#transgenderism IS a dangerous mental disease

[mysterycharacterbracket]

Just three friendly reminders:

A) This blog is run by a Christian. They means that, no matter my personal feelings about you and your lifestyle choices, you are welcome here.

B) I am not a terf. That would make me a radical feminist, which I am not.

C) Doing this only proves that you yourself are the intolerant one that you claim I am.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Why I Do Not Celebrate “LGBTQ+ Pride Month” But Mourn It

by Robert A.J. Gagnon

Not only is pride generally a sin, but also there is nothing to be proud of in the so-called "LGBTQ+ Pride Month." Let us love persons with same-sex attractions and gender-identity dysphoria by rejecting that facet of their existence that dishonors the persons whom God has created in his image.

We should also show sympathy for their struggle with sinful desires, and applaud the way God can use the mortification of such desires to deepen a relationship with himself and others. Yet no one should take pride in such desires or the behavior that follows from gratifying them.

I. What is there to be proud of?

Why should one take pride in being erotically aroused by the distinctives of one's own sex, which is either narcissism or self-deception (viz., the failure to apprehend that one is already fully one's own sex)?

Should people also take pride in being erotically aroused by close kin (incest, i.e., attraction to a kinship same, akin to attraction to a sexual same) or by multiple persons concurrently (which Jesus rejected based on the logic of God's intentional creation of a sexual binary)?

Why should one take pride in rejecting the messaging of one's body as designed by God by identifying with a "gender" at odds with one's biological sex? A complaint against one's Creator is nothing to be proud of, but rather an expression of idolatry.

II. Social harm and the condemnation of Scripture

The "queer" lifestyle is one marked by disproportionately high rates for sexually transmitted disease and higher numbers of sex partners (especially for homosexual males), as well as higher relational turnover and increased mental health problems (especially for homosexual females).

These risks correlate with known male-female differences; expected results when an intimate relationship lacks true sexual counterparts or complements. Same-sex unions don't moderate the extremes of a given sex; they ratchet them up; don't fill in the gaps, but widen the breach.

Scripture (including Jesus and the apostolic witness to him) views homosexual practice and transgenderism as abhorrent sexual immorality ("abominations") that can get unrepentant offenders excluded from God's kingdom. Such behaviors assault the foundation of sexual ethics as defined by Jesus himself, his Scripture, and his apostles.

III. The dangers of “LGBTQ+” politics

The "LGBTQ+" political agenda is the most illiberal and hateful agenda in politics today. It is characterized by efforts to stifle free speech and the free exercise of religion. It is the greatest threat to these freedoms in the Western world today, and has been for decades.

No political lobby has concentrated more on canceling and censoring others, indoctrinating school children, and even mandating compelled speech (the hallmark of totalitarians). People's jobs are being put at risk who dissent from "LGBTQ+" dogma: teachers, doctors, nurses, psychologists, florists, photographers, small business owners, lawyers, corporate executives, etc.

Children are being directed toward chemical castration and mutilation surgery, an obvious instance of child abuse being pushed by the state. Indeed, the state is now moving in the direction of regarding parents who fail to affirm their child's "LGBTQ+" identity as perpetrating child abuse (we know who the real child abusers are), requiring the state's intervention to take your own child away from you.

Men identifying falsely as women are invading women's restrooms, locker rooms, sports, shelters, and prisons, even being celebrated with misogynistic awards declaring them to be better women than real women.

The very idea of faithful Christian education is being put at risk, with calls for tying federal student loans, grants, and accreditation toward lock-step compliance with "LGBTQ+" ideology.

IV. Moral rot and true love

Science is suffering at the hands of a movement that teaches that men too can have periods and give birth. A gnostic spirit pervades the land, declaring entrapment in bodies not designed to express their sexually immoral desires.

This is not a month to be "proud" but rather a month to mourn. Mourn the moral rot pervading our country. It has harmed not only the nation as a whole, but especially those who in their self-delusion celebrate what is injurious to themselves, and to their relationship with others and God.

As Paul told the Corinthians, they should not be "puffed up" or "inflated with pride" over their ability to tolerate an egregious act of sexual immorality (there a case of adult-consensual incest). To support the "queer" life is a manifestation of functional hate, not love.

Therefore, I choose rather to love, to love truly, those who identify as "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual," and "transgender," rejoicing in the truth rather than in the lie, whatever the cost for doing so.

[badbirdnews]

It has come to light that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under President Joe Biden has been actively

This is the extent to which our society has fallen, where the very institution responsible for protecting the health and well-being of our children is now endorsing dangerous medical interventions. The departmental documents clearly indicate that HHS is not only supportive of transgenderism but is actively advocating for it. Can you believe it? Our government is now in the business of pushing a radical agenda, disregarding the potential consequences on the physical and mental health of our vulnerable young ones.

But that’s not all. While HHS is busy promoting these controversial medical interventions, they are also funding research into how these interventions could impact various health risks. It’s truly mind-boggling! Instead of focusing on finding cures for diseases like cancer or Alzheimer’s, our tax dollars are being wasted on studying the potential side effects of transgender medical interventions. We have reached a point where the priorities of our government are completely skewed.

Federal spending records reveal that HHS has allocated funds to investigate the impacts of transgender medical interventions on cancer, recurring headaches, bacterial infections, stunted skeletal development, and Alzheimer’s among other things, This begs the question: why are we prioritizing such research over other pressing health concerns? It seems that our government is more interested in pushing an ideological agenda than in addressing real health issues faced by millions of Americans.

This alarming situation calls for immediate action. We cannot stand idly by as our government endangers the well-being of our children and diverts resources away from critical healthcare needs. The HHS must be held accountable for its reckless promotion of hormone therapy among minors and its misplaced priorities in funding research. It is time for us to demand transparency and responsible decision-making from our elected officials. The future of our nation’s health depends on it.

My opinion was inspired from this source: https://www.wnd.com/2024/03/biden-hhs-pushed-child-sex-changes-funding-research-transgender-health-risks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=biden-hhs-pushed-child-sex-changes-funding-research-transgender-health-risks

[attemptsonherlifepdf]

transgression, the other, and the evolving shape of the gothic: a comparison of the bloody chamber and dracula

transgressive behaviours are at the forefront of gothic literature, a device used to impart messages surrounding temporally relevant cultural fascinations and anxieties. this theme runs throughout the reactionary genre’s timeline, including through bram stoker’s contribution to establishing the progression of gothic tropes in the victorian era, and angela carter’s 1970s prose. stoker’s fin de siecle novel explores the threats that transgressive behaviours pose to social norms and british values through binary oppositions, drawing upon victorian fears of reverse colonisation, sexual liberation and disease. conversely, carter’s modern subversion of the gothic explores these threats via stories of transformation and metamorphosis; both authors utilise the supernatural to personify these menaces to the norm, as is a vital characteristic of the genre. by having non-human characters commit explicit acts rather than humans, gothic authors can characterise the acts as monstrous and convey messages surrounding what these threatening acts mean for the characterisation of humanity. as put by kelley hurley, ‘through depicting the abhuman, the gothic reaffirms and reconstructs human identity.’

stoker’s traditional prose utilises the gothic concept of binary opposition in order to depict and villainise the threats posed upon his idealised christain characters by dracula. dracula himself, as an abhuman entity, is representative of sexual fluidity and the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, ideas which are consistent with vampirism but are at odds with victorian english values. lucy’s brutal punishment, however, is contrasted with the anticlimactic demise of dracula himself, where his ‘whole body crumbled into dust and passed from our sight.’ stoker could be using this opposition to suggest that those who give in to threats against typical societal conventions and fail to uphold british values are more deserving of punishment than those who actually pose the threat. the contrast provides an implication of moral inferiority: while villains are transgressive by nature, their victims who fail to resist their ideologies betray the moral code they originally conducted themselves upon. this initial betrayal is what allows the threatening character to infiltrate the population and continue to corrupt the ‘good’ characters. buzzwell supports this, suggesting that ‘lucy’s moral weakness allows dracula to repeatedly prey upon her.’ stoker arguably serves as an other himself, writing as an irish protestant in london. the opposition he constructs here between lucy and dracula’s respective manifestations of vampirism not only examines cultural variations but exemplifies and exaggerates the differences in the reactions of other characters towards them. given the author’s own ‘otheredness’, we could consider the novel a criticism of victorian xenophobia, where o’kelly argues that stoker ‘[pokes] fun at some of the victorian era’s most cherished beliefs.’ however, this view of the novel’s depiction of threats to the norm is highly disputed, with gibson highlighting stoker’s own russophobia as ‘a hatred that determines dracula’s negative portrayal as a condemnation of the orthodox eastern and slavic peoples historically allied to russia.’

contrastingly, carter’s presentation of characters succumbing to villains who jeopardise established values centres around ideas of solidarity, which she demonstrates through the ‘victims’ experience of metamorphosis. her techniques differ from stoker’s in that his use of binary oppositions is undoubtedly traditional of both the gothic and of the manichean mentality of victorian england. the usage of metamorphosis, on the other hand, allows carter to force audiences to grapple with liminality and she suggests to them that ‘othered’ groups or individuals are not entirely evil. this is a view which reflects carter’s modern, second-wave feminist perspective. jaques derrida’s ‘theory of the other’ posits that ‘otherness often provokes a paradoxical response in the viewer: fascination and repulsion.’ often the fascination is morbid, working in conjunction with repulsion: audiences are curious to understand what disgusts them. the tiger’s bride and the courtship of mr lyon, two stories within the bloody chamber collection, are subverted retellings of the traditional ‘beauty and the beast’ fairytale. while maintaining the general events of the original ending, where beauty stays with the beast of her own volition, carter offers up two dynamics between the human and abhuman that serve to recharacterise ‘othered’ creatures as less threatening and more sympathetic and innocent.

the courtship of mr lyon characterises mr lyon as a ‘leonine apparition’ and an ‘angry lion’ throughout, emphasising his predatory nature and resulting in negative connotations surrounding his ‘otherness.’ his initial threatening aura is quickly negated soon after beauty’s introduction to him, as they warm up to one another, and the story concludes with mr lyon’s transformation into a human man: ‘her tears fell on his face like snow and, under their soft transformation, the bones showed through the pelt, the flesh through the wide, tawny brow. and then it was no longer a lion in her arms but a man…’ carter’s use of metamorphosis here humanises a character that would otherwise be considered a threat to traditional norms, suggesting to readers that he may have been ‘just like us all along.’ his change in physical nature is triggered by beauty’s display of affection for him; implicit in this is the notion that we can undo our villainisation of marginalised people, and emphasises the significance of understanding between privileged and unprivileged groups. carter draws the line between what is a threat and what is simply unconventional, stripping marginalised identities of their ‘dangerous’ qualities that are attributed to them by those who abide by social norms. similarly, the tiger’s bride uses metamorphosis to suggest that those who challenge established identities are not inherently menacing, and that typical and atypical creatures can coexist. rather than have a character transform from beast to man as in the previous story, carter’s ending depicts a woman-to-beast transformation. this serves to suggest that people’s desire to understand what disgusts them can manifest as identifying with the ‘other’ and unlearning their own prejudices against them. beauty’s transformation is detailed in the closing sentences of the story: ‘and each stroke of his tongue ripped off skin after successive skin, all the skins of a life in the world, and left behind a nascent patina of shining hairs. my earrings turned back to water and trickled down my shoulders; i shrugged the drops off my beautiful fur.’ beauty’s metamorphosis can be read as a sign of solidarity towards the beast, or an understanding of his nature. roberts posits that ‘to be beast-like is virtuous. to be manly is vicious.’ carter takes this concept and uses it to criticise conventional reactions to unconventional behaviours. she deconstructs the binary that stoker relies upon, and uses a far more modern gothic convention to negate his black-and-white depiction that presents anything challenging the norm as a threat that can infiltrate civilised society, and instead presents these ‘threats’ as liberating.

perhaps an incredibly modern reading of carter’s metamorphosed characters is as an allegory for transgenderism. discussions around gender identity during the 1970s in britain, even in second-wave feminist circles, were more concerned with rejecting and redefining traditional gender roles than they were with the personal identity of individuals, so we can assume this was not carter’s intention when writing these stories. however, ideas of physical transformation, and how proximity to the ‘other’ can ‘radicalise’ one’s own identity are very fitting with treatment of transgender people both historically and presently. genres that stem from the late gothic, namely sci-fi, have been known for using metamorphosis as an allegory for marginalised identities, using physical transformation as an allegory for ideological or emotional transformation. a prime example of this is lana and lilly wachowski’s series the matrix. written as a trans allegory, the movie series criticises the social pressure for conformity the way carter does and attempts to explicitly recharacterise trans people as an innocent non-conforming identity rather than a threat. carter’s exploration and reproval of established values similarly tends to centre around ideas of gender, making this reading not entirely unreasonable. carter and stoker’s gothic texts are equally reflective of cultural anxieties in their respective temporal contexts, but where stoker reinforces racist ideologies that are at the heart of british imperialism and victorian politics, carter suggests that societal fears surrounding gender identity and liberation are unfounded.

both carter and stoker identify the victimisation of women as an established norm that is essential to the functioning of a patriarchal, capitalist society, but once again carter criticises this and stoker instead reinforces it. the notion of female vampirism is a vehicle for this discussion in both gothic texts, particularly in terms of how these supernatural women contain sexual traits that simultaneously fascinate and repel other characters. this duality is vital to what characterises them as a threat: jullian identifies ‘the gothic…’ as a genre ‘where danger is so near to pleasure’. the sexualised traits of vampire women is what allures other characters to them and allows them to infiltrate civilised society. stoker’s ‘hostility to female sexuality’ as described by roth, bookends the events of the novel with the early introduction and later reappearance of the eastern vampire women of dracula’s. their overt sexuality is repeatedly described as purposeful, with explicit juxtaposition between their attractiveness and the threat that they pose: 'there was a deliberate voluptuousness which was both thrilling and repulsive.’ these women are an extension of dracula that serve to specifically explore the threat of sexual fluidity, and the crew of light’s destruction of dracula ultimately eliminates that threat. van helsing’s justification of killing these women, 'then the beautiful eyes of the fair woman open and look love ... and man is weak', demonstrates that it is men’s inability to resist sexualised creatures that will result in this threat infiltrating england, but the responsibility is placed upon the women. while this echoes stoker’s suggestion that those who succumb to villains are at fault, it inevitably criticises women regardless. kaplan argues that ‘the sexualisation and objectification of women is not simply for the purpose of eroticism; for a psychoanalytical point of view, it’s designed to annihilate the threat of women.’ the threat that kaplan refers to here is that of the new woman, an early feminist concept arising in the late 19th century. the new woman is entirely threatening to established victorian values as she ‘was often a professional woman who chose financial independence and personal fulfilment as alternatives to marriage and motherhood.’ (carol senf) by acting opposite to the ideal victorian wife, the new woman challenges normal behaviours and expectations. this is another example of stoker exploring threats to the norm via binary opposition: mina is contrasted with the vampire women, including lucy, a contrast pitting an ‘angel in the house’ character against new women. mina’s pious, devoted and submissive wifely characteristics fit the victorian ideal known as the ‘angel in the house’, a title that originates from coventry patmore’s poem in which he depicts his wife as a model for all women. this stark contrast illustrates how female sexuality threatens the value women are attributed as it prevents them from performing their expected duties for men. having a threatening or taboo act committed by a supernatural figure is a hallmark of the gothic and serves to convey to readers that the act or concept is monstrous. female sexuality is a common victim of this trope during the early and fin de siecle gothic periods, but has since been commonly subverted and empowered in more modern gothic literature.

for instance, the lady of the house of love is the most conventionally gothic text in the collection, using traditional purple prose and exaggerated, decadent settings to frame discussions about heredity, sex and death. it features a countess, whom carter depicts as simultaneously being a victim and a villain. the duality of her character is a result of carter’s signature liminality, wherein the lines between what is threatening and what is innocent are blurred to explore female sexuality as a complex trait rather than fitting the ‘good vs evil’ binary that stoker attempts to attribute it to. much of her characterisation mimics that of stoker’s vampire women, but is subverted to present the countess as a sympathetic villain: ‘her beauty is an abnormality, a deformity... a symptom of her disorder.’ the girl’s attractive traits are made synonymous with a deficiency or sickness, as is the fact that men are inevitably attracted to her. carter suggests here that the girl’s reliance on seducing men for her survival is a hereditary curse, implicitly commenting on the generational trauma women face as a result of having to rely on their relationships with sexually threatening men in order to live financially comfortable lives. this mimics the way in which society relies upon established values and social norms even though they restrict and stifle us. the countess weaponises her sexuality, and while her motivation is survival, this act is conventionally taboo and is therefore committed by a supernatural entity, to traditionally characterise it as monstrous. while carter does draw on this typical gothic trope, she uses sympathetic language to paint the countess as ‘helplessly perpetuating her ancestral crimes.’ the ending of the story, however, mentions the first world war and carter hints at the notion that humanity itself is more dangerous, more of a threat, than the threat of the perceived supernatural ‘beasts’ that people project their fears onto. once again, carter feeds into kelley hurley’s idea that ‘through depicting the abhuman, the gothic reaffirms and reconstructs human identity.’ liminal characters, such as vampires or characters like frankenstien’s monster in mary shelley’s ‘frankenstien’ that exist between life and death, exist as vehicles to discuss the complexities of human nature.

ultimately, carter paints various traits and identities that are widely considered ‘threatening’ to be multifaceted and liberating instead, as she views the established values that they ‘threaten’ to be restrictive and in need of changing. in the preface to the bloody chamber collection, helen simpson writes that 'human nature is not immutable, human beings are capable of change', arguing this point as the core of carter’s work. she suggests through her writing that what is perceived as a social threat is often based upon what is uncomfortable rather than what is actually dangerous. her work is partially ambivalent in that it does not instruct what is right or wrong the way stoker does, but instead depicts societal relationships and allows the audience to interpret it. stoker’s use of transformations that involve protagonists always has them revert back to their original state, a reinforcement of the status quo. those who do not revert to the norms are killed or punished, eradicating the threat and putting readers at ease. the exploration of threats is central to the gothic as a genre that depicts and discusses transgressive behaviours and the implications they have for wider society. as put by punter, ‘the gothic is associated with ‘the barbaric and uncivilised in order to define that which is other to the values of the civilised present.’

i.k.b

[cannabisrefugee-esq]

If A Disease Is Untreatable, Incurable and Progressive, Is It A "Medical" Condition at All?

December 2, 2018

I have seen it pointed out elsewhere that some “conditions” for which the medical establishment offers consumerist goods and services are not actually bona fide medical conditions at all and are in fact money-making schemes advanced by wealthy investors and others who stand to make a fortune off of anyone stupid, naive or deranged enough to accept them.  The conversation I am most familiar with pertains to the medicalized transgender movement where people are persuaded that they can achieve the impossible through medicalized interventions, in that case, that “transgender” individuals can change their biological sex through consuming expensive and dangerous cross-sex hormones, puberty blocking drugs, and surgeries including castration, so-called “facial feminization” surgeries and others.

Whether anyone accepts the psychological or physical transgenderism of individuals or not, the issue remains that there are billions of dollars to be made globally on this phenomenon and thinking people are prone to thinking about such things.  “Follow the money” is a familiar admonition and politically-minded people understand what that means.   They generally accept the reality that where there is money to be made, there will be corruption and wealthy people and entities working in the shadows to further their own interests.  In the above-linked article by Jennifer Bilek entitled “Who Are the Rich, White Men Institutionalizing Transgender Ideology?” she asks and answers that question and names names.  She concludes that it is “Exceedingly rich, white men (and women) who invest in biomedical companies [who] are funding myriad transgender organizations whose agenda will make them gobs of money” including billionaire businessmen George Soros, “Jennifer” Pritzker and others. And it’s difficult to argue with that conclusion which is demonstrably true.  But let’s go further.

Whether the potential or actual opportunity to make “gobs” of money under a capitalist patriarchy renders a potentially legitimate project illegitimate on its face is a discussion for another day.  However, in the case of the legitimacy of medicalizing transgenderism Bilek identifies a specific social discourse that “institutionalizes and normalizes” transgenderism in a way that convinces people that consuming medicalized goods and services literally for life — the entire life of the patient throughout and following medicalized transition — is in the interests of both the patient and society at large.  According to her, it does this by manufacturing a medical condition which arguably does not even exist, and then by encasing the created medical and consumerist issue within a civil rights framework. In the case of transgender, the intended and actual result is to socialize all people (aka “consumers” whether they themselves are transgender or not) to believe both that there is something physically wrong with so-called transgender people which medical goods and services can fix, and that it is those people’s unalienable human right to have the condition corrected no matter the cost to themselves or to society. She concludes that:

It behooves us all to look at what the real investment is in prioritizing a lifetime of anti-body medical treatments for a miniscule part of the population, building an infrastructure for them, and institutionalizing the way we perceive ourselves as human beings, before being human becomes a quaint concept of the past.

As her argument is narrow and addresses only the issue of transgenderism, I cannot fault her for coming up with such a narrow conclusion.  She does not broadly criticize Big Medicine in general, favoring specificity to make her point which appears to be that medicine does not behave this way in any other area besides transgenderism and that the (alleged) difference should be parsed.  In making that point, she necessarily implies that medical overreach is a small-scale problem affecting only a miniscule part of the population (and that medical consumerism is not inherently problematic and that we needn’t follow they money except in the case of transgender); that “building” social and medical infrastructure to accommodate these new patients is worse than absorbing new patients into the existing infrastructure, or expanding the existing infrastructure to include people it shouldn’t; and that Big Medicine is not fundamentally about “institutionalizing the way we perceive ourselves as human beings” already, and is not generally intended and used as a tool of social control.

And although she rightly characterizes transgender as a problematic “lifestyle” issue, she misses the opportunity to discuss the apparent fact that medicalized goods and services are not effective in treating the (alleged, self-reported) mental and physical pain and symptoms of transgenderism, which analysis would only support her skepticism that transgender is a legitimate diagnosis of a medical disease/illness at all.*

But what if the problems she identifies with the medicalization and normalization of transgenderism are actually a feature and not a bug of Big Medicine and Big Pharma when it comes to defining — if not outright inventing — what constitutes both illness and treatment and engaging consumers long-term or for life?  Feminists have long known and noted that patriarchal medicine “invents” both illnesses and treatment for women as a part of our oppression — hysteria and its dubious treatments being perhaps the most obvious example but there are others. But the evidence suggests that invented treatments aren’t “just” for invented illnesses: Big Pharma and Big Medicine actually invent “treatments” for untreatable (yet objectively verifiable) disease, for example, in the case of Crohn’s disease which notoriously does not respond to conventional care.

And this has everything to do, in fact, with “institutionalizing the way we perceive ourselves as human beings.”  Doesn’t it?  We have to engage with Big Medicine because that’s what human beings do, it’s one thing that separates us from animals, it separates the sick from the well, even when the medicine itself does nothing but make us worse it is the willingness to engage that’s important.  In cultures that extoll Big Pharma and Big Medicine we seem not to include untreatable disease as part of the human condition and “the way we perceive ourselves” despite all evidence that it is and has always been part of the human experience (and untreatable illness such as autoimmune disease has only become more prevalent over time).  Think about that for a minute.  It is striking.

And if transgender patients can rightly be seen as “lifestylists” making medicalized consumer choices in the absence of therapeutic benefits, and I think they can, what could be said about chronically ill people whose lives revolve around medical interventions which are not therapeutic and which therefore must be something else?  This is a serious question that, I think, deserves serious “treatment” but is a sticky wicket; as far as I can tell it is rarely if ever discussed.  Our alleged “civil right” to medical treatment seals the deal where perhaps Americans in particular will die a million billion deaths before they will fail to exercise a perceived or actual “right,” even if the alleged right has no basis in natural law, and even where the fight and even the prize will likely kill us, and that includes women and feminist women.

They will die on the hill of “rights” again and again and again and again and again, but in the case of the alleged right to medical treatment of chronic illness no one will ever question why and how a condition for which Big Medicine offers no effective treatment and no cure has been “medicalized” in the first place and what that actually means, for one, that a health condition equals a medical condition (meaning that health and medicine are the same thing).  That our alleged “right” to medical care is not a right at all, but an obligation and that we are therefore coerced into engaging with Big Medicine and Big Pharma.  That “the way we perceive ourselves as human beings” in a medical/medicalized context has been institutionalized (meaning, dictated and normalized) by lying, scheming and powerful men. That untreatable illness has been written out of the human experience, and that “human history” is therefore fiction.  It’s fiction, as is our human present and our future.  It probably means other things too, but it definitely means that.

And don’t even get me started on the goddamned “disability advocates” who aim to protect sick (and transgender) people’s “civil rights” to a lifetime of painful, dangerous and ineffective medical treatments, but notably do not advocate for anyone’s right to refuse unwanted medical care, even in the United States where that right of refusal is protected by the Constitution, and where so-called disability advocates would universally remove euthanasia from the table for mentally competent yet seriously, incurably and even terminally ill patients because the disability advocates say so. And thus spake capitalism and patriarchy: (alleged) positive rights yay!  Negative rights, meaning, the right to do nothing, the right to abstain, the right to be left the hell alone, the right to cease to exist at all, especially when it comes to women (and where women are particularly vulnerable to developing untreatable chronic disease) (crickets).

*Note: until very recently there was an excellent online resource providing citations from the medical literature indicating that medical transition is not a reliable treatment or cure for the (alleged, self-reported) distressing symptoms of transgenderism but that site no longer exists, having been deleted by WordPress for speaking ugly truths about the transgender movement that Bilek does not address and which are beyond the scope of this post.

[feministdragon]

「I’m a Pediatrician. How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse.

Last summer, the federal government stated that it would not require Medicare and Medicaid to cover transition-affirming procedures for children or adults because medical experts at the Department of Health and Human Services found the risks were often too high, and the benefits too unclear. Undeterred by these findings, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health has pressed ahead, claiming—without any evidence—that these procedures are “safe.” Two leading pediatric associations—the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Endocrine Society—have followed in lockstep, endorsing the transition affirmation approach even as the latter organization concedes within its own guidelines that the transition-affirming protocol is based on low evidence. They even admit that the only strong evidence regarding this approach is its potential health risks to children. The transition-affirming approach has been embraced by public institutions in media, education, and our legal system, and is now recommended by most national medical organizations. There are exceptions to this movement, however, in addition to the American College of Pediatricians and the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice. These include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Catholic Medical Association, and the LGBT-affirming Youth Gender Professionals. The transgender movement has gained legs in the medical community and in our culture by offering a deeply flawed narrative. The scientific research and facts tell a different story. Here are some of those basic facts. 1. Twin studies prove no one is born “trapped in the body of the wrong sex.” Identical twins contain 100 percent of the same DNA from conception and are exposed to the same prenatal hormones. So if genes and/or prenatal hormones contributed significantly to transgenderism, we should expect both twins to identify as transgender close to 100 percent of the time. Skin color, for example, is determined by genes alone. Therefore, identical twins have the same skin color 100 percent of the time. But in the largest study of twin transgender adults, published by Dr. Milton Diamond in 2013, only 28 percent of the identical twins both identified as transgender. Seventy-two percent of the time, they differed. That 28 percent of identical twins both identified as transgender suggests a minimal biological predisposition, which means transgenderism will not manifest itself without outside nonbiological factors also impacting the individual during his lifetime. The fact that the identical twins differed 72 percent of the time is highly significant because it means that at least 72 percent of what contributes to transgenderism in one twin consists of nonshared experiences after birth—that is, factors not rooted in biology. 2. Gender identity is malleable, especially in young children. Even the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology admits that prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their biological sex eventually outgrew that distress. The vast majority came to accept their biological sex by late adolescence after passing naturally through puberty. But with transition affirmation now increasing in Western society, the number of children claiming distress over their gender—and their persistence over time—has dramatically increased. For example, the Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom alone has seen a 2,000 percent increase in referrals since 2009. 3. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria have not been proven safe. The authors note that there is some evidence for decreased bone mineralization, meaning an increased risk of bone fractures as young adults, potential increased risk of obesity and testicular cancer in boys, and an unknown impact upon psychological and cognitive development. With regard to the latter, while we currently don’t have any extensive, long-term studies of children placed on blockers for gender dysphoria, studies conducted on adults from the past decade give cause for concern. For example, in 2006 and 2007, the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology reported brain abnormalities in the area of memory and executive functioning among adult women who received blockers for gynecologic reasons. Similarly, many studies of men treated for prostate cancer with blockers also suggest the possibility of significant cognitive decline. 4. There are no cases in the scientific literature of gender-dysphoric children discontinuing blockers. Most, if not all, children on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones (estrogen for biological boys, testosterone for biological girls). The only study to date to have followed pre-pubertal children who were socially affirmed and placed on blockers at a young age found that 100 percent of them claimed a transgender identity and chose cross-sex hormones. This suggests that the medical protocol itself may lead children to identify as transgender. There is an obvious self-fulfilling effect in helping children impersonate the opposite sex both biologically and socially. This is far from benign, since taking puberty blockers at age 12 or younger, followed by cross-sex hormones, sterilizes a child. 5. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks. From studies of adults we know that the risks of cross-sex hormones include, but are not limited to, cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes, diabetes, and cancers. 6. Neuroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment. Scientific data show that people under the age of 21 have less capacity to assess risks. There is a serious ethical problem in allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young themselves to give valid consent. 7. There is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children. In addition, contrary to the claim of activists, there is no evidence that harassment and discrimination, let alone lack of affirmation, are the primary cause of suicide among any minority group. In fact, at least one study from 2008 found perceived discrimination by LGBT-identified individuals not to be causative. Over 90 percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosed mental disorder, and there is no evidence that gender-dysphoric children who suicide are any different. Many gender dysphoric children simply need therapy to get to the root of their depression, which very well may be the same problem triggering the gender dysphoria. 8. Transition-affirming protocol has not solved the problem of transgender suicide. Adults who undergo sex reassignment—even in Sweden, which is among the most LGBT-affirming —have a suicide rate nearly 20 times greater than that of the general population. Clearly, sex reassignment is not the solution to gender dysphoria. Bottom Line: Transition-Affirming Protocol Is Child Abuse The crux of the matter is that while the transition-affirming movement purports to help children, it is inflicting a grave injustice on them and their nondysphoric peers. These professionals are using the myth that people are born transgender to justify engaging in massive, uncontrolled, and unconsented experimentation on children who have a psychological condition that would otherwise resolve after puberty in the vast majority of cases. Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts, and untold psychological damage. These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse. Sound ethics demand an immediate end to the use of pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies. It is time for our nation’s leaders and the silent majority of health professionals to learn exactly what is happening to our children, and unite to take action.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/03/im-pediatrician-transgender-ideology-infiltrated-field-produced-large-scale-child-abuse/

[alistairian]

I seriously don't get the prevalence of transm*d idealogy within the transmasc community.

Like the only 1 argument that kinda holds up is having HRT and gender affirming surgery be covered by public/private medical insurances as a medical nessessity, and like, in many places that's already a thing without having 'transgenderism' marked as a disorder, or even having gender dysphoria listed as THE symptom of being trans.

Like, we don't need to work within these predefined set of rules. Gender affirmation doesn't need to be labeled as a 'cure' to the 'disease'/'mental disorder' of gender dysphoria. If anything this just makes it easier for the wrong people to offer alternative 'cures' and preventative measures to eradicate trans people altogether. Saying trans people have a disorder isn't going to help those in dangerously transphobic homes/states/countries where conversation therapy may be their only 'viable' option. Saying somebody needs a doctor's diagnosis isn't going to help anyone where doctors are legally allowed to discriminate.

Also defining trans people as having gender dysphoria is not fair to the many thousands of us who don't identify with it, but who might still need access to life saving resources and communities. It doesn't really matter to me, and others like me, how broad or inclusive your personal definition of dysphoria is if it simply isn't the way we navigate our bodies and our identities. Some people get surgeries to save their lives, some people get surgeries for the aesthetic and social benefits. This is true for both trans and cis people. If a cis woman wants a boob job to look/feel sexier and less insecure we don't stop her. If a trans woman wants her adams apple shaved down just so she doesn't get beat up walking home from work, or a trans man wants top surgery just so he can swim confidently at a public pool, we shouldn't be advocating to stop them or make the process more difficult either.

And don't even get me started on those stats about how many trans people detransition or regret their surgeries. They've basically all been debunked again and again. It's boring.

Also people having a problem with trans men who are too femme and trans women who are too butch? Or who don't use the 'correct' labels and pronouns? Or who are the 'wrong' sexuality? Yikes!!

I don't know this post is getting long now. Most transm*ds/tr*sc*m just seem to be people who feel insecure and attacked by the existence of non-dysphoric and gender-non-conforming trans people who they think look silly and take offense to having to share a label with them. They want the community to be a members only club in order to feel validated themselves and don't actually care if it takes homophobic and/or transphobic rhetoric to achieve that. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

[lifesafetyequipment]

The safest gender identity is truth

 Printing

“Would your child togo in to the men’s is allowed by you toilet?” Therefore moves a sexy query on social networking. But just like a lot of present discussions, there’s a massive rest – “fake news” – inserted within this strategy.

Security will be a subject that is warm again as Al Tx along with other claims take that limit service utilization to natural gender up.

The query is, must puzzled males and natural kids be accepted to women’s bathrooms due to their “safety that is intended , when ladies and women are in danger?

Whose wellbeing has greater concern – even the sex or sex rebels safe?

On Facebook a business highlighted the fairly small “girl” –’s pictureapproximately it seemed. This kid used a quantity of make up to get a pre adolescent, however it became obvious why.

“She” is just a child, so audiences might take him as woman cosmetically improved. In still another final certification of child-abuse, into condoning sex mutilation this social networking strategy seeks to desensitize Americans.

The heading requires the hysterical query, “Would … this really is no one’s although you permit your child togo in to the ” “daughter.” He’s a boy.

Therefore after viewing this nice “girl” that was small we’re said to be terrified at this type of possibility. “Of program not! She/he’d maintain danger the knee jerk response anticipated of thinkers.

The disinformation requires a second combined with the of our assistance, to procedure.

This little-boy is dolled-up to look to be always a woman. We’re said to be confident it’s an important masquerade for this kid. He reside any method that is other, may be the fraud that really must be swallowed.

After which, we’re to assume how terrible, how unjust, how susceptible this child-dressed-like-a-girl could be if “forced” to make use of the men’s toilet – the service for kids and guys, like him.

Properly, no, the room should not be entered by him. The chances of misuse is large. And thus, to “protect” this kid, lots of people may concur that he should be permitted to make use of the amenities that are feminine.

However the the truth that is easy is: He doesn’t need to dress just like a woman.

This is the way the problem is framed by sex anarchy activists. It’s a diabolical bunch of lies.

Al is approximately to expose the Al Privacy Act, that’ll limit bathrooms to male and feminine until an on site check exists.

Arizona legislators recently took an identical statement up. But here’s what Hudson Taylor, an advocate for transgenderism in activities, stated:

“SB6 in Arizona … wouldn’t create (a secure atmosphere) feasible. … lots of these anti-trans initiatives function underneath safety’s guise for kids and ladies when doesn’t that is mathematically that endure. The truth is, there’s a lot more transwomen murdered every year and claims needing trans individuals to make use of a various bathroom produces a that’s really overtly placing the trans neighborhood in harm’s way.”

Every year therefore numerous are “killed” in bathrooms? Where would be the numbers to aid this?

And within the uncommon occasion where this happens, of course, it’d be homicide – a justice cultural radicals often forget’s punishable offense. Homicide doesn’t proceed “unpunished.”

However we do have very worrying and actual data about the risk by males appearing as ladies, like a deceptive trick or possibly truly. A movie, “Women: choose for Yourselves,” files numerous legal occurrences of male-on-feminine assaults, voyeurism and assault after annoyed males utilized women’s bathrooms fitted as women.

When no accountable adults were his parents, the son within this Facebook article may oneday be seriously disappointed within the options created appealing to him like a puzzled kid, back.

Think about the distressing potential that awaits this child if that seems severe. Probably, sterility will be caused by medicines. Medical mutilation of areas of the body that are wholesome might be in his potential. A of getting hormones that are abnormal that his physique isn’t prepared to procedure may make an effort to finish the charade. He’ll bring a threat swing, of cardiovascular disease, diabetes additional health problems due to medications his physique doesn’t require. And also the rollercoaster that is mental WOn’t finish.

It’s abuse in addition to substance misuse, and totally bogus.

This suffering is likely to be enormous. However Common America, we, would be the types who’re tagged “bigoted blah that is ” blah. Therefore the story moves.

But we notice this same reason in most toilet entry work that is main, also it was used within the photo-shoot of the little-boy on Facebook.

There’s another apparent solution you’ve discovered.

Don’t permit your boy to gown like a woman and topic him to molestation or feasible attack. And undoubtedly, don’t equally neglect your boy and offend everybody else’s intellect by requiring we work with this particular chaos.

Gown him whilst the child he’s, allow him make use of the men’s space, and take away the makeup. Of course if he’s fooled he is feminine, get him a Religious – who’ll guide him toward actuality, to some liable therapist – preferably, the earlier the greater.

May we simply quit with this specific rubbish? In “No! one concept they have to notice from as numerous people as you are able to: develop, please join me in reaction to these activists, disappear whenever you acquire a real center and return in to the public block.

What retains kids that are puzzled secure? The stark reality is a great spot to begin. Individuals once they stay on unstable floor become weird – actually, psychologically, mentally.

Living a rest is just a really unpredictable place.

The erotic doesn’t that is remaining appear to care even stopping female attacks or about sanity. They’re also concerned about probable attacks on women that are fake that may quickly be avoided.

What about if we simply encounter the reality? It surely does make us free as Jesus trained.

Press wanting to meeting Linda Harvey, please contact press@wnd.com.

 Printing

from Life Safety Equipment http://www.life-safety-equipment.com/the-safest-gender-identity-is-truth/