Search Results

< Back Children's Rights, Trans Realities | with Scott Newgent Scott Newgent & Benjamin Boyce US Scott Newgent (@TReVoices) is a transman who is very concerned that the current fast-track of childhood medical transition is going to lead to some dire and unintended consequences. Find out more on Scott's Work: https://www.trevoices.org Find him on twitter @TReCVoices.org Support this channel: https://www.paypal.me/benjaminboyce Original Link

Time Out This page isn’t available right now. But we’re working on a fix, ASAP. Try again soon. Go Back

< Back Interview with Scott Newgent By Scott Newgent US T]ransgender health is the gravitative new revenue channel that is drawing in the horrible surgeons and physicians and mental health professionals. You can be dangerously terrible at what you do, jump into this arena, and you have a line of people wanting to see you, you have LGBT organisations protecting you from lawsuits and politicians that don’t have the guts to stand up and say this is wrong. The facts are that Lupron is not FDA approved to treat children with gender dysphoria. I believe the reason they are not pursuing FDA approval is that it will let the cat out of the bag, and an immediate stop order would ensue, preventing Lupron being administered to gender-confused children. When a transition is over, it forces you to look into the mirror and analyze the positives and the negatives, and it’s not all puppies and rainbows. Problems that were eliminated by medical transition are replaced with different issues, and more often than not, medically transitioning is too high a price to pay. I believe that social media is being used by huge corporations to influence homosexual youth to medically transition and, they are fucking marketing geniuses at it. They not only are affecting these kids they are influencing ignorant adults who believe this is about rights to stand up for and push children to medically transition. I can see people in a hundred years time saying, “How in the fuck did that happen.” (ed: let’s hope that happens sooner) Original Link

TReVoices Is The Leading Org Fighting To Stop Childhood Medical Transition World Wide! ​ Led by transman/lesbian Scott Newgent, our relentless SCREAMING to 'STOP Medically Transitioning Children' has been and continues to be heard everyday World - Wide! Make sure we can continue - We Need Your Help - Donate Today. Button Lift The Veil. Parents Get Busy & Learn Why 'Medical Transition Is Not Place For a child.' Sincerely, TReVoices & Everyone Else < Back Tom Blackwell Original Article National Post ​ I feel angry: Why People Regret & Reverse Their Transgender Decisions? By age 14, Eva became convinced she was a transgender boy. By 16, she had come out to her teachers and classmates. Her emotionally manipulative family was less accepting of her decision. But a therapist in Toronto and trans activists she knew had a dramatic proposal. 'I feel angry': Why some people regret and reverse their transgender decisions She could move into the Covenant House youth shelter, and then freely go on hormones to push ahead with medical transition. “They thought it was so important for me to be on testosterone that it was OK if I left home and probably didn’t graduate high school,” recalled Eva, who asked that her last name not be published to preserve her privacy around sensitive issues. “Even at that point in life, when I was 16 and totally believed this was the only thing that was going to save me, I was more rational about it.” She never did medically transition, a process that involves taking cross-sex hormones — testosterone for girls who transition to a male gender identity — and then undergo various surgical modifications. And six years later, on her own at university in Manitoba, Eva decided she’d been “misled,” and was not transgender after all. She was attracted to women, and wanted to be attracted to them as a woman herself. Eva, now 24, is part of a controversial cohort known as detransitioners and desisters, transgender people who come to rethink their decision, often having already undergone drug and surgical treatments. In October she founded an organization – Detrans Canada – she hopes will support individuals she said can feel ostracized by the LGBTQ community. She believes transition is essential for some gender dysphoric youth, but questions a treatment approach she said pushes young people too forcefully in that direction. “I feel a little bit angry, more than a little bit, because other people who’ve been in this position went much further than me,” said Eva. “I have lesbian friends who have no uterus, no ovaries, no breasts and are 21-years old. I’m angry that every single doctor and therapist we saw told us this was the one and only option.” She is convinced that more and more people are detransitioning or desisting, the latter term covering those who did not medically transition, though their numbers are the subject of debate. Detrans Canada has yet to launch a concerted recruitment drive and has fewer than a dozen Canadian members. But Eva noted that a Reddit forum for detransitioners – r/detrans – grew from 3,000 to over 16,000 members in just a few months this year. And several studies have estimated that 60 to 90 per cent of children who identify as transgender no longer want to transition by the time they’re adults, often becoming gay or lesbian. Other research , however, has estimated that actual detransitioners represent as little as one per cent of the trans population. Greta Bauer, the CIHR chair in gender and sex science at Western University, said she’s aware of no research indicating destransitioners’ ranks are expanding. She said many don’t regret their choice, they have simply stopped taking hormones for various other reasons. “What concerns me is that some people seem to think that the existence of any regret justifies denying or delaying care for everyone who needs a treatment,” said Bauer. “This is not the standard by which we evaluate any other medical treatment.” Eva said she suffered from some physical abuse, an eating disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder as a child and by 14 was on anti-depressants. She also knew she was not heterosexual, but “didn’t know what was going on.” Then she saw videos posted online by trans men, people who had transformed from “dumpy women into buffed men,” and the answer seemed at hand. Years later she met friends in Manitoba who were dealing with their identity issues in other ways, and her own dysphoria eventually faded away. But such alternative perspectives seem of little interest to the health-care system, Eva said, or a clientele convinced by the transition-focused approach. “You have teenage girls who have issues with their bodies, issues socially with growing up, they have issues about their sexuality,” she said. “It’s no surprise that they have been given this fix, and that they want the fix.

< Back “Blasphemous ideas and the silence dissent: A Review of Abigail Shrier's "Irreversible Damage" By, Megan Mackin Canada This review grew out of a discussion with a dear friend who, at the time, supported gender identity ideology. I, on the other hand, had become increasingly frustrated with the loss of women’s rights to female-only spaces and laws protecting us from sex discrimination, as well as with the silencing of dissent to transgender dogma, and had urged her to examine the available information for herself. Then, I told her, we could revisit the conversation. She did, we did, and together we found pockets of dissent where we could speak further. These small spaces for critical thought on the topic of transgenderism continue to grow across the political spectrum. While we are not alone, as feminists concerned with gender identity ideology, we are — through the loss of access to social and other media, and due to threats of firings and physical violence — effectively silenced. My friend — herself an academic and writer — noted the eerie (apparent) disinterest in Abigail Shrier’s new book, Irreversible Damage, by political and literary communities. Last month, she wrote to me via email, saying “I, too, have been surprised by what appears to be a deliberate silence around [Irreversible Damage] by newspapers and magazines ‘of record.’” She named it, aptly, “a reception vacuum,” calling book reviewers “taste makers and opinion diffusers.” By pretending the book doesn’t exist, they are ensuring the book will not exist for potential readers either, depriving the public sphere of the research and arguments Shrier presents. Shrier contributes frequently to the Wall Street Journal, and among her degrees is a Juris Doctor from Yale University. She is a skilled writer who offers complex ideas with accessible delivery. It is possible the media would have covered her work had she resorted to obfuscating postmodernist jargon. Shrier has received no reviews from the established liberal press — not from the New York Times, The Atlantic, the Kirkus Review, nor any other mainstream online publications. Amazon, which still sells and thus profits from Irreversible Damage — garnering rave reviews there — has refused to allow sponsored ads to promote the book. My friend wrote to me: “Book reviews are a way of creating and nurturing readers by guiding them toward understanding the meanings and significance of a work. That no politically or culturally ‘liberal’ publications online or in print have even dared to acknowledge the existence of Shrier’s exposé of ROGD [Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria], the medical issues endemic to medicalizing children for life, infertility-producing surgeries, mental distress masked as dysphoria, and the real presence of de-transitioners, is no surprise for many of us.” Shrier is terribly careful. She only addresses a narrow subset of “dysphoria”: RODG — the apparent social contagion spreading among circles of adolescent girls who have never previously expressed discomfort with their sex or sex role (“gender”). She explicitly acknowledges and interviews (favourably) adults who identify as transgender, and concedes that young children who insist they are the opposite sex consistently, from the time they are toddlers, may have a legitimate form of dysphoria. From a feminist perspective, because “transgender rights” mean women and girls must sacrifice their rights (for example, female-only shower rooms, shelters, and washrooms must allow males access, under gender identity legislation and policy), and the concept of fighting women’s oppression is undermined (seeking to become a member of the dominant sex is an absurdly individualist solution), Shrier’s acceptance of transgenderism itself is a great deal of ground to cede! Despite this, Shrier is silenced. There are networks of power behind this silencing, and so we must ask who benefits from the transgender trend. Pharmaceutical companies will have lifelong prescribers, as sex cannot actually be changed, so the body must be forced — continually and for life — into conformity. Surgeons, especially those who stitch saline bags into male chests and surgically remove healthy breast tissue from young females, are well supplied with patients. Scott Newgent, a woman who transitioned to become a man and is now speaking out about the process, says hormones amount to “$24,000 per year per trans-identifying child that starts hormone blockers.” Newgent has spent a total of $247,000 USD (to date) for phalloplasty surgery and its resulting complications. A mastectomy for women attempting to become “men” costs around US$11,000, and phalloplasty starts at US$25,000 — with each set of complications adding to the price. (This remains an experimental surgery, and complications are not uncommon.) Facial masculinization and liposuction for reshaping female hips and thighs can cost tens of thousands more. Psychologists and psychiatrists who offer “affirmation” therapies and encourage children’s proclaimed desire to change sex, often bullying the parents into acceptance, are rewarded with referrals and official — often legal — approbation. These groups profit from this “conversion” effort, as healthy, young, and often lesbian and gay bodies are sacrificed to heterosexual conformity. And yet, in a decidedly Orwellian twist, any practice not “affirming” a child as transgender has been decreed “conversion therapy.” Conflating the efforts to “turn” homosexual individuals straight, practiced in the past, with trying to find an underlying cause for a child’s desire to change sex or alter their bodies, is absurdly inaccurate. Allowing or encouraging the child to explore the reasons underlying feelings of discomfort with gender roles or their birth sex is not “conversion.” The immediate, unquestioned affirmation of transgender identity is, increasingly, required by credentialing medical and psychological organizations’ rules of practice, and codified in law. Today, young women who might see themselves as lesbian are pressured to claim transgenderism instead, yet the costs of desisting after transitioning are vastly different than if one changes their mind about homosexuality. To misdiagnose oneself as lesbian or gay doesn’t require later attempts to reverse the effects of dangerous medications, surgeries that are mostly permanent, or the potential loss of sexual response. Some of the effects of testosterone on young women soon become irreversible: after just three months, her voice is permanently deepened. Facial and body hair remain. Though breast tissue taken with mastectomy can be later replaced with saline implants, breast function cannot be restored. And if a young woman attempts phalloplasty, the tissue removed from her arm to create the faux phallus may never heal. One transitioner Shrier interviews who received this “de-sleeving” has little use of the arm, and is now unable even to hold a fork. The surgically created penis may never heal, and complications, including gangrene, can result in disfigurement and internal deterioration. These are among the irreversible damages of the affirmation model. The US National Education Association’s policy demanding affirmation of self-identified trans students means that if a child “comes out” at school, name and sex in school records can be changed without the parents even being notified. Shrier quotes a fifth-grade public school teacher, who says, “[T]heir parental right ended when those children were enrolled in public schools.” This, of course, has never been parents’ understanding, nor was it subject to a vote, or even to a signed agreement. The reason given for such protective affirmation of children is the schools’ anti-bullying mandate. However, to Shrier, “the anti-bullying effort is only a pretext for gender identity education,” which starts in kindergarten, with no opt-out as there is with sex education. This makes “Mom” and “Dad” the bullies from whom children supposedly need protection. This has become common practice in schools across America. If sex-role non-conformity (meaning disinterest in or refusal to conform to the rules of “femininity” imposed on girls or “masculinity” imposed on boys) is at the root of of bullying, as claimed by trans activists and the California Board of Education, this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with transgenderism, as most non-conforming people see gender as the issue, not their bodies. Further, it is absurd and unnecessary to offer up girls’ rights and spaces to boys. Yet this is what transgender “rights” do. Indeed, girls have been found to evade restrooms, or even school, because of a lack of privacy. Many girls who are gender non-conforming would otherwise grow up to be lesbian, but today, “lesbian” is not a word girls often claim. Though their parents might use the term, in the current parlance, young women choose “queer,” “genderqueer,” “non-binary,” or “gay” (a word generally referring to male homosexuals but used to demonstrate “inclusivity”). Trans activism construes same-sex attraction as “transphobic” and antithetical to gender identity ideology, so much so that lesbians are bullied by trans activists, should they not accept males as intimate partners. In her research, Shrier found that the majority of girls who experience ROGD are white and economically privileged. In an effort to discover why this is, she finds that the mothers of this particular group are inclined to avoid strong disagreement with their children, working relentlessly to keep them emotionally comfortable. Familiar with — and consumers of — mental health services, Shrier notes that, “[b]y the time [these girls] reached adolescence, self-focus and self-diagnosis had become an ingrained habit, a way to handle feelings that confused them.” Shrier quotes Lisa Marchiano, Jungian therapist and affirmation dissenter, who explains, “When we construe normal feelings as illness, we offer people an understanding of themselves as disordered.” Shrier writes: “Nearly all of the mothers I spoke to offered me diagnoses of their daughters provided by therapists, the internet, or a book. They suspected their daughters might be a touch autistic or have auditory processing issues or agoraphobia. They may all be right, but I couldn’t help wondering whether the process of diagnosis wasn’t itself altering the outcome, helping to convince suggestible daughters that there really was something wrong with them.” As a feminist, I’m not wholly comfortable with Shrier’s mother-blame. Still, I think she may be on to something. Women and girls are expected to be agreeable and to alleviate or minimize conflict, and this appears more expected, the higher the class status. Marchiano’s take seems fairer. I would push both ideas further: our culture demands mothers make life easier for other adults, but they damage their daughters in the process of socializing them to do the same. Shrier sees ROGD as yet another example of disorders plaguing teen girls, similar to anorexia. When considering diagnostic criteria, the comparison is chilling. What if surgeons were forced to accept patient diagnoses in the same way, and to “affirm” the delusions and desires of severe anorexics? Should self-starving young women be “affirmed” in their feelings of grotesque fatness, encouraged toward further weight loss, and given bariatric surgeries on demand? While this comparison is derided by trans activists, we should not be too eager to discard it. One might take this a step further (Shrier does not), and compare transgender surgeries like breast fabrication or breast removal, as well as other forms of elective cosmetic surgery. When perfectly healthy body tissues are removed — or remade to resemble what they are not — this should be seen as elective, rather than necessary or a form of “treatment.” Can you imagine a surgeon being required to amputate a healthy leg because a patient has self-diagnosed gangrene? Yet gender affirmation therapies have become mandatory, “adopted by nearly every medical accrediting organization,” Shrier explains. “The American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the Pediatric Endocrine Society have all endorsed ‘gender-affirming care’ as the standard for treating patients who self-identify as ‘transgender’ or self-diagnose as ‘gender dysphoric.’” This is a standard no other therapy endorses. The concept of transgenderism is a con job. Shrier, overly kind, calls gender transformation “an uphill battle.” But no one can actually change sex — one cannot turn male sexual organs into female ones, and vice versa. Every cell in the body is sexed. Biological and physical anthropologists can look at a skeleton and determine sex easily, even without DNA testing. Even though people like New York Times columnist and transgender author Jennifer Finney Boylan will insist the creation of a sexually responsive neo-vagina out of penile tissue is quite possible, this is chicanery. More commonly, the result resembles the useless hand of the “de-sleeve” victim mentioned above. Tales abound of necessary and multiple dilations of neo-vaginas, which may end up rotting, as do the faux phalluses, leaving organ damage in their wake. Frequent surgical corrections may be required, even if “successful.” Shrier writes, “Even just connecting all the veins and arteries to allow blood flow to the new appendage” requires surgery “under a microscope, using sutures about one-fourth the thickness of a human hair.” A real virtue of Shrier’s book is her addition of humour and genuine interest in those she interviews to her clarifying analysis. She includes the views of experts; stories from parents; the words of ROGD girls; analyses from radical feminists, some of whom are lesbians; and interviews with adults who are now transgender, or who have desisted and returned to identifying as their birth sex. Rarely have these perspectives come together in any single piece of accessible and easily readable writing. No prior knowledge of the issue or medical expertise is necessary to understand Shrier’s book. It should be a staple of book clubs, the general public, those interested in the issues involved, and anyone with an open mind. We urgently need to move beyond the “affirmation” dogma if we are to have a more sensible public discussion about gender identity. My friend compares the silencing of opposing perspectives to blasphemy laws. ile not operational in the United States, she told me: “The questions raised in every chapter of her book do amount to blasphemy. These questions are sins condemned by the gender orthodoxy and its unquestionable tenets. Unquestioned ideas, from the ‘mutability of gender’ to the erasing of material sex — and the limits of physiology and such — that now has achieved legal or quasi legal status in the U.S., Canada, the E.U., and Australia, for example. The strength of NGOS like the Arcus Foundation pouring cold cash into the sort of activism that creates ‘truths’ that give the feel of inevitable groundswells of progress and liberation.” As we sat in social distance and discussed further on my tree-shaded porch, we realized the parallels to the battle Andrea Dworkin fought against pornography. Just as the exceedingly well-funded pornographers could wage intellectual and legal war against Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, the many medical industries allied behind transgenderism have followed suit. So has the Cancel Culture of the “woke” Left, which has framed radical feminists and those concerned with rights for women and girls as the enemy, deserving of physical violence and forcible loss of income. While continuing to defend the sex industry as harmless “work,” the woke Left now also demands women forgo rights to placate male desires and identities. Backed by institutions, charities, and wealthy investors like Martine Rothblatt, Jon Stryker, the Pritzker family, and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the trans lobby seems untouchable. To the detriment of girls and women of all races and social classes, the current combining of socially progressive movements with the obligatory inclusion of all manner of trans issues has worked. In fact, the trans lobby has jumped on the “intersectionality” train and is now sitting next to the conductor giving everyone direction as to where to go. It shouldn’t surprise us that Shrier addresses identitarian politics in her book. Her nod to white being a hated identity, however, is an overstatement of the current dogma on college campuses, and a misunderstanding of the idea of privilege. For whites, a bizarre campus culture requiring the confessing of the “sin” of being white at every turn does exist. Some of this is necessary, though, as we in the US address racist police violence and the consequent protests. Comfortable people do not change, and clearly change is needed, in the form of racial reparations and deep revisions in institutions. Many of us are eager for a more mature and focused form of protest, with well-considered demands for real change at the centre. Shrier does not deal well with the concept of privilege. Privilege means better treatment compared to a logical reference group, not “living in elegance or luxury.” As an old, fat, working class white woman, I have witnessed the fact that I am regarded as having more value, honour, and acceptance while moving within the culture, as compared to an old, fat, working class black woman, and this is confirmed by others’ experiences, too. The sons of my class can usually walk in any neighbourhood or drive any car without being stopped and questioned by the police. This is not the case for the sons of working class black women. Shrier is correct in pointing out that many of those with white and class privilege are using manufactured marginalizations — mental disorders disguised as oppression — to escape that privilege. Shrier’s claim that white girls hold “the most reviled identity on campus” is questionable, and she fails to name patriarchy as an issue. Our only hope in dialogue is to hear all sides of an issue and discuss them. As an old radical feminist I am painfully aware that in reaching out to young sex-role non-conformists, my voice is preemptively discounted. The culture is rabidly ageist: my decades’ worth of experience is viewed as worthless, and labelled bigotry. Young women are denounced for listening to the experiences of old women, and we are forced to sit by and watch as they learn to hate their natural bodies and their womanhood. We are silenced online, on the job, and in our communities if we are found to have tried. And still, we do. And still, we are increasingly finding young women as allies, and as leaders. If schools and other institutions that spread knowledge were to acknowledge sex roles and how they limit what individuals of either sex can be, and work against bullying on account of difference — sex, race, class, ability, or impairment — and sex role deviation, it would be great. But when that could have been implemented, during second wave feminism’s challenge of sex roles and stereotypes, there was no funding for or interest in doing so. Clearly, unless a woman is a doormat, and unless a man is a stone wall, we all defy our assigned sex role. I’ve heard so many women of my generation and even younger say that they are relieved they were not born later. The pressure, especially for lesbians — but truly for all non-doormat women — to see themselves as transgender would have been immense for us, too. Conforming, and all the positive attention attached to a declaration of trans identity — the claims of “courage” lavished on the acolytes of genderism — would have been ego-assuaging for us, too. Feminism of the radical kind saved our generations and offers a lifeline to young women today. Instead of the backlash that passes for liberation, we need to reclaim the analytical tools of 1970s feminism. The generation gap is a way to cut the transfer of knowledge from one generation to another. We cannot afford this. Shrier — not a radical feminist — understands the need for a transfer of feminist ideas, which may encourage other women to take a deeper look. Girls’ lives matter. I give Shrier credit for authoring this necessary book. It is the first to put the many pieces together clearly and accessibly. Read Irreversible Damage and share it with others — it is a brave and daring book that ought to be part of the public discussion. Original Link

< Back You need to know what the 12 leading complications of childhood medical Transition By, Scott Newgent US 12 Leading Complications-Medical Transing Kids-USA Estimate Of Money Generated-312 Million A Year! Start Screaming Louder Parents Links included within to verify facts. Please check them because if it shocks you to read them, guess what it will do when you take the time to verify the truth? Here is what we do know about medical transition Decreased life expectancy Premature death from heart attacks Premature death from pulmonary embolisms Bone damage Possible liver damage Increased mental-health complications Increases chances of mood-syndrome symptoms Increased suicide rates than the non-trans population 12% higher chance than no trans population to develop symptoms of psychosis Brain development stunted during hormone blockers Reduced chance for lifelong sexual pleasure Probably does not even improve mental health outcomes Here is what really gets my goat: What will happen to a biological boy who takes sex hormones associated with the opposite sex (or vice versa) and grows up without the benefit of natural puberty? What happens to a male body on estrogen over the long term? No one knows. What are the psychological effects on detransitioners? How many detransitioners are there even? No one knows. Homosexuality: Born, your child has blonde hair, blue eyes, and an IQ of 121 & homosexual. Things born that do not change...EVER! Transgenderism: You create by using synthetic hormones and surgery; it a choice. I know I know they say it's not; of course not! Do you know how much money is made off of transitioning children? In the UK in ten years hormone blockers generated approximately: Two million yearly to 50 million yearly: This 4000% spike happened in less than 10 years. Do I need to say anything else? Once you see that you can't play dumb anymore! (oh, and the UK banned them, thank God) Hormone blockers are 8X more expensive when they are prescribed to children than adults. The average cost for kids to be on hormone blockers in the USA = $19,999 per year, per child In the UK the number of kids medically transitioning from 2009-2018 went from 96 kids to 2515-4515% increase UK Population/Children = 11,759,000 - .00021421889 ratio (estimate mirroring the UK) of the population of kids transitioning Let's use that same ratio here in the USA USA Population = 73,000,000 Take that ratio compare in the USA - 15,638 kids transitioning Fiscal numbers for the UK $19,999 X 96 kids transitioning = $1,919,904 - 2 million to 50 million per year! 4515% increase $19,999 X 2519 kids transitioning = $50,377,481 If we use that same ration it would equal the break down to a rough estimate of 3,371 kids in Indiana medically transitioning or 15,638 kids in the USA medically transitioning Money Generated: Fiscal numbers for the USA USA Kids = 15,638 on hormone blockers = $312,744,362 Average Yearly Cost For Hormone Blockers: $19,999 In 2006 96 kids on HB in the UK - $1,919,904 In 2018 2515 kids on HB in the UK - $50,377,481 50 ---------------------------------------------------------- Homosexuality: Conversion therapy doesn't work. Conversion therapy to change people's sexuality works about as good as yelling at a person for a month that they do not have blue eyes and if they had faith they would be brown- It's ridiculous! Transgenderism: Is promoted to kids that have gender dysphoria, which is a severe mental illness. What do we know about mental illness? Metal illness distorts reality and throws onto the fire of a brain that has not matured enough to see around corners. Sprinkle in the greed of pharmaceutical corporations, and you have a catastrophe. 80% of children work their way out of gender dysphoria with talk therapy and anxiety medications, and this is a good thing! This is not bad or a transphobic thing, remember I am trans, and I have fully medically transitioned from top to bottom. We want to give our kids time to grow out of gender dysphoria because here is something people don't talk about, and trans don't speak about. The only people that do are the detrasitioners and thank God for them telling the truth. Here is the truth: Medical transition makes gender dysphoria worse! Think I'm kidding? Talk to a therapist that specializes in anorexic children. I guarantee you will not find one that says, "The best therapy I prescribe to my anorexia patients is a daily class on the benefits of starvation. This works wonders helping with the mental illness of anorexia." Said no therapist in the world ANYWHERE! It's nuts! Currently Canada has a bill - Bill C-6 criminalizing any mental health professionals, anyone schools, parents, everyone from having the ability to say, "What makes you feel gender dysphoric? Where do you believe this is coming from and why? Let's work this through and figure out what is best." The only option is straight to medical transition, no questions asked. The ONLY people that benefit from that is; pharma. FYI, these companies are in my country the USA; Canada is feeding the US economy by being so ignorant and without the ability to have some balls and stand up and say, "Aww wait for a second, this doesn't seem right, and I don't care who's feelings I hurt." Why is this a bad thing to go straight to medical transition without healing GD with talk therapy? You know that study that came out in 2019, the one the trans activist parade saying "Medical Transition Cures Gender. Dysphoria," Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries? It was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, which purported to show the transition benefits, do you remember? I do! It was retracted with the truth "Medical Transition" does not help anything, cure anything, but it comes with life long medical complications! Every mental health study that has backed, promoted and agreed with medically transitioning children as the first line of defense due to the high success rate has been retracted. EVERYONE! Parents Scream Louder Original Link

TReVoices Is The Leading Org Fighting To Stop Childhood Medical Transition World Wide! ​ Led by transman/lesbian Scott Newgent, our relentless SCREAMING to 'STOP Medically Transitioning Children' has been and continues to be heard everyday World - Wide! Make sure we can continue - We Need Your Help - Donate Today. Button Lift The Veil. Parents Get Busy & Learn Why 'Medical Transition Is Not Place For a child.' Sincerely, TReVoices & Everyone Else < Back Abigail Shrier Original Article EYE ON THE NEWS Writer, Author: IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters (2020). Named to "Best Books" lists by the Economist, Times of London philosophicalinvestigations@protonmail.com When the State Comes for Your Kids by Abigail Shrier Ahmed is a Pakistani immigrant, a faithful Muslim, and until recently, a financial consultant to Seattle’s high-tech sector. But when he reached me by phone in October 2020, he was just one more frightened father. Days earlier, he and his wife had checked their 16-year-old son into Seattle Children’s Hospital for credible threats of suicide. Now, Ahmed was worried that the white coats who had gently admitted his son to their care would refuse to return him. “They sent an email to us, you know, ‘you should take your ‘daughter’ to the gender clinic,’” he told me. At first, Ahmed (I have changed names in this essay to protect the identities of minor children) assumed there had been a mistake. He had dropped off a son, Syed, to the hospital, in a terrible state of distress. Now, the email he received from the mental health experts used a new name for that son and claimed he was Ahmed’s daughter. “They were trying to create a customer for their gender clinic . . . and they seemed to absolutely want to push us in that direction,” he said when I spoke to him again this May, recalling the horror of last October. “We had calls with counselors and therapists in the establishment, telling us how important it is for him to change his gender, because that’s the only way he’s going to be better out of this suicidal depressive state.” Syed had been a “straight-A student” and—according to his parents and the family’s therapist—quite brilliant. He is also on the autism spectrum, a young man who neglects to make eye contact and must be given rules for how long to shake hands, shower, or brush his teeth. High school was a slog for him, as it often is for kids on the spectrum who find that the social demands of adolescence have risen beyond their capacity to meet them. “He tried to ask a few girls out. It didn’t work out and he got frustrated and angry, and that kind of thing. And so, those girl-boy things get kind of tough for autistic kids, those developmental issues. And that’s where puberty can be very, very hard with the hormones rushing and all this stuff.” When lockdowns hit, the boy who was already struggling socially and befuddled by questions neurotypical teens take for granted (How do I show a girl I like her? How do I make the other kids include me?) began to spend all day and night on the Internet. “He’s an autistic kid, and so he kind of lost track of time. And he was staying up a lot. So he was staying up, just being on the Internet, Twitter, Tumblr, whatever. . . . And he was in his room, just, you know, sleeping one or two hours a day. And that can really be devastating. He was very confused. He was seeing things, visual hallucinations. And we didn’t know why.” It is not definitively known why many neurodiverse adolescents identify as transgender, but more than one scientist has pointed out the high rates of coincidence. As several autism experts have explained to me, those on the spectrum tend to fixate, and when a contagious idea is introduced to them—such as the notion that they might be a “girl in a boy’s body”—they are particularly susceptible to it. As child psychiatrist and expert in gender dysphoria Susan Bradley said to me: “The messages these kids pick up [from trans influencers] when they’re online is, ‘We’re the only people who understand you. Your people, your parents, don’t really understand you.’ And it may be the first time in their lives that anybody has said to them, ‘We understand you. We know you. You’re okay. You’re just like us.’ And it’s powerful.” I asked Bradley if introducing gender ideology to kids who tend to fixate is like introducing cocaine to those susceptible to addiction. She agreed: “It has the same power to assuage all the alienation and grief and distress that these kids have been struggling with.” Because of a Covid-19 policy, Ahmed could not stay at the hospital with his son back in October. Syed, in a sleep-deprived and confused state, furious at the parents who had admitted him, and in consultation with hospital staff and a social worker, decided that his problem was gender. The age at which minors in the State of Washington can receive mental health and gender-affirming care without parental permission is 13. In other words, the emails Ahmed received from the hospital were effectively a courtesy; the hospital did not require Ahmed’s permission to begin his son on a path to medical transition. But unlike some other parents I would later speak with, Ahmed’s cool head prevailed. Believing he might be walking into a trap, Ahmed reached out to both a lawyer and a psychiatrist friend he trusted. The psychiatrist gave him advice that he believes saved his son, saying, in Ahmed’s words: “You have to be very, very careful, because if you come across as just even a little bit anti-trans or anything, they’re going to call the Child Protective Services on you and take custody of your kid.” The lawyer told Ahmed the same: “What you want to do is agree with them and take your kid home. When the gender counselors advise you to ‘affirm,’ go along with it. Just say ‘Uh-huh, uh-huh, okay, let’s take him home, and we’ll go to the gender clinic.’” Ahmed assured Seattle Children’s Hospital that he would take his son to a gender clinic and commence his son’s transition. Instead, he collected his son, quit his job, and moved his family of four out of Washington. Was Ahmed’s reaction extreme? When I first heard it, back in October 2020, I wondered whether he hadn’t overreacted. But as a growing number of parents began contacting me with similar stories, and I delved into the state laws of Washington, Oregon, and California, I came to a different conclusion. Taken individually, no single law in any state completely strips parents’ rights over the care and mental health treatment of their troubled minor teens. But pieced together, laws in California, Oregon, and Washington place troubled minor teens as young as 13 in the driver’s seat when it comes to their own mental health care—including “gender affirming” care—and renders parents powerless to stop them. Here, for instance, are the powers granted to a 13-year-old child by the state of Washington. Minors age 13 and up are entitled to admit themselves for inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment without parental consent. Health insurers are forbidden from disclosing to the insured parents’ sensitive medical information of minor children—such as that regarding “gender dysphoria [and] gender affirming care.” Minors aged 13 to 18 can withhold mental health records from parents for “sensitive” conditions, which include both “gender dysphoria” and “gender-affirming care.” Insurers in Washington must cover a wide array of “gender-affirming treatments” from tracheal shaves to double mastectomies. Put these together, and a seventh grader could be entitled to embark on “gender affirming care”—which may include anything from a provider using the child’s name and pronouns to the kid preparing to receive a course of hormones—without her parents’ permission, against her parents’ wishes, covered by her parents’ insurance, and with the parents kept in the dark by insurance companies and medical providers. Lest you wonder whether there is some madcap elixir polluting the groundwater of Washington State alone, in 2015, Oregon passed a law permitting minors 15 and older to obtain puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries at taxpayers’ expense—all without parental consent. In 2018, California passed a similar bill for all children in foster care, age 12 and up. The California state senate is now considering an amendment to the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act that would bar health insurers from disclosing medical information to parents about their dependents, on pain of criminal liability. One Washington mother I spoke with, Nicole, has a 16-year-old daughter who struggled with an eating disorder and other mental health problems after being molested by a peer in elementary school. Just before her 13th birthday, the daughter decided she was transgender. “She hated her body, that was truly a real thing,” Nicole told me. “So we wanted to find her help.” But Nicole wasn’t convinced that her daughter had gender dysphoria, since she’d never before shown any signs of discomfort with her biological sex. “She had already been through a whole counseling program with the eating disorder and none of this came up.” Over the next few years, Nicole’s daughter’s mental health worsened, and she began self-harming. After her daughter attempted suicide in 2019, Nicole took her to the emergency room at Highline Hospital (now St. Anne Hospital) in Burien, Washington. Nicole explained to the social worker at the hospital that, though the daughter was insisting her problem was gender, she’d been beset by a variety of mental health struggles for many years. Nicole said that she and her husband were not convinced by the gender dysphoria self-diagnosis and did not “affirm” their daughter’s trans identity. “The social worker was very nice to us,” Nicole told me. “She didn’t show any indication that she was not believing what we were saying or anything like that.” But a nurse attending Nicole’s daughter who had been through the same thing with his own daughter took pity on Nicole and her husband. When the social worker left the room, Nicole says, he warned them that she was on the way to “emancipate” their child. Washington law does not allow a minor to petition for emancipation until age 16. But according to several parents I spoke with, under the guise of “advising transgender youth of their rights,” social workers will sometimes sprinkle that tidbit onto a 14-year-old, so she knows liberation is only two years away. Nicole and her husband didn’t wait. They immediately took her home. That was probably a good thing. Her daughter had full rights to go to a shelter where, had she elected to, she could be “affirmed” and started on a path toward medical transition. And, as it turns out, once a troubled teen over the age of 13 elects to stay in a shelter in Washington, it can be fiendishly difficult to extract them. Instead, more than a year later, Nicole reports that her daughter is much better, as is their relationship. The daughter has dropped the idea that she is transgender and is tapering off of anti-depressants. Julie’s troubled 14-year-old daughter never identified as transgender. But Julie’s account of her tussle with Washington social workers and youth shelters—the details of which are corroborated by two different police reports—sheds critical light on the state’s approach to at-risk teens aged 13 and up. Julie specifically asked to go on the record about her experience—that’s how angry she is about what happened to her. I’ve masked her last name only to protect her minor daughter, Kayla. Kayla had long suffered severe mood swings, anxiety, and depression, stemming from childhood trauma at the hands of a father who sexually abused her. Though a no-contact court order has kept Julie’s ex-husband away from his daughter for several years, the girl’s depression began spiking in recent months, and she developed worrying signs of mental instability; according to Julie, Kayla’s current therapist has described these symptoms as “textbook borderline personality disorder.” On March 17, 2021, Julie dropped her daughter off at church youth group. At around 8 PM, Julie received a call from the pastor that Kayla had threatened to kill herself by overdosing on pills. Kayla didn’t actually have any pills on her, according to the police report filed that day, but she had announced her intention to procure some. When Julie headed to the church, her daughter ran away. The pastor drove Kayla straight to the emergency room at Seattle Children’s Hospital, where she was admitted. Because of the pandemic, Julie was not allowed into the hospital room with Kayla, but at some point during her daughter’s stay, Julie believes a social worker at the hospital suggested to Kayla that if she didn’t want to go home, she had the right to stay at a youth shelter. After a night in the hospital, Kayla called her pastor and asked to be driven to the YouthCare Hope Center, a shelter for the protection of kids, ages 12 to 17, experiencing homelessness, abuse, or extreme family conflict. When the hospital called Julie to tell her that Kayla was asking to stay at a homeless shelter, Julie was horrified. “I said, ‘Well, that’s, that’s absurd. She has a home, she has a family who loves her. Clearly, you’re not sending CPS—we’ve done nothing wrong. She doesn’t need to go to shelter.’ And the [hospital staff member] said, ‘Well, she’s 14, so she gets to make that choice for herself.’” The staff member was right that Kayla had a right to check herself in for inpatient treatment (though the worker was wrong that this particular YouthCare center qualified). Once Kayla got there, extracting her proved a nightmare. Unless Kayla voluntarily exited the shelter, Julie could neither see her daughter nor take her home. And it is very clear that Julie’s daughter did not want to return home to mom. Among their several mother–daughter disagreements, Kayla was furious with her mother for the rules Julie had established for Internet use. There were boys with whom Kayla conducted online relationships, which Julie worried about; Julie feared that some of these friendships were with adult men posing online as teens. She had attempted to cut off Kayla’s ability to communicate with them. According to Seattle police officer Nathan Bauer’s report, shelter social worker Micaela Leavell was aware that Julie did not want her daughter at the facility. But Leavell told the officer that she “felt it was better” if the girl remained at the shelter because the daughter “feels ‘unsafe’ at her mother’s house.” Officer Bauer noted that Leavell “could not elaborate on any specific concerns” that the girl mentioned other than she “stated she would harm herself if she were returned.” If Julie’s daughter had concrete reasons for “feeling unsafe” in her mother’s home, she seems never to have provided them to any of the bevy of mental health care or social workers who attended her. Several times a day, for the next few days, Julie called the YouthCare shelter to speak with her daughter. Each time, she was told that her daughter did not want to speak with her. At this point, Julie operated under a cloud of belief that the social workers at the shelter had her daughter’s best interest at heart. But Julie retained her daughter’s cell phone. She saw the messages coming in and out, apparently sent by her daughter from a computer at the shelter. And she saw that her daughter had sent the following message to a youth pastor: “Hey! I’m pretty sure I found a lawyer that will help me to stay in the [shelter] program since my social worker/case manager highly suggested that I find one as soon as possible cause he is worried that my mom will try to pull me out.” Julie realized her daughter seemed to be working toward legal emancipation, with the help of a lawyer arranged by the shelter. Julie later learned that the shelter had found her daughter an attorney and was working to try and file a Child in Need of Services petition. This would have made the shelter Kayla’s legal guardian, for all practical purposes. Indeed, several parents of trans-identified teens told me that the social workers who had attended to their daughters during a mental health crisis or suicide attempt had begun coaching their daughters on “emancipation,” under the guise of “advising them of their rights.” Many of the social workers encouraged the idea in psychologically vulnerable teens—who likely welcomed the suggestion—that their parents’ rules, decisions, and objections to the teens’ behavior constituted “abuse,” the parents said. Officer Bauer’s report, regarding the case of Julie and her daughter Kayla, tends to corroborate this. Kayla’s case manager, Oscar, volunteered to the police that YouthCare staff “provides the children with information on resources and courses of action, like emancipation, when asked by clients.” (I emailed Oscar to find out how much “asking” a teen needs to do before a social worker suggests emancipation, but I never received a response.) The published Washington State Department of Children, Youth & Families guidance informs children’s administration staff that they are not permitted to disclose a child’s LGBTQ+ identities to the parents; instructs them to use forms that “clearly distinguish the legal name and gender from chosen name and gender,” presumably to prevent accidental slip-ups on the secret understanding they’ve established with a child to her parents; and requires them to refer a child or youth who wants to participate to “LGBTQ+ related services,” including “behavioral health and medical providers that affirm their identity.” Lest you think that “affirming” by a medical provider merely entails use of name and pronouns, the guidance defines “Gender Affirming” as “medical procedures that changes [sic] a person’s body to conform to their gender identity.” In the end, it would take a team of eight officers to remove Julie’s daughter forcibly from the shelter. By that time, Julie already had a plan for Kayla’s treatment—in Arizona, where Kayla now resides in an inpatient treatment center for suicidality and depression. But the first order of business was to extract her daughter from Washington. If you’re familiar with the traditional model of youth shelters, you might assume that they are filled with kids whose parents either didn’t want them or subjected them to abuse. But as the definition of “abuse” has expanded to mean everything from physically harming a child to not “affirming” a child’s newly proclaimed gender identity, youth shelters seem to have ballooned to house even children from stable, loving families who desperately want their children back. In 2012, agencies responding to a Williams Institute at UCLA Law survey reported that about 40 percent of the homeless young people they served identified as LGBTQ. From this bare statistic, many infer that LGBTQ teens are being frequently kicked out of their homes by bigoted parents. Far from it. I asked Alexa Goodenow, an outreach worker at the SafePlace for Youth crisis hotline, which connects at-risk youth with a network of Seattle shelters, what challenges LGBTQ+ youth face that lead them to a shelter. “I would say one of the most common things that we see is just that cultural disconnect between them and their support system,” she said. “So, hypothetically speaking, maybe a young person who’s now identifying as non-binary or coming out as maybe gay or lesbian and bisexual and maybe families aren’t supportive of that. So we do see a lot of that because in the Seattle area, we get a lot of melting pot of backgrounds. So maybe the young person’s views don’t quite align with their at-home support.” Being a teenager is no picnic. But removing minor children from their parents’ home didn’t used to be a matter of a parent–child “cultural disconnect”—or the young person’s views not “quite align[ing] with their at-home support.” The point was to provide sanctuary for children who would otherwise suffer physical harm or psychological torment. Today, a teenager can declare an LGBTQ identity that is unsupported in her home and claim that this lack of support puts her mental health at risk. “For our young people experiencing homelessness, over 90 percent of them cite family conflict as a cause of homelessness,” said Suzanne Sullivan, Chief Advancement Officer at YouthCare, who confirmed for me that almost 30 percent of the young people at her shelter identify as LGBTQ+. “We see a lot of young people who have different sexual identities or gender identities that are not supported at home. At YouthCare, we believe that every young person deserves to live their life to the fullest and that includes gender and sexual identity. We are affirming at all of our locations and we don’t feel that it’s acceptable not to be,” she said. YouthCare houses adolescents and young adults ages 12 to 24. For child services in states that regard “gender affirming care” as the only humane way to treat a troubled teen who’s suddenly decided she’s transgender, the power the state grants them to undermine and even remove parents who object to these treatments is alarming. I asked Sullivan if the teens who come to YouthCare are being abused at home. “There are a lot of individual young people, so each story is unique and each story is different. And there are all different forms of mistreatment and neglect and abandonment. In some cases, kids are kicked out. In some cases, they leave.” In a state that grants minors aged 13 and up control over their mental health treatment—in a society that increasingly defines “abuse” as any of a variety of limits a parent might place on the gender or sexual exploration of a minor—it is easy enough for a troubled teen to decide that parents are “bad for my mental health.” A credible threat of suicide seems sufficient to earn a child an indefinite right to stay in a youth shelter, where she can hang out with other teens and free herself from meaningful supervision. (I spoke with one parent outside of Washington whose troubled 15-year-old was able to smoke marijuana and develop an alcohol problem at a youth shelter, according to a psychiatric evaluation I reviewed. In Julie’s case, she told me that, while Kayla was at the YouthCare shelter, she was often able to skip Zoom school.) After Sullivan refused to answer more questions over the phone, I emailed her for comment on the claim by parents that “once their teens choose to stay at one of the shelters, if they are over 13, they are hard to extract.” Sullivan—who many times during our call invited me to email her with questions—wrote back to say that she had no comment. It isn’t hard to see why a rebellious teen struggling with mental health problems might not want to return home from a youth shelter, even to a loving family. Take Lambert House, a “safe place for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth ages 11-22,” according to its website. Activities include “Minecraft,” “Poetry Slam / Art Share,” “Saturday Night Lambert Live!” and “Boys Who Like Boys Group.” That might seem like a fun set of social activities for college students. It’s a little more troubling to consider that, based on a perusal of the activities calendar, many of the events seem to facilitate socializing between 22-year-olds and adolescents as young as 11. I called Lambert House several times for clarification, but never received a call back. I did, however, speak with Vernadette Broyles, president and founder of Child and Parental Rights Campaign. A Harvard-educated lawyer, Broyles represents parents in child custody, child protective services, and school cases. I asked Broyles point-blank: Was she seeing the same the pattern I had noticed—namely, loving parents bringing a suicidal, trans-identified teen to the E.R., which ensnares her in a child services network that will not relinquish her? “Yes, that is one of the patterns,” she said. “We’re seeing national patterns. . . . One is the very deliberate and systemic erosion of parental rights.” Broyles believes that this erosion leaves girls, especially, “disproportionately vulnerable.” According to the parents I’ve talked with, it’s hard to argue with that. One mother I spoke with had had Child Protective Services called on her by her own therapist, after she had explained in therapy why she had chosen not to “affirm” her young trans-identified teen daughter. In that instance, the mom said, the social worker accepted the mother’s explanation that this did not constitute abuse. She counts herself lucky. What advice does Broyles give parents if Child Protective Services shows up at their door? “Without a warrant or court order, you do not talk to them. You do not let your child talk to them. You should absolutely not let them interview your child with or without you. You don’t let them into your home, you don’t let them into your car. You don’t let them into your hospital room if you’re there in the hospital, you don’t let them into the room with you if you’re in a doctor’s office. You don’t let them in without a warrant or a court order, regardless of what they say. Because once they’re in they will take whatever you say or your child says and potentially use it against you. And then the next thing you know, there’s a possibility that they go to a court, to a judge, ex parte, and get a court order to remove your child. That’s distinctly possible.” Following up on Ahmed’s family, I spoke with Syed’s therapist, an autism expert, to find out how he has been doing since moving with his parents and sister out of Washington. She confirmed what Syed’s father told me: Syed is no longer suicidal, nor does he believe he is transgender. As a 17-year-old autistic boy, he shows startlingly advanced intellectual development and in social realms, can seem quite childish: He’s doing advanced work in philosophy, she tells me—and also remains fascinated by his sister’s My Little Ponies. That’s more than okay with his mom and dad.

< Back Interview with Trans Man & Leading International Phycologist On Childhood Gender Dysphoria Interview With Leading International Phycotherapist Stella O’Malley & Scott Newgent International 1111 Original Link

TReVoices Is The Leading Org Fighting To Stop Childhood Medical Transition World Wide! ​ Led by transman/lesbian Scott Newgent, our relentless SCREAMING to 'STOP Medically Transitioning Children' has been and continues to be heard everyday World - Wide! Make sure we can continue - We Need Your Help - Donate Today. Button Lift The Veil. Parents Get Busy & Learn Why 'Medical Transition Is Not Place For a child.' Sincerely, TReVoices & Everyone Else < Back Keira Bell Original Article ​ 24 year old British activist Keira Bell's story From the earliest days, my home life was unhappy. My parents—a white Englishwoman and a black American who got together while he was in Britain with the U.S. Air Force—divorced when I was about 5. My mother, who was on welfare, descended into alcoholism and mental illness. Although my father remained in England, he was emotionally distant to me and my younger sister. I was a classic tomboy, which was one of the healthier parts of my early life in Letchworth, a town of about 30,000 people, an hour outside London. Early in childhood, I was accepted by the boys—I dressed in typically boy clothing and was athletic. I never had an issue with my gender; it wasn’t on my mind. Then puberty hit, and everything changed for the worse. A lot of teenagers, especially girls, have a hard time with puberty, but I didn’t know this. I thought I was the only one who hated how my hips and breasts were growing. Then my periods started, and they were disabling. I was often in pain and drained of energy. Also, I could no longer pass as “one of the boys,” so lost my community of male friends. But I didn’t feel I really belonged with the girls either. My mother’s alcoholism had gotten so bad that I didn’t want to bring friends home. Eventually, I had no friends to invite. I became more alienated and solitary. I had been moving a lot too, and I had to start over at different schools, which compounded my problems. By the time I was 14, I was severely depressed and had given up: I stopped going to school; I stopped going outside. I just stayed in my room, avoiding my mother, playing video games, getting lost in my favorite music, and surfing the internet. Something else was happening: I became attracted to girls. I had never had a positive association with the term “lesbian” or the idea that two girls could be in a relationship. This made me wonder if there was something inherently wrong with me. Around this time, out of the blue, my mother asked if I wanted to be a boy, something that hadn’t even crossed my mind. I then found some websites about females transitioning to male. Shortly after, I moved in with my father and his then-partner. She asked me the same question my mother had. I told her that I thought I was a boy and that I wanted to become one. As I look back, I see how everything led me to conclude it would be best if I stopped becoming a woman. My thinking was that, if I took hormones, I’d grow taller and wouldn’t look much different from biological men. I began seeing a psychologist through the National Health Service, or NHS. When I was 15—because I kept insisting that I wanted to be a boy—I was referred to the Gender Identity Development Service, at the Tavistock and Portman clinic in London. There, I was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which is psychological distress because of a mismatch between your biological sex and your perceived gender identity. By the time I got to the Tavistock, I was adamant that I needed to transition. It was the kind of brash assertion that’s typical of teenagers. What was really going on was that I was a girl insecure in my body who had experienced parental abandonment, felt alienated from my peers, suffered from anxiety and depression, and struggled with my sexual orientation. After a series of superficial conversations with social workers, I was put on puberty blockers at age 16. A year later, I was receiving testosterone shots. When 20, I had a double mastectomy. By then, I appeared to have a more masculine build, as well as a man’s voice, a man’s beard, and a man’s name: Quincy, after Quincy Jones. But the further my transition went, the more I realized that I wasn’t a man, and never would be. We are told these days that when someone presents with gender dysphoria, this reflects a person’s “real” or “true” self, that the desire to change genders is set. But this was not the case for me. As I matured, I recognized that gender dysphoria was a symptom of my overall misery, not its cause. Five years after beginning my medical transition to becoming male, I began the process of detransitioning. A lot of trans men talk about how you can’t cry with a high dose of testosterone in your body, and this affected me too: I couldn’t release my emotions. One of the first signs that I was becoming Keira again was that—thankfully, at last—I was able to cry. And I had a lot to cry about. The consequences of what happened to me have been profound: possible infertility, loss of my breasts and inability to breastfeed, atrophied genitals, a permanently changed voice, facial hair. When I was seen at the Tavistock clinic, I had so many issues that it was comforting to think I really had only one that needed solving: I was a male in a female body. But it was the job of the professionals to consider all my co-morbidities, not just to affirm my naïve hope that everything could be solved with hormones and surgery. Last year, I became a claimant against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in a judicial-review case, which allows petitioners in Britain to bring action against a public body they deem to have violated its legal duties. Few judicial reviews get anywhere; only a fraction obtain a full hearing. But ours did, with a panel of three High Court judges considering whether youths under treatment at the clinic could meaningfully consent to such medical interventions. Bell in January 2020, after she brought legal action against the clinic. My team argued that the Tavistock had failed to protect young patients who sought its services, and that—instead of careful, individualized treatment—the clinic had conducted what amounted to uncontrolled experiments on us. Last December, we won a unanimous verdict. The judges expressed serious doubts that the clinic’s youngest patients could understand the implications of what amounted to experimental treatment with life-altering outcomes. In their ruling, the judges repeatedly expressed surprise at what had been going on at the Tavistock, particularly its failure to gather basic data on its patients. They noted the lack of evidence for putting children as young as 10 years old on drugs to block puberty, a treatment that is almost universally followed by cross-sex hormones, which must be taken for life to maintain the transition. They also had concerns about the lack of follow-up data, given “the experimental nature of the treatment and the profound impact that it has.” Notably, a growing wave of girls has been seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. In 2009-10, 77 children were referred to the Gender Identity Development Service, 52% of whom were boys. That ratio started to reverse a few years later as the overall number of referrals soared. In England in 2018-19, 624 boys were referred and 1,740 girls, or 74% of the total. Over half of referrals were for those aged 14 or under; some were as young as 3 years old. The court noted the practitioners at the Tavistock did not put forward “any clinical explanation” for the dramatic rise in girls, and expressed surprise at its failure to collate data on the age of patients when they began puberty blockers. The ruling does not completely prevent a minor from beginning a medical transition. But the judges recommended that doctors consider getting court permission before starting such treatment for those 16 to 17; they concluded it was “very doubtful” that patients aged 14 and 15 could have sufficient understanding of the consequences of the treatment to give consent; and that it was “highly unlikely” for those aged 13 and under. In response, the NHS said that the Tavistock had “immediately suspended new referrals for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for the under-16s, which in future will only be permitted where a court specifically authorizes it.” The Tavistock appealed the ruling, and the court will hear its appeal in June. The puberty blockers that I received at 16 were designed to stop my sexual maturation: The idea was that this would give me a “pause” to think about whether I wanted to continue to a further gender transition. This so-called “pause” put me into what felt like menopause, with hot flushes, night sweats, and brain fog. All this made it more difficult to think clearly about what I should do. By the end of a year of this treatment, when I was presented with the option of moving on to testosterone, I jumped at it—I wanted to feel like a young man, not an old woman. I was eager for the shots to start, and the changes this would bring. At first, the testosterone gave me a big boost in confidence. One of the earliest effects was that my voice dropped, which made me feel more commanding. Over the next couple of years, my voice deepened further, my beard came in, and my fat redistributed. I continued to wear my breast binder every day, especially now that I was completely passing as male, but it was painful and obstructed my breathing. By the time I was 20, I was being treated at the adult clinic. The testosterone and the binder affected the appearance of my breasts, and I hated them even more. I also wanted to align my face and my body, so got a referral for a double mastectomy. My relationship with my parents continued to be difficult. I was no longer speaking to my mother. My father had kicked me out of his apartment shortly after I turned 17, and I went to live in a youth hostel. He and I were still in touch, though he was adamantly opposed to my transition. Reluctantly, he took me for the surgery. I was a legal adult when it took place, and I don’t relieve myself of responsibility. But I had been put on a pathway—puberty blockers to testosterone to surgery—when I was a troubled teen. As a result of the surgery, there’s nerve damage to my chest, and I don’t have sensation the way I used to. If I am able to have children, I will never breastfeed them. Around the end of that first year post-surgery, something started happening: My brain was maturing. I thought about how I’d gotten where I was, and gave myself questions to contemplate. A big one was: “What makes me a man?” I started realizing how many flaws there had been in my thought process, and how they had interacted with claims about gender that are increasingly found in the larger culture and that have been adopted at the Tavistock. I remembered my idea as a 14-year-old, that hormones and surgery would turn me into someone who appeared to be a man. Now, I was that person. But I recognized that I was very physically different from men. Living as a trans man helped me acknowledge that I was still a woman. I also started to see what I was living out was based on stereotypes, that I was trying to assume the narrow identity of “masculine guy.” It was all making less and less sense. I was also concerned about the effect my transition would have on my ability to find a sexual partner. Then there was the fact that no one really knew the long-term effects of the treatment. For instance, the puberty blockers and testosterone caused me to have to deal with vaginal atrophy, a thinning and fragility of the vaginal walls that normally occurs after menopause. I started feeling really bad about myself again. I decided to stop, cold turkey. When I was due for my next testosterone shot, I canceled the appointment. After I came to this decision, I found a subreddit for detransitioners. The number of people on it started rising, as if all these young women had come to a collective realization of the medical scandal we had been a part of. It was a place we could talk about our experiences and support each other. I felt liberated. What happened to me is happening across the Western world. Little of my case was a surprise to those paying attention to the Tavistock whistle-blowers who in recent years have spoken out in alarm to the media, sometimes anonymously. Some have left the service because of these concerns. But the transgender issue is now highly political and wrapped up in questions of identity politics. It can be perilous to raise questions or doubts about young people’s medical gender transitions. Some who have done so have been vilified and had their careers threatened. At the Tavistock, practitioners provide “gender affirmative care”—in practice, this means that when children and teens declare a desire to transition, their assertions are typically accepted as conclusive. Affirmative care is being adopted as a model in many places. In 2018, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement on the treatment of young people who identify as transgender and gender diverse that advocated for “gender-affirmative care.” But former Tavistock practitioners have cited varied problems suffered by the kids who sought help, such as sexual abuse, trauma, parental abandonment, homophobia in the family or at school, depression, anxiety, being on the autism spectrum, having ADHD. These profound issues, and how they might be tied up with feelings of dysphoria, have often been ignored in favor of making transition the all-purpose solution. As the High Court found, much of the clinic’s treatment is not even based on solid evidence. At the time our case was accepted, the NHS was asserting that the effects of puberty blockers are “fully reversible.” But recently, the NHS reversed itself, acknowledging “that ‘little is known about the long-term side-effects’ on a teenager’s body or brain.” That didn’t stop them from prescribing these drugs to people like me. Dr. Christopher Gillberg, a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at Gothenburg University in Sweden and a specialist in autism, was an expert witness for our case. Gillberg said in his court statement that over his 45 years of treating children with autism, it was rare to have patients with gender dysphoria—but their numbers started exploding in 2013, and most were biological girls. Gillberg told the court that what was happening at the Tavistock was a “live experiment” on children and adolescents. Parents who are reluctant or even alarmed about starting their children on a medical transition may be warned, “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a live son?” (Or vice versa.) I had suicidal thoughts as a teen. Suicidal thoughts indicate serious mental health problems that need assessment and proper care. When I told them at the Tavistock about these thoughts, that became another reason to put me on hormones quickly to improve my well-being. But after the court ruling, the Tavistock released an internal study of a group of 44 patients who had started taking puberty blockers at ages 12 to 15. It said that this treatment had failed to improve the mental state of patients, having “no significant effect on their psychological function, thoughts of self-harm, or body image.” Additionally, of those 44 patients, 43 went on to cross-sex hormones. This suggests blocking puberty isn’t providing a pause. It is giving a push. Before beginning on testosterone, I was asked if I wanted children, or if I wanted to consider freezing my eggs because of the possibility that transition would make me infertile. As a teenager, I couldn’t imagine having kids, and the procedure wouldn’t have been covered by the NHS. I said I was fine if I couldn’t, and I didn’t need to freeze my eggs. But now as a young adult, I see that I didn’t truly understand back then the implications of infertility. Having children is a basic right, and I don’t know if that has been taken from me. As part of its defense, the Tavistock put forth statements from a few young trans people who are happy with their care. One is S, a 13-year-old trans boy who got puberty blockers from a private provider because the waiting list at the Gender Identity Development Service was so long. S told the court that he had “no idea what me in the future is going to think” about being able to have children and that since he has never been in “a romantic relationship,” the idea of one is not “on my radar at the moment.” Lots of teenagers, when contemplating future sexual relationships, feel baffled and even disturbed at the thought. Those same people, when adults, often feel very differently. I know, because this happened to me. I’d never been in a sexual relationship at the time of my transition, so I didn’t truly understand what the transition would mean sexually. S’s statement demonstrates how difficult it is for minors to give consent for procedures they can’t yet understand. As the judges wrote, “There is no age-appropriate way to explain to many of these children what losing their fertility or full sexual function may mean to them in later years.” Bell speaking to the media after the court ruling last December. (Photo: Sam Tobin/PA Wire) Today, at 24, I’m in my first serious relationship. My partner is very supportive of everything I do, and I am the same for her. She has a large group of female friends who accept me; it’s been very healing. For now, I don’t speak to either of my parents or have a relationship with them. I still get taken for male sometimes. I expect that, and I’m not angry about it. I know that I will live with that for the rest of my life. What I am angry about is how my body was changed at such a young age. People want to know if I’m going to have reconstructive surgery of my breasts or do other things to make me look more female. But I haven’t fully processed the surgery I had to remove my breasts. For now, I want to avoid more such surgical procedures. When I joined the case, I didn’t realize how big it would become. What has happened since the ruling has been a rollercoaster. Many people have thanked me. I have also been attacked online. If you’re someone who regrets transitioning and decides to speak out about your experiences, you’re considered a bigot. You may be told that you’re trying to take away trans rights, that children know what’s best for themselves and their bodies, and that you’re ruining kids’ lives. But I am focused on what is best for distressed young people. A lot of girls are transitioning because they’re in pain, whether it’s from mental-health disorders, or life trauma, or other reasons. I know what it’s like to get caught up in dreaming that transitioning will fix all of this. Although sharing my story has been cathartic, I still struggle, and have yet to receive appropriate therapy. As I go on with my life, I plan to continue to be an activist on behalf of this cause. I want the message of cases like mine to help protect other kids from taking a mistaken path. This year, I helped create the first Detrans Awareness Day, on March 12. I hope that, in years to come, this day can be a beacon to empower others. I do not believe in rigid gender expression. People should be comfortable and feel accepted if they explore different ways of presenting themselves. As I said in my statement after the ruling, this means stopping the homophobia, the misogyny, and the bullying of those who are different. I also call on professionals and clinicians to create better mental health services and models to help those dealing with gender dysphoria. I do not want any other young person who is distressed, confused, and lonely as I was to be driven to conclude transition is the only possible answer. I was an unhappy girl who needed help. Instead, I was treated like an experiment.

< Back The case for deep-sixing Bill C-6 By, Barbara Kay​ Canada Barbara Kay: The case for deep-sixing Bill C-6 Despite broad support in the House, the proposed law to ban conversion therapy reaches too far Late last month, 306 members of Parliament gave approval in principle to “conversion therapy” Bill C-6, with only seven Conservative party votes opposed (leader Erin O’Toole supported it, but permitted his MPs a free vote). The House of Commons justice committee is reviewing public responses to it. C-6 defines “conversion therapy” as any “practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.” It adds five offences to the Criminal Code, three of them punishable by up to five years in prison. Barbara Kay: The case for deep-sixing Bill C-6 The bill is deeply problematic, beginning with the preamble, which claims it is a “myth” that gender identity “can or ought to change.” It is no myth that gender identity can change. If one or two of Canada’s top-tier experts in gender dysphoria research had been consulted in the bill’s creation, the working group would have learned that without invasive intervention, 80 per cent or more of gender-dysphoric children who identify as the opposite sex revert to comfort in their natal sex post-puberty. A significant number of these children emerge as gay or lesbian. But these scientific experts were not consulted. Not a good look on the framers. Another serious problem is the misleading conflation of homosexuality with gender identity, leading to pivotal imprecision around the core word “conversion.” On the one hand, we’re told it is conversion therapy to encourage distressed homosexuals to achieve eventual comfort in being what they are not (this is actual conversion therapy). On the other, we’re told it is conversion therapy to encourage distressed gender dysphoric children to feel eventual comfort in being what they are. A recent submission by Pamela Buffone to the standing committee on justice and human rights respecting C-6 illuminates this core fallacy at the very heart of the bill. The Buffones are awaiting a hearing date at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. They claim a form of “conversion therapy” was practised on their daughter in her Grade 1 classroom. On multiple occasions, the girl’s teacher told the class, “There’s no such thing as girls and boys,” reinforced by materials like videos promoting theories of gender fluidity. The daughter recounted one whiteboard lesson, during which the children were directed to write their names on a gender spectrum according to the degree they “felt” like a typical girl or boy. The daughter put her name at the end of the spectrum beside “girl.” But in this same lesson, the teacher told the children, “Girls are not real and boys are not real.” The Buffones’ previously happy daughter became so anxious about her identity not being “real” that she fretted constantly, even asking if she should see a doctor. Buffone states in her attestation, “What happened in my daughter’s classroom was ‘a practice designed to change a person’s gender identity’ — the very definition of conversion therapy that you are criminalizing with your bill.” Buffone’s logic seems impeccable to me. The Buffones met with everyone from the teacher right up the education-system chain to the top, and were stonewalled at every turn. They were told this was “the new reality” they had to accept. The College of Teachers told them this ideology is ingrained in the Ministry of Education curriculum, and that “what was being taught was effectively mandated by our government.” Canada is behind the global curve on this file. In September Britain’s National Health Service announced it would conduct an independent review of the treatment offered to gender dysphoric children. The review is to be wide-ranging and will cover a multiplicity of treatment approaches. Sweden is also doing a “U-turn” on gender transitioning of children in response to calls from experts to strengthen science-based research and to correct the “knowledge gaps and uncertain knowledge” that have been a “central theme” of gender-related health-care activities. Finland as well, whose health services are similar to ours, recently issued very strict clinical guidelines for the treatment of children with gender dysphoria. The guidelines recognize that “identity exploration is a natural phase of adolescence.” Psychotherapy is to be prioritized as the first recourse — that is, real exploration of all sources of distress rather than reflexive affirmation — and, amongst other common-sense precepts, no surgical interventions under age 18. Their bottom line is that variation in gender identity as such is not a health problem. Notably, the expert group that formulated the recommendations comprised actual experts: psychiatrists, a plastic surgeon, lawyers and an ethicist. Notably, too, Finland’s report states the need “for more information on the disadvantages of procedures and on people who regret them.” That is, detransitioners, the people trans activists snub, because they invalidate the “myth” of gender-identity immutability. In the United Kingdom, two detransitioners have brought a case against the National Health Service’s leading gender clinic over what they claim was too-hasty affirmation leading to later regret. The argument that children can give informed consent to the prescription of puberty blockers is a “fairy tale,” the high court has been told . One of them, 23-year-old Keira Bell, says health professionals “should have challenged me more.” Justice Minister David Lametti says that C-6 does not proscribe “legitimate discussions” about identity between therapists and patients. But what is legitimate? If a child “feels” he is the opposite sex, can therapists inform the patient of the high statistics attached to post-puberty desistance? Can they inquire into other sources of anxiety or depression? Can they suggest exploring for evidence of autism in a rapid-onset case of a teenage girl determined to transition, given the known high correlation? Can they lay out the plentiful risks associated with long-term use of synthetic hormone therapy? These seem like “legitimate” discussion points to me, but I can see where fear of criminal charges might dampen interest in pursuing them. In a critique of Bill C-6, American transman Scott Newgent extrapolated a story from a Swedish study that looked at mental-health outcomes after gender-affirming surgery. In it, a young transman calls home, sobbing: “Mom, I can’t have kids … I have early-onset osteoporosis, and I will be dependent on drugs for the rest of my life. Mom, I was a lesbian and a kid; why did you let me do this to my body?” There are plenty of Canadian parents who would prefer not to “let” exactly this tragedy happen to their children. But Bill C-6 won’t “let” them try. By the way, that Swedish transman killed himself. We don’t want this story reprised in Canada. The deeply flawed C-6 should be deep-sixed. National Post kaybarb@gmail.com Twitter.com/@BarbaraRKay Original Link

< Back Ashley Amerson Product Manager This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Want to view and manage all your collections? Click on the Content Manager button in the Add panel on the left. Here, you can make changes to your content, add new fields, create dynamic pages and more. Your collection is already set up for you with fields and content. Add your own content or import it from a CSV file. Add fields for any type of content you want to display, such as rich text, images, and videos. Be sure to click Sync after making changes in a collection, so visitors can see your newest content on your live site. info@mysite.com 123-456-7890

Get to know trans people, the real trans living day to day, what they believe, and how they feel. You will find that most older trans people believe what is happening to kids, and transgender ideology is hurtful. The media leaders you currently see do not represent most trans people. Reality Is Not Bigotry < Back Trans Woman Blaire White TReVoices.org - A Trans Activist Making Waves With Reason An Logic. Blaire White is a well-known YouTube star, political commentator, and businesswoman. She is also a proud trans woman who is very vocal about her thoughts and opinions about various social issues. In 2015, she started her feminizing hormone therapy. The political commentator waited until she was 20 years old to disclose her true identity to her loved ones. Today, she is a transgender woman who strongly opposes beginning a gender transition journey before adulthood. White is addeemed controversial for supporting J.K. Rowling. The author tweeted a 'joke' that was seen as transphobic among trans and cis people alike. Blaire claimed she saw nothing wrong with Rowling’s thoughts and people were just being sensitive. She further stated that trans and cisgender women were not the same. Read More Twitter Youtube Podcast Most Recent Work: Exposing Jessica Yaniv: Trans Predator

Get to know trans people, the real trans living day to day, what they believe, and how they feel. You will find that most older trans people believe what is happening to kids, and transgender ideology is hurtful. The media leaders you currently see do not represent most trans people. Reality Is Not Bigotry < Back Trans Man Aaron Kimberly TReVoices.org - A Trans Activist Making Waves With Reason An Logic. Aaron has been a mental health clinician since 2008 after 15 yrs as a graphic designer. He lives in Canada, with a banjo on his knee. He medically transitioned in 2006. "I’ve had gender dysphoria (GD) for as long as I can remember. At least since age 3. I was raised female, but when I was 19, I was diagnosed with a rare intersex condition called an otovestibular disorder of sex development. I think my GD is related to that, though I have no way of knowing for sure. I tried to live with my GD as a young adult and identified as a lesbian, though it never felt right to me, and I wasn’t happy. I experimented with ways to express my masculinity. I changed my name to Aaron when I was 22." Aaron runs GDAC in Canada to bring awareness about the OTHER side of trans. You know the sane side. Website Twitter Email TReVoices Contributions: A Butch Lesbian Transitioned Into A Transman -"Gender Ideology Hurts More Than It Helps" Latest Work: Transparency Podcast With Guest 'Kathleen Stock'

Get to know trans people, the real trans living day to day, what they believe, and how they feel. You will find that most older trans people believe what is happening to kids, and transgender ideology is hurtful. The media leaders you currently see do not represent most trans people. Reality Is Not Bigotry < Back Trans Woman Dr. Debbie Hayton TReVoices.org - A Trans Activist Making Waves With Reason An Logic. Physics teacher and trade unionist, originally from the north of England. Dr Hayton has written extensively about what it means to be trans and how trans people can be accommodated in society without compromising the rights of other vulnerable groups. Since 2016, she has been a vocal opponent of gender self-identification and supports laws that aim to protect women-only spaces based on anatomical sex rather than gender identity. She has spoken at meetings for Woman's Place UK, a "gender-critical" group. Hayton has written for The Times, The Economist, Quillette, The Spectator and UnHerd. She has also appeared on the BBC, Sky and GB News channels and was interviewed by the National Review. Website Twitter Debbie Transgender Awareness Training Additional Publications: Times, Spectator, Unherd, RT, Morning Star, Economist, Quillette Latest Work: Bristol Uni issues a guide with terms including 'catgender': Debbie Hayton and Dr Jane Hamlin react

Get to know trans people, the real trans living day to day, what they believe, and how they feel. You will find that most older trans people believe what is happening to kids, and transgender ideology is hurtful. The media leaders you currently see do not represent most trans people. Reality Is Not Bigotry < Back Trans Man Harley Stofiel TReVoices.org - A Trans Activist Making Waves With Reason An Logic. TReVoices Posts: A Trans Man Explains the Yin/Yang Of Chinese Medicine & How It Play Havoc On A Biological Woman

< Back A Trans Campaigner Speaks Out against Biden’s Transgender Activism​ By, Madeleine Kearns & Scott Newgent US Madeleine Kearns: Hey, Scott. Thank you so much for speaking with me today. We’ve been in touch for quite a while, but it seems that I’m not the only writer interested in your perspective and efforts to educate the public about the dangers of transgender extremism. J. K. Rowling described you as a “hero.” The comedy writer Graeme Linehan said he recognized in you “a similar soul.” And I believe you may even have appeared in an excellent new book that lots of us worried about transgender ideology have been reading. For those who don’t know who you are, I’ll just explain how you got involved in the transgender debate. You were born female and had a medical and surgical “sex-change” intervention six years ago at the age of 41. In the interest of time, I’ll just list some of the consequences of the transition (as it’s called), as you yourself have described them (and have kindly provided evidence of in the form of medical records, pictures, and other documentation): Seven surgeries A pulmonary embolism An induced stress heart attack Sepsis A 17-month recurring infection 16 rounds of antibiotics Three weeks of daily IV antibiotics Complete hair loss Loss of arm function Arm reconstructive surgery Permanent lung and heart damage Bladder damage Insomnia Hallucinations Hair growth on the inside of your urethra PTSD $1 million in medical expenses Lost home, car, job, career Marriage break-down Temporarily unable to look after your children So far, unable to sue the surgeon responsible in part because there is no baseline for care for transgender patients Does that about sum it up? Scott Newgent: Yeah. And passing out multiple times from pain. MK: I think that one of the first questions at the forefront of our readers’ minds on being confronted with that list is: Why did you do it? What were you hoping to get out of transition? Did you understand the risks of these complications before you started the process? SN: Barbara Kay, a writer in Canada who has become a friend of mine, asked me that question recently. She was like, “Have you ever thought of why you did this?” And I wrote it down as a draft chapter of a memoir and sent it to her, to which she said, “There’s gotta be more reason than that.” And then I started to write it again and as I started to write it again, I just started to break down and just bawl my eyes out. I realized that there are so many more reasons why I did this. The family that I come from is a very male-dominated family that has produced a lot of male athletes. And I saw at a very young age how that male dominant personality caused problems in my childhood everywhere. Like “Kellie, you need to do this, this way. Kellie, you need to do it this way.” And I started to think, after talking with Barbara, how much easier it would have been for me to be born male. I started to look at the structures of my life and the struggles of my life and realize that if I had swapped chromosomes in my mother’s stomach, I would have been the quintessential male. I would have been a professional athlete, a college star. I would have been everything. I knew that, and because I wasn’t, I struggled with it. When I was seven years old, I said to my uncle that I wanted to be a boy for Christmas. And he was like, “Well, you can’t be that. Do you want me to get you a guitar?” All the women in my family dressed really feminine and I learned to carry myself as a woman. Later, when I came out as lesbian, I was never a butch lesbian. Then my wife, who I got divorced from, was a devout Catholic. I mean, almost over the top to the point where I thought it was a kind of mental illness. And she couldn’t handle the idea that she was a lesbian. She would say that I seemed more like a male. And I’d come to a place in my life where I was tired of being a lesbian. I reflected on all my childhood stuff and started to think that maybe she’s right. I started to see some of the whole transgender craze. I thought maybe there was something wrong with me. Maybe I was born in the wrong body. MK: So, let me ask this as a follow-up. When you were getting these surgeries and medically transitioning, were you under the impression that you were going to literally change your sex? SN: Yeah. They actually tell you that. MK: Right. Let’s move from the personal to the political. President Biden has promised to pass the Equality Act which would redefine sex to include gender identity in federal anti-discrimination law. Obviously, you’ve been through transition. Are sex and “gender identity” the same thing in the way the — SN: Maddy, you know I don’t even know what people really consider sex or consider gender. I can give you my own ideas on it. I don’t get caught up in all that crap. I don’t know what all that is. Can you just ask me something in English? MK: The reason I’m asking this is that the effort on the political level is to redefine sex in the way that it was presented to you by your surgeons — as “gender identity” — as this thing that is going to cure all your problems. It is this same kind of thinking is being enshrined into law. Do you think that is going to help people? SN: No, it’s not going to help. Here’s the thing. You can’t transition genders. You are who you are biologically. If I die and you bury me in the dirt and dig up my bones a hundred years later, they are going to say, “That was a female.” That doesn’t change. But what you can do is make a person look different. I call it like a hybrid, which is that you can take females and remove estrogen and pour on testosterone and it creates a totally different effect. The way I think is different, the way I look is different, but it’s also different than being a male. I’ve created something unique. And what I don’t understand in the trans community is why that reality is not accepted. MK: One of the things that the Equality Act is going to do, similar to the executive order on “gender identity” that’s just passed, is force women’s only spaces, shelters, sports teams, and all the rest of it to include people who are biologically male. I know that you of all people can truly empathize with people who struggle to accept their biological sex. Given that, do you think that such a policy is helpful or fair? All Our Opinion in Your Inbox NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon. No charge. SN: No, it’s not going to help. And it’s not fair because what we’re essentially doing is we’re allowing males to go into female spaces. There is no baseline for, “Hey, you know what? This person has been on estrogen for 20 years. This person has been on estrogen for ten years. We have this study here that says that this is when the body uses all its strength from a male standpoint.” What we’re doing in society right now is allowing a thought, a feeling, a delusion to dictate legislation. We are not going back to reality. We’re not doing studies because when we actually do, those very studies go against what all the transgender activists are saying. It’s basically saying, “Hey, you know what, women, you guys should have fought all these years for all these rights and we’re going to give them to men, too.” It’s absolutely wrong. And it’s creating this thing in society — which I think is hilarious — where people who have never transitioned, never watched anybody transition, want to jump on the LGBTQ rights train and argue with me about what transgenderism is and what it is not. And they seem to believe in this mass hysteria that you can swap genders and that it’s not that big of a deal. Oh, and that if you don’t like it, you can de-trans, which is another fantasy that people are putting out. It is a major, major medical undertaking and it fixes nothing. That’s what I don’t think people understand. It does not fix mental health. It does not fix anxiety. It actually makes it worse. MK: There is another transgender policy that’s topical right now. The Trump administration said that you can identify as trans in the military, so long as you are willing to bunk with your biological sex, but what you can’t have is continued treatment for gender dysphoria or require “special accommodations.” What do you think of Biden’s recent decision to repeal that? SN: And have transgender people in the military? MK: Yes, and people with gender dysphoria. SN: And gender dysphoria is basically feeling like you were born in the wrong body, that you are the opposite sex? MK: The American Psychiatric Association would define gender dysphoria as clinically significant feelings of that nature, the sort that requires ongoing treatment. SN: I know the answer to this, but I’m asking you if gender dysphoria is believing you are the opposite sex and you are not, or believing that you are the opposite sex and you were born in the wrong body? What is gender dysphoria? MK: Gender dysphoria is defined clinically as a marked feeling of incongruence between your gender identity and your sex — which is rather circular in my view, because the fundamental questions still remains: What is gender identity? I’ve been studying gender identity for years now and the closest I can get to defining it is by its mysterious, unfalsifiable, and potentially determinative association with sex. SN: Right. So here’s what Trump’s Department of Defense did. They looked at “gender dysphoria.” They looked at the military. They tried to find studies. They tried to figure out where gender dysphoric people should be, where transgender people should be. And they found what everybody else has found, which is nothing but, “I feel, I felt.” So, what he did was he eliminated people from the military and for good reason. Until society is able to define what transgenderism is and what it is not, we need to be the people that step back and say, “You know, we’re gonna let the studies come out. We’re going to step away from sports. We’re going to step away from the military. We’re going to make everybody else feel comfortable because we are a small portion of society.” Once these studies come out that define what we are, what we are not, how we can transition, then let’s figure out how we work into society. Biden is simply giving in to all the trans activists who say trans women are women. But no, they’re not. The reality is that trans women are men who take estrogen. That’s functionally different. It’s not bigotry, it’s reality. It’s called protecting women. So, I agree with Trump on it: 100 percent, 150 percent as a trans person. MK: Throughout the 2020 presidential campaign, various Democratic candidates expressed the desire to assist and facilitate child transition. What do you make of that? SN: This was really hard for me because I’ve done it. I deal with people who have done it. I’ve known a couple of kids who became adults and killed themselves, realizing that only then [after transition] were they in the wrong body. I’ve got three kids who are at the age where it is legal and possible to medically transition in the United States. If I could get up and shake Biden … I would do it. He is a total idiot to allow kids to do this. An absolute idiot. Transgenderism, medical transitioning, is plastic surgery. It creates an illusion. If you go into it, thinking that it changes anything, you come out at the end with the only long-term study that tells us the highest suicidal ideation is seven to ten years after medical transition. Why do you think that is? Because you have to face reality at some time. So, we’re taking children that suffer from mental illness, that suffer from a dysphoria, that don’t fit in, and we’re clumping them into a group of people that are listed like superheroes right now to medically transition. And they’re going to grow up and they’re going to hit 25. And they’re going to say, “Hey, mom and dad, I can’t have kids. 90 percent of the population won’t date me. I have early onset osteoporosis. My heart is the size of a twelve-year-old, because you paused my puberty. I have anxiety. I have all these things and you know what? Now I’m in the wrong body. Now I’m going to kill myself.” So, we have a president that is pushing this because he’s too much of an idiot to say, “You know what, maybe we should study this.” You may not like Trump, but what you can say about him is that he does the tough things. Biden does not. He has a portion of his party that accepts transgenderism, that doesn’t even know what the f*** it is. And it bothers me. The kids thing bothers me. MK: One of the reasons this debate is obscured over here is a false left/right division that seems to be applied to every issue. In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell, a young woman who began the process of irreversible treatments similar to yours before the age of 16 recently won her case in the U.K. Supreme Court, which ordered that Britain’s National Health Service to stop all these treatments for those under 16. Would you like to see similar laws passed in the United States? SN: Yes, I’m very familiar with that case. First of all, Keira is so strong, and she saved so many people. I’m so thankful for her. But what happened in the U.K. is something that is not happening in the United States. It’s not happening in Canada. Which is, this: People brought that situation forward as a united front. So, there were women, there were men, there were people from all the different parties, there was a judge. And the reason why it passed, by the way, is because that judge said, “Hey guys, we’re not going to talk about, ‘I feel, I felt.’ What we are going to talk about are the facts.” So, every time Mermaids [a U.K. charity promoting sex-changes for children] and the transgender activists argued, “But people are going to kill themselves!” The court said, “Where’s the study?” “Well, hormone blockers are safe.” Where’s the study? “Well it helps mental illness. Here’s the study!” You mean the study that was retracted? “How about this study?” No, that one was retracted, too. Do you have a study that wasn’t retracted that says it helped mental health? No? Okay, we’re not going to do that. So basically, it came down to the fact that we have no firm understanding of what happens to people when they medically transition. What we do have is the documented list of problems, mental illness, this and that, and guess what? It’s not a good idea. And it had nothing to do with a political stance. The thing that bothers me is that right now we have five bills that are trying to halt medical transition here in the United States, and each one of them is run by conservative, evangelical Republicans. All the people supporting them are all Christian. And I’ve talked to several people about this. What they do is they try to talk about this as a religious issue. Like “I’m representing Christianity, I’m representing evangelicalism,” or whatever. And I’m saying, “Hey, how about bringing this to the forefoot, representing children, to keep children safe?” Here’s a transgender person. Here’s a gay person. Here’s the evangelical person. Here’s the Republican person. Here’s a Democrat. We have everybody covered. Okay. So, you can’t call us a bigot. Cause we got the whole circle around it. We’re all here. Now let’s talk about facts. Like they did in the U.K. But they’re not doing that. The politicians that are bringing these bills know that they will not pass. They know it. I was actually on a call that I dropped off because the senator, I won’t say his name, laughed when I said, “Are we going to get a hearing?” Laughed. Why are you doing it then? What is it you’re after? Your name in the paper? Is that why? Because I’ll tell you, I’ve got about 20 kids I’m talking to that that want to shoot their heads off and you want to laugh because you’re not getting a hearing because all you want is for the other evangelists to say, “Good boy! Good Christian!” What about the kids? MK: Final question. Most people would accept, especially with the list I read out at the beginning, that you’ve had a really hard time. And most people would not want to make your life any harder. The reason I mention this is that while the activist types can’t be reasoned with, there are many people out there who are very well-meaning who just want to help minorities, who are maybe being taken in by some of this. What laws, policies, or social attitudes would help people in similar situations to yours? SN: Well, I want to say, first of all, gender dysphoria is a mental illness. There’s no way medical transition can help anybody with gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is an inside out problem. You have to fix it on the inside. You don’t fix it on the outside. Now with that said, since the beginning of time, we’ve all changed our looks. Like we’ve been wearing lipstick for how many years? We’ve been wearing mascara for how long? We have all been trying to enhance the way that we look. So, we need to look at trans people, in reality. Trans people are people who are not comfortable with the way that they look, so they take synthetic hormones to create an illusion of the opposite sex. It will never be a biological switch. It is an illusion. To say so is not hateful; it is reality. I’ve lived it. I’ve talked to several hundred people who’ve lived it. It’s a very small portion of transgender people who are making all the fuss. Unfortunately, people who don’t want to make a fuss, don’t come out. They don’t need to, they don’t want to. Most women who get breast augmentations are not walking down the street going, “I was born with these bad boys. Can you believe how awesome I am?” No. You had a breast augmentation! They’re not yours! Don’t run down the street drawing attention to them, that’s craziness. If you want to get plastic surgery, do it. If you want to create an illusion of the opposite sex, do it — do it as an adult, get it regulated, have medical guidelines for care. Don’t allow anybody to get into the business. But don’t say, “Hey, you know what? 99.99 percent of society is going to cower to the 0.01 percent that has a mental illness that we are trying to treat the wrong way.” It’s idiotic. It’s politics. Biden is doing nobody any favors. Original Link

< Back Abigail Shrier - Scott Newgent Chapter "Blake" by Abigail Shrier US Irreversible Damage is an exploration of a mystery: Why, in the last decade, has the diagnosis "gender dysphoria," transformed from a vanishingly rare affliction, applying almost exclusively to boys and men, to an epidemic among teenage girls? Author Abigail Shrier presents shocking statistics and stories from real families to show that America and the West have become fertile ground for a "transgender craze" that has nothing to do with real gender dysphoria and everything to do with our cultural frailty. Teenage girls are taking courses of testosterone and disfiguring their bodies. Parents are undermined; experts are over-relied upon; dissenters in science and medicine are intimidated; free speech truckles under renewed attack; socialized medicine bears hidden consequences; and an intersectional era has arisen in which the desire to escape a dominant identity encourages individuals to take cover in victim groups. Every person who has ever had a skeptical thought about the sudden rush toward a non-binary future but been afraid to express it—this book is for you. Original Link

< Back Documentary 'TRANSMISSION' - What's the rush to reassign gender? Director, Jennifer Lahl International PLEASANT HILL, Calif., June 17, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The Center for Bioethics and Culture has produced a powerful documentary film, "Trans Mission: What's the Rush to Reassign Gender?," taking a deep dive into the gender identity industry, exploring the issues around allowing children to medically and surgically transition. The film looks into what gender identity affirmation means when it becomes a doctor's endorsement of a minor's distress, or whether doctors can know if patients who diagnose themselves with gender dysphoria will remain happy with irreversible cosmetic procedures. Trans Mission: What's the Rush to Reassign Gender? Trans Mission: What's the Rush to Reassign Gender? Exploring the impact of gender identity affirmation on children, the film cuts through the noise and dissects how open discussion and free speech are gashed when affirmation becomes the rule for allowable public debate. "Trans Mission" explores these issues in 52 minutes of interviews with 17 doctors, parents, activists, and adults who sought medical affirmation of their gender identities. It discusses how others lash into people with concerns about gender identity beliefs, pushing them out of the conversation. One mother tells her story of how doctors scared her into thinking her daughter would commit suicide unless they let them put her on puberty blockers. Brenton, the father of a young boy, talks about the pressure that doctors put on the boy's mother to start him on hormone treatments early, while he was still growing, and the expectations this created for his son. "He has a fantasy of taking a potion and that he's going to be like Peter Pan," said Brenton. Dr. Paul Hruz, a pediatric endocrinologist, says that doctors' pressure on hesitant parents is hard to challenge without a medical background. Yet he says, "there's a very good reason to be concerned about the outcome specifically, that some of the largest studies that have been done with the longest follow-up have shown that suicide rates remain markedly elevated after you undergo these affirmation interventions." With these serious issues at stake, the film zeroes in on how anyone who expresses concern about child transition is being shut out of the public debate. Whether it's Twitter banning outspoken feminists like Meghan Murphy, or Australian universities canceling talks by pediatric endocrinologists like Dr. Quentin Van Meter, Trans-Mission lays out how hard it's become for anyone to dissent from the social prescription to affirm gender identity. As a reviewer, Dr. Heather Brunskell-Evans, sociologist and author of "Transgender Body Politics, said," The film powerfully conveys that children with gender dysphoria are the victims of a powerful ideology, with bereft parents desperately attempting to protect them in the face of social hostility." Alix Aharon, a co-founder of Partners for Ethical Care and founder of The Gender Mapping Project, says a documentary like this is crucial, especially with the hundreds of counted gender clinics for children and teens in the United States, Australia, Canada, and Europe. James Lindsay, best-selling author and founder of New Discourses, says, "One of the most concerning and harmful things happening in the world today is the wholesale and uncritical encouragement of transition in minors." "Trans Mission sheds much-needed light on this issue and is an invitation to start having crucial conversations about it that will lead to protecting some of our most vulnerable kids. Watch this film, share it, and start talking." Lindsay says. Viewers can share the Trailer, or watch the documentary on Vimeo or YouTube. Contact Details Business: Trans Mission, by the Center for Bioethics and Culture Name: Jennifer Lahl E-mail: 312410@email4pr.com Contact Number: 925-407-2660 Country: United States Original Link

< Back Trans Get Twitter-Banned For Trying To Save Troubled Youth By, Simon Daily & Scott Newgent US Liberals are getting ridiculous with their bans and canceling. There is no such thing as freedom of speech for conservatives on popular social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. So when post-op transman Scott Newgent started explaining the horrors of sex-change surgeries and how hormonal therapies have terrible side effects, Twitter banned Newgent’s account. I guess libs don’t want confused people to hear a dissenting opinion that could make them rethink their position. Newgent’s story: “During my own transition, I had seven surgeries. I also had a massive pulmonary embolism, a helicopter life-flight ride, an emergency ambulance ride, a stress-induced heart attack, sepsis, a 17-month recurring infection due to using the wrong skin during a (failed) phalloplasty, 16 rounds of antibiotics, three weeks of daily IV antibiotics, the loss of all my hair, (only partially successful) arm reconstructive surgery, permanent lung and heart damage, a cut bladder, insomnia-induced hallucinations—oh and frequent loss of consciousness due to pain from the hair on the inside of my urethra. All this led to a form of PTSD that made me a prisoner in my apartment for a year. Between me and my insurance company, medical expenses exceeded $900,000. During these 17 months of agony, I couldn’t get a urologist to help me. They didn’t feel comfortable taking me on as a patient—since the phalloplasty, like much of the transition process, is experimental. “Could you go back to the original surgeon?” they suggested. Several lawyers suggested I had a slam-dunk medical malpractice case—until they realized that trans health doesn’t really have a justiciable baseline. As a result, treatment often is subpar, as I have experienced first-hand. Original Link