gender affirming care

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: What would happen if GetReligion provided 'hot' GOP debate questions?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: What would happen if GetReligion provided 'hot' GOP debate questions?

I’m not a fan of the cable-television festivals called “presidential debates,” because they rarely feature any substantial debates and the candidates don’t act presidential.

Maybe this is more evidence that I am what I am, a journalist who is a registered third-party person who doesn’t fit in America’s Republican-Democrat binary vise (rather like Megyn Kelly’s take here).

However, the producers at Lutheran Public Radio had an interesting idea for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). They asked me to prepare questions — thinking religion-beat, GetReligion-oriented stuff — that I would ask if (#ducking) I was the moderator at last night’s GOP presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library.

I came up with 10 or so questions and I’ll share some of those shortly. However, I knew that the subjects that most interest me — as an old-school First Amendment liberal — would not be on this debate’s menu.

First, let’s deal with the orange elephant in the room. The New York Post, in it’s “exclusive drinking game for the second Republican presidential debate,” reminded viewers to:

Take a sip of WATER …

… every time Donald Trump is mentioned. This will keep you hydrated.

Later, the Post team offered these style points:

Take a sip of your drink …

… every time a candidate says “woke”

… when a candidate calls another candidate by an unflattering nickname

… when someone references the Biden Crime Family

… when a candidate uses a 3-letter acronym (think FBI, IRS, DEI, CDC)

… when a candidate tries to deflect when asked if they think the election was rigged

… when a candidate says they support Trump’s movement (but think they’re the one to finish the job)


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Evolving journalism doctrines: Associated Press adds clarity on the 'T' in LGBTQ+

, , , , , , ,
Evolving journalism doctrines: Associated Press adds clarity on the 'T' in LGBTQ+

The 70-year-old Associated Press Stylebook is continually updated and thus provides a barometer of societal trends as it sets widely-observed standards for media usage.

On June 2, the AP editorial team issued a updated “Transgender Coverage Topical Guide” that’s very timely, and not just because June is Pride Month. The AP style bible has been evolving on LGBTQ issues in recent years and this latest update is yet another step to embrace changes linked to the Sexual Revolution.

Just last week, CNN reported that 19 state legislatures have enacted new bills with various limits on “gender-affirming” treatments for transitions that apply puberty blockers, hormone replacement or surgery to alter genital organs.

Most of these laws apply only to minors. They’re usually promoted by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. Other familiar disputes involve sports participation, as well as privacy issues in locker rooms, bathrooms or shelters for girls and women.

Also last week, the Public Religion Research Institute released a poll whose big sample of 5,046 enabled breakdowns into 11 religious categories. Majorities in nine of the 11 believed “there are only two genders,” with only minority support among Jews and the religiously unaffiliated.

Comparison with a 2021 PRRI poll shows U.S. opinion is getting more conservative on these matters.

Among all respondents, 59% said “only two” in 2021 but 65% currently. Democrats rose from 38% to 44%. Hispanic Catholics jumped from 48% to 66% and white Catholics from 62% to 69%. (In March, the U.S. bishops’ doctrine committee stated that Catholic health institutions “must not” perform surgical or chemical change of a body’s “sexual characteristics,” whatever a patient’s age.)

Subscribers to the updated online “Stylebook” have much to ponder.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Time to step up the mainstream coverage of transgender debates within U.S. religion

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Time to step up the mainstream coverage of transgender debates within U.S. religion

News about transgender issues tends to deal with women’s athletic competitions and shelters, pronouns, girls’ locker rooms, public school sex education, competing rights claims (with parents on both sides of the dates) and resulting political and legal disputes.

There’s been less coverage of medical morality, especially concerning under-aged youths, and hardly any about how various religious groups understand gender and why.

Journalists should take notice when four vigorous arguments on the religious aspect appear in the space of just six days, as follows.

March 20: The leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops authorized publication (.pdf here) of an important but little-reported transgender policy. It declares that Catholic health-care agencies “must not” perform or help develop chemical or surgical procedures to transform a person’s bodily characteristics into those of the opposite sex.

The stated reasons are theological and moral. Key quotes: “We did not create human nature; it is a gift from a loving Creator,” so human dignity requires “genuine respect for this created order.” Sexual differentiation is a reality “willed by God” and a “ fundamental aspect of existence as a human being.”

Therefore, surgical and chemical techniques to switch a patient’s sexual characteristics, or puberty blockers to halt youths’ natural development, “are not morally justified.” To the bishops, such interventions are “injurious to the true flourishing of the human person” and violate doctors’ basic moral maxim to “do no harm.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy