Prior to the early 2000’s there was essentially no childhood gender dysphoria in Australia, or the rest of the world for that matter.
Everybody seemed to get on just fine with their god given genitals.
It is well established that the Affirmative Model of Gender Care is not evidence based – so perhaps there is no need to agonise over what ‘evidence-based advice’ we can replace it with.
Perhaps Vincent, rather than “ just shut it done” were medical interventions to be ceased , specifically in minors, there may be every expectation that childhood Gender Dysphoria would decline in both presentations and persistence, given the evidence for “ natural “ outcomes? This just begs the question of what Medicine is doing in this space , by providing medical intervention, at the behest of our Social Science colleagues who have held the whip hand from the beginning and have successfully, inexplicably bluffed our colleagues into a shameful clinical contribution of acquiescence.
Well written Sandra. To take 4 years to produce a statement that is no better, perhaps worse than the 1st one is quite a feat! To then not stand by your own statement and accept no responsibility for its implementation by your paying members is ludicrous!
Perhaps an anonymised but credible public repudiation movement amongst psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychotherapists aligned with the practice principles of phenomenology, psychopathology, and the liberal framework of free speech, open inquiry, and pluralism is called for - a quantitative expression in the first instance. If, as I suspect, a sufficient number of repudiators emerge from this cross sectional exercise, perhaps a qualitative platform could be refined to open a window onto the particular perspective of Australian practitioners re: GAC & the position adopted by their respective registration bodies. I'm confident many of us are aware of "managerialisms" impact on vocations and their delivery.
Further to the specifics of the above essay, the APS's approach of narrowing the space for considered and evidence based dissent, and its seeming capitulation to the epistemological poverty of a committee devoted to the perpetration of spurious ideology, packaged as sensible professional practice, is highly inappropriate and structurally rather dark - unavoidably antithetical to the actual substance of progressive humanism?
Prior to the early 2000’s there was essentially no childhood gender dysphoria in Australia, or the rest of the world for that matter.
Everybody seemed to get on just fine with their god given genitals.
It is well established that the Affirmative Model of Gender Care is not evidence based – so perhaps there is no need to agonise over what ‘evidence-based advice’ we can replace it with.
Just shut it all down.
Perhaps Vincent, rather than “ just shut it done” were medical interventions to be ceased , specifically in minors, there may be every expectation that childhood Gender Dysphoria would decline in both presentations and persistence, given the evidence for “ natural “ outcomes? This just begs the question of what Medicine is doing in this space , by providing medical intervention, at the behest of our Social Science colleagues who have held the whip hand from the beginning and have successfully, inexplicably bluffed our colleagues into a shameful clinical contribution of acquiescence.
Agree: Medicine kidnapped by itself and the soft sciences.
. . . They roll their eyes when told of the excellent Swedish Study 1973-2003:
Those who 'transitioned' had a suicide rate 19 times that of the controls.
How disappointing of the APS. Thankyou Sandra for everything you do.
Well written Sandra. To take 4 years to produce a statement that is no better, perhaps worse than the 1st one is quite a feat! To then not stand by your own statement and accept no responsibility for its implementation by your paying members is ludicrous!
Perhaps an anonymised but credible public repudiation movement amongst psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychotherapists aligned with the practice principles of phenomenology, psychopathology, and the liberal framework of free speech, open inquiry, and pluralism is called for - a quantitative expression in the first instance. If, as I suspect, a sufficient number of repudiators emerge from this cross sectional exercise, perhaps a qualitative platform could be refined to open a window onto the particular perspective of Australian practitioners re: GAC & the position adopted by their respective registration bodies. I'm confident many of us are aware of "managerialisms" impact on vocations and their delivery.
Further to the specifics of the above essay, the APS's approach of narrowing the space for considered and evidence based dissent, and its seeming capitulation to the epistemological poverty of a committee devoted to the perpetration of spurious ideology, packaged as sensible professional practice, is highly inappropriate and structurally rather dark - unavoidably antithetical to the actual substance of progressive humanism?