"Transgenders" are insane

The frankly blunt title of this post states my opinion:

My view is quite simple:
If, for example, a man has balls and a dick,
but thinks he is a woman,
he is ipso facto insane.
Likewise if a woman has a functioning vagina,
but thinks she is a man.

No doubt there are some gray areas,
where Mother Nature has produced people with
a genuine mix of male and female biological characteristics,
i.e., hermaphrodites.
Their condition is not their fault,
and they deserve full compassionate consideration for their condition.
But the so-called "transgenders"
include people whose biology is purely of one sex,
while their mind wants to be the other sex.
This is not a problem of their biology, but of their mind.

If the American Psychological Association thinks otherwise,
that only shows how, while some of their work no doubt qualifies as science,
at least some of their judgments are pure politics,
without the slightest scientific validity.

---

Some articles on the people called "transgenders":

2014-08-31-NYT-can-jill-soloway-do-justice-to-the-trans-movement

Can Jill Soloway Do Justice to the Trans Movement?
By TAFFY BRODESSER-AKNER
New York Times Magazine, 2014-08-31

[My reason for referring to this article
is not to endorse the views and attitudes it expresses,
but to observe how it demonstrates how much our "elite" media in general,
and the New York Times in particular,
serve as a propaganda vehicle for disseminating
whatever radical views the homosexual lobby comes up with.]

2014-10-24-WP-transgender-federal-employee-wins-historic-discrimination-case

Transgender federal employee wins historic discrimination case
By Emily Wax-Thibodeaux
Washington Post, 2014-10-24

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel on Thursday announced a landmark determination that the Department of the Army engaged in “frequent, pervasive and humiliating,” gender-identity discrimination against Tamara Lusardi, a veteran and civilian Army software specialist who transitioned from male to female.

Lusardi was working in the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (“AMRDEC”) in Redstone, Ala., when she transitioned from male to female in 2010. During that time, the Army improperly restricted her restroom usage, referred to her with male pronouns and by her birth name and stopped giving her work, the OSC said in a report released Thursday.

In a telephone interview from Alabama, Lusardi, 49, who served in the Army from 1986 to 1993, including in Desert Storm, said she was called “sir” and “it” by co-workers and management after she legally changed her name, driver’s license and security clearance and began dressing as a woman.

Lusardi was also required to use a single-user, gender-neutral restroom, out of concerns that other employees might feel “uncomfortable” sharing a restroom with her.

The OSC, a federal investigative and prosecutorial agency, said
coworker preferences alone
“cannot justify discriminatory working conditions,”
since it could reinforce the very stereotypes and biases
that nondiscrimination laws are intended to protect against.
According to the report, Lusardi should be able to use
bathrooms designated for her gender identity.

[This attitude really shows the out-of-touch attitudes of the PC "elite",
and the Democratic Party which they have, as shown by this case, influenced.
"Coworker preferences" may be deemed biased, bigoted, and discriminatory by the PC "elite",
but they are going to have a big effect on how effective the organization where the coworkers work is.
At some point all these PC policies are going to lead to a big pratfall for America.
How will combat troops respond if they are forced to cohabitate with such people?
Getting troops to put their lives on the line in combat is a difficult task;
alienating a significant number over issues such as this
is sure to result in a reduction in combat effectiveness,
through a reduction in what is usually described as "unit cohesion."

And I can certainly sympathize with the reluctance of women
to having a man use their restrooms,
just based on a purported change in his "sexual orientation".]

The Army declined to comment on the determination, citing ongoing litigation over the matter.

Lusardi’s case is part of a broader push by the federal government and the OSC to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees in the government.

“I applaud Ms. Lusardi for standing up not only for her rights, but for those of all federal employees,” said Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner. “The Army deserves credit for seeking to right the wrongs that Ms. Lusardi faced and for creating a more welcoming environment for its LGBT employees.”

In July, Obama signed an executive order banning workplace discrimination against millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of federal contractors and the federal government. The executive order prohibits firing or harassment of federal contractors based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and it bans discrimination against transgender employees of the federal government.

[There you have it.
Obama is behind this policy.
When (if) you voted for Obama, this is the policy you were also voting for.]

In a recent study by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National LGBTQ Task Force, 90 percent of transgender individuals report mistreatment or discrimination in the workplace, forcing many to hide their gender identity.

Discrimination forces many transgender individuals into extreme poverty, according to Sasha Buchert, staff attorney at the Transgender Law Center. They experience double the rate of unemployment, twice the rate of homelessness, and 85 percent more incarcerations compared to those who are employed, the study found.

Lusardi said she was unable to sleep because she was frozen out of work and told to stop speaking to co-workers about her transition.

“By then I was legally female and recognized by Social Security and Homeland Security,” she said. “I felt like it was unfair. But it was clear it was a condition of employment at that time.”

Lusardi grew up in an Air Force family and said she has long been proud of the work she does protecting troops in the field.

“I really care about my job, and I really wanted to be professional,” she said. “But people were saying, ‘Is it Todd or Tamara, I don’t know,’ and smirking at me, even after I had sent an e-mail explaining my transition. I just wanted to crawl under the table.”

Lusardi and the California-based Transgender Law Center filed a complaint to the OSC, which began investigating the case in 2012.

Activists say they are encouraged by recent legal victories for transgender individuals who lost jobs, and by positive stories about transgender characters on TV shows such as “Orange is the New Black” and “Transparent.” But there are still 32 states where firing workers for being transgender is still legal, the law center said.

The OSC report noted that the restroom restriction “had the effect of isolating and segregating” Lusardi from other female employees, “serv[ing] as a constant reminder that she was deprived of equal status, respect, and dignity in the workplace.”

The OSC investigation found no evidence that Lusardi’s gender transition had a discernible or detrimental impact on her or other employees’ work performance.

In response, the Army agreed to provide training to correct and prevent future discrimination, the OSC said. It also now permits Lusardi to use the restroom associated with her gender identity.

The Army agreed to the OSC’s recommendation to provide workplace diversity and sensitivity training, with a specific focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues.

Lusardi said she is busier at work these days, with the Army giving her back some of her workload since April.

“We have served our country in silence,” she said of transgender federal employees. “I hope my case and this decision will help other transgender people feel safe enough to bring their full authentic selves to work. This report makes clear that we don’t have to put up with being mistreated on the job just because of who we are.”

The "transgenderism" insanity

2014-10-27-WP-transgender-military-members-are-in-a-precarious-position

Transgender military members are in a precarious position

2014-12-16-msnbc-appeals-court-blocks-sex-reassignment-surgery-transgender-inmate

Appeals court blocks sex reassignment surgery for transgender inmate
By Emma Margolin
MSNBC, 2014-12-16

A federal appeals court has overturned a ruling that would have allowed a transgender inmate to access sex reassignment surgery for the first time in U.S. history.

Michelle Kosilek, a 65-year-old transgender woman currently serving life without parole for the 1990 strangulation of her then-wife, has not demonstrated that the Massachusetts Department of Correction’s refusal to provide sex reassignment surgery violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

The en banc decision reverses a 2012 federal district court ruling that ordered the Department of Correction (DOC) to provide such care to Kosilek, who would have been the first transgender inmate in the U.S. to undergo sex reassignment surgery while incarcerated.

“[W]e are faced with the question whether the DOC’s choice of a particular medical treatment is constitutionally inadequate, such that the district court acts within its power to issue an injunction requiring provision of an alternative treatment – a treatment which would give rise to new concerns related to safety and prison security,” wrote Judge Juan Torruella, a President Reagan appointee, in Tuesday’s opinion. “After carefully considering the community standard of medical care, the adequacy of the provided treatment, and the valid security concerns articulated by the DOC, we conclude that the district court erred and that the care provided to Kosilek by the DOC does not violate the Eighth Amendment.”

Kosilek suffers from gender dysphoria, which the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) defines as “clinically significant distress” arising in people whose gender assigned at birth differs from the one with which they identify. Treatment options include counseling, cross-sex hormones, social and legal transition to the desired gender, and sex reassignment surgery, according the DSM-5.

...

“The appeals court’s traditional role would be to decide if the trial court applied the wrong law; it would not be to second guess the facts that the trial court heard and found in the first instance,” said Levi. “What’s so unusual about this decision is that the appeals court did not identify what the trial court had done wrong as a legal matter, but rather disagreed with what the trial court found with regard to the essential medical need that Michelle Kosilek has for this particular treatment.”

“It’s very hard to understand this decision as being anything other than a transgender exception to the constitutional right that all inmates have to receive essential medical treatment,” she added.

Levi’s not alone. In a scathing dissent, Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson, a President Obama appointee, likened the First Circuit’s majority opinion to Plessy v. Ferguson – the 1896 Supreme Court case that sanctioned laws requiring racial segregation – and Korematsu v. United States – the 1944 Supreme Court case that found constitutional the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

“Prejudice and fear of the unfamiliar have undoubtedly played a role in this matter’s protraction,” wrote Thompson. “Whether today’s decision brings this case to a close, I cannot say. But I am confident that this decision will not stand the test of time.”

Transgenderism, suicide, and mental illness

Let's review the basic situation.
I have no specific background in either law or medicine,
but I do read (some) newspapers.
They have frequently reported that
sufficient cause for involuntary commitment to a psychiatric institution
was evidence that "they present a danger to themselves or others".
As another example, prison inmates considered at risk for suicide
are generally put under a suicide watch.
In these situations, the access of the person to items which could be used for suicide or self-mutilation,
such as belts and razor blades,
is strictly limited.
In the extreme case, the person is put into a padded cell
and even put under some kind of physical restraints such as a straitjacket.
So, to the best of my knowledge, a person suspected of being at risk of suicide or self-mutilation
is considered seriously mentally ill,
and two things happen:
1. physical measures are taken to prevent the potential suicide or self-mutilation, and
2. the person will, possibly, be treated for mental illness by a psychiatric professional.

So why are transgenders, when they threaten suicide or self-mutilation
(as in the example of Chelsea Manning reported below),
treated differently?

I suppose one possible answer is that
if a person is put into such an unbearable situation
that a normal person would consider suicide the best alternative,
then the problem is not with the person,
but with the situation he finds himself in.
Prisoners of war being tortured would be an example.
If the torture is unbearable, than death is more desirable than continued torture.
But the key point is:
Would a normal person find the situation unbearable?

Suppose a high school student would threaten suicide unless they got what they want.
Would a school district be expected to give them what they want?
Of course not.
So why are the claims of "unbearable pain" by transgenders being taken as legitimate?

And if some transgenders do indeed commit suicide,
that by itself proves nothing.
People throughout history have gone to their death to advance a group goal.
Consider suicide bombers.
Or consider all those people who have burned themselves to death to make a point.
There have been many reported examples of such self-immolation,
again to make a political point.

In some cases, observers think the point is valid. The point is made.
In other cases, the point still seems irrational,
and the suicide is dismissed as
an unfortunate example of the consequences of mental illness.

So suicide, by itself, proves nothing.
The question, again, is
how would a normal person view the alleged reason for the suicide.

And transgenders certainly have not been considered normal.
Why should they be?

I think this difference,
in whether suicide is viewed as a result of mental illness or unbearable conditions,
indicates the arbitrariness and politicization of some of the judgements of psychology.

2015-02-13-AP-military-approves-hormone-treatment-for-chelsea-manning

Military Approves Hormone Treatment for Chelsea Manning
by Lolita C. Baldor
Associated Press, 2015-02-13

WASHINGTON --

Defense Department officials said Thursday that
hormone treatment for gender reassignment has been approved for Chelsea Manning,
the former intelligence analyst convicted of espionage
for sending classified documents to the WikiLeaks website.

...

The decision came after a lawsuit was filed in September
in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
It alleged
Manning was at a high risk of self-castration and suicide
unless she received more focused treatment for gender dysphoria,
the sense of being a woman in a man's body.

...

---

For an example of how the media normally explains suicide,
here is an example from the Washington Post:

2015-04-12-WP-rhythms-of-washington-return-after-illinois-mans-suicide-outside-capitol

Rhythms of Washington return after Illinois man’s suicide outside Capitol
By Victoria St. Martin and Michael Laris
Washington Post, 2015-04-12

[Emphasis added.]


The sightseers were back at the U.S. Capitol on Sunday,
roaming in the brilliant sun in the place where
a man had ended his young life in a tragic and spectacular fashion
just the day before.

Explanations remained elusive Sunday for what may have helped drive the man,
identified in police documents as Leo P. Thornton, 22, to commit suicide —
and to do so in one of the nation’s iconic places.

...

Thornton had a brown carry-on bag full of clothes
and a sign that Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine said touched on “social justice.”
A witness said people who saw the sign told him it read
“Tax the one percent.”

Whatever political component may seem to have been at play,
said Christine Moutier,
chief medical officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
and a former psychiatry professor at the University of California at San Diego,
suicide is primarily a mental health problem.
Research shows that
in more than 90 percent of the 40,000 American suicides each year,
an active mental health issue is at play, Moutier said.

“We often look to external cues, which are absolutely important.
But we have done that at the expense of
identifying the more internal mental health changes that are taking place
that are actually amenable to treatment,” Moutier said.
“The fact is that millions of Americans believe different political positions,
or lose their job, or get bullied,
and don’t actually entertain the idea of suicide.
There must be some underlying mental health and cognitive risk factors
at play.”

...

[Yeah, right.
But just let a "transgender" person commit suicide,
and see if the media scumbags trot out an "expert" to sing the same tune.
The evidence is that they (e.g., media editorial boards) do not,
but rather present the suicide of the "transgender" person
as evidence of "unbearable pain" the "transgender" is undergoing.
What a bunch of hypocritical, double standarding media bosses.]

Paying for gender insanity

First, I am not going to use the term some would like to use
for people who have the physical characteristics of one sex
but think that they are another sex,
namely, "transgender".
No, I am going to call these people what they are: insane,
more specifically, gender insane.
If the professional psychologists do not go along with labeling this as insanity,
that is not my fault, but theirs.

As an example, consider Bruce Jenner.
The New York Times reports on 2015-06-01:

“Bruce always had to tell a lie,”
Ms. Jenner said in a video.
“Caitlyn doesn’t have any secrets.”

Well, a rational response would be
to contemplate Bruce’s fathering of several children,
and ask “Which is the real lie?”
Can a woman produce the sperm which fertilizes an egg?
No, no, no.
Truly, someone who thinks a woman can produce sperm
is either ignorant or crazy.
Yet why will the media not point that out?
Why do they treat blatant insanity as sanity?

Now, having used the correct label for gender insanity,
on to a financial point:
Who pays for the pampering these nutjobs desire?
In the case of Bruce Jenner,
he as received, according to news reports,
"breast augmentation surgery" and various hormone "treatments."
I am sure such things are not cheap.
(Plastic surgeons, you may note,
are among the highest paid of the medical specialties.
Which only goes to show how much Americans are willing to squander on vanity.)

Who is paying for such catering to Jenner's fantasies?
Why on earth should the general public have to pay,
either through health insurance or
one or another of the many government-paid medical payment programs,
for such pampering?

The media reports that some medical doctors go along with this insanity.
Well, there have been many cases in history of doctors making wrong calls,
for one reason or another.
Just because some doctor somewhere says something
doesn't necessarily make it true.

I hope to God that someone in a position to do so
can find a way to challenge the opinion of some quacks that
pampering the gender insane is a "medical necessity."
Is the medical profession really in unanimous agreement that it is?
Say it ain't so, docs. Please.
For the financial health of America, if for no other reason.

The harm gender insanity causes

2016-05-04-WP-ill-group-sues-obama-administration-over-transgender-students-bathroom-access

Illinois group sues Obama administration over transgender students’ bathroom access
by Emma Brown
Washington Post, 2016-05-04

A group of Illinois students and parents sued the Obama administration Wednesday over its stance on transgender students’ access to school bathrooms and locker rooms, arguing that the U.S. Education Department is illegally forcing local authorities to let children use facilities that correspond to their gender identity.

The complaint alleges that the federal government has violated students’ fundamental right to privacy and parents’ constitutional right to instill moral standards and values in their children.

The lawsuit represents the first legal challenge to the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX, a federal anti-discrimination law, as providing transgender students with the right to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity instead of their biological sex.

The plaintiffs include female students who go to a high school that, under pressure from the Education Department, allowed a transgender girl to change in a girls locker room, according to the lawsuit, which concerns Palatine Township High School District 211.

The complaint says that
the plaintiffs are afraid of seeing a “male in a state of undress”
and “are afraid of being seen by,
and being forced to share intimate spaces with, a male
while they are in various states of undress.”

[Does that mean the weirdo in question has the visibly distinctive physical, biological equipment of a male,
but is using the girls' locker room?
How disgusting.
How perverted.
How queer.
Screw the queer lobby and their media supporters!]

“Every day these girls go to school,
they experience embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear, apprehension, stress, degradation and loss of dignity
because they will have to use the locker room and restroom with a biological male,”

the complaint says.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois with the support of two nonprofit legal advocacy groups, the Thomas More Society and the Alliance Defending Freedom.

...

The plaintiffs in the new lawsuit are 51 families from Palatine, Ill., where the U.S. Education Department last year found schools in violation of Title IX because of their policies on locker room access.

The Palatine school system, as well as the federal departments of education and justice, are named as defendants.

2016-05-04-ADF-51-families-sue-feds-chicago-area-school-district-for-violating-student-privacy

51 families sue feds, Chicago-area school district for violating student privacy
ADF Legal Foundation, 2016-05-04

CHICAGO – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing 51 families in the Palatine area filed suit Wednesday against two federal agencies and [Palatine] Township High School District 211 for disregarding student privacy and safety. ADF is announcing the lawsuit at a press conference at 2 p.m. CDT, which will be streamed live online.

The district secretly opened its schools’ restrooms to the opposite sex
and then opened the girls’ locker room to a boy
after the U.S. Department of Education threatened the district’s federal funding.
The agency based its threat on its inaccurate interpretation of Title IX,
a 1972 federal law that, contrary to the agency’s opinion,
actually authorizes schools to retain single-sex restrooms and locker rooms.
The lawsuit, filed by families representing 73 parents and 63 students,
contends that the DOE is unlawfully redefining the terms of Title IX,
something that only Congress can alter,
and is illegitimately forcing its political will on school districts.

“Protecting students from inappropriate exposure to the opposite sex
is not only perfectly legal,
it’s a school district’s duty,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco.
“Allowing boys into girls’ locker rooms,
a setting where girls are often partially or fully unclothed,
is a blatant violation of student privacy.
The school district should rescind its privacy-violating policies,
and the court should order the Department of Education to stop bullying school districts with falsehoods about what federal law requires.”

“No government agency can unilaterally redefine the meaning of a federal law to serve its own political ends,”
added ADF Legal Counsel Matt Sharp.
“The Department of Education is exceeding what it is legally and constitutionally allowed to do.
In fact, at least five other federal and state courts have rejected the DOE’s interpretation of Title IX.”

As the lawsuit explains, no law—
including Title IX, the federal law concerning sex discrimination at schools and colleges that receive federal education funds—
requires schools to allow boys into girls’ restrooms or girls into boys’ restrooms.
In fact, Title IX and its regulations specifically state that
a school receiving federal funds can “provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex”
without putting that funding at risk.
The lawsuit also explains that the DOE did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted its rules.

Attorneys with the Thomas More Society are serving as local counsel in the case,
Students and Parents for Privacy v. United States Department of Education,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

“It’s a massive step backwards to force women to give up their inherent right to bodily privacy,”
said Thomas More Society attorney Jocelyn Floyd.
“To impose such a rule on still-developing teenage girls,
as they’re already struggling with puberty’s changes on their bodies and social pressures to look a certain way,
undermines their dignity and tells them that their rights don’t matter.
This isn’t a message our schools should be sending to our girls.”

The lawsuit asks the court to halt the school district’s policy that opens up restrooms and changing areas to the opposite sex, declare the policy and the district’s agreement with the DOE to be unconstitutional and illegal under both federal and Illinois law, and invalidate the DOE’s rule that illegitimately redefines “sex” in Title IX.

2016-05-04-DailySignal-50-families-sue-over-illinois-high-schools-transgender-bathroom-policy

51 Families Sue Over Illinois High School’s Transgender Bathroom Policy
by Kelsey Harkness
Daily Signal (Heritage Foundation), 2016-05-04

2017

2017-03-16-WashTimes-transgender-issue-indoctrinating-the-public-child-abuse

Transgendered child abuse
The trend of medicating children toward their ‘authentic selves’
is wrong and dangerous
by Kelly Riddell
Washington Times Opinion, 2017-03-16

[1] Last year, NBC News did a two-part series dubbed “transgender kids,” that featured “the stories of 5-year-old Jacob Lemay and 8-year-old Malisa Phillips, two children transitioning to live as their authentic selves.”

[2] In December, Good Housekeeping wrote an essay detailing a family with two transgender children, both a son and a daughter, who swapped roles. And while the parents “didn’t totally understand it, they knew their love was unconditional.”

[3] In January, National Geographic put a photo of a nine-year-old transgender girl on its cover, simply labeled “The Gender Revolution,” and The New York Times did a report on “Raising a Transgender Child.”

[4] Then in February, Katie Couric profiled families with transgender children for a documentary, and the Huffington Post wrote a column on how “Transgender kids are changing the world.”

[5] The Washington Post followed it up, with a personal essay:
“My 7-year-old daughter Henry is transgender.
She’d change Trump’s mind,”
lamenting President Donald Trump’s decision to rescind Barack Obama’s bathroom executive order.

[6] And then this month, HBO is ran a special called “Trans Youth” which provided “an inside look at the families of transgender youth and how they are coming to terms with the gender identity of their children,” weeks before the Supreme Court’s decision to send the bathroom case back to the Appeals court.

[7] If you think you’re being indoctrinated — or even manipulated — by the mainstream media and Hollywood telling you how you should feel about transgender kids, it’s because you are.

[8] Rarely, if ever, do any of these news stories highlight the dangers of chemically transitioning a child, or depict the parents as using their kid as a political prop. As a grown adult, I would be horrified if my parents allowed NBC to film my 5-year-old self-grappling with such a question as gender for the nation to see.

[9] And yet, we’re not supposed to think this way. We’re supposed to feel for these families, and then change our way of thinking about the centuries-old paradigms of male and female.

[10] Sorry, as a mother of three boys five and under, I view these child transgender exposes as exploitative, and yes, down-right abusive.

[11] First, there is no way a five-year-old knows if they are indeed transgender. Although most brain development occurs during the first three years of life, throughout a kid’s youth, neurons are being made and synapses developed.

[12] Five-year-olds are still learning things like how to set the table, directions to and from their school, the alphabet, how to play sports, skip, and what goes where in the toy room.

[13] The impulse control and judgment parts of their brains haven’t even been developed yet, and aren’t completely activated until after adolescence.

[14] That’s why a parent’s role is so important.

[15] All of my boys at one time have asked why they can’t wear a dress, high-heel shoes, or paint their nails.
I simply reply:
Because you’re a boy.
Everyone seems satisfied, and we move on the next activity.

[16] In the Post’s essay, written by Jen Aulwes
(which the paper conveniently leaves out is a communications director at Planned Parenthood),
she pens:
“The first time we knew that Henry was different, she was 2.
When she found her cousin’s Barbie doll, she lit up like a Christmas tree.
‘The hair, Mama,’ she cooed.
‘Look at her looong hair!’
Henry continued to show us, in every way she could, that she wanted to live as a girl.
This was new territory.
What do you say when your 3-year-old boy asks to be Rapunzel for Halloween?
In our house, you say yes.”

[17] In my house, we say “no,” and instead direct him to the boys section of the store where he can dress up like Thor if he likes long hair.

[18] Because that’s what adults do.

[19] They set parameters for their children, they teach them about their God-given sex and social norms.
They don’t let the child dictate to them, or indulge the kid’s every whim.
Being a parent means being responsible.

---

[20] Which brings me to my second point:
How is it responsible—or even sane—to chemically alter your child before puberty?

[21] Last year, the American College of Pediatrics reached a politically incorrect decision which concluded that “transgenderism” of a child amounts to child abuse.
It argued facts, not ideology, determine reality.

[22] In its policy statement, written by Johns Hopkins Medical School Psychology Professor Paul McHugh, it laid out eight arguments why transgendering a child was harmful, including the basic fact that everyone is born with a biological sex, so if a child is born a boy but thinks he’s a girl, the problem is with the mind, not the body, and should be treated as such.

[23] Moreover, “transitioning” children with hormones is hazardous to their health.

[24] “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,”
Dr. McHugh wrote.

[25] Perhaps the most devastating argument is that as many as 98 percent of gender-confused boys and 88 percent of gender-confused girls accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

[26] In other words—it may just be a phase.
It’s important for parents, before chemically altering their children, know whether it is or not.
These kids, after all, are too young to sign off on the medical procedures themselves.

[27] And there’s a reason for that.
There’s a reason why you have to be 18 to volunteer for the military, or even enter a contract that’s enforceable—because minors are notorious for making bad, uninformed, and/or impulsive decisions.
They’re simply immature.

[28] And that’s not a bad thing.
Trial and error is all a part of growing up.

[29] But imagine making a decision as a five-year-old that would alter the course of your life—all in part, because your parents thought it was cool to have a transgender kid or wanted to be a social justice warrior.

[30] To me, that’s sickening.
That’s the definition of abuse.

---

Kelly Riddell is a columnist for the Washington Times.

The Bruce Jenner gender insanity case

2015-06-04-WP-description-of-conservative-reaction

Caitlyn Jenner comes out, and social conservatives take an apocalyptic view
[Note the bigotry right there in the title:
the Washington Post is calling the clearly insane Bruce Jenner
by a female name.]
By Robert Costa and Philip Rucker
Washington Post, 2015-06-04

In the four days since Bruce Jenner came out as a woman named Caitlyn, many Americans have celebrated her [sic] transformation as a courageous and even heroic act.

["Her"?
No amount of cosmetic surgery nor dressing in women's clothing
can turn a man into a woman.
Just. Not. Possible.
Only the demented would think it could.

Check out, for example,
Human Genetics Revolution Tells Us That Men and Women Are Not the Same
No hormone treatments, etc., will change a person's genetic structure.]