The 'feminized' classroom causes 'gay bullying'
Talk about ass-backwards thinking. Teaching tolerance, according to the doyenne of Columbus, Ohio-based Mission[ary Position] America, Linda Harvey, is turning male students into stone cold killers and stressed-out neurotics. She’s obsessed with Homosexual Agenda infiltrating the school system, and this freakout is par for the course.
Last year, 17-year-old Joshua Minks opened fire with a shotgun in a bathroom at Farmington High Schol in Missouri. The 6-foot-5, 400-pound boy recently pleaded guilty to assault on school property and unlawful use of a weapon. Amanda Minks says her son was bullied relentlessly by his classmates for his “unmanly” appearance and was called “gay” names.
Linda Harvey with the conservative group Mission America acknowledges that while bullying is rampant and children can be terribly cruel, many schools are feminizing boys with one-sided, pro-homosexual misinformation in the classroom. Homosexuality, says Harvey, is a “time bomb” that is “run into the schools” and left there.
“[T]hen, when chaos erupts … our boys [especially] are greatly stressed over this issue and they only hear one side — then we wonder why these things are happening,” she says. “Of course, they are going to erupt in a very immature way. That doesn’t excuse it, but that’s what’s happening.”
…”[Students] are told that if you have one homosexual feeling, you’re probably homosexual; [that] you’re probably born that way and you’d better accept it,” she says. “In the twelve- and thirteen- and fourteen-year-old boy, this is going to create a massive amount of internal stress that may erupt in all kinds of ways.
“The responsible thing to do is to de-stress the situation by taking the issue of homosexuality out of the schools,” Harvey continues. “It doesn’t belong there.”
More on bullying — as therapy
Sometimes you have to let the wingers just hang themselves with their own words:
The notion that a person is really someone of the opposite sex “trapped in the wrong body” is poetic stupidity. It doesn’t exist in reality. A person wishing to change their external manifestations to appear to be a person of the opposite sex is someone very unhappy with being their “real” sex and/or believing in some idealized fantasy of how much better it is to be of the opposite sex.
…I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex — but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings.
On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.”— The wisdom of NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee member Joseph Berger, M.D., who feels that society is causing gender identity confusion among children — and the cure includes letting kids be bullied for being different.
Autumn Sandeen a spokesperson for the Transgender Community Coalition of San Diego told PinkNews.co.uk: “It’s shameful that NARTH’s Dr Berger believes what children should bring with them to school is a propensity to ridicule gender variant children.”
Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, an organisation which regularly protests against gay “conversion” groups, told PinkNews.co.uk: “This is cruelty disguised as compassion and an invitation to child abuse.”
“NARTH regularly confuses self-righteous ridicule with research and this is why they are rejected by every respected medical and mental health organisation in the world.”
Daniel Gonzales of Ex-Gay Watch, a similar campaign group, was shocked at the statement, he told PinkNews.co.uk “Regardless if a child’s gender dysphoria persists into adulthood, allowing any child with a psychological condition to be harassed because of that condition is shameful.
But then later today, NARTH had a change of heart and released this retraction, sent to Dr. Warren Throckmorton:
Joseph Nicolosi this evening:
Narth disagrees with Dr. Berger’s advice as we believe shaming, as distinct from correcting can only create greater harm. Too many of our clients experienced the often life long, harmful effects of peer shaming. We cannot encourage this.
Does the right hand not know what the left is doing here, if NARTH is distancing itself from its “Scientific Advisory Committee” member?
UPDATE: As Autumn pointed out, there has been little creative editing on NARTH’s web site of the good doctor’s text. That’s not a retraction, only an admission that the comments were so out of bounds that it couldn’t handle the heat.
Some screen captures…
Here’s the original text (from Google cache):
And this is the scrubbed section up on the NARTH site now…