Hard on the heels of ‘I am Leo‘ and its ‘Just a Girl‘ series, the BBC’s ‘Victoria Derbyshire Programme’ has joined its irresponsible campaign to promote transgenderism among primary school children.
The morning TV show is today telling the story of ‘Jason’, a girl who wants to be a boy.
VIDEO CLIP
In a video clip on a BBC webpage the child says: ‘I felt like a boy trapped in a girl’s body and it just really didn’t feel right, it was horrible.’
Miss Derbyshire asks: ‘What do you remember about when you were treated as a girl and had a girl’s name?’
The child answers: ‘Well I was treated like any other, anyone else was but I just didn’t feel like the same as everyone else so I felt different and I felt that I was a boy and I am a boy. I came home, I think as, pretty much every day I came home sort of crying because I didn’t know how to explain it. If I was to carry on living as a girl I don’t think I could do it I just I probably wouldn’t, I wouldn’t let anyone see me, I probably wouldn’t come out of my room.’
‘Jason’s’ mother Leanne tells Victoria Derbyshire she and her husband fully support Jason’s wish to be a boy. She says: ‘I think it’s really hard for a parent or anybody on the outside looking in to understand that they are trapped in the wrong body and that is how they feel and it’s like torture for them every day.’
‘WRONG BODY’ MANTRA WITH NHS TREATMENT
What we see is the popular ‘trapped in the wrong body’ mantra coupled with emotional blackmail.
Disturbingly, we learn that 120 children who identify as being transgender have had NHS treatment to pause their puberty over the last five years and that ‘Jason’ ‘is one of the youngest.
She is now having monthly injections of hormone blockers, which effectively and temporarily halt the progress of puberty.
In ‘Just a Girl’, aimed at children 6-12, the fictional ‘Amy’ wears girl’s clothes and explains to viewers that he was born as a boy, Ben. He too is already in the process of halting puberty by drugs.
The treatment costs the taxpayer something like £1000 per month and the NHS even produced a ‘Guide to Hormone Therapy for Trans People’. The Guide makes clear that in addition to the hormone blockers, a child will need to take regular injections of the hormone appropriate to their ‘chosen’ gender.
This will obviously lower fertility, and if the patient embarks on surgery to have either testicles or ovaries removed, infertility will be permanent. ‘Jason’ and ‘Amy’ will not have children, and ‘Jason’s’ mother Leane will not have the joy of grandchildren from her.
PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT
If someone really and truly believed he was Long John Silver, would the NHS chop off his leg and buy him a parrot? No, his doctor would refer him to a psychiatrist.
Medicine is there to cure, not to harm. Hormones, let alone surgery, are undertaken with the intent of impairing or destroying a natural bodily function. That is contrary to medicine.
A more mature society would deal with the underlying psychological and emotional problem, with the aim of making the child feel at home in the body the good Lord gave him or her. Indeed, the problem could even be spiritual.
The extent to which transgenderism is now becoming fashionable, aided in the UK by our state broadcaster, promoted by materials on the NHS website, means many more small children will fall for it year by year, trotting out the ‘trapped in the wrong body’ line.
Bob McCoskie of New Zealand’s ‘Family First’ reports that ‘the overwhelming majority of such children – from 75 to 98 percent – who experience gender dysphoria grow out of it by the time they reach puberty. … The leading clinics seeing such children – such as those in Canada and the Netherlands – do not recommend parents and schools facilitate gender changes in such children for various reasons. The push in culture today to embrace and affirm such children’s wishes is founded more upon a political ideology than it is in careful science and experience.’
It may be argued that political ideology is bent on societal and individual self-destruction.
Leading clinicians working in the Netherlands report ‘the results unequivocally showed that gender dysphoria remitted after puberty in the vast majority of children.’ They refer to this switch back to the child’s natal gender as “desisting”. Thus, most such children are indeed not ‘transgender’. The Amsterdam Gender Identity Clinic, one of the largest clinics in Europe treating gender dysphoric children, does not recommend that parents, teachers, or clinicians facilitate pre-adolescent sex transitioning, cross-dressing or name-changing.
Children find it hard to reverse the momentum that was created for them by well-intentioned but enabling adults.
STATE-SPONSORED CHILD ABUSE
Going along with such a child’s apparent wishes to adopt the opposite gender could mar them for life and could be seen as state-sponsored child abuse.
British actor Rupert Everett has also warned parents and clinicians against encouraging children who believe they should be the opposite sex. Speaking from his own experience as a boy, Everett, who is homosexual, said, ‘I really wanted to be a girl. Thank God the world of now wasn’t then, because I’d be on hormones and I’d be a woman. After I was 15, I never wanted to be a woman again.’
Schools going along with transgenderism in the liberal West really ought to carry out a full risk-assessment if they are encouraging immature children into life-changing decisions they will regret later.
Schools and parents should ask themselves:
How will any amount of ‘transitioning’ change the child’s chromosonal and genetic structure?
How will a male to female child produce eggs or a female to male child sperm?
How do they know the child wil not afterwards regret the ‘transition’ and sue?
WE ARE MARRING GOD’S IMAGE OF MALE AND FEMALE
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Psalm 100:3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Proverbs 14:12 (&16:25) There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
In the 1950s , somebody who thought he or she was trapped in the wrong body would have had no choice but to stay in it, and nobody would have encouraged him/her to do otherwise.
What annoys me is that we have to pay to have this and other propaganda shoved down our throats. The BBC is another swamp of bien pensant highly paid lefties pushing their “progressive” agendas. They themselves are almost entirely middle-class and white (not much “diversity” there!), and they live far, far away from, for example, the areas affected by mass immigration that they so assiduously promote. Outraged by academically-selective education, they send their own children to private schools or wangle them places in the few good comprehensives by buying houses in their expensive catchment areas that no ordinary person could afford. The latest figures I have show that 46 BBC executives earn more than the Prime Minster. Out of its total annual expenditure of approx £5billion (only Sky spends more), yes, it does manage to produce some good programmes, imo, but with that level of expenditure surely this is not a huge achievement, and no better programmes than many other TV channels imo. Approx £4billion of this £5billion BBC funding comes from the licence fee: well past time to scrap it, imo. Let these left-wing parasites get a real job, if the Guardian can’t afford to employ them all. They broadcast their propaganda, and WE pay for it!
Well, Mark, the Guardian definitely cannot afford to pay any of them, let alone all of them. The Guardian, as it happens, is one of my three main sources of news. The others being, of course, The Daily Express and Russia Today.
It’s not unusual for highly paid people to be paid more than the Prime Minister. The only way round this would be to pay prime ministers more, but that is unlikely to be popular with the public. In the City, a talented 30-year-old is very likely to be earning more than the prime minister, for example.
My impression is that the BBC employs a very large number of people whose families originated in the Indian sub-continent, not all of them Muslims (one is even a Jain). Also, although being white (but that is not entirely what concerns you), there are a lot of Jews, and Increasingly Slavs. Altogether a lot of diversity.
And anybody with a job which makes him prominent in broadcasting is surely “middle-class” ipso facto ? If you think an Oxford-educated editor of the Guardian would be working-class because his father was a bus-driver, how far back is this going to go ? Supposing the editor’s son becomes a RADA-educated Shakespearian actor, will he be working-class too ? We don’t have a closed caste system.
A popular area for the type of “lefties” you describe is Islington, but if you have ever been to Islington, you will have seen schoolchildren trooping home from a comprehensive school, most of the girls dressed islamically. So these lefties do NOT live far, far away from the areas affected by mass immigration.
not The Morning Star Stephen? And what exactly is wrong with the super soaraway Sun? lol Would you consider the Daily Mail/Mail On Sunday to be “sensationalist”, “xenophobic”, etc etc etc as our left-wing friends never cease to tell us? Peter Hitchens writes for the Mail On Sunday, he is one of my favourite commentators, hated,of course, by the tolerant left-wingers, but he will not be bullied, mocked or insulted into silence by left-wingers when he appears on TV or radio. However, he doesn’t seem to appreciate the danger of Islam. He wrote “The Abolition Of Britain”, a great book imo. He is also a regular traditional Anglican church-goer, as, apparently, is Ian Hislop of Private Eye/Have I Got News For You, etc.
Let’s put it this way. I don’t regard the Daily Mail as the Paper of Record.
Whenever I spot a headline which really amazes and concerns me, I have a closer look, and usually I am able to say “Oh, it’s only the Daily Express”. For years, long after its sell-by date everywhere else, it was the story of the death of Princess Diana. The most familiar speciality now is the weather, along the lines of “Britain to be blasted by, arctic winds” or “Yorkshire flooded”. This is not usually true, and can safely be ignored.
but the Daily Express and the Guardian are?
The trick is to look who is being quoted. Quotes are often authentic!
Rox”: It’s not unusual for highly paid people to be paid more than the Prime Minister.”
Indeed so, Rox, for example the current Director General of the BBC earms some £532,000 a year. His predecessor, Mark Thompson, commanded a salary of £834,000 until they were shamed into reducing it. Btw, the figures in my original post were somewhat out of date: apparently, now, a total of 109 BBC staff earn more than £150,000 a year.
Similar abuse (my word) is also rife in the “charity” sector: most well-known “charities” pay large and generous salaries to many people, in addition to generous final salary pension schemes, long since disappeared from the private sector as unaffordable. For example, according to the Daily Telegraph, 32 charity bosses earn more than £200,000 a year, and the top 100 charity bosses earn an average of £167,000 a year. The CEO of Save The Children earns in excess of US$390,000 a year (accounts for year ended 31.12.15): you could feed a few starving kids if he/she took even a small pay cut.
The NSPCC (you know, the TV adverts “give £2 a month to stop child abuse” (the definition of abuse now stealthily expanded to include smacking)) have a total of 54 people earning over £60,000 a year: these cost the “charity” just under £4.5million a year (accounts for the year ended 31.03.15).
As I say, similar situations hold sway in all the charities I have looked at, and I have looked at quite a few. Any one who has worked in the charity sector, as I have, knows that a left-wing, PC worldview pertains: conservatives or right wingers would have to keep their views to themselves. So one moral of this story is
that these “progressive” lefties have plenty of compassion to share, but, boy, are you going to have to pay for it!
No doubt Rox will have his say to justify these salaries, etc (mainly, I suspect, because it was me pointing it out), but I doubt if I will hear anything I haven’t heard before. But then I suppose you can fool some of the people ALL the time.
Charities are not what they used to be. People who stop me in the street or come to my door these days want a monthly direct debit. They are just not interested in £1 in a tin, in fact they don’t carry anything to hold petty cash and refuse it. The answer is simple, as they will increasingly learn: “Sorry, there is a limit to how many direct debits I can make”.
It’s true that they are increasingly big businesses with a pay structure. Charity shops run by volunteers always have some kind of paid area manager, and often a paid branch manager on the spot. I suppose young people going into this need some kind of pay structure so that they can pay a future mortgage and bring up their children, just like anyone else, no matte how noble their motives. It’s a bit like going into the Church. People like to be promoted too, but just how far that should go and what the upper salary should be in charities, I wouldn’t like to say. I am the first to admit that as one gets older, one gets out of touch with salary scales.
The problem with comparing salaries with the prime minister is that the British prime minister is paid too little for what he does, but the British public would never accept a large increase. Ministers and MPs abroad (including our own MEPs) are paid more than in this country. Nigel Farage will be holding on to his £84,000 a year + generous expenses, compared to £75,000 a year + less generous expenses if he had actually been elected as a British MP.
Actually, that similarity made me reassess the traditional wisdom I have been offering you. It probably is true that the prime minister is paid too little for what he does, but that seems to be true of other countries too, probably for the same reasons. They get pay rises and take pay cuts, and exchange rates go up and down, but only the leader of the USA gets markedly more than the others :
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/10/news/economy/world-leaders-salaries/
Apparently, bishops are paid the same as pole dancers, but I don’t know how much that is.
It seems to me that most (but not all) charities doing work within the UK are making up for gaps in what the Government should be doing. This is most obvious with looking after injured or traumatised soldiers. Any employer should be responsible for the result of accidents at work, and the Government should look after handicapped people anyway. Charity work on the borders of the National Health Service risk further erosion of what the National Health Service does. It’s much fairer (and cheaper) if we all fund the work through taxes, than if people are paid to pester other people to make monthly direct debits which they often can’t really afford.
[…] Irresponsible BBC promoting transgenderism […]