Friday, November 25, 2016

At last, some authoritative sanity on gender orientation!


I've long argued in these pages that so-called 'gender orientation' is a fraud.  One's biological sex is determined by one's chromosomes, with the (vanishingly small) exception of those unfortunate few who are so-called 'intersex' persons.  One's gender identification cannot nullify or change one's biological sex, and any attempt to pretend that one can undergo so-called 'sex reassignment' is a lie in and of itself.  One can't alter one's chromosomes.  It's simply out of the question.  No matter what cosmetic surgery one may perform on one's body, the chromosomal reality remains unchanged.

I'm therefore very pleased to see that the American College of Pediatricians has come out four-square in support of this basic reality, and argues that 'Gender Ideology Harms Children'.  In the latest edition of that paper, it argues:

1.  Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively – 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.

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.

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.

. . .

8.  Conditioning children into believing that 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.

There's more at the link.

I can only hope and pray that this basic, common-sense wisdom will be able to stand up against the onslaught of politically-correct, hag-ridden progressive identity politics, and reassert medical fact over emotional baggage.

Peter

12 comments:

Eck! said...

Peter,

No it will not. Knowing those that have suffered there are real people with real problems that do get help. The posting you have there also has many biases as such there are interesting things to note. So I read it in total at their site. Seems there are peers that disagree.

In the end neither you nor I are fully qualified to say nor are they as they see it only as a physical thing. Identity is about the person and that is not as simple as 23 pair.

What I find humorous is the cite of WHO that estrogen is a carcinogen. It leads to the false conclusion that all women are doomed due tho that toxic substance they produce naturally. Then again the potent steroid testosterone is also likely seen as hostime to the body.

If there is any one thing I find its the bias that male to female is noted as guy in a dress and female to male is missed completely. So you may note that I see that in itself as a bias outside the actual
reality that things go both ways.

Peace,
Eck!


PapaMAS said...

How dare you confuse the issue with the facts!

The only way to deal with those who hyperventilate, flagellate and obfuscate is to first make clear definitions of terms. That's what the ACoP has done here. Then you can move forward with the more reasonable folks to further define the issue. Whether or not that will work with those who need to posture and primp and draw attention to themselves God only knows.

pediem said...

The American College of Pediatrics is a relatively new-to-the-scene organization, not to be confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the more well-known and (?) well-respected organization that most people think of when they think of a national organization for pediatricians. I'm not saying that they aren't right about some of what they say, but they do have much less weight behind their pronouncements.

Angus McThag said...

The American College of Pediatrics has a series of position statements which are astoundingly politically consistent...

Almost as if they're a political advocacy organization rather than a scientific one.

Hint: listing something in the DSM carries no morality. They keep repeating "included in the DSM-V" like a liberal screaming "racist", it's supposed to make the reader shut up and accept the argument.

We condemn the gun control organizations for using this very same method of backing "science" into a preconceived conclusion rather than deriving a conclusion from observation.

THIS position statement that you're quoting has such motile goalposts one cannot be certain that they were ever stationary long enough to make the momentary point.

Tal Hartsfeld said...

It's tragic:
All the modern medical technology being wasted on the neurosis of certain individuals when there are so many people in need of REAL necessary medical treatment, but will never get it because they can't afford it or their insurance won't cover the procedures.
The affluent crybabies take precedence over the in-need "lessers".

Uncle Lar said...

The progressive socialist narrative demands an unending horde of victims to throw at the establishment to demonize them and paint them variously as racist, homophobic, sexist, etcetera.
Once they have milked one set for all they're worth then must move on to the next. It's what they do.

Minecraft Chuck said...

Male and female created He them.
Any deviations from male and female are mutations. Like having a tail, or a sixth toe, or a heart on the outside.

Not believing you are your sex is a mental disorder, like believing you are Napoleon, or that you can fly. This is reality. You may choose not to believe in it, but that does not make you right, or make the truth false.

bmq215 said...

I think you've been hoodwinked, Peter. The ACP is a tiny advocacy group, not a large professional organization for physicians. The majority of the weight that their word carries stems from the fact that they've chosen a name that's similar to a much more trustworthy group. Unfortunately, people tend not to check their sources very well these days and so they flourish among those who love to think that a pillar of the medical community supports their views.

Peter said...

@bmq215: No, I haven't been hoodwinked. The claims of the ACP are demonstrably, verifiably, medically and scientifically, absolutely correct. Anyone can verify them with a little independent study. That's why the organization is making heavy going of it, trying to get its message out. It may be true, but it's politically incorrect. Its opponents are using the age-old tactic of "If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger". Doesn't stop the message being true.

Anonymous said...

The classification can be made much simpler:

-you want to have sex with people of the opposite sex
-you want to have sex with people of the same sex.
-you want to have sex with people of any sex
-you want to have sex with people who are unsure of their own sex
-you don't want to have sex with anyone.

That's it.

waepnedmann said...

Eco!
Years ago I did a paper on prostate cancer.
One of the facts I encountered was that 100% of men over the age of 85 have prostate cancer. Prostate cancer usually did not kill them. They typically die from another ailment before the prostate cancer advances to the point of being the cause of death.
So, males ARE doomed by a natural substance produced by their own bodies.
Correlation or causation? Unless you are involved in handling cadnium (don't weld or flame cut those gold colored bolts) testosterone is, most often, the link to prostae cancer.
Prostae cancer is found at a higher incidence in males from black populations. On average, black males produce testosterone in greater quantities than other populations.
Testoareone is a carcinogen.
As far as women being doomed by a natural substance if you would look at the incidence of breast cancer in women who have had hormone replacement therapy you would again find causation not just correlation.
Do some research and draw your own conclusions. My research convinced me that some cancers are hormonally linked.
Oh, and the then recommended prophylactic medical procedure for prostate cancer prevention I will leave to your imagination. Cringing as I write.

Rolf said...

It is my understanding that the ACP was founded because of all the politically-motivated left-leaning policies of the AAP. So it is medically sound, and somewhat political in appearance mostly when compared in opposition to the objectively politically AAP. You might not like a particular stance on an issue, but it's hard to argue that genetically xx=xy "if you feel like it."