I reference a recent paper from ‘Australas Psychiatry’ of March 2024 titled:
‘The gender-affirming model of care is incompatible with competent, ethical medical practice’
In the absence of models of the phenomenology and psychopathology of gender diversity, it is impossible to meaningfully judge what proportion of cases involves pathology or assess the role of pathology in individual patients.
Unquestioning gender-affirming care is therefore unable to exclude the possibility that it is reinforcing the pathologies of some, most, or all of its patients. This is unethical, and it is the responsibility of psychiatrists to ensure that no patients are harmed by this dangerous model of care.
I love Javier Milei! A sensible leader pronouncing normality. Like the President Trump. Doctors who mutilate and poison children should be barred from medical practice and prosecuted.
We in Australia are a long way from Argentina’s position when , to the best of my knowledge, our largest paediatric gender clinic in Melbourne, has never expressed a subsequent contrary statement from , then senior clinician, associate professor Telfer some few years ago, in expressing outright denial of the existence of the phenomenon of ROGD in minors. Happy to be corrected if such an acknowledging has been made ? Hard to see how to come to grips with convincing advocates ( of G.A.C. In minors) of accepting the need to consider rethinking treatment options when the very demographic remains unacknowledged.
Andrew, I suspect that the folk in RCH, and like-minded ideologies, having dug a hole so deep, with the stakes are so high, have no option but to continue to endorse their now increasingly discredited intervention. I'm pretty sure that, in the not too distant further there will come a turning point when this nonsense will be exposed for what it is and the lawyers will be lining up to join the party with their generous 'no win no fee' offers.
👏👏👏👏👏Milei returns sanity to another aspect of Argentine life. Mutilation of minors should not only be prohibited, its practice should be deemed a crime.
For Spanish speakers and as a matter of general interest, "MANADA" stands for "MAdres de Niñas/os y Adolescentes con Disforia de género Acelerada."
The translation is: "Mothers of Girls, Boys and Adolescents with Accelerated Gender Dysphoria."
In Spanish, the acronym "manada" means "herd." It is aptly chosen because of the term's connotations. What is it that herds are famous for? That's right: stampedes. The genderists had better watch out, because those moms are angry and, if they don't get out of the way, they're going to stampede all over them!
I am very worried that the U.S. Supreme Court will make a political decision in the Skrmetti* case in which trans interests challenged Tennessee's ban on pediatric gender medicine (i.e. sex changes for minors).
The current American political crisis affects the federal judiciary as well as the presidency and the legislative branch of government. The Supreme Court has issued at least two extremely polarizing and politically charged rulings in recent years. One of them terminated women's nationwide constitutional abortion rights. The other gave the president virtually unchecked powers when acting in his official capacity. Now, the nation is waiting with bated breath to see whether SCOTUS will block Trump's lawless power grabs or bless them. The high court's legitimacy is in question, and with it the Court's ability to carry out its role in our constitutional system of checks and balances.
Enter "trans kids." While the Skmetti case was briefed and argued before Trump issued the executive orders attacking gender identity ideology and its practical applications, the justices do not live in an information vacuum, nor are they apolitical.
I fear that a majority of the Supreme Court justices will rule in favor of "trans kids" and strike down Tennessee's ban on sex-changing therapy for minors. I am concerned that they may conclude that the language and purpose of the trans-related executive order evinces the existence of an animus against trans people akin to discrimination on the basis of race or sexual orientation. In laymen's terms, the Court may look at Trump's executive orders and agree with trans activists that trans people are victims of hateful transphobia. To be clear, I do not view Trump's initiative that way. But the fact is that millions of liberals and progressives do.
Why would the Court rule that way? It would be a low-stakes way for the justices to show they are not beholden to Trump even though the two huge victories they handed him (and potential future decisions) make it look like they are. Also, a ruling that many would see as advancing a liberal agenda would undercut claims that SCOTUS is in the bag for the far right.
While I am not in a position to speculate how exactly a ruling in favor of so-called trans kids might impact the gender critical movement, chances are it would not be good. If the outcome of Skrmetti is that trans kids (or trans people) gain protected class status, it could make it much more difficult to make progress in banning males from female-only sports and female-only spaces, for example.
I certainly hope I am wrong both about the outcome of the Skrmetti case and the consequences of a trans victory. It will be necessary to wait until the Court hands down its decision in Skrmetti later this year, most likely in June.
I reference a recent paper from ‘Australas Psychiatry’ of March 2024 titled:
‘The gender-affirming model of care is incompatible with competent, ethical medical practice’
In the absence of models of the phenomenology and psychopathology of gender diversity, it is impossible to meaningfully judge what proportion of cases involves pathology or assess the role of pathology in individual patients.
Unquestioning gender-affirming care is therefore unable to exclude the possibility that it is reinforcing the pathologies of some, most, or all of its patients. This is unethical, and it is the responsibility of psychiatrists to ensure that no patients are harmed by this dangerous model of care.
I love Javier Milei! A sensible leader pronouncing normality. Like the President Trump. Doctors who mutilate and poison children should be barred from medical practice and prosecuted.
He has a lot of energy!
We in Australia are a long way from Argentina’s position when , to the best of my knowledge, our largest paediatric gender clinic in Melbourne, has never expressed a subsequent contrary statement from , then senior clinician, associate professor Telfer some few years ago, in expressing outright denial of the existence of the phenomenon of ROGD in minors. Happy to be corrected if such an acknowledging has been made ? Hard to see how to come to grips with convincing advocates ( of G.A.C. In minors) of accepting the need to consider rethinking treatment options when the very demographic remains unacknowledged.
Andrew, I suspect that the folk in RCH, and like-minded ideologies, having dug a hole so deep, with the stakes are so high, have no option but to continue to endorse their now increasingly discredited intervention. I'm pretty sure that, in the not too distant further there will come a turning point when this nonsense will be exposed for what it is and the lawyers will be lining up to join the party with their generous 'no win no fee' offers.
👏👏👏👏👏Milei returns sanity to another aspect of Argentine life. Mutilation of minors should not only be prohibited, its practice should be deemed a crime.
For Spanish speakers and as a matter of general interest, "MANADA" stands for "MAdres de Niñas/os y Adolescentes con Disforia de género Acelerada."
The translation is: "Mothers of Girls, Boys and Adolescents with Accelerated Gender Dysphoria."
In Spanish, the acronym "manada" means "herd." It is aptly chosen because of the term's connotations. What is it that herds are famous for? That's right: stampedes. The genderists had better watch out, because those moms are angry and, if they don't get out of the way, they're going to stampede all over them!
I am very worried that the U.S. Supreme Court will make a political decision in the Skrmetti* case in which trans interests challenged Tennessee's ban on pediatric gender medicine (i.e. sex changes for minors).
The current American political crisis affects the federal judiciary as well as the presidency and the legislative branch of government. The Supreme Court has issued at least two extremely polarizing and politically charged rulings in recent years. One of them terminated women's nationwide constitutional abortion rights. The other gave the president virtually unchecked powers when acting in his official capacity. Now, the nation is waiting with bated breath to see whether SCOTUS will block Trump's lawless power grabs or bless them. The high court's legitimacy is in question, and with it the Court's ability to carry out its role in our constitutional system of checks and balances.
Enter "trans kids." While the Skmetti case was briefed and argued before Trump issued the executive orders attacking gender identity ideology and its practical applications, the justices do not live in an information vacuum, nor are they apolitical.
I fear that a majority of the Supreme Court justices will rule in favor of "trans kids" and strike down Tennessee's ban on sex-changing therapy for minors. I am concerned that they may conclude that the language and purpose of the trans-related executive order evinces the existence of an animus against trans people akin to discrimination on the basis of race or sexual orientation. In laymen's terms, the Court may look at Trump's executive orders and agree with trans activists that trans people are victims of hateful transphobia. To be clear, I do not view Trump's initiative that way. But the fact is that millions of liberals and progressives do.
Why would the Court rule that way? It would be a low-stakes way for the justices to show they are not beholden to Trump even though the two huge victories they handed him (and potential future decisions) make it look like they are. Also, a ruling that many would see as advancing a liberal agenda would undercut claims that SCOTUS is in the bag for the far right.
While I am not in a position to speculate how exactly a ruling in favor of so-called trans kids might impact the gender critical movement, chances are it would not be good. If the outcome of Skrmetti is that trans kids (or trans people) gain protected class status, it could make it much more difficult to make progress in banning males from female-only sports and female-only spaces, for example.
I certainly hope I am wrong both about the outcome of the Skrmetti case and the consequences of a trans victory. It will be necessary to wait until the Court hands down its decision in Skrmetti later this year, most likely in June.
*United States v. Skrmetti (Docket No. 23-477)
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-skrmetti/