England’s National Health Service (NHS) announced this week that doctors can no longer prescribe puberty blockers to children seeking a gender transition because “there is not enough evidence of safety and clinical effectiveness.” Meanwhile‚ trans activists in the United States are too busy making the “moral case” for sterilizing kids to consider the clear and present danger that puberty blockers pose to children.  Puberty Blockers Cause Lasting Damage Puberty blockers‚ also known as gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues‚ artificially halt the changes in sexual development that occur during puberty. Proponents paint puberty blockers as a way for kids to buy “extra time” that can be reversed at any time. But because puberty blockers interrupt natural hormonal development‚ they do more than simply prevent the emergence of secondary sex characteristics.  Puberty blockers promise to prolong childhood but‚ by doing so‚ actually destroy it. Dr. Hilary Cass‚ the consultant pediatrician who led the independent review on puberty blockers for the NHS‚ expressed concerns that “brain maturation may be temporarily or permanently disrupted by puberty blockers‚” which would suppress the natural hormone surges that assist with the development of “neural circuits underlying executive function.”  Puberty blockers have been promoted by activists as a temporary remedy that gives children more time to figure out their gender identity. But if that were true — if the hormones were really just a neutral “pause” button — then you’d expect some children to choose to present as their biological sex after temporarily using the blockers. Instead‚ nearly every child who uses puberty blockers goes on to use cross-sex hormones. Far from simply staving off puberty‚ blockers are simply the first step in a medical transition‚ even if that’s not how it’s sold to parents.  Reconsidering Care for Dysphoric Children The NHS is realizing the risks of going all-in on hormone therapy without evidence of safety and effectiveness. In lieu of puberty blockers‚ the NHS will now focus on psychological‚ not medical‚ remedies for trans-identifying youth. “This is because in many cases gender variant behaviour or feelings disappear as children reach puberty‚” the NHS website states. Instead of hormones‚ trans-identifying children will have recourse to family therapy‚ individual child psychotherapy‚ parental support or counseling‚ regular reviews to monitor gender identity development‚ and referral to local mental health services for more serious emotional issues.  Children in England and Wales will now only be able to obtain puberty blockers if they participate in a clinical trial. In a way‚ it’s a darkly honest admission: artificially preventing the normal development of healthy children has been experimental from the start.  England isn’t alone in its reconsideration. National health agencies in several other European nations have opened investigations into so-called “gender-affirming” treatments due to lack of evidence. Fifty years after Sweden became the first country to permit legal gender reassignment in 1972‚ the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare ended hormone therapy and warned that “the evidence for ‘hormonal interventions’ for minors is ‘of low quality’ and that treatments may present risks.”  Meanwhile‚ American medical institutions promote puberty blockers as a “medically accepted treatment for transgender and nonbinary youth‚” with little to no acknowledgement of the massive risks involved with halting puberty. Fortunately‚ an increasing number of states have passed legislation that prevents minors from taking puberty blockers or starting cross-sex hormones. There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth from trans activists about these laws — most recently from transgender writer Andrea Long Chu in the pages of New York magazine.  Sterilizing Children in the Name of Freedom Published the day before the NHS announced the end of puberty blockers for English youth‚ Chu’s longform essay‚ titled “Freedom of Sex‚” attempted to articulate the moral case for “letting trans kids change their bodies‚” or why doctors should be able to mutilate children barely past the age of reason. But unfortunately for Chu‚ mentioning “justice” a few times doesn’t make something a “moral case” anymore than cross-sex hormones make a man into a woman.  Chu fears that the Left has constrained its ability to argue convincingly for the right to genital mutilation and proposes a new paradigm for progressive trans activists:  We will never be able to defend the rights of transgender kids until we understand them purely on their own terms: as full members of society who would like to change their sex. It does not matter where this desire comes from. Later in the essay‚ Chu frames this attitude as a “universal birthright” to the “freedom of sex‚” which entails the total separation of biological sex from gender identity. Accordingly‚ trans-identifying children don’t even need to experience dysphoria to warrant a medical intervention like puberty blockers or genital surgeries — they just need to ask for it. “Freedom of sex” isn’t about medicine; it’s about will. If a kid wants something‚ that’s sufficient reason to consider saying “No” a human rights violation‚ according to Chu.  “Parents must learn to treat their kids as what they are: human beings capable of freedom‚” Chu writes. “If we are to recognize the rights of trans kids‚ we will also have to accept that‚ like us‚ they have a right to the hazards of their own free will.” You don’t have to be a parent to see the flaws in Chu’s argument. In fact‚ it’s hard to see where parents come in at all in this vision. Parents are simply vehicles for endless affirmation. After all‚ children know best — especially trans children‚ and especially when the stakes are incredibly high.  If you point out that children can’t truly consent‚ then you’d be wrong again. “If children are too young to consent to puberty blockers‚ then they are definitely too young to consent to puberty‚” Chu writes. “Yet we let this happen every day — and not without casualties.”  If a child wills a thing‚ it is good; if not‚ it is bad. But if a child can consent to sterilization at age 11‚ as Chu would have it‚ what can’t she consent to? Chu wouldn’t just do away with age-related boundaries and taboos but with childhood itself.  That’s the irony of puberty blockers — an irony that England and other nations are starting to realize. Puberty blockers promise to prolong childhood but‚ by doing so‚ actually destroy it. Mary Frances Myler is a writer from Northern Michigan living in Washington‚ D.C. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022.  READ MORE by Mary Frances Myler: Biden Stays Silent Despite Spike in Anti-Catholic Attacks Gen Z Pop Star Olivia Rodrigo Shills for Democrats (Again) Can the Pro-Life Movement Rally Behind the Alabama Supreme Court’s IVF Ruling? The post England Bans Puberty Blockers‚ American Activists Double Down appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I wrote earlier this week about the new feminist feature film‚ Cabrini‚ a shockingly secularized story of a sainted nun converted into a warrior woman battling bigotry. I focused on the film’s remarkable sin of omission in fully excising any mention whatsoever — not one — of the very Jesus Christ who motivated everything the real Mother Cabrini did. I’m pleased to see that others are noticing. Particularly insightful reviews have been done by Andrew Fowler at RealClearReligion‚ Barbara Nicolosi‚ Thomas Mirus at Catholic Culture (who did two thoughtful and charitable pieces) Brad Miner at The Catholic Thing‚ and Giancarlo Sopo at National Review. I got a lot of responses to that review. In the process‚ unfortunately‚ I’m learning still more that’s very disappointing. Frankly‚ I don’t want to devote further time to this film‚ but I should share some of the new details I’ve learned. (Watch: The American Spectator editor Paul Kengor discusses his review on EWTN News Nightly.) READ MORE from Paul Kengor: (Gutting Jesus: Feminist Cabrini‚ Secular Saint)   As I noted‚ the movie is gutted of references to Jesus. It’s an astounding portrayal of a sainted nun who doesn’t go to God‚ but only to herself‚ to her womanhood. She never goes to the cross. As I noted‚ I dare say that if we exhumed Mother Cabrini’s body in her tomb on the Hudson we might find it flipped over. In fact‚ here’s a sobering question that I would honestly ask the filmmakers: What do you think Mother Cabrini herself would say if she watched this film? I’m confident she would respond with two words‚ in Italian: “Dov’è Gesù?” (Where’s Jesus?) Previously‚ I gave several examples of the film’s gutting of Jesus. I’ve since learned more. And if I researched Mother Cabrini’s life‚ I’d surely find still more. This is not a saint movie for Christians. It’s a secular film catered to the woke. For instance‚ this “Cabrini” and her sisters in the film hang a sign outside their New York City orphanage‚ calling it the “Holy Angels Orphanage.” In truth‚ Cabrini’s original orphanage was called “Sacred Heart Orphan Asylum” (click here for photo)‚ duly named for her Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. This is another shameless fictional flip that fully excises the name of Jesus from the film. In this instance‚ the literal very heart of Jesus. But perhaps most egregious is that while Jesus‚ the primary motivation in the real Mother Cabrini’s life‚ is removed entirely‚ the filmmakers took great care to insert a fictional mayor‚ “Mayor Gould‚” who serves as the dominant villain (played by actor John Lithgow). Gould is invented. (Among other reviewers who have noted this fictional Gould‚ click here and here.) More specifically‚ and very 21st century woke-ishly‚ Gould is employed as the villainous sexist-racist. He despises Cabrini because she’s a woman and Italian. Clearly‚ the filmmakers felt they needed this character to more firmly establish and repeatedly shove down our throats the film’s dominant theme‚ namely: discrimination‚ discrimination‚ discrimination. This fictional mayor spews insults at Cabrini and her mission. A sexist-racist dialogue is tailor-made for him. (For the record‚ Alejandro Monteverde‚ the film’s director‚ says that when Mayor Gould tells Mother Cabrini that she would have made “an excellent man‚” those words were inspired by real comments made by other men in her life.) In one exchange‚ Gould rants at Archbishop Michael Corrigan (who was a real person): “So you let a woman push you around. An Italian woman. Is that how you run your church? I’ve got the whole Upper West Side climbing down my throat. They look out their window and what do they see? A wave of brown-skinned filth parading up their streets with a nun as their Pied Piper.” “Brown-skinned filth.” That’s red meat for the woke to sink their teeth into. They’ll gobble that up. But guess what? The mayor who says this is made up. And yet‚ Mayor Gould becomes a thread throughout the film (unlike the non-fictional Jesus Christ). He’s the chief antagonist‚ a handy sexist-racist caricature‚ and not surprisingly to the thrill of secular progressives and liberal Catholics reviewing the film (click here and here and here). (READ MORE: Marxist Women’s Day) And even then‚ that’s not the worst of the Mayor Gould moments. The film actually ends — climaxes no less — with a showdown between Cabrini and Mayor Gould. In an astonishing exchange that evidently is fictional‚ Mother Cabrini demands to see the mayor‚ gets into his office‚ and then politically threatens him like some seasoned‚ Machiavellian machine politician. Once Mayor Gould senses that this gal can play hardball‚ he smiles appreciatively‚ cynically‚ and offers the little Italian broad a glass of whiskey. Cabrini slugs it down. The saint then finishes with what serves as her final testimony in the movie‚ driveling a gulp of feminist gibberish about how no man could do what a woman could do. Thus ends the film of this holy woman. It stops with a statement not about the power of Jesus‚ God‚ faith‚ but womanpower. Thomas Mirus summed it up well: Cabrini’s greatest struggles in the film are not of a spiritual nature‚ but bureaucratic‚ either in the Church or the state. Her final victory is gained not by her prayer or holiness‚ but by political machinations‚ promising votes‚ and threats. In the film’s final dialogue‚ as the music swells to the emotional climax of this victory‚ she looks almost at the camera and says‚ “Men could never do what we do.” Let me repeat: This serves as the climactic scene in a movie about a sainted nun who did everything for Jesus. The final words are not a statement of divine inspiration but girl power. In fact‚ it’s very telling that the Angel Studios promotional trailer for Cabrini invokes not Christ or even the Blessed Mother or hums Ave Maria but has Shania Twain belting out‚ “Let’s go‚ girls!… I feel like a woman!” That’s a very fitting theme song for a film promoting girl power more than divine power. As I watched that crude final exchange in the theater‚ not to mention the previous over-the-top rants by the sexist-racist mayor‚ I suspected they were at best exaggerated and at worst invented. “Did this mayor really exist?” I asked myself at one point. Answer: No. There’s much more I could say‚ but I’ll finish with this: My friend Glenn Beck‚ who I greatly respect‚ had a dialogue on this film with Jordan Harmon of Angel Studios. Glenn noted that he was enthralled by the visuals‚ cinematography‚ and the feeling of what it must have been like to watch The Godfather in the theater for the first time. I felt the same way. Halfway through the film‚ Beck said he was floored — as I was. But after that‚ the film wholly failed to seize on the faith elements that it should. In their discussion‚ Glenn and Jordan asserted that Cabrini is the best Christian film since The Passion of the Christ. I find that analogy terribly off-base‚ given that Mel Gibson’s Passion obviously doesn’t hold back on Jesus at all. It’s fearlessly bold. This Cabrini is the exact opposite‚ and intentionally so. It’s the anti-Passion. Moreover‚ Glenn and Jordan spoke of the director of Cabrini as perhaps the next Frank Capra. I’ll say only this about that comparison‚ sticking strictly to my theme about the lack of prayer and Jesus in Cabrini: There is‚ in point of fact‚ literally more prayer and mentions of Jesus in Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life (obviously not a saint film) than there is in all of Cabrini. (READ MORE: It’s a Wonderful Film — Yes‚ the Best Ever) This is not a saint movie for Christians. It’s a secular film catered to the woke. It’s less about faith than feminism. In aiming above all to appeal to the widest masses of our secular culture‚ the makers of Cabrini effectively secularized a sainted nun.   The post <;i>;Cabrini<;/i>;: It Gets Worse appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Preserve Economic Growth and National Security by Unraveling the Politics from the U.S. Steel Deal

Fear of Phoning

Has Anyone Fared Better Financially with Democrats in Charge?

Women’s History Month Again Ignores Genuine Heroines

Biden Cyber-Disaster Only Getting Worse in 2024

Why Leftism Fails: A Historical Study‚ Part One

from The David Knight Show:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Martin Armstrong‚ Armstrong Economics: Virtually everyone I talk to thinks mainstream news is just propaganda. COVID drove a spike through the very heart and soul of the First Amendment. Even five years later‚ people generally respected the news. COVID appears to have been the death knell to mainstream news. This chart shows the results […]