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"
Solzhenitsyn has one, even if it may not be particularly easy:
"So has the circle closed? So is there indeed no way out? So the only thing left to do is wait inertly: What if something just happens by itself?
But it will never come unstuck by itself, if we all, every day, continue to acknowledge, glorify, and strengthen it, if we do not, at the least, recoil from its most vulnerable point.
From lies. ....
And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!"
Too many so-called biologists and philosophers are equally guilty in trying to bastardize and corrupt those biological definitions. Why you might have some particular interest in that PhilPapers article above by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosopher of science, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy -- for his defense of the "life-history stage" perspective on the sexes. Which that Wiley Online article has picked up on and amplified -- of particular note therefrom:
WOL: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET [my emphasis]."
From zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless. If that's the case then it's simply incoherent, and quite unscientific, to insist -- as too many do -- that we are either male or female right from conception to death.
The rather odious "lie" -- or at least a belief incompatible with the stipulative definitions of mainstream biology -- that has been corrupting the whole discussion around transgenderism is the insistence that "sex" is "immutable", that everyone has to have a sex -- however defined -- right from birth to death. Pretty much everyone is turning "male" and "female" into empty signifiers with no content whatsoever, nothing more than badges of tribal allegiance. Instead of accepting them as labels -- as per Griffiths, Wiley, and sundry other reputable biological sources -- for quite transitory reproductive abilities.
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
Yes, the contested language is one of the early red flags. There is no easy solution.
Solzhenitsyn has one, even if it may not be particularly easy:
"So has the circle closed? So is there indeed no way out? So the only thing left to do is wait inertly: What if something just happens by itself?
But it will never come unstuck by itself, if we all, every day, continue to acknowledge, glorify, and strengthen it, if we do not, at the least, recoil from its most vulnerable point.
From lies. ....
And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!"
https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies
Though maybe still somewhat easier than taking to the barricades -- even if that first step of recognizing the lie is often the hardest.
But certainly agree with you on "contested language". Largely why I've been beavering away at the issue for some time and in many ways:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/scientific-americans-lysenkoism
Too many so-called biologists and philosophers are equally guilty in trying to bastardize and corrupt those biological definitions. Why you might have some particular interest in that PhilPapers article above by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosopher of science, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy -- for his defense of the "life-history stage" perspective on the sexes. Which that Wiley Online article has picked up on and amplified -- of particular note therefrom:
WOL: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET [my emphasis]."
From zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless. If that's the case then it's simply incoherent, and quite unscientific, to insist -- as too many do -- that we are either male or female right from conception to death.
The rather odious "lie" -- or at least a belief incompatible with the stipulative definitions of mainstream biology -- that has been corrupting the whole discussion around transgenderism is the insistence that "sex" is "immutable", that everyone has to have a sex -- however defined -- right from birth to death. Pretty much everyone is turning "male" and "female" into empty signifiers with no content whatsoever, nothing more than badges of tribal allegiance. Instead of accepting them as labels -- as per Griffiths, Wiley, and sundry other reputable biological sources -- for quite transitory reproductive abilities.
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.