Today I received the following in my email:

Dear Friend of Scientific American,

Many parents of children who are LGBTQ are desperately trying to protect their kids from discrimination and moral panics, and provide them with proper health care, safe communities and welcoming schools. Research overwhelmingly shows that supportive parents help non-conforming kids thrive, as our story in this month’s issue shows. It’s a hopeful story about parents learning from and for their kids, and supporting other families in creative ways.”

I confess to not having a subscription, so I have not read the advertised article.  Based on past experience with Sci-Amer, I anticipate the sorts of things you will find in it: leftist propaganda.  If I am remiss, you will no doubt inform me, and I shall duly apologize, but for now, I will sound a warning.

As usual, this unscientific, and sometimes anti-scientific, publication uses weasel words and extreme bias to promote its leftist agenda.  Although I try to ignore this aspect of it, I am compelled to speak out.  Who among us does not wish to “protect” our kids from “moral panics, and provide them with proper health care, safe communities and welcoming schools”?  But these words mean to leftists something quite different from the definitions most people ascribe to them.

The editors at Sci-Amer are exhibiting their unquestioned assumptions about homosexual and transsexual children and assuming that the best course of action is for parents to “support” their afflicted children in their dysfunctions.  They do so without exploring even the possibility that they are causing them grave and irreparable harm.  For them, the leftist agenda seems to be the priority, not the children.

Unfortunately, too many parents have been deceived by the claims of leftists who make such unwarranted assumptions.  The case of Chloe Cole, and others like her, is one tragic example.  They used fear and guilt to persuade her parents that Chloe would likely commit suicide if they did not authorize surgical mutilation of her body to make her appear to be a man.  Too late, Chloe came to understand that she had never been transsexual.  She wished to remain a girl.  Instead of an apology, or offers of compensation, she received scorn from LGBT advocates.  I do not pretend to understand the anguish they are inflicting on this teenage girl.

One must wonder why, after thousands of years of human history, apparently huge numbers of people seem to be seeking to change their sexual morphology.  What has caused this sociological “climate change”?  Is it our modern diet?  Pollution?  Hormones placed in our food?  Or is it sociological, the product of growing public acceptance of deviancy, to include pedophilia?

What about the claim that “Research overwhelmingly shows”?  According to an excerpt from science writer Mark Mahin,

It seems that when scientists do studies that they claim support their dogmas, we hear all about such stories in our daily Science News feeds and in science magazines such as Quanta. But when scientists produce evidence that defies the prevailing dogmas of scientists, then we are unlikely to hear about such a study.

[Un]Scientific American is a premium example of that.

Image via Pxfuel.