Good News: Target Beginning To Pay For Promoting Insane Transgender Toilet Policy

When you want to do something stupid, you will pay a price.

Here’s to hoping Target keep on paying and change their foolish policies back to ones that actually protect employees and customers instead of encouraging perverts, molesters, and rapists to access women and children.

Read it and smile:

After more than 1.1 million people pledged to boycott Target, celebrities and corporations alike are having second thoughts about crossing Americans on such a consensus issue. The decision by the retail giant is not only sparking massive backlash, but it’s helping the country get a real picture of the controversy in North Carolina. It’s also shown liberals that without the big media’s cover, twisting the facts of the law, they’re all by themselves. There’s even more evidence of that this week, as more singers are keeping their concert dates in North Carolina than canceling them. Even more telling, not one business has threatened to leave the state after seeing what happened to the retail giant — which has taken a $2.5 billion hit since letting grown men in women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. After executives announced the change, shares dropped 6 percent in just 10 days.

And the rest of the market is taking note. Rockers Cyndi Lauper and Mumford and Sons refused to cancel their stop in the Tar Heel State, and instead promised to donate the proceeds to LGBT organizations. This is what happens when you stand up to bullies! They leave. And the same thing would have eventually happened in Indiana, Georgia, and South Dakota if those governors would have had the courage to stand up for religious freedom. Most country stars, meanwhile, never abandoned fans in the first place. One of the biggest names on the scene, Florida Georgia Line, never hesitated. “We love North Carolina and our fans there, so we’re gonna play. We are going to be there for sure. For sure.” Scott McCreery, Cam, and Chris Land didn’t blink either. “I think there are bigger things in the world to be thinking about,” Chris Jansen told reporters. “So I think you can kind of get where I lean on that subject, right? You have to perform for the fans.”

For Target, the bad news keeps piling up. Employees are going public with their concerns — not just about the company’s agenda, but about their job security. If the financial losses keep up, “I’m worried that it will cost jobs. I’m wondering if they care about families or they care about families of team members that lose their jobs,” one said. Even more problematic, the clash is dragging down Target’s image. The negative feedback is already damaging the company’s brand, Forbes warns. “The number of people who said they would consider shopping at Target the next time they needed something from a department store dropped from 42% to 38%, as measured by the YouGov BrandIndex.” And that’s just in a week and a half!

Making matters worse, a woman’s video chasing a stalker out of the underwear section of a Florida Target store is going viral. As most Americans know, these incidents are only going to increase, as shoppers find more men in restrooms and changing rooms. Of course, as AFA’s Tim Wildmon points out in USA Today, “There is a simple solution to this controversy for Target. Gender-specific facilities (men’s bathrooms/fitting rooms, women’s bathrooms/fitting rooms) would be maintained, and a single-occupancy, unisex option would be provided for the transgendered community.” Clearly, Target is more interested in making a political point. And now they’re paying for it.

Who knows how many innocent victims will also pay? That’s the sobering question Kaeley Triller asks in a compelling piece for The Federalist. She’s a rape survivor who says her “heart starts to race” just reading about these reports. “They can’t be serious. Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters… Do these companies know,” she asks, that more than 99 percent of single-victim incidents are committed by males? That they are experts in rationalization who minimize their number of victims? Don’t they know that insurance companies highlight locker rooms as a high-risk area for abuse that should be carefully monitored and protected? Don’t they know that one out of every four little girls will be sexually abused during childhood, and that’s without giving predators free access to them while they shower?”

As a mom, she says, what about her rights? “What of my right to do my darndest to insist that the first time my daughter sees the adult male form it will be because she’s chosen it, not because it’s forced upon her? What of ouremotional and physical rights?” All too often, they take a backseat to the radical ideology of the Left. Read why in Peter Sprigg’s new piece for the Tulsa World.

http://barbwire.com/2016/05/06/stock-awe-shoppers-dump-shares-target-blitz/

Michael Brown: An Open Letter To Bruce Springsteen 

Pretty much every public toilet, bathroom, and restroom in history has provided men and women with seperate privacy (yes, there are always exceptions).

Everyone else is wrong though and the moral crusaders of the transgender fascist movement are out to ensure you bow to their will.

Bruce Springsteen, rockstar, is leading the charge against North Carolina, a state that had the audacity to continue to differentiate between men and women, by cancelling his planned concert there because they won’t change said law.

Michael Brown offers an open letter that challenges Springsteen and band to actually think about the topic a bit:

Dear Bruce,

As a resident of North Carolina since 2003, I read with interest that you decided to cancel your April 10th concert in Greensboro because of HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act.

In your statement you explained that, in your view, the bill is “an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.”

You added that it was time for you and your band “to show solidarity for those freedom fighters” (speaking of transgender activists), and you ended your statement with these powerful words: “Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.”

I also read that your guitarist, Steven Van Zandt, has likened HB2 to an “evil virus” that is spreading through the United States in the form of similar legislation.

These are strong words, and they represent strong convictions. So, let me first commend you and your band members for putting your principles before your livelihood, even to the disappointment of your North Carolina fans. I have read that you regretted not performing at the 1985 Live Aid concert in Wembley, and perhaps this is your way of saying, “I do care and I’m here to make a difference.”

Whatever your motivation, I admire anyone who puts morality before money. My question to you and your band is simply this: In boycotting North Carolina and siding against HB2, did you really side with morality? Are you truly standing with “freedom fighters”?

I’m assuming you read HB2 for yourself and you’re not just listening to media reports attacking the bill or, worse still, getting your talking points from biased lobbyist groups like the Human Rights Campaign. (If you’re not really familiar with the bill, then click here and here and here.)

So, please allow me to ask you some questions.

First, how do you know if someone is really “transgender” or not? Is it determined entirely by how they feel about themselves? If so, do you think that it might be hard to make laws based entirely on how people feel? Did you ever stop to consider that?

Second, what’s the difference between someone with “gender dysphoria” (or, as it used to be called, “gender identity disorder”) and someone, say, with schizophrenia or “multiple personality disorder” or some other psychological condition? In other words, if a man is a biological and chromosomal male but believes he is a woman, is he actually a woman, or does he have a psychological disorder?

If he does have a psychological disorder, should we try to treat that disorder or should we celebrate that disorder? And is it right to call biological males who feel they are women and biological women who feel they are men “freedom fighters”? Perhaps that’s not the best use of the term?

If you are deeply offended that I would dare suggest that many transgender individuals are dealing with a psychological disorder, could you kindly point me to the definitive scientific literature that explains that these biological males are actually females and these biological females are actually males?

I’m not saying they don’t deserve compassion. To the contrary, I’m saying that’s exactly what they deserve: compassion, not celebration.

But perhaps I’m being too abstract here, so let’s get really practical. Let’s say that a 6’ 4” male who used to play professional football and who has secretly agonized over his gender identity for years finally determines that he must be true to himself and live as a woman.

Do you think it might be traumatic for a little girl using the library bathroom to see this big man walk into her room wearing a dress and a wig? Should we take her feelings into account, or is she not important? What if that was your granddaughter? Would you care if she was traumatized? And when you speak of “the human rights of all of our citizens” does that include little girls like this?

I understand that this gentleman will have difficulties should he decide to dress and live as a woman, but that is still a choice he is making, and it is not fair to impose his struggles on innocent little children, is it?

And what if this same man, whom we’ll assume is not a sexual predator, wants to share the YMCA locker room with your wife and daughter, standing there in his underwear as they come out of the shower stalls wrapped in towels. Is this fair to them?

Let’s take this one step further. If any man who claims to be a woman can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, then how do we keep the sexual predators out? I’ve asked people to watch this short video, giving examples of male heterosexual predators who donned women’s clothing to get into the ladies’ rooms, and I’d encourage you to watch it too. Without HB2, rapists and voyeurs and pedophiles would have free access to our women and daughters in the safety of their own bathrooms and locker rooms.

Since you don’t like HB2 — indeed, your guitarist called it an “evil virus” — what’s your plan to keep the predators out? How can we tell the difference between a “genuine” transgender person and a sexual predator? Since everyone knows you as “The Boss,” what would you do to keep the ladies and children safe?

And one final question.

When you booked the concert in Greenboro, the laws in North Carolina were just as they are today: In public facilities, people had to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their biological sex. Why, then, did you agree to come in the first place? Why cancel the concert when things today are just what they were six months ago?

Again, I appreciate your sincerity, but I question your judgment. In your zeal to do what is right, you have actually done what is wrong.

https://stream.org/open-letter-bruce-springsteen-band/

Safe Schools Coalition Founders: “Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. Not about stopping bullying. About gender and sexual diversity. “

So when the founders of the “Safe Schools” anti-bullying program admit that it’s not about bullying and instead all about homosexual and transgender indoctrination, will anybody be willing to face this revelation?

Or is it ears closed as usual?

Are you really okay with Marxists indoctrinating your children into pervere and promiscuous sexual practises with crazy reality-denying philosophy to boot?

The two people on stage, in the video, are Roz Ward, Coordinator of Safe Schools Coalition Victoria, and Joel Radcliffe, Project Officer of Safe Schools Coalition Victoria.

CLIP 1

Roz Ward:

We’re going to talk about visibility. And it’s one of the challenges, I think, of working – and we work deliberately and specifically around sexual diversity and gender diversity. Not all forms of diversity. We’re talking about sexual diversity and gender diversity. And both of those things are not necessarily visible. You can’t look around the room and be like “You’re sexually diverse. You’re gender diverse. Whatever.” It’s not the same as saying “Oh. There’s a lot of people from different cultural backgrounds. I can see them in here.”

Not all cultural diversity is visible but there are, ya know, there are those triggers to make you think “Are we doing stuff to make those students from different cultural backgrounds feel included?” There’s not the same triggers around sexual diversity. People can be invisible and there are schools where they say…still…we don’t necessarily work with them but we hear the stories of “But we don’t really have any gay students in our school.” Because they’re not necessarily visible, right? So we’ve gotta think about really explicit, visible cues that are very clearly about gender and sexual diversity. So we think very specific posters work really well, very specific messages from school leadership, very specific things written in your school newsletter, that Safe Schools Coalition is about supporting gender and sexual diversity. Not about celebrating diversity. Not about stopping bullying. About gender and sexual diversity. About same-sex attractive. About being transgender. About being lesbian, gay, bisexual – say the words – transgender, intersex. Not just “Be nice to everyone. Everyone’s great.”

CLIP 2

Roz Ward

…positive parents have driven that change in schools, and out of 132 schools, we have had one complaint from a parent about being part of Safe Schools Coalition. One complaint. And that’s not what the schools thought was going to happen. All of the school leadership, or a lot of school leadership said “What can we do when a parent complains?” We give them some advice and then they’ll come and we’ll be like “Did anyone complain?” and they’re like “No. It’s great actually. Somebody called us and said congratulations for joining.” And it’s way more likely to be that we find, than people complaining.

If, and when, and sometimes, in that case when the parent did complain – we have complaints sometimes directly from parents who are not [inaudible] in what we’re doing. When people do complain, then school leadership can very calmly and graciously say “You know what? We’re doing it anyway. Tough luck.” Basically. In a nice way. “What can you do? This is a program that’s about supporting safe and inclusive schools. We’re going to celebrate IDAHO day, and we’re going to do it with our junior campus, and so, ya know, it’s unfortunate that you don’t agree with that. We’re going to do it again next year, and if you really, strongly disagree and you want to take your kid out of school that day, that’s their loss, really.”

Joel Radcliffe:

It’s important to know that it does come up a lot. People say “What about the parents?” a lot. Schools give parents…Parents have a lot…seem to have a lot of power over schools. Parents don’t have the power to shut this down. There’s an insignificant minority that might have an issue with it. None of them really ever say anything. I know one person that does. The Principal knows how to deal with that person. They know what the message is. They know why they’re doing this work and why it’s so important. That’s part of the school culture. That’s part of the school community. You’re either a part of it or you’re not really, at the end of the day. And no one’s taken their kid out of school…

http://www.acl.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Safe-Schools-not-about-bullying-transcript-2.doc

“Safe Schools”, An Anti-Bullying School Program In Australia, Is So Interested In Teaching Children About Homosexuality, Gender Theory, And How To Bind Their Breasts And Penises That They Forget To Care When Christian Kids Get Bullied

My favourite part is where the one kid asks why teachers are pushing sex on them so hard if they don’t want them getting pregnant. 

Touché kid.

Bill Muelenberg’s write up disturbs:

The ‘long march through the institutions’ as Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci put it is working out real well. Instead of taking over a nation with tanks and bullets, why not just subvert it from within? Take over the main institutions of power and influence, such as the media, schools, churches, courts and so on, and you can capture a culture.

This is what we call cultural Marxism and we see it especially being played out with the so-called Safe Schools Coalition. I have written often about this pro-homosexual indoctrination program disguised as an anti-bullying program. Others have as well. A terrific piece by Paul Kelly in the Australian the other day is worth quoting from here:

This is much more than an anti-bullying program. Most people know an anti-bullying program when they see it. But this is something else — a pervasive and radical ideological agenda. Indeed, it does not even pretend to be anything less.

Senior ALP figures Bill Shorten, Penny Wong and Kate Ellis and other politicians stridently defending the program and attacking its critics are misleading at best and deceptive at worst. The materials, literature, instructions and recommended class activities are pervasive in their ideological content and often extraordinary in the activities they recommend for years 7 and 8 students. This story is a case study in hijack: how a program of social and sexual engineering was inducted into the school system by a lobby that won huge institutional support. The program is legitimised by a need whose validity is beyond question: preventing the bullying of LGBTI students.

In many ways the program is the purist example of the disruptive cultural and power changes sweeping through Australia. Its content would have been inconceivable 10 years ago. It reflects a transformation in thinking about sex and gender, the collapse of traditional and religious norms, the confidence of the progressive class that its moment has come, and the ability of a minority lobby to seize the ascendancy and command a majority position.

He concludes:

Shorten branded Bernardi a “homophobe” for criticising the program. Opposition education spokeswoman Ellis attacked Turnbull for pandering to “views of extremists”. ALP Senate leader Wong said: “This is a Labor program, we funded it in government, it’s a program designed to address the terrifying statistics of self-harm, of abuse, of discrimination and of bullying of same-sex attracted and transgender kids.”

Amid defenders of the program it is hard to discern any concession whatsoever that there are problems with this program. There is no serious sign of respect for parents who have reservations. Just the reverse — they are patronised and insulted by indirect linkage as extremists and homophobes. It is hard to find another example where the political class has been so arrogant in its imposition of a new and far-reaching agenda. Let’s confront the truth: there is a process of intimidation at work. It reminds of the mother on the ABC television’s Q&A program a few weeks ago, upset her son was encouraged to cross-dress, reduced to saying, “but it was a science class”.

There is no doubt the cultural norms are changing. This program constitutes dramatic evidence. But the progressives have overreached — their arrogance and intolerance and on vivid display. Turnbull, however, will find this a difficult issue to manage. And any politician asserting this is just another anti-bullying program is naive or engaging in a gross deception.

Let the children speak

But as good as such critiques are, the best thing we can do is let the children speak. They are the ones feeling the full force of this cultural Marxism, with everything homosexual being rammed down their throats. Let me offer the stories of two young people, sent to me by a distraught mother.

These children are attending public schools in Victoria and are experiencing on a daily basis anti-Christian bigotry and homosexual bullying. The first story comes from a 15-year-old:

Impacts of “Safe Schools”

-Spoken about in almost every subject, especially health subjects. It claims it is an opt-in program but when you are forced to do a health subject where it is integrated into all of them you can’t get out of it.

-Becomes a higher priority than other more important world issues. One day the wall was filled with students’ posters about health issues in other countries and morbidity and mortality rates but then the next day the posters were gone and replaced with LGBTI posters.

-The posters are plastered all over the school. If you walk down the hallway you find posters. Entering the coordinators you find about 15 stuck in various locations. The posters are everywhere you go and it is impossible to not go by one every day. This means the content is taught as the truth to everyone even if they don’t really want to know about it. It is subconsciously being taught to everyone all day without them even noticing.

-It makes students who aren’t LGBTI or who don’t agree with it feel inferior and those who do feel superior to others. No one speaks about heterosexual relationships anymore as it is how conception occurs and no one really wants to get pregnant while still being in school. Those who are LGBTI comment about how cruel those who disagree with them are and talk bad about them, but never actually get into trouble as it is “just their opinion” but if someone mentions they disagree they get excluded from the other peers, making them feel unwanted and as though their opinion isn’t as important.

-It dramatically sexualises relationships from a young age. If teachers don’t want us to get pregnant then why are they approving posters about who would like to sleep with who? Many students believe that the only purpose of life is to have sex. These posters around the school make students think of this a whole lot more than they should. LGBTI relationships are the only ones that seem to be supported, as they don’t result in an unintentional pregnancy. This also adds to how those who are heterosexual feel less important than those who are.

The second story comes from a 13-year-old:

Bullied Because I’m Christian

When you’re a Christian people don’t like you. They try to do everything they can to put you down. I am only thirteen years old and I have been physically and verbally bullied because of my beliefs. Last year I moved to high school and at first I thought it was great but as I get settled I find that if I tell people that I am a Christian people will treat me like crap.

The first time it happened was when I was telling one of my friends the good news about God. And the next week or so I get pulled out of class by my teacher and she told me that my friend’s parents complained because I was bible bashing their son. I told my teacher that I am not a closet Christian and I wasn’t telling the boy that he has to believe, I was only telling him the miracles that God has done. Later that boy approached me and started calling me names that are better left unsaid. His father called me one name that was very rude. Eventually the boy moved schools at the end of the year.

There have been a few incidents that have only happened within the last month. My friend mentioned that I was a Christian and some people in my class heard her say it and then they looked at me and said, “I hate Christians.” This made me very upset and on the same day someone who I thought was my friend said that she doesn’t believe in God and that whoever believes is stupid. Then she started saying God’s name in vane and laughing about it.

To protect this family, I of course have had to use anonymity, but I can fully vouch for these stories. And tragically, there would be plenty more such stories. We sure do need to hear these stories. All that the mainstream media wants to do is run with stories of homosexuals, but never of those adversely impacted by these pro-homosexual programs.

Since the MSM refuses to do its job, I certainly will do it for them. If other readers have similar stories to tell, please send them to me and I will happily run with them. The truth must get out into the public arena. And please pray for this family, especially the two students. They are going through hell.

And pray for all the other families who are on the receiving end of this homosexual indoctrination campaign.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/paul-kelly/safe-schools-turnbull-in-crossfire-over-sex-agenda/news-story/8196b1e8ad262992922598316cd9c5a0

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/03/13/cultural-marxism-in-schools-let-the-children-speak/

The Homosexual And Transgender Proselytisation Of Children Through The Education System And The Media

Teaching children anything is only okay these days if it lines up with Leftist (ie Marxist, Progressive, etc) ideology (ie religion).

These days, teaching children that biological sex is a set reality (ie because it is) is wrong and harmful but teaching them that homosexuality is normal and that they can be any one of a trillion fabricated “genders” is perfectly fine.

The push to indoctrinate children and normalise dangerous and abnormal sexual practise at the earliest possible stages of life is a constant battle in the West and equally so in Australia.

In one case Play School, a popular children’s program airing on the ABC that most Australians will recall fondly, has decided that pushing their perverse homosexualisation agenda is important enough to warrant depicting homosexual “parents” in an upcoming episode.

In Australian schools, the Safe Schools program parades as an anti-bullying program that in reality seeks to reach children as young as primary school with homosexual and gender theory indoctrination.

Read the media release from Australian Christians about Play School below:

Parents should be able to trust their toddlers to the ABC’s Play School program without worrying if they are being exposed to controversial political and social agendas, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.

“Parents should not be forced to explain to little children how it is that two men come to have a baby,” ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton said.

Play School yesterday announced it would feature two men raising a child in its popular Through the Windows segment.

“It is disappointing that the ABC is seeking to impose rainbow politics on toddlers when millions of their parents do not agree with redefining marriage in law.

“Millions of Australians also do not agree that two men should be allowed to deliberately deprive a child of its mother. This does not mean two men can not love a child, of course they can. The issue is whether or not it is right for the child to be deprived of its mother and whether this should be taught as ethical to toddlers.

“The ABC should also not assume that producing children through harvested eggs and a rented or donated woman’s womb to meet the desires of two men is a public good.

“Unsupervised watching of Play School was always considered safe by generations of parents. Now parents can’t be sure if their children are going to be exposed to contested social and political agendas.

“Play School is not the place for the ABC to run agendas. The Australian people will be deciding whether or not marriage (and with it parenting) is redefined in a national plebiscite after the federal election, should the Coalition win.

“Many parents will be disappointed with this, particularly as this is a taxpayer-funded program that should refrain from pushing confusing adult messaging to our children.

“Parent’s shouldn’t be forced to have adult conversations about sexuality and bioethics with their kids at such a young age and it certainly should not be the government broadcaster raising the subject with them.”

Mr Shelton said the nature of the ABC as a taxpayer-funded broadcaster meant that it should maintain its objectivity on political issues, particularly when matters crucial to the definition of marriage and family are subject to a national vote.

“ABC Kids in particular should be particularly sensitive to what it shows to young impressionable minds and refrain from introducing contested social concepts into their children’s programing,” Mr Shelton said.

“We encourage the Communications Minister, Mitch Fifield to take these concerns to the ABC so that the integrity of the ABC can be maintained.”

And Bill Muehlenberg’s piece about Safe Schools:

As our culture continues to spiral down the septic tank, eventually that produces a backlash. After a while decent people have had enough, and start to stand against the sleaze, degradation and corruption of our culture. And when our children are especially being targeted and abused by the sexual libertines and social revolutionaries, then the reaction really starts to kick in.

There have always been concerned parents who have resisted the moral decay and radical agendas of the coercive utopians, but as things get worse, more voices begin to be heard. In the past day or two I have found three cases of incensed Australian mothers speaking out, declaring ‘enough is enough’.

All three mums have had a gutful of the sexualisation of their kids, and want no more of it. All three have fearlessly and resolutely spoken out against this evil, and have gotten media attention for doing so. So let me focus on each of these three brave women, and hold them up as examples for you to emulate.

The first is a Melbourne mother who is sick of pro-homosexual and gender-bending propaganda being rammed down the throats of her children. One article on this opens as follows:

A website promoted by the Safe Schools Coalition is teaching students how to bind their breasts and “tuck in” male genitalia. The Minus 18 website, which is partially funded by the state government, gives step-by-step instructions on how to deal with “chest dysphoria” and includes seven different binding methods.

Mother of four Cella White withdrew her children from Frankston High over concerns about the Safe Schools Coalition program about transgender awareness. Ms White also expressed concerns about the website. “You are either born a boy or girl, I believe in mother nature, I want my kids to value their body, the breast binding is a real issue, we should be teaching kids to love themselves,” she said….

The government-funded program by the Safe Schools Coalition is designed to promote inclusiveness for ‘same sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse’ students, but critics say it is indoctrinating children in sexual identity politics under the pretence of a bullying program.

“It was announced in science class that boys could wear school dresses next year,” Ms White said. “They’re telling my children to call transgender children by their requested pronoun. What is the benefit to my son? He’s got a learning disability, he’s struggling with his times tables, he doesn’t need to deal with this.”

The mother of four was particularly concerned about any changes in bathroom policy that could see her daughter sharing a bathroom with a gender diverse student. “It could be a year 12 student of the opposite-born sex in the bathroom with my year 7 daughter who is blind,” Ms White said. “This isn’t about safe schools, it’s transgenderism and gay activism bought into the classroom. I know other parents who are not happy.”…

Ms White, who has complained to the education department and Safe Schools Coalition, said she is not religious but is coming forward to make other parents aware of “what their children are being taught. It’s being presented as an anti-bullying program but the education department said it’s a sexual diversity program,” she said. “Apart from this I love the school, I’m in mourning, I went there, my siblings went there, I told everyone how good they were.”

Another mother of four, this time from Perth, has also been battling this pernicious material for some time now. She was recently interviewed by the Australian but her comments did not make it into the newspaper article, so I asked Emily McKenna what she told the reporter. This is the gist of what she had said:

AllOfUs-700x366With progressive minded parents in our school advocating for the “Safe School Coalition” and my four-year-old starting kindy with two children from two separate same-sex lesbian households, I knew that it would be a matter of time before my children would be bullied for our family’s traditional marriage views.

The Safe Schools Coalition is being presented here in Western Australia by the AIDS Council. That information alone is alarming let alone the details taught in the “All of Us” booklet convincing children to force their bodies to stop growing as intended by nature.

Sharyn O’Neil, Director General at WA Education Department initially assured many prominent leaders here that the SSC would not go ahead in WA, however these minority groups don’t like no for an answer and in October 2015 the classroom diversity plan was rolled out into 7 senior schools and one primary school. This was a matter of three months after I had met with her about politicising our children in the classroom with relation to the climate change agenda. She assured me personally that it wouldn’t happen again.

After looking into our options as Christian parents, we have decided that our children’s future education would be best taught and overseen by us at home. We want our children to get back to learning their ABC’s and 123’s, and not be indoctrinated in all the latest politically correct sexuality!

Finally, a Queensland mother has gotten up in arms of the sexualisation of children as well. As a news item reports:

Nikita Friedman was so angered by what she believed was inappropriate clothing being sold for young girls by Big W she took to social media to voice her outrage. “Why on earth does my 1-year-old need to have shorts so short that her nappy is hanging out? Little girls are not sex objects. Gender bias is disgusting,” the Queensland mum wrote on the retail giant’s Facebook page. “I couldn’t find a single pair of shorts in the girl’s section today with an inseam of more than a couple of centimetres. Where is the variety and choice for parents looking to teach their children about sun safety and self respect? Not at Big W this month, that’s for sure!”

She also posted a photo comparing size one shorts for girls and boys, demonstrating the clear difference in length.

The post, which now appears to have been removed, received over 60,000 likes and 4,700 comments. Friedman edited her initial post to add that she believed it was important to let retailers know when customers are dissatisfied.

“The simple fact is that numbers talk and maybe seeing 1600 parents agree with my post after only 5 hours might make Big W stand up and listen for once to what parents want,’ she wrote just five hours after she published the popular post,” she wrote. The post attracted a lot of debate about whether the length of the shorts for boys and girls is an issue. Many parents jumped to support Friedman in the comments, with some congratulating her for taking a stand.

I am so glad that mothers are speaking out like this. They certainly should be. It is time to take a stand against all this sleaze, and the targeting of our children. We need many more concerned citizens to be raising their voices like this. If enough people speak out, things may begin to change.

Oh, and just one last question: when are we going to hear some fathers speaking out? Where are all the men? We need them to be a voice for our children as well.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/mother-pulls-children-from-frankston-high-school-over-transgender-awareness-rules/news-story/0b44bfe1ab5be79592261672051b5c60

http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/toddler/caring-for-toddler/mother-hits-out-at-big-w-for-sexualising-young-girls-20160209-gmp1p7.html#ixzz3ze1I3sDC

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/activists-push-taxpayerfunded-gay-manual-in-schools/news-story/4de614a88e38ab7b16601f07417c6219

This is the state of our culture, the only culture in history that has attempted to normalise sodomy and redefine the clear biological reality to different but complimentary sexes, imposing it upon the masses.
http://www.acl.org.au/2016/02/abc-should-keep-rainbow-politics-out-of-play-school/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=eNews%209%20February%202016&utm_content=eNews%209%20February%202016+CID_4f5001f84c3ed07716d0c21acddc692a&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=Read%20more

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/02/10/mothers-speaking-out/

#OscarsSoWhite: When The Left Offends The Left

The Ideals of the Left are usually competing with each other, especially when you include all the useful idiots with the actual committed and intentional Marxists.

We’ve already seen that when feminism faces off against multiculturalism, feminism goes down in smoke or, in a more literal sense, European women are told to shut up when Muslim men sexually assault, mug, and rape them.

Round Two gives us the perpetual suffering of rich, black Hollywood Leftists (who were made rich primarily by white cinema-goers) versus rich, white Hollywood Leftists.

That’s right – it’s the Tyson-Hollyfield fiasco all over again and the only question on everybody’s lips is who is gonna get bit?

Here is the rundown of in this most recent Leftist heavyweight showdown:

The nominations for the 88th Annual Academy Awards were released Thursday morning. For the second year in a row, the Academy handed out a whopping total of zero nominations to non-white performers in the four acting categories.

After accusations of racism from the mainstream media and Twitter’s “OscarsSoWhite” hashtag sullied last year’s awards, it’s hard to understand how the eternally progressive Hollywood community behind the Oscars couldn’t correct last year’s error and offer a measly one of those 16 nominations to an actor of color. How did this happen? How did this group of racial-diversity-embracing liberals offer up the exact same offense this year?

To answer that question, imagine you’re a person who really values religious inclusivity. In fact, you value it so much that your second favorite activity in the world is inviting Muslim and Jewish folks over to your house for dinner.

The problem, however, is that your favorite activity in the world is serving your dinner guests a piping hot plate of barbecued pork. In fact, you love doing this so much that you can’t stop yourself from offering the aforementioned porcine cuisine to dinner guests you know have religious objections to eating it.

So even though you really want to practice religious inclusion, and even though you don’t want to get yelled at for offering your Muslim and Jewish guests unclean food again, you fall into the same pit because you just can’t bring yourself to change the dinner menu. It’s not that you’re trying to exclude your Muslim and Jewish dinner guests. It’s just that exclusion happens when you won’t sacrifice the thing you love if that’s what it takes to embrace your guests.

Hollywood’s Favorite Stories Are White People Stories

This is precisely why the Oscars have, for the second straight year, failed to nominate any actors of color. It’s not that they’re trying to be racist. It’s just that they can’t help it. Of course the Academy wants to give statues to non-white actors and actresses. Of course it would love to have another Hattie McDaniel moment or hear another Halle Berry style acceptance speech.

But giving awards to people of color is currently the Academy’s second-favorite thing in the world. Its favorite thing is giving awards for performances in movies about upper-class 1940s lesbian college professors who bravely battled both unjust banking practices and homophobia—bonus points if they were persecuted by political or religious conservatives, double bonus points if they worked in Hollywood, and triple bonus points if they existed in real life.

Because the Academy insists on doing its favorite thing, because it insists on giving all its awards to films of this nature, it can’t help but exclude those of ethnicities that weren’t terribly prevalent in 1940s upper-class British academic circles or on McCarthy-era blacklists. So, just like the dinner host who won’t sacrifice his favorite thing (serving pork to his guests) for the sake of his second favorite thing (respecting their religious beliefs), the Oscars have no choice but to fail at racial inclusivity as long as they prefer to shower awards on cinematic stories that exclude most of the races.

Sorry, Colorful People, You Just Aren’t Interesting

For example, it’s not that the Academy was trying to exclude “Creed’s” Michael B. Jordan from the best actor race. It’s just that Eddie Redmayne played a kind-of-real-life transgender European artist, and Oscar voters couldn’t possibly have taken that off the menu include someone who played a character as boring as a pretend boxer.

Steve Jobs’ story needed to be told again because the first time it had Ashton Kutcher in it.

Similarly, while in a down year Hollywood would gladly have nominated “Concussion’s” Will Smith for playing real-life forensic pathologist Bennet Omalu, Bryan Cranston played an ever-so-terribly-persecuted-in-real life Hollywood Communist in “Trumbo,” and there’s no way the Academy could have overlooked a performance of that historic significance just to bring more diversity to Oscar night.

Dalton Trumbo’s story, after all, needed to be told, as did Lili Elbe’s (“The Danish Girl”). Steve Jobs’ story needed to be told again because the first time it had Ashton Kutcher in it. And it’s hardly the Academy’s fault blacks were too busy not being allowed to be screenwriters in 1950s Hollywood or that Latinos failed to adequately represent themselves in 1920s Scandinavian LGBTQ circles or that no one of Middle Eastern descent would have been believable as the half-German inventor of the iMac. (Unrelated fun fact: Steve Jobs was also half Syrian! Who knew?)

We Totally Can’t Cast Non-White Actors, Either

Granted, one might argue Hollywood could fix its race problem by essentially keeping the barbecue rub recipe but swapping out pork for a more inclusive meat—in other words, by casting non-white actors in the kind of roles it most desperately wants to award. In theory, there’s no reason film studios couldn’t make this happen.

There’s no reason historical details like ‘Bruce Jenner wasn’t black’ should diminish the power of a biopic called ‘Caitlyn’ with Idris Elba in the titular role.

If historical inaccuracies like Steve Jobs not saying most of the stuff he said in “Steve Jobs” didn’t diminish the film’s Oscar-worthiness, there’s no reason historical details like “Bruce Jenner wasn’t black” should diminish the power of a biopic called “Caitlyn” with Idris Elba in the titular role.

As much as the Academy would love to support a project of this nature, however, filmmaking is a business, studios need to make a profit to survive, and the harsh economic reality of awards season is that audiences simply aren’t lining up to see films with Oscar-worthy performances from actors of color like they are from white actors.

“Creed,” for example, brought in a paltry $106 million domestically, as opposed to “Spotlight’s” $28 million, “Steve Jobs’s” $17 million (on a $30 million budget), “The Danish Girl’s” $8 million, “Trumbo’s” $7, “Carol’s” $7, “Room’s” $5, and “45 Years’s” staggering $341,000. Okay, those might have been seven bad examples, but you get the point—Hollywood and the Oscars really want to give non-white actors an opportunity to shine. Audiences just won’t let them.

So of course the Academy wants to be more racially inclusive. Racial inclusivity is, after all, its second favorite thing in the world. It’s just that, right now, the Academy’s favorite thing is hurling golden statues at films whose settings and characters prevent them from including any blacks or Latinos or Asians or Native Americans or anyone of a skin tone slightly darker than translucent ivory.

So perhaps those inclined to once again fill Twitter with the “OscarsSoWhite” hashtag should show a little compassion towards the poor members of the Academy who, bless their hearts, just can’t let religious inclusion trump serving pork for dinner.

If we want to fix this problem, perhaps it’s time to look to the other side of the table. Perhaps it’s time to ask those Jewish and Muslim dinner guests to try a bite of the unclean cuisine. Perhaps the Oscars wouldn’t have to be so white if people of color could figure out a way to make their history a little more transgendery or Hollywoody or English-accenty, or, at the very least, a little more staring-at-walls-and-coming-to-terms-with-thingsy.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/18/the-accidentally-racist-oscars/

What Part Of A Boy In The Girls Changerooms Sounds Like a Good Idea To Anyone?

Apparently a bunch of girls not wanting to getting naked in front of a dude in a dress is insulting bigotry these days and so they, and we all, should just shut up and accept it.

Bethany Mandel’s reason-filled slap upside the head for the “progressive”, postmodern deconstructionists serves equally as a wake up call to anyone who thinks the trans-movement won’t affect them:

One hundred and fifty students at a high school in Missouri are braver than I am. Up until now, I have not really shared how politically incorrect I am: I refuse to use pronouns of someone’s choosing. If a man was born a man, I will call him “he” and vice versa for a woman.

While I’ve been told I should use a pronoun of one’s choosing out of respect and kindness, I decline to do so because I refuse to play along with the delusion. We don’t play along with the delusions of schizophrenics, and I won’t play along with the notion that someone with a penis is somehow a woman. It’s usually the same folks who scream about (the complicated) science on global warming also asking the rest of us to ignore basic human biology. The times, they may be a changin’, but I refuse to go along with the tide. The situation in Missouri is why.

How have these Missouri ladies bucked the political-correctness bandwagon? When one of their classmates declared himself a woman and demanded access to the girl’s locker room, they balked and they walked, staging a protest outside the school.

Lila Perry, the transgender teen, refused to get changed in a third locker room, instead insisting that he be allowed to undress and be witness to the undressing of individuals of the opposite biological sex. Perry told a local news station at a counter-protest, “There’s a lot of ignorance. They are claiming that they’re uncomfortable. I don’t believe for a second that they are. I think this is pure and simple bigotry.” I’m fairly certain this kind of response isn’t in “How to Make Friends and Influence People.”

Shut Up and Undress, Ladies

In a world filled with far more ideological consistency than ours, Perry would be, rightfully, accused of “man-splaining.” How else could one describe a man who declares dozens of young women uncomfortable with changing their clothes with a biological man in the room to be ignorant and bigoted? A young man can wear a wig and a skirt, apply some makeup, and declare himself a “she,” but he cannot for a moment understand the gut feelings that women are born with. The naked body might be on display across our media, and a young man might not understand how young women would be uncomfortable getting changed in front of him, but other young women surely do.

It is apparently more important to prevent the hurt feelings of one student of the school than to disturb the comfort and possibly safety of dozens of others.

The first lesson women learn in self-defense classes is this: “Trust your intuition. Your most valuable resource is your instincts.” Now the Left is telling young women in the beginning of their journey to womanhood, when they are just learning strategies to keep themselves safe and when they are most vulnerable, to ignore their guts for the sake of political correctness. They are on one hand telling us there is nothing less than a rape epidemic on America’s campuses, and on the other telling women about to move onto those campuses that their gut feelings of danger are “transphobic” and should be ignored.

It is apparently more important to prevent the hurt feelings of one student of the school than to disturb the comfort and possibly safety of dozens of others. One student must be made to feel comfortable in a locker room, even if none of his peers in the same locker room do.

The Tolerance Double Standard

In another town in Missouri, a transgender teen was recently nominated to be his school’s prom queen. While many Progressive might assume the state isn’t exactly a beacon for acceptance of the transgender movement, that doesn’t appear to be the case. While the residents of Hillsboro might otherwise accept the transgender teen, their willingness to do so stops at the door of the girl’s locker room. It certainly doesn’t help Perry’s cause by calling all who disagree with the extreme step of integrated locker rooms that everyone who might declare themselves uncomfortable are automatically bigots.

As with the gay-marriage debate, we have seen that any dissent is automatically deemed bigotry.

On gay marriage, RedState’s Erick Erickson has famously said, “You will be made to care.” There are a number of bakeries and photographers who can attest that they have, indeed, been made to care. We are told, “Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t have one!” We are told the same on transgender issues. It didn’t even take a year from when the first transgender individual was featured on the cover of Time magazine and the first celebrity transition for our kid’s locker rooms to be invaded by those demanding tolerance—but only on their terms.

The parents of the girls in that locker room have already been made to care. As with the gay-marriage debate, we have seen that any dissent is automatically deemed bigotry. I thought, as Howard Zinn says, dissent was the highest form of patriotism? The tide has already turned on that front, but if Americans aren’t comfortable with biological males in their daughters’ locker rooms, it behooves us to call a spade a spade—or, in this case, call a boy a boy.

There are words for those who insist on calling men women and vice versa:

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭5:20‬ ‭ESV‬‬


http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/man-splaining-is-no-excuse-for-invading-girls-locker-rooms/

Transgender: Yet Another Avenue To Sexualize and Exploit Children

Children always become the victims of society’s sin. Whether it’s caught in the crossfire of divorce, murdered in the womb, or groomed for sexual exploitation, humanity has a way of drawing the most vulnerable into our web of wickedness.

One of the latest trends in the ever-evolving sexualisation of children through the media is the fixation on “transgender children”. It’s the same game, just in the advanced stages and it ends the same way: adults using children for their sinful ends.

These children are now the “proof” that we all needed regarding the philosophical concept of transgender: namely, if you feel it, then it is true.

Consider these two important articles about this madness as they articulate just what kind of damage is heading the way of our children:

Media’s New Mania: Transfixed by Transgender

By Katie Yoder | September 3, 2013 | 2:45 PM EDT

Back to school is an exciting time of year – new classmates, new subjects, new books, new gender and a new court-invented right to use the boys or girls room, depending on how you currently “identify.”

Welcome to the brave new world of “the next civil-rights struggle.” From a California law decreeing that any student has the right to use any gender-specific restroom and play on any gender-specific sports team he or she (or she or he) wants, biology be d**ned, to LGBT activists counseling network honchos on more sensitive TV portrayals, transgender is all the rage among liberals and media types.

The campaign to normalize gender confusion relies on emotional appeal. The media present “adorable” “transgender” 6-year-olds or teen couples who transitioned genders together. Or, for a child still unsure of his or her gender, lefty sites like Huffington Post and Slate enthusiastically recommend transgender children’s cartoons and transgender kid camps where little boys dress as “princesses.” It’s all part of the effort to “loosen the reins of gender expression,” as NPR put it.

At the adult level, CNN’s Anderson Cooper spoke with a transgender ex-SEAL “Warrior Princess” who advocated for transgender soldiers, while The Washington Post promoted “new hope” for transgender public bathroom use. The New York Times and the AP have decided to call convicted traitor Bradley Manning “Chelsea” (with all the matching pronouns) simply because he declared he wants to be a woman named Chelsea. 

And no effort to force the public to celebrate “alternative” sexualities would be complete without ABC, CBS, and NBC giving viewers stories of transgendered “normal” people leading “normal” lives – except for the “unique challenge” of transitioning into the opposite sex.

Downsides? Consequences? Differing opinions? Don’t be silly. The accounts of rallies defending marriage between one man and one woman are censored. The stories of entertainment media redefining the family don’t break into the mainstream.

As the same-sex marriage debate proved, the media ruthlessly shut down dissent when they find a pet cause.

The Focus on Children

It was Bloomberg.com that latched onto 6-year-old Coy Mathis – a boy pretending to be a girl who won a Colorado case to use the girls’ school bathroom – and declared it “the next civil-rights struggle.” The article even divulged why it was easy to take up Coy’s banner: “Part of the reason Coy’s story has so transfixed America – part of the reason she got an interview with Katie Couric – is that she is adorable.” Meaning that androgyny is easier to pull off in grade school. 

The International Business Times and The New York Times, presumably also taken with Coy’s lack of 5 o-clock shadow, accused Mathis’ school of “discrimination.” Buzzfeed hailed the “victory.” Several other organizations picked up the report, from The Huffington Post to CNN. ABC, CBS, and NBC acknowledged Mathis – but only online.

In a similar case, liberal Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak has been hyping 6-year-old Tyler (once a Kathryn). Dvorak insisted Tyler was like any other little boy, claiming, “His home looks like a house with a son. Karate gear, soccer balls, cars, trucks and pirate swords abound. At school, he’s a boy. Plain and simple.” The New York Daily News tacked on, “he’s never been happier.”

Even the new royal baby failed escape the escalating trend as The Independent Journal Review noted (sarcastically) twelve tweeters who challenged his gender: “How imperialist of the royal parents to declare their child a ‘boy’ just because he has male genitalia?!” Unfortunately, the Tweeters weren’t being sarcastic.

Of course, if the future King senses he may be a princess (or queen), Slate.com has helpfully pointed out transgender kid camps (and, for their elders, transgender centers) as a resource for “parents who don’t have a gender-confirming 3-year-old who wants to wear high heels and prefers to go down the pink aisle in K-Mart and not that nasty dark boys’ aisle.” While at camp, kids can take a break from bending their own genders to catch a transgender children’s cartoon where a boy transforms into a girl with superpowers in order to save the world.

Parents who are reluctant to let pre-pubescent children make decisions that will impact the rest of their lives can turn to HuffPost Live for a “Gender Myth Busting” session and the reassurance that “it’s only to children’s benefit to break down gender stereotypes.” Then it’s easy to parlay their “Princess Boys” into transgendered children’s books and fawning “Today” show interviews.

But it wasn’t just confused kids who got the “isn’t-that-adorable” treatment. The media could be counted on to ooh and ahh over transgender relationships, no matter how weird the story. Louis Davies and Jamie Eagle who made headlines for refusing to marry until the completion of their gender change surgeries. 

Arin Andrews and Katie Hill proposed an alternative model: a teen transgender couple sharing their transition together. Gay.net wasn’t the only site to find them the “cutest couple ever.” The two of them were meant to be, according to “The Huffington Post,” and, “might seem like your typical young couple, but their love story is unlike many others.” The New York Daily News acknowledged the “teen lovebirds,” whilst The Daily Mail dubbed them “sex-change sweethearts.”

Networks Push Positivity

As they are wont to do, when ABC, NBC, and CBS news shows covered transgender from January to August they fell over themselves trying to sell its normality.

ABC squeezed out a report of 11-year-old Jazz, who confronted “a unique challenge,” during “Good Morning America” on Jan. 18, 2013. Barbara Walters reported on the boy-turned-girl and defined the condition, explaining, “being transgender is not a phase,” and even the parents knew “since she was very young.” Walters noted Jazz’s normal routine, from playing on a girls’ soccer team to using the girls’ bathroom. And of course there were Walters’ usual fluff questions: “What part of being transgender hurts you the most?”

From NBC came the second story. The “Today Show,” on May 3 reported on Jennifer Finney Boylan, a dad-turned-mom who composed a “poignant” memoir to commemorate his conversion to a woman. NBC’s Willie Geist noted how the “dramatic transition” transformed into a “unique journey.” He sympathized with Jennifer over the “fascinating story,” and assumed, “You obviously agonized over this. This was not easy for you but in the end you made the decision that you had to do this for who you were even if it risked your family.”

CBS joined the gang August 13 during the “Evening News with Scott Pelley” when California passed a bill requiring public schools (K-12th grade) to allow youth to select sports teams and bathrooms based on their chosen gender identity. News correspondent John Blackstone interviewed 18-year-old Logan Henderson, a she-turned-he, and sympathized, “It wasn’t easy” with Henderson’s bathroom situation but concluded, “You’re making the best of it.” To his credit, Blackstone also spoke with Brad Dacus, founder of the conservative Pacific Justice Institute for the rare media alternative opinion on concerns from wrestling teams to shower rooms.

The Media Absurd

You can tell a group has broken into the modern American mainstream – no matter how small its numbers or arcane its interests – when it becomes a grievance group or a market segment or both. Transgender has clearly achieved the first, all the more so since CBS execs huddled with GLAAD activists to discuss more positive portray transgenders. (The Netflix series “Orange is the New Black” includes a former fireman in doing time in a women’s prison). They achieved the second with a Time Magazine article on transgender product marketing.  

And then there’s Miss Universe 2013. The pageant altered the rules to allow the transgender contestants because, as Deadline put it, “Let’s face it: this could make ratings soar.” Miss USA’s first transgender contestant sent shockwaves through the media this year by “braving” the swimsuit round, while transgender competitors surfaced on “America’s Next Top Model” as well.

But The Struggle continues. To the chagrin of the Huffington Post, even President Obama failed to include transgender pre-teen rights during the special interest shout-out fest that was his second inaugural speech. CNN’s Anderson Cooper spoke with a transgender ex-SEAL “Warrior Princess” who stated that “there’s a lot of [transgender people] right now” in the military who should be allowed to live as they want. CNN Money went in a tizzy over the challenges for the unemployed transgendered. In June, the Washington Post and the AP uncovered the tyranny of the government’s insistence on rigid male-female categories, publishing a story on “‘outdated’ ID cards that tell the truth about the real gender, not the ‘transgender.’”

But there are some causes for encouragement, and they’re mostly in the public toilet. Back in 2008, The Washington Post hyped “new hope” for transgender men using the ladies’ bathroom, when a Maryland court blocked a ballot initiative and denying transgendered persons the right to choose which bathroom to use. More recently, a lefty blogger conference boasted gender-neutral restrooms and called for the transgender to be allowed to “pee in peace.”

Not to worry; the federal government is on the case. The Obama administration pressured a California school district to allow a transgender girl to access boys’ restrooms – and even sleeping quarters. There was also the $1.35 million grant to examine transgender U.S. military service.

The states and municipalities have been busy as well. New York claimed it’s first openly transgender politician running for city council. A new D.C. transgender law allows birth certificates to reflect an individual’s gender identity. Schools aren’t quite as happy with the transgender spread as they confront upcoming lawsuits and threats concerning bathroom rights in states such as Maine and Florida.

And California is leading the way. Lawmakers approved and California Governor Jerry Brown signed what ABC.com named “historic” (ABC.com) and “groundbreaking bill” (Huffington Post) forcing schools to acknowledge chosen genders. Leading up to the “breakthrough,” transgender high school junior Ashton Lee made the news for sending nearly 6,000 petition signatures to Governor Brown in support of the bill, in an effort “to bring equality and protection to transgender students,” according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

The law isn’t without critics. Dr. Michael Youssef, Ph.D. and founder of Leading the Way,suggested the mandates are child “brainwashing” in an email to CMI, writing, “This is an important issue that belongs in the home. And taking it away from the parents and placing it into the hands of the government is a giant leap into the abyss of child abuse.

“We need to pray for a spirit of repentance,” he explained, “to fall upon the lobbyists who are resorting to a new low by pushing their agenda on five-year-olds. For children who often don’t know who they are until their late teens, to give them a choice of whom to shower with is beyond the pale of human decency.”

Language Abuse

As with any liberal leftward social push, the first casualty is the English language. Accordingly,

the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorderschanged in May the definition of transgender to “gender dysphoria” and removed “gender identity disorder” from the mental health issues list. 

In August, when convicted traitor Bradley Manning announced he was now “Chelsea” and decreed that “starting today you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun,” The New York Times and the AP readily complied. Before he’d taken a hormone even bought a wig, the man behind the largest ever leak of classified U.S. military intelligence got two respected news organizations to abandon reality. In an email, an AP editor said the agency “will henceforth use Pvt. Chelsea E. Manning … in accordance with her wishes to live as a woman.”

At least that’s an understandable reaction when presented with an individual who insists he is a she. It gets weird when you start inventing language.

With a silliness that used to be confined to liberal arts graduate seminars, NPR recently noted the necessity to “loosen the reins of gender expression” and recommended “zee, zim, zer” instead of the outdated terminology “him” and “her. ”

But made-up language is all the rage on the gay left. Outlets like The Advocate labeled children and adults who identified with their actual biology as cisgender – or “non-trans.” As Basic Rights Oregon (BRO), explained, “Referring to cisgender people as ‘non trans’ implies that cisgender people are the default and that being trans is abnormal.” The BRO, formed as an organization “to sustain and strengthen Oregon’s LGBT rights movement.” But the language is creeping in from the fringe, gaining use at The Huffington Post and even TIME.

The Sylvia Rivera Law Project, a non-profit aiding trans communities, also suggested the term “gender galaxy” in “Trans 101,” highlighting, “One way to picture gender is as a gender galaxy – a space with an infinite number of gender points that can move and that are not hierarchically ordered.”

Brave New World

The normalization of transgender is probably a done-deal. The left has declared it a civil rights issue and the media – news and entertainment – have their marching orders. Fresh from their victory on same-sex marriage, they’ll employ the same tactics.

Trans characters will be turning up in your favorite sit-coms, and ribbons will appear on awards shows. Look forward to a parade of “Princess Boys,” Chelsea Mannings and Miss/Mr Universes, all with a poignant story and all scrambling to sort out their restroom accommodations.  

MEDIA AND THE SEXUALIZATION OF CHILDREN: THOUGHTS FROM A CONCERNED PARENT by Kristen Padilla

The Today Show’s article about a transgender child came up on my Facebook newsfeed once again.

This is the third time I have seen an article from The Today Show featuring children whom, they say, have realized they were born the wrong sex.

These children are 10 years and under. They have yet to hit puberty. Their minds, personalities and bodies are still maturing, and, therefore, we would not consider them adults.

Yet, these children have become the poster children for a sexually hungry and motivated media. They are Exhibit A for a liberal, sexual agenda.

The unnaturalness of same-sex marriage or transgender practices has become naturalized, and if they can prove that people are just born that way, starting with young children, then they believe they have their argument made.

What has resulted, I think, is an overt sexualization of children.

In an important but disturbing article, Katie Yoder makes the case that the media is transfixed on transgender children and its movement.

But the media is not just using children who express a desire to be the opposite sex or love the same sex for its agenda. (This is the first problem.) Those few elite personalities behind the media are trying to influence and change the way our children believe, think about and view sexuality as evidenced in the kinds of shows targeted to our children.

Just take a look at the shows playing on ABC Family, whose tagline is “A new kind of family.” Becoming Us is about an “ordinary” (note the use of this word) Midwestern boy named Ben whose father, after his parents’ divorce, is now transitioning into a woman. Or, how about Baby Daddy, which is about another main character named Ben, whose ex-girlfriend left their baby on his doorstep and who is now raising this child with two other single male adults. Then there’s The Fosters, which is about two lesbian women raising six children. They are described as a “close-knit, loving family.” I could list other popular shows aimed at our children, like “Glee,” that are hyper-sexualized and seem to blush at nothing.

In addition, the media is obsessed with Bruce-turned-Caitlyn Jenner since this popular, all-American athlete makes the perfect model and spokesperson for the transgender movement. (He also was recently awarded the Arthur Ashe Courage Award from ESPN).

I fully expect to see cartoons, video games, children books and movies reflecting these changing views of family and marriages. Already last week I saw a new Tylenol commercial that is trying to redefine conventional family by including scenes of both lesbian and gay couples with children using the hashtag, #HowWeDoFamily.

So where does this leave me as a parent, who believes traditional marriage is best for society and children and who doesn’t share the same views and sympathies as those shared in media?

I don’t have five suggested steps or three answers that will solve our problems. I’m simply sounding the alarm. For some, an alarmist is a bad thing. But for me, alarms have always saved my life – whether it was when my apartment burned down or when a tornado passed by our home. I am grateful for alarms.

I want to provide information and pose questions. As a former journalist, the best starting place is becoming knowledgeable. Knowledge truly is power.

I want to become vigilant and aware of how a minority is trying to change the views of the majority. I want to speak up where necessary and say “No” where needed, even if it isn’t a popular thing to do. Instead of watching Disney and Pixar movies on ABC Family (which has a ridiculous amount of commercials anyway), I can rent those movies. We lived for six months in England without a TV; it is possible (and wonderful!).

Most importantly I do not want to give the media any voice where it concerns my family, particularly my son.

I remember watching the show Friends in college, while my roommate’s favorite show was Will and Grace. We laughed and made excuses for the promiscuous hetero- and homo-sexual lifestyles. They won us over with comedy. It was just so funny. However, these shows, over time, can act like guitar strings on fingers, making us calloused.

But I see more clearly now that while these shows did not change my view of sexuality, over time it has played a part in changing our society’s views. Like a stream that over many years changes the appearance of mountains, the media over time has helped to change and bend hearts and minds to its will.

I don’t want to be ignorant. I want to be vigilant and prayerful. I pray that as my husband and I teach God’s view of sexuality, according to Scripture, to our son, that the Word of God and our feeble attempt will be a louder voice than that of the media.

Like King Solomon, I, too, will say to my son, “Do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart, for they will prolong your life many years and bring you peace and prosperity.” (Prov. 3:1-2)
Concerning the media and those who wish to pervert sexuality, I will tell him, “For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave. She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it.” (Prov. 5:3-6)

I’ve heard seasoned Christians admit that documentaries on transgender children have changed their minds about the topic, documentaries that do all of the above of course. We are in days when even the elect are seemingly deceived.

I recently heard someone make the case that Christians too often lament the end of the modernist era with a fixated negativity on postmodernism and that this need not be the case. It’s trends like this that make me think “don’t be so hasty.”

Postmodernist deconstruction may have only just began to hit its stride so let’s not jump to any conclusions we might regret. After all, nobody thought there could be a repeat of the Great War and look how that turned out.

When a society cannot comprehend the plain and obvious sex of its members, or better yet invents new ones that have never existed before, trouble is brewing. As usual, children will suffer for it.

“And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭17:1-2‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭5:20‬ ‭ESV‬‬
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2013/09/03/media-s-new-mania-transfixed-transgender
http://kristenrpadilla.com/2015/07/19/media-and-the-sexualization-of-children-thoughts-from-a-concerned-parent/