The Gaytheist Agenda

Not that this hasn’t happened countless times before, but it’s always nice to have another documented case of it. The more we have, the stronger our case is against these “pro-family” groups that seek only to harm.

Dr. Gary Remafedi Says Conservative Group Guilty of “Gross Misrepresentation” And Questions If Focus Actually Read His Article Before Misquoting It

NEW YORK – Truth Wins Out published a letter today from a researcher who claims Focus on the Family twisted his work. In the letter, Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H., a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, asked Focus on the Family’s leader James Dobson to stop misrepresenting his findings from a key 1992 study.

“I want to draw your attention to a gross misrepresentation of our research at the website of Focus on the Family,” Remafedi wrote in his letter to Dobson. “More important, had the authors of “Myths and Facts” actually read the article, they would have found no support for their contention that ‘many children experience a period of sexual-identity confusion when they can be influenced in either direction.’”

(Full Text of Letter Below)

Remafedi’s report was published in Pediatrics in 1992. The study explored patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of more than 34,000 Minnesota students in grades 7 to 12. Focus on the Family distorted his findings to make the case that young people should not learn about homosexuality because they were sexually confused, and could thus be influenced by educational material.

“Focus on the Family has engaged in a disturbing pattern of misrepresenting the work of legitimate researchers to further their anti-gay agenda,” said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of TruthWinsOut.org. “We call on Focus on the Family to immediately expunge all falsehoods and fallacies presented as‘facts’ from their past and present literature.”

Focus on the Family has an ignoble history of manipulating or cherry picking the research of genuine scientists. Last year, several researchers held Dobson accountable for misrepresenting their work. Letters and videos from these scientists can be viewed at www.RespectMyResearch.org.

TruthWinsOut.org is currently working to find examples where right wing organizations have twisted scientific work. If you have a case that is worthy of investigation, please contact TWO’s Director of Research, Peter Cabrera, at petercabrera74@yahoo.com

FULL TEXT OF LETTER

Dr. James Dobson
Focus on the Family
Colorado Springs, CO 80995

April 30, 2008

Dear Dr. Dobson,

I want to draw your attention to a gross misrepresentation of our research at the website of “Focus on the Family” (see here). In the third paragraph of the article, “Myths and Facts,” our research is cited in support of the statement: “During early adolescence, many children experience a period of sexual-identity confusion when they can easily be influenced in either direction.”

First, please note that the citation itself is incorrect. The original article was published in Pediatrics, not Journal of Pediatrics. The correct reference is: Remafedi G, Resnick M, Blum R, Harris L. Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics. 89(4):714-721, 1992. More important, had the authors of “Myths and Facts” actually read the article, they would have found no support for their contention that “many children experience a period of sexual-identity confusion when they can be influenced in either direction.” The word confusion does not appear in our article; nor did we find that anyone can influence a young person’s sexual identity.

The purpose of our study was to explore patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of more than 34,000 Minnesota students in grades 7 to 12. We found that the percentage of student who reported being “unsure” about their orientation steadily declined with age from 25.9% in 12-year-old persons to 5% in 18 year-old students (p. 716). Youth who were “unsure” were more likely than others to entertain homosexual fantasies and attractions and less likely to have had heterosexual experiences (p. 720). These and other data suggested that uncertainty about sexual orientation “gradually gives way to heterosexual or homosexual identification with the passage of time and/or with increasing sexual experience” (p. 720).

Please ask the authors of the misstatements to correct them as soon as possible. In the interest of accurate translation of research into practice, a copy of this letter will be posted at Truth Wins Out. Thank you for your attention.
Respectfully yours,

Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Pediatrics
University of Minnesota
428 Oak Grove St.
Minneapolis, MN 55403

cc: Truth Wins Out

If you’re in California, and even if you’re not, it’s possible you’ve heard of SB-777. Chances are, however, that what you’ve heard is more propaganda and hysteria than reality. Some claim the bill promotes homsexuality, even “indoctrinates” children into homosexuality. Others claim that words like mom, dad, husband, wife, etc. would be banned from textbooks and that prom kings and queens would be prohibited. The most outrageous claims are that the bill requires bathrooms and locker rooms be unisex and that it encourages cross-dressing.

Well I’m going to tell you the unvarnished truth about SB-777. First I’ll present to you the actual text of the bill so you can read it yourself. I’ll leave out some of the most boring parts about teaching credentials, access to libraries and the like (the entire bill is quite mundane) but you’re welcome to read it in it’s entirety here. Now, on to SB-777.

…..
SB 777, Kuehl. Discrimination.
(1) Existing law states that it is the policy of the state to afford equal rights and opportunities to all persons in the public or private elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions of the state regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability and prohibits a person from being subjected to discrimination on those bases and contains various provisions to implement that policy.
Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction and activities and, instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose.
(2) Existing laws relating to education refer to “handicapped pupils,” “handicapped adults,” “physically handicapped pupils,” “physically handicapped adults,” “the handicapped,” and “handicapped
persons.”
This bill would change these terms to “pupils with disabilities,” “adults with disabilities,” “pupils with physical disabilities,” “adults with physical disabilities,” and “persons with disabilities.”
…..
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Student Civil Rights Act.
SEC. 1.5. Section 200 of the Education Code is amended to read:
200. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.
SEC. 2. Section 210.1 of the Education Code is amended and renumbered to read:
210.3. “Educational institution” means a public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school or institution; the governing board of a school district; or any combination of school districts or counties recognized as the administrative agency for public elementary or secondary schools.
SEC. 3. Section 210.1 is added to the Education Code, to read:
210.1. “Disability” includes mental and physical disability as defined in Section 12926 of the Government Code.
SEC. 4. Section 210.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
210.7. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.
SEC. 5. Section 212 of the Education Code is repealed.
SEC. 6. Section 212 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212. “Nationality” includes citizenship, country of origin, and national origin.
SEC. 7. Section 212.1 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.1. “Race or ethnicity” includes ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.
SEC. 8. Section 212.3 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.3. “Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.
SEC. 9. Section 212.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.6. “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
SEC. 10. Section 219 is added to the Education Code, to read:
219. Disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.
SEC. 11. Section 220 of the Education Code is amended to read:
220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

SEC. 12. Section 220.5 of the Education Code is amended and renumbered to read:
221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.
SEC. 13. Section 235 of the Education Code is amended to read:
235. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of the characteristics listed in Section 220 in any aspect of the operation of alternative schools or charter schools.
SEC. 14. Section 260 of the Education Code is amended to read:
260. The governing board of a school district shall have the primary responsibility for ensuring that school district programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 220 and for monitoring compliance with any and all rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 11138 of the Government Code.
SEC. 15. Section 14058 of the Education Code is amended to read:
14058. (a) For all adults with disabilities educated by the county superintendent of schools, for all secondary schools maintained in juvenile halls, juvenile homes, and juvenile camps by the county superintendent of schools, and for all pupils enrolled in grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in opportunity schools and classes and all continuation schools and classes maintained by the county superintendent of schools, the Superintendent shall allow the same amount as he or she would compute for the foundation program of a high school district under Section 41712.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the total of allowances for education of adults with disabilities in classes established by the county superintendent of schools pursuant to Section 52570 or 78440 shall not exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in any one fiscal year. The Superintendent shall establish a system of priorities that he or she shall by rule or regulation adopt that shall give highest priority to those counties in which no program or an insufficient program for the education of adults with disabilities is provided by the school districts within the county, in order to comply with the
imitation prescribed by this section.
…..
SEC. 35. Section 66251 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66251. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons, regardless of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other basis that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the postsecondary institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor.
SEC. 36. Section 66260.5 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66260.5. “Disability” includes mental and physical disability as defined in Section 12926 of the Government Code.
SEC. 37. Section 66260.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66260.7. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.
SEC. 38. Section 66261.5 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66261.5. “Nationality” includes citizenship, country of origin, and national origin.
SEC. 39. Section 66261.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66261.7. “Race or ethnicity” includes ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, and ethnic background.
SEC. 40. Section 66262 of the Education Code is repealed.
SEC. 41. Section 66262 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66262. “Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.
SEC. 42. Section 66262.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66262.7. “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
SEC. 43. Section 66269 is added to the Education Code, to read:
66269. Disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.
SEC. 44. Section 66270 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66270. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.
SEC. 44.5. Section 66270 of the Education Code is amended to read:

66270. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the Government Code or any other characteristic that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.
SEC. 45. Section 66270.5 of the Education Code is amended and renumbered to read:
66271. This chapter shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.
SEC. 46. Section 66292 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66292. (a) The governing board of a community college district shall have the primary responsibility for ensuring that community college district programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 66270.
(b) The Chancellor’s office of the California Community Colleges shall have responsibility for monitoring the compliance of each district with any and all regulations adopted pursuant to Section 11138 of the Government Code.
SEC. 47. Section 66292.1 of the Education Code is amended to read:

66292.1. The Chancellor of the California State University and the president of each California State University campus shall have the primary responsibility for ensuring that campus programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 66270.
SEC. 48. Section 66292.2 of the Education Code is amended to read:
66292.2. The President of the University of California and the chancellor of each University of California campus shall have primary responsibility for ensuring that campus programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and the characteristics listed in Section 66270.
…..

There it is. Not a word about indoctrinating children into homosexuality, teaching them to cross dress or allowing them to share bathrooms. There’s also nothing about outlawing terms like mother, father, husband and wife in textbooks. All it says is that discrimination against students based on disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, is prohibited. Now why is it that the bill prohibits discrimination based on so many factors, yet the RRRW is only launching a crusade against two, those being the protections for sexual orientation and gender identity? In all of the articles about SB-777 we’ve seen no concerns raised over the fact that it protects students based on race, ethnicity, nationality, or disability. Why is that?

Notice in particular that the bill prohibits discrimination against people based on their religion, yet nobody is raising concerns that children will be “indoctrinated” into religion while in school. (Mind you the RRRW would like it very much if children were indoctrinated into religion–their religion–in schools.) I’ve also not seen any articles claiming children will be harmed because their schools cannot discriminate based on any other factors. No, the only concerns anybody has is that students might have protections based on their gender identity and sexual orientation.

So in reality it has nothing at all to do with protecting the children, for they don’t care one whit about the children who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Children like Lawrence King aren’t worthy of having equal rights and protections under the law. Pushing their anti-gay agenda and keeping LGBT people permanent second-class citizens is far more important, apparently, than the lives and safety of the children they claim to care about.

Now you know the truth about SB-777. It prohibits discrimination in California schools based on disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. Nothing more, nothing less. If anybody tries to say otherwise, they’re simply not giving you the facts.

 

That’s the simple yet critical lesson of this video . Please be warned that this piece contains some adult language and brief violence.

Two months ago 15-year-old Lawrence King of Oxnard, CA, was shot and killed because of his sexual orientation and gender expression. Even ten years ago there might have been, at best, an article about the crime in the local newspaper. But thanks to the power of the Internet not only has the crime received attention on national television and in major media publications but people around the world know his name and will keep him in their memories. Now The Washington Post has done a poignant article on this very phenomenon, and the way Lawrence King’s death has affected people who would otherwise never have heard of him.

No one really dies on the Internet. A private life becomes public. Every life finds an audience. Look at Lawrence “Larry” King. The openly gay eighth-grader who was shot and killed nearly two months ago lives on.

Larry lives on Wikipedia, where we learn about his tense life at school, the name-calling, the taunts, the teasing. Larry lives on Facebook, MySpace and YouTube, where he’s mourned by strangers not willing to let go. Larry lives on Web sites where the 15-year-old’s photos — Larry in front of the White House, Larry on ice skates, Larry getting a haircut — stare back at us, as if incarnated. Alive.

The Internet, so vibrant, so potent, brings those attributes to the dead, immortalizing them in unexpected new ways. Where once there would have only been a candlelight vigil outside Larry’s house or school in Southern California, now there’s also a virtual vigil in real time that knows no geographic bounds. Where once people would have attended a memorial service and cried about Larry’s sad story, now they can also bear witness and become the sad story’s

…..

Here’s what we know: At E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, Calif., Larry wore purple eye shadow, pink lipstick and high-heeled boots. And Larry reportedly told Brandon McInerney, 14, a member of the Young Marines program, that he liked him. Then, on the morning of Feb. 12, during English class, Brandon allegedly walked into the computer lab with a handgun and shot Larry in the back of the head.

Larry’s death — reminiscent of the murders of Matthew Shepard in 1998 and Eddie Araujo in 2002, both also gay — was inadequately covered by the mainstream media, gay rights activists say.

…..

Nevertheless, Larry is immortalized on the Web. Google, after all, doesn’t forget. RememberingLawrence.org , sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, shouldn’t be confused with RememberLarry.com , put up by the slain teen’s family. (The Kings declined to comment for this story.)

…..

Says Joshua Porter Zeller, a 17-year-old junior at Trinity Catholic High School in St. Louis: “If it wasn’t for the Internet, I wouldn’t have known about what happened to Larry. I have a religion class. In freshman year, the class was about church history. This year the first semester was on the New Testament, and right now the second semester is on morality. I asked my teacher if were going to talk about Larry’s shooting. He said no.”

Zeller, who is straight, is helping organize a “Day of Silence” in the school’s cafeteria on April 24. He also started a Facebook group a few weeks ago. It now has 169 members, mostly strangers.

Here’s to you, Lawrence King, and to the day there will be no more deaths like yours.

Major beef with the article. The person they said was “gay” named “Eddie” Araujo was not gay, so far as I know. Her name was Gwen Araujo as she was known to her friends, and if you look up a picture of her you’ll find that
anyone who would mistake her for a gay man clearly is delusional. She was killed when men whom she had had sexual contact with found out that she was not a biological female.

Her death rocked the *TRANSGENDER* community (and hopefully Queer community, though presumably not if articles are still being written about her using the wrong name and pronouns, seeing as how even her legal name is now Gwen), as just one more of a slew of examples of our trans sisters (and brothers) who has been murdered for her gender identity, and then had the double dishonor of being punished by a media that refuses to tell the truth about her life. (run on sentence, but Gwen’s death makes me angry)

I truly believe that you didn’t know any of this before posting that article (or you would have said something to this efffect in your commentary), but I urge you, if you consider yourself an ally to transfolk, to educate yourself as best you can.
Thanks

 

You’re absolutely right, Ezekiel, and I apologize for the oversight. Gwen was a transgender teen who was brutally killed by three men because her biological gender didn’t match her presented gender (she was pre-op at the time). Normally I would pick up on the blatant error presented in the Wa-Po article–Araujo was transgender and not gay (though some people can indeed be both), but I’m afraid I put the post up right before I went to bed and being tired I’m afraid I missed that. Again I’m sorry for the error and meant no offense.

 

The next comment is from Ebon who said:

 

Poor guy. And you know, you just know, that a bunch of people are thinking it was his own fault for being gay or for fancying the other kid. A Limbaugh or an O’Reilly might even say it. Scumbags.

My faith holds that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, just another variation of the human condition (full disclosure: I am personally bisexual). However, it does hold that celebrating or excusing violence, even necessary violence is unacceptable. Most atheists I’ve met hold similar views. And yet, apparently, we’re the danger to humanity. Go figure.

 

Indeed. I’m sick to death of the “blame the victim” mentality that’s constantly thrust upon LGBTs and others like us. It takes the responsibility off the true offenders and relieves them of the need to change their behavior. I find it interesting that the RRRW wrings their hands over the “persecution” of Christians left and right, and always lays the blame for that squarely on the feet of everybody else. Yet when it comes to LGBTs/atheists/etc. the blame for bigoted acts against us are always our own faults.

I’m with you. I despise hatred, violence and everything associated with them. I would love a world in which they were non-existent.

A few weeks back I brought you the story of Thomas Beatie, a transgender man who is pregnant and carrying the child that his wife cannot. I’d been scoping RW sources expecting to see some sort of murmuring about the situation and was rather perplexed that I’d not found anything significant. I was particularly surprised that the usual suspects, the RRRW sources who make it their duty to fret over anything LGBTs do that is remotely connected with children or family building, were dead silent on the matter. But since Beatie was on Oprah yesterday there has been a secondary surge of chatter about him on the WWW, and finally some of the more antagonistic RW sites are talking about his story. One of the more repugnant sites, NewsBusters, chimed in and here is some of what they had to say:

 

On Friday’s “Good Morning America,” for the second day in a row, and the third time in a little over a week, the ABC program promoted the story of a transgendered man who is having a baby via artificial insemination. At no time did GMA feature any guest to challenge or question the psychological ramifications for a child who was born from a pregnant “father.”

During the April 4 segment on the subject, GMA guest news anchor David Muir described Thomas Beatie’s decision as “very controversial.” One would assume that a controversial decision would have two sides to it. But over the course of three segments, totaling ten minutes and 16 seconds, the closest the network program got was on April 3, when psychologist Jeffrey Gardere mildly advised, “It really is incumbent upon this individual, his wife, to try to give this as much dignity as possible, to not make it a joke, to not make it that something that’s cheap [sic].”

 
I was unaware that programs like Good Morning America were obligated to provide two sides to every story. Fox “News”, which claims to be Fair and Balanced, for example, only presents the Right Wing version of what they report. Interesting how the RW only cares about “balance” when they feel they’re not getting heard. If the opposite side is left out in the cold it’s just too bad.

 

On Friday’s program, reporter Andrea Canning played a clip from Beatie’s appearance on Oprah Winfrey’s daytime program and then approvingly described him as “the man the world has been waiting to meet.” While discussing the issue on March 26, co-host Chris Cuomo tentatively asked an obstetrician, who approved of the pregnancy, if there were any psychological implications for the child. After being told that only love was necessary, Cuomo quickly concurred and added, “It’s a good point to make, doctor. Oddity aside, biology aside, it is all about love of this child and as long as that’s present, everything else is really going to be normal.”

Finally, as the Culture and Media Institute’s Kristen Fyfe pointed out in an April 3 posting on the subject, GMA and other shows insist on referring to Beatie as a pregnant man. Of course, this ignores the fact that men simply do not give birth.

The child is going to have a father and a mother. Isn’t that what the RW hand-wringers keep insisting she simply must have to be psychologically healthy? I don’t see what all the fuss is about. And men can give birth if they are transgender men who have kept their female reproductive organs. Thomas Beatie is hard evidence of this.

Now let’s move on to some of the comments posted to the article, which are even more crude than the article itself. Brace yourself.

 

Sheesh!

This guy/gal is a freak! Why isn’t he/she portrayed as a freak!

This isn’t normal no matter how loving ABC wants to pretend it is.

…..

This whole sordid situation is clearly about one thing, $$$$$$$$$.

This strange (really STRANGE) couple doesn’t seem to care about the mental trauma they are inflicting on this child. Chances are good this kid will grow up with so many mental problems that could easily lead to suicide or mass murder, etc. Their supposed human desire to bear children is so much BS. Follow this case for the next 20 years and I’m sure you’ll see nothing but despair for this child.

Meanwhile these two losers will be reaping the ignobility they deserve, but hey, they’ll have lots of bucks to cover their shame.

Interesting how certain people, typically RW Christians, consider themselves the arbiters of “normal”, and worry about the trauma inflicted on the children of LGBT parents. What’s sadly ironic is how many of them have graced the pages of Conservative Babylon for heinous crimes against children and other things that would not be considered “normal” by any stretch of the imagination.

If this person still has a uertus …in my book that consitutes a …….FEMALE.

What is the deal …..it changed it’s name….is now legaly a man, so it’s gets pregnent and now is legealy a pregnent man.

it still has female parts that make it possible to have a baby…..so it still is a female even if it is SO menta;ly challanged that is thinks is a man.

I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world’s first analrapist

…..

First of all, This person is a Female. That’s how it works MSM. And you can say “Man is Pregnant” all day long, and twice on Sunday, but a Virgin Birth by a Man it is not.

It’s a Pregnant Woman - - Woman by Birth — and she may shave and had her Breast removed, but Woman by Birth cannot be Reported as “Man is Pregnant”.

The Public isn’t that Stupid. Evidently the MSM thinks we’re dumber than dirt.

…..

This is NOT a pregnant man!

This, is a pregnant WOMAN who thinks she is a man.

Holy crap! Give us all a break from these freeks.

…..

In other words, there is no such thing as a Christian. You guys are all just Atheists who think you’re Christians. After all, you were born Atheists, and if you were born that way no matter how much you think you’re Christians and proclaim yourself Christians, that doesn’t make you Christians. Dunking yourself in some water, wearing a cross around your neck and reading a book doesn’t change the basic fact that you were born an Atheist and will die an Atheist.

 

I feel for Thomas Beatie, I really do. He, his wife and his child will have an uphill battle all the way–not because of anything they’ve done but because of the hateful bigotries of others. There are far too many people who believe they have the right to decide what is right and wrong for everybody, and to make life a living hell for those who don’t comply with their narrow schema. That is very sad indeed.

Calpernia Addams explains it all to you, with a hefty dose of humor.

Thomas Beatie transitioned from female to male nearly a decade ago, but he didn’t have his reproductive organs removed. So when it was discovered that his wife Nancy was unable to have children, Thomas decided that he would do so. But while the experience has brought the couple closer together, it has presented many unique challenges for them.

Our situation sparks legal, political, and social unknowns. We have only begun experiencing opposition from people who are upset by our situation. Doctors have discriminated against us, turning us away due to their religious beliefs. Health care professionals have refused to call me by a male pronoun or recognize Nancy as my wife. Receptionists have laughed at us. Friends and family have been unsupportive; most of Nancy’s family doesn’t even know I’m transgender.

This whole process, from trying to get pregnant to being pregnant, has been a challenge for us. The first doctor we approached was a reproductive endocrinologist. He was shocked by our situation and told me to shave my facial hair. After a $300 consultation, he reluctantly performed my initial checkups. He then required us to see the clinic’s psychologist to see if we were fit to bring a child into this world and consulted with the ethics board of his hospital. A few months and a couple thousand dollars later, he told us that he would no longer treat us, saying he and his staff felt uncomfortable working with “someone like me.”

…..

When I finally got pregnant for the first time, I ended up having an ectopic pregnancy with triplets. It was a life-threatening event that required surgical intervention, resulting in the loss of all embryos and my right fallopian tube. When my brother found out about my loss, he said, “It’s a good thing that happened. Who knows what kind of monster it would have been.”

“Someone like me”…”Who knows what kind of monster it would have been”. While I’m used to the bigotry of others I’m still taken aback at how hateful their words can be. Sadly some of them likely think they’re just good people espousing their “deeply held religious beliefs” and that they’re doing nothing wrong.

On successfully getting pregnant a second time, we are proud to announce that this pregnancy is free of complications and our baby girl has a clean bill of health. We are happily awaiting her birth, with an estimated due date of July 3, 2008.

How does it feel to be a pregnant man? Incredible. Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am. In a technical sense I see myself as my own surrogate, though my gender identity as male is constant. To Nancy, I am her husband carrying our child — I am so lucky to have such a loving, supportive wife. I will be my daughter’s father, and Nancy will be her mother. We will be a family.

Outside the local medical community, people don’t know I’m five months’ pregnant. But our situation ultimately will ask everyone to embrace the gamut of human possibility and to define for themselves what is normal.

Of course the RRRW will be screeching about the notion of “redefining normal”. But from the first time that anybody adopted a child, blended families via re-marriage, utilized IVP or otherwise engaged in any form of “family building” other than plain old sex they were “redefining normal”. It’s only when people different from themselves try to build a family that the RRRW begins to have the vapors and wrings their hands about what is or is not “normal” in their very narrow viewpoint.

I think what Thomas Beatie is doing is wonderful and groundbreaking. I wish them and their daughter-to-be all the best.

As you may have read here previously, Representative Stacey Campfield (R) proposed a bill whereby elementary and middle schools in TN would be banned from teaching or discussing any form of sexuality other than heterosexuality. I’m pleased to report that his attempt failed miserably.

“I’m trying to find out where this bill came from or is it part of your re-election legislation,” an annoyed Rep. Ulysses Jones asked sponsor Rep. Stacey Campfield, a Knoxville Republican.
Advertisement

The lawmakers argued and were gaveled into silence at times when they raised their voices, and in the end, the House panel sent the bill to the State Board of Education, effectively killing the proposal.

…..

Lilith Jackson, 9, her hair highlighted in bright pink, sat on the front row at the meeting with her two moms, Audra Kelly and Ardyce Mercier.

They think teachers at her school, the Brown Academy public magnet school in Chattanooga, should be able to talk about families with two mommies or two daddies as being healthy family structures.

“They should be teaching about other kinds of relationships and families,” Kelly said. She agreed that teachers should not being talking about sexuality in terms of “who is sleeping with whom.”

…..

Groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Tennessee Education Association said no Tennessee schools are promoting gay rights.

“There is not a problem here,” said Hedy Weinberg of the ACLU of Tennessee. “It is a clear attack on one community.”

…..

Campfield said he had heard complaints from two school districts but had not verified them. He went on to say that the Education Department could opt to include the topic as part of school curriculum.

“It is possible,” said Bruce Opie of the Department of Education. “But it’s highly unlikely and highly improbable.”

Campfield noted a 2006 resolution by the National Education Association saying that activities and programs must increase “acceptance” of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.

Tennessee Education Association lobbyist Jerry Winters insisted that TEA does not advocate for gays in schools.

Campfield lost one other battle: He asked for a roll call vote on any motion. Chairman Rep. Joe Towns denied the request. It appeared the subcommittee voted along party lines, with Democrats choosing to send the bill to the Board of Education.

My take? Campfield pulled the two “complaints” out of his backside as part of his anti-gay agenda. Kudos to Rep. Jones for his refusal to tolerate Campfield’s blatantly bigoted proposal. It’s high time such hateful legislation be recognized for what it is.