The American College of Pediatricians, that stalwart organization, says Gender Ideology Harms Children and is child abuse. And so say we, too.
Here is their statement, along with [my notes in brackets like this]. All bold typeface etc. are original. I’ve left off the footnote indicators that point to various articles; see the original page for these.
The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts — not ideology — determine reality.
- Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health — not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.
[The question becomes why, since human nature is self-evident why so many seek to deny it—and why they usually deny it in a frenzied state.]
- No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.
[Too, the age at which children recognize their sex is quite early.]
- A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V). The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.
[You have to admire that “at best” in the opening sentence. Also key is the truth that an objective psychological problem exists.]
- Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty-blocking hormones induce a state of disease — the absence of puberty — and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.
[This is not the only instance where “doctors” are asked to harm the health of their patients. Abortion, euthanasia, and some surgeries. This ties to the first point of abandoning human nature.]
- According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.
- Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.
[Again, “doctors” purposely harm their patients. What are we becoming?]
- Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT — affirming countries. What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?
[Answer: the same kind of person who would hack away at the healthy flesh of a patient in a necessarily vain attempt to turn a patient into something that patient cannot be.]
- Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.
[Say it with me: child abuse. It’s easy. Child abuse. Child abuse. Child abuse. Child abuse. Child abuse. Child abuse. Child abuse.]
Categories: Culture, Philosophy
“The American College of Pediatricians, that stalwart organization” is a recently formed band with on the order of 100 members. The actual professional organization for American pediatricians is the American Academy of Pediatrics, with about 60,000 members.
I think the statement of the “American College of Pediatricians” quoted here is pretty reasonable, but readers might prefer not to be misled that this somehow represents the official position of the dominant American pediatric organization.
The question becomes why, since human nature is self-evident why so many seek to deny it—and why they usually deny it in a frenzied state.
Because “Volo ergo est.”
I have been in conversant argument with a certain individual, self-defined as being, “smarter than me,” who on regular occasions makes it a point to mention that SCIENCE! does not involve, or appeals to, authority.
I doubt I would be surprised to find him, if presented with this information, appealing to the, “peer review,” process, particularly the lack of approval from a particular [his ideological group] peer review panel, as a justification to fallaciously invalidate and/or ignore [confirmation bias] this particular paper.
Again, I am reminded of Star Trek TOS “What Are Little Girls Made Of?”
“That was the equation! Existence. Survival must cancel out programming.” – Spoken by the Android Ruk
The irony is, of course, an equation is still a part of programming, probably akin to error processing>
What is astonishing is the thought that children are fully formed and can make their own healthy decisions. Try to tell a three-year to take a bite of something at the dinner table that he or she is opposed to, even if you are asking for just a bite, and are more than willing to provide dessert if said bite is taken.
Also, childhood is supposed to be a time of playfulness and dress-up. Should every girl who wears a tiara and fairy wings need years of therapy and medication when the realization sets in that she isn’t really a princess or a fairy?
There is an element of “look-at-me-ism” with this disorder, and I don’t necessarily blame the child, but more the parents, as the (first-world) search for specialness (and increasingly, media attention) endures.
From what I can tell, the AAP recommends putting off any hormone treatment for gender identity disorder (see, it has an important name) until puberty sets in. So, it is gratifying that they are not trying to get them on the train right away.
John: This is politics, technically. Gender is a political construct, sex a scientific one. Using a professional society and their paper is pointing out that some organizations in the field do not blindly go along with others. As you can note, Briggs is saying “we” agree with them. Not that they are an infallible organization that can be considered the complete and only authority on the issue. It’s up to the reader to evaluate the points and note any problems in the logic or science. Just as with any paper and any position.
Anon: Your second question—the answer to that seems to be running toward the “yes” column, under the “no one should be unhappy” category of medications.
I agree there is definitely a “look-at-me-ism” in this and the complete inability of parents to deal with their children being unhappy. Parents often give their children anything they seem to want so as to avoid conflict at home. Rather than tell Johnny he is male, they buy dresses and pretend he is a she. Then they tell Johnny anyone who disagrees is mean. Same for chemical sensitivities, so-called psychiatric disorders (autism spectrum nonsense comes to mind), etc. Parent demand society conform to the child, so the parent does not have to enforce discipline or even actually raise the child. The parent just spends their days bemoaning the cruelty of society and teaching the child nothing is their fault.
Anyone interested in this theme (how special interest groups are, with unusual success, redefining for society what “normal” means) would probably enjoy reading, or having read, M. Scott Peck’s “People of the Lie;….” In that book he addresses in layman’s terms a number of psychological issues, with a case study that illustrates how someone afflicted with severe (even “evil” in his view) behavioral problems, problems that severely impact their enjoyment of life, will still persist in holding onto the character flaws rather than confronting them and healing.
That’s what we see time & again with LGBT (or whatever that acronym is) issues — people in that broad group have deep-seated psychological issues, and rather than admit this they try & force the world to accept their condition is “normal.” They’re succeeding, effectively redefining what “normal” means in society…
Shortly after WWII an unusual pattern was noticed in Berlin–a disproportionately high number children/young adults were observed to claim they were in the wrong gender body. The pattern recurred: These people were in their first trimester when their mothers experienced their home being bombed. The thinking was/is that abnormally high release of stress hormones by the mother affected the development of the fetus.
Gays, where objective studies occur, repeatedly show similar dysfunctional family patterns…with “being gay” an apparent effect of psychological defense mechanisms to the unrelenting emotional stress of developing in such a home (where researchers can examine the families of gays, recurring similar patterns of dysfunction are observed). There’s enough evidence from the rare gay who actually confronts their dysfunctional upbringing–and who as a result become less gay or recovers entirely–to support this view. What little genetic factors appear to exist are entirely consistent with how the individual is genetically inclined to cope with stress (things like the “fight or flight” instinctual response seem to have a strong genetic component); people who have become gay seem to have a genetic predisposition to deal with the stress of a dysfunctional family situation less effectively than others. There’s increasingly decreasing evidence that anyone is actually ‘born gay’ (though it may feel that way to the afflicted).
Naturally, the gay community works very hard to suppress this and to discourage those inclined to get qualified help from doing so. Misery loves company is the cliche; M. Scott Peck addresses the same theme in much greater detail (but very accessibly for the layperson) in his “People of the Lie” book with a case study of a young woman with a different affliction, but the underlying theme applies — people with severe disorders almost compulsively work very hard to hang onto them (out of terror of confronting what they’re hiding from).
The medical community has caved to pressure some years ago in rendering gay & related behaviors non-disorders (manifested in the DSM-IV) … so seeing the American College of Pediatricians takes a stand is a nice change of pace.
A different kind of mental defect occurs with children who developed & grew up in a household where one or both parents were alcoholics (“ACOA” — Adult Children of Alcoholics). The inconsistent parenting, false & broken promises, etc. created a chaotic lifestyle they adapted to via development of deep-seated psychological defense mechanisms to such an extent they do not know what “normal” is as viewed by society that grew up in a reasonably non-toxic family. Sadly, the proportion of society that falls in this category has been increasing.
And this subgroup overwhelmingly tends to succumb to Left-Leaning Democratic politicians … just like abused children tend to select spouses who will abuse them, such personalities cannot resist dysfunctional politicians that feel like their parents. Humans are like salmon who return to the same river to spawn; we almost instinctively gravitate to what feels familiar compared to our home life upbringing…however dysfunctional that is.
Former President Clinton fits the ACOA mold.
For a rare example of how such adults try to confront their ACOA problem, and help the minority of their similarly afflicted peers (as opposed to getting society to accept them as if they are healthy & normal) see: http://guesswhatnormalis.com/
Such a site is the exception; the vast majority of this ilk refuse to acknowledge their warped outlook–even after acknowledging their dysfunctional upbringing…and a significant proportion that do acknowledge their dysfunction and work [usually unsuccessfully] to overcome it, also lean to the Far-Left. The proportion of society in the U.S. that is increasingly inclined to support politically Left views & values is more a barometer of how dysfunctional our society is still becoming as opposed to the liberalization of academia. This was predicted long long ago as a near-inevitable outcome of the “Great Society” programs that themselves contributed to the breakup of stable families…
Sheri: I will agree it is the responsibility, nay – the duty, of every person to consider a position, and through reason, come to the God’s honest truth. Which is the motivation behind the intent to preempt attempts at biases through the application of anecdote.
But I will not agree, nor even entertain the possibility, a proof, and therefore truth, is determined by consensus.
“The claim that proofs must be agreed on is one of my pet peeves; it is equivalent to claiming that no one can determine what’s rational except the least rational people in the discussion.”
In the 1960s Dr. Beiber did a comparative study of homosexuals and heterosexuals. He rounded up hundred of each and gave them a long questionnaire. He found that all the homosexuals had a bad relationship with their father. They described the father as remote, isolated, indifferent, rejecting. He concluded that homosexuality was a reaction to this relationship.
The homosexuals have claimed the behavior is not a reaction but is caused by genes, hormones, a different brain, none of which anybody has been able to prove.
John: I didn’t say proof is determined by consensus. I would never say that, ever. I said Briggs presented an argument with which he agreed and it was from a group that works closely with children and may be something of an authority on the subject:
“The American College of Pediatricians, that stalwart organization, says Gender Ideology Harms Children and is child abuse. And so say we, too.”
Where is the appeal to authority or consensus? As far as I can see, it says Briggs agrees with the statement of the group. Everyone is free to disagree and say why. No authority mentioned in this. You might believe it’s implied, but again, its an idea that Briggs agrees with. Is it somehow wrong to share views of other people with whom you agree? If another person says what you believe and you like their wording, can you not present that?
Gender is not politics it is preferably used in some settings for reasons of decency to save embarrassment. Sex is not science either!
The words have context. Gender refers to male or female. Sex may refer to male or female.
Nobody or organisation I know claims there are more than two sexes. The US is way out in front.
Recent reading of this blog is the first I ever heard of the rage against three sexes. Don’t send it over here.
Children are not given hormones either just because they have fads, phases or even because they have neurotic parents. This is private medicine for you.
“I demand it!, I’m paying” Someone will always oblige.
Good to hear the US paediatric authority doesn’t advocate it either.
Joy: “This is private medicine for you.” News sources say this is common in Europe, even with socialized medicine. In the US, prisons pay for sex change operations, which is not private medicine. I believe Medicaid and Medicare will also pay. Both are socialized medicine in the US. Also, if someone in a country that will not allow this wants the surgery, they can go elsewhere. It’s how 67 year old women get pregnant when their home country won’t allow it—go abroad. You do need money for it, yes. On the other hand, a woman in the USA on welfare and occasional work managed to get artificial insemination 7 times and had octuplets on the last run. So, where theres’ a will, there’s a way.
Sex is science—it’s based on biology and DNA. Gender is a social concept, if that sounds better than political. “Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men.” (WHO definition).
No one claims there is more than two sexes, but many say there are no differences between male and female and one should be able to call oneself whatever they want without regard to the reality of biology. There should be no references such as “he” and “she”. Or, you can be male one day and female the next. Whatever you feel like for the day.
I guess it’s much too late to say this, but, when I learned the term “gender,” it was neither biological nor political; it was grammatical. For example, Maedchen is neuter in German, plume is feminine in French, and back in the Eisenhower years Mrs. Hormel taught us that in English the indeterminate personal noun is masculine: “Each student must provide his own slide rule.”
Can anyone pin down how long ago it was that “gender” became something else?
I always think of the Dr Money story when this issue comes up. We have to be very careful tinkering around people’s bodies like this, and probably shouldn’t do it at all with developing, young people.
It’s a bit like little kids saying rude words to shock grownups. For these stunted minded adults, drugs, screaming guitars, and piercings don’t produce a shocked reaction any more, so pretending a biological fundamental that knocks all and any religion out of the ring – that will do the job. They should take up branding as a fashion instead.
Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Zorastrians, Muslims, Taoists, Druze, Copts, etc – none of them have made public statements yet. Are they all cowards, leaving it to the Christians.
Gender has become a trigger word for some, it seems, on the extreme right.
There’s nothing scientific about sex.
If I said woodland is science you would not agree.
Woodland can be a matter of scientific study.
Genes are not even science either. They may be a matter of scientific study and were a matter of scientific discovery.
Science does not own sex or harbour it under it’s umbrella.
They are synonyms.
Gender is sex; sex is not necessarily gender.
As for private medicine providing childhood sex change:
It IS private medicine which pioneered this work. Plastic surgery is wonderful but they just pushed the boundaries and I’m afraid with rich people paying there isn’t a surgery you could dream up that someone somewhere wouldn’t do for you! (however it turned out and however ethical is was).
Once someone somewhere has established a method and technique, it’s rolled out everywhere
How many children do you have in prison in the US? Write to the president he’s all over letting people out of gaol.
The EU, like parts of the US are famous for their weird and creepy goings on. They taught the English about sex!
Before the Romans we knew nothing about sex.
The worst of it is exaggeratedly portrayed on TV like a modern day freak show. From documentaries showing how it’s done (which of course I’ve watched ) to talent shows and puerile drivel so called reality shows. This is the reason they’ve got so many up in arms about gender reassignment surgery. I can’t speak for the US but it is incredibly rare here and as I stated, no children are subjected to it. The MSM will keep it up as long as people appear outraged. Like the kid at school who keeps on if he gets a reaction.
Of the patient’s i’ve seen, which runs into the high tens of thousands, I’ve seen one pleasant man who was undergoing this. I’ve seen a lot of real scary weirdos though and he wasn’t one of them. One from our dept went on to stab a nurse to death in the grounds. These things might seem unrelated but in terms of wishing to condemn perspective informs my attitude.
Joe Born: What you are describing is grammatical gender (I had forgotten all that masculine/feminine noun stuff from French classes). What is being discussed nowadays is social gender. I can’t tell you exactly when the term gender became something else, but when feminism took hold, that’s most likely when the term became what it is today. Feminism was the start of the denial of biology and the denial grew into a full blown psychoses.
Gary in Erko: I like the branding idea. Sadly, I suspect so would a bunch of crazy people out there. I think we’re at bread and circuses now.
Muslims do not accept transgendering. Some of the others you mentioned don’t really seem to care. If Muslims did mention this and come out against the practice, the MSM would censor that information, the same way they censor Muslims killing homosexuals.
Joy: So biology has nothing to do with sex? Nor genes? What is science then? Not biology, geology, astronomy, etc? What—just chemistry and physics?
Gender is a social construct and is not necessarily related to the actual sex of the creature in question.
Socialized medicine would have refused to do sex change operations? What else does socialized medicine refuse to do?
I suppose it depends on your definition of “child” as to how many are in prison. If it’s under 18, a few that committed horrible crimes. Otherwise, they’re in the juvenile system.
I’m not sure where you live, but the news says these surgeries are done virtually worldwide. That’s what I am going by.
Sheri, here’s what I think, I don’t think you entirely disagree. The statement was about sex being science.
Biology has nothing to do with sex? It can be described in terms of Biology to stop blushes but this only serves to engender giggles. That’s not science! Science is pure and sensible! and difficult! and rational! Isn’t it?
Biology is the study of living organisms, from their classification and systems nomenclature, to anatomy physiology and behaviour from macro to micro.
So pick a noun, any noun, there will be an academic somewhere who claims it belongs to them. You might say sex is studied in the department of biology. Or narrow the field sex is studied within the department of human reproductive medicine for there is no actual study of sex.
Try telling artists that sex is science.
There is not a department that can make a claim on gender either. Farming and agriculture, haberdashery, biology, anthropology, fashion,ornithology, public conveniences, and design, the history of popes! Frankly any situation where differentiation between pink and blue is required.
“Gender studies”, “women’s studies” are an artificial invention. I only learned what an SJW was three weeks ago when it was written out in full. I thought it was a strange kind of activity. MRA’s? pronouns? What? Just remember they can’t change the truth. That’s all one needs to know.
Science is the endeavour to discover and to know the nature of the world and our universe and then to convince others to agree! The knowledge is then used to engineer or manipulate the nature’s material with the new understanding for the betterment of nature!
Nobody knows how this is done. So the nature of minds which think, name, sort and classify are utterly mysterious and unreachable using science it seems to me.
In medieval times there was “Arts and Sciences”.
Arts describe the world as it appears. Science is charged with finding out and then stating so that all may know the true nature of the object in question. Science is the business of knowing, art is the business of describing or representing by expression. At Cambridge a mathematics degree is a Ba not a BSC. That is the correct classification.
It just occurs to me that there’s contradiction there because if, as I suspect, numbers were there to be discovered then perhaps it is where science and art converge.
In some cases, the child’s desire to identify as the opposite sex/gender is not their own, but their parents projection. Especially when parents are non gender-conforming. Call this opinion a clinical hunch.