How the transgender agenda harms children

On March 28, the US Supreme Court is due to hear a case about transgender bathroom access lodged by a Virginia student, Gavin Grimm. Born a girl, she decided in Year 9 that she was actually a boy. The local school board refused to let her use the boys’ toilets. She sued, and now the case has moved up to the Supreme Court (Gloucester County School Board v GG).

Amongst the briefs filed by “friends of the court” are a number of documents which contend that the transgender agenda will harm students.

Today we are publishing excerpts from a brief by Dr Judith Reisman, founder of the Child Protection Institute and a  research professor at Liberty University School of Law. She is an internationally recognised expert on child sexual abuse and the influence of sexologist Alfred Kinsey.

* * * * * * *

As the [the Department of Justice and Department of Education Office of Civil Rights] instruct school districts, the purpose of Title IX is to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for all students. Assuming that is true, then its interpretation of Title IX to include “gender identity,” and particularly to compel districts to permit access to sex-separate facilities based solely on perceived gender is in conflict with that purpose. Moreover, the Departments’ advocacy for recognition of “transgender” children fosters experimental, life-changing medical protocols that do not comply with the dictates of medical ethics. Most importantly, the Departments are sanctioning an agenda- driven ideology that threatens the physical, mental and emotional well-being of children.

Despite studies showing that 80 to 95 percent of children who report dissonance between their perceived gender and biological sex find that their perceived gender and biological sex correspond by late adolescence, medical protocols for “transgender” children are calling for earlier intervention with puberty- suppressing drugs and cross-sex hormones. These protocols create irreversible sterility and other life-changing effects to which the children, as minors with immature brains, are unable to give informed consent. Nor can their parents give “informed” consent to such protocols as the long-term consequences of these early interventions are unknown.

Read here