Gender

Naw! Nobody in the Title IX wars is asking LGBTQ questions about religious schools

Naw! Nobody in the Title IX wars is asking LGBTQ questions about religious schools

Every now and then, I finish reading a major-media news story and I think: Wait a minute. There’s a massive hole here (and one that’s going to produce all kinds of news headlines). Didn’t anyone notice?

In this case, we are talking about another story involving a head-on collision between the First Amendment and the evolving doctrines of the Sexual Revolution. The battleground is the hyper-tense world of higher education. The Washington Post headline, in this case: “New Title IX rules set to assert rights of transgender students.”

We will get to the overture in a moment. But can you spot the “hole” that is sort-of mentioned in this background paragraph which is buried way down in the Post report?

Title IX is a 1972 law that bars discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program or activity that receives federal money. Schools found in violation risk losing federal aid. Advocates have long held that this definition rightfully includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

OK. Does “any educational program or activity that receives federal money” include student-loan programs?

If so, maybe this story should have at least mentioned the 7,000 or so religious colleges and universities in this land? I mean, is there any chance that LGBTQ activists are going to challenge the religious liberty claims of these schools, many of which are explicitly doctrine-defined voluntary associations?

With that in mind, read the top of this feature at The Conversation: “What is the religious exemption to Title IX and what’s at stake in LGBTQ students’ legal challenge?”

While federal law shields most U.S. students from gender and sexual orientation discrimination, an estimated 100,000 LGBTQ students at religious institutions do not have the same protections.

Under a religious exemption provision, scores of colleges and universities can – and do – discriminate on the basis of someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

A class action lawsuit now challenges that discrimination.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

No need for balance? Washington Post offers sermon on behalf of Alabama trans activists

No need for balance? Washington Post offers sermon on behalf of Alabama trans activists

Before we get to the Washington Post story at the heart of this post, please allow me to share a journalism parable from my years at the Rocky Mountain News (RIP), back in the 1980s.

It was obvious that, sooner or later, Operation Rescue protesters would come to the Boulder Abortion Clinic, which was nationally known for its work in third-trimester abortions and other controversial procedures. I urged my editors to commit time and resources to a pair of profiles of important activists on both sides. One was a former abortionist who had joined the pro-life cause. The other was a liberal Christian who was pouring her life into the defense of abortion rights.

These profiles would be the same length and would run side-by-side, with similar art and headlines. There would be no need to include balance and dissent in each of the profiles since they represented competing voices on both sides of an important debate in public life. In the end, we heard praise and criticism from readers on both sides of this event.

Now, let’s look at the Post story that ran under this double-decker headline:

Activists face an avalanche of anti-transgender bills

‘If this bill don’t pass, it’s coming back next year,’ says an ardent advocate in Alabama

That sub-headline is, for all practical purposes, the only time that “conservative” cultural voices are heard in this long, long feature story. Every single sentence in this story is written using the precise terms, images and themes of the activists opposed to these “anti-transgender” bills in Alabama and across America.

In effect, this story — a totally valid profile of an important activist — is one half of a package covering these debates deep in the Bible Belt.

The problem is that there is no second profile. There is no feature of equal length addressing, let’s say, the views of a Black church leader who works with young people who are making efforts to “detransition” after declaring themselves trans.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

'Gender affirming?' Texas press keeps backing one side in battles over trans therapies

'Gender affirming?' Texas press keeps backing one side in battles over trans therapies

Texas is definitely at the forefront of the culture wars these days, with legislation restricting abortion past six weeks, addressing concerns about critical race theory and now a state directive nixing hormone treatments aimed at changing a child’s gender.

Naturally, media have been all over these issues. The latest, which has to do with sex changes for kids, has gotten a lot of people riled up on both sides. In the Lone Star state, all of these debates have obvious religious and moral implications.

However, only one side ends up in newspapers like the Houston Chronicle, from whose March 4 story I’ll quote from here:

Texas Children’s Hospital has stopped prescribing gender-affirming hormone therapies — a move that could affect thousands of transgender children in Texas — in response to a controversial directive from state leaders to investigate medical treatments for transgender youth as child abuse.

The nation’s largest pediatric hospital revealed the decision Friday, dealing a blow to parents of transgender children who were seeking access to medicine that slows the onset of puberty or hormone treatments that help older children develop into bodies that match their identities.

A few paragraphs down, we learn that a state agency was investigating the parents of a 16-year-old “who underwent gender-affirming care.”

“Gender-affirming care” means puberty blockers that block the hormones — testosterone and estrogen — that cause periods and breast growth, or voice-deepening and facial hair growth. It’s not known their effect on fertility, bone marrow density or brain development. Supposedly there are no bad long-term effects, but we don’t know everything at this point, do we?

We do know that there are strong voices on both sides of these debates and, as tmatt noted the other day, not all of them (“Top Trans Doctors Blow the Whistle on ‘Sloppy’ Care”) fit neatly into the familiar right-left, straight-LGBTQ niches.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

The New York Times fails to ask a key 'parental rights' question linked to Texas trans wars

The New York Times fails to ask  a key 'parental rights' question linked to Texas trans wars

No one in his or her right (or left) mind would expect the college of journalism cardinals at The New York Times to write a balanced story about one of the latest battles in Texas over core doctrines of the Sexual Revolution.

In this case, I am not referring to Gray Lady coverage of the state’s efforts to ban most abortions after unborn children have detectable heartbeats, which is about six weeks into pregnancies.

No, I am referring to a massive new story about Gov. Greg Abbott call for child-abuse investigations of parents who back appeals by their children and teens to begin medical efforts to transition to another gender. The double-decker headline is rather restrained, when one considers the level of outrage among the vast majority of Times-persons.

Texas Investigates Parents Over Care for Transgender Youth, Suit Says

The investigations by the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services started last week with an employee of the agency, according to the suit, after Gov. Greg Abbott called for such inquiries.

As I said, no one would expect the Times to do a balanced story on this kind of subject, one that is so close to the newspaper’s doctrinal heart.

I was, however, surprised that this story didn’t include (a) some kind of reference to the newspaper’s involvement in an important discussion of a related topic by two of America’s leading trans activists and medical professionals and (b) some input from religious conservatives — major players in Texas life — discussing whether Abbott’s actions limit parental rights in decisions affecting their children. Religious conservatives have been very concerned, in the past, about government efforts (see this ongoing Canada case) to punish parents who oppose transition efforts by their children (usually backed by a former spouse).

Back to the Times report. Here is some crucial material:

The investigations by the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services, which have not been previously reported, were started in response to an order from Mr. Abbott to the agency, the lawsuit says. The order followed a nonbinding opinion by the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, that parents who provide their transgender teenagers with puberty-suppressing drugs or other medically accepted treatments — which doctors describe as gender-affirming care — could be investigated for child abuse.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Pronoun wars? The 'usual suspects' quoted by the press skewed Baptism-gate coverage

Pronoun wars? The 'usual suspects' quoted by the press skewed Baptism-gate coverage

What is the role of journalism? Above all, it is to inform and educate. We know that reliable information is needed for any society to properly work. At the very least, readers deserve accurate information.

What happens when this isn’t the case? That’s the dilemma that befell many news organizations in recent days when a big Catholic news story came across their newsroom desks.

Yes, I’m referring to the botched baptism story out of Arizona last week that made so many headlines. And that’s hard to do considering the ongoing pandemic, the Beijing Olympics and Russia-Ukraine crisis.

Yes, baptism-gate has been all the rage. News coverage of it, however, not so good. More on that later.

To summarize: a priest named Andres Arango, following a church investigation, determined that he’d incorrectly performed thousands of baptisms over more than 20 years. It meant that those who had been baptized in Phoenix, and at his previous parishes in Brazil and San Diego, needed to be baptized again.

What did he do wrong? Arango, who has since resigned after making the mistake, used the wrong pronoun. Instead of saying, “I baptize you in the name of” he used “we.” After diocesan officials found out, they said people who Arango baptized aren’t officially Catholic. That means they weren’t eligible for other sacraments like Holy Communion.

This is where the news coverage got interesting. Once again, on an issue of great importance to Catholic readers and church leaders, secular news outlets assumed the views of one side were normative — even accurate — at the expense of church doctrine. Here at GetReligion, we have a name for that approach (click here for information).

Everyone from The New York Times and USA Today to NPR and local news outlets covered the story. What we learned from the coverage was telling. It was also largely one-sided and inaccurate.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Strategic cardinal floats trial balloon, saying Catholic LGBTQ doctrines are wrong

Podcast: Strategic cardinal floats trial balloon, saying Catholic LGBTQ doctrines are wrong

If you follow political news, you’re probably familiar with the concept of a “trial balloon.”

One online dictionary definition states: “A trial balloon is a proposal that you mention or an action that you try in order to find out other people's reactions to it, especially if you think they are likely to oppose it.”

Here’s a famous example. Let’s say that the Obama White House wants to shift its stance on gay marriage, once the president has reached a point — in 2012 — where he may or may not need strong support from social-conservative Black church leaders. Thus, it was a surprise, kind of, when Vice President Joe Biden, went on “Meet the Press” and said that he was “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriages.

The White House needed to know (1) how other Democrats would respond, (2) how Black-church leaders would respond and (3) how potential conservative critics would respond, including Catholic leaders in America. Central to all of this, of course, is how this “trial balloon” is framed in the coverage by elite media. It took very little time for Barack Obama to get on board.

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), we looked at a complex drama unfolding in the European leadership of the Catholic church. The key player is Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, archbishop of Luxembourg, and a leader — the term is “relator general” — in the Pope Francis team leading the Synod on Synodality on the future of the Catholic faith. Depending on who one talks to, this synod is either a chance to listen to Catholics around the world or the front door to Vatican III.

But here is the key quote from Hollerich, drawn from an interview with the German Catholic news agency KNA.) This is part of a collection of blunt, verbatim statements from Hollerich collected at L’Espresso:

“The Church’s positions on homosexual relationships as sinful are wrong. I believe that the sociological and scientific foundation of this doctrine is no longer correct. It is time for a fundamental revision of Church teaching, and the way in which Pope Francis has spoken of homosexuality could lead to a change in doctrine.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Reformed Church in America split points to rising tensions in Calvin country

New podcast: Reformed Church in America split points to rising tensions in Calvin country

Growing up as a Texas Baptist (long ago) I was predestined to know next to nothing about what some have called the great “northern kingdom” of American evangelicalism. Yes, we can debate whether “evangelical” is an accurate description of the Calvinist world based in Grand Rapids, Mich., and other cities and towns in the Midwest.

I had to learn some of this lingo when I moved to Central Illinois and then when I broke into religion-beat work in Charlotte, N.C., a city with every imaginable form of Presbyterian and Reformed church life.

As I mentioned in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to listen), I quickly learned that the Reformed Church in America was a rather centrist flock, while the Christian Reformed Church was much more conservative, in terms of doctrine and culture. I would not have called either of these bodies a “Mainline Protestant” denomination.

Things change. Eventually, the RCA started arguing about the familiar subjects that have divided so many religious bodies — biblical authority and sex. This leads us to a Religion News Service report: “Reformed Church in America splits as conservative churches form new denomination.” Here is the overture:

(RNS) — On New Year’s Day, 43 congregations of the Reformed Church in America split from the national denomination, one of the oldest Protestant bodies in the United States, in part over theological differences regarding same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ clergy.

The departure of the theologically conservative congregations to the new group, the Alliance of Reformed Churches, leaves some who remain in the RCA concerned for the denomination’s survival. Before the split, the nearly 400-year-old denomination had fewer than 200,000 members and 1,000 churches.

At least 125 churches from various denominations are in conversation with ARC leaders about joining.

“Various denominations?” Hold that thought.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Despite San Francisco Chronicle sermon, parents oppose teachers hiding LGBTQ evangelism

Despite San Francisco Chronicle sermon, parents oppose teachers hiding LGBTQ evangelism

Some of you may have heard of Abigail Shrier, the Wall Street Journal columnist and author of one of last year’s most controversial books, “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.” It discusses the stunning surge in the number of teen-aged girls who are declaring that they are transgender.

The book has done quite well, despite a temporary ban on Amazon.com, and Shrier has become quite the crusader in spreading the message that no one under 18 should try transitioning to an opposite gender without stiff challenges from clinicians. After all, puberty blockers, testosterone treatments and mastectomies are, well, irreversible.

She’s branched out into related subjects. In November, she reported a sensational story: “How Activist Teachers Recruit Kids” on her Substack newsletter, The Truth Fairy. Reaction was swift. More on that in a moment. And by the way, there is a clear religion hook in this story, which is why it is relevant to religion-beat reporters and GetReligion readers, in general.

Shrier’s original story story, which is a must-read no matter what side of the trans debate you’re on, reports on a California Teachers Association conference in October where two presenters bluntly described how they could spy on students’ Google searches and listen in on their conversations to recruit kids into LGBTQ-friendly clubs. They also had tips on how to get LGBTQ material into morning announcements in schools, while making sure parents that don’t know anything about what is happening.

We’re talking middle-schoolers here, not 18-year-olds.

Shrier had the advantage of being sent audio files of the entire conference, so much of her material was verbatim remarks by the presenters. In a recent story, The San Francisco Chronicle offered its version of the event.

Now, tell me, does this headline take a stance or not? It read: “Two California teachers were secretly recorded speaking about LGBTQ student outreach. Now they’re fighting for their jobs.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Here we go again: With Catholic news, reporters should be careful with this word -- 'reform'

Here we go again: With Catholic news, reporters should be careful with this word -- 'reform'

Let’s pause for a moment and reconsider a very loaded and tricky word that shows up all the time religion-news coverage (as well as political coverage, of course).

That word is “reform.”

For really, really, loyal GetReligion readers, I will admit that I am, in part, flashing back to this 2008 GetReligion post: “Who gets to "reform" what?” Once again, let’s look at some of the language that shows up in online dictionaries when you search for that term. To “reform” an institution or a law means to:

* make changes for improvement in order to remove abuse and injustices; "reform a political system" * bring, lead, or force to abandon a wrong or evil course of life, conduct, and adopt a right one; "The Church reformed me"; "reform your conduct" ... * a change for the better as a result of correcting abuses; "justice was for sale before the reform of the law courts" ... * improve by alteration or correction of errors or defects and put into a better condition; "reform the health system in this country" * a campaign aimed to correct abuses or malpractices. ...

The key words in that digital cloud are these: “improve by alteration or correction of errors or defects …”

Also, let me remind readers that I am not a Roman Catholic. Some people seem to be confused about that. My views on this topic are based on decades of reporting (and a graduate-school readings class focusing on the church before and after Vatican II) about the very complex world of Catholic life and thought.

With that in mind, let’s look at the top of a recent Religion News Service story that ran with this headline: “Can Pope Francis make real change for women? Vatican women leaders assess his chances.

VATICAN CITY (RNS) — A panel of women who have attained leadership positions in the Catholic Church met … to discuss Pope Francis’ ambitious plan to reform the power structures in the church, raising questions about female ordination, the role of bishops and the need for women theologians.


Please respect our Commenting Policy