Researchers in the Netherlands collected data from 2,700 children beginning at age 11 until they turned 25. In doing so, they polled them on their level of discontent with their gender and found that a majority grew out of any confusion they were experiencing. //

What this means is simple: The current institutionally-pushed trend, from the White House to the American Medical Association, of "affirming" and "transitioning" children is leaving them permanently damaged and unable to naturally work through their issues. From surgeries to hormone blockers, the "care" being given isn't care at all and is counter-productive to a child becoming comfortable with their natural body.

Confusion among children about gender is not new. What is new is treating it as a medical issue instead of a mental health issue. Children who feel uncomfortable about their bodies don't need adults pumping them full of drugs and telling them to dress like the opposite sex. They need adults to tell them the truth and guide them through what has always been a chaotic, confusing period for adolescents. //

Unfortunately, there is a lot of money to be made by "transitioning" children, and the medical establishment is firmly behind the practice. //

How do you change a status quo like that? It won't be easy, and it doesn't appear any amount of data will be enough. That means a lot more children are going to be harmed by those seeking to "affirm" their gender confusion. At its core, the practice is taking advantage of adolescent realities for personal and ideological gain.

The end goal here isn't ambiguous. It's not to just promote radicalism. It's to make it preeminent and to raise it above everything that you believe in and hold dear. It's only going to get worse from here. The far left is playing for keeps, and dominance is the point.

In Florida, a court challenge to the hotly contested Parental Rights In Education Act has ended with a settlement reached between the plaintiffs and the state. You can read through the media reports about this conclusion and see the bias plainly on display.

The Associated Press talked of “the fallout from Florida’s settlement.” The New Republic claimed the “settlement has curtailed the ‘Don’t Say Gay' Law”. The Miami Herald, in imbalanced thinking, declares “DeSantis’ homophobic law doesn’t survive court challenge intact.”

These are all very dramatic interpretations of a court agreement where the law in question was, in reality, completely upheld. //

Not a single thing about the law was affected. No elements were moved, no content was altered – not a single word has been changed. So just what are the journalism geniuses claiming? //

This new court decision has to then be regarded as a complete failure. Not only was the law upheld but no portion of it has been struck down. The settlement that was reached can better be described as a “Clarification." //

While representatives from Equity Florida pointed at the vague language of the law leading to some using it oppressively, the fact is the false negative reporting on the law created that atmosphere. Claims about the restrictions that did not exist led to adverse reactions in some areas, and it was all rooted in a lie. This is proven in the settlement terms.

The opponents are cheering all of the things they are now permitted to do today as a result, but this is coming about without having changed a single aspect of the law - meaning that all of those items were originally permitted. Yet today we have the press cheering they are allowed to do what they had always been allowed to do, and they are claiming victory while nothing has changed.

Those who refused to read the language of the law are now refusing to read the language of the settlement, and as a result, they are cheering wholesale changes taking place when they have the very same legislation in place that they had years ago. The deluded thinking is a marvel to behold. //

Quizzical
44 minutes ago
I've read the law in question. It has often been observed that the word "gay" is not contained in the law at all. For good measure, the neither the word "don't" nor "say" appears in the law, either. The word "parent" or some variation on it (parents, parental, etc.) appears 39 times. It's a law about parental rights, not about saying gay or not.

Decision of Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appels said Indiana must allow transgender students to use school bathroom consistent with their gender identity – ACLU calls it a “victory” for transgender rights. //

These three points are each important:

First, the Seventh Circuit Order, as Bloomberg points out, merely affirmed a preliminary injunction saying that it was “likely” that the student would win her case. Now the case goes back to the Indiana federal trial-level court for further litigation and trial. The school district could still win that case, at trial or on appeal of the trial results.

Second, the Seventh Circuit’s ruling is inherently weak because it relied on Bostock. In that case, as Bloomberg correctly points out, the Supreme court held for the first time that Title VII employment discrimination claims could be brought by transgender employees. But what Bloomberg omits to say is that Bostock expressly held that its ruling did not apply to any other transgender situation. //

So to the extent the Seventh Circuit relied on Bostock, it was mistaken to do so.

Third, Bloomberg points out that in a similar case in Virginia where the Fourth Circuit backed the transgender student, the Supreme Court also declined to review the case, making this the second time the Court has declined to review such a case.

But there is hope!

That is because there is a definite conflict, or “circuit split,” in how different U.S. Courts of Appeals handle this type of case. //

the Court may be sensing the tremendous turmoil across the country regarding the rights of “transgender” students, both in the bathroom context but more importantly in the school sports context, and the Court may well be waiting for an appropriate time and case to grant review and weigh in on these critical issues. //

sidwhite in reply to sidwhite. | January 17, 2024 at 11:07 am
Reading further I see that this is a rejection of having a hearing on the temporary order rather than a court decision.

The conditioning is the point. They want normal people to change the way they speak and even the way they perceive things they see in public. With enough beatings over the head, many will do just that. //

Cliff-Hanger
a day ago
LibreOffice. Completely free, of charge and open-source and, most importantly, free of microsoft (funny name for a company founded by a womanizer, ain't it?) though it is available for windows.