"The greatest danger to young people, I would argue, is not the questions we ask—but the assumption that we already have the answers."
Listen to these opening remarks of the SEGM conference by Roberto D'Angelo
There’s a story I’m trying to tell. It’s about how the left (a term I use to include liberals and Democrats) fell under the spell of a very strange belief system: that some children are born in the wrong body. That gender identity is fixed, while the body is malleable.
That belief was institutionalized in law, education, medicine, journalism, and psychology, and fed to a generation immersed in social media, who were taught to think that any objection was heresy. Thus, any group or person who objected was labeled a bigot.
That’s how the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine received the designation of hate group by the SPLC. Though I have of course not chronicled every word ever said by SEGM’s associates, or speakers at its conference, I have interacted personally and professionally with many involved in SEGM. I have yet to hear anything hateful. Instead, I’ve heard, and learned, a lot about evidence-based medicine, and about science. It doesn’t mean I believe everything they say. It means I don’t believe they are a hate group.
When I heard this opening speech by SEGM’s president, Dr. Roberto D’Angelo, from their recent conference, I was struck by its compassion and humility. If someone in your life believes this group is hateful, or that all those objecting to or questioning gender-affirming care are bigots, I urge you to have them listen. I have no affiliation with this group, no fealty to them. I simply believe in this message.
i've got an idea called "the wig party" -- a play on "whig" which used to more or less mean "classical liberal."
as you say, discussing this subject from a reasoned perspective often gets you accused of traditionalism, conservatism, bigotry, etc -- the people who throw these words around are basically trying to talk about anything *but* the scientific and medical questions.
as accusations of this nature quite quickly confuse and forestall debate, it would be good to find away to render them self-evidently moot -- as a man, i propose to do this by discussing the subject "panto," playing a character of the opposite sex, as was the practice in the theater for most of history.
i'm trying to start something called "the stupid podcast" in which i discuss this & other subjects openly & honestly with anybody willing to come on -- if anyone reading this would like to be a guest, please let me know! i'm up to over 100 listeners already, which i feel like is pretty good for only having 3 episodes out.
There is an inconsistency in his address. First, he identifies himself as a member of the “LGBTQ community” (seemingly to combat the accusations from SPLC- “hey guys, we are part of all that too)” but then later he says “…which ultimately harms the LGB community by blocking needed dialogue.”
Curious to know his real thoughts on “LGBTQ” vs “LGB.” Which “side” is he on? Did he commit a Freudian slip here?
Saying you are part of LGB is not hateful, it’s separatist, but the progressives think it is hateful. I’m not ok with being force teamed with TQ+ as those ideologies are counter to my existence as a lesbian. TQ+ is not something I’m a part of. Also- I don’t follow the work of SEGM closely, but are they still actually asking the questions about whether or not medical intervention is harmful to gender confused children? I thought we were past that.