Transgender Activists Put Ideology Above Safety and Well-Being of Young People

Share

Thanks largely to the mainstream media’s biased reporting, most people are unaware that the controversial bathroom bills in South Dakota and North Carolina actually approved a generous accommodation to transgendered students.  According to Peter Sprigg of CNSNews, “The South Dakota bill regarding school bathrooms, HB 1008 required ‘reasonable accommodation’ in the form of ‘a single-occupancy restroom, a unisex restroom, or the controlled use of a [faculty] restroom, locker room, or shower room.’”

Because tolerant Americans have caved in to the radical LGBT agenda, many women and young girls will now experience anxiety over entering the ladies room or a dressing room in department stores such as Target.  The Left doesn’t care about women and girls who will face the possibility of sexual harassment or even assault from biological males who have access to women’s restrooms, locker rooms and showers.

Peter Sprigg fills us in on the details:

TransgenderTransgender activists demand that society affirm and celebrate the choices of those who identify with a gender different from their actual biological sex at birth. These demands apply to even the youngest of those suffering with gender dysphoria—children as young as three years old. However, such a position may not serve the long-term best interests of the child, either medically or psychologically.

Psychiatrist Susan Bradley and psychologist Kenneth J. Zucker, both of the University of Toronto, have worked extensively with children with gender dysphoria. They report only a tiny percent of those who exhibit cross-gender behavior in childhood become transgendered adults.

Transgender activists see social acceptance as a panacea, but there is no evidence that children permitted to change gender identity will avoid the negative outcomes associated with transgender identification in adulthood, including higher rates of suicide, health problems, and need for psychiatric care. Zucker and Bradley report success in treating children for gender dysphoria, and view failure to offer such treatment as “irresponsible.”

Classifying students as male or female on the basis of their biological sex at birth is logical and objective; classifying them on the basis of a subjective, self-selected gender identity delegates to children a potentially life-changing decision they do not have the maturity to make; and may well be counter to their own best interests.

Therefore, the backlash against recent bills in South Dakota and North Carolina that addressed the issue has been ironic—since both bills actually authorized a generous accommodation to transgendered students.

Although the demands of the transgender movement raise several important public policy issues, the question of sex-separated public facilities (such as restrooms, locker rooms, and showers) looms large in the public consciousness.

When using public facilities devoted to such private activities as using a restroom, and even more when using facilities that involve undressing or appearing nude before others (such as a locker room or shower), people have always been able to count on being separated from the view and presence of people of the opposite biological sex. This policy helps protect individual safety against the threat of sexual harassment or assault and also protects a basic sense of privacy and modesty.  Continue reading

Related:

Turning American Law Upside Down for the Transgendered by David French

See Our White Paper on the Homosexual Agenda

 

 

 

, ,

One Response to Transgender Activists Put Ideology Above Safety and Well-Being of Young People

  1. Faith April 22, 2016 at 4:26 pm #

    Again, just to be clear, I am not advocating for anything lgbt.
    But when it comes to single occupancy restrooms, that is something else.
    If anyone wants to contest that, then they would have to install another bathroom in their home. Suppose my home only has one bathroom. Suppose I am married, and my spouse’s parents or in laws stayed with us also, or friends stay with us. Now there are both men and women using the same restroom. That is not a sin. We have done that ever since houses were built. If I host a home fellowship at the house, also men and women will use the same restroom. That is also not a sin, nor is it a sin to allow it. If anyone disagrees, then they will now have to install a men’s and women’s restroom for guests. But that is not necessary, because that is not a sin. The key here is that it is single occupancy, so only one person (or child) can be in there at a time. So we already have ‘gender neutral’ bathrooms in our own homes, even if we have more than one bathroom, generally both genders use it. Yes, we are in the same family, but that is why I use the example of guests, even a home fellowship of Christians.

    Now, if you are a Christian with a business, say a restaurant, and a gay person arrives to eat, (whatever form of transie they may be), are you going to say they cannot eat there? I’m asking because that is also not a violation. It is doing things like baking a cake for a gay wedding, or acknowledging or celebrating anything ‘gay’ that is the sin. If you bake a cake or whatever for their wedding, you are condoning their sin and that makes you an accomplice, and that is the sin. But if they eat at your restaurant, you are not condoning their sin. You may not even be aware that they are gay. Some of these transies put on such a disguise that we may not even recognize their birth gender, and then some have had sex changes. You might not even know what the situation is. And then some people are actually born with both male and female parts, but it is very rare. Anyway, whatever it is they might end up using the single unit restroom also. The sin enters in when you acknowledge their sin by posting a sign up that condones lgbt, like with those signs that show a ‘half male, half female’ person. That is like saying ‘they are okay with me.’ That is the sin.
    Obviously a man going into a women’s restroom with multiple stalls is wrong, and vice versa. With showers too, a similar approach can be applied, lockerrooms, etc.

    The point is we must consider all these fine lines and issues. The sin is when you condone a sin such as homosexuality. One example is also employment, there are jobs that are not open to them, like in a church setting because Christians are to have repented from such sin, so there is no place for a gay in a job at a Christian functioning organization. Another example is those ‘re-education’ trainings for this stuff. If anyone asked that of me I would give them a flat no. I would not even go along and ‘just pretend’ while maintaining my stand, because by doing so I would not be maintaining it. Even if I would lose my job, go to jail, etc., that is my stand as a Christian. By attending such a training, people acknowledge a ‘need’ for a retraining. My answer? My position is based on the bible, so it is perfect just as it is and thus nothing different is ‘needed,’ and I could never acknowledge otherwise by signing up for a training that contradicts that. So we must keep the issues in mind this way. The key is not acknowledging a sin in any way, and not slouching in our position to proclaim the truth. So we must stand up for what we believe in regarding such things. But I just wanted to make the point of the ‘unisex’ restroom, since we have these in our own homes. That does not acknowledge anything, and no gays are even using it. If you own a restaurant and hang a sign up that condones lgbt, that is the sin. You cannot control nor monitor the person entering a single unit stall, but a restroom with multiple stalls is an issue because a man and a woman may be in at the same time, or a child, etc. So just hang a female sign on that one, a male sign on the other, and that is it, no middle ground or spectrum areas there. Anyway, hopefully no one takes anything the wrong way.

    Homosexuality is to be repented of, and you cannot be both gay and Christian simultaneously.

    “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6; 9-11

    Notice how it says in verse 11: such ‘were’ some of you, but then no longer.
    Also see Romans 1; 26-28, Leviticus 18; 22, 20; 13, Deuteronomy 22; 5, 23; 17, and more.

    ( :

Leave a Reply