Many moms feel pressure and guilt from chasing perfection. The list of items on the “I should be a mom who” list is endless! Striving for perfection has a significant effect on the relationships moms are trying to nurture in their homes. Amy Rienow offers encouragement and hope to build healthy relationships with your kids, parenting them well and with joy. She will give practical reminders that will help you embrace each day and make real heart-connections with your children.
Amy Rienow is the mother of seven and the wife of Rob Rienow. She and Rob founded and lead Visionary Family Ministries, a ministry created to equip parents, encourage couples, and help families live for Christ. She is the author of several books including Visionary Marriage, Five Reasons for Spiritual Apathy in Teens, and Shine: Embracing God’s Heart for You. Amy attended University of Illinois, followed by Wheaton College Graduate School where she earned her MA in Clinical Psychology. She is a licensed clinical professional counselor with a heart for motherhood, marriage, and the church!
Formerly “Trans” Young Women Speak Out
|
On February 26, the website Public Discourse published an article that includes the harrowing accounts of five mothers—one of whom is a lifelong Democrat, another a lesbian—whose daughters experienced Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD).
These mothers are certain that the culture, including the professional mental health community, physicians, schools, peer socialization, and social media, are providing a distorted lens through which girls are viewing and misinterpreting discomfort and confusion that results from factors like trauma and pre-existing medical conditions, leading them to believe suddenly that they are, in reality, boys.
One of the mothers writes,
My daughter, at age fourteen, spontaneously decided that she is actually a male. After suffering multiple traumatic events in her life and spending a large amount of time on the internet, she announced that she was “trans.” Her personality changed almost overnight, and she went from being a sweet, loving girl to a foul-mouthed, hateful “pansexual male.” At first, I thought she was just going through a phase. But the more I tried to reason with her, the more she dug her heels in. Around this time, she was diagnosed with ADHD, depression, and anxiety. But mental health professionals seemed mainly interested in helping her process her new identity as a male and convincing me to accept the notion that my daughter is actually my son.
At age sixteen, my daughter ran away and reported to the Department of Child Services that she feltunsafe living with me because I refused to refer to her using male pronouns or her chosen male name. Although the Department investigated and found she was well cared for, they forced me to meet with a trans-identified person to “educate” me on these issues. Soon after, without my knowledge, a pediatric endocrinologist taught my daughter—a minor—to inject herself with testosterone. My daughter then ran away to Oregon where state law allowed her—at the age of seventeen, without my knowledge or consent—to change her name and legal gender in court, and to undergo a double mastectomy and a radical hysterectomy.
My once beautiful daughter is now nineteen years old, homeless, bearded, in extreme poverty, sterilized, not receiving mental health services, extremely mentally ill, and planning a radial forearm phalloplasty (a surgical procedure that removes part of her arm to construct a fake penis).
Recently a 14-year-old girl in Canada took her father to court because he doesn’t want her to receive testosterone injections in her effort to masquerade as a boy. The Supreme Court of British Columbia not only decided that she is mature enough to grant consent and may start receiving testosterone immediately but also that,
Attempting to persuade A.B. [the daughter] to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing A. B. by his [sic] birth name; referring to
A.B. as a girl or with female pronouns whether to him [sic] directly or to third parties; shall be considered to be family violence under s. 38 of the Family Law Act.
This is coming to America. Big government in cahoots with Big “Trans” believes so deeply in the science denying “trans”-cultic religion that it will stop at nothing—not even our front doors—to impose it on children.
In five, six, or ten years A.B. could be Helena, Jesse, Dagny, or Chiara, four young formerly “trans”-identifying women who just launched a website called Pique Resilience Project to shed light on “detransitioning.” They are four women—decidedly not conservative—ages 19-22 who regret “transitioning,” answer “questions for detransitioners and desisters,” and tell their “personal stories and opinions as women who identified as trans and desisted.”
Their website offers several videos, this one of which I would urge IFI readers and political and school leaders to watch:
In this important video, the women discuss the dysfunctional behavior endemic to the “trans” community, which includes substance abuse and cutting. They discuss the vindictiveness of the “trans” community that prohibits members from questioning whether they really are “trans.” And they discuss the causes of their prior belief that they were “trans,” which included experiences of trauma, social isolation, and exposure to and immersion in online “trans” communities.
In an interview with self-avowed feminists Chiara and her mother Denise on 4thWaveNow, an important website for anyone who wants to understand gender dysphoria, ROGD, and the “trans” ideology, lesbian Chiara expresses her adamant opposition to “legislation that would make it illegal for therapists to encourage clients to explore why they feel they must transition”:
I think that would be blatant malpractice. The job of a therapist is to help people overcome issues and develop the best life possible, and transition is not always the right way forward. This would also prevent therapists from digging into deeper issues behind dysphoria. If this law were to go into effect, if would only increase the number of young people who would later detransition.
This interview is a gold mine of important information, but I want to draw particular attention to three more points made by Chiara and her mom:
Chiara: Suicide is used as a “warning to parents: ‘This is what happens when you don’t let your kid transition.’ This mantra continues to be repeated online and everywhere, and perpetuates the idea that suicide is the ‘only way out’ for kids whose parents will not accept their gender identity—this is a false statement that should under no circumstance be peddled to impressionable young people….[S]uicide rates by trans-identified kids are misrepresented and used to threaten and manipulate people into ‘validating’ identities without question.”
Chiara: “Parents are often demonized, called ‘abusive,’ and beaten down by trans activists if they dare to question whether transition is right for their child. Parents are generally not in the habit of brainwashing their children—rather, most want to protect and support them. Asking your child to think critically and consider other factors at play is not abusive, it’s just parenting.”
Denise (Mom): “One of the most pernicious things trans activists and some gender clinicians do is try todrive a wedge between young trans-identified people and their families. While there are certainly abusive parents, the vast majority of us who have serious reservations about the medicalization of our gender-atypical youth do love and care about our kids and only want the best for them.”
In August of 2018, a study on ROGD by Dr. Lisa Littman, physician and associate professor of the practice of behavioral sciences at radical Ivy League Brown University, was published in which she concluded by saying that further research into the phenomenon is needed:
In recent years, a number of parents have been reporting in online discussion groups… that their adolescent and young adult (AYA) children, who have had no histories of childhood gender identity issues, experienced a rapid onset of gender dysphoria. Parents have described clusters of gender dysphoria outbreaks occurring in pre-existing friend groups with multiple or even all members of a friend group becoming gender dysphoric and transgender-identified in a pattern that seems statistically unlikely based on previous research. Parents describe a process of immersion in social media, such as “binge-watching” Youtube transition videos and excessive use of Tumblr, immediately preceding theirchild becoming gender dysphoric. These descriptions… raise the question of whether social influences may be contributing to or even driving these occurrences of gender dysphoria in some populations of adolescents and young adults.
…
The worsening of mental well-being and parent-child relationships and behaviors that isolate teens from their parents, families, non-transgender friends and mainstream sources of information are particularlyconcerning. More research is needed to better understand rapid-onset gender dysphoria, its implications, and scope.
There has been a troubling explosion in the number of adolescents who identify as “trans,” aided and abetted by medical and mental health organizations that have been taken over by leftists. Now the “trans” cult is reaching into families with its grasping, bloodstained claws, dragging children out to destroy their bodies, minds, and hearts, and leaving heartbroken parents in its wake. Finally children scarred and parents betrayed by the “trans” cult are beginning to tell their stories.
On Saturday, March 16, 2019, the Illinois Family Institute will be hosting our annual Worldview Conference. This coming year, we will focus on the “transgender” revolution. We already have commitments from Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians; Walt Heyer, former “transgender” and contributor to Public Discourse; Denise Schick, Founder and Director of Help 4 Families, and daughter of a man who “identified” as a woman; and Doug Wilson, who is a Senior Fellow of Theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, and pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho .
Strict Scrutiny and the ERA – A Bad Combination for Women
|
Written by Elise Bouc of STOP ERA Illinois
On the surface, the Equal Rights Amendment seems quite innocent. The main text states, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex.”
Unfortunately for women, from a legal perspective, this simple language raises the category of “sex” to strict scrutiny which is the most restrictive standard of legal review. Under strict scrutiny, no one can be treated differently based on the characteristic that has become “suspect” (in this case – sex), and it is almost impossible to justify before the court any reason for treating them differently.
Currently race, national origin and religion are all justifiably adjudicated in this category. As a result, we can not treat anyone differently based on their race, national origin, or religion. Sex, however, is different from these other categories, in that there are clear biological differences (such as anatomy, hormones, ability to bear children, and privacy needs) that require a need to differentiate between men and women for the well-being and success of both men and women.
The push for women’s rights has always been about providing equal opportunities for women, and removing any obstacles that prevent them from having equal opportunities. It was never about making women fit into the mold of men, or making women become men. Since the civil rights movement in the 1960s, this push has resulted in careful adjustments of laws to ensure that women were supported in their endeavors, and these laws have often taken into consideration biological differences to provide for equal access to success. A prime example is the pregnancy accommodation law Illinois recently passed that provides pregnant working women in physically demanding jobs additional breaks and other temporary accommodations to protect them and their developing child during their pregnancy while still enabling them to retain their job.
Under the ERA with its requirement of strict scrutiny, any laws that provide different treatment to women, even when it logically makes sense to do so, would be overturned – thus removing valuable supports for women, and placing obstacles in their way to success. Under the ERA, one could simply argue that the pregnancy accommodation law shows preferential treatment for women in violation of the standard of strict scrutiny, and that beneficial law would be overturned.
When presented with these concerns, many feminists protest that the courts would never allow these valuable programs and practices to be overturned. They seem to view the courts as a place where laws can be made up or dismissed. Obviously they don’t understand the requirements of strict scrutiny. Because the ERA places sex under strict scrutiny, judges and lawmakers will be unable to change any of the extreme requirements of the ERA. Justice Ginsberg wrote a lengthy report in the 1970s, titled, Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, detailing the impact of the ERA, and she made it very clear that the ERA would overturn all instances of differentiation based on sex.
Examples of additional beneficial laws and programs that would be overturned include:
Financial support to educate women: Several philanthropic organizations promote educational opportunities for women, many of whom are single parents, through scholarships and loans. These organizations would be forced out of existence by the ERA if they didn’t also provide equal financial support to men.
Shelters, transitional housing and self sufficiency programs for homeless and/or abused women and their children. Men are not allowed in these shelters due to the emotional needs of the women. The ERA would not allow these programs that only provide benefits to women.
The federal Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program provides medical and nutritional support to low income child-bearing women and their children. Such a beneficial program and others like it would be overturned because preferential treatment is being given to women.
Separate prison facilities for men and women: Currently men and women prison inmates are housed in separate prison facilities due to privacy, safety and rehabilitative needs. A recent Illinois prison study advocated that a different approach be provided to incarcerated women due to their emotional response to stress and their histories with physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Providing improved gender based responses through staff training will decrease recidivism for women, shorten their length of prison time and help them become more successful after prison. Such a gender based approach greatly benefits women, but Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has stated that under the ERA, prisons would have to be sex integrated. Gender based approaches would also be overruled. (cjinvolvedwomen.org, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sex Bias in the U.S. Code)
Exemption of women from the military draft and compulsory front-line combat. Currently women who feel they are physically able can choose to enlist in the military and even participate in front line combat. Justice Ginsberg says that the ERA, however, would require that all women be drafted and placed on front-line combat in equal ratios to men. No exceptions could be made for women with children in the home. If men with children at home can be drafted, then women with children must also be drafted. Women face increased sexual vulnerability in the military as well as greater physical difficulties based on biological differences. (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.)
Laws and presumptions that support women in the areas of alimony, child support, and requirements of husbands to pay for their dependent wives’ medical bills. The ERA will also wipe out state laws that exempt a wife from having to pay her husband’s debts even if he deserts her with children to support. Coleman v. Maryland, 37 Md. App. 322, 377 A.2d (1977); Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536, 318 A.2d 324 (1974)/ Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nathans, 5 D&C 3d 619 (1978).
Social Security benefits for stay-at-home mothers based on their spouse’s income. Whether the social security administration calls it a benefit for ‘wives,’ or ‘spouses,’ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that it will still be overturned by the ERA because it violates the equality principle by encouraging women to be dependent on their husbands. (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.)
All laws and practices that provide gender related privacy in regards to bathrooms, locker rooms, hospital rooms, nursing homes, etc. would be nullified because they make distinctions based on sex.
Any other laws or practices that provide unique support to women.
The lawmakers of Pennsylvania learned the harsh results of their state ERA when gender based automobile insurance rates that favored women due to their safer driving record were disapproved by the state insurance commissioner due to a claim of sex discrimination. The lawmakers quickly passed a law allowing gender based insurance rates, only to find that their state Supreme Court overturned the law due to the strict requirements of their state ERA. (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner, 482 A.2d 542 [Pa. 1984] and 543-44). Other states who have passed state ERAs have also witnessed their ERAs being used to remove beneficial laws for women. Once we pass this federal amendment, we must live under its harsh requirements which will not benefit women. Instead it will remove the many laws, programs and practices we have carefully crafted to provide women with equal opportunities for success.
Clearly the ERA will not benefit women. Instead it will force them into being treated exactly as men regardless of any biological differences. Please oppose the ERA (SJRCA4) and its strict scrutiny requirements. For those who want a women’s rights amendment in the U.S. Constitution, tell them to write a better amendment that won’t harm women.
If you’re alarmed about the impact of the ERA, please call your Illinois state representative and ask him/her to support women by voting against the ERA.
TAKE ACTION:Please contact your lawmaker by phone and email and encourage him/her to VOTE NO on the ERA (Bill #SJRCA4). Remind them that this poorly written amendment will harm women and the unborn child. Under the ERA we will no longer be able to recognize and provide for the biological differences between men and women. In addition, the ERA will overturn all abortion restrictions and mandate taxpayer funding for all elective Medicaid abortions. To find contact information for your legislators, see the link below.
Please pass this on to others who will help. If we work together, they will not have their victory. We do not fight this battle alone.
