Md. state delegate and his dog attacked by off leash pit bull

Maryland state delegate Nic Kipke was attacked by an unleashed pit bull on Saturday evening, according to a Facebook post.


Kipke said while out walking with his children, wife and dog, and unleashed pit bull attacked him and the dog, Tucker.

According to Kipke, both he and Tucker are “stitched up and resting.”

Kipke thanked the vet staff, doctors, and emergency crews who took care of him and his dog.

Pediatrician: ‘Transgender’ ideology has created widespread child abuse

the three men most responsible for the transgender movement – Dr. Alfred Kinsey, Dr. Harry Benjamin, and Dr. John Money were all pedophilia activists.



By Michelle A. Cretella

July 10, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Transgender politics have taken Americans by surprise, and caught some lawmakers off guard.

Just a few short years ago, not many could have imagined a high-profile showdown over transgender men and women’s access to single-sex bathrooms in North Carolina.

But transgender ideology is not just infecting our laws. It is intruding into the lives of the most innocent among us — children — and with the apparent growing support of the professional medical community.

As explained in my 2016 peer reviewed article, “Gender Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate,” professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone.

I speak as someone intimately familiar with the pediatric and behavioral health communities and their practices. I am a mother of four who served 17 years as a board certified general pediatrician with a focus in child behavioral health prior to leaving clinical practice in 2012.

For the last 12 years, I have been a board member and researcher for the American College of Pediatricians, and for the last three years I have served as its president.

I also sat on the board of directors for the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity from 2010 to 2015. This organization of physicians and mental health professionals defends the right of patients to receive psychotherapy for sexual identity conflicts that is in line with their deeply held values based upon science and medical ethics.

I have witnessed an upending of the medical consensus on the nature of gender identity. What doctors once treated as a mental illness, the medical community now largely affirms and even promotes as normal.

Here’s a look at some of the changes.

The New Normal

Pediatric “gender clinics” are considered elite centers for affirming children who are distressed by their biological sex. This distressful condition, once dubbed gender identity disorder, was renamed “gender dysphoria” in 2013.

In 2014, there were 24 of these gender clinics, clustered chiefly along the east coast and in California. One year later, there were 40 across the nation.

With 215 pediatric residency programs now training future pediatricians in a transition-affirming protocol and treating gender-dysphoric children accordingly, gender clinics are bound to proliferate further.

Last summer, the federal government stated that it would not require Medicare and Medicaid to cover transition-affirming procedures for children or adults because medical experts at the Department of Health and Human Services found the risks were often too high, and the benefits too unclear.

Undeterred by these findings, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health has pressed ahead, claiming — without any evidence — that these procedures are “safe.”

Two leading pediatric associations — the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Endocrine Society — have followed in lockstep, endorsing the transition affirmation approach even as the latter organization concedes within its own guidelines that the transition-affirming protocol is based on low evidence.

They even admit that the only strong evidence regarding this approach is its potential health risks to children.

The transition-affirming view holds that children who “consistently and persistently insist” that they are not the gender associated with their biological sex are innately transgender.

(The fact that in normal life and in psychiatry, anyone who “consistently and persistently insists” on anything else contrary to physical reality is considered either confused or delusional is conveniently ignored.)

The transition-affirming protocol tells parents to treat their children as the gender they desire, and to place them on puberty blockers around age 11 or 12 if they are gender dysphoric.

If by age 16, the children still insist that they are trapped in the wrong body, they are placed on cross-sex hormones, and biological girls may obtain a double mastectomy.

So-called “bottom surgeries,” or genital reassignment surgeries, are not recommended before age 18, though some surgeons have recently argued against this restriction.

The transition-affirming approach has been embraced by public institutions in media, education, and our legal system, and is now recommended by most national medical organizations.

There are exceptions to this movement, however, in addition to the American College of Pediatricians and the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice. These include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Catholic Medical Association, and the LGBT-affirming Youth Gender Professionals.

The transgender movement has gained legs in the medical community and in our culture by offering a deeply flawed narrative. The scientific research and facts tell a different story.

Here are some of those basic facts.

1. Twin studies prove no one is born “trapped in the body of the wrong sex.”

Some brain studies have suggested that some are born with a transgendered brain. But these studies are seriously flawed and prove no such thing.

Virtually everything about human beings is influenced by our DNA, but very few traits are hardwired from birth. All human behavior is a composite of varying degrees for nature and nurture.

Researchers routinely conduct twin studies to discern which factors (biological or nonbiological) contribute more to the expression of a particular trait. The best designed twin studies are those with the greatest number of subjects.

Identical twins contain 100 percent of the same DNA from conception and are exposed to the same prenatal hormones. So if genes and/or prenatal hormones contributed significantly to transgenderism, we should expect both twins to identify as transgender close to 100 percent of the time.

Skin color, for example, is determined by genes alone. Therefore, identical twins have the same skin color 100 percent of the time.

But in the largest study of twin transgender adults, published by Dr. Milton Diamond in 2013, only 28 percent of the identical twins both identified as transgender. Seventy-two percent of the time, they differed. (Diamond’s study reported 20 percent identifying as transgender, but his actual data demonstrate a 28 percent figure, as I note here in footnote 19.)

That 28 percent of identical twins both identified as transgender suggests a minimal biological predisposition, which means transgenderism will not manifest itself without outside nonbiological factors also impacting the individual during his lifetime.

The fact that the identical twins differed 72 percent of the time is highly significant because it means that at least 72 percent of what contributes to transgenderism in one twin consists of nonshared experiences after birth—that is, factors not rooted in biology.

Studies like this one prove that the belief in “innate gender identity”—the idea that “feminized” or “masculinized” brains can be trapped in the wrong body from before birth—is a myth that has no basis in science.

2. Gender identity is malleable, especially in young children.

Even the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology admits that prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their biological sex eventually outgrew that distress. The vast majority came to accept their biological sex by late adolescence after passing naturally through puberty.

But with transition affirmation now increasing in Western society, the number of children claiming distress over their gender — and their persistence over time — has dramatically increased. For example, the Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom alone has seen a 2,000 percent increase in referrals since 2009.

3. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria have not been proven safe.

Puberty blockers have been studied and found safe for the treatment of a medical disorder in children called precocious puberty (caused by the abnormal and unhealthy early secretion of a child’s pubertal hormones).

However, as a groundbreaking paper in The New Atlantis points out, we cannot infer from these studies whether or not these blockers are safe in physiologically normal children with gender dysphoria.

The authors note that there is some evidence for decreased bone mineralization, meaning an increased risk of bone fractures as young adults, potential increased risk of obesity and testicular cancer in boys, and an unknown impact upon psychological and cognitive development.

With regard to the latter, while we currently don’t have any extensive, long-term studies of children placed on blockers for gender dysphoria, studies conducted on adults from the past decade give cause for concern.

For example, in 2006 and 2007, the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology reported brain abnormalities in the area of memory and executive functioning among adult women who received blockers for gynecologic reasons. Similarly, many studies of men treated for prostate cancer with blockers also suggest the possibility of significant cognitive decline.

4. There are no cases in the scientific literature of gender-dysphoric children discontinuing blockers.

Most, if not all, children on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones (estrogen for biological boys, testosterone for biological girls). The only study to date to have followed pre-pubertal children who were socially affirmed and placed on blockers at a young age found that 100 percent of them claimed a transgender identity and chose cross-sex hormones.

This suggests that the medical protocol itself may lead children to identify as transgender.

There is an obvious self-fulfilling effect in helping children impersonate the opposite sex both biologically and socially. This is far from benign, since taking puberty blockers at age 12 or younger, followed by cross-sex hormones, sterilizes a child.

5. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks.

From studies of adults we know that the risks of cross-sex hormones include, but are not limited to, cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes, diabetes, and cancers.

6. Neuroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment.

Scientific data show that people under the age of 21 have less capacity to assess risks. There is a serious ethical problem in allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young themselves to give valid consent.

7. There is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children.

Advocates of the transition-affirming protocol allege that suicide is the direct and inevitable consequence of withholding social affirmation and biological alterations from a gender-dysphoric child. In other words, those who do not endorse the transition-affirming protocol are essentially condemning gender-dysphoric children to suicide.

Yet as noted earlier, prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of gender-dysphoric youth ended up happy with their biological sex after simply passing through puberty.

In addition, contrary to the claim of activists, there is no evidence that harassment and discrimination, let alone lack of affirmation, are the primary cause of suicide among any minority group. In fact, at least one study from 2008 found perceived discrimination by LGBT-identified individuals not to be causative.

Over 90 percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosed mental disorder, and there is no evidence that gender-dysphoric children who commit suicide are any different. Many gender dysphoric children simply need therapy to get to the root of their depression, which very well may be the same problem triggering the gender dysphoria.

8. Transition-affirming protocol has not solved the problem of transgender suicide.

Adults who undergo sex reassignment—even in Sweden, which is among the most LGBT-affirming countries—have a suicide rate nearly 20 times greater than that of the general population. Clearly, sex reassignment is not the solution to gender dysphoria.

Bottom Line: Transition-Affirming Protocol Is Child Abuse

The crux of the matter is that while the transition-affirming movement purports to help children, it is inflicting a grave injustice on them and their nondysphoric peers.

These professionals are using the myth that people are born transgender to justify engaging in massive, uncontrolled, and unconsented experimentation on children who have a psychological condition that would otherwise resolve after puberty in the vast majority of cases.

Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts, and untold psychological damage.

These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse. Sound ethics demand an immediate end to the use of pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies.

It is time for our nation’s leaders and the silent majority of health professionals to learn exactly what is happening to our children, and unite to take action.

Michelle A. Cretella is the president of the American College of Pediatricians.

Same-sex ‘marriage’: Religious right was right all along

Same-sex ‘marriage’: Religious right was right all along

Life Site News ^ | July 19, 2017 | Charles LiMandri 

Posted on 7/20/2017, 6:37:24 AM by NYer

July 18, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — For 12 years before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2015, I wrote and lectured extensively on why this development would be fraught with peril. I even recorded a three CD set on the topic for Catholic Answers in 2011.

As the General Counsel for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in California, I also campaigned extensively for the passage of Proposition 8. This State Constitutional Amendment passed with a majority vote in liberal California, as did similar ones in 30 other states. Yet, by a mere vote of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all of those state constitutional amendments, and with them the votes of the millions of Americans who saw the value in preserving traditional marriage.

In just two years since that disastrous decision, everything that we had warned about has come to pass, and more. First, homosexuality has been normalized, and now the act of sodomy is even being promoted to teenage girls by a popular magazine.

Second, the concept of gender itself is being destroyed as children are encouraged to “choose” between whether they want to be either a boy or girl, or neither. School boys, masquerading as girls, are now using the girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers, and vice versa. See the numerous articles and studies in the “News” and “Resources” Section of this website.

Third, those who oppose same-sex “marriage” and sexual anarchy on religious grounds, are being marginalized and penalized for their sincerely held beliefs. See the dozens of examples in Sections 3 and 4 of this Religious Discrimination Report.

Fourth, marriage rates overall are in a state of serious decline. And those rates are even lower for same-sex couples.

These events dramatically illustrate something else we warned about: same-sex “marriage” was never really about marrying the person you “love.” Rather, it was always about  pushing for the complete societal acceptance of virtually all forms of deviant sexual practices. This even includes sado-masochism, as depicted in the blockbuster film.

Hence, the religious ideal of a traditional marriage between a man and a woman, consisting of lifelong fidelity and the raising of children, is no longer recognized as worth pursuing by many in our society. And as the militant left celebrates perversity and the decline of the nuclear family, the foundation of our society is crumbling all around us. Although same-sex “marriage” was the militant left’s crowning and most damaging achievement, the dismantling of our nation’s Judeo-Christian foundation has always been their long-term goal. Fortunately, for true believers, there will always be hope for personal, if not societal redemption. Although much of what the militant left has to offer appeals to the base instincts of many, we know that we are all made in the image and likeness of God, and we all still have a spiritual nature. Therefore, we are all called to higher and nobler aspirations.

Although many will succumb to the seductions of our corrupt culture, and will ultimately be brought to despair and destruction, those who seek a better way will still be able to find one. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” What is more, our merciful Lord promised that he will not leave us spiritual orphans, and the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. So we, the Church Militant, soldier on, saving as many as we can along the way.

Charles S. LiMandri is the President and Chief Counsel of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, a national nonprofit law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases particularly at the trial court level. Mr. LiMandri is double board certified and is licensed to practice in California, New York, Washington, D.C. and before the United States Supreme Court. The FCDF website is


And here is persuasive evidence of the next phase. From THE FEDERALIST:

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine, tech millionaire turned LGBTQ activist Tim Gill said he’s aiming to punish Christians who don’t want to participate in same-sex weddings.For more than two decades, the software programmer has poured an estimated $422 million into various gay rights causes. After the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal in all 50 states in 2015, Gill turned his attention and resources to targeting Christians.

Ultra-Rich Gay Activist On Targeting Christians: It’s Time To ‘Punish The Wicked’

Transgender students create toxic and hostile PC environment, Prof quits

An art professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC) has resigned after being vilified by LGBT students in what he describes as a toxic and hostile politically correct environment.

Professor Michael Bonesteel, an art critic, author, and specialist in the history of comics and the history of outsider art, resigned after 14 years with SAIC when his hours were cut and his healthcare was lost in response to accusations of racism and homophobia when two transgender students were “triggered” by course material and lodged complaints.

Both incidents revolved around objections to ideas and material related to the edgy historical subject matter Bonesteel has been teaching in his classes at SAIC for 14 years.

According to Raw Vision, problems for the professor started December 12, 2016 while teaching the class, Present and Future of Outsider Art. During a discussion of Henry Darger’s art, of which Bonesteel is an internationally recognized expert, he discussed the prevalence of little girls with penises and said that it’s possible those images are manifestations of Darger’s own childhood of sexual abuse, which is an unproven but prevailing theory in the art world.

The student, who is transgender, challenged Bonesteel on the reference to Darger having been sexually abused as a child, stating that because there’s no proof Darger was sexually abused, Bonesteel was wrong in proposing the theory. The professor agreed there was no proof but countered that many scholars thought it likely.

After this altercation, Bonesteel confided in a diversity counselor and was advised to post an apology for his “insensitivity” on the school’s website along with a research article providing background on the theory. Although it was later determined Bonesteel did not violate any school policies, he was told by the department he needed training on how to deal with “identity-related material” in his curriculum.

Following the first incident, Bonesteel was verbally attacked in his class, Comic Book: Golden Age to Comics Code, when a student went off on the “perceived anti-Semitic attitudes” of the author of the assigned text, “Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters and the Birth of the Comic Book,” by Gerard Jones.

Bonesteel told Raw Vision that the infuriated student went on to criticize, “SAIC’s policies toward minorities and transgender students specifically, leveling accusations of racism and homophobia toward me.”

As class discussion progressed, they moved into Alan Moore’s, “The Killing Joke,” which involves an implied rape scene. When Bonesteel said the word “rape,” the student yelled, “Hey, where’s the trigger warning?”

“Really?” Bonesteel replied. “You want a trigger warning for the word “rape”?”

That exchange was later construed by the faculty dean as “ridiculing the student when they requested trigger warnings.” Bonesteel was told that it was “more likely than not” that his conduct in relation to the student “constituted harassment based on gender-identity in violation of the School’s Policy Against Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation.”

Months later, another student in the comic book class lodged a complaint against Bonesteel on the basis of having been “troubled by the incident.”

Although Bonesteel had many student and faculty advocates expressing their support for him with the school’s administration, he was not offered mediation. He was ultimately warned about the manner in which certain topics should be broached in class in the future and told his comic book class was cancelled moving forward and would not be reinstated. With the reduction of classes, he would no longer have the mandated hours to qualify and would lose his health insurance.  His resignation is effective later this summer.

“The faculty liaison who interviewed me numerous times and submitted her findings to the dean of faculty informed me that attempts at reconciliation between professors and complaining LGBT students have failed in the past, because the mandate of LGBT students is one of zero tolerance,” Bonesteel said. “For example, if a professor mistakenly and/or unintentionally uses the pronoun ‘she’ in reference to a transgender person who identifies as male, that professor, according to the mandate, is committing an act of sexual discrimination and harassment. In other words, ignorance of the ‘law’ is no excuse.”

The dean stated in an email to Raw Vision that “Individual expression is at our core and we prize academic freedom. This situation is not an example of censorship and, in fact, censorship is anathema to our pedagogy.”

One must wonder what SAIC’s definition of censorship is when transgender students, which account for less than 1 percent of the population, are censoring the other 99 percent and campus life is bending and winding and jumping through hoops to appease such a diminutive population with extraordinary needs who cannot sit through a mature class without being “triggered” like a highly emotional 5-year-old.


Transgender students create toxic and hostile PC environment, Prof quits