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.
Luckily, he was speaking for himself, not you. Luckily there are multiple sides—and he is trying to make change within his profession. We have different discourses depending on the change we’re trying to affect. And no, we’re not one bit past the question of the science. It is not settled. It is uncertain. So if this address doesn’t move you, that’s fine, but clearly you’re not the target audience. And that audience believes what almost every institution tells them—it doesn’t believe you.
He’s making a valiant effort to defend a scientific body (SEGM) against unfair persecution from SPLC. But I’m still curious to know more about his inconsistency between “LGBTQ” and “LGB” in his address. It’s worth asking- why was he inconsistent here with the acronyms? I want to know where he stands on the identity politics as well as where he stands with the potential harms done to proto gay kids if pediatric GAC continues? If unsettled science- What specifically are they still trying to figure out here with kids?
In academic child psychiatry environments you still cannot even ask the question of whether this is harmful. You will get shouted down, because they still believe axiomatically that gender affirming care helps kids.
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.
Luckily, he was speaking for himself, not you. Luckily there are multiple sides—and he is trying to make change within his profession. We have different discourses depending on the change we’re trying to affect. And no, we’re not one bit past the question of the science. It is not settled. It is uncertain. So if this address doesn’t move you, that’s fine, but clearly you’re not the target audience. And that audience believes what almost every institution tells them—it doesn’t believe you.
He’s making a valiant effort to defend a scientific body (SEGM) against unfair persecution from SPLC. But I’m still curious to know more about his inconsistency between “LGBTQ” and “LGB” in his address. It’s worth asking- why was he inconsistent here with the acronyms? I want to know where he stands on the identity politics as well as where he stands with the potential harms done to proto gay kids if pediatric GAC continues? If unsettled science- What specifically are they still trying to figure out here with kids?
In academic child psychiatry environments you still cannot even ask the question of whether this is harmful. You will get shouted down, because they still believe axiomatically that gender affirming care helps kids.
Thank you so much for sharing this address, Lisa. I’m already thinking of some colleagues to whom I’ll send it.
Thank you. This gives voice to the immense suffering of our youth.
I love Roberto.
It’s saying it’s unavailable on my YouTube. Anyone else having trouble?
Thanks for sharing....
Amazing! Thanks so much for sharing! I hadn’t known about SEGM until your article!
Hopefully, Roberto D’Angelo's very reasoned perspective on caring for gender dysphoric youth will be heeded by those working with young people.