See Sandra White Substack report from the U.S. on “ Trans surgeons are performing vaginoplasties on minors “, dated July 22nd. Her report details a 2017 study titled “ Age is not a number”, from 11 anonymous surgeons where between “
11 to 220 minors ( biological males) , since 2017have received vaginoplasties , and the compliant surgeons anticipate a “ massive boom in numbers is predicted “
How does this sound for a suggestion to explain this inexplicable path medicine has trod for a couple of decades: We have seen ubiquitous spread of Gender Identity ideology, such that it has openly metastasized from Social Sciences and the Humanities deep into pure science domains ( e.g. The Australian Academy of Science lists self identified trans individuals within it’s membership) so we can expect the current generation of medical professionals to include such folk. Given, from what we have seen, commitment to the ideology is complete and who is surprised to learn of there being “ trans surgeons “, prepared to fulfill a role. Perhaps there are sufficient “ trans Paediatricians, trans psychiatrists and trans endocrinologists to dominate policy debates? It would only take a relatively small number in key positions to dominate. How else can we explain the current position?
Status games. It bewilders me that older people in the field haven't been willing to risk more, what have they got to lose? They lived their whole careers in the world of sane medicine. My biggest gripe against the boomers...
Edit: but I share your fears, transhumanism wants to take over medicine and there are more than enough willing agents.
While reading the latest from GCN above, the latest substack from transactivist Erin Reed came into my mailbox. I recommend reading it as a way of keeping up with not only the arguments, but how they are made. Note that when she says that rapid onset gender dysphoria is debunked, that no specific mention of the work of Lisa Littman and Michael Bailey are made, as examples., etc.
She also quoted the Turdoff paper (which purported to show a decrease in suicidal thoughts ) and has been criticised for poor methodology and for exaggerating the poorly derived conclusions.
Tordoff et Al didn't see improvement in those treated medically but the 92 originally untreated were doing better than the 6 or 7 remaining untreated at the end (25 I think left the study, the others started medication). That's the result. One has no idea why some weren't treated and others were (mental health) or the characteristics of those who left the study. All you know is 90+ at the beginning were better than 6 of those later. Not how the 6 were chosen.
I've noticed with all these papers/studies you get categorical statements, sins of omissions and commissions, faulty methodology.....Is there another aspect of things that travel under the umbrella of medicine that are so sloppy and crappy?
I feel it is important to keep in mind the larger picture of the intellectual tradition that spawned the postmodern "critical" studies movements, based largely in the unmoored speculative thought of primarily German philosophers of the last century; a tradition that rejects the reality of objective truth, claims that "close reading" and "lived experience" are sources of knowledge co-equal (at least) with science, and that disavows the value of any thought outside this tradition with expressions such as "we do not need the words of old dead white European males", allowing them to proceed in complete ignorance of all that came before. From New York Times reporters who claim that their primary mission should not be to report news but bring about social change, to the Scientific American's editor's decision to promote social justice over science, to the complete ignorance of decades of prior work in gender dysphoria by the architects of "gender affirming therapy", the tragedy of this current medical travesty is just the tip of the iceberg of this latest and particularly successful incarnation of the war of ideology against science.
It's particularly distressing to see how an intellectual movement with no prior record of success promoting social justice should rise up to claim the mantle of authority over important social issues, endangering generations of progress by parasitizing and discrediting legitimate causes. In fact, I believe that "parasitize" is exactly the right description.
This seems encouraging. Not the exit press release I would have given but we hope the new leaders have more of an ethics and care focus, you know like 'first do no harm'?
Politicians will only shift if at least one major media outlet can start some genuine reporting. Trump has shown the audience is there waiting, so maybe just a matter of time...?
I understand Dr Telfer has been replaced, however this transcript gives some insight into how and others like her think. She both denies and minimises detransition. There are indications in her speech of self-censorship (i.e. she started saying something then changed her mind), lots of ums to give them time to think. https://aconexposed.org/wp/blog/2022/08/14/michelle-telfer-in-her-own-words/ I am presuming the blog is in good faith.
See Sandra White Substack report from the U.S. on “ Trans surgeons are performing vaginoplasties on minors “, dated July 22nd. Her report details a 2017 study titled “ Age is not a number”, from 11 anonymous surgeons where between “
11 to 220 minors ( biological males) , since 2017have received vaginoplasties , and the compliant surgeons anticipate a “ massive boom in numbers is predicted “
How does this sound for a suggestion to explain this inexplicable path medicine has trod for a couple of decades: We have seen ubiquitous spread of Gender Identity ideology, such that it has openly metastasized from Social Sciences and the Humanities deep into pure science domains ( e.g. The Australian Academy of Science lists self identified trans individuals within it’s membership) so we can expect the current generation of medical professionals to include such folk. Given, from what we have seen, commitment to the ideology is complete and who is surprised to learn of there being “ trans surgeons “, prepared to fulfill a role. Perhaps there are sufficient “ trans Paediatricians, trans psychiatrists and trans endocrinologists to dominate policy debates? It would only take a relatively small number in key positions to dominate. How else can we explain the current position?
Boston Children's Hospital has a dedicated centre for gender surgery.
https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/center-gender-surgery-program
Status games. It bewilders me that older people in the field haven't been willing to risk more, what have they got to lose? They lived their whole careers in the world of sane medicine. My biggest gripe against the boomers...
Edit: but I share your fears, transhumanism wants to take over medicine and there are more than enough willing agents.
While reading the latest from GCN above, the latest substack from transactivist Erin Reed came into my mailbox. I recommend reading it as a way of keeping up with not only the arguments, but how they are made. Note that when she says that rapid onset gender dysphoria is debunked, that no specific mention of the work of Lisa Littman and Michael Bailey are made, as examples., etc.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/five-myths-in-the-house-anti-trans
And speaking of Dr. Bailey, Did anyone read this by him?...it is excellent:
https://www.thefp.com/p/trans-activists-killed-my-scientific-paper?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
She also quoted the Turdoff paper (which purported to show a decrease in suicidal thoughts ) and has been criticised for poor methodology and for exaggerating the poorly derived conclusions.
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/researchers-found-puberty-blockers
Tordoff et Al didn't see improvement in those treated medically but the 92 originally untreated were doing better than the 6 or 7 remaining untreated at the end (25 I think left the study, the others started medication). That's the result. One has no idea why some weren't treated and others were (mental health) or the characteristics of those who left the study. All you know is 90+ at the beginning were better than 6 of those later. Not how the 6 were chosen.
It's totally insane.
I've noticed with all these papers/studies you get categorical statements, sins of omissions and commissions, faulty methodology.....Is there another aspect of things that travel under the umbrella of medicine that are so sloppy and crappy?
Like nothing....nothing....can be trusted.
Research is totally overrated, there's many sources of bias and manipulation across the board.
I feel it is important to keep in mind the larger picture of the intellectual tradition that spawned the postmodern "critical" studies movements, based largely in the unmoored speculative thought of primarily German philosophers of the last century; a tradition that rejects the reality of objective truth, claims that "close reading" and "lived experience" are sources of knowledge co-equal (at least) with science, and that disavows the value of any thought outside this tradition with expressions such as "we do not need the words of old dead white European males", allowing them to proceed in complete ignorance of all that came before. From New York Times reporters who claim that their primary mission should not be to report news but bring about social change, to the Scientific American's editor's decision to promote social justice over science, to the complete ignorance of decades of prior work in gender dysphoria by the architects of "gender affirming therapy", the tragedy of this current medical travesty is just the tip of the iceberg of this latest and particularly successful incarnation of the war of ideology against science.
It's particularly distressing to see how an intellectual movement with no prior record of success promoting social justice should rise up to claim the mantle of authority over important social issues, endangering generations of progress by parasitizing and discrediting legitimate causes. In fact, I believe that "parasitize" is exactly the right description.
This seems encouraging. Not the exit press release I would have given but we hope the new leaders have more of an ethics and care focus, you know like 'first do no harm'?
Politicians will only shift if at least one major media outlet can start some genuine reporting. Trump has shown the audience is there waiting, so maybe just a matter of time...?
ACON Exposed is a valuable public service 💚🤍🤎
I understand Dr Telfer has been replaced, however this transcript gives some insight into how and others like her think. She both denies and minimises detransition. There are indications in her speech of self-censorship (i.e. she started saying something then changed her mind), lots of ums to give them time to think. https://aconexposed.org/wp/blog/2022/08/14/michelle-telfer-in-her-own-words/ I am presuming the blog is in good faith.
Rearranging the deck chairs!
That’s fantastic Bernard!!
Difficult to interpret in the absence of any statement from the hospital administration.