Australian LGBT anti-bullying PSA

Well done, we could use more of these here in the U.S.

　

http://www.notohomophobia.com.au/

Gay marriage, no longer just about a P and a V.

Conservatives Warn Quick Sex Change Only Barrier Between Gays, Marriage

Re: Dr. Phil and Glenn Stanton

Some background on Glenn Stanton. He and Bill Maier -- both Focus on the Family hacks -- wrote a book called “Marriage on Trial” © 2004. It’s basically a manual to learn how to be anti-gay-marriage, without sounding anti-gay. It’s in question and answer form to make it simple to read and easy to remember.

Early on in the book they establish for the reader that our love is fake. But they do so in a roundabout way by placing our love for our partners in the same category as love for parents, children, friends, coworkers, athletes and soldiers.

Because after all, just coming out and saying we're too dumb to know the difference between those kinds of love and actual romantic love might come across as anti-gay.

My favorite part was in Chapter 5, where they warn that gay marriage would create “strong dissention in the homosexual community” between “married gays from gays who don’t want marriage.”

Yes, you heard that right. They actually state that one of the reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, is to ensure that all we gays get along. How thoughtful of them.

They offer the same drivel when it comes to non-supportive family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc., who might be invited to a gay wedding, “they will be forced to have a confrontation” and “the relationship will suffer.”

They also use the Dutch Study and The Male Couple to show that gay couples are too slutty to be good parents, and apparently, gay people can “change.”

Glenn Stanton is a propagandist and a fraud, who is willing to lie in the name of Jesus for political gain.

That said, he was on the Dr. Phil show the other day, AGAIN. But right now I'd like to explore his performance on the show last fall.


Dr. Phil Show -- Gender Confused Kids



Transcript:

Dr. Phil: Are you aware that less than 20% of transgender children grow up to be transgender adults, how do you feel about that?
[skip]
Dr. Phil: Joining us today is Glenn Stanton, he’s a research fellow with a Christian based organization Focus on the Family. He studies gender as a social phenomenon, and is currently working on a book that deals with the importance of gender and parenting. He says we are not born this way. He says parents are responsible for guiding their children into the gender they were born with.

Did I summarize that correctly?

Glenn Stanton: Pretty closely, Dr. Phil. What we find is that kids start out as kids, they don’t know. Most little boys have never been a man before, most little girls have never been a woman before. They need help figuring these things out, and it’s the job of the parent to come in, as you did, with such a loving heart, and to care for your child, but to guide them and direct them. The children are not in the driver’s seat, they’re not the ones that are at the age and the maturity to be able to make these kinds of decisions, so we need to help them move in the right direction.

Dr. Phil: So you disagree with Dr. Seigel saying that, because you talk about ‘born as,’ but what Dr. Seigel is saying, is that that is defined by the brain, as well as the external genitalia. How do you respond to that?

Glenn Stanton: I’m actually agreeing with him in a way, that there’s a spectrum, but it’s not--we don’t, there are very few real Pats in the world, where we just don’t know what they are. Either we start out one way or the other and we identify in a particular way, but we always identify as either a girl or a boy. We can always determine, ok that’s girl behavior or boy behavior.

For my little boy wanting to go to art museums, for me wanting to go to art museums, is that feminine behavior? For you being interested in ballet, is that a feminine behavior? No, it can be done in a very masculine way.

Dr. Phil: Are you saying these parents are wrong?

Glenn Stanton: From what I understand, I mean you’ve taken an entry level psychology course in college. You gave your child a test on the internet about what it means to be transgendered, and your child mimics really, as I see it, some very adult concepts that she got from somewhere, and so I’m wondering, you know, who’s leading and whose following.

Melissa: Your idea of thinking, is what ends up happening to these transgender children, is that they grow up depressed, they grow up suicidal, they get into drugs, into prostitution, and it’s wrong. And you know what, what these-these, what he’s stating, it’s actual fact, it’s scientific fact. Where’s your facts?

Glenn Stanton: There are plenty of facts, I mean, Dr. Kagan at Harvard, who has looked at this issue for a long time, 40 years, longer than anybody else, he says what parents need to do with these gender confused kids is be very directive with them, and be the parent, step into the scene. And he says when these kids develop a good solid healthy gender identity, they become more confident, more secure. When they don’t know, they…

Melissa: He was becoming less that every time we tried to push him into being a male. Every time we tried to say, you know what, this is what you--you were born a boy, so you have to dress this way, you know, you can not wear these clothes to school, you can not wear these clothes at home, you cannot wear these barrettes, he was becoming more depressed.

Glenn Stanton: A three year old child, they don’t know what they think at this point, or they have very strong opinions about who they are. When I was that age, I wanted to be a horse, you know?

Melissa: At three years old, she wasn’t dressing like a female though.
[skip]
Glen Stanton: ‘completely agree in terms of meeting the child where they’re at, but here’s the problem of the spectrum. You know, if the child wants to be artistic, creative, even do ballet, you know what, encourage them in that, but to do it in a masculine sort of way.

You think, what does that mean. It’s very simple, parents know what that means, but the issue of like--I mean it breaks my heart when I see your son go to school with earrings, knowing what’s going to happen to him.

Mary: He doesn’t understand, because he doesn’t have a child going through this. There’s no way you could understand.

Glenn Stanton: My point is that our job as parents are to protect our kids. So I’m agreeing that it’s the parents’ part to come forth and be the leader there and say, you know what son, you wear a bra to school, certain things are going to happen. First of all, you shouldn’t be doing this, I understand your heart, I understand your interest, but I’m the adult.

Melissa: That’s not true. That’s not true at all.
[skip]
Dr. Phil: Glenn, you would be dead set against this hormone?

Glenn Stanton: Absolutely, and I think the name David Reimer is a very interesting one, in that, you know, he was this little boy that they tried to raise as a girl, and with hormone therapy, he is--grew up into an adult and killed himself, because he was being raised different from what his gender was.

Dr. Dan Seigel: That is a perfect example of a misrepresentation of science. Because if you look at that whole issue, and we can’t--don’t get into the details, it’s kind of upsetting. But what happened was that that person had a brain that developed as a male, and just because he had an accident that had them remove his external genitalia, they tried to raise him as a female.

Glenn Stanton: It was the science of the time.

Dr. Seigel: Exactly, for the biology that you’re disagreeing with. It actually supports the view that brain development is really what determines things. You’re arguing against yourself.

Glenn Stanton: But the point of--it was science at the time that directed them in this direction. And that’s the important point to say is that science is not necessarily the answer to everything. It does guide us in wrong directions, and it did with David Reimer.

Did you see what he did there?

Throughout the video Stanton argues in favor of forcing transgender children to be brought up as their physical gender, or what they feel to be the "opposite" gender.

He then attempts to validate that position with an example of someone who was FORCED to be brought up as the opposite gender -- with tragic results.

It’s a common Focus on the Family trick. Equate something innocuous, like same-gender attraction, with something malicious, like theft or murder, and then condemn them both the same.

In this case he's equating a healthy transgender situation, with a tragedy that he labels as bad science.

There was nothing scientific about it, a heterosexual boy was given a vagina and raised as a girl. The results were predictable. Just because they weren't foreseen at the time, by doctors, doesn't make it science.

But, via Glenn Stanton, we've now established that medical malpractice passes for science, and we can now freely condemn any science behind transgenderism, to conclude that everyone who is transgendered is just plain ol' confused.

Look, you may not get transgenderism, and you may not accept the science behind it, but at least know the difference between science, and not science. And realize that any "expert" who doesn't know the difference, is not an expert.

And Dr. Phil, to give a platform to an employee of a hate group like Focus on the Family, to spew his anti-transgender tripe, is criminal.

Dr. Phil invites expert shyster, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, on to berate parents of transgender children.

Re: The Dr. Phil Show, January 13, 2009:

Transcript:

Dr. Phil: Well, the world is changing, science is changing, there’s just no question about that. We’re learning more, but is it all helpful? What we’re going to do is put up links about this transgender issue, so you can go and hear both sides. And don’t just go to the side that you agree with, go to the side that you don’t agree with. Read, hear, see what they have to say, so you can consider everything and make an informed decision. You know I clearly have stayed on neutral ground here, because what I want to do is advance the dialogue, advance the debate. So I know I’ll hear from you on the message boards.

Do me a fave, Dr. Phil and try this one on for "size.":


Transcript:

Wayne Besen: Truth Wins Out went to Salt Lake City to interview Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah. Diamond says the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, known as NARTH, distorted her research on human sexuality. NARTH manipulated Dr. Diamond’s work to say that people can choose to change their sexual orientation. Her work said no such thing.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: The women who I’ve studied, have experienced changes in the way that they characterize and experience their sexuality over time, are quite clear about the fact that they don’t experience those changes as willful. And if anything, sometimes they actively resist them. So the notion that they’re chosen simply because there’s variability, is simply isn’t consistent with what I find. If NARTH had actually read the study more carefully, they would find that that isn’t supported by my data at all.

I started my study, I knew that it was potentially controversial and I knew that it was potentially open to distortion. I have bent over backwards to make it difficult for my work to be misused, and to no avail. When people are motivated to twist something for political purposes, they’re going to find a way to do it.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond has a message for NARTH’s co-founder, Dr. Nicolosi, for distorting her work.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: Dr. Nicolosi, you know exactly what you’re doing. I have been more than explicit in my work about what constitutes a misuse of my findings, what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from my research. So there’s no chance that this is a misunderstanding, or simply a different scientific interpretation of the data, that’s simply not possible. This is a willful misuse and distortion of my research. Not an academic disagreement, not a slight shading of the truth, it’s willful distortion. And it’s illegitimate, and it’s irresponsible, and you know that, and you should stop.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond has a few words to say about so-called reparative therapy.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: The APA has found that the majority of these therapies are being misrepresented, that therapists are saying, we can change your orientation, when in fact all of the data, all of the data, suggests that that’s not the case. Sometimes they’re successful at helping people to change their behavior, just like any of us can alter our behavior at will, but they say that the attractions, the same-sex attractions will disappear, they don’t.

These therapies are marketed inaccurately. They don’t actually have the effect that the therapists claim that they will have, and they do additional damage, by using these sort of aversive techniques that leave people feeling greater shame, greater guilt, feeling worse about themselves as a result. So they do, do harm.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond said she would like if NARTH stopped using her research.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: My choice would be that they don’t use it at all. If there’s any upside to this at all, it may be that it actually introduces some people to real science, on these topics, which can give them a lot better information, than the non-science that is being perpetrated on a lot of these websites.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond urges scientists to speak out when the research is distorted.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: There are a lot of scientists who would say, you know what, I just produce the data and then how it’s used is not my problem, but I think knowing that we have a culture that actually treats scientific findings very seriously in terms of support for public policy, that would be inappropriate. We have to be very vocal about what constitutes an unscientific use of the data, and that’s why I think it’s important to speak out.

I’m pretty accustomed at this point to the fact that these sorts of distortions will occur. My hope is that by doing something like this, we can hopefully have a more scientifically literate society, and sort of consumer culture, that will get better at recognizing distortions when they occur, and will not simply take the citation of a scientific paper as evidence that that paper has been appropriately used. My hope is that readers and thinkers in general will take a look at the sorts of work that’s presented on NARTH, and say well, maybe I better look at that work myself before I take at face value, what they are telling me that it says.

Wayne Besen: If you are a scientist, and your work has been distorted, misrepresented, cherry-picked, or misquoted by the right wing, contact TruthWinsOut.org
--
And just in case you didn't quite catch the impact of it the first time, Dr. Phil, Let’s listen to the most pertinent part of that interview again:

Dr. Lisa Diamond: “Dr. Nicolosi, you know exactly what you’re doing. I have been more than explicit in my work about what constitutes a misuse of my findings, what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from my research. So there’s no chance that this is a misunderstanding, or simply a different scientific interpretation of the data, that’s simply not possible. This is a willful misuse and distortion of my research. Not an academic disagreement, not a slight shading of the truth, it’s willful distortion. And it’s illegitimate, and it’s irresponsible, and you know that, and you should stop.”

Still wanna play the “neutral ground” card, Dr. Phil?

Remember, the Google is your friend.

Oh, and PS, all that just scratches the surface of Nicolosi's ethical meanderings. And I haven’t even gotten to the slitherings of Glenn Stanton yet.

And for posterity's sake, one for the road. This is my favorite anti-gay moment of all time. I've watched this dozens of times and it still cracks me up. He's standing there, calmly nodding his head to what the interviewer was saying, and then suddenly, without warning, he just walks off camera in a huff of a hissy-fit.

Let's watch:


God that's funny!

"to refer to someone who is transgendered by their birth name is neither insulting nor disparaging"

Bad question #4: "What is, or was, your "real" name?"
(@ the 4:12 mark)

This question’s a biggie. My real name is Calpernia Addams, dumbass. What are you really asking here?

When people ask me this question, what I hear, is that you either consider my current identity to be:

A Fabrication
A Lie
A Put-on
A Costume
Or a Joke…

…and you want to get at the "real" truth, behind who I "really" am.

Implication -- a man.

Or, um, they just want to have something to hold on to, to put me back in my place; "Who do you think you are Calpernia, pretending to be a woman? I know your real name, and you’ll always be ‘Frank Smith’ or, ‘Butch Jones' or, whatever to me."

Youu ;)

Well don’t ask this, it’s none of your business.

“Hey, but everybody knows that Marilyn Monroe’s old name was Norma Jean, c’mon Calpernia, we just wanna know.”

Well dumbf**k, when you know Marilyn’s old name, it still doesn’t changer her gender in your mind. She’s still a woman, whether you call her Norma Jean, or Marilyn Monroe.

When you talk to a transwoman about her old name, it’s overlaying a perception of gender onto her -- using that name -- that is very hurtful, and rude.

You know, most all of us in the public eye, eventually have our old names, photographs, and identities, outed by someone from our past. It happens, and I’ve been through a lot in my life, and I can handle it when it does.

All the same though, I just want you know, that when you ask this question, or when you use that old information, I’M HATING YOU, WITH A BURNING, WHITE HOT, DESTRUCTIVE HATRED, THAT’S WARMER THAN THE DEEPEST FIREY PITS OF THE LOWES LEVEL OF HELL.

“Hey, but so and so told me their name. I know the tranny who does my nails at the mall, and she told me right away that her name used to be Bob.”

Well, a lot of transwomen lack validation in their lives. Nobody is ever telling them “Good job!”, or “You look great!”, or much of anything. So they’re left feeling eager to please. They want to say anything, just to get a pat on the back. And this is a very sad situation that a lot of transwomen find themselves in.

So, maybe they told you their old name, just because they wanted your approval. I feel bad for these women in that situation, and I really feel bad that you’re such a low-life scum-bag that you would exploit their need, just to dig a little piece of dirty information out of ‘em.

Ah ah ah, that’s pretty bad of you…

~~~~"to refer to someone who is transgendered by their birth name is neither insulting nor disparaging"