Displaying posts published in

December 2016

Teen made up story about anti-Muslim attack on subway By Tina Moore and Shawn Cohen

The Muslim teen who claimed three drunks taunted her as a “terrorist” on a Manhattan subway train now admits she lied to cops — and was arrested on Wednesday.

Yasmin Seweid, 18, is charged with obstructing governmental administration and filing a false report, according to a high-ranking police source.

Both charges are misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in jail.

Seweid, who lives in Nassau County, had claimed the hateful drunks shouted, “Trump! Trump!” and called her a “terrorist” as they tried to steal her headscarf. “Go back to your country!” she said they shouted during the supposed Dec. 1 attack.

But when cops tried to confirm her story by checking surveillance video, they determined that her story didn’t add ups

Hate-crimes investigators called the Baruch College business major in on Wednesday to work on another sketch of her “attackers,” and confronted her with the inconsistencies, another source said.

That’s when she cracked, admitting she had been out late drinking with friends and made up the attack story to distract her angry father, sources said.

Seweid had been having problems with her strict-Muslim Egyptian family in North New Hyde Park because she is becoming “westernized,” one source said. Those problems were aggravated when they learned she was dating a Catholic, the source said.

Seweid was released without bail early Thursday morning after her arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court.
Modal Trigger
Yasmin Seweid leaving court.Photo: Steven Hirsch

She left with her father and escorted by court officers.

A young man threw a dark jacket over her head — with her once-long hair shorn by a buzz cut — and then helped her into a black SUV before they drove off.

Neither Seweid nor her Legal Aid attorney, Benjamin J. West, would comment, and she did not speak inside the courtroom either.

German leader ‘insults’ Saudi Arabia by refusing to wear hijab By Jamie Schram

Germany’s defense minister refused to wear a traditional head covering during her visit with a Saudi Arabian prince, arguing that women have as much right as men do to wear whatever they choose.

Ursula von der Leyen declined to wear a hijab — a veil traditionally worn by Muslim women — or an abaya, a full-length robe, when she met with Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al Saud in the Saudi capital of Riyadh last Wednesday,according to Sputnik International news.

“The right to choose your own clothing is a right shared by men and women alike. It annoys me, when women are to be pushed into the Abaya,” Das Bild reported Leyen as saying.

When pictures of Leyen, minus a hijab, hit social media, some Saudis went on Twitter to blast her.

“The German Defense Minister: not wearing the hijab in Saudi was deliberate. This is an insult to Saudi Arabia,” read one tweet.

Leyen, decked out in a crisp dark pantsuit, said she “respects the customs and traditions of the country. [In Germany] one is free to choose his or her attire accordingly,” Sputnik reported.

The incident comes after German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently called for a ban on wearing burkas in her country.

“With us, the rule is: Show your face, that’s why the full veil is not appropriate, it should be banned,” Merkel has said.

Has Trump Nominated Too Many Military Leaders—Or Not Enough? Choosing military men for top cabinet spots is not unprecedented, nor is it foolish given how Washington insiders have performed. By Victor Davis Hanson

President-elect Donald Trump is being faulted for supposedly appointing too many retired generals to cabinet-level jobs and “militarizing” the government.

Former lieutenant general Michael Flynn is slated to be national security adviser. Retired Marine general James Mattis has been nominated as defense secretary. Retired Marine general John Kelly is Trump’s nominee for secretary of homeland security. High-ranking officers such as General David Petraeus and Admiral Michael Rogers have been rumored for other positions in the Trump administration.

All are retired as well as seasoned veterans. They have been previously entrusted with the lives of thousands of soldiers, and they have traveled around the world and met many of the key leaders in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

Most of the criticism of the Flynn, Mattis, and Kelly nominations is politically created hysteria, like past contrived bouts of partisan frenzy over subjects such as the “war on women” or the “climate of hate.”

Why, after reaching a high military rank before retirement, should a nominee earn more scrutiny than an ex-banker, ex-politician or ex-lawyer?

Did anyone complain when Barack Obama appointed five retired generals and one retired admiral to either Cabinet posts or high-ranking positions in his administration? In fact, Flynn and Petraeus were first appointed to high office by Obama.

Under Obama, Petraeus became CIA director. Flynn served as Obama’s director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Retired general Eric Shinseki was head of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Retired general James Jones was national security adviser. Retired admiral Dennis Blair and retired general James Clapper served as successive directors of national intelligence.

Ronald Reagan also appointed a number of retired and acting generals to cabinet positions or other high offices, including Al Haig as secretary of state, Colin Powell (while on active duty) as national security adviser, and Vernon Walters as ambassador to the United Nations.

Retired generals and admirals as administration secretaries, officers, directors and advisers are nothing new. In the 20th century, most of the stars of the American effort in World War II later served in the executive branch.

President Harry Truman appointed General George Marshall (of Marshall Plan fame) secretary of state and, later, secretary of defense. General Omar Bradley was head of the Veterans Administration while still on active duty.

Dwight Eisenhower, without prior elected office, proved a most-effective Republican president.

The chief complaint about Trump’s appointments is that too many generals will mean too great a likelihood of war. Historical evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Generals were not the proverbial “best and brightest” who argued for military intervention in Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or the bombing of Libya in 2011.

In a famous example of a civilian-military paradox, President Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, scolded Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell in 1993 for not being more eager to send troops into the Balkans. “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Albright asked Powell.

Traditionally, retired generals and flag officers have no desire to see their own troops killed in what they see as optional wars abroad. Their occasional harangues about building up military power are predicated on notions of peace-through-strength deterrence: The more powerful the military is perceived abroad, the less likely it will be need to be used.

In Full: Theresa May on Antisemitism, Israel, Settlements … & “Islamophobia”*****

‘These Conservative Friends of Israel lunches are always special.

But this year feels extra special. Not only is this CFI’s biggest ever lunch, with over 800 people and over 200 Parliamentarians.

It is the first time that I have come here as Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party.

And it is a special time, for we are entering the centenary year of the Balfour Declaration.On the 2nd of November 1917, the then Foreign Secretary – a Conservative Foreign Secretary – Arthur James Balfour wrote:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

It is one of the most important letters in history. It demonstrates Britain’s vital role in creating a homeland for the Jewish people. And it is an anniversary we will be marking with pride. Born of that letter, and the efforts of so many people, is a remarkable country. No one is saying the path has been perfect – or that many problems do not remain.

Of course, people are correct when they say that securing the rights of Palestinians and Palestinian statehood have not yet been achieved. But we know they can be achieved. We in Britain stand very firmly for a two-state solution. And we know that the way to achieve that is for the two sides to sit down together, without preconditions, and work towards that lasting solution for all theirpeople.

None of this detracts from the fact that we have, in Israel, a thriving democracy, a beacon of tolerance, an engine of enterprise and an example to the rest of the world for overcoming adversity and defying disadvantages.

As most of us here know – and as I realised during my visit in 2014 – seeing is believing.

For it is only when you walk through Jerusalem or Tel Aviv that you see a country where people of all religions and sexualities are free and equal in the eyes of the law.

It is only when you travel across the country that you realise it is only the size of Wales – and appreciate even more the impact it has on the world.

It is only when you meet our partners in eradicating modern slavery – one of the main reasons I visited in 2014 – that you see a country committed to tackling some of the world’s most heinous practices.

And it is only when you witness Israel’s vulnerability that you see the constant danger Israelis face, as I did during my visit, when the bodies of the murdered teenagers, Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah, were discovered.

So seeing isn’t just believing; it is understanding, acknowledging and appreciating.

That is why I’m so pleased that CFI has already taken 34 of the 74 Conservative MPs elected in 2015 to Israel.

We saw in that video what a powerful experience it can be. We are so grateful to the people in this room for making it happen – but, of course, there is more to do.

We meet at a moment of great change for our country. In the wake of the referendum, Britain is forging a new role for itself on the world stage – open, outward-looking, optimistic.

Israel will be crucial to us as we do that. Because I believe our two countries have a great deal in common.

As the Ambassador Mark Regev said, we have common values; we work together, on health, counter-terrorism, cyber security, technology; and we can help each other achieve our aims.

First, we both want to take maximum advantage of trade and investment opportunities, because we know enterprise is the key to our countries’ prosperity.

Our economic relationship is already strong. The UK is Israel’s second-largest trading partner. We are its number-one destination for investment in Europe, with more than 300 Israeli companies operating here. And last year saw our countries’ biggest-ever business deal, worth over £1 billion, when Israeli airline El Al decided to use Rolls Royce engines in its new aircraft.

We should celebrate that, we should build on that – and we should condemn any attempt to undermine that through boycotts. I couldn’t be clearer: the boycotts, divestment and sanctions movement is wrong, it is unacceptable, and this party and this government will have no truck with those who subscribe to it.

Our focus is the opposite – on taking our trading and investing relationship with Israel to the next level. That is why one of the first places Mark Garnier visited as a minister in the Department for International Trade was Israel.

Obama Wants to Create More Victims of White Privilege More phony racial “identities” — for more racial conflict. Bruce Thornton

For a couple of years Obama and the U.S. Census Bureau have been working on adding to the 2020 census a new ethnic group, or “racial category.” This new addition to the conga-line of victims of white hegemony is called “Mena,” comprising people from the Middle East and North Africa, which includes very culturally diverse peoples from Berbers to Israelis, Arabs to Persians. All sorts of soothing rationales have been put forth for this move, such as helping government and scholars “understand more about trends in health, employment and education,” as USA Today put it. But in reality the change would create even more clients for what radio hosts Larry Elder calls “Victicrats,” the Democrat Party and identity politics hustlers who gain political power and influence by claiming to champion the “people of color” victimized by “white privilege” and racial oppression.

The White House is frank about how altering the census would make this happen: impacting how the Voting Rights Act is enforced and Congressional districts are drawn; creating affirmative action plans and monitoring discrimination in housing, bank lending, and education; and identifying new recipients of government largess. That is, targeting those who would be inclined to vote Democrat once they are the beneficiaries of more government patronage. In addition, since most of these people identify as “white” on the current census, giving them a different option would support the Democrats’ narrative of a demographic shift that is reducing whites to a minority, and that will create The Coming Democrat Majority, as John Judis and Ruy Teixera called it in their 2004 book. Removing some 10 million “Menas” from the white category would confirm that thesis and comfort those still grieving over Donald Trump’s electoral refutation of that hypothesis.

More broadly, this scheme to alter the census reveals just how incoherent and corrupt are our ethnic and racial identity politics. Take the category “Hispanic.” It ignores the diversity of class, religion, culture, and language that separates these groups and create their identities. It asserts that a Mixtec Indian from Oaxaca, who speaks Mixtec instead of Spanish, supposedly shares an identity with a third-generation Mexican-American from California, who speaks English instead of Spanish. Such a broad term is meaningless, collapsing together Caucasians, blacks, Indians, mestizos, and mulattos who happen to have Spanish surnames.

The same is true of all the other racial categories. “Black” could mean an American descendant of slaves, or a mulatto born of a white woman and a Kenyan, or an immigrant from countries as different from one another as Nigeria and Trinidad. It ignores regional, class, and educational differences among American blacks, predicating their “blackness” solely on skin color and the assertion that they are all victims of endemic white racism. “Asian” is equally ridiculous, for it bases identity merely on inhabiting the same vast continent. It’s amazing that the people who fervently worship at the altar of diversity endorse crude racial categories that are left over from the “scientific racism” of early 20th century progressives, and that erase the incredible diversity of human cultures and individuals.

Israel Walks the Walk Israel demonstrates its resolve to thwart weapons transfers to Iran’s terror proxy. Ari Lieberman

Last week, Israel’s defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, announced that Israel was working tirelessly to thwart Iranian weapons transfers to Hezbollah via Syria. For the first time, Lieberman hinted that in addition to sophisticated weaponry, Hezbollah was seeking to acquire WMDs. The defense minister also noted that Israel would operate to preserve its interests “without taking other circumstances or restrictions into account.” Presumably, this means that regardless of the prospects of Hezbollah-Iranian retaliation or the presence of a Russian anti-aircraft umbrella, Israel will continue to act when its interests are threatened.

Lieberman’s tough talk followed a series of Israeli strikes against military targets within Syria. The first targeted a Hezbollah weapons convoy travelling along the Beirut-Damascus highway while a second strike hit a Syrian military compound just outside Damascus housing elements of Syria’s 4th Armored Division. A third attack on December 7 targeted Mezzeh Air Base in western Damascus. A number of secondary explosions occurred following the attack indicating direct hits.

Assad’s propaganda outlet, Sana, as well as the Hezbollah-affiliated Al Mayadeen TV channel blamed Israel for the Mezzeh attack though the former claimed the strike was carried out with surface-to-surface missiles while the latter alleged that it was executed by fighter jets flying over “Lebanese airspace.”

Following the attacks, Arab media reported that Russia had warned Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, not to retaliate. Russia’s interest in Syria is to ensure the survival of its air and naval facilities centered in or near Latakia and Tartus. Putin has no interest in needlessly antagonizing the Israelis and any form of Iranian or Hezbollah retaliation serves no Russian purpose and may in fact, undermine Moscow’s goals.

Hezbollah was quick to deny the Arab media reports terming them “incorrect and completely invented.” Despite the fact that Hezbollah uses principally Russian weapons and is wholly subservient to Iranian interests, it continues to maintain the façade of an independent, indigenous “resistance” organization. That is why Arab media reports of Russian warnings to the terror group provoked an immediate temperamental response but it is likely that those media reports were accurate.

In Syria, Putin pulls the strings and but for Moscow’s intervention, Assad’s position would be extremely precarious. It is therefore likely that Russia put the kibosh on any thought of Hezbollah retaliation as that kind of action would antagonize Israel and run counter to Russian interests.

On Sunday, in a 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu classified Israel’s relations with Russia as “amicable.” That description might be bit of an understatement. At a recent conference hosted by the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Russia’s envoy to the Middle East and Africa, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov termed relations between Moscow and Jerusalem “at their highest point ever.”

The Dems’ Latest Excuse for Losing Putin is now — suddenly — everywhere. Bruce Thornton

The media keep hyping the Democrats’ desperate rationalizations for blowing an election they thought was in the bag. Voting-machine tampering, a treacherous James Comey, internet “fake news,” FOX News on every bar and pool hall television set, “deplorable” racist dunces in fly-over country, and now the Rooskies have the Dems and their NeverTrump Republican fellow travelers in a never-ending hysterical tizzy.

The Washington Post and the New York Times, ad agencies for the Democrat Party, “report” that an anonymous intelligence officer told some Senators that the “consensus view” of the CIA is that the Russians hacked the DNC emails in order to give Trump an advantage in the election. Rational people will wait for more conclusive evidence than an assertion by an anonymous leaker of classified material. But determining the Russians hacked the DNC is easier than factually establishing their motives. If the CIA really has evidence that proves Russia’s intent to benefit Trump, it should publicize it and let us make up our own minds.

We should also note that the FBI doesn’t agree with the CIA, asserting that no such definitive evidence exists. California Congressman Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee agrees. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it,” Nunes has said. And isn’t it curious that progressives who for nearly half a century have routinely demonized the CIA as a “rogue elephant rampaging out of control,” in the words of Democrat Senator Frank Church in the seventies, now find the agency the epitome of reliability and truth?

This Russia-hacked-our-emails excuse, however, is particularly preposterous and tin-eared. Does Hillary Clinton really want to bring up computer hacking? She violated the law by passing classified materials over an unsecured server, which almost certainly was hacked by several foreign governments, including Russia. Now she wants us to believe that hacking the email chatter of her staffers and dirty-tricks henchmen is more serious and damaging to our national security than what the Russians probably got off her server?

But the Russians interfered in the election! Democracy is at risk! This is the “political equivalent of 9/11!” the Huffington Post screeches.

The Anti-Jewish Left Protests Chanukah and Trump …and protests Muslims on behalf of Muslims. Daniel Greenfield

The left’s latest target is a Chanukah party where it will be protesting Muslims on behalf of Muslims.

If you’re confused, imagine how confused they are.

The Azerbaijani embassy of a secular Muslim country is co-hosting a Chanukah party with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. But the Azerbaijani embassy had made the political faux pas of obtaining space at the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C.

Outside the usual anti-Israel contingent of the anti-Jewish left, If Not Now and Jewish Voice for Peace, will be screaming hate. Meanwhile some more organized left-wing Jewish groups, the Union for Reform Judaism, Women of Reform Judaism, the National Council of Jewish Women, along with the anti-Israel activists of Ameinu and Peace Now, not to mention HIAS, which can’t wait to bring the synagogue bombers of tomorrow to America today, are boycotting a Muslim party to protest in favor of Muslims.

Some are demanding that Trump speak out in favor of Muslims before they’ll attend the Muslim party. If they were any more mixed up, they would be tying their shoelaces to someone else’s shoes.

The Workmen’s Circle, which was last relevant when Bundists were helping the Communist butchers of the USSR hunt down Rabbis and religious Jews for the gulags, announced that it was boycotting an event hosted by a Muslim country because Trump is anti-Muslim.

When it comes to Trump, a militant atheist organization is now more Muslim than the Muslims.

Azerbaijan is not the first Muslim country to hold an event at the Trump International Hotel. It won’t be the last. Why does the National Council of Jewish Women seem more outraged about being in a hotel with Trump’s name on it than actual Muslims? Who made the Union for Reform Judaism their Imam?

But when leftists weren’t accusing Trump of being anti-Muslim, they were outraged that the Trump International Hotel was accommodating Muslim countries such as Bahrain and Azerbaijan because, like every single Muslim country on the planet, they have human rights issues. If you don’t have relations with Muslim countries that violate human rights, you can’t have relations with any Muslim countries.

Was the problem that Trump was anti-Muslim or that he was taking money from Muslims?

The deranged left couldn’t decide. Numerous contradictory letters blasted Trump for being anti-Muslim and for doing business with the Muslims of Azerbaijan. A weary Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, asked, “Do you think the president-elect knows who rents rooms for two hours?”

Trump may not, but a left that has lost its mind over Trump most certainly does.

To make the outrage even more ridiculous, the Azerbaijani embassy only picked the Trump International Hotel because of its proximity to the White House so that some of the same left-wing leaders boycotting the party could attend Obama’s Chanukah party and their party on the same night.

Judge Napolitano: Election Fraud in Detroit Looks ‘Organized, and Government Involved’ By Debra Heine

Jill Stein’s recount efforts in Michigan have uncovered what looks like systemic election fraud in Detroit, where roughly 95% of the votes cast were cast for Hillary Clinton. Sixty percent of precincts in Wayne County had to be disqualified from the statewide recount because of “irregularities.” According to Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, those irregularities look “organized” and “government involved.”

County records prepared at the request of The Detroit News after ballot irregularities were discovered revealed that 37 percent of Detroit precincts registered more votes than voters during the election.

Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday.

The Detroit precincts are among those that couldn’t be counted during a statewide presidential recount that began last week and ended Friday following a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Democrat Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly prevailed in Detroit and Wayne County. But Republican President-elect Donald Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes or 47.5 percent to 47.3 percent.

Overall, state records show 10.6 percent of the precincts in the 22 counties that began the retabulation process couldn’t be recounted because of state law that bars recounts for unbalanced precincts or ones with broken seals.

The problems were the worst in Detroit, where discrepancies meant officials couldn’t recount votes in 392 precincts, or nearly 60 percent. And two-thirds of those precincts had too many votes.

“There’s always going to be small problems to some degree, but we didn’t expect the degree of problem we saw in Detroit. This isn’t normal,” said Krista Haroutunian, chairwoman of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers.

John Whitehall: Gender Dysphoria and Surgical Abuse

John Whitehall is Professor of Paediatrics at Western Sydney University.

What astonishes me is the lack of evidence to support massive medical intervention aimed at “changing” a child’s sex when such procedures are simply not necessary. The enthusiasm of ethics committees in hospitals, health regions and universities for such procedures is an ongoing mystery.
In recent years, the issue of transgender identity in children has leapt from the periphery of public consciousness to centre stage of a cultural drama played out in the media, courts, schools, hospitals, families, and in the minds and bodies of children. It is a kind of utopian religion with committed believers.

The drama is “gender dysphoria” and it is about children believing they belong to the opposite sex[1]. It is about parental anguish and commitment, court battles to instigate some therapies, laws to prevent others, cross-dressing, drugs that will block puberty, others that will transform an adolescent towards the opposite sex, pending feats of surgery that will castrate while turning a penis into an opening like a vagina, or producing a penis from a forearm in a foray into reproduction unrivalled since the days of eugenics. It is no wonder this drama is repeated on the media, especially as its players may be toddlers whose future is in the hands of the audience. Accept the pathways of “medicine”, we are urged. Welcome transgender as but one hue in a natural rainbow. Or the children will kill themselves[2].

But is this massive intrusion into the minds and bodies of children necessary? What will happen if parents do nothing but “watch and wait” while their child muses on its gender? Can the child grow out of it?

The answer astonishes. While proponents argue for massive intervention, scientific studies prove that the vast majority of transgender children will grow out of it through puberty if parents do little more than gently watch and wait. Studies vary but from 70 to 97.8 per cent of gender-dysphoric male and 50 to 88 per cent of gender-dysphoric female children have been reported to “desist” prior to the onset of puberty. This likelihood of “growing out of it” is declared in no less than the current, official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association[3] (DSM-5), and is supported by a number of independent studies[4][5].

The Western medical profession boasts that it rests on “evidence-based medicine” but the tiny fraction involved with “affirmation” of gender identity in confused children is proceeding without supportive evidence for claims of high incidence, the need and safety of medical and surgical intervention, the avoidance of self-harm, and for the concept that the process will produce a happier human being in a happier society. Faith is needed for affirmation.

During a discussion on these matters, a leading endocrinologist declared to this writer, twice, that the issues of gender dysphoria are “utterly arbitrary … utterly arbitrary”, and that his greatest fear was that a mistake would be made by intervention. If most gender-dysphoric children desist without treatment, the “utterly arbitrary” medical pathways are also utterly unnecessary.

How common is childhood gender dysphoria?

No one really knows because there is “an absence of formal prevalence studies”[6][7] and estimates vary greatly. The leader of Toronto’s Transgender Youth Clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, Dr Joey Bonifacio, says estimates based on adult dysphoria clinics range from 0.005 to 0.014 per cent for men convinced they are women and 0.002 to 0.003 per cent for women convinced they are men, but believes they are “likely modest underestimates”[8]. Bonifacio’s statistics are the same as those declared in the bible of psychiatry, DSM-5[9].

In Australia, prominence has been given to a cross-sectional questionnaire distributed to 8500 adolescents in New Zealand (“Youth 12”) which reported 1.2 per cent answered “Yes” to the question, “Do you think you are transgender? This is a girl who feels like she should have been a boy, or a boy who feels like he should have been a girl.” 95 per cent denied being transgender, 2.5 per cent replied they were “unsure”, and 1.7 per cent “did not understand” the question. The estimate of 1.2 per cent is promoted by leaders of the gender dysphoria service at Melbourne Children’s Hospital[10], but the progenitors of the “Safe Schools” program appear to have inflated the figure to 4 per cent by adding the unsure 2.5 per cent.[11]