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.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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?)
Thank you, Lisa. Extremely helpful and clear. I have restacked.
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.