Gender Ideology Harms Children

[YmirGF]

Btw, you're not a real conservative....not dressed like that.

Canadian conservatives are snappier dressers than their American counterparts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Canadian conservatives are snappier dressers than their American counterparts.

Skin tight red & yellow caped onsies are the norm up there?
You got nuthin on J Edgar Hoover!

 

[YmirGF]

Skin tight red & yellow caped onsies are the norm up there?
You got nuthin on J Edgar Hoover!

You're such a flirt, you ol' coot...

 

[Jumi]

This was posted on our local news outlet

Genetic Diversity on the Human X Chromosome does not Support a Strict Pseudoautosomal Boundary

An English-language article on the research is posted here:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160323101639.htm

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe it is because I am in psychology and have the academic exposure that I don't see a great issue.

That's the very same reason I think it's lame they got them wrong.

One of the meanings, especially in biological terms, of sexuality is being sexual, as in sex differentiated. It simply is not an inaccurate use of the word; just a use that adds some confusion because of the common usage being tied to orientation or the expression of the sexual nature.

Sexuality itself is not limited or restricted to the physical concept of sex, which is why "human sexuality," a phrase that directly refers to the sexual habits of humans, is not suitable to describe physical sex differences because these physical differences are a sub-chapter of "human sexuality." They're essentially representing a larger concept strictly by one of this concept's smaller parts, even though it's nothing more than one the many pieces of the puzzle.

You are confusing there being genetic factors with there being a genetic cause. It isn't an either/or situation it is one of both/and. Genetic, uterine environment, and life experience all work together to create our gender identity* and sexual orientation.

*Unlike homosexuality, I haven't read the full literature on this, only the second hand reports which, so far as I have seen, all academic reports list social factors as part of the cause.

I've read some of those studies, and very frequently they come from groups like NARTH or Focus on the Family. And we know these groups are not actually interested in helping, because they are so known for making things worse. I've also read some papers that state the power of praying specifically only to the Christian god is real, that Satanist "learn to be Satanists" by watching American slasher films, and that ICP is a metal group. But sometimes you do have to consider the source, which is an Evangelical hospital, someone who has admittedly never known a Satanist, and someone who is an admitted "total outsider" taking a "peak" into metal (she made several mistakes throughout her article and came off as if she didn't want to get "too close." Even when she was mentioning Slipknot, she used a name that no one in the band uses). I've also read studies that show metal heads are pretty dumb and prejudice, and I've read studies that show they are highly intelligent, very sophisticated, and frequently well adjusted adults who feel, overall, a lesser need of utilizing therapy services. I've also read studies that show it turns your violent.
In regards to the OP, the data, many of these social aspects fail to be replicated. I've read one article, written by a doctor who follows the basic Standards of Care to treat transsexual patients, documents that her transsexual patients are, overall, much more intelligent than other groups. However, what she did end up saying was that transsexuals are more intelligent, but I've not seen that study replicated.
As far as transsexuals go, or even homosexuals, it's cultural and social in the same way that gender is expressed and sexual body parts defined. We know breasts aren't actually inherently sexual, but yet culture has taught Westerners to drool over them, and the Westernization of non-Western society does tend to introduce this breast fetish. We know we have things that we wouldn't even do at all had we been of another culture, as it can even determine what ailments and symptoms we may experience, but these social whys always go back to that we are biologically hard wired to express ourselves in social ways, including our sexual preferences and our gender identities and expressions, but when we look at the over picture, humans are really nothing more than beings who can only define themselves within a parameter that is set by their culture, and we know this is because we have biologically instinctive drives to be social creatures. And our brains are very complexed. We don't really even yet know really just how it works, but we have noticed somethings, and one of those things includes the fact that transsexuals have their own unique brains, very much so a source of biological evidence of an inherent "third sex." We also know that not only in addition to having it's own unique structure not found in cis-men or women, the transsexual brain more resembles the sex of their identified sex moreso than their birth-assigned sex.
Socially, the only real consisent factor, that equally applies to all, is that we have boys and girls. It's not unusual, at all, for transsexuals to first realize their gender incongruity when they when they start going to school and experiencing for the first time gender norms and reinforcement become an issue where previously there was no or little gender pressure, and these earlier social experiences often revolve around them being put in with the group they don't identify as.
IMO, a major issue with such studies is that they often lack real perspectives of homosexuals and transsexuals, because they are based on hetero/cis norms, and often times by people who are trying to enforce hetero/cis norms. Out of the social sciences, none of them except for anthropology really make the effort to know the people they study. Psychologists and Psychiatrists actually aren't very well likely within the trans community, but yet I don't read about that much in any studies. Their is a definite hostility towards them and their "forms and clipboards" so they can do their studies, studies that lead to no where in terms of actually helping transsexuals make it through within a society that will at least make sure they can have job and housing protections.

Money showed that you can't just make a transgender person, the biological impetus has to be there to catalyze the experiences.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and that clearly means "nature at work," not "we need to do something to save these damaged people from further damaging themselves," which is what the OP is strongly implying. They're saying they want to stop all legal forms of normalizing transsexuals, but what science is clearly indicating is that trying to make transsexuals comfortable with their birth-sex and live a lie is about as successful as making a homosexual be content with a celebate life or heterosexual partner and living a lie. The science clearly indicates that acceptance is very positive for transsexuals, and something that even a little bit of can go a long ways, but definitely the more the better, and that such resistances are the exact thing we shouldn't be doing. They are concerned about the relative few transsexuals who kill themselves once they are post-op, but it would destroy their position to include the pre-op suicide stats, because they are significantly lower, as a group, among those who have transitioned versus those who have not.
And to thinks like alcohol (something many compare homosexuality and GD to), it can't be compared. I've not only known alcoholics, I nearly became one myself, but I was able to notice when I began craving a drink at work that I needed to cut back. Was I very depressed and in an environment that played an influence, yes, and to go a step further, we also see a genetic predisposition going on when study the subject scientifically. But why it is not comparable is because alcohol involves choices, GD involves around identity, alcohol can easily ensnare people, but other parts of science tell us that lives improve when they are allowed to be themselves.
The problem isn't that I have something against social conditioning of such findings, it's that they are attached and use in ways as in the OP, which is to marginalize an entire group and make it look like we're crazy. It's like the suicide thing. Yes, transsexuals are at an elevated risk for suicide, and we know the main reasons behind failed transition. But what this article doesn't mention is that transsexuals are at their lowest risk point of suicide, overall, upon a successful transition. Yes, some still do kill themselves after, but in that group we tend to find those who just weren't accepted, failed in their transitions, and typically have diagnoses and documented mood disorders.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's the very same reason I think it's lame they got them wrong.

It was an accurate use of the word medically/biologically. It was a poor choice because it cause(s/d) confusion with people unfamiliar with said medical/biological usage. It happens often in communication from a specific field to the general population.

I've read some of those studies, and very frequently they come from groups like NARTH or Focus on the Family.

That you would bring up NARTH or FoF is absurd. We are talking about academic research journals and national/international psychology/psychiatry organizations.

Psychologists and Psychiatrists actually aren't very well likely within the trans community

And that is a sad statement, psychologists just want to understand.

Their is a definite hostility towards them and their "forms and clipboards" so they can do their studies, studies that lead to no where in terms of actually helping transsexuals make it through within a society that will at least make sure they can have job and housing protections.

Those "forms and clipboards" are a key component of understanding psychological conditions, the purpose of psychological research. My job as a clinician is to use the findings of research to best serve to alleviate suffering. Without the research we can't know the best path.

"we need to do something to save these damaged people from further damaging themselves," which is what the OP is strongly implying. They're saying they want to stop all legal forms of normalizing transsexuals, but what science is clearly indicating is that trying to make transsexuals comfortable with their birth-sex and live a lie is about as successful as making a homosexual be content with a celebate life or heterosexual partner and living a lie.

And that is where they need to be addressed. That the social causes of gender dysphoria doesn't change that past early youth it is immutable, that once seated the best current course for alleviating mental suffering is transition. When they are attacked for things they are correct on and the science supports, it doesn't help and will aid in concreting their beliefs. It may also lead to people who are not involved dismissing valid complaints because they are mixed in with inaccurate claims.

In other words, when you tell me that people are born trans and homosexual and I can point to the accumulated scientific knowledge that says they are not, you lose people.

The problem isn't that I have something against social conditioning of such findings, it's that they are attached and use in ways as in the OP, which is to marginalize an entire group and make it look like we're crazy.

Then why this argument? If you don't have something against that the environment after being born plays a part in the development of transgenderism and homosexuality why are we debating? We both agree that the way it was used is in large-part refuse, a twisting of knowledge to suit harmful biases. The only reason I even replied was because it appears people are either ignorant or obfuscating to attack an organization and statement and the obvious holes were being ignored in favour of these dubious attacks.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It was an accurate use of the word medically/biologically. It was a poor choice because it cause(s/d) confusion with people unfamiliar with said medical/biological usage. It happens often in communication from a specific field to the general population.

It is not confusing because they are wrong. Physical sex traits are only but a small piece of the whole of human sexuality, yet the present it as the whole of human sexuality.

That you would bring up NARTH or FoF is absurd. We are talking about academic research journals and national/international psychology/psychiatry organizations.

Yes, and many such places do publish to these academic research journals.

Those "forms and clipboards" are a key component of understanding psychological conditions, the purpose of psychological research. My job as a clinician is to use the findings of research to best serve to alleviate suffering. Without the research we can't know the best path.

And it's lacking and largely and mostly ineffective. Psychology and psychiatry dropped homosexuality as a disorder, but yet homosexuals struggled for decades for marriage, and are still struggling for social acceptance. Psychology really didn't do much, but activism did.

In other words, when you tell me that people are born trans and homosexual and I can point to the accumulated scientific knowledge that says they are not, you lose people.

Except there is a lack of "accumulated scientific knowledge" that states homosexuals and transsexuals become that way, and what does is exist in buried underneath a mountain of scientific knowledge that states people don't become homosexual or transsexuals, and that no one chooses their sexual orientation and gender identity.

If you don't have something against that the environment after being born plays a part in the development of transgenderism and homosexuality why are we debating?

It's because the extent of social conditioning is pretty much always put out of perspective and over stated. It's because the more we study, the more we learn, the more we are finding that genetics are involved. It's that a social environment does determine a staggering portion of who we are as individuals, but it's really only made into an issue when it comes to being homosexual and transgender. A lot of people don't even want to hear about it in some circumstances, such as when it comes to child rearing and how you should and should not raise your children, even though "whooping Junior's ***" and telling him to "toughen up" is more likely to cause psychological damage than anything good. And in regards to most things that are the result of social conditioning, we just remain in ignorance and think it's just assume it's the natural way of things to happen.

 

[Mister Emu]

It is not confusing because they are wrong.

Ok, you reject an accepted definition of the word sexuality to suit your semantic argument.

Yes, and many such places do publish to these academic research journals.

Please tell me what academic journals FoF has published to, and then tell me what your issue with that articles that passed the peer-review and editorial process is.

And it's lacking and largely and mostly ineffective. Psychology and psychiatry dropped homosexuality as a disorder, but yet homosexuals struggled for decades for marriage, and are still struggling for social acceptance. Psychology really didn't do much, but activism did.

Psychological research isn't agenda driven for social goals, unless it has been corrupted; it is about discovery.

Except there is a lack of "accumulated scientific knowledge" that states homosexuals and transsexuals become that way,

That definitely isn't true for homosexuality, I can roughly tell you how much nurture or nature effects homosexual development and how it varies between gender(female homosexuality is mostly driven by social conditions for instance, while male homosexuality is mostly genetic, hormonal, and uterine environment), and given the statements of organizations and meta-studies on transgenderism/gender dysphoria isn't true either for that condition either.

It's because the extent of social conditioning is pretty much always put out of perspective and over stated.

But we're not disagreeing, except where you earlier said that people were born into sexual and gender conditions and that social factors didn't play into their development. The discussion over whether they are too emphasized isn't solved by the pretense that those factors don't exist at all.

 

[Helvetios]

I wouldn't like to get sucked into this thread, as some interesting discussion has already gotten underway (and is probably finished by now). But I would like to point out that the organization behind the OP's source is a designated hate group masquerading as a medical authority:

...the [American College of Pediatricians] is not a legitimate medical organization; its name is designed to be mistaken for the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is a national organization with some 60,000 members. The ACP, by contrast, is estimated to have no more than 200 members, and it has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its anti-LGBT positions.

Source here.

The ACP has also been involved in other controversies such as claiming that schools are forcing kids to be gay via propaganda.

How does the American Academy for Pediatrics, the actual pediatricians' organization, respond? By encouraging parents to love and accept their kids the way they are. A comparison of the two messages (from the ACP and AAP) reveals a stark difference.

Please don't confuse the ACP's message with a legitimate medical view on children's gender and sexuality.

Note: these links are all from various blogs on the Patheos network that link back to official and other sources. I use them here for simplicity since I'm on Patheos 24/7 anyway, and these articles highlight the important parts rather well if you're just looking for a quick overview.

 

[Kapalika]

Who made you an authority above the medics and psychiatrists? I'm pretty sure they know what they are talking about.

That makes no sense. Sexuality has nothing to do with chromosomes, sex, or gender.

Zanga [the founder] has described ACPeds as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that

I was going to say, the quoted part of the OP sounded a lot like talking points from conservatives that I've heard before and I seemed to somehow recall this group coming up before a lot from conservative Christians in their apologetics.

 

[Kapalika]

Ok, you reject an accepted definition of the word sexuality to suit your semantic argument.

I had to chase all the quotes with the up arrows, but you're actually wrong here.

Sexual orientation is determined pretty much by biology but *not* by your natal sex (xx, xy, xxy, xyy ect)

So saying that sexuality is defined by your natal sex is false.

Also you being in school for psychology doesn't really mean anything on this point since we are talking about biology.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was going to say, the quoted part of the OP sounded a lot like talking points from conservatives that I've heard before and I seemed to somehow recall this group coming up before a lot from conservative Christians in their apologetics.

I got the same vibes, and it was later confirmed when whoever it was (Buttercup I think) brought it up that they are a conservative group. I suppose at least they didn't mention that transsexuals are saying that god makes a mistake, and it's a mega offense to him because it adulterates his design and states he made a mistake, which is something that is usually said within such groups.

Also you being in school for psychology doesn't really mean anything here since we are talking about biology.

It can matter. I too was schooled in psychology, and it's how I know that the term "human sexuality" isn't something that is determined by chromosomes, and it certainly isn't adequately defined by sexual orientation or someone's physical sex. Sure they are a part of human sexuality, and any human sexuality text book worth it's merit will include those things, but the totality of "human sexuality" is those things we humans do as sexual activities, and only a small part of the book will mention chromosomes, sexual orientation, and physical sex, because human sexuality is something that is predominately and mostly psychosocial in nature. The brain, after all, is the most powerful sex organ we humans possess. It's why some cultures like feet and ankles, and some like boobs and butts. It's why sometimes we like having mouths on our junk, and sometimes we like insects crawling on our junk.

 

[Mister Emu]

I had to chase all the quotes with the up arrows, but you're actually wrong here.

Sexual orientation is determined pretty much by biology but *not* by your natal sex (xx, xy, xxy, xyy ect)

If you chased all of the up arrows, you should have seen where I pointed out that the word sexuality, especially in biology, can refer to the sex differentiated nature of living organisms. No, I am not wrong. The conservative doctors were not wrong to use that word, they were confusing in their word choice. When we criticize people we should not use ignorant arguments. They had a lot to criticize, just not the word sexuality.

Also you being in school for psychology doesn't really mean anything on this point since we are talking about biology.

Which makes it even more an embarrassment of an argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_(disambiguation) Go click the one that says Sexuality(biology) and tell me where it goes, why don't ya.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you chased all of the up arrows, you should have seen where I pointed out that the word sexuality, especially in biology, can refer to the sex differentiated nature of living organisms. No, I am not wrong. The conservative doctors were not wrong to use that word, they were confusing in their word choice. When we criticize people we should not use ignorant arguments. They had a lot to criticize, just not the word sexuality.

Except they didn't say "sexuality," they said, specifically, "human sexuality," which is a very large term that involves way more than chromosomes and physical parts. Human sexuality does very much include the psychosocial realm of the implications of the fact that the word "human" is used.

 

[Kapalika]

Well I don't really see much more to add, everyone else already made the points I could of made.

If you chased all of the up arrows, you should have seen where I pointed out that the word sexuality, especially in biology, can refer to the sex differentiated nature of living organisms. No, I am not wrong. The conservative doctors were not wrong to use that word, they were confusing in their word choice. When we criticize people we should not use ignorant arguments. They had a lot to criticize, just not the word sexuality.


Which makes it even more an embarrassment of an argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_(disambiguation) Go click the one that says Sexuality(biology) and tell me where it goes, why don't ya.

That's a somewhat semantical argument. Ya, sexuality can apply to physical sex but it almost always at least has the connotation of orientation.

Knowing the history of this organization and how I've heard them appealed to, I am sure this isn't the only definition they wanted to use, but including orientation in it. From what I saw this seemed to be what you guys were talking about. Admittedly I skimmed some of it trying to find who seemed to have said that it was and get a better context of your post that apparently came in a split moment before I submitted my post. I wasn't actually addressing anything said in the OP itself.

Am I embarrassed by possibly being wrong? No.

Even if I was 100% wrong, why should I be embarrassed about being wrong? You talk almost as if people wouldn't want to admit to possibly being wrong because they would feel bad about it. Surely we both know that people are more intellectually honest than that. It's not like this article would twist or misrepresent anything to not seem wrong in their religious persuasion.

I got the same vibes, and it was later confirmed when whoever it was (Buttercup I think) brought it up that they are a conservative group. I suppose at least they didn't mention that transsexuals are saying that god makes a mistake, and it's a mega offense to him because it adulterates his design and states he made a mistake, which is something that is usually said within such groups.

It can matter. I too was schooled in psychology, and it's how I know that the term "human sexuality" isn't something that is determined by chromosomes, and it certainly isn't adequately defined by sexual orientation or someone's physical sex. Sure they are a part of human sexuality, and any human sexuality text book worth it's merit will include those things, but the totality of "human sexuality" is those things we humans do as sexual activities, and only a small part of the book will mention chromosomes, sexual orientation, and physical sex, because human sexuality is something that is predominately and mostly psychosocial in nature. The brain, after all, is the most powerful sex organ we humans possess. It's why some cultures like feet and ankles, and some like boobs and butts. It's why sometimes we like having mouths on our junk, and sometimes we like insects crawling on our junk.

*shrugs*

 

[Mister Emu]

That's a somewhat semantical argument.

It is a semantic argument being made against them, which is just silly. The word fits, and it is properly being used in context. Once that was pointed out it should have ended.

I am sure this isn't the only definition they wanted to use,

Considering the context I have to wonder where that confidence comes from.

Am I embarrassed by possibly being wrong? No.

Even if I was 100% wrong, why should I be embarrassed about being wrong?

I was using it as a colloquialism, not that you should be embarrassed per se, but that the argument is a petty semantic game, without warrant, and has already be proved to be wrong; if any embarrassment is deserved, it would only be in that it has continued past the point where the biological definition of sexuality was provided. All of this while there is substantive criticism to be made.

You talk almost as if people wouldn't want to admit to possibly being wrong because they would feel bad about it.

Without a real conversation, I wouldn't presume to address motivation. All the same it is apparent that some refuse to accept that a specific petty criticism is not accurate.

 

[Jumi]

Perhaps if you read the statement you'd notice they include DSDs, or maybe you didn't know that DSDs are the medical conditions that are commonly called intersex.

Even if rare, those chromosomes are still not objective gender. Do we look up every reason for people being different gender and admit, here's an exception, but call them objective still?

Unfortunately, gender as clinical field is highly politicized. Recently, a world-renowned transgender researcher and clinician was successfully slandered by political activists to get him removed from his clinic. This because it was his clinical practice to first attempt to alleviate gender dysphoria in young children before moving to affirmation therapy. Even though this was a successful practice in ~90% of his patients, he was still drug through the mud by activists to whom the idea of transgenderism being something other than intrinsic and immutable is unacceptable.

As evidenced by the statement of this group with political intentions, of course it's highly politicized. Would like to see the sources for this world-renowned researcher.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

From the American College of Paediatricians:

Spoiler

Gender Ideology Harms Children
March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full statement will be published in summer 2016.

The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.1

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.6

5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5

6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.7,8,9,10

7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.11 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians

Quentin Van Meter, M.D.
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist

Paul McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

I think it is hard for some people to say things like this today because of fear of backlashes, mostly from liberals, and keep quiet about it. This is very disconcerting, as it seems many young deaths could be prevented simply by giving honour to facts, over ideology.

Agreed with this entirely (or what I've read so far).

One of the leading psychiatrists at Johns Hopkins hospital (Dr McHugh), one of the leading hospitals in the US has said the same thing. He was interviewed in the wall street journal if I'm not mistaken. He spoke out against the demonisation and future criminilisation of doctors and other medical professionals who may try and speak out against this ridiculous idea that somehow, a person who is physically one sex may actually me another sex.

Gender dysphoria is an illness and one which spontaneously resolves in about 70% of children, according to research carried out at from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children.

Also, Dr McHugh is an author of over 100 peer reviewed articles and about 6 books. He is an undoubted expert in his field. It's sad that science, always regarded as great value when it comes to the modern western, anti-religious ideology is pushed to the back of the queue when discussing such things as trans.

In fact, suicide rates are actually higher in transgender people than non transgender people. So going through such an excruciating physical transformation does little to dissuade the psychological illness. The fact that modern society is facilitating it makes things worse.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I have been reading a great deal about transsexuals and it seems most of the people involved have other severe mental issues and addiction. Do we ignore that? I find it troubling myself as far as acceptance.

Just Googling around it seems most medical groups are related to religious ones, and I find that it is going to be hard to think that doctors are wrong just for those beliefs. They maybe are disagreeing because it is vague?

In situations such as these, you must try and distinguish between doctors who may be religious and the actual facts on display. What I mean by that is, it is irrelevant if a doctor is religious or not but if he is displaying the correct psychological and biological research on the matter, backed up by strong science, then such people should be listened to.

In the case of trans, there is absolutely no doubt that the overwhelming scientific evidence points towards it being a mental illness with no physical cure and modern society is only making things worse.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Agreed with this entirely (or what I've read so far).

One of the leading psychiatrists at Johns Hopkins hospital (Dr McHugh), one of the leading hospitals in the US has said the same thing. He was interviewed in the wall street journal if I'm not mistaken. He spoke out against the demonisation and future criminilisation of doctors and other medical professionals who may try and speak out against this ridiculous idea that somehow, a person who is physically one sex may actually me another sex.

Gender dysphoria is an illness and one which spontaneously resolves in about 70% of children, according to research carried out at from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children.

Also, Dr McHugh is an author of over 100 peer reviewed articles and about 6 books. He is an undoubted expert in his field. It's sad that science, always regarded as great value when it comes to the modern western, anti-religious ideology is pushed to the back of the queue when discussing such things as trans.

In fact, suicide rates are actually higher in transgender people than non transgender people. So going through such an excruciating physical transformation does little to dissuade the psychological illness. The fact that modern society is facilitating it makes things worse.

Paul McHugh is a right-wing Catholic bigot who is more concerned with towing the line of the right-wing traditionalist wing of the Church than he is with people's health or science. He's basically for trans people what Paul Cameron was for gays in the '80s and '90s. Eventually, he will probably end up being professionally shamed and denounced just like Cameron has. Although he's so old, he'll probably die before that, most likely.

http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/paul-mchugh.html
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/06/10/3668041/paul-mchugh-transgender/
http://www.transadvocate.com/clingi...of-transgender-medical-literature_n_13842.htm