I have referenced this subject in GCN in the past, it may be worth a replay:
EXTREME OFERVALUED BELIEF (EOB)
An EOB is a psychiatric condition first described by the neuropsychiatrist Carl Wernicke in 1892.
The condition is shared by others in a subculture and are defended with passion.
EOB’s appear rational to those who holds them and are strongly reinforced socially. They become resistant to challenge and can drive destructive action, either outwards in the form of violence and/or inwards in the form of inappropriate medical interventions that severely impact health.
How do EOBs apply to transgender identities?
• They are shared and celebrated not just within trans subcultures but by the much of western society.
• They appear rational because physicians. schools, media, and governments reinforce it.
• EOB’s hardens to certainty. To the individual, the trans identity feels very real.
• They drive action—not violence against others, but harm against one’s own body through hormones and surgeries.
Surely the inevitable (?) future class actions will shame the “ respected “ institutions? We did hear of some “hundred” of legal actions were in train in Britain, followed the closure of Tavistock. Do we have any advice as to their current status ? If indeed, they are progressing and are successful, it might provide legal precedent for Australian claims as , I understand, Australia’s courts can rely on reference to British courts’ verdicts. It does seem that future vulnerable minors’ protection will come from our courts. If so, our “ respected “ institutions will have some serious recalibrated thinking ahead about subservient support of Social Science’s embrace of ideological Gender Identity as a therapeutic beacon.
This whole movement has been the birth child of Social Sciences right from its inception from gender studies and it’s dominant leadership has been able to obtain the cooperation of Medical Science to facilitate the medical intervention components of “gender affirmative care”, regarding minors, whilst the overwhelming majority of medically trained professionals are, intuitively, aghast at such “ contribution “ from their profession. The Social Sciences have been prepared to fight harder and have not tolerated a wiff of challenge to this social activism ( and narcissistic compassion) in regards to minors. Lay legislators might act , if they could be better informed?
AI very much doubt there will be a significant intervention by lay legislators given the 'respected' institutions as the RCH, RACP, RACGP, AMA et al are all on-board.
I would not be surprised if 'speaking' out' by health professionals might evolve into a registration issue.
I have referenced this subject in GCN in the past, it may be worth a replay:
EXTREME OFERVALUED BELIEF (EOB)
An EOB is a psychiatric condition first described by the neuropsychiatrist Carl Wernicke in 1892.
The condition is shared by others in a subculture and are defended with passion.
EOB’s appear rational to those who holds them and are strongly reinforced socially. They become resistant to challenge and can drive destructive action, either outwards in the form of violence and/or inwards in the form of inappropriate medical interventions that severely impact health.
How do EOBs apply to transgender identities?
• They are shared and celebrated not just within trans subcultures but by the much of western society.
• They appear rational because physicians. schools, media, and governments reinforce it.
• EOB’s hardens to certainty. To the individual, the trans identity feels very real.
• They drive action—not violence against others, but harm against one’s own body through hormones and surgeries.
GIRLS will be GIRLS
https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/com/LASC-C96E/PPROLAB202-EF1C/Taken%20on%20Notice%20and%20Response,%20Womens%20Forum%20Australia.pdf#:~:text=(This%20list%20features%20only%20a,males%20are%20on%20this%20list.
Surely the inevitable (?) future class actions will shame the “ respected “ institutions? We did hear of some “hundred” of legal actions were in train in Britain, followed the closure of Tavistock. Do we have any advice as to their current status ? If indeed, they are progressing and are successful, it might provide legal precedent for Australian claims as , I understand, Australia’s courts can rely on reference to British courts’ verdicts. It does seem that future vulnerable minors’ protection will come from our courts. If so, our “ respected “ institutions will have some serious recalibrated thinking ahead about subservient support of Social Science’s embrace of ideological Gender Identity as a therapeutic beacon.
This whole movement has been the birth child of Social Sciences right from its inception from gender studies and it’s dominant leadership has been able to obtain the cooperation of Medical Science to facilitate the medical intervention components of “gender affirmative care”, regarding minors, whilst the overwhelming majority of medically trained professionals are, intuitively, aghast at such “ contribution “ from their profession. The Social Sciences have been prepared to fight harder and have not tolerated a wiff of challenge to this social activism ( and narcissistic compassion) in regards to minors. Lay legislators might act , if they could be better informed?
I’ve known people in the hard sciences who are childishly naive about ideological social sciences.
AI very much doubt there will be a significant intervention by lay legislators given the 'respected' institutions as the RCH, RACP, RACGP, AMA et al are all on-board.
I would not be surprised if 'speaking' out' by health professionals might evolve into a registration issue.