Chick-fil-A turns back on Christian groups, halts donations to Salvation Army 

Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) has been a vocal and active advocate for trans affirmative medical care. Their latest foray into making sure male-bodied trans persons feel comfortable is to allow them access to medical care on women’s hospital wards. If a female patient has a problem with it, she will be removed. 

“Women patients who complain about having a biological male in the next bed risk being kicked off the ward under new NHS transgender guidelines. Medical staff will be expected to deal with those who object to trans patients on single-sex wards as if the complainant is a racist or homophobe, the guidance states. Rather than relocate the trans patient, such as to a single room, it will be the person who makes the complaint who will be moved, according to the policy.”

Women’s groups complained about this change but were rebuffed. In fact, if a woman complains at being roomed with a male-bodied person, hospital staff is instructed to protect the trans person from the woman. The “…duty of care extends to protect patients from harassment and should the woman continue to make demands about the removal of the transgender patient and be vocal in the ward it would be appropriate to remind her of this… Ultimately it may be the complainant who is required to be removed.”

The NHS argument uses racism as a means to bolster the argument, claiming that “If a white woman complained to a nurse about sharing a ward with a black patient or a heterosexual male complained about being in a ward with a gay man, we would expect our staff to act in a manner that deals with the expressed behaviour immediately.” Of course, these are completely different things. Race has no bearing on gender, as both sexes exist within every race on earth. The same goes for sexual orientation, the fact of who a person is attracted to has nothing to do with their anatomy. 

Under the guise of medical care, the NHS has encouraged hormone treatment, breast binding, and “packing” in minors. Before removing via surgery or chemical children’s reproductive capability, they may pay for the freezing of eggs and sperm, so that after the children undergo sterilization they will have access post-transition. At least one mother was threatened with the removal of her child by child services after she balked when NHS referred her 14-year-old daughter for gender reassignment hormones. 

Grade school children are asked if they are comfortable in their own gender, while the NHS refers to children as young as 4 to gender reassignment doctors for assessment. There was even an NHS doctor who was fired for stating that gender is not assigned at birth, but is an innate condition. Women have pushed back against both the placing of male-bodied trans persons into women’s prisons and refuges. One woman was appalled to receive care from a trans nurse when a female nurse was requested. 

Over and over, women’s spaces are being opened to male-bodied trans persons, children are being encouraged to assess their own bodies for correctness, young people are given life-altering drugs and surgeries before their brains are finished forming, and women are told to put up or shut up. It’s bad enough to house men in women’s prisons, or in battered women’s shelters, both of which see women at their most vulnerable. But allowing men into women’s hospital wards seems barbaric and cruel.

Anyone with a brain can agree that, despite gendery feelings, the difference between those with male bodies and those with female bodies are their bodies. Every time I write this it seems more and more absurd to say that men and women have different bodies or to try and justify just how bodies are relevant to medical care. But men and women have different bodies, the differences in those bodies are even more apparent when both take off their dresses and stand naked before medical professionals. The kind of medical care that men and women receive is different precisely because their bodies are different.

Rape victims should not arrive for hospital care only to be roomed with a male-bodied person. Male bodied persons need different care for their reproductive systems because they have different reproductive systems. It’s frankly insane that we have to keep saying this. Male bodied persons do not need gynecologists, no matter how much silicone they’ve been fitted with.

Gynecological patients should not have to undergo vaginal exams with a male-bodied person in the bed next to them, or be fitted with a catheter, or worry about their hospital gowns slipping, or showing too much skin when they carry themselves to the bathroom or fear intimate conversations about their anatomy being overheard. 

This continued push against women having private spaces has so much to with men’s needs being put first. In medical circles, it has come to light that the understood symptoms for heart attack were male-centric, and that there have been biases against women’s pain. Women are less likely to be given CPR, to be properly treated for dementia, and often have their concerns overlooked. Now, even in women’s hospital wards, women will have a harder time getting noticed, having their concerns heard, or even finding privacy. 

Trans advocacy that puts men in women’s spaces reflects the demand that women submit to men’s wishes, desires, and delusions. The NHS should recognize this as the gaslighting it is, and give women back their medical autonomy. Medical services should be more aware of women’s needs, not less. When women speak up for themselves, they should be heard, not silenced, shuttled off to some locale where they will get even worse medical care than that which they already access. 

Most women who are housed with males on a women’s hospital ward will not speak up, they will instead suck it up, for fear that their lives will be put at even more risk. It’s up to the NHS, legislators, and women’s groups to stand for women’s rights, and not throw them under the proverbial gurney.

When well known Christian fast-food organization Chick-fil-A has decided to halt funding to the Salvation Army due to what critics called “anti-LGBT stances,” many backers of the delicious chicken joint felt betrayed. But this sense of betrayal has all but intensified, as revelations came that Chick-fil-A has been donating to what some are calling “extreme anti-Christian groups in America.”

For years now, Chick-fil-A, the Georgia-based chicken chain, has faced backlash from LGBT groups for their hefty donations to The Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Chick-fil-A told ABC News that they would instead be focusing on donations to groups that prevent homelessness, hunger, and education, starting next year.

“Beginning in 2020, the Chick-fil-A Foundation will introduce a more focused giving approach, donating to a smaller number of organizations working exclusively in the areas of hunger, homelessness and education,” Chick-fil-A said in a statement. “We have also proactively disclosed our 2018 tax filing and a preview of 2019 gifts to date on chick-fil-afoundation.org,” the statement continued. “The intent of charitable giving from the Chick-fil-A Foundation is to nourish the potential in every child.”

As reported on first by Townhall, an IRS 990 form showing that the chicken shop donated $2,500 to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which critics from the Family Research Council (FRC) deem to be “un-Christian.”

This would be directly opposed to owner Dan Cathy’s public stance of the company, telling The Baptist Press: “[We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us.”

In reponse to this, FRC President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

 “Not only has Chick-fil-A abandoned donations to Christian groups including the Salvation Army, it has donated to one of the most extreme anti-Christian groups in America.  Anyone who opposes the SPLC, including many Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and traditional conservatives, is slandered and slapped with the ‘extremist’ label or even worse, their ‘hate group’ designation. At one point, the SPLC even added Dr. Ben Carson to its ‘extremist’ list because of his biblical views (and only took him off the list after public outcry).

 “Seven years ago, a shooter entered our building with the intent to murder as many people as possible and smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their faces. The gunman was enraged by the nationwide Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day held two weeks before and used the SPLC’s ‘hate map’ to identify FRC as his target. Despite being seriously wounded, the FRC building manager, Leo Johnson, heroically stopped the gunman.  Dan Cathy, nor anyone with Chick-fil-A inquired about the well-being of Mr. Johnson or any of the FRC team members, but they made a donation to the SPLC which was linked in federal court to this act of domestic terrorism.  Chick-fil-A has seriously lost their way.”

 “It’s time for Christians to find a fast food alternative to Chick-fil-A,” concluded Perkins.

Across Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, millions commemorate the sacrifices made by their respective armies and the great sacrifices made in the fight against tyranny. They do so by wearing a commemorative poppy, made of paper or fabric and traditionally made with red material and a black centre.

Sales of poppies in Canada go towards the Legion Poppy Fund to provide financial assistance to veterans, as they do in the other aforementioned countries.

There already exists certain variances of poppies, including a purple one that remembers animals who served in wartime, namely horses and dogs, of which there were large numbers of casualties.

And now, some are attempting to introduce the “rainbow poppy.” A Rainbow-coloured lapel pin that was made with the intention of honouring fallen soldiers of the LGBT community during armed conflict.

The pin, which is being sold on eBay for £6 (about $10), and many are on board with the idea of the rainbow-pin.

“I want a #rainbowpoppy, gay servicemen and women were dishonourably discharged or ever killed, even though their sacrifice was the same. Alan Turing is a key example. There has been a purple poppy out for YEARS now… so get the hell over it,” said Twitter user Nathanial Howarth.

With Twitter divided on the topic, as per usual, some quick reading on the topic should be done. According to the Royal Canadian Legion, altering the poppy is a sign of disrespect. Says the Legion’s website: “The poppy is the sacred symbol of remembrance and should not be defaced in any way.”

Though the purple poppy could be propped up as a prime example of “defacing” a poppy, the purple poppy does actually occur in nature, unlike the rainbow variant.

Others pointed out that other variances, like the black poppy that commemorates African and Caribbean allies, and that having a rainbow poppy is appropriate. Again, this is thwarted by the fact that black poppies exist in nature.

Not only this, but some are beginning to feel as though LGBT Pride movements have started to encroach on the day-to-day of others. Twitter user @Chibbard01, pointed out that LGBT pride already has its time and place in the year. “Pride has a whole month to raise awareness. Soldiers who died and fought for us have one MINUTE a year. Get some respect!”

The month of June was selected to represent LGBT pride month due to the Stonewall riots, riots which were sparked by the raiding of a New York gay bar run by the Genovese crime family.

There is also an LGBT history month observed in October throughout the United States and Canada.

Word spread quickly on social media this evening that Simon Fraser University has backed out of its decision to host the event entitled “#GIDYVR: How Media Bias Shapes the Gender Identity Debate” on November 2nd. 

In addition to Vancouver feminist Meghan Murphy, the event was slated to feature Quillette Canadian editor Jonathan Kay and The Post Millennial contributor Anna Slatz, and was co-organized by Mark Collard, an SFU professor of anthropology, Amy Eileen Hamm, Holly Stamer, and GIDYVR. Free speech activist Lindsay Shepherd was set to moderate. 

Collard, who had originally sponsored the event and assisted in booking the venue at SFU’s Harbour Centre campus, decided to withdraw his support for the event after speaking to senior director of campus public safety, Tim Marron. Marron explained that there was a high risk of violence as a result of the event. 

“The senior admin had been very firm about respecting my academic freedom in terms of supporting the event,” Collard told The Post Millennial. “Tim explained what happened yesterday in a meeting between the SFU LGBT student group called Out On Campus and an outside group called Coalition Against Trans Antagonism (CATA). CATA was attempting to persuade Out On Campus to use direct action, discussing tactics such as pulling fire alarms and engaging in property damage. The ball was left in my court, and because of the safety concerns, I could not in good conscience allow this to proceed.” 

There is apparently a report on the potential risks drafted by SFU security but Collard has not seen it yet—it remains with senior administration. 

The Post Millennial also reached out to Meghan Murphy, who told us, “We are still going to fight this. GIDYVR is in touch with our lawyer, Jay Cameron, from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms in order to put pressure on SFU to keep our booking. Apparently, there was a meeting involving a trans activist group, and security determined that there was a viable threat of violence from this group. We do not accept that the booking is cancelled, so therefore the booking is not cancelled. We were not consulted by the university or security. We were just informed at the last minute that Mark Collard didn’t want to go through with it. We’re not going to shut down an event every time someone threatens us. Threats are par for the course. As far as we’re concerned, the event will go on.” 

When asked if he had any regrets about pulling out, Collard said, “Yes, of course, I do. Civil society should have mechanisms to allow free speech to happen. What this does is incentivize the bad behaviour, since they will be more likely to do this in the future. On the other hand, I know the importance of listening to experts, and [Marron] has 19 years of security experience. He told me on a scale of one to ten, the probability of violence was an eleven.”

The event is sold out with approximately 200 attendees. If SFU does not find a way forward with this event, organizers will be forced to find a new venue that can accommodate the 200 ticket holders and can meet their security concerns all in one day. 

The Post Millennial also reached out to SFU Security. This article will be updated if we hear back.