Last week, a jury awarded custody of the 7-year-old Texas boy James Younger to his mother, pediatrician Dr. Anne Georgulas, who treats him like a girl and calls him Luna. She also wants to flood his body with puberty-blocking drugs and ultimately cross-sex hormones. The boy’s father, Jeffrey Younger, strongly objects to this treatment. A judge later issued an order giving the father a say in his son’s treatment but also imposing a gag order on him.

Before that gag order came into effect, Younger had spoken with LifeSiteNews about the case and revealed a horrifying piece of evidence. During the trial, Younger had shown the jury an email in which Georgulas contemplated genital mutilation and castration for her son — and the jury still awarded her custody of him.

When asked about the jury’s decision, Younger said he was “just completely shocked.” He added, “We put up an email from Ms. Georgulas to me in which she contemplates cutting the pen*s off my son. Twenty minutes later, they go into deliberations, and they come back voting against me. I mean, the Texas that I grew up in, the Texas that I live in, if a parent did that, we’re just going to give them to the other parent: we’re not going to tolerate that kind of craziness.”

Younger lamented the decline in the cultural impact of Christianity and encouraged Christians to speak out against transgender activism.

“It tells you, I think, how far our society has changed and how much less Christian we are and the way we think about things now,” Younger said. “I hope it’s a wake-up call to the churches to awaken from their dogmatic slumber and step back onto the streets of the agora like Paul did in Athens and start taking on these issues head-on.”

The father admitted that there were competing narratives about his character after his bitter divorce battle with Georgulas. Even if people consider Younger untrustworthy, he argued that at least he is “not trying to cut the pen*s off my son. And I’m not trying to cross-dress my son and mislead him into thinking that he’s a girl. And I’m not pushing my son toward medical transition. And I haven’t done all that without the consent of the other parent. So I think that if we’re looking at two parents who are imperfect, I think I’m a lot less imperfect than Ms. Georgulas.”

Where did Georgulas get the idea that her son was “really” her daughter? According to The Texan, the mother said her son liked the movie Frozen and asked to get a “girl toy” from McDonald’s. She also claimed he expressing a desire to wear girl’s clothing.

Younger claims that Georgulas had started putting James in dresses and painting his nails when he was three years old. The father also claims his ex-wife locked James in his room and told him that “the monsters only eat boys.” He claims that Georgulas would withhold affection from James if he did not act like a girl.

While many people do experience gender dysphoria — the painful sensation of identifying with the gender opposite their biological sex — the condition can often be traced to childhood trauma. Walt Heyer, a man who identified as a woman for eight years and underwent sex reassignment surgery, explained that his gender dysphoria stemmed from childhood trauma from sexual abuse and being dressed as a girl by his grandmother when he was four years old.

Heyer says he has spoken with thousands of formerly transgender people who connect through his website, which helps people who regret their transition.

“In the ten years or so that I’ve worked with people, 100 percent — every single last one of them — has had some kind of event — traumatic, painful, horrible, some sexual, some physical, some emotional — happen to them, sometime between the ages of 4 and 15, that caused them to not want to be who they are,” Heyer told PJ Media last year.

Even if 7-year-old James were struggling with gender dysphoria as Georgulas claims, it is far from clear that affirming a transgender identity would be the right way to help him.

After years of encouraging transgender identity and sex-reassignment surgery, Johns Hopkins psychiatry professor Paul McHugh closed the gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins in 1979, coming to the conclusion that transgender identity and surgery do not meet the psychological needs of struggling people. McHugh has compared transgender surgery to “performing liposuction on an anorexic child.” Indeed, many who have undergone transgender surgery have been permanently scarred.

Whatever Georgulas thinks about her son or whatever James thinks about himself, the 7-year-old boy is biologically male. His maleness is written into every cell in his body. Before he was born, his body produced more testosterone in the womb. Even the most invasive surgery could not transform him into a woman.

Worse, the “treatments” to affirm a transgender identity have not been approved by the FDA and have dangerous side-effects. In order to delay or “reverse” the natural sexed process of human development, pro-transgender doctors give young boys and girls “puberty blockers” that prevent their brains from sending the right signals to their gonads to produce the right hormones. According to endocrinologist Michael Laidlaw, this effectively gives these kids a disease.

“I call it a development blocker — it’s actually causing a disease,” Laidlaw told PJ Media in August. The disease in question is hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. It occurs when the brain fails to send the right signal to the gonads to make the hormones necessary for development. “We’re talking about what in nature is a rare condition. In the United States, if someone has this condition it’s going to be recognized and treated so the long-term results are unknown,” the doctor explained. “It’s an area that needs to be explored further.”

While endocrinologists — doctors who specialize in hormones and the endocrine system — are familiar with the disease and gladly treat it when a patient has been diagnosed, many of them are effectively causing their patients to contract the same disease in an attempt to affirm gender identity, Laidlaw said. “An endocrinologist might treat a condition where a female’s testosterone levels are going to be outside the normal range. We’ll treat that and we’re aware of metabolic problems. At the same time, an endocrinologist may be giving high levels of testosterone to a female to ‘transition’ her.”

This is a serious medical scandal, and doctors should not be rushing to “transition” children in this way. Many of these drugs have side effects like weakened bone density and infertility. Children cannot understand what it means to be a man or a woman and what it means to have children of their own. These young people cannot truly consent to experimental “treatments” that may leave them sterile. Georgulas’ desire to put her son through these is terrifying.

In many cases, surgeons will remove the genitals and mutilate them before replacing them with a synthetic version of the genitals of the opposite sex. Not only are these fabricated organs unable to produce children, but they may also pose health risks for the patients.

This kind of genital mutilation is disgusting and extremely unfit for children to undergo.

Studies have found that most children who are not put on “puberty blockers” or cross-sex hormones and who have not suffered genital mutilation are extremely likely to reject a transgender identity after going through puberty. Charlotte Evans, a woman who once identified as a man but now understands that she is lesbian, is setting up a network for detransitioners in Britain. She suggested that brains continue to mature into a person’s 20s, and until the brain is fully formed — a process that involves sex hormones during and after puberty — it is unwise to consider any transgender “treatment.”

As a Christian, I cannot help but agree with Younger that there is a spiritual dimension to this madness. I believe Christianity has the most loving response to the problems posed by gender dysphoria — far better than any transgender identity or medical “treatment.”

In any case, it is both tragic and terrifying that a jury in Texas would award custody of a 7-year-old boy to a woman who has considered subjecting him to what amounts to chemical castration and genital mutilation. What kind of ideology encourages this kind of child abuse? What kind of jury abets a woman’s desire to do this to her son?

Americans must push back against this madness to save children from this kind of abuse. Decades from now, men and women should file medical malpractice lawsuits against the doctors who subjected them to chemical castration and genital mutilation. But before that time, Americans should speak out and prevent more lives from being ruined.

The post Father Claims Ex-Wife Contemplating Genital Mutilation for 7-Year-Old ‘Transgender’ Son appeared first on MyMedicPlus.

Forward Nyanyiwa Correspondent
“Ko small house yako inani izvozvi?” (Who is with your small house right now?) was a screaming signature message on a number of billboards erected around the country by the Ministry of Health and Child Care in partnership with various HIV and Aids organisations back at the turn of the millennium.

A recent survey around Chitungwiza has revealed that the same message is still inscribed in Harare’s dormitory town’s health institutions and other public corners.

This is in recognition of the impact the infamous “small house” phenomenon has played in the spread of the once deadly scourge in Zimbabwe.

Last week, Cabinet withdrew a clause in the Marriages Amendment Bill that provides for “civil partnerships”, arguing such a union was generally alien to the nation’s cultural and Christian values.

In that vein, it was also construed that the proposed law would sort of legalise “small houses”,  street lingo for extra-marital unions.

Section 40 of the Marriages Amendment Bill provided as follows: “A relationship between a man and a woman who are (a) both over the age of eighteen years; and (b) have lived together without legally being married to each other; and (c) are not within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity as provided in Section 7; and (d) having regard in all the circumstances of their relationship, have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis shall be regarded as being in a civil partnership for the purposes of determining the rights and obligations of the parties on dissolution of the relationship . . .”

Put simply, subsection five of Section 40 has been the contentious one.

One can afford to go and stay with another partner regardless of the fact that he or she is in a standing marriage — quite strange for real.

However, as the nation is deep in debate over the issue, it had not missed its fair share of scrutiny regarding the spread of HIV/ Aids in the country.

Background is key!

Multiple sexual partners have been fingered as the number one cause for the spread of HIV over the years with cases of infidelity also ranking high in that regard.

Whilst there has been other sources one could get infected with the HIV virus, there is a unanimous agreement among this country’s citizenry that multiple sexual partners have been the major cause.

Some may argue that there had been polygamous marriages over the years, which also contributed their fair share to the spread of HIV albeit on a controlled scale, nothing beats the rate at which “small houses” contributed to the rise of HIV infections.

What has made Section 40 in the current proposed Marriages Amendment Bill a bit off the mark is that it was viewed as having “legalised or empowered” the small house.

This time, it was not going to be the man alone seeking a civil partnership outside marriage, married women were also going to benefit.

Zimbabwe has been on the warpath to reach the 2020 World Health Organisation (WHO) 90-90-90 targets and to eradicate Aids in totality by the year 2030.

When the health ministry came up with the “small house” message, it was evident that the pandemic had spiralled out of control and the current Bill was about to do away with the efforts that has been made so far to avoid new infections.

What this simply meant is that anyone can walk out of a marriage, find even a commercial sex worker and start to live together, at the same time going back to the original spouse who might even be in a similar “civil partnership”.

The result will be a network of unprotected sex amongst the all “married” partners hence very high chances of spreading the virus.

By its definition and considering our social fabric as a people, marriage means there is someone superintending over another one.

In this scenario, men would have benefitted a lot by getting their bodies on whoever they deemed to be a wife.

Women would have not only suffered morally, but also in terms of health as their husbands would afford as many civil partnerships as their pockets could afford.

As Foreign Affairs and International Trade Minister Dr Sibusiso Moyo correctly asserted: “It is not a recognised marriage, it was merely out of consideration of fairness that when these people move apart the one who is more economically empowered should not use that power to the detriment of another part  .  . .”

Young girls and women who cannot openly and freely discuss safe sex methods would also have suffered in silence as HIV- infected men prey on them all in the name of marriage.

Cabinet must be applauded for such a timely intervention which would have eroded all the sanctity of marriage, hence exposing all and sundry to HIV and Aids.

Behavioural change has been fingered too as a key element in eliminating Aids and together with the tried and tested “one man, one woman” motto, the nation must now focus on the targets at hand than to start other burning issues.

New HIV and Aids infections have been reported to be going down with a recent UNAIDS 2019 report indicating that infections dropped from 44 000 cases to 38 000 which may lead to a decline in prevalence.

Multiple sexual partners in whatever context remain a key driver of HIV infections and awareness campaigns must continue to be spread in that respect.

The post Scrapping of ‘small house’ clause a plus in Aids fight appeared first on MyMedicPlus.