My professional org the AAP got totally captured by trans ideology. The 2018 statement was an embarrassment but even almost 8 years later the org doubles down on this mess. And now that they are needed (AAP) to be a voice for vaccines, they have lost their credibility. It’s shameful.
yeah, and if we try to speak out, everybody rolls their eyes and some people get red-faced and angry. Even after all of this, the medical professions cannot handle an even-handed discussion of the topic.
Trying to make someone not be attracted to whom they are attracted is terrible, and even more so when it is accompanied by physical punishments (e.g. shock therapy). Asking why a young person rejects their own body, thinking it must be chemically and/or surgically changed to drastically alter its appearance, is rational and compassionate. Trying to squash someone's forms of personal expression - their clothes, their hair, their mannerisms - is unkind and serves no positive purpose. Trying to reason with someone over whether they have to pretend they were born in a different type of body (male or female), and make that body less healthy through toxic chemicals and extreme surgeries in order to have any semblance of happiness is kind and sensible.
Why can't people see the difference? That is the real question here. Why are so many people so limited in their ability to understand the difference between attacking someone for innocuous unique characteristics or behaviors, such as sexual orientation or non-stereotypical expressions of femininity or masculinity, on the one hand, and helping someone to see that they can be exactly who they feel comfortable being without having to medically alter their bodies or lie to themselves and others about those bodies, on the other hand? It's a pretty obvious distinction from my perspective.
P.S. Would you accept the following as a friendly amendment to your first sentence? There’s probably a better way to word it, but hopefully the point comes across:
“Trying to make someone not be attracted to whom they are attracted is terrible (assuming they’re attracted to legitimate targets), …”
Point well taken, RJ. Attraction to illegitimate targets - being detrimental to the individual involved, to the potential targets, and to society - does warrant intervention and prevention.
'I’m struck by what Valerie Jarrett wrote all those years ago, about why conversion therapy should be banned: “Often, this practice is used on minors, who lack the legal authority to make their own medical and mental health decisions.” Despite this assertion, somehow these same minors could assent to double mastectomies or cross-sex hormones, to decisions that would affect them for the rest of their lives. Indeed, those in favor of conversion therapy bans often rail against bans on gender-affirming care.'
It's a one-way street. Consent is only possible if it's consent to what WPATH says. Otherwise, children can't consent.
It would be great if the Supreme Court decided to make reality-based therapy for children legal again in the half of America that's been hornswoggled by the gender cult.
One of the most insidious aspects of gender woo-woo is the way suicide hangs over the discourse, like the spectre at the feast. If we don't provide hormones, blockers, and surgeries, children will kill themselves. If we scratch our heads at bespoke pronouns, children will kill themselves. If we don't put boys in girls' sports, children will kill themselves. If we don't affirm, children will kill themselves. If we question, children will kill themselves. The suicide warnings are unending, relentless, ever-present, and effective; after all, who *wants* children to kill themselves?
I can accept disagreement. I can forgive mistakes. I can even abide delusion. What I cannot accept, forgive, or abide is emotional blackmail. It's a sign of bad faith. It's cruel. It's manipulative. It's evil.
When LGBTQ+ became a monolith, this is what we get.
It is frustrating to witness so many gay men and lesbians champion sudden new gender identities. Some people have trouble not projecting their youthful struggles onto a totally new cohort today.
LGBTQplus becoming a monolith is a really interesting phenomenon, in a physician-discussion I tried to assert that Christians aiming for monogamy and marital fidelity were "sexual minority youth", as most people don't actually do that.
"Watchful waiting" is what we called it, and "conversion therapy" is such a remarkably disingenuous misappropriation of techniques that were used to change sexual orientation. A lot of people have been able to talk about how they got out of a phase of trans identification through working through something, so it's not like it's a crazy idea... I think we need to take seriously the distress of somebody who identifies as trans, but the chances that transition is going to be the easiest path to a happy life are fairly remote. I don't approach it like it's exactly a first amendment thing, but it's that the government has to have reasonable grounds for banning a treatment, and as there have been no studies demonstrating harm, we must also calculate the harm of not addressing the condition of gender dysphoria.
"Gender affirming care" is the gay and lesbian conversion therapy nightmare.
As such, "affirming care", is in and of itself a form of conversion therapy. So permitting it cancels the effort to ban trying to make gay/lesbian straight.
All you do is change presentation and body modification. Very Iran like. This was obvious when I saw the phrase "gender non-confirming" pop up in one of my readings and knew it meant sissy boys and tomboy girls.
That fact-check by Cantor of the AAP paper by Rafferty bears frequent repeating, the sin was so egregious—that is, Rafferty’s slippage from orientation-aimed conversion efforts, to therapy for those with “gender identity” distress, resulting in the false claim (easily exposed as such by anyone who bothered to follow the citation, as I did myself!) that therapy for youth discontent with their sex had been studied and found “unsuccessful” and “deleterious.” The cited research did not do what Rafferty said it did.
Question about the penultimate sentence: can you doublecheck it to see if something’s missing? (Conflate it with what?)
I tuned in late to the oral argument, and the part I heard was entirely about gay conversion therapy. I got the impression that the Colorado solicitor general and the justices are fine with equating/conflating gender identity and sexual orientation. At least the SG got some pushback on the notion that any therapy violating a "standard of care" should be prohibited, as the justices (notably Alito) pointed to former standards of care that are now discredited.
I only heard the last 20 minutes, too, as I was writing this stuff instead of listening. They kept talking about Turban studies, and then one of the justices was like "that's not a reliable study." So even if the law supposedly doesn't cover just exploration, the defense certainly brought in "evidence" that suggests doing anything other than affirmation is "harm." I imagine it'll be split party-wise again. But I think the problem is they didn't seem to really define the term, or the harm.
I think the Justices avoid anything to do with gender identity like the plague because they don't understand it and would have to grapple with what it means after Bostock. But part of the problem is these cases are brought by right wing Christian legal organizations, they want to take down protections for sexual orientation as much, if not more, than protections for gender identity. It's a lot harder to defend a law that says you can't discuss with a 12 year old girl why she thinks she's a boy or what makes her feel like a boy, especially in light of Skrmetti where the Court found gender identity is fluid and not immutable, but they didn't want to fight the case on those grounds, they wanted to focus on same-sex attraction. They don't want to admit that there is a distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity.
I disagree. I think the Court is taking so many of these cases because they want to stop this stuff. I think many of them (Alito, Coney Barrett, Thomas) know exactly what gender identity is and don’t think it’s the same as sexual orientation.
As to right wing organizations mounting these cases, well, they’ve been the only ones willing to. Ask Jamie Reed how hard it was for her to find a lawyer—the only ones who would take her were Republicans.
I don’t think those organizations see much profit in going after gay marriage—even if their religious beliefs conflict with it. But they see wide open opportunities in fighting the harms of gender ideology because no Democrats anywhere have taken up the cause (except DIAG).
I don’t know how the decision will come out, but there’s precedent on the plaintiff’s side as to regulating professional speech, so I’m cautiously optimistic.
I don't think a the Court asked a single question about gender identity vs. Sexual orientation, and in the Mahmoud case, the focus was very much on sexual orientation, especially Alito's disdain for same sex marriage. I don't see the Court making the distinction. And right wing legal organizations bring these cases because that is their agenda, which is as anti-gay as it is anti-gender identity.
Coney Barrett asked the CO SG to provide evidence of “harm”—her answer IIRC was to talk about how sad people got, I think she sidestepped the suicide claims because the Court is onto that.
That wasn’t my impression. I think this court is very doubtful that trans identity is immutable.
I missed the beginning but I believe the plaintiff side not only attacked Turban’s study but also argued that the defense used studies that conflated gender ID and sexual orientation. It’s a 1st Amendment case (not a medical regulation case), so a lot of what I heard were questions about the distinctions between speech and conduct. Even Kagan expressed concern that the law may be viewpoint discrimination.
Now that I've heard it all, I too, think that at least the conservative justices have some handle on "gender identity." And Alito knew enough to dismiss Turban.
Congratulations on getting this into the Free Press! I hope lots of people read it. Yesterday, I watched a video about this case on Harry Litman's Talking Feds YouTube channel, whose legal analyses I usually enjoy, and saw him being completely confused about conversion therapy and gender identity/sexual orientation, repeating all the same activist talking points about how we know that "conversion therapy" for gender identity is harmful, and that "there is a short window" before puberty starts where you have to intervene to save gender dysphoric kids from their bodies. Harry seems like an open-minded guy (he had Jonathan Haidt on his podcast), and the fact that he is so completely misinformed about this issue just shows how deep the ignorance runs on this among liberals. Not sure how many liberals read the FP, but I hope that your piece gets some attention.
All of this is clouded by the captured indoctrination language of trans ideology. Aversive conditioning should be called exactly that, not "conversion therapy." The fact that pornography, especially the variety called sissy-hypno is often an influence in teen boys (and men, too) who ideate a female persona and start trying out public displays of crossdressing to try out what is fraudulently called "true life experience" and "authentic self" by trans ideology. Forcing random members of the public to make displays of affirmation of crossdressers is a form of mass conditioning for society to accept deceit as normal, even desirable. Whereas, the individuals watching the pornography, masturbating to it and taking the Look out for a walk deserve rational, sensible help to return to reality and healthy body image/sexuality, which is not to say that's always heterosexual. A first step in the Wellness Checklist I developed addresses the chronic and widespread sleep deprivation in children and youth, often internet related.
Being attracted to a sex is immutable, demonstrated frequently.
However, “insistent, persistent, and consistent belief” (as trans activists say) in something which contradicts external reality is a delusion, and delusions can also be highly resistant to change.
Treating a delusional person is not conversion, unless you believe grounding people in reality means converting them from delusional to non-delusional.
Altering compulsive behavior - mimicking the opposite sex, lying, deception, misrepresentation - is a type of conversion too.
Not accepting sexual mimicry is never “conversion” in general, however, and is the most life-affirming therapy there is, since a complete psychotic break from reality can result in self-mutilation and violence towards others as the delusion fully occupies the psyche.
Thank you, Lisa. Clearly stated - and I so appreciate what you notice in what other people say and write. Today on "The Daily" the NYT played some of the oral arguments, and the CO AG referenced the "Green study", in which she says some 32k participants who "underwent conversion therapy" claimed the therapy "doubled suicide attempts among the group". Do you - or do others - know what she's talking about?
My professional org the AAP got totally captured by trans ideology. The 2018 statement was an embarrassment but even almost 8 years later the org doubles down on this mess. And now that they are needed (AAP) to be a voice for vaccines, they have lost their credibility. It’s shameful.
yeah, and if we try to speak out, everybody rolls their eyes and some people get red-faced and angry. Even after all of this, the medical professions cannot handle an even-handed discussion of the topic.
Trying to make someone not be attracted to whom they are attracted is terrible, and even more so when it is accompanied by physical punishments (e.g. shock therapy). Asking why a young person rejects their own body, thinking it must be chemically and/or surgically changed to drastically alter its appearance, is rational and compassionate. Trying to squash someone's forms of personal expression - their clothes, their hair, their mannerisms - is unkind and serves no positive purpose. Trying to reason with someone over whether they have to pretend they were born in a different type of body (male or female), and make that body less healthy through toxic chemicals and extreme surgeries in order to have any semblance of happiness is kind and sensible.
Why can't people see the difference? That is the real question here. Why are so many people so limited in their ability to understand the difference between attacking someone for innocuous unique characteristics or behaviors, such as sexual orientation or non-stereotypical expressions of femininity or masculinity, on the one hand, and helping someone to see that they can be exactly who they feel comfortable being without having to medically alter their bodies or lie to themselves and others about those bodies, on the other hand? It's a pretty obvious distinction from my perspective.
Beautifully put, Hippiesq.
P.S. Would you accept the following as a friendly amendment to your first sentence? There’s probably a better way to word it, but hopefully the point comes across:
“Trying to make someone not be attracted to whom they are attracted is terrible (assuming they’re attracted to legitimate targets), …”
Point well taken, RJ. Attraction to illegitimate targets - being detrimental to the individual involved, to the potential targets, and to society - does warrant intervention and prevention.
'I’m struck by what Valerie Jarrett wrote all those years ago, about why conversion therapy should be banned: “Often, this practice is used on minors, who lack the legal authority to make their own medical and mental health decisions.” Despite this assertion, somehow these same minors could assent to double mastectomies or cross-sex hormones, to decisions that would affect them for the rest of their lives. Indeed, those in favor of conversion therapy bans often rail against bans on gender-affirming care.'
It's a one-way street. Consent is only possible if it's consent to what WPATH says. Otherwise, children can't consent.
It would be great if the Supreme Court decided to make reality-based therapy for children legal again in the half of America that's been hornswoggled by the gender cult.
One of the most insidious aspects of gender woo-woo is the way suicide hangs over the discourse, like the spectre at the feast. If we don't provide hormones, blockers, and surgeries, children will kill themselves. If we scratch our heads at bespoke pronouns, children will kill themselves. If we don't put boys in girls' sports, children will kill themselves. If we don't affirm, children will kill themselves. If we question, children will kill themselves. The suicide warnings are unending, relentless, ever-present, and effective; after all, who *wants* children to kill themselves?
I can accept disagreement. I can forgive mistakes. I can even abide delusion. What I cannot accept, forgive, or abide is emotional blackmail. It's a sign of bad faith. It's cruel. It's manipulative. It's evil.
Fascinating piece, Lisa.
When LGBTQ+ became a monolith, this is what we get.
It is frustrating to witness so many gay men and lesbians champion sudden new gender identities. Some people have trouble not projecting their youthful struggles onto a totally new cohort today.
LGBTQplus becoming a monolith is a really interesting phenomenon, in a physician-discussion I tried to assert that Christians aiming for monogamy and marital fidelity were "sexual minority youth", as most people don't actually do that.
True.
"Watchful waiting" is what we called it, and "conversion therapy" is such a remarkably disingenuous misappropriation of techniques that were used to change sexual orientation. A lot of people have been able to talk about how they got out of a phase of trans identification through working through something, so it's not like it's a crazy idea... I think we need to take seriously the distress of somebody who identifies as trans, but the chances that transition is going to be the easiest path to a happy life are fairly remote. I don't approach it like it's exactly a first amendment thing, but it's that the government has to have reasonable grounds for banning a treatment, and as there have been no studies demonstrating harm, we must also calculate the harm of not addressing the condition of gender dysphoria.
"Gender affirming care" is the gay and lesbian conversion therapy nightmare.
As such, "affirming care", is in and of itself a form of conversion therapy. So permitting it cancels the effort to ban trying to make gay/lesbian straight.
All you do is change presentation and body modification. Very Iran like. This was obvious when I saw the phrase "gender non-confirming" pop up in one of my readings and knew it meant sissy boys and tomboy girls.
Thank you so much for this, Lisa.
That fact-check by Cantor of the AAP paper by Rafferty bears frequent repeating, the sin was so egregious—that is, Rafferty’s slippage from orientation-aimed conversion efforts, to therapy for those with “gender identity” distress, resulting in the false claim (easily exposed as such by anyone who bothered to follow the citation, as I did myself!) that therapy for youth discontent with their sex had been studied and found “unsuccessful” and “deleterious.” The cited research did not do what Rafferty said it did.
Question about the penultimate sentence: can you doublecheck it to see if something’s missing? (Conflate it with what?)
I tuned in late to the oral argument, and the part I heard was entirely about gay conversion therapy. I got the impression that the Colorado solicitor general and the justices are fine with equating/conflating gender identity and sexual orientation. At least the SG got some pushback on the notion that any therapy violating a "standard of care" should be prohibited, as the justices (notably Alito) pointed to former standards of care that are now discredited.
I only heard the last 20 minutes, too, as I was writing this stuff instead of listening. They kept talking about Turban studies, and then one of the justices was like "that's not a reliable study." So even if the law supposedly doesn't cover just exploration, the defense certainly brought in "evidence" that suggests doing anything other than affirmation is "harm." I imagine it'll be split party-wise again. But I think the problem is they didn't seem to really define the term, or the harm.
I think the Justices avoid anything to do with gender identity like the plague because they don't understand it and would have to grapple with what it means after Bostock. But part of the problem is these cases are brought by right wing Christian legal organizations, they want to take down protections for sexual orientation as much, if not more, than protections for gender identity. It's a lot harder to defend a law that says you can't discuss with a 12 year old girl why she thinks she's a boy or what makes her feel like a boy, especially in light of Skrmetti where the Court found gender identity is fluid and not immutable, but they didn't want to fight the case on those grounds, they wanted to focus on same-sex attraction. They don't want to admit that there is a distinction between sexual orientation and gender identity.
I disagree. I think the Court is taking so many of these cases because they want to stop this stuff. I think many of them (Alito, Coney Barrett, Thomas) know exactly what gender identity is and don’t think it’s the same as sexual orientation.
As to right wing organizations mounting these cases, well, they’ve been the only ones willing to. Ask Jamie Reed how hard it was for her to find a lawyer—the only ones who would take her were Republicans.
I don’t think those organizations see much profit in going after gay marriage—even if their religious beliefs conflict with it. But they see wide open opportunities in fighting the harms of gender ideology because no Democrats anywhere have taken up the cause (except DIAG).
I don’t know how the decision will come out, but there’s precedent on the plaintiff’s side as to regulating professional speech, so I’m cautiously optimistic.
I don't think a the Court asked a single question about gender identity vs. Sexual orientation, and in the Mahmoud case, the focus was very much on sexual orientation, especially Alito's disdain for same sex marriage. I don't see the Court making the distinction. And right wing legal organizations bring these cases because that is their agenda, which is as anti-gay as it is anti-gender identity.
Coney Barrett asked the CO SG to provide evidence of “harm”—her answer IIRC was to talk about how sad people got, I think she sidestepped the suicide claims because the Court is onto that.
WoLF hosted a watch party & after-argument conversation. shoulda been there!
That wasn’t my impression. I think this court is very doubtful that trans identity is immutable.
I missed the beginning but I believe the plaintiff side not only attacked Turban’s study but also argued that the defense used studies that conflated gender ID and sexual orientation. It’s a 1st Amendment case (not a medical regulation case), so a lot of what I heard were questions about the distinctions between speech and conduct. Even Kagan expressed concern that the law may be viewpoint discrimination.
Now that I've heard it all, I too, think that at least the conservative justices have some handle on "gender identity." And Alito knew enough to dismiss Turban.
Congratulations on getting this into the Free Press! I hope lots of people read it. Yesterday, I watched a video about this case on Harry Litman's Talking Feds YouTube channel, whose legal analyses I usually enjoy, and saw him being completely confused about conversion therapy and gender identity/sexual orientation, repeating all the same activist talking points about how we know that "conversion therapy" for gender identity is harmful, and that "there is a short window" before puberty starts where you have to intervene to save gender dysphoric kids from their bodies. Harry seems like an open-minded guy (he had Jonathan Haidt on his podcast), and the fact that he is so completely misinformed about this issue just shows how deep the ignorance runs on this among liberals. Not sure how many liberals read the FP, but I hope that your piece gets some attention.
All of this is clouded by the captured indoctrination language of trans ideology. Aversive conditioning should be called exactly that, not "conversion therapy." The fact that pornography, especially the variety called sissy-hypno is often an influence in teen boys (and men, too) who ideate a female persona and start trying out public displays of crossdressing to try out what is fraudulently called "true life experience" and "authentic self" by trans ideology. Forcing random members of the public to make displays of affirmation of crossdressers is a form of mass conditioning for society to accept deceit as normal, even desirable. Whereas, the individuals watching the pornography, masturbating to it and taking the Look out for a walk deserve rational, sensible help to return to reality and healthy body image/sexuality, which is not to say that's always heterosexual. A first step in the Wellness Checklist I developed addresses the chronic and widespread sleep deprivation in children and youth, often internet related.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOi-ESSgE7U&t=436s
Fascinating.
Being attracted to a sex is immutable, demonstrated frequently.
However, “insistent, persistent, and consistent belief” (as trans activists say) in something which contradicts external reality is a delusion, and delusions can also be highly resistant to change.
Treating a delusional person is not conversion, unless you believe grounding people in reality means converting them from delusional to non-delusional.
Altering compulsive behavior - mimicking the opposite sex, lying, deception, misrepresentation - is a type of conversion too.
Not accepting sexual mimicry is never “conversion” in general, however, and is the most life-affirming therapy there is, since a complete psychotic break from reality can result in self-mutilation and violence towards others as the delusion fully occupies the psyche.
Thank you, Lisa. Clearly stated - and I so appreciate what you notice in what other people say and write. Today on "The Daily" the NYT played some of the oral arguments, and the CO AG referenced the "Green study", in which she says some 32k participants who "underwent conversion therapy" claimed the therapy "doubled suicide attempts among the group". Do you - or do others - know what she's talking about?
Thank you, Lisa. Extremely helpful and clear. I have restacked.