Dr Cass’ report makes an “interesting “ distinction, between the therapeutic approach to children and adults, when saying that “ medical thinking” need not be applied unless it involves a young person who might be considered to receive medical ( hormonal) intervention, which may have detrimental , and irreversible, future effects. This looks to me to be saying then , if the patient is an adult, seeking such intervention, the clinician is at liberty to suspend the application of “ medical thinking”, and support the social science thinking , I.e., the “ gender identity/ fluidity ideology. If in so doing, such a course should be openly acknowledged as having that basis , if biological truth is to be defended.It seems to me that such capture by our profession, by the social science protagonists have got us into this dilemma, specifically, with regard to children .
I hadn’t read it that way Andrew. I took her to be making a distinction between anyone not seeking treatment (no need for medical thinking, no fear of pathologisation) & those seeking treatment (which triggers a doctor’s duties).
I read it that she was saying, if dealing specifically with a child for whom hormonal intervention was contemplated , only ,then would “medical thinking “would be required. So, it seemed to me she is inferring (?) that if the patient were to be an adult, the clinician may be relieved of an obligation to to apply “ medical thinking “ and tacitly so being accepting of the social science based ideology which supports the genesis of the gender incongruity. If medical intervention was to be deemed appropriate in an adult , then such acceptance should require open declaration, of the genesis being, not “ pathological “ but ideological, from which adults should be always be free to plot their own life course, but biological truth deserves unequivocal support. Abrogation of declaring such support , has been seen
by the capture of the gender identity/ fluidity ideology whichhas been at the core of the clinical cul- de-sac up to this point, and seen vulnerable children swept up
Yes Bernard, her brief was of course just children. As an extension, I do think that medical intervention in adults , when deemed appropriate ,needs ,at the same time, open acceptance of requiring the suspension of “ medical thinking” in providing such intervention, and the open declaration that such intervention is based on , not pathology, but an ideological belief. Adults, of course being free to plot their own life course. Unfortunately abrogation of this failure to acknowledge biology has contributed to the facilitation of medicalisation in minors, which got us into this dilemma for minors’ treatment. Such children could be viewed as collateral damage!
Dr Cass’ report makes an “interesting “ distinction, between the therapeutic approach to children and adults, when saying that “ medical thinking” need not be applied unless it involves a young person who might be considered to receive medical ( hormonal) intervention, which may have detrimental , and irreversible, future effects. This looks to me to be saying then , if the patient is an adult, seeking such intervention, the clinician is at liberty to suspend the application of “ medical thinking”, and support the social science thinking , I.e., the “ gender identity/ fluidity ideology. If in so doing, such a course should be openly acknowledged as having that basis , if biological truth is to be defended.It seems to me that such capture by our profession, by the social science protagonists have got us into this dilemma, specifically, with regard to children .
I hadn’t read it that way Andrew. I took her to be making a distinction between anyone not seeking treatment (no need for medical thinking, no fear of pathologisation) & those seeking treatment (which triggers a doctor’s duties).
I read it that she was saying, if dealing specifically with a child for whom hormonal intervention was contemplated , only ,then would “medical thinking “would be required. So, it seemed to me she is inferring (?) that if the patient were to be an adult, the clinician may be relieved of an obligation to to apply “ medical thinking “ and tacitly so being accepting of the social science based ideology which supports the genesis of the gender incongruity. If medical intervention was to be deemed appropriate in an adult , then such acceptance should require open declaration, of the genesis being, not “ pathological “ but ideological, from which adults should be always be free to plot their own life course, but biological truth deserves unequivocal support. Abrogation of declaring such support , has been seen
by the capture of the gender identity/ fluidity ideology whichhas been at the core of the clinical cul- de-sac up to this point, and seen vulnerable children swept up
Maybe, but she many not have had in mind any implications for adults, given that her job is to look at youth gender care.
Yes Bernard, her brief was of course just children. As an extension, I do think that medical intervention in adults , when deemed appropriate ,needs ,at the same time, open acceptance of requiring the suspension of “ medical thinking” in providing such intervention, and the open declaration that such intervention is based on , not pathology, but an ideological belief. Adults, of course being free to plot their own life course. Unfortunately abrogation of this failure to acknowledge biology has contributed to the facilitation of medicalisation in minors, which got us into this dilemma for minors’ treatment. Such children could be viewed as collateral damage!