Very good question, Lee. I guess the mounting lawsuits of detransitioners will exercise the legal minds on this question. The problem will be that if that be the case, thousands must be held liable...
I am currently at odds with my health care provider over gender identity ideology. Specifically, its patient information page on MyChart states my “sex assigned at birth” and my “gender identity.”
I am protesting this on the grounds that my sex was biologically determined at conception and observed by a physician at birth. I added that I do not belong to the 0.02 percent of the population whose ambiguous physiology required a medical professional to assign me a sex. I further protested that I do not identify as male; I am male and do not possess a gender identity.
So far the responses have not been promising. The organization is captured.
Rather than a comment to add, I have a question I've been wondering about for some time. While practitioners of "affirmative medicine" might be protected against legal liability as long as they hold to establish standards, is there any legal theory under which those who design those standards might be held liable for failing to do due diligence when there is so much good evidence (Cass report etc) that what the practices they are promoting are causing widespread harm to vulnerable populations of kids?
We know that the regulator AHPRA would use the RCH “Australian standards of care” when ruling on a complaint arising from gender medicine, which is a worry.
The evolution of the gender-yips and it’s gradual morph into the Queer theory as outlined by Bernard is interesting, if nonsensical.
As with the story of the tooth fairy it is harmless and may serve a purpose in some circumstances.
Sadly, the fact that highly educated physicians embrace the ‘theory’ and in the absence of an evidence base surgically and chemically irreversibly mutilate children to 'save their lives'
Dianna, with her unusual expertise in both psychology and music, has hit upon a memorable metaphor for the derailment of reality that is gender ideology. It’s a reminder that threats to civilisation are often unforeseen & even our language seems incapable at first of grasping their nature. To read now in any detail about Soviet communism, in a book published before the sudden and unexpected fall of the Berlin wall, is to be lost in an incomprehensible world.
Very good question, Lee. I guess the mounting lawsuits of detransitioners will exercise the legal minds on this question. The problem will be that if that be the case, thousands must be held liable...
Hi Vincent,
Bernard's substack, Dianna's article!
Also, Queer theory is the culprit, causing the gender yips - they didn't want to vault over the vault, they just dismantled it!
I am currently at odds with my health care provider over gender identity ideology. Specifically, its patient information page on MyChart states my “sex assigned at birth” and my “gender identity.”
I am protesting this on the grounds that my sex was biologically determined at conception and observed by a physician at birth. I added that I do not belong to the 0.02 percent of the population whose ambiguous physiology required a medical professional to assign me a sex. I further protested that I do not identify as male; I am male and do not possess a gender identity.
So far the responses have not been promising. The organization is captured.
Hi Ollie
Hang onto your sanity! No need for any double twisting back flips off the beam!
Dianna
Like a glass of cold water on a very hot day.
Rather than a comment to add, I have a question I've been wondering about for some time. While practitioners of "affirmative medicine" might be protected against legal liability as long as they hold to establish standards, is there any legal theory under which those who design those standards might be held liable for failing to do due diligence when there is so much good evidence (Cass report etc) that what the practices they are promoting are causing widespread harm to vulnerable populations of kids?
We know that the regulator AHPRA would use the RCH “Australian standards of care” when ruling on a complaint arising from gender medicine, which is a worry.
The evolution of the gender-yips and it’s gradual morph into the Queer theory as outlined by Bernard is interesting, if nonsensical.
As with the story of the tooth fairy it is harmless and may serve a purpose in some circumstances.
Sadly, the fact that highly educated physicians embrace the ‘theory’ and in the absence of an evidence base surgically and chemically irreversibly mutilate children to 'save their lives'
Dianna, with her unusual expertise in both psychology and music, has hit upon a memorable metaphor for the derailment of reality that is gender ideology. It’s a reminder that threats to civilisation are often unforeseen & even our language seems incapable at first of grasping their nature. To read now in any detail about Soviet communism, in a book published before the sudden and unexpected fall of the Berlin wall, is to be lost in an incomprehensible world.
Agree. Gender yips is a perfect descriptor.