The co-director of Johns Hopkins University's sexuality studies program is speaking out against his colleague Dr. Ben Carson's recent comments comparing supporters of marriage equality to members of NAMBLA and practitioners of bestiality.

"I don't think most people at Hopkins think what he says on this subject matter," Professor Todd Shepard, co-director of the university's Program for the Study of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, said in a statement to Media Matters. "They make him look nasty, petty, and ill-informed. It doesn't tell us anything about his amazing abilities as a surgeon. It does remind us, however, that those abilities do not mean we should listen to what he says in any other domain."

During a March 26 appearance on Fox News, Carson said, "Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition."

"So, it's not something against gays," added the Johns Hopkins Hospital neurosurgery professor, who has recently become a sensation among the conservative media. "It's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications."

Business Insider described Carson's appearance as a "trainwreck of an interview," while Slate's David Weigel wrote that the professor, who has been heavily promoted by Fox News in recent months and is reportedly seeking to host a television show after he retires from Johns Hopkins later this year, "took a sharp turn into Gaffe City." Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik wrote that Fox had "created a climate" for Carson's "partisan, polarizing and possibly hurtful language."

Shepard, who teaches French history as well as gender and sexuality studies, compared Carson to the French intellectuals who supported the prosecution of Alfred Dreyfus at the turn of the 20th century.

"I admire Dr. Carson as a neurosurgeon, but his intervention into this debate proves that, like those who defended the Army and the Church against Dreyfus, he prefers to defend the ways things have been rather than individual rights and to deny that informed and rational debate is a better basis for making decisions than received wisdom," said Shepard. "I doubt that he would apply these lessons to his professional life. In this case, where he knows nothing more than hearsay, the good doctor is wrong about the history."

Shepard concluded that these "reactionary and rancid claims do remind us of how far the general discussion has advanced beyond Dr. Carson and his far-right audience."

The full statement from Shepard:

The term intellectual emerged around the late-19th-century Dreyfus Affair, when writers, artists, and academics spoke out in the name of impartial justice and individual rights in defense of a man unjustly condemned because he was a Jew, while others insisted that a defense of the established order (notably the Church) required supporting the conviction. Intellectuals, then, are individuals who use their expertise in one esteemed area of human endeavor, science, for example, to intervene in the public debate on topics outside of their specific expertise.

I admire Dr. Carson as a neurosurgeon, but his intervention into this debate proves that, like those who defended the Army and the Church against Dreyfus, he prefers to defend the ways things have been rather than individual rights and to deny that informed and rational debate is a better basis for making decisions than received wisdom. I doubt that he would apply these lessons to his professional life. In this case, where he knows nothing more than hearsay, the good doctor is wrong about the history.

Legal marriage is defined by laws made by human beings, not by his definition of what his god decreed. He should check out the Constitution on this matter. Who can get married has been widely debated across different cultures and time periods. It's always been open to discussion and redefinition. That's how law-making works.  Age of consent laws in this country, for example, are much more restrictive now than they were in the 19th century. Rape and sexual abuse were far more widely accepted. Feminists, gay rights groups, and others all helped make that change (ask the Catholic Church). He also is insulting, offhand, and ill-informed in the comparison he makes to bestiality, Nambla, etc. Half-baked history and insults, then, are where he wants to stake his tent.

I don't think most people at Hopkins think what he says on this subject matter. They make him look nasty, petty, and ill-informed. It doesn't tell us anything about his amazing abilities as a surgeon. It does remind us, however, that those abilities do not mean we should listen to what he says in any other domain. One of the nice things about the current debate is that it's not just LGBT people who are concerned. Americans are involved in this discussion. The vast majority of Americans are open to judging this question of equal rights to marry on the basis of the evidence, in a process of open discussion. As they've seen the evidence, most have moved away from the hysterical and de-humanizing arguments to which Dr. Carson still clings. He is welcome to put them out there. I and others can now judge him on those statements. It makes him look bad. But such reactionary and rancid claims do remind us of how far the general discussion has advanced beyond Dr. Carson and his far-right audience.

Fox News contributor Erick Erickson attempted to make the case that marriage equality poses a threat to religious freedom, but his only evidence was a list of examples irrelevant to same-sex marriage.

In a March 26 column for FoxNews.com, Erickson warned that “gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible,” adding that marriage equality supporters aim to “punish and silence” those who disagree with them.

To support his claim, Erickson listed a number of examples meant to highlight the conflict between marriage equality and religious liberty. But none of his examples are actually about same-sex marriage. In fact, most of them come from states where same-sex marriage is still illegal, and almost all of the examples pertain to non-discrimination laws, not marriage laws:

Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state’s anti-discriminatory laws, and won.

• Same-sex marriage wasn’t legal in New Mexico at the time. 
• The photographers violated the state’s non-discrimination law, not a marriage law.

In Lexington, Ky., a T-shirt shop called Hands On Originals was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. The T-shirt company politely declined and even sought out quotes and gave the group referrals to other T-shirt printers, along with comparable prices. They were promptly sued by the group under Lexington’s anti-discriminatory laws and forced to comply with a lengthy investigation.

• Same-sex marriage isn’t legal in Kentucky.
• The company was sued for violating the state’s non-discrimination law, not a marriage law. 

A Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge ruled against the church.

• Same-sex marriage isn’t legal in New Jersey.
• The Methodist church violated the requirements of its “Green Acres” tax exemption, which required it to make its facility open to the public. 
• The church has since replaced the “Green Acres” exemption with an exemption specifically created for religious institutions, allowing it to continue discriminating against gay people.

A same-sex couple from California sued a Hawaiian bed and breakfast privately owned by a Christian woman for not allowing them to rent a room.

• Same-sex marriage isn’t legal in Hawaii.
• The bed and breakfast violated the state’s non-discrimination law, not a marriage law. 

A bed and breakfast in Alton privately owned by a Christian couple was sued when they would not host a same-sex civil union ceremony.

• Same-sex marriage isn’t legal in Illinois.
• The bed and breakfast violated the state’s non-discrimination law, not a marriage law. 

Owners of a small, privately owned inn in Vermont declined to host a same sex wedding reception due to their religious views and were sued.

• The Vermont inn violated the state’s non-discrimination law, not a marriage law.

An employee of Allstate insurance wrote an essay online disagreeing with same-sex marriage and was reportedly fired from his job as a result. 

• The Allstate employee was fired because of a decision by his private employer, not because of any state laws, and; 
• Allstate denies allegations that the employee was fired because of his anti-gay essay.

Catholic Charities was barred from assisting in adoptions in Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., and Illinois and excluded from future contracts because it declined to consider same sex couples.

• Catholic Charities voluntarily ended its adoption services because it refused to abide by the state’s non-discrimination laws, despite having done so in prior years.
• Catholic Charities can continue to participate in private adoption services, it just can’t receive public funding if it continues to violate non-discrimination laws.
• The former chairman of the board for Catholic Charities of Boston has called Erickson’s description “a shameful distortion of what actually happened.” 

Despite his posturing, Erickson’s concerns aren’t really about marriage equality. His real problem seems to be with laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination in the public square, regardless of whether that discrimination is religiously motivated. And considering that he recently stated that gay people are “on the road to hell,” it isn’t hard to imagine why.

Previously:

Fox News Contributor: Gay People Are “On The Road To Hell”

Megyn Kelly To Maggie Gallagher: How Is Prop 8 Different From A Ban On Interracial Marriage?

Fox News Columnist Launches Transphobic, Unscientific Rant Against MMA Fighter

NBC News correspondent Luke Russert challenged Family Research Council (FRC) president Tony Perkins over his views on same-sex parenting, pointing out that research used to back Perkins’ claims is deeply flawed.

During the March 27 edition of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, guest host Russert invited Perkins to explain his views on the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s (DOMA) constitutionality and the supposed harms of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perkins incorrectly asserted that the part of DOMA being challenged in court actually protected states’ rights before going on to claim that studies showed children did best when raised by a heterosexual couple:

PERKINS: When you look at the amount of social science research that we have amassed over the last several decades, it’s clear that kids do best with a mom and a dad … The evidence does not suggest that children do best just with two parents or three parents. The evidence says a mom and a dad. So, from a public policy standpoint, our preference is that children have a mom and a dad.

After Russert pushed back against Perkins’ claim, the two scuffled over a notorious study on same-sex parenting conducted by University of Texas associate professor Mark Regnerus:

RUSSERT: Yes, but there are studies also, especially from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which suggest that having a two-person home, even if it is a same-sex couple, is actually beneficial for children. So there are questions about your facts on that question. I’d like to ask you, though –

[cross-talk]

PERKINS: It’s interesting that they failed to acknowledge one of the most widespread, deep surveys on that that Mark Regnerus did out of Texas. They completely ignored that, and of course the American College of Pediatricians – 

RUSSERT: Right, but on that survey there was real questions about A its funding, which was done by some conservative backers, as well as the questioning methods, and we can have a research methods debate at another time.

Russert went on to ask what Perkins “fear[ed]” about allowing loving, committed same-sex couples to get married, prompting Perkins to warn about a potential influx of immigrant polygamists.

Russert deserves praise for being informed about the large number of problems with the deeply flawed research done by Regnerus on the issue of same-sex parenting. He was also correct for noting the emerging expert consensus that children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as those raised by heterosexual parents.

As junk science continues to taint the Supreme Court’s examination of the debate over same-sex marriage, other media outlets would do well to follow Russert’s lead and familiarize themselves with conservatives’ flawed research about same-sex families.

Previously:

Fox News Contributor: Gay People Are “On The Road To Hell”

Four Examples Of The Junk Science That’s Been Used To Defend DOMA In Court

Meet The Speakers Behind The Anti-Equality Supreme Court Rally

Fox News contributor Erick Erickson weighed in on the debate over the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), stating “you’re not really loving your neighbor when you’re cool with him staying on the road to hell.”

On March 27, Erickson tweeted:

The tweet followed a series of others expressing support for traditional marriage, attacking proponents of marriage equality, and warning that same-sex marriage will restrict religious freedom:

The Supreme Court heard arguments over DOMA’s constitutionality earlier today.

Previously:

Megyn Kelly To Maggie Gallagher: How Is Prop 8 Different From A Ban On Interracial Marriage?

Coulter Compares "Sodomy" To The Health Risks Of Smoking

O'Reilly: "Marriage Equality" Would Also Include Communal, "Triad" Marriages

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on March 27 -- nearly two years after Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to take up the law’s legal defense. Since that time, BLAG – represented by attorney Paul Clement – has introduced an array of skewed research and pseudoscience to defend the law. As the nine justices consider DOMA’s constitutionality, it’s worth revisiting the flawed research that’s served as the basis for many of BLAG’s anti-equality arguments in court.

1. The Regnerus Paper

In their reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, proponents of DOMA cited a paper written by Mark Regnerus, an associate sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, to claim that children do better when raised in “intact heterosexual marriages”:

One of the few studies to attempt to overcome the difficulty in finding statistically meaningful numbers of children raised from infancy by homosexual couples did so by including children with a parent who had a homosexual relationship regardless of its duration, after “significant efforts” to locate the former kind of children failed—and it found that children raised in intact heterosexual marriages had significantly better outcomes. See Mark Regnerus, How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?

The Regnerus paper has been widely criticized for a number of reasons. The paper has deep methodological flaws, and has been manipulated to influence the Supreme Court. In addition, the paper has been criticized by experts on child welfare who found its results misleading. Regnerus – who has become active in the anti-equality movement since the publication of his paper – has admitted that it doesn’t actually address the question of same-sex parenting and an internal audit by the journal that published the paper bluntly called Regnerus’ work “bullshit.”

2. The Child Trends Brief

In their Supreme Court brief, DOMA’s proponents cited a research brief from Child Trends, a nonprofit that “studies children at all stages of development,”  to support the “bedrock assumption” that children do best when raised by their biological parents:

[W]hen both biological parents want to raise their child, the law has long recognized a distinct preference for the child to be raised by those biological parents. And this bedrock assumption is grounded in common sense and human experience: Biological parents have a genetic stake in the success of their children that no one else does. See Kristin Anderson Moore et al., Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?, Child Trends Research Brief 1-2 (2002)

But the authors of the Child Trends brief have repeatedly criticized opponents of marriage equality for mischaracterizing their work. According to the Washington Blade:

“The Child Trends brief in question summarizes research conducted in 2002, when same-sex parents were not identified in large national surveys,” [president of Child Trends Carol] Emig said. “Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents.”

Emig added, “We have pointed this out repeatedly, yet to our dismay we continue to see our 2002 research mischaracterized by some opponents of same-sex marriage.”

3. Lisa Diamond’s Research

In their district court brief, BLAG cited the work of Lisa Diamond, associate professor of developmental psychology at the University of Utah, to make the case that sexual orientation isn’t an immutable characteristic:

Plaintiff’s claim runs headlong into the differing definitions of the terms “sexual orientation,” “homosexual,” “gay,” and “lesbian” supplied by Plaintiff’s own experts See Dep.of Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D. (July 8, 2011) (“Peplau Dep.”) at 11:19-13:3, attached as Ex. B toDugan Decl. (declining to use term homosexuality and defining sexual orientation, gay, and lesbian); Dep. of Gary Segura, Ph.D. (July 8, 2011) (“Segura Dep.”) at 14:17-16:15, attached as Ex. C to Dugan Decl. (defining gay, lesbian, and homosexual); Chauncey Dep. at 12:15-15:15, attached as Ex. A to Dugan Decl. (acknowledging that some people distinguish “gay” and “homosexual,” but stating that he uses them synonymously; defining the terms gay, lesbian, homosexuality, and homosociality); see also Lisa Diamond, New Paradigms for Research on Heterosexual & Sexual-Minority Development , 32 J. of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychol. Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ -JCF Document 50 Filed 08/01/11 Page 18 of 35 11492 (2003) (“There is currently no scientific or popular consensus on the exact constellation of experiences that definitively ‘qualify’ an individual as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.”) [emphasis added]

In response, Diamond submitted an affidavit explaining that BLAG had “incorrectly characterized” her research and that her work “says nothing whatsoever about the immutability of sexual orientation itself”:

My quoted statement concerns the scientific and popular debates over the defining characteristics of LGBT individuals and it says nothing whatsoever about the immutability of sexual orientation itself. Hence, BLAG has incorrectly characterized my research.

[…]

Counsel for BLAG never requested that I serve as an expert witness for them in the above-referenced lawsuit. If they had so requested, I would not have agreed to do so.

4. George Dent’s Paper

BLAG’s brief in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (the plaintiffs’ request for a ruling in their favor as a matter of law) also cited a paper by law professor George W. Dent titled “No Difference?: An Analysis of Same-Sex Parenting.” Dent’s paper criticizes mainstream studies about same-sex parenting, arguing that children raised by gay couples fare worse than children raised by heterosexual couples.

But Dent’s paper was based on the work of a number of notoriously discredited researchers, including Paul Cameron and George Rekers. According to gay rights blogger Alvin McEwen:

On page four, Dent cites both Paul Cameron and George Rekers, both discredited researchers. Cameron has been censured or rebuked by several organizations for his bad methodology in his studies and Rekers lost a lot of credibility for last year's scandal when he was caught coming from a European vacation with a "rentboy."

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Paul Cameron is an infamous anti-gay propagandist whose one-man statistical chop shop, the Family Research Institute, churns out hate literature masquerading as legitimate science. Cameron dresses up his “studies” with copious footnotes, graphs and charts, and then pays to publish them in certain journals. Cameron’s work has been rejected by both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association, yet his ludicrous statistics are frequently referenced in sermons, news broadcasts, politicians’ speeches and even court decisions.

Previously:

Meet The Speakers Behind The Anti-Equality Supreme Court Rally

Fox’s Starnes Reacts To DOMA Decision By Comparing Same-Sex Marriage To Marrying A Pet

FRC’s Blackwell Pens 14-Month-Late Attack On Obama’s DOMA Decision

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly challenged Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), over her claim that courts should avoid making controversial decisions about marriage, pointing out that the Supreme Court had previously struck down unjust laws against interracial marriage.

During the March 26 edition of Fox’s America Live, Kelly invited Gallagher and former Equality Matters president Richard Socarides on to discuss the Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8. When Gallagher asserted that the Court shouldn’t override the democratic process when it comes to marriage, Kelly responded by citing that the Supreme Court similarly intervened to invalidate state laws against interracial marriage:

GALLAGHER: For the Supreme Court to brand this view as irrational bigotry akin to racial discrimination would not end the culture wars, it would entrench them, and it would take away something very precious, which is the right of seven million Californians to use the democratic process to make our case to the American people. And so, I certainly think trying that to persuade the American people that the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers in 1789 has always required gay marriage is a long stretch and I’m hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold Prop 8.

KELLY: But before I get back to Richard on that, there was a time in this country in which interracial marriage was not lawful. And the Supreme Court had to step in and say “that’s wrong. Under the U.S. Constitution, under the Equal Protection clause, whites can marry blacks and states are not free to tell them otherwise.” And those that advocate on behalf of this issue, Maggie, they say this is another, sort of, iteration of that.

Kelly has highlighted the country’s history of marriage discrimination while discussing the issue of marriage equality before. Last August, she made a compelling argument for marriage equality during a debate with Pastor Robert Jeffress about Chick-fil-A’s support for anti-gay organizations:

KELLY: This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge – the Equal Protection clause says you can't do that. Why is gay marriage any different?

Previously:

UPDATED: GLAAD To Fox News: If You Want To Attend Our Events, Stop Attacking LGBT People

O'Reilly: "Marriage Equality" Would Also Include Communal, "Triad" Marriages

Fox’s Cal Thomas Repeats Myth That Marriage Equality Leads To Polygamy, Child Marriage

Representatives from Fox News attended this year’s annual Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) media awards, prompting the organization to condemn the network’s history of anti-LGBT coverage.

GLAAD hosted its annual media awards – meant to honor the media for outstanding representations of the LGBT community – in New York City on March 16. According to pictures from the event, at least two Fox News personalities were in attendance – The Five’s Kimberly Guilfoyle and America’s News HQ’s Jamie Colby:

In response, GLAAD Vice President of Communications Rich Ferraro issued the following statement to Equality Matters:

If Kimberly and Jamie expect to attend future GLAAD events, they will first need to sit down with us to discuss Fox News' embarrassing, biased and misinformed coverage of LGBT issues. The invitation is open. Fox News's track record on LGBT issues is abysmal, and it makes no sense to me why any LGBT people or allies would want to be a part of that.

UPDATE: On March 22, GLAAD vice president of communications Rich Ferraro issued the following clarification of his earlier statement:

"My earlier statement was a reaction to Fox News' coverage of LGBT people and not any individual journalists. A GLAAD executive did invite Kimberly and Jamie to the GLAAD Media Awards, and we were happy to have them, with the belief that they signaled a change in the way Fox News would cover LGBT issues.

But the next day, we had a flurry of reports that Fox News let anti-gay activist Tony Perkins make the false and dangerous claim on national television that 'evidence' shows that being gay is 'overwhelmingly negative to both the individual and society.'

It was not my intention to offend Kimberly or Jamie. Part of our work at GLAAD is to raise awareness and visibility of allies from all walks of life, particularly among the growing number of conservatives who support LGBT people, and we look forward to working with voices like Kimberly, Jamie, and any other allies at Fox News to accomplish that."

Ferraro has a point. Fox News has a long, shameful history of defaming LGBT people while misinforming viewers about the fight for LGBT equality. Here’s just a short list of the network’s most recent anti-LGBT smears:

• Fox News host Bill O’Reilly accused a gay Colorado lawmaker of protecting child molesters

• O’Reilly called a Massachusetts school policy protecting transgender children “truly madness”

• Fox repeatedly adopted the “pedophilia” narrative while covering the Boy Scouts’ gay ban

• Fox Nation used an image of from the film “Mrs. Doubtfire” to mock transgender healthcare

• O’Reilly and Fox News host Megyn Kelly joked that a transgender prison inmate was too unattractive to risk being sexually assaulted

• Fox fearmongered that gender-neutral marriage licenses in Washington would “change society… forever”

And on March 20, a Fox News columnist smeared a transgender MMA fighter, repeatedly calling her a man and accusing her of “beating up women.”

Previously:

Fox News Columnist Launches Transphobic, Unscientific Rant Against MMA Fighter

O'Reilly: "Marriage Equality" Would Also Include Communal, "Triad" Marriages

On O'Reilly, Jesse Watters Describes "Lesbians Kissing Each Other" As "Pure Debauchery"

Fox News contributor and self-identified “comedian” Stephen Crowder published a transphobic FoxNews.com column smearing a transgender Mixed Martial Arts fighter by repeatedly referring to her as a male and incorrectly accusing her of having an unfair advantage over her opponents as a result of “being a man.”

In a March 20 FoxNews.com column, Crowder railed against transgender MMA fighter Fallon Fox, repeatedly depicting her as a male who’s interested in “beating up women”:

Let me paint you a picture: your daughter is playing a contact sport. Say, football or hockey. She's gone from being your little girl to becoming a beautiful young woman. Opposite her on the field (or ice), is somebody who once was a man, until he decided that he didn’t feel like being one anymore.

[…]

Enter Fallon Fox, a male-to-female transgendered person, who has now decided to make a living by beating up women.

[…]

Unless you were born and raised a woman, you don’t go around hitting chicks.

Crowder’s insistence on referring to Fox as a male is clearly meant to be derogatory. Mentally, physically, and legally, Fox is considered a woman. Given she also self-identifies as a woman, Crowder is violating basic journalistic standards by failing to identify a transgender person by his or her stated gender. As Bleacher Report’s Matt Juul recently wrote:

While it's fair to debate the possible advantages of Fox's physical attributes (although there's increasing scientific evidence that she has zero advantages), referring to her as a man is disrespectful and is not even close to being factually accurate. [emphasis added]

Solidifying himself as more of a "comedian" than a commentator, Crowder went on to claim – in the most stigmatizing and shameful way possible – that, because she was born a biological male, Fox has an unfair physical advantage over her female opponents:

So let’s assume for a second that one can completely change their genetics (rather than the likely reality of having merely pushed certain, inconvenient gene expressions at bay) after having Bobbitt’d their wiener. It is still undeniable that for this person’s entire life, that he had the hormonal profile and capabilities of a man. This is of course to say nothing of the ligaments, bone density and overall musculature that has been built over a lifetime of… well, being a man. Let’s just talk hormones for a second.

[…]

On a related note, Fallon Fox has being using steroids for decades.

They’re called testicles.

If you’ve had them, grown up with them and used them... you don't get to beat up women. [emphasis added]

Crowder is unqualified to be making statements about the physical characteristics of a transgender woman.

According to experts who have looked at Fox’s case, Fox is unlikely to experience any significant physical damage over her female opponents.

Dr. Marci Bowers, MD:

Most measures of physical strength minimize, muscle mass decreases, bone density decreases, and they become fairly comparable to women in their musculature. After as much time as has passed in her case, if tested, she would probably end up in the same muscle mass category as her biologically born female counterpart.

Dr. Sherman Leis, founder of the Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery:

If an individual is on female hormones, and she's been on them for several years, the hormones decrease the muscle mass, bone density, strength, libido and aggression. Those things are attributed to testosterone, and if she no longer produces testosterone, then she would have the level that an average female would have.

She's been doing that (hormone therapy) for so many years, that she probably does not have a significant advantage, if any at all. Especially because she wasn't a big man when she lived as a male. She's 5'7 and slight of build, and basically the size of an average female. Factor in that she's been on hormones for so long, and has had the surgery, she more than likely has the muscle mass, bone density and strength of most females.

As Sports Illustrated noted, “conclusive supporting data on the subject of competitive equity has only increased as the transgender community grows among all ages.”

And James McDonald at Bleacher Report recently noted that much of the criticism about Fox’s alleged physical advantage has been based on bias and ignorance, not real medical expertise.

This clearly seems to be the case with Crowder, who has no basis in his column for blindly insisting “she’s a man!” Like his fellow Fox News contributor Dr. Keith Ablow who regularly misinforms about LGBT issues, Crowder is more interested in mocking and stigmatizing transgender people than doing actual research about the subject he’s commenting on. 

Last month, GLAAD called on Fox News to end its transphobic coverage, yet given Crowder's column, it seems the network has failed to do so. 

Previously:

Pediatrician On CNN: Transgender Girls Will Walk Around Bathrooms With Their Genitals Exposed

Fox’s O’Reilly Fear Mongers About MA School Policy To Protect Transgender Students

Fox & Friends Mocks Brown University For Offering Transgender Health Insurance Coverage

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah wasn’t happy that he was being accused of comparing same-sex marriage to child sacrifice; to defend himself, he decided to write an entire column comparing same-sex marriage to child sacrifice, noting they are, in fact, “inextricably linked.”

On March 5, Farah published a column criticizing the growing number of conservatives who have expressed support for marriage equality, calling same-sex marriage “one of the most radical ideas considered since child sacrifice.”

Farah’s comment generated some attention and criticism from progressive groups and news outlets.

In response, Farah published another column on March 12 to claim that his “words were twisted” and deny that he was equating gay marriage to child sacrifice:

Had I said, “same-sex marriage is one of the most radical ideas since sliced bread,” I don’t think anyone would suggest I was linking one with the other.

Immediately after denying linking the two,  Farah goes into great detail explaining how same-sex marriage and child sacrifice really aren’t that different after all:

Of course I didn’t say they were the same.

I just proclaimed them radical ideas. In fact, I would add that what they have in common is that they are radically sinful ideas. In fact, they are so radically sinful that the Creator of the universe, who defines right from wrong, says in Jeremiah 19:5 that until the notion of child sacrifice was actually committed by the human race, it had not even entered His holy mind as a possibility.

I suspect the One True God feels the same way about same-sex marriage, since He specifically prohibits homosexuality and lesbianism as an abomination in Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:22-27

[…]

Maybe people like me represent a dying breed who still concern ourselves with morality that only a Creator God could define.

But it won’t change my mind, no matter how trendy same-sex marriage becomes.

It won’t change my mind, no matter how popular child sacrifice becomes – and, in the 20th century, it became more popular than ever, even to the point of sacrificing children before birth.

[…]

No, I didn’t intend to link child sacrifice with same-sex marriage. Yet they are linked. They are inextricably linked as behaviors characterized as abominations by the God of the Bible.

They both emerge right from the pit of hell. [emphasis added]

In other words, Farah denied comparing same-sex marriage to child sacrifice by devoting an entire column to explain their supposed similarities.

Previously:

WND Columnist: Obama Praised “Infamous Perverts” By Citing Stonewall In His Inaugural Speech

Scam: WorldNetDaily Charging $29.99 To Send Anti-Gay Letters To Congress

WND's Kinsolving: Marylanders Will Vote Against Gay Marriage Because Of Syphilis, Pedophilia

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly berated a guest on his show, calling him a “smear merchant” and a “charlatan,” for accurately accusing him of attempting to depict a gay Colorado lawmaker as being lenient towards child molesters. 

During the March 13 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly hosted Denver Post editorial page editor Curtis Hubbard to discuss Hubbard's column criticizing O’Reilly’s ongoing attacks against openly gay Colorado lawmaker Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D-2).

In his March 10 column, Hubbard condemned O’Reilly for repeatedly citing Rep. Ferrandino’s sexual orientation while discussing the lawmaker’s opposition to Jessica’s Law, a measure deemed unnecessary by law enforcement experts and victims’ advocates that would impose a 25-year minimum sentence on those found guilty of sexually assaulting children. Hubbard accused O’Reilly of attempting to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia, writing:

O'Reilly's fear-mongering should offend all Coloradans. He was saying "gay," but what he wanted his listeners to hear was "pervert-pedophile."

Disagree? Then you try explaining what Ferrandino's sexual orientation and stance on civil unions has to do with Jessica's Law.

On his show, O’Reilly denied Hubbard’s accusations, calling him a “smear merchant” and a “charlatan”:

O’REILLY: I described Ferrandino to the audience because the audience doesn’t know who the heck he is and I did it in the context of what his priorities are. His priorities are civil unions, alright, which you guys are going to have pretty soon out there, and legalizing marijuana, which you already have out there. And he’s a gay marriage proponent, as you know. So I said he are Ferrandino’s priorities, here’s what he spends his time on, alright? And Jessica’s Law he doesn’t want.

[…]

O’REILLY: I described him the way he describes himself.

HUBBARD: If you had simply said ‘Democrats in Colorado oppose Jessica’s law, here’s why,’ I probably never would have brought it up.

O’REILLY: Look.

HUBBARD: But the fact of the matter is that you used his sexuality to impugn his character and to imply to your viewers that it was his sexuality –

O’REILLY: I didn’t impugn his character at all. I said what his priorities are as Speaker of the House. Look, I’m going to post this on BillOReilly.com, the whole thing, so people can see what a charlatan you are.

In fact, Hubbard’s description of O’Reilly's comments is accurate:

• February 22: When O’Reilly first mentioned Ferrandino’s sexuality on his show, it was not in the context of the speaker’s legislative “priorities.” Rather, O’Reilly mentioned Ferrandino's sexuality while asking Colorado Rep. Libby Szabo (R-27) what reason Ferrandino might have for opposing Jessica’s Law. When Szabo suggested that Ferrandino might be “protecting somebody” because child molesters “hold more credence” with him than victims do, O’Reilly didn’t push back against the accusation. 
• March 4: The next time O’Reilly targeted Ferrandino, he cited the lawmaker’s support for LGBT equality as evidence that he was trying to “impose a secular paradise” in Colorado – a “paradise” which ostensibly includes lax sentencing for child molesters.

Even conservative media critic Bernie Sanders expressed concern about O’Reilly’s description of Ferrandino, asking O’Reilly “what does [Ferrandino’s] sexuality have anything to do” with his position on Jessica’s Law?

Hubbard’s criticism is especially appropriate given that O’Reilly has previously expressed support for the myth that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia (a position he reversed earlier this week after backlash over his attacks on Ferrandino).

Previously:

O’Reilly Admits Homosexuality Has “Nothing To Do” With Pedophilia After Widespread Criticism

Fox’s O’Reilly Backtracks After Accusing Gay Colorado Lawmaker Of Protecting Child Molesters

Fox's O’Reilly Accuses Gay Colorado Lawmaker Of Protecting Child Molesters

After weeks of being criticized for suggesting that a gay Colorado lawmaker might be trying to protect child molesters, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly attempted to clarify his earlier comments by stating that homosexuality has “nothing to do with the crime of pedophilia.”

Since late February, O’Reilly has devoted multiple segments of his show, The O'Reilly Factor, to campaigning against openly gay Colorado lawmaker Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D-2) over his opposition to “Jessica’s Law,” a measure that would impose a 25-year sentence on those found guilty of sexually assaulting children.

O’Reilly’s attacks have drawn widespread criticism, primarily because of his insistence on bringing up Ferrandino’s sexual orientation while discussing the lawmaker’s opposition to new penalties for child molesters. The Colorado Democratic Party called the attacks "shameless" and "vicious," and The Denver Post’s editorial page editor Curtis Hubbard condemned O’Reilly, writing:

O'Reilly's fear-mongering should offend all Coloradans. He was saying "gay," but what he wanted his listeners to hear was "pervert-pedophile."

Even Fox News contributor Bernie Goldberg agreed that O’Reilly’s commentary had bordered on conflating the line between homosexuality and pedophilia, asking O’Reilly “what does [Ferrandino’s] sexuality have anything to do” with his position on Jessica’s Law?

The widespread condemnation of O’Reilly’s attacks seems to have put the Fox News host on the defensive.

During the March 12 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly responded to a viewer email that echoed concerns about his comments, clarifying that “homosexuality has nothing to do with the crime of pedophilia” while doubling down on his attacks:

O’REILLY: I have to report the truth here. First truism, homosexuality has nothing to do with the crime of pedophilia. Second, everyone we report on is defined and that guy is proud of his circumstance and promotes it, so we reported it.

O’Reilly’s explanation for his attacks still doesn’t pass the smell test, but it’s at least an improvement from when he openly defended linking homosexuality to pedophilia last summer.

Previously:

Fox’s O’Reilly Backtracks After Accusing Gay Colorado Lawmaker Of Protecting Child Molesters

Fox's O’Reilly Accuses Gay Colorado Lawmaker Of Protecting Child Molesters

Fox News contributor and conservative columnist Cal Thomas promoted the popular right-wing talking point that marriage equality would create a slippery slope toward polygamy and marriage with children, despite the fact that this myth has been consistently disproven.

In a March 12 column for FoxNews.com on “what we ought to be asking gay marriage advocates,” Thomas posed the question – if same-sex marriage is legalized, what reason can be given for denying polygamous marriages or marriages with underage children?: 

What advocates for same-sex marriage should be asked is whether they consider any other human relationship worthy of similar constitutional protection and based on what standard? The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to marry. States, not the federal government, issue marriage licenses. 

Current laws restrict "underage" marriage, as well as polygamy. If same-sex marriage is approved, what's to stop polygamists from demanding legal protection and cultural acceptance?Justice Antonin Scalia predicted as much in 2003 in his dissent of the Lawrence v. Texas case, in which the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas. So I ask, if "fairness" and "equality" are the standard, isn't it also "unfair" to "discriminate" against polygamists who wish to live in "loving" and "committed" relationships?

Since we are rapidly discarding the rules for living and social order set down in a book found in most motel room drawers, what is to replace it? Opinion polls? Clever legal arguments? Fairness? What exactly does "fairness" mean and who decides what's fair? Many things may seem "unfair," but not all can, or should, be addressed by courts. [emphasis added]

The slippery slope argument has been peddled by conservative and anti-gay activists since the beginning of the debate over same-sex marriage, and it remains just as deeply flawed as it’s always been. 

1. Polygamous And Child Marriages Harm Society. The most obvious problem with Thomas’ argument is that there are strong and compelling reasons for opposing polygamous and child marriages. Studies have found that polygamous marriages typically cause a host of problems for the men, women, and children involved in them, and young children aren’t ready to make informed decisions about lifelong commitments and raising families.

Same-sex relationships, on the other hand, are beneficial to the adults involved in them, as well as the children raised by these couples. There’s no compelling reason to deny legal protections to families headed by same-sex couples. 

2. Polygamous Marriage Isn’t A Basic Civil Right. When gay people are prohibited from marrying, they are denied equal access to an institution available to heterosexuals simply because of a deeply ingrained, immutable part of their identities. Gay people are barred from benefits, rights, and privileges afforded to heterosexual couples simply because of the way they were born.

This is not the case with polygamous marriages. Though some people may prefer polygamous relationships, this refusing to accommodate this preference is different from denying an entire group of people access to a civil institution based on who they are. As Andrew Sullivan wrote: 

Almost everyone seems to accept, even if they find homosexuality morally troublesome, that it occupies a deeper level of human consciousness than a polygamous impulse… And almost all of us tacitly assume this, even in the very use of the term "homosexuals." We accept also that multiple partners can be desired by gays and straights alike; that polygamy is an activity, whereas both homosexuality and heterosexuality are states.

3. The Slippery Slope Has Been Disproven Over And Over. Though conservatives have been warning about the slippery slope for years, there’s no empirical evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage results in further “redefinition” of marriage. A high court in Canada, for example, recently upheld the country’s ban on polygamy, despite the fact that gay marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005. As Lauren Ramseyer at Pam’s House Blend recently noted:  

Not a single country that has legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples has gone on to legalize polygamous marriage.  Countries that have legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.

On the contrary, there is a great deal of overlap between countries that criminalize homosexuality or same-sex marriage and countries that have legalized polygamous marriage.

Previously:

Fox’s O’Reilly Backtracks After Accusing Gay Colorado Lawmaker Of Protecting Child Molesters

O'Reilly: Conservative Argument Against Gay Marriage "Wasn't Strong Enough"

Fox News Adopts Pedophilia Narrative While Covering Boy Scouts' Gay Ban

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly backtracked in his attempt to link a gay Colorado lawmaker's opposition to a measure affecting sexual predators who target children with that lawmaker's sexuality after  criticism from a Colorado newspaper editorial writer.

Over the last several weeks, O'Reilly has used his national platform to attack openly gay Colorado lawmaker Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D-2) over his opposition to "Jessica's Law," a measure that would impose a 25-year sentence on those found guilty of sexually assaulting children.

In a March 10 column, The Denver Post's editorial page editor Curtis Hubbard condemned O'Reilly for repeatedly citing Ferrandino's sexual orientation in his attacks, writing:

O'Reilly's fear-mongering should offend all Coloradans. He was saying "gay," but what he wanted his listeners to hear was "pervert-pedophile."

Disagree? Then you try explaining what Ferrandino's sexual orientation and stance on civil unions has to do with Jessica's Law.

During the March 11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly responded to Hubbard's criticism, insisting that he was merely attempting to provide "context" for his criticism:

O'REILLY: We described the speaker as "openly gay" because Americans don't know who he is and that description is used in almost every article ever written about him. And the reason we brought up civil unions is because Ferrandino objected to that vote being sabotaged by Republicans a few years ago, then he turned around and used the same technique to table Jessica's Law.

[...]

The reason that I did that was to put into perspective who he is. People don't know who this guy is, he's not like Joe Biden. They don't know this guy is. So I had to tell people, 'look, this is what this guy's interested in. This is what he promotes.'

Read the full entry ...

Fox’s Bill O’Reilly used his national platform to launch a crusade against openly gay Colorado lawmaker Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D-2) over his opposition to a law that would institute mandatory minimum sentences for sexual predators who target children, repeatedly suggesting that Ferrandino’s opposition to the measure might be linked to his support for gay marriage.

During the February 22 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly criticized Ferrandino for opposing “Jessica’s Law,” a measure that would impose a 25-year sentence on those found guilty of sexually assaulting children. Law enforcement experts and victims’ advocates in Colorado have deemed Jessica’s Law unnecessary, noting that current Colorado laws “already go beyond what Jessica’s law mandates.”

During the segment, O'Reilly joined Colorado Rep. Libby Szabo (R-27) in attempting to link Ferrandino’s opposition to the bill to his homosexuality and support for civil unions. O’Reilly also promised to hold Ferrandino “personally responsible,” threatening that his life would soon “take a turn for the worse”:

O’REILLY: Now this Ferrandino, I understand he is the, what, the first openly gay House Speaker in Colorado. He was a fervent gay marriage person. He objected when gay marriage was first tabled because they sent it into the same committee to kill it that he sent Jessica’s law in. All of that true so far of this guy?

SZABO: So far you’re correct.

O’REILLY: All right. So this guy doesn’t want tougher mandatory sentences. Have you talked to him about it? Has he said anything to the press about why not?

SZABO: You know, I don’t know that the press in Colorado, they covered this issue very well on, on my side of the issue and on Mr. Lunsford’s side of the issue. But I don’t believe he was willing to speak to them because obviously he’s protecting somebody. Obviously the victims hold more credence with him — I mean not the victims— the perpetrators hold more credence with him than the child victims do.

O’Reilly continued his campaign on the March 4 edition of his show, which opened with a tease once again linking Ferrandino’s support for civil unions to his alleged unwillingness to protect kids “from sexual predators”:

Later in the show, O’Reilly accused Ferrandino of attempting to usher in a “secular paradise” in Colorado, citing his support for LGBT equality:

O’REILLY: He put it into a committee that he knew it was going to kill it. Yet the same guy that you’re looking at, gay marriage, he’s a big gay marriage guy, big marijuana legalizer, there he is. And when I worked in Colorado more than thirty years ago, Jessica’s Law would have passed like that when I was there. It wouldn’t have even been close. But now, as you said, you have this influx of people from the outside who want to impose a secular paradise, much like they have in Boulder, Colorado, where the university is, and that’s infected the entire state.

As Think Progress’ Zack Ford noted, O’Reilly’s insistence on linking Ferrandino’s support for LGBT equality to his opposition to Jessica’s Law is a transparent attempt to prey upon fears that gay men are more inclined to engage in, or at least endorse, pedophilia – a position that O’Reilly has previously supported:

It’s hard to justify anything about this “campaign” of O’Reilly’s as journalism. It seems increasingly apparent that he is simply manipulating the fact that Ferrandino is gay to prey on viewers’ fears that the Speaker is thus somehow more likely to be endangering children.

According to The Denver Post, O’Reilly’s campaign against Ferrandino is already bearing fruit. Following O’Reilly’s first segment on the topic, Ferrandino received a number of angry e-mails about his position, including one from a viewer hoping that Ferrandino’s 14-month-old foster daughter is raped.

Previously:

Fox’s O’Reilly Fear Mongers About MA School Policy To Protect Transgender Students

O'Reilly: Conservative Argument Against Gay Marriage "Wasn't Strong Enough"

O'Reilly Defends Family Research Council's Anti-Gay Pedophilia Smear

This week, Equality Matters looks at The Washington Post’s allegedly “pro-gay” coverage, the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) empty threats against Minnesota Republicans, and Jennifer Morse’s cruel theory on why bullied teen Tyler Clementi took his own life:

iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/equality-matters/id429665764

RSS: http://equalitymatters.org/rss/m3.rss

To listen to last week’s podcast, click here.

During the February 27 edition of CNN Newsroom, host Brooke Baldwin led a panel discussion about Coy Mathis, a 6-year-old Colorado transgender girl who is suing her school district for the right to use female restrooms at her elementary school.

Everyone on the panel expressed support for Mathis’ position except for Dr. James Sears, co-host of the CBS show The Doctors. Sears, who is a pediatrician and television personality, warned that Mathis might walk around the girls’ bathroom with her penis exposed, like “most boys” allegedly do at that age:

SEARS: I have three kids, a daughter and two boys, and as when my daughter was that age, I would have been very uncomfortable if there was a boy with a penis walking around their bathroom. And you say that the stalls are private. You know, at that age, most boys especially will use the bathroom then leave their pants down while they walk to the sink to wash their hands and then pull it up.  So it’s going to be very uncomfortable for the other girls seeing a penis in their bathroom.

JENNIFER HUTT: She’s a girl.

SEARS: She has a penis, though.

The other panelists were understandably confused and outraged at Sears’ explanation and insistence on describing Mathis as a boy.

The “bathroom panic” argument is a popular conservative response to attempts to protect transgender people from discrimination, especially when it comes to public accommodations. It’s also completely baseless.

Moreover, forcing Mathis, who identifies and presents herself as female, to use the boys’ restroom would likely add to the extreme harassment that many transgender students like Coy already face in school. As Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, recently stated:

“By forcing Coy to use a different bathroom than all the other girls, Coy’s school is targeting her for stigma, bullying and harassment… Coy’s school has the opportunity to turn this around and teach Coy’s classmates a valuable lesson about friendship, respect and basic fairness.”

As a pediatrician with a wide television audience, Sears should have known better than to contribute to stigmatizing transgender youth and hyping misinformed anxieties about letting children like Mathis use the bathrooms in which they feel comfortable.

Previously:

Fox’s O’Reilly Fear Mongers About MA School Policy To Protect Transgender Students

Fox & Friends Mocks Brown University For Offering Transgender Health Insurance Coverage

Fox Hosts Mock, Laugh At Transgender Inmate’s Appearance

Fox’s Bill O’Reilly condemned a new Massachusetts school policy protecting transgender students, suggesting that teachers should be allowed to out their transgender students to their families and fear mongering that “wise guys” might use the policy to infiltrate girls’ restrooms.

During the February 26 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly railed against a new directive for Massachusetts schools concerning the treatment of transgender students.

The directive – which is aimed at encouraging non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity – instructs school officials to acknowledge students by their preferred gender identity and respect transgender students’ privacy when discussing their gender identity with their parents.

O’Reilly called the directive “insane,” suggesting that “wise guys” would casually alter their gender identity in order to enter the locker rooms of the opposite sex. He went on to argue that that schools should be required to inform parents about their children’s “lifestyle” choices: 

O’REILLY: This is truly madness, ladies and gentlemen. You’re telling me that a kid can go to a public school in Massachusetts, immediately upon entering the school take off the kid’s shirt and put on a dress, alright, go to the girls’ room when he’s a boy, and then change his name from John to Tiffany, and then after school, put the shirt back on, go home, and he’s still John.

[…]

O’REILLY: There’s a difference between a conversation and a lifestyle. That’s such a violation of parental rights by the state of Massachusetts. It’s off the chart violation.

[…]

O’REILLY: We don’t even want to get into the locker room situation here, okay? Because I know a lot of wise guys who would exploit this in a way that we’re not even going to talk about.

Considering O’Reilly’s history of wildly misinformed outrage when it comes to supporting transgender people –especially transgender youth – his meltdown over the MA directive isn’t surprising. But in his rush to condemn the new policy, he overlooked a few important facts about the directive and what it means to be transgender:

1. Gender Identity Is Innate And Largely Inflexible, Even In Young Children. As the MA directive explains, children who identify as transgender are typically responding to an “innate, largely inflexible” characteristic of their personality – not a random or casual “lifestyle” choice:

One’s gender identity is an innate, largely inflexible characteristic of each individual’s personality that is generally established by age four, although the age at which individuals come to understand and express their gender identity may vary based on each person’s social and familial social development.  As a result, the person best situated to determine a student’s gender identity is that student himself or herself.  [emphasis added]

This position is supported by experts at the American Psychological Association (APA).

In the cases of very young children, the MA directive states that the responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the child’s parents:

The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student or, in the case of young students not yet able to advocate for themselves, with the parent.

2. Students Aren’t Allowed To Casually Change Their Gender Identity. The MA directive also establishes that schools should only accept the assertion of a student’s gender identity when there is “consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity”:

Consistent with the statutory standard, a school should accept a student’s assertion of his or her gender identity when there is “consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity, or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person’s core identity.” [emphasis added]

Students may even be required to provide a letter from a parent or guardian verifying that the student is, in fact, transgender:

Confirmation of a student’s asserted gender identity may include a letter from a parent, health care provider, school staff member familiar with the student (a teacher, guidance counselor, or school psychologist, among others), or other family members or friends.  A letter from a social worker, doctor, nurse practitioner, or other health care provider stating that a student is being provided medical care or treatment relating to her/his gender identity is one form of confirmation of an asserted gender identity.  It is not, however, the exclusive form upon which the school or student may rely.  [emphasis added]

In other words, a male student who decides to “put on a dress” and identify as a female for the day would not be covered by the directive.

3. Ignoring A Student’s Gender Identity Is A Bad Idea. Allowing schools to acknowledge the appropriate gender identity of transgender students is an important step in protecting transgender youth from a host of negative consequences. Studies show that unwelcoming environments do serious damage to transgender youth, and simply refusing to acknowledge transgender children has been discouraged by medical experts. Instead, the APA encourages schools to provide support to vulnerable LGBT youth. This is especially true considering the “extreme harassment” already faced by many transgender students.

4. It’s Dangerous To Inform Parents About Their Child’s Gender Identity Without The Child’s Consent. As the MA directive explains, allowing teachers to reveal their students’ transgender status to their parents without permission is a terrible idea:

Some transgender and gender nonconforming students are not openly so at home for reasons such as safety concerns or lack of acceptance. School personnel should speak with the student first before discussing a student’s gender nonconformity or transgender status with the student’s parent or guardian.  For the same reasons, school personnel should discuss with the student how the school should refer to the student, e.g., appropriate pronoun use, in written communication to the student’s parent or guardian. [emphasis added]

Studies have shown that over half of all transgender people experience family rejection, with roughly 20 percent becoming the victims of domestic violence from a family member after coming out. Allowing teachers to “out” transgender students to their families without their permission puts those students at risk for rejection, abuse, and even homelessness. This family rejection also puts transgender students at greater risk of depression, substance abuse, and suicide.

5. Schools Are Allowed To Question A Student’s Gender Identity In Appropriate Circumstances. The MA directive also instructs school staff to question a student’s gender identity in the highly unlikely circumstance that a student claims to be transgender for inappropriate reasons, like “wise guys” trying to get into the girls’ locker room. According to the directive:

If a student’s gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior meets this standard, the only circumstance in which a school may question a student’s asserted gender identity is where school personnel have a credible basis for believing that the student’s gender-related identity is being asserted for some improper purpose.

Previously:

Fox & Friends Mocks Brown University For Offering Transgender Health Insurance Coverage

LGBT Group Petitions Fox News To Drop Its Transphobic Coverage

Fox Nation Uses Image From “Mrs. Doubtfire” To Mock Transgender People

A spokeswoman for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) recently suggested to a room full of college students that gay activists take advantage of confused adolescents to advance their “political vision,” invoking the suicide of gay bullying victim Tyler Clementi to illustrate her point.

On February 17, NOM spokeswoman Jennifer Morse gave a speech on marriage and sexuality to a group of Catholic students from Iowa State University. During the Q & A portion of her presentation, she was asked how students should respond to peers who identify as LGBT.

Morse advised students to “be friends” with their LGBT peers, explaining that people who suffer from “gender confusion” need support to avoid sexual behavior that is “probably not the best thing for them.”

She went on to invoke the death of Tyler Clementi – the 18-year-old Rutgers student who committed suicide in 2010 after his roommate secretly recorded video of him kissing another man – while discussing what she characterized as the exploitation of vulnerable adolescents by gay activists:

MORSE: In friendship, as friends, you can support them and say, ‘maybe this person is trying to exploit you.’ Sometimes you hear about these things and you don’t hear the whole story in the media.That kid Tyler Clementi who killed himself, who threw himself off the George Washington Bridge? Do you know this story? Okay, then I’m not going to tell it. There was a much older man in the picture. There’s usually more to the story, right? And so I think friendship is what you have to offer. There are a lot of situations where people are doing something sexual that’s probably not the best thing for them  and that would be better if they had somebody who would be friends with them without coming onto them or without judging them and that kind of stuff.

[…]

We get this idea that the gay rights movement is very militant and they’re demanding this and pushing that, but when you really get down to it, a lot of the young people are quite confused and lonely and need help and support and they’re getting help and support not from the Christian community, they’re getting help and support from the gay activists who have their own thing that they’re doing which is not necessarily to help the individuals but they’ve got some sort of political vision.

The day before Morse gave her speech to the Iowa State students, she spoke at a Catholic Women’s Conference where she explained that gay men are desperate to “feel better” about their “deeply wrong” sexuality and compared support for marriage equality to support for Nazism.

Previously:

NOM's Morse Compares Supporting Same-Sex Marriage To Supporting Nazism

NOM’s Morse: Gay Men Are Desperate To “Feel Better” About Their “Deeply Wrong” Homosexuality

NOM’s Morse To Women With Unwanted Pregnancies: “Too Bad, Suck It Up”

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is threatening to punish Minnesota Republicans who vote in favor of marriage equality, despite its track record of failing to oust pro-equality state legislators.

In a February 25 press release, NOM pledged $500,000 to defeat Minnesota Republican legislators who vote in favor of marriage equality legislation. The organization warned politicians that supporting same-sex marriage would be a “career-ending vote,” citing its alleged success in unseating pro-equality Republicans in New York:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today pledged to spend $500,000 against any Republican legislator who votes in favor of redefining marriage in Minnesota, and will support any Democrat who votes to preserve marriage. 

[…]

"Republicans like Branden Petersen don't realize that not only is voting to redefine marriage a terrible policy, it is also a career-ending vote for a Republican," said Brian Brown. "NOM will do everything in our power to defeat any Republican who votes in favor of same-sex marriage. Legislators need look no further than what happened to GOP Senators in New York. Four of them were responsible for passing gay marriage. We helped take out three of those Senators by repeatedly informing their constituents of their betrayal on marriage. They are now out of office. We will not hesitate to do the same thing in Minnesota."

The fact that NOM is relying on its supposed “success” in New York to substantiate its threat should be comforting for pro-equality Republicans.

NOM suffered twice as many electoral defeats as successes during the New York primary. Most of its alleged victories had more to do with the defeated politicians’ corruption charges than with NOM’s electoral muscle:

NOM’s performance in New York’s general election wasn’t much better – it managed to unseat a pro-equality Republican senator only to have him replaced by an even more aggressively pro-equality Democrat. Another NOM target won reelection by a wide margin.

NOM was even more unsuccessful in its other state ventures, failing to make an impact in elections in New Hampshire, Washington, and Iowa. As Freedom to Marry noted about the group’s Washington effort, NOM was “all bark and no bite.”

NOM is also unlikely to follow through on its $500,000 pledge. As the Twin Cities’ Pioneer Press reported, NOM only spent $80,000 of its two million dollar pledge in New York during the last election cycle.

So far, at least one Republican Minnesota senator, Sen. Branden Petersen (R-Andover), has announced that he won’t be swayed by NOM’s financial pressure to change his position on the marriage equality bill. Considering NOM’s history of electoral flops, he probably won’t lose too much sleep -- or votes -- over his decision. 

Previously:

NOM Ally Compares Gay-Straight Alliances To KKK, Nazi Skinhead Groups

NOM’s Morse To Women With Unwanted Pregnancies: “Too Bad, Suck It Up”

NOM's Morse: Obama Tried To Remove "The Sting," Stigma Of Homosexuality During The State Of The Union

The Washington Post’s ombudsman responded to claims that the paper’s coverage of the same-sex marriage debate is too “pro-gay,” noting that one reporter called it an issue of “justice and fairness.” The debate over the Post’s stance highlights a growing and significant divide in the way that journalists choose to write about the fight for LGBT equality.

On February 22, the Post’s ombudsman Patrick Pexton published a response to reader complaints that the paper “has a ‘pro-gay agenda’ and publishes too many ‘puffy’ stories about gay marriage.” Recounting an exchange between one reader and a WaPo reporter, Pexton defended the Post’s coverage, comparing anti-gay discrimination to the kind of discrimination faced by African-Americans during the 1950s and 60s:

Replied the reporter: “The reason that legitimate media outlets routinely cover gays is because it is the civil rights issue of our time. Journalism, at its core, is about justice and fairness, and that’s the ‘view of the world’ that we espouse; therefore, journalists are going to cover the segment of society that is still not treated equally under the law.”

The reader: “Contrary to what you say, the mission of journalism is not justice. Defining justice is a political matter, not journalistic. Journalism should be about accuracy and fairness.

“Good journalism also means not demeaning conservatives as ‘haters.’ ”

The reporter: “As for accuracy, should the media make room for racists, i.e. those people who believe that black people shouldn’t marry white people? Any story on African-Americans wouldn’t be wholly accurate without the opinion of a racist, right?

“Of course I have a bias. I have a bias toward fairness,” the reporter continued. “The true conservative would have the same bias. The true conservative would want the government out of people’s bedrooms, and religion out of government.”

[…]

Alongside that do-gooder instinct is a strong desire for fairness because, being out in the world, reporters encounter a great deal of unfairness. We want to expose that and even rub your noses in it. In a way, we’re shouting, through our stories: “This is unfair! Somebody do something!” Conservative and liberal journalists alike feel this way.

[…]

That’s why many journalists have a hard time giving much voice to those opposed to gay marriage. They see people opposed to gay rights today as cousins, perhaps distant cousins, of people in the 1950s and 1960s who, citing God and the Bible, opposed black people sitting in the bus seat, or dining at the lunch counter, of their choosing. [emphasis added]

Pexton’s defense of WaPo’s reporting offers a stark contrast to the “fair and balanced” approach that plagues much of today’s news coverage of the fight for LGBT equality – an approach that prioritizes treating both sides of every disagreement equally, even when one of those sides is motivated by bigotry, misinformation, and intolerance.

When the media hesitates to treat LGBT equality as the civil rights issue that it clearly is, they provide anti-gay bigots with a chance to influence and shape the national discussion about LGBT people. On cable news networks, hate group leaders like Tony Perkins are given ample airtime to fear monger about the alleged “gay agenda.” Activists like Maggie Gallagher are allowed to peddle blatant falsehoods about marriage equality. And so-called “experts,” like Fox News’ Dr. Keith Ablow, are given a platform to warn viewers that allowing a transgender person to be on television might corrupt their children. Earlier this year, even the simple question of whether to rescind the Boy Scouts’ gay ban was hijacked by conservatives hoping to paint homosexual men as pedophiles. In an effort to appear neutral, objective and “balanced,” journalists have given a tremendous amount of credibility to activists who’ve made careers dreaming up horror stories to justify their deep animus against LGBT people.

In 2010, gay activist Dan Savage told CNN that media outlets would eventually need to experience a “cultural reckoning” when it comes to covering gay and lesbian issues – a point at which those outlets recognize that it’s no longer appropriate to take the concerns of anti-gay activists seriously. They’d need to pick a “side” in the fight over LGBT equality, much in the same way the national media eventually picked a “side” in the debate over interracial marriage, the Civil Rights Act, and extending voting rights to African- Americans.

WaPo’s Pexton has wisely chosen not to stay neutral in the fight for the fair treatment of a marginalized group, instead opting to stand on the right side of history. News outlets would be wise to follow him there.

Previously:

Report: How The Media Turned The Boy Scouts Story Into A Debate Over Pedophilia

CNN Devotes Three Segments In Three Days To Debating The “Gays Are Pedophiles” Myth

Fox Invites Tony Perkins To Peddle “Gays Are Pedophiles” Myth Over Boy Scouts Ban