or estrogen) followed by gender reassignment surgery.

These interventions are touted with terms like “evidence-based” and “standard of care”—so it might surprise some people (including the patients subjected to them) that all of these are “off-label” uses of such drugs. Puberty blockers, for example, are intended (in children) to treat a medical condition called “central precocious puberty,” in which the child begins to show the biological signs of puberty prematurely, at an age far younger than would normally be expected. The drugs stop the physical progression of puberty until they are removed at a more normal age for such development. The effect of their use to stop normal puberty, followed by their withdrawal at an older age or when beginning to take cross-sex hormones, has not been well-studied.

Sex hormones like estrogen are officially used to treat symptoms of menopause or certain cancers. However, an article in the Journal of Sexual Medicine reported, “Long-term effects and side effects of cross-sex hormone treatment in transsexual persons are not well known.”

Gender reassignment surgery (while not subject to the same testing as medications) has also not been proven safe and effective. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2016 found that “there is not enough high quality evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes,” in part because patients in the best studies “did not demonstrate clinically significant changes” after surgery.

Indeed, if you look closely, advocates of gender transition medical procedures do not even try to deny this. Fenway Health, which serves the LGBT community in Boston, writes that “no medications or other treatments are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the purposes of gender alteration and affirmation.” A 2018 article in the journal Transgender Health reiterated that “there are no medications or other treatments that are FDA-approved for the purpose of gender affirmation.” And the American Medical Association’s Council on Science and Public Health reported that “steroidal hormones,” “GnRH analogs” (puberty blockers) and “antiandrogens” are all used “off-label” for “gender re-affirming therapy”—because their use “lacks scientific evidence.”

Trusting Ideology Over Science

The “off-label” use of a drug—any drug—may sometimes be justified, but should always be pursued with caution. However, there is one big difference between the drugs President Trump has shown enthusiasm for and the drugs that social liberals so eagerly tout. The coronavirus causes very real physical disease, which is killing more and more Americans every day. Expediting the experimental “off-label” use of malaria drugs may be justified because of the massive scope of the public health problem we face.

The off-label use of drugs for “gender transition” is quite different. Not only is there no comparable public health crisis—there is not even a physical illness that is being treated. Neither puberty nor being biologically male or female is a “disease.”

Liberals should be careful showing self-righteousness about putting “our trust in the scientists.” Their hypocrisy is showing when it comes to the transgender movement.

Why Christians Should Not Be Afraid of Being “Pro-Woman”

by Adelaide Holmes

March 6, 2020

Many Christians hesitate to call themselves “pro-woman,” and women are suffering because of it.

In a culture dominated by identity politics, many Christians are reluctant to claim any identity outside of the gospel of Christ, especially one that has been deeply politicized. But regardless of these concerns, it’s time the church understands that the principles of being “pro-woman” are not in conflict with the gospel call. The broader principles of being “pro-woman” are found throughout scripture, and our culture desperately needs to hear them. The longer we stay silent, the more women will suffer on our watch.

The church needs to understand that being “pro-woman” is not just a secular concept. If we look at how the “war on women” attacks woman’s humanity, we can see that Scripture supports being “pro-woman” in its larger context.

Being “pro-woman” is largely understood to be in favor of equality for women. Scripture supports a view of mankind that is incredibly value-giving to men and women equally because we are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). This means that men and women have inherent value because they are more like God and represent Him to the world more than anything else in God’s creation. Because of this, some think that the church should simply be “pro-life” or “pro-humanity.” They’re right. The church should champion these values. But the problem is that women are especially under attack in our culture and around the world. Thus, being “pro-woman” should mean that we advocate for their protection and respect because they are being specifically targeted.

There is indeed a “war on women,” as the Left likes to say, but the nature of this war is gravely misunderstood, and its effects are dangerous and deeply dehumanizing. It comes from how cultures value women, and how they treat them.

In much of the world (and in America as well), women are often objectified as the means to gratify the sexual pleasures of men. Pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking are just a few examples of practices that continuously shape the culture’s view of women and sexuality. Pornography teaches viewers that the sexual abuse and torture of women is normal and desired by them. Prostitution teaches culture to view women as commodities that can be bought “made to order.” If she won’t comply, she can be forced (as women in pornography often are). A study of prostituted women in Washington, D.C. showed that 44 percent were raped, and over half of them were physically assaulted and threatened with a weapon. Another study in 2018 found that 61 percent of prostituted women experienced “traumatic brain injuries” while in prostitution. Sex trafficking goes even further and teaches that twisted sexual fantasies can be pursued regardless of age or consent. In the United States, teens that are sexually exploited usually begin between the ages of 12 and 14. These women are coerced into sex trafficking to meet the sexual appetites of men and their traffickers, who have turned sex trafficking into a $99 billion per year worldwide horror show.

Pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking tell a narrative that a woman’s value is in what she does sexually. As these institutions and practices spread and become normalized, their influence engulfs those who they hold captive, and it infiltrates the culture that our daughters grow up in.

Little girls grow into teenagers believing that their worth is something they must fight for. Teens grow into women believing that beauty is an action, not a state of being. To prove their worth, they jump in bed with men who have been conditioned by pornography to view women as products to be used, disrespected, and forced to perform or endure grotesque, porn-shaped sexual fantasies. This is the nightmare that our children grow up in.

This is the real “war on women” that the church needs to fight.

The church needs to fight to end pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking, which are all linked. While these are political battles, they are also cultural, and there are tangible things that can be done. The church needs to help rehabilitate women who were once victims of this exploitation and help men who were once captive to this darkness. Pastors needs to teach on a biblical approach to sexuality in marriage. Christians need to fight for this God-given truth: all people are made in the image of God and worthy of respect.

Women don’t deserve respect simply for what they do. They deserve respect for who they are. As Christians, we can share this value-giving truth with a sexually broken culture. This “war on women” thrives on the lie that a woman’s worth is based on her actions. As we recognize International Women’s Day this Sunday, March 8th, let us be truly “pro-woman” and remember that until our culture understands the intrinsic value and worth of all women, there will always be a “war on women.”

Keep Your Kids Home on Transgender Propaganda Day This Thursday!

by Cathy Ruse

February 25, 2020

Do you want your child to be psychologically manipulated at school on Thursday? Might be a good day for a Mommy Date at the museum!

The anti-Christian Human Rights Campaign and their pals at the powerful National Education Association are pushing public schools to recognize this Thursday as “Jazz and Friends National Day of School & Community Readings.” 

One of the books they are promoting is I Am Jazz, a transgender propaganda book designed for children. It is based on the real-life story of “Jazz,” a child who was convinced that he was born in the wrong body. As a child he was injected with hormones to block his normal sexual development, and recently he had radical surgery to complete his “transition” to another sex. Which, of course, is impossible.

Activists groups are trying to make the reading of this book an annual event. 

The day will be used to promote gender deviance and LGBT politics to vulnerable children. Not all schools are doing it. Yet. But some are.

In one Arlington, Va. school, “mystery readers” are scheduled to come and read to the children. The school has not revealed to parents who they are and what they will read. Wow.

Here’s what a group of concerned parents in Arlington are doing about it.

If you do find out your child’s school is hosting a “Jazz and Friends” event, you can also opt your child out. Here is a template for an opt-out letter to use.

Find out what’s happening in your school!

Do Puberty-Blocking Drugs Make Transgender Kids Less Likely to Commit Suicide, or More?

by Peter Sprigg

February 13, 2020

Puberty blockers” are hormones originally intended to deal with “precocious puberty,” in which a child experiences the physical signs of puberty prematurely. Now, however, puberty blockers are being used as a treatment for “gender dysphoria.” The theory is that a child who is already unhappy with his or her biological sex may become even more unhappy when his or her body begins to develop.

The most extreme claim is that transgender children forced to undergo normal puberty will kill themselves. Into this debate came a new academic study published in the Pediatrics medical journal that resulted in headlines like these: 

There’s only one problem. These headlines are wrong.

The word “suicide” implies a fatality. The Pediatrics study was not a study of suicide—because none of its subjects were dead. It was based upon answers given in the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey.

The key outcome referenced in the article was “lifetime suicidal ideation.” This means thinking about committing suicide. The finding that those who received puberty blockers had lower “lifetime suicidal ideation” than those who wanted them but did not receive them got the attention because it was the only one that reached the level of “statistical significance.”

However, “lifetime suicidal ideation” was only one of nine mental health outcomes that were listed in the study.

On four of the nine outcome measures—nearly half—the outcomes for those who received puberty blockers were worse than for those who did not. Most of these differences were small, but one figure jumped off the page. Those who received puberty blockers were twice as likely to have had a suicide attempt resulting in inpatient care (i.e., hospitalization) in the last 12 months as those who did not (45.5 percent vs. 22.8 percent). While we cannot reach definitive conclusions because of the small numbers involved, this raises important questions that are at least worthy of further research.

Also, the lifetime rate of suicidal ideation for those who received puberty blockers were lower than for those who didn’t—but it was still astonishingly high, at 75 percent. This hardly suggests that administering puberty blockers makes most children with gender dysphoria mentally healthy.

The authors acknowledge the study’s design “does not allow for determination of causation.” But they go further, raising doubt that puberty blockers cause lower rates of suicidal ideation—because it may be that people with suicidal ideation were simply considered poor candidates to receive puberty blockers.

Let’s be clear—we cannot conclude from this study that children who take puberty blockers are more likely to commit suicide than those who don’t.

But we also cannot conclude that they are less likely to commit suicide—notwithstanding the breathless media coverage.

Legislators considering restrictions on radical gender transition procedures for minors should make those decisions based on the harmful physical effects and risks of those interventions, many of which are well-known—not based upon the misinterpretation of psychological studies whose implications are far from clear.

The Evidence Suggests Gender Transition Procedures for Minors are Experimental

by Peter Sprigg

February 13, 2020

Several states have introduced bills that would prohibit certain physical procedures that alter the normal development or body of a child or adolescent for the purpose of facilitating a “gender transition.” These laws (sometimes called “Vulnerable Child Protection Acts”) would ban the use of puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, or gender reassignment surgery in minors.

One of the arguments raised by opponents is that these procedures should not be restricted because they represent a standard of care that is “evidence-based.” “Evidence-based” is something of a buzzword in medicine, indicating that medical practices should not just be based on opinion (even “expert” opinion), but on sound scientific research.

But just how good is the “evidence” cited in support of gender transition procedures—especially for minors?

The Endocrine Society’s Influential Guidelines

One of the most recent and influential sets of guidelines for the medical care of transgender people was published in 2017 by the Endocrine Society (W. Hembree et al., “Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline,” Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism 102(11), November 2017, p. 3869-3903). This document explicitly sought to adopt an “evidence-based” approach:

The task force followed the approach recommended by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation group, an international group with expertise in the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines.

The Endocrine Society issued specific guidelines in five separate areas:

  1. Evaluation of youth and adults (5 guidelines)
  2. Treatment of adolescents (6 guidelines)
  3. Hormonal therapy for transgender adults (4 guidelines)
  4. Adverse outcome prevention and long-term care (7 guidelines)
  5. Surgery for sex reassignment and gender confirmation (6 guidelines)

Evaluating the Quality of the Evidence

The key question is—what is the quality of the evidence in support of the guidelines? I decided to examine that issue.

There are three types of guidelines:

  • An “Ungraded Good Practice Statement”—essentially supported by no evidence (beginning “We advise . . .”)
  • A “weak recommendation” (beginning “We suggest . . .”)
  • A “strong recommendation” (labeled “We recommend . . .”)

Only with the strong recommendations does the task force express “confidence that persons who receive care according to [them] … will derive, on average, more benefit than harm.”

Then for each of the “recommendations” (weak or strong) they give a rating of the “quality of the evidence” in support of that recommendation, on a four-point scale: very low, low, moderate, or high.

How Strong is the Evidence Regarding Gender Transition Procedures for Minors?

If we omit category 3 (which applies only to adults), there are 24 guidelines that are generally relevant to the procedures at issue in Vulnerable Child Protection Acts—puberty blockers, hormones for adolescents, and surgery.

Of these 24 guidelines:

  • 5 are ungraded good practice statements (no evidence);
  • 2 are weak recommendations with very low evidence; and
  • 9 are weak recommendations with low evidence.

That means only 8 of the 24 “guidelines” are even “strong” recommendations—one third of the total. Of those:

  • 2 are supported by very low evidence;
  • 5 are supported by low evidence; 
  • Only 1 is supported by even “moderate” evidence;
  • None are supported by “high quality” evidence.

Evaluating the Recommendations

Several of the “strong recommendations” and other guidelines relate to controlling the potential negative side effects of gender transition, rather than actually recommending the transition procedure.

For example, the lone guideline supported by even “moderate” evidence was one warning patients to look into “fertility preservation” (some method of storing sperm or eggs), because the procedures may permanently sterilize the individual:

1.5. We recommend that clinicians inform and counsel all individuals seeking gender-affirming medical treatment regarding options for fertility preservation prior to initiating puberty suppression in adolescents and prior to treating with hormonal therapy of the affirmed gender in both adolescents and adults.

Some of the guidelines actually support what Vulnerable Child Protection Acts would do. Very few procedures which actually follow the Endocrine Society guidelines would also violate South Dakota’s VCPA, HB 1057.

For example, they recommend strongly (with low evidence) initiating cross-sex hormone treatment only after confirming “sufficient mental capacity to give informed consent, which most adolescents have by age 16 years” (2.4). (Guideline 2.5 says there may be exceptions to this, but it is supported by “very low” evidence.)

In addition, a “weak recommendation” with low evidence (5.5) suggests “that clinicians delay gender-affirming genital surgery … until the patient is at least 18 years old.”

Another weak recommendation (supported by very low evidence) suggests the timing of breast surgery be determined case by case, because “There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific age requirement.” However, the lack of evidence would suggest that such radical, body-altering surgery should be postponed to a later age if possible, not accelerated.

Meanwhile, the key guidelines in support of puberty suppression (2.1 and 2.2) are only weak recommendations, supported by low evidence. The strong recommendation that some patients (over age 18) be referred for genital surgery is supported by “very low” evidence.

A Weak Evidence Base

In summary, the claim that these treatments are “evidence-based” is misleading, because the quality of the evidence in this field (even for the Endocrine Society’s “strong” recommendations) is low.

Until the quality of the evidence becomes higher, gender transition procedures must be considered experimental procedures at best.

Texas Pardons a Sex Trafficking Survivor, Freeing Her to Help Other Survivors

by Patrina Mosley

January 14, 2020

January is National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. In light of this observance, Governor Abbott recently pardoned Robbie Ann Hamilton, a survivor of sex trafficking, with a unanimous vote from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. By this action, Texas has shown that they believe not only in swift justice but also merciful redemption.

Victims of sex trafficking are accustomed to drugs and violence and are often forced to commit crimes while under the control and manipulation of a trafficker. Hamilton was 15 years old when she was lured into sex trafficking and a life of petty crime.

Pardoning victims of sex trafficking is a big deal because a criminal record makes it challenging to escape a life of exploitation and start a new life. Victims with a criminal record will often stay with their exploiter or be led back into exploitation just so they can have the necessities of life (a roof over their head, clothes, food, etc.).

Hamilton found sobriety. Even better, she found God. She was baptized in jail and spent time getting to know Jesus and the Bible. She was sponsored for pardon by the 12 Step Program. Now, Hamilton speaks on the sex trafficking industry’s dangers and addictions and is a member of a church that helps people who were just like her. Staff from the program she completed, called “New Friends New Life,” have testified that she didn’t just “find religion” in jail but “continues to help guide adolescent girls to make decisions based on Biblical principles and to avoid the pitfalls of drugs and sex.” Natalie Nanasi, Assistant Professor and the Director of the Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law, states, “Hamilton has been a model member of society and has worked tirelessly to help other women.” Eight letters of support were submitted on Hamilton’s behalf to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.

It is good to see our justice system working to view survivors of sexual exploitation as victims and not merely criminals, as it should. We need more Christian-based programs that rescue, advocate for, re-educate, and restore those harmed by sexual exploitation. The story of Robbie Ann Hamilton exemplifies what victims of sexual exploitation need—to become recipients of practical alleviations—so that they can be given the opportunity to help other victims “value human dignity [by] applying a biblical sexual ethic, inspiring women to see themselves as made in the image of God—with strength, worth, and dignity.”

Thank you, Gov. Abbott.

FRC Opposes Guidance Attacking Sexual Orientation Change Efforts in Virginia

by Peter Sprigg

December 12, 2019

Editor’s Note: The following is a comment submitted on December 11, 2019 by Peter Sprigg on behalf of Family Research Council in opposition to a proposed regulation against so-called “conversion therapy” by the Virginia Board of Medicine.

I write in opposition to the proposed “Guidance Document on the Practice of Conversion Therapy,” and urge the Board not to adopt this policy.

Policy Statements Are Not Science

The guidance document is correct in stating, “Leading professional medical and mental health associations have issued position and policy statements regarding conversion therapy/sexual orientation change efforts …” However, “position and policy statements” are not the same as actual scientific findings. Unfortunately, “position and policy statements” are often the product of a highly-politicized process that is not representative of the professional population for whom they claim to speak.

Consider the first organization cited in the guidance document, the American Medical Association (AMA). According to a 2012 media report, there are 1.2 million physicians and medical students in the United States. Only 17 percent (217,490) are members of the AMA. (The AMA claims “approximately 250 thousand members” as of December 31, 2018.) Furthermore, AMA “position and policy statements” are not voted on by their entire membership, but rather adopted by a “House of Delegates” which consists of only 640 members as of June 2019. That means only one-quarter of one percent of all AMA members—and only a little more than one in every two thousand U.S. doctors—approve AMA position and policy statements.

The AMA press release announcing the new House of Delegates policy stated, “The AMA heard testimony, including first-hand accounts, regarding the significant harms triggered by conversion therapy …” Unfortunately, it has been documented that such “first-hand accounts” by LGBT activists are often implausible and sometimes demonstrably fabricated. What was not included in the AMA press release was any indication that the organization had undertaken a systematic review of the scientific evidence regarding either the effectiveness of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) or their alleged harms.

Concessions by the American Psychological Association

By contrast, the American Psychological Association (APA) did undertake a systematic review ten years ago. Although the resulting task force report was critical of SOCE, it did not call for legislative or regulatory restrictions on the practice. In fact, the APA made concessions that undermine the case for government intervention. For example:

1) Opposition to SOCE is based on the belief that people are born gay as a result of a “gay gene” or some other biological factor present at birth.

However, the APA admits that “there is no consensus among scientists” about what causes homosexuality, and that “nurture” may play a role.

2) Opposition to SOCE is based on the belief that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable.

However, the APA has acknowledged that “for some, sexual orientation identity … is fluid or has an indefinite outcome” (see page 2).

3) Opposition to SOCE, especially for children and adolescents, is based on the belief that individuals, especially children or adolescents, are often coerced into undergoing therapy (e.g., by parents).

However, the APA acknowledges that some people, including children and adolescents, may experience “distress” about having same-sex attractions and consider such feelings to be unwanted (see page 9).

The APA has also acknowledged that concerns about potential coercion could be mitigated by implementing a system of “developmentally appropriate informed consent to treatment” (see pages 74, 79, and 87).

4) Most of the therapy bans that have been enacted or proposed are specifically targeted at minor clients.

However, the APA acknowledges that there has been virtually no actual research done on SOCE with children or adolescents (see pages 33, 72-73, and 76).

5) Opposition to SOCE is premised on the belief that it has no benefits for the clients who undertake it.

However, the APA acknowledged, “Some individuals perceived that they had benefited from SOCE …” (see page 3).

6) Opposition to SOCE is based on the claim that it is always (or at least usually) harmful to clients.

However, the APA admits that there is no “valid causal evidence” that SOCE is harmful (see page 42).

7) The APA acknowledges that licensed mental health providers (LMHP) should “respect a person’s (client’s) right to self-determination,” allow the client to choose her or his own goals, and “be sensitive to the client’s … religion.”

However, legislative or regulatory restrictions on SOCE directly violate this core ethical principle of client self-determination.

A Literature Review of Studies Alleged to Show Harm from SOCE

When a recently-published book included an appendix titled, “Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles and Academic Books on ‘Conversion Therapy’ Outcomes that Include Measures of Harm,”[i] I set out to do a literature review (soon to be published) of this list of 79 sources. I discovered that a number of them make no reference to SOCE being harmful at all—it is inexplicable how they ended up on such a list. Of the remainder, approximately half are literature reviews or opinion pieces—not studies of actual SOCE participants.

All the entries that did study SOCE participants had significant methodological weaknesses, such as a lack of random sampling. Almost all of these studies represent anecdotal evidence only (via retrospective self-reports). Only one of the 79 sources used the gold-standard social science technique of a prospective and longitudinal design (that is, enrolling subjects at the beginning of or early in their therapy experience and interviewing the same individuals at different points in time to identify changes). That study found,

The attempt to change sexual orientation did not appear to be harmful on average for these participants. The only statistically significant trends that emerged … indicated improving psychological symptoms …” (emphasis added)

The most frequently cited article purporting to find harm from SOCE is a 2002 article by Shidlo and Schroeder. They asked respondents if they felt that “this counseling harmed you or had a negative effect,” and then followed up with a checklist of symptom areas. Oddly, the authors said in their article, “We do not report here on the frequency of responses to these items.” Because of this “qualitative” approach, the authors explicitly acknowledge,

The data presented in this article do not provide information on the incidence and the prevalence of failure, success, harm, help, or ethical violations in conversion therapy.”

Ironically, the one number that was reported—suicide attempts—showed that 25 participants had attempted suicide before “conversion therapy,” but only 11 had done so after such therapy. This would seem to suggest that SOCE is effective at reducing the risk of suicide, rather than increasing it as is sometimes alleged.

Conclusion

The evidence compiled so far regarding SOCE is either scientifically inconclusive or suggests that SOCE benefits those who seek treatment. It indicates a need for better and more extensive research on SOCE outcomes and techniques. The current state of research provides no valid scientific support for a draconian legislative or regulatory policy that would infringe upon the freedom of both clients and therapists to pursue the voluntary goal of sexual orientation change.

Unelected government officials should not insert themselves into the doctor/patient relationship, especially when relying on the politicized “policy statements” issued by a tiny minority of health professionals—statements that are unsupported by research and that are heavily qualified or even contradicted by the APA. I urge you not to adopt the proposed “Guidance Document on the Practice of Conversion Therapy.”



[i] “Appendix C: Measures of Harm: Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles and Academic Books on ‘Conversion Therapy’ Outcomes that Include Measures of Harm;” in Christopher Doyle, The War on Psychotherapy: When Sexual Politics, Gender Ideology, and Mental Health Collide (Manassas, VA: Institute for Healthy Families, 2019), pp. 365-74. The book’s author says that he received this list from A. Lee Beckstead (p. 107); but it is unclear whether Beckstead himself compiled the list.

Transgender Regret: The Rise of the Detransitioners

by Cathy Ruse

December 6, 2019

Transgenderism is a hotel you can check into, but if ideologues have their way, impossible to leave. States and localities are rushing to make it illegal for adults and kids to seek counseling for unwanted sexual and gender confusion.

If you’re a child and you are given puberty blockers, your development will likely be permanently stunted. If you are then given cross-sex hormones, you will be rendered infertile, permanently. If you pay a doctor to sever healthy organs, they are gone.

Such pressing issues were discussed at a recent conference in Manchester, England, the first ever “detransition” conference that also launched a new group, the Detransition Advocacy Network.

Charlie Evans, the Founder of the Network, is a woman who regrets the decade of drugs she took to try to appear as a man. Other detransitioners told their stories. Medical and scientific experts discussed the impact of this ideology on their profession and their patients. Clinical psychologist Anna Hutchinson talked about the grave danger to children of taking that first step, saying that 100 percent of kids who take puberty blockers move on to cross sex hormones.

A central focus of the event was the immense pressure that is put on children to transition, especially those who do not fit a narrow vision of femininity. Once upon a time, tomboys were allowed to be tomboys. In the past, they might have been pressured to identify as lesbian; today they are pressured to reject and mutilate their own bodies. This pressure comes from friends, social media, doctors, counselors, and even misguided parents (who are manipulated, too).

But of course, “sex change” is impossible. It is a fraud. And conference organizers were brave enough to say it, despite tremendous hostility in England toward anyone who challenges the new anti-science orthodoxy.

This is the rise of the “detransitioners.” Let us pray for their success!

How Game of Thrones Mainstreamed Sexual Exploitation

by Laura Grossberndt

November 25, 2019

The HBO television show Game of Thrones enjoyed much critical and popular acclaim during its eight-season run. It was heralded as “the world’s most popular show,” and its series finale drew 19.3 million viewers. However, this massive success was built, in part, upon the exhibition of its actors’ naked bodies in graphic, sexually charged situations—all for viewers’ entertainment. A recent interview with British actress and former Game of Thrones star Emilia Clarke reveals her pain of being exposed for the camera. Her account should serve as a chilling reminder that the entertainment we choose to consume has consequences.

Clarke recalls being 23 years old and fresh out of acting school when she was offered the part of Daenerys Targaryen. She was eager to have a job on a film set, but when she received the script and learned that her character would be naked and brutally raped on-screen, Clarke was shocked and apprehensive.

I have no idea what I’m doing; I have no idea what any of this is…. I’ve been on a film set twice before then, and now I’m on a film set, completely naked, with all of these people—and I don’t know what I’m meant to do, and I don’t know what’s expected of me, and I don’t know what you want, and I don’t know what I want. Regardless of whether there’d be nudity or not, I would have spent that first season thinking, I’m not worthy of requiring anything; I’m not worthy of needing anything at all.

Clarke says she drank vodka and cried in a bathroom while trying to cope with filming the rape scene. Since that time, she has been repeatedly pressured to do nude scenes. Producers would try to coerce her, saying things like, “You don’t wanna disappoint your Game of Thrones fans.”

Most poignant about Clarke’s account of her early days on the set of Game of Thrones is her feeling of helplessness. Many women whose bodies have been exploited via the commercial sex trade and the porn industry have felt similarly powerless. That is because selling the human body is not female empowerment, but human abasement.

Movies and television shows such as Game of Thrones enjoy a patina of respectability due to their complex plots, extensive viewership, and numerous awards—making them more palatable to a wide audience than a pornographic film would be. However, by treating human sexuality as a commodity, Game of Thrones and its ilk are just another incarnation of the commercial sex trade.

In October of this year, I attended a D.C. Council hearing on the proposed decriminalization of the buying and selling of sex in the nation’s capital. Many of the witnesses opposing decriminalization were survivors of the commercial sex trade. Several of these survivors explained how it is common to turn to drugs and/or alcohol to deal with the anxiety, stress, and shame felt as a result of their bodies being bought and sold for others’ sexual pleasure.

Other witnesses, who were still presently engaged in prostitution, were in favor of decriminalizing the commercial sex trade. Tragically, they believed their economic wellbeing depended on selling themselves. They did not realize that their willingness to be sold (due to their desperate financial situation) makes them no less victims of sexual exploitation than those forced into the commercial sex trade by a trafficker. Choosing to be exploited, out of fear of retribution or financial ruin, is not much of a choice at all.

While the circumstances surrounding Clarke’s performance—e.g., her acting school training, the show’s critical acclaim and distribution on a major cable network—may have lent her some dignity not afforded to women who are trafficked, the trauma that drove her to tears and drinking is strikingly similar to the experiences of the sexually exploited. Feigning graphic sexual acts on a film set is not very different than any other type of commercial sex trade in that it demeans human beings and degrades human sexuality.

Consuming sexually violent and explicit media not only damages our mental, physical, and spiritual health, it negatively impacts those around us by creating a demand for this type of entertainment, motivating the entertainment industry to create sexually graphic content in order to meet the demand and increase profits. The industry will, in turn, pressure actors (particularly women) to degrade themselves in front of the camera. Christians and anyone who advocates for women’s dignity should oppose media that exploits human beings in such an offensive and toxic manner.

America Needs a Reality Check on Transgenderism

by Lisa

November 19, 2019

*Editor’s Note: This true account is the final part of a 6-Part series. Read Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4, and Part 5.

No, my brother is not a woman. His name is not Melissa. He is simply a guy named Josh who wants the freedom to cross-dress in public. And he should have that freedom. This is America, after all. Whether I like it or not, he does have the right to put on a dress and parade around town. But what he does not have is the right to make the rest of us deny reality by affirming that him donning a dress makes him an actual woman.   

Therapists previously viewed many forms of cross-dressing as a temporary way to ease stress and anxiety. This is easy enough to understand. People do all kinds of things to ease stress and anxiety. They drink. They eat too much junk food. They self-harm. But any healthy person understands that we should never take a compulsion being used to ease deeper pain and begin celebrating that compulsion as someone’s primary identity. Yet that’s what’s being done with my brother and everyone else who transitions.

Now, girls as young as 3 who like sports and trucks or say imaginative things like “I’m a fairy…I’m a ninja…I’m a boy” are being told by doctors (and celebrity moms like Charlize Theron) that they need to transition. Now, books like I Am Jazz that erroneously claim girls can be born with a boy’s brain and vice versa are being pushed on every child in public school (my 10-year-old was just told to read it in her school library recently). Pre-pubescent kids across the country are being put on powerful, reproductive-ending hormones to stop the onset of puberty. Teenagers are having their breasts removed and their penises cut off simply because they’re into things that are traditionally associated with the opposite gender.

Gender non-conformity is the very thing scores of people fought against for decades. I personally owe a debt of gratitude to those people. Because of their efforts, I myself grew up a strong, confident female who embraced her many traditionally “masculine” qualities. I am direct and opinionated. I am not afraid of confrontation. I’d rather watch an NFL game than attend a baby shower any day of the week. I majored in criminal justice in college. I worked with gang members in Chicago. A lot of my personal interests and life experiences would not be considered classically “feminine.” But just because I have many qualities and enjoy activities traditionally associated with the opposite gender does not mean I should become that gender. How silly of an idea is that?      

Girls can be interested in anything boys like. And vice versa. I made all three of my girls watch a Formula 1 race recently. Why? Because girls should be exposed to race cars…and football…and extreme sports usually dominated by males. This should all be obvious. Boys, likewise, can grow up to be hair stylists and preschool teachers and fashion moguls. Men should be applauded for having classically “feminine” qualities like being nurturing, intuitive, warm, and kind. They should never be told that possessing those qualities might make them transgender.

Even as our culture continues to push a message of female empowerment, we ignore one large caveat: Anyone can be female. Even the dude walking past you right now, (depending on how he feels later this afternoon). Meanwhile, trans men are just beginning an era of sports dominance as they continue to smash one girl’s athletic record after another. Read this article for more details on that.

My brother will say that gender is just a tiny part of who he is. (If so, why change?) But for him to think that he will “still be himself” if he becomes a woman is perhaps the craziest lie perpetuated by the trans cult. My brother is no longer a man named Josh. A man named for my grandfather—a hard-working immigrant who came to America to build a new life. My brother is now a false caricature of a female—a female who requires you to use certain pronouns in order to stay in relationship with him.

Of course he has his same personality and preferences. That’s a no-brainer. But to claim that one’s gender doesn’t ultimately matter in the grand scheme of things shows just how far this madness has come. I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t have married my husband if he weren’t male. And, as a married woman, I wouldn’t be going to lunch with my girlfriend this afternoon if she weren’t female. Tell my mother that it doesn’t matter if the son she raised for almost four decades is now suddenly her “daughter.”  

The pain and suffering that my parents and our extended family and friends have endured as a result of this denial of reality could only be labeled cruel and unusual punishment.  

We love my brother dearly. We want him to get the professional help he needs. But because the trans lobby has co-opted the American Psychological Association, that is no longer possible. For a therapist to recommend anything other than a gender transition for someone like my brother is no longer an option. While LGBT activists are working to make it illegal for professionals to help someone who wishes to change from homosexual to heterosexual, the professions are moving toward making it virtually mandatory to assist anyone who wishes to change from male to female.

And now that the trans lobby also convinced the World Health Organization to eliminate the mental illness of “gender identity disorder” altogether, we are truly in new territory. According to therapists, my brother no longer has any problem at all. It is only those of us who won’t acknowledge that he is now a woman named Melissa who have the problem.  

My brother looks more and more like me with every month that passes. Cross-sex hormones are really quite effective. It’s stunning and disturbing. No family should ever be subject to what my family has experienced.  

It’s time someone stands up against the trans cult and says “no more.”

We cannot continue to deny physical reality simply because the therapists, doctors, and now the tech companies have all been co-opted by the trans lobby.

I love my brother. But love does not mean supporting him as he slowly destroys himself. I have a dear friend who’s an alcoholic. I love and support this friend. I do not, however, show my love and support by driving her to bars. Love means speaking the truth. Even if it gets you booted off Twitter. Even if it gets you death threats.

My brother, along with hundreds of thousands of trans people across the globe, are being grossly taken advantage of on their quest for a personal identity. They long for a group to belong to, a meaningful cause to work toward. My brother and his wife (like so many others) believe they have found these things in the LGBTQ community.

The trans cult has embraced them; and they now show their allegiance to this cult by spouting its dogma via lengthy social media diatribes about affirming your child’s preferred gender. My brother leads seminars on diversity and inclusivity even as he gives a decidedly non-inclusive ultimatum to his parents: Either acknowledge I’m Melissa or have limited access to your grandchildren going forward.   

My brother keeps saying this is “his” story to tell and his alone.

It’s not.

It’s my story.

It’s the story of my family—a family that’s been ripped apart because of one man’s choice to embrace his True Self. It’s the story of a community in the Midwest where each person was forced to make a decision: either support the transgender madness and win accolades in popular culture or refuse to deny reality and risk being called intolerant and “transphobic.” It’s the story of a country so lost and confused they can no longer even agree upon the very nature of reality itself.    

This is your wake-up call, America.

It’s time to take your story back.

Archives