What even BBC Newsnight is now having to admit (plus one other article)
By The Hermits, Jul 25 2019 04:31PM
Two articles about the more unseen issues about the LGBT agenda. The first is a very personal article written by a 'reformed' homosexual. The second shows that the medical treatment such as given to young children here in Britain is very suspect, and now at last the medical profession is starting to look at the drugs that it is giving these poor confused children.
These articles are so clear that I do not have to comment further!
Beauty queen speaks the truth: ‘Coming out as conservative is harder than coming out as gay’
July 23, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — When a beauty queen was stripped of her Miss Michigan title because her old social media postings were deemed “offensive, insensitive and inappropriate,” she declared, “Coming out as a conservative is way harder than coming out as gay in today's society.”
Kathy Zhu tweeted a screenshot last Friday of an email she had received from the pageant’s governing organization, explaining that her title had been revoked after tweets had been discovered concerning her “refusal to try on a hijab.”
The Miss World America Organization strips conservative activist Kathy Zhu of her Miss Michigan title for refusing to Wear Hijab and “insensitive” social media posts.
“It is honestly sad that the left refers to statistics and facts as racist and insensitive,” Zhu said in a statement to The Independent, UK.
“I am very glad that I now have the opportunity to speak out about the unjust treatment of conservatives,” continued the University of Michigan student.
Zhu, who was just old enough to vote in the 2016 Presidential election, also appeared in a YouTube video titled “Why this 18-year-old is voting for Donald Trump.”
Zhu is 100 percent correct. I should know; I’ve done both.
I agree with Zhu: Coming out as conservative is far harder than coming out as gay. I should know; I’ve done both.
I “came out” as gay after my wife and I divorced in the late 1990s. I was amazed at the acceptance I experienced. No one condemned me or my predilections.
My experience “coming out as a conservative” to other gays, lesbians, and my liberal neighbors and colleagues, on the other hand, was often exceedingly unpleasant.
As I began forming friendships with other gay men in the Washington, D.C. area, one thing quickly became very clear to me: I had better keep my political and social opinions to myself. Or else.
When I began dating a man who was related to a powerful Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he felt obligated to disclose the fact up front as if it might be a deal-breaker. I felt sorry for him: The look on his face was pained, as if he were confessing some unforgivable crime. He was astounded when I congratulated him and told him I thought his cousin was one of the best men in Congress.
Once when we were about to attend an event with his extended family, he warned me to keep my mouth shut about being a conservative because it would ruin everyone’s evening. He went so far as to assure me that one of his siblings who taught political science at a prestigious Washington, D.C. university would be so enraged he would storm out of the gathering in disgust.
Another time I was confronted by his sister-in-law who was clearly mortified that her husband’s brother was dating a conservative. And more than that, she demanded to know, “How can you be a conservative? You’re gay!”
I looked her in the eye and countered, “You’re an adult. You have children. How can you be a liberal?”
I would later tell that story as I traveled around the country testifying before state legislatures and others about the dangers of same-sex marriage:
There are lots of other examples, such as the time I went to a party where most everyone was a member of the Metropolitan Community Church, with its exclusively LGBT congregation. I was engaged in a long conversation about art and architecture with the ‘wife’ of the female minister who led the Church. Thirty minutes into our discussion, I mentioned I was a conservative and she just drifted away without saying a word, as if I were suddenly a pariah.
Another time I submitted an opinion piece to The Washington Post titled “Why I oppose same-sex marriage.” Before publishing my commentary, I had to speak with three different editors because none of them could fathom that anyone who is gay could disagree with the notion of “gay marriage.” I had to repeatedly assure them that I was indeed “gay.”
Within 24 hours of the article’s publication, a page was created on a gay website with my picture, excerpts from my writings, and more than 100 mostly vile comments posted, all meant to intimidate and prevent folks like me from speaking up.
One gay man in Italy found me on Facebook and sent me this note, saying I would be responsible for the suicides of gay youth:
If Maryland would approve the repeal ... i think that every suicide of a gay young in Maryland will be caused a little by your piece.
Others said, “Call him Little Roy Cohn;” “He's the gay equivalent of Uncle Tom;” “He's just another republican house faggot. Pay him no mind.”
Needless to say, over time I lost all of my gay friends.
This story has a happy ending. The backlash I experienced simply for being a conservative contributed to my being radicalized. Not only did I become an outspoken critic of same-sex marriage in the years leading up to the Supreme Court’s devestating Obergefell decision, I was moved to reject homosexuality and to live chastely.
Eventually, my wife and I put our marriage back together again. That was eight years ago. Not long after that, I returned to full communion with the Catholic Church.
Moral of the story: Conservatives are tolerant and possess human compassion; Liberals have no need for you if you disagree with them.
UK investigating study used to justify giving puberty-blockers to 11-year-olds
UNITED KINGDOM, July 23, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — When the British National Health Service (NHS) decided that hormone-blocking drugs may be dispensensed to gender-confused children as young as eleven, it did so partly on the basis of a study that’s now being investigated for poor methodology and omitted data.
Puberty-blockers are the first precursor to so-called sex reassignment surgery. They prevent puberty’s changes to a teen’s body from taking root and can permanently weaken bones. At age sixteen, patients are then given “cross-sex” hormones to develop traits resembling the opposite of their sex, such as testosterone developing muscle and body hair in girls and estrogen helping boys develop breast tissue.
Critics argue that there are numerous health risks surrounding the physical and psychological reinforcement of gender confusion
The Tavistock Clinic, run by the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), offers young “transgender” patients puberty-blockers. Until 2011, a child had to be at least sixteen to qualify, but that year, researchers from GIDS and University College Hospitals began a study into the drugs’ “psychological, social and physical effects,” which led to the age being lowered to eleven, the BBC reports.
“All patients were seen regularly by mental health professionals,” GIDS claims. “They concluded that there was no evidence of harms that could be directly attributed to the treatment and that continuation of the study was appropriate."
However, an investigation by the BBC program Newsnight uncovered evidence of key information that was withheld from the participants’ parents and from health officials, as well as of problems with the study’s methodology.
Clear cause-effect relationships cannot be reliably determined due to the study’s small sample size of 44 kids and lack a control group against which to compare the results, according to the report. More concerning, neither the participating children nor their parents were told that “transitions” normally follow up the puberty-blockers with cross-sex hormones.
“I don’t see that the parents and their children could really have given informed consent given the lack of information that was provided,” Oxford sociology professor Michael Biggs said. “They were not given the information they needed in order to take this momentous life-changing step.”
Most alarmingly, follow-up data showed a “significant increase” of kids in the study answering that they “deliberately try to hurt or kill myself” after being on the blockers for a year.
Prof. Susan Bewley, who chairs Healthwatch, a charity for science and integrity in health care, is one of a number of doctors raising concerns about the lack of evidence in this area of medicine.
That change “is very worrying,” Bewley said. “Good medical practice would normally be very reflective about an increase in harms.” Yet these findings weren’t passed along to the Health Research Authority (HRA).
“The information that Newsnight has brought to our attention has not been raised with us before,” HRA chief executive Teresa Allen said in response to Newsnight’s revelations. “We will therefore investigate further, which may include a review of the original ethics opinion.” NHS England claims its policies on hormone-blockers “was based on international evidence and developed with clinical experts and publicly consulted on,” as well as an evaluation of the 2011 study (a copy of which the BBC says NHS has failed to provide). Nevertheless, in light of the new revelations, “the specification will be reviewed.”
In April, five former clinic workers resigned from Tavistock in protest, accusing GIDS of carrying out “life-changing medical intervention” for children and teens “without sufficient evidence of its long-term effects” and sometimes without even diagnosing a cause for their confusion or establishing that they truly suffered from gender dysphoria.
Last year, the NHS came under fire for administering puberty-blockers to as many as 150 children who were incorrectly diagnosed with gender dysphoria when they may have instead been autistic.
The BBC notes that the latest scandal comes as GIDS is facing scrutiny for how it presents puberty-blockers’ long-term implications to gender-confused children and how it treats dissent from gender orthodoxy.
“GIDS clinicians tell children and families that puberty blockers/hormone blocks are ‘fully reversible’ but the reality is no one knows what the impacts are on children’s brains so how is it possible to make this claim?” Dr. Kirsty Entwistle, former GIDS clinician, wrote in an open letter last week. “It is also a problem that GIDS clinicians are afraid of raising their concerns for fear of being labelled transphobic by colleagues.”