I would love to be a fly on the wall at the sociologist’s conference 50 years from now. They will surely wonder “how on earth did this happen?”. How, on the basis of a metaphor taken literally (the born in the wrong body myth) by gullible or opportunistic doctors, and promulgated throughout society including to kids by a rapacious industry rich enough to buy politicians and institutions, were so many children’s bodies and futures damaged beyond repair.
As now stood-down heretic Qld psychiatrist Jillian Spencer pointed out in her recent YouTube video on models of care for gender dysphoria, historically the concept of “therapeutic collusion” was taught to all psychoanalysts. The point was to avoid colluding with a patient’s self-serving or delusory worldview, despite this being a tempting way to avoid dealing with uncomfortable facts, to relieve the patient’s and the therapist’s anxiety and to build a false rapport—all to the patient’s ultimate detriment. Gender doctors have clearly never heard of the concept, as we can see from some of the bizarre-bordering-on-psychotic comments made by one of the medicos quoted above. Collusion has been renamed “affirmation” and is now essentially mandatory.
There has been a longstanding failure to train medical students in the scientific method, according to physician and addiction specialist, Dr Drew Pinksy, who spoke about this during his recent chat with Gad Saad on the latter’s podcast show The Saad Truth. This is obvious when we see gender doctors defending their trade by resorting to emotive pleas and citing physician consensus rather than evidence. Now that medical training has been overtaken by indoctrination in “identity”-driven social justice narratives, this ignorance about what constitutes meaningful evidence and the failure to understand the principle of “do no harm” can only deepen.
The rationale used to justify extreme invasive mutilating off-label, ‘no-way-back’ therapies is, at times, appropriate in the heroic corner-cutting off-label efforts that are justified in otherwise disastrous terminally fatal medical conditions.
Yet here we are applying them to otherwise healthy children and young folk.
Which reminds me, Vincent ---- When the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reported on gender medicine to former health minister Greg Hunt, they tried to explain the lack of evidence by likening gender dysphoria to a rare cancer. They did not reveal that they themselves had been lobbying for easier, faster access to puberty blockers & cross-sex hormones.
Interesting that a more ready access to blockers and hormones was not part of the discussion. Also not sure that the rationale for avoiding an enquiry was appropriate. Legitimate enquiries have a way of exposing issues that are otherwise not apparent:
"A national inquiry would not increase the scientific evidence available regarding gender dysphoria but would further harm vulnerable patients and their families through increased media and public attention".
Perhaps no coincidence that the college itself had previously been lobbying (one occasion with the director of the RCH Melbourne gender clinic) for faster & easier access to hormonal treatments for minors -- treatments they did not even mention in their report to Hunt. Nothing, also, about the potential harm done by treatment, an inquiry being the only harmful intervention. In short, a disgraceful whitewash.
Intuitively a majority of child and adolescent psychiatrists, Paediatricians and paediatric endocrinologists quietly lament the dominant clinical ( and political) grip which has been achieved by a movement which has been prepared to fight harder , and take no prisoners. They have bluffed the respective colleges, many legislators and professional regulatory bodies here in Australia, and in much of western societies into silence , at best, and collusion, at worst ( e.g. the example as Bernard cites, our own RACP )
Any retrieval from such lamentable capture by social science ideology , to protect future vulnerable children from medical intervention, will take political action. Such championing by legislators would surely find fertile ground if the opinion of the silent majority of relevant clinicians were to be revealed to future legislators. A secret ballot/ voluntary plebiscite of a significant number of those relevant clinicians would, intuitively, provide evidence, on which to rely, to support legislative change. How best to obtain such evidence?
Here, in Australia, AHPRA have no capacity within their charter ( personal communication) to undertake such a survey of registered specialists ( in spite of their core function to be that of protecting patients from inappropriate or dangerous treatments), and the RACP’s form would not indicate likely support. Our political leaders would seem to be the focus to champion change ( and extrication from the ideological driver of the status quo)
Any better strategy suggested? How might the tactic of obtaining the likely professional majority support be obtained?
The NAPP is not ( personal communication) able to undertake a survey of ( limited numbers?) of members.
The woke have achieved great success in dictating how we must interpret what is rightseous and truthful and what is not. Sadly their gospel has heavily infiltrated the medical fraternity.
Yes.Vincent, and until the core ideology ( gender identity/ fluidity) is confronted and challenged why should we expect anything to change? The activists are on a roll and are not likely to spontaneously relinquish the position they have achieved. Adults should, of course, remain free to plot their own life course with all clinical support requested. Minors( “ mature” or otherwise) should be excluded from receiving medical intervention until a mature age decision can be made.
I would love to be a fly on the wall at the sociologist’s conference 50 years from now. They will surely wonder “how on earth did this happen?”. How, on the basis of a metaphor taken literally (the born in the wrong body myth) by gullible or opportunistic doctors, and promulgated throughout society including to kids by a rapacious industry rich enough to buy politicians and institutions, were so many children’s bodies and futures damaged beyond repair.
As now stood-down heretic Qld psychiatrist Jillian Spencer pointed out in her recent YouTube video on models of care for gender dysphoria, historically the concept of “therapeutic collusion” was taught to all psychoanalysts. The point was to avoid colluding with a patient’s self-serving or delusory worldview, despite this being a tempting way to avoid dealing with uncomfortable facts, to relieve the patient’s and the therapist’s anxiety and to build a false rapport—all to the patient’s ultimate detriment. Gender doctors have clearly never heard of the concept, as we can see from some of the bizarre-bordering-on-psychotic comments made by one of the medicos quoted above. Collusion has been renamed “affirmation” and is now essentially mandatory.
There has been a longstanding failure to train medical students in the scientific method, according to physician and addiction specialist, Dr Drew Pinksy, who spoke about this during his recent chat with Gad Saad on the latter’s podcast show The Saad Truth. This is obvious when we see gender doctors defending their trade by resorting to emotive pleas and citing physician consensus rather than evidence. Now that medical training has been overtaken by indoctrination in “identity”-driven social justice narratives, this ignorance about what constitutes meaningful evidence and the failure to understand the principle of “do no harm” can only deepen.
The rationale used to justify extreme invasive mutilating off-label, ‘no-way-back’ therapies is, at times, appropriate in the heroic corner-cutting off-label efforts that are justified in otherwise disastrous terminally fatal medical conditions.
Yet here we are applying them to otherwise healthy children and young folk.
Which reminds me, Vincent ---- When the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reported on gender medicine to former health minister Greg Hunt, they tried to explain the lack of evidence by likening gender dysphoria to a rare cancer. They did not reveal that they themselves had been lobbying for easier, faster access to puberty blockers & cross-sex hormones.
https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/racp-letter-hon-greg-hunt-minister-for-health-gender-dysphoria-in-children-and-adolescents.pdf
Interesting that a more ready access to blockers and hormones was not part of the discussion. Also not sure that the rationale for avoiding an enquiry was appropriate. Legitimate enquiries have a way of exposing issues that are otherwise not apparent:
"A national inquiry would not increase the scientific evidence available regarding gender dysphoria but would further harm vulnerable patients and their families through increased media and public attention".
Perhaps no coincidence that the college itself had previously been lobbying (one occasion with the director of the RCH Melbourne gender clinic) for faster & easier access to hormonal treatments for minors -- treatments they did not even mention in their report to Hunt. Nothing, also, about the potential harm done by treatment, an inquiry being the only harmful intervention. In short, a disgraceful whitewash.
Bernard,
As a member of the RACP I do find the response somewhat inadequate
Intuitively a majority of child and adolescent psychiatrists, Paediatricians and paediatric endocrinologists quietly lament the dominant clinical ( and political) grip which has been achieved by a movement which has been prepared to fight harder , and take no prisoners. They have bluffed the respective colleges, many legislators and professional regulatory bodies here in Australia, and in much of western societies into silence , at best, and collusion, at worst ( e.g. the example as Bernard cites, our own RACP )
Any retrieval from such lamentable capture by social science ideology , to protect future vulnerable children from medical intervention, will take political action. Such championing by legislators would surely find fertile ground if the opinion of the silent majority of relevant clinicians were to be revealed to future legislators. A secret ballot/ voluntary plebiscite of a significant number of those relevant clinicians would, intuitively, provide evidence, on which to rely, to support legislative change. How best to obtain such evidence?
Here, in Australia, AHPRA have no capacity within their charter ( personal communication) to undertake such a survey of registered specialists ( in spite of their core function to be that of protecting patients from inappropriate or dangerous treatments), and the RACP’s form would not indicate likely support. Our political leaders would seem to be the focus to champion change ( and extrication from the ideological driver of the status quo)
Any better strategy suggested? How might the tactic of obtaining the likely professional majority support be obtained?
The NAPP is not ( personal communication) able to undertake a survey of ( limited numbers?) of members.
A good summary of the realities Andrew.
The woke have achieved great success in dictating how we must interpret what is rightseous and truthful and what is not. Sadly their gospel has heavily infiltrated the medical fraternity.
Yes.Vincent, and until the core ideology ( gender identity/ fluidity) is confronted and challenged why should we expect anything to change? The activists are on a roll and are not likely to spontaneously relinquish the position they have achieved. Adults should, of course, remain free to plot their own life course with all clinical support requested. Minors( “ mature” or otherwise) should be excluded from receiving medical intervention until a mature age decision can be made.