Comment

Comment by Adriana on April 29, 2012 at 9:36am

HAHAHAHA!

Comment by Neal on April 28, 2012 at 2:51pm

Lolz!

Comment by Dallas (on hiatus) on April 28, 2012 at 12:33pm

Comment by Adriana on April 28, 2012 at 11:48am

That is BRILLIANT!

Comment by Michel on April 26, 2012 at 6:56pm

Comment by Chris on April 26, 2012 at 2:37am

California Bill  SB1171 Would Protect Patients from Harmful Ex-Gay .... Another article below is here

A bill written by California State Senator Ted Lieu and sponsored by the LGBT rights group Equality California would force psychotherapists to tell patients about the mental and physical harms of undertaking any so-called ‘gay therapies.’ Therapists would also need the consent of a patient before moving forward with their dangerous work.

It would halt all ‘pray away the gay’ treatment of minors, regardless of the wishes of his or her parents. Those over 18 years old would have to sign off on treatment warning that such therapy is regarded as ineffective by experts. That warning would read:

Having a lesbian, gay, or bisexual sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. There is no scientific evidence that any types of therapies are effective in changing a person’s sexual orientation. Sexual orientation change efforts can be harmful. The risks include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.

Medical and mental health associations that oppose the use of sexual orientation change efforts include the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.

NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) has admitted in an alert email about the California bill that their work’s intention is to simply reinforce religious bias against homosexuality.

Equality California president Clarissa Filgioun said:

For decades, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people—particularly youth—have suffered psychological abuse by those who are entrusted to care for their emotional and psychological well-being. It’s long past time to do everything in our power to put an end to the use of therapy tactics that have no sound scientific basis and that cause lifelong damage.

Last week, Care2′s Steve Williams reported on how the supposed ‘science’ underpinning so-called ‘ex-gay’ therapy is being withdrawn by those who originally proposed it.

If you support the bill, please sign this petition.

Comment by Dallas (on hiatus) on April 22, 2012 at 9:24pm

Cool. Thanks for posting. I'll share.

Comment by Adriana on April 22, 2012 at 6:38pm

Comment by Adriana on April 21, 2012 at 7:48pm

Ha! The Blue Princess phenomenon would have been more interesting :-)

Comment by doone on April 21, 2012 at 7:47pm

Pink For Boys, Blue For Girls

From a history of gendered colors:

Pink and blue arrived, along with other pastels, as colors for babies in the mid-19th century, yet the two colors were not promoted as gender signifiers until just before World War I—and even then, it took time for popular culture to sort things out. For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."

Lucinda Rosenfeld delves into the fascination children have with colors:

Read On »

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• …
• 31
• Next ›
• Page