NCTE And The FRC On A Trans Youth Joining The Girl Scouts
By: Autumn Sandeen Monday October 31, 2011 10:50 pm    

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2011/10/31/ncte-and-the-frc-on-a-trans-youth-joining-the-girl-scouts/

Update: The National Review has posted a peice on the 7-year-old trans girl from another person associated with the Family Research Council — Senior legal fellow Cathy Ruse. The name of the article is Male and Female He Created Them. From the conclusion of the article:

    No mention is made anywhere of the boy's father, and his utter absence from news stories strikes me as a classic "elephant in the room," or in this case, not in the room. Dare I state the obvious, unspoken truth? This poor little boy desperately needs a father.

Shall I put together an eloquent counter-argument, or shall I go with the more tempting answer and simply beat my head against the table screaming "no" at the top of my lungs over and over between sobs?

This is really just another version of the Westboro Baptist Church.

A small, entirely insignificant group, representitive of no-one other than themselves, starts an offensive rant, based upon nothing more than their own point of view, yet gains national and internation attention because a few treat is as important.

Who needs enemies? We do it to ourselves.

The arguments presented by these people are not simply specious, they are ignorant, illinformed, unscientific and baseless. Yet they are being countered as if they are more significant than deliverately provokative and offensive.

The rants by Ablow on Fox have, at least the merit, that they are sufficiently vague as to suggest that, backed by his claims to be medically qualified, they might have some intellectual interest. But these people are making statements that contradict even the most basic science available. It's a mental illness. Therefore treatable. Therefore a cure will be to remove the need to transision. The boy doesn't (seem to) have a father, therefore that will make him a homosexual.

Like most people, I am aware of many who hold strange views of what is acceptable. There are people who don't think that some political parties should be permitted. Here in the UK, there are many who don't think certain football teams should exist. Again, like most people, before I get myself into any sort of lather about strange views, I ask myself, a fundimental question. Is this important?

In the case of the Family Research Council, I have to say, no.

I don't know, spacial. Organizations like these may not seem important in isolation, but unlike the WBC they have cooperation from other, similarly aligned groups. The FRC is a good friend of Focus on the Family and NARTH. All three are more than happy to cooperate with the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Liberty Counsel. Ditto to the 700 Club.

In isolation, these fools are powerless. But they're DAMN dangerous in numbers, and they've known it since the 1980s. What you get is a well-funded, far-reaching propaganda machine that can motivate voters en masse at the local, state, and national level at any time. Their followers are fiercely loyal and extremely motivated, too. They can affect legislation at all levels, as is evidenced by the amount of difficulty associated with the repeal of BLATANTLY unconstitutional measures such as DoMA and DADT.

I don't think we can safely ignore these nutbars, spacial. They're bat->-bleeped-<- insane, they're sitting on top of one of the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world, and they keep on pushing their base to vote for warhawks who pander to their theocratic tendencies. Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush, it just keeps happening.