If you google “ parental trauma in a world of gender insanity “, Jordan Peterson interviews Miriam Gassman who gives her personal views on the plight of , and clinical response to the many parents, whose grief , when failing to readily affirm their confused child’s belief risk being delegitimized by activist clinicians, so ready to do so. Both Gassman and Peterson exhibit a palpable degree of emotional fragility, she in the interview, and Peterson on many previous occasions. For me, their vulnerability only serves to , doubly, admire of their courage in their willingness to confront that which has captured, or silenced, so many of our profession, particularly those who have accepted leadership/ clinical regulation roles.
Andrew, I wonder if the silence of our profession is because of a belief in the merits of the ‘affirmative’ approach or, rather, that doubts/criticism/questioning would be seen as unsympathetic and cruel?
Vincent, if it be the latter ( that the key clinicians are exhibiting genuine compassion) it might be less difficult to understand , given their scientific training ( at variance to the social science training guiding others) than the former of your suggestions ( that they actually believe “ affirmation “ as an ethical position) then that may go some way to explain how such a powerful ( likely, though , importantly,untested) minority of activists/ protagonists from within our medical profession have been prepared to just “ fight harder”. Hard enough to have obtained the ears of legislators, and to have look to have bluffed the relative specialist colleges( RANZCP and RACP) and the clinical regulatory body, AHPRA, into a collusive silence for so long. We are witnessing a unique triumph of social science, and the beast gains strength for as long as it’s core remains unchallenged. Can we point to any other clinical scenario, so captured?
Andrew, your last point first: ? a similar historical scenario:
No, I cannot recall anything in the same ballpark.
Certainly a lot of bad therapies have passed the muster. The vaginal sling, a most recent disaster that damaged countless women was inexcusable but that was not an 'ideological' crusade, rather just bad medicine that allowed the introduction of a bad intervention that had not been demonstrated to be safe and effective.
As to the acceptance of highly questionable intervention in young folk on ‘compassionate and/or there is no alternative grounds’, perhaps the motives were noble but it’s still bad medicine.
" If you don’t provide a belief system, a compass, or some meaningful foundation from which to understand the world, identify truth and lies, and know right and wrong, trust me". --even if you do, sometimes, it's not enough. If you are telling them life is hard and others are telling them there's an easier better way-teachers, counselors, therapists, the mayo clinic, HHS....
Globally respected Prof Gordon Guyatt of the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, one of the founders of Evidence-Based Medicine stated has stated:
“Claims of certainty represent both the success and failure of the evidence-based medicine movement. When there’s been a rigorous systematic review of the evidence and the bottom line is ‘we don’t know, anybody who then claims they do know’ is not being evidence based.”
If indeed there is no evidence base to ‘justify’ the affirmative management of GD, particularly given that it involves children and young people who are permanently and irreversibly ‘changed’, then it would seem that it not an appropriate therapeutic model.
I had read (somewhere) that the WPATH guidelines/standards of care had been written by one doctor still doing his residency? And those guidelines had been adopted by WPATH without deep reviews or something like that?
Do you have any insight into this? Is this correct?
If you google “ parental trauma in a world of gender insanity “, Jordan Peterson interviews Miriam Gassman who gives her personal views on the plight of , and clinical response to the many parents, whose grief , when failing to readily affirm their confused child’s belief risk being delegitimized by activist clinicians, so ready to do so. Both Gassman and Peterson exhibit a palpable degree of emotional fragility, she in the interview, and Peterson on many previous occasions. For me, their vulnerability only serves to , doubly, admire of their courage in their willingness to confront that which has captured, or silenced, so many of our profession, particularly those who have accepted leadership/ clinical regulation roles.
Andrew, I wonder if the silence of our profession is because of a belief in the merits of the ‘affirmative’ approach or, rather, that doubts/criticism/questioning would be seen as unsympathetic and cruel?
Vincent, if it be the latter ( that the key clinicians are exhibiting genuine compassion) it might be less difficult to understand , given their scientific training ( at variance to the social science training guiding others) than the former of your suggestions ( that they actually believe “ affirmation “ as an ethical position) then that may go some way to explain how such a powerful ( likely, though , importantly,untested) minority of activists/ protagonists from within our medical profession have been prepared to just “ fight harder”. Hard enough to have obtained the ears of legislators, and to have look to have bluffed the relative specialist colleges( RANZCP and RACP) and the clinical regulatory body, AHPRA, into a collusive silence for so long. We are witnessing a unique triumph of social science, and the beast gains strength for as long as it’s core remains unchallenged. Can we point to any other clinical scenario, so captured?
Andrew, your last point first: ? a similar historical scenario:
No, I cannot recall anything in the same ballpark.
Certainly a lot of bad therapies have passed the muster. The vaginal sling, a most recent disaster that damaged countless women was inexcusable but that was not an 'ideological' crusade, rather just bad medicine that allowed the introduction of a bad intervention that had not been demonstrated to be safe and effective.
As to the acceptance of highly questionable intervention in young folk on ‘compassionate and/or there is no alternative grounds’, perhaps the motives were noble but it’s still bad medicine.
" If you don’t provide a belief system, a compass, or some meaningful foundation from which to understand the world, identify truth and lies, and know right and wrong, trust me". --even if you do, sometimes, it's not enough. If you are telling them life is hard and others are telling them there's an easier better way-teachers, counselors, therapists, the mayo clinic, HHS....
Globally respected Prof Gordon Guyatt of the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, one of the founders of Evidence-Based Medicine stated has stated:
“Claims of certainty represent both the success and failure of the evidence-based medicine movement. When there’s been a rigorous systematic review of the evidence and the bottom line is ‘we don’t know, anybody who then claims they do know’ is not being evidence based.”
If indeed there is no evidence base to ‘justify’ the affirmative management of GD, particularly given that it involves children and young people who are permanently and irreversibly ‘changed’, then it would seem that it not an appropriate therapeutic model.
Dr. Lane, a question....
I had read (somewhere) that the WPATH guidelines/standards of care had been written by one doctor still doing his residency? And those guidelines had been adopted by WPATH without deep reviews or something like that?
Do you have any insight into this? Is this correct?
I think this may be a reference to the AAP's "affirmation-only" policy written by Dr Jason Rafferty. More here https://open.substack.com/pub/colinwright/p/on-gender-the-aap-has-chosen-ideology?r=130uly&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
(By the way, I'm a journo, not a doc.)
You know more about this material than many of those pushing the medical treatments on people as their only option...thank you for trying to fix that!
Thank you.......Mr. journalist!
Or I could go by "Citizen-Journalist".