Tag archives: transgenderism

Will Schumer Go All the Way for Biden’s ED Nominee Catherine Lhamon?

by Meg Kilgannon

August 5, 2021

In a pleasantly surprising departure from their usual rubberstamping of Biden administration nominees, Senate Republicans earlier this week managed a party-line vote against Catherine Lhamon, Biden’s nominee for assistant secretary of the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education. The 11-11 deadlock means Lhamon will not advance to the floor for a confirmation vote without intervention by Senate Democratic Leadership.

Lhamon’s fate was sealed by her actions during her previous stint as assistant secretary for Civil Rights at OCR during the Obama administration. In 2016, Lhamon disregarded established procedure and the proper role of federal agencies when she jointly issued a “Dear Colleague” letter that threatened to remove funding from schools that did not enforce gender identity ideology throughout their operations. Not only did this letter require schools to allow biological boys who self-identify as girls into restrooms and locker rooms meant for biological girls, but this letter also required schools to place biological boys who self-identify as girls in the same housing as biological girls in overnight accommodations. The letter allows schools to honor a student’s request for a single occupancy accommodation “if it so chooses.” Lhamon further trampled constitutionally protected rights by requiring schools to “treat students consistent with their gender identity even if their education records or identification documents indicate a different sex.” The letter further noted, “The Departments have resolved Title IX investigations with agreements committing that school staff and contractors will use pronouns and names consistent with a transgender student’s gender identity.”

During Lhamon’s tenure, the Department of Education’s official website began publishing a “shame list” that religious schools could be placed on simply for requesting a waiver from Title IX provisions that violate their religious beliefs. Lhamon has indicated that the religious liberty of these schools should be construed as narrowly as possible while the re-definition of “sex discrimination” should be construed as broadly as possible. In a 2015 statement regarding these waivers, Lhamon acknowledged that they are legally allowed but stated that the Department of Education would “vigorously enforce Title IX’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex, including gender identity, in every applicable school.”

Under Lhamon’s leadership, the OCR was weaponized against those accused of sexual assault on campus, proving her willingness to exert power over schools through Title IX compliance by fiat. This amounted to an attack on due process rights—by someone charged with enforcing civil rights. The Trump administration’s Title IX Rule offered a much-needed correction and was hailed by many as a welcome improvement.

Lhamon’s record on school discipline is also troubling, as Max Eden explained recently on Washington Watch. Eden has sounded the alarm on the ramifications of her policies in his book Why Meadow Died and this op-ed on her nomination.

In 2018, Lhamon explained her work at the OCR on the podcast SwampED this way:

[OCR’s] jurisdictional obligation is to open for investigation any case that is within its jurisdiction and to hear families’ concerns about conditions in schools, to investigate whether those concerns rise to the level of a civil rights violation and if so, work with school districts and schools themselves and colleges and universities to try to secure changes to make sure that those kinds of violations don’t persist going forward. That means that there are literally millions of students in the arms of the office of civil rights. There are about 49 million public school students in the K-12 system and close to 20 million students in 7,000 colleges and universities around the country who are subject to the protection and the enforcement of the office for civil rights. 

Thankfully, whether or not the Senate will “subject” America’s students to Lhamon’s heavy hand at the OCR remains an open question. When her confirmation comes up for a vote in September, let us hope and pray they will not.

Big Money Is Driving the Transgender Trend

by Lisa

April 27, 2021

*Editor’s Note: This is part 1 of a 3-part series. The author wishes to remain anonymous.

The children’s section in Barnes & Noble recently featured a display table of books written by or about “notable women.” Included in the display is the book I Am Jazz. Author Jazz Jennings is a transgender teen (boy) who authored a picture book to explain to preschool age children that their gender identity may not match their biological sex.

Jennings claims that when he was the ripe old age of 2 years old, he was already able to articulate the fact that he wanted to be a girl. Of course, toddlers want to be all sorts of things (superheroes and princesses come to mind); but most parents are wise enough not to encourage their toddler to spend the remainder of his/her life ingesting dangerous hormones and getting a series of surgeries to help them look more like the character they imagine. Yet that’s precisely what Jennings’ parents did. They helped him start a YouTube channel about his transgender journey which led to his book being published. He eventually landed a deal to star in his own E! reality TV show, chronicling his sex reassignment journey at the age of 13.

Jennings was the first case of the trans machine attempting to push its propaganda on young children nationwide. It opened the floodgates for what had been pre-planned from there.

Now trans propaganda is everywhere we turn. We pull up Google to do a search and see the message “Happy Black Trans Pride Day!” printed below the search bar. We walk into Target and pass bathroom signs showing a male wearing a partial dress. We turn on Netflix’s popular kids’ show Babysitter’s Club to find the babysitters caring for a trans 6-year-old. We scroll through Twitter to find that even Oreo cookies feels the need to remind us “Trans people exist.”

How did we get here? When did insanity go mainstream? And why are they forcing it on our children?   

I believe the answer to these questions can be largely summed up in one word:    

Money.

It all began with a man ironically named John Money, and it spiraled down from there thanks to the money of several billionaire trans activists.  

John Money first came up with the idea of a “gender identity” back in the early ‘60s. Money was born in New Zealand in 1921 and later emigrated to the U.S. where he earned a PhD from Harvard. He became a professor of pediatrics and psychology at Johns Hopkins University where his unique ideas on gender led to him establishing the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic in 1965. It was the first clinic of its kind in the world.

After the clinic opened, Money was introduced to the Reimers—parents who had twin boys named David and Brian. After a doctor had badly botched David’s circumcision, Money encouraged the Reimers to give the baby a full sex reassignment surgery at his new gender clinic. He also recommended they start David on hormone treatments and raise him as a girl, changing his name to Brenda. With Money’s impressive credentials, David’s parents were persuaded and did as he suggested.   

For the 25 years that followed, David’s case was used by Money and others to prove that changing a child’s “gender identity” was not only possible but beneficial. Money published numerous papers touting the success of David’s sex reassignment. As a result, Money’s views on gender identity became the primary viewpoint among doctors for the next three decades, resulting in thousands of sex reassignment surgeries. Money went on to receive 65 honors, awards, and degrees.

But the truth about John Money, the father of the gender identity movement, is that he was a pedophile advocate. He said pedophilia is not a disorder, it is simply caused by a “surplus of parental love that becomes erotic.” He is quoted as saying, “If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 11 who’s intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual…then I would not call it pathological in any way.”

Knowing this helps us understand why Money performed numerous “research experiments” on both David and his twin brother Brian. According to David, Money forced the boys to perform sex acts together, claiming he was trying to help them develop a healthy gender identity. He instructed David to play the part of the woman and Brian to play the part of the man. 

At age 14 when David found out he was really a boy, he was devastated. He changed his name from Brenda back to David and underwent surgery to reverse all his female bodily modifications. He later said in an interview, “I’d give just about anything to go to a hypnotist to black out my whole past. Because it’s torture. What they did to you in the body is sometimes not near as bad as what they did to you in the mind—with the psychological warfare in your head.”

David’s twin Brian eventually developed schizophrenia and later died after overdosing on anti-depressants. David shot himself in the head at age of 38. David’s parents have said that Money’s methods were directly responsible for the deaths of their two sons.

By the time the boys died, Money’s “gender identity” lie had gone mainstream, and once several billionaires realized that Money’s ideas were quite literally money… it was game over.

For all the diversity touted by the LGBTQ community, at the end of the day, the entire transgender movement was instigated by a few rich white men. You see, the buying power of the LGBTQ population currently stands at $3.6 trillion, so businessmen recognize an opportunity when they see it.

Read part 2.

Will Women’s Restrooms Be Ruled Obsolete?

by Peter Sprigg

February 13, 2019

In a significant ruling last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit ruled against a male-to-female transgender person, Nicole C. Wittmer, who had sued the Phillips 66 Company for employment discrimination. Wittmer contended that Phillips 66 had withdrawn a job offer after learning that Wittmer identifies as transgender. (Hat tip to Ed Whelan for his excellent two-part post on the case at National Review, here and here.)

Federal law does not prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” After years of failing to persuade Congress to add “gender identity” (or “sexual orientation”) as a protected category in federal civil rights laws, LGBT activists have adopted a new legal strategy. They now contend that discrimination based on gender identity is already illegal because it is a form of discrimination based on “sex,” which was prohibited along with racial discrimination by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Specific lawsuits rest not only on such abstract legal theories, but also on specific facts. In this case, both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit decided for Phillips 66, the defendant. The evidence showed that the plaintiff Wittmer had been fired by his previous employer, a fact which Wittmer did not disclose to Phillips 66. It was the discovery of that deception that led the company to withdraw a job offer—not transgender discrimination.

Therefore, it was actually not necessary for the court to decide whether sex discrimination encompasses “gender identity.” However, on this threshold question, the District Court had said yes. Judge James C. Ho wrote a separate concurrence to explain why Title VII does not cover either gender identity (at issue in this case) or sexual orientation. At 14 pages, his concurrence is actually twice as long as the majority opinion (which Ho also wrote).

I highly recommend this concurrence. Judge Ho does a good job of explaining two different theories of interpretation of sex discrimination. Under the “favoritism” theory, an act is only “sex discrimination” if it favors one sex over the other. Under the “blindness theory” (relied on by the plaintiff), an act is “sex discrimination” if it takes sex into account in any way at all (in this case, because women may wear dresses to work but men may not, for example).

Judge Ho points out very bluntly that under the “blindness theory,” it would not be permissible to have “separate bathrooms and changing rooms for men and women.” And an attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, permitted to participate as a “friend of the court,” conceded this point at oral argument (see p. 16 of the opinion).

This is significant. Up to now in the bathroom debates, transgender activists have conceded the legitimacy of separate men’s and women’s facilities, but have argued that people should be allowed to use the one that corresponds to their gender identity rather than their biological sex. But now we have a concession that a logical implication of the argument they are using for counting “gender identity” discrimination as a form of “sex discrimination” is that we could not have separate facilities at all.

Courts should not be rewriting laws just because LGBT activists have not persuaded Congress to do so. But if they adopt the approach transgender activists want, they may not only usurp the powers of Congress—they may abolish separate men’s and women’s locker rooms, showers, and restrooms altogether.

So much for the “right to privacy.”

Archives