Which I suppose is a step in the right direction away from the rather unscientific and quite odious "sex change" euphemism which too many throw about with gay abandon, so to speak:
However, even "medicalized gender change" seems a rather odious euphemism in itself, particularly when the upshot is to sterilize autistic and dysphoric children, to turn them into sexless eunuchs. At least according to the standard biological definitions for the sexes promulgated in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries:
Basically, by those quite standard and well-regarded biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. Hence the justification for saying that the transgendered who have had their gonads removed are now sexless eunuchs. Fine, I guess, if adults want to do that to themselves, but it has to qualify as an absolutely monstrous crime to trick dysphoric children into thinking such "gender affirmation surgeries" are, in any way, equivalent to changing their sex.
So it is hard not to see that phrase -- "medicalized gender change" -- as little short of equally odious euphemisms like "ethnic cleansing", like "final solutions". It makes "sense" to take kids with some "gender non-conforming" or sex-atypical personality or behavioural traits and mangle their genitalia into some ersatz replicas of those of the other sex?
"monstrous" doesn't begin to describe that crime, that medical scandal of the centuries. Some "doctors" -- despite what they "genuinely believe" -- deserve to lose their licenses if not be strung up by their nuts and left to twist in the wind. A recent post by Denton Yoga-Carter aptly titled "Words" has a short compendium of images, of graphics that sort of summarizes that rather odious state of affairs, but a particularly arresting, and quite damning one says:
"Start Thinking of an Excuse Why You Supported Sterilizing Children"
it is interesting to reflect on a statement issued by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) on 6th March 2020:
"The RACP strongly supports expert clinical care that is non-judgmental, supportive and welcoming for children, adolescents and their families experiencing gender dysphoria. Withholding or limiting access to care and treatment would be unethical and would have serious impacts on the health and wellbeing of young people.
Most significantly, we applaud the College’s stance in validating the work of Associate Professor Michelle Telfer and her colleagues nationally by calling on the Government to work with these experts to develop evidence-based fact sheets for patients and families".
A basic tenet in the practice of medicine is that new therapies/ interventions must be tested to confirm safety and efficacy. The ‘test’ consists an appropriate clinical trial.
Obviously an intervention as extreme as one undertaken in children and young people that is invasive, mutilating, irreversible and sterilising demands the most rigorous test/trial available.
No such test/trial in the affirmative management of Gender Dysphoria has been undertaken anywhere in world!
At this time, some near four years after the statement quoted above, I suspect that the RACP would be reluctant to provide such a ringing endorsement of the affirmative management protocol of gender dysphoria as practices by Melbourne's RCH, given the doubts raised by respected authorities and institutions given doubts as to the efficacy and safety of that approach.
I note that you talk frequently about "medicalized gender change", both here and in your recent "Doctors disagree" post:
https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/doctors-disagree
Which I suppose is a step in the right direction away from the rather unscientific and quite odious "sex change" euphemism which too many throw about with gay abandon, so to speak:
https://christopherrufo.com/p/sex-change-procedures-at-texas-childrens/comment/16193243
However, even "medicalized gender change" seems a rather odious euphemism in itself, particularly when the upshot is to sterilize autistic and dysphoric children, to turn them into sexless eunuchs. At least according to the standard biological definitions for the sexes promulgated in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
And:
"What are biological sexes?":
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
Wiley Online Library [WOL]:
"Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173
Basically, by those quite standard and well-regarded biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. Hence the justification for saying that the transgendered who have had their gonads removed are now sexless eunuchs. Fine, I guess, if adults want to do that to themselves, but it has to qualify as an absolutely monstrous crime to trick dysphoric children into thinking such "gender affirmation surgeries" are, in any way, equivalent to changing their sex.
So it is hard not to see that phrase -- "medicalized gender change" -- as little short of equally odious euphemisms like "ethnic cleansing", like "final solutions". It makes "sense" to take kids with some "gender non-conforming" or sex-atypical personality or behavioural traits and mangle their genitalia into some ersatz replicas of those of the other sex?
"monstrous" doesn't begin to describe that crime, that medical scandal of the centuries. Some "doctors" -- despite what they "genuinely believe" -- deserve to lose their licenses if not be strung up by their nuts and left to twist in the wind. A recent post by Denton Yoga-Carter aptly titled "Words" has a short compendium of images, of graphics that sort of summarizes that rather odious state of affairs, but a particularly arresting, and quite damning one says:
"Start Thinking of an Excuse Why You Supported Sterilizing Children"
https://dentonyogacarter.substack.com/p/words
it is interesting to reflect on a statement issued by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) on 6th March 2020:
"The RACP strongly supports expert clinical care that is non-judgmental, supportive and welcoming for children, adolescents and their families experiencing gender dysphoria. Withholding or limiting access to care and treatment would be unethical and would have serious impacts on the health and wellbeing of young people.
Most significantly, we applaud the College’s stance in validating the work of Associate Professor Michelle Telfer and her colleagues nationally by calling on the Government to work with these experts to develop evidence-based fact sheets for patients and families".
A basic tenet in the practice of medicine is that new therapies/ interventions must be tested to confirm safety and efficacy. The ‘test’ consists an appropriate clinical trial.
Obviously an intervention as extreme as one undertaken in children and young people that is invasive, mutilating, irreversible and sterilising demands the most rigorous test/trial available.
No such test/trial in the affirmative management of Gender Dysphoria has been undertaken anywhere in world!
At this time, some near four years after the statement quoted above, I suspect that the RACP would be reluctant to provide such a ringing endorsement of the affirmative management protocol of gender dysphoria as practices by Melbourne's RCH, given the doubts raised by respected authorities and institutions given doubts as to the efficacy and safety of that approach.