Transgenderism to be declared mental illness by ACP in Summer 2016 statement

[Rau]

…we all know that no matter what a person thinks, it cannot change their physical sex.

so why are there people encouraging these poor souls who believe they are not the sex that their bodies are to continue in that delusion. it is nothing but a delusion and to encourage people in delusions is not an act of love.

There is some truth in what you say.

Those who encourage the so-called “transition” of another may perhaps do so in the belief that without it, the person will continue to suffer grievously from dysphoria. The steps of transition are so serious (in the medical sense) that I cannot imagine they do it for any kind of frivolous reason. If overcoming the “delusion” were a matter of receiving a “good talking to”, or some other less destructive therapy, I’m sure it would be preferred. Common sense says that the motivation for such serious steps must be very high indeed, and while I can scarcely understand the decision, I suspect I need to understand more about the problem before condemning those involved.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Galileo’s & Copernicus’s biggest critics were not in the church. They were his fellow “scientists” - they were called astrologers. If G & C were correct, then the astrologers would be out of business. So they had the most to lose.

“How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” is a good book that covers this and many related subjects. It’s a good read.

It seems to me that you’re calling the ACP “fraud” or “quack” - hardly just “skeptical.” And others here put them in the “flat earther” category.

You should research the way he treated his peers like how he reacted to a fellow astronomer that claimed the Moon causes tides, but wait doesn’t the Moon cause tides? Yes it does which makes how he treated his fellow scientist all the worse . You also the evidence he used to prove the world was round, like the fact that the movement caused the water to slosh around causing one high tide a day and you might be thinking “but aren’t there two high tides” the answer is yes, yes there are two, not one.

There is some truth in what you say.

Those who encourage the so-called “transition” of another may perhaps do so in the belief that without it, the person will continue to suffer grievously from dysphoria. The steps of transition are so serious (in the medical sense) that I cannot imagine they do it for any kind of frivolous reason. If overcoming the “delusion” were a matter of receiving a “good talking to”, or some other less destructive therapy, I’m sure it would be preferred. Common sense says that the motivation for such serious steps must be very high indeed, and while I can scarcely understand the decision, I suspect I need to understand more about the problem before condemning those involved.

There is no other treatment that has been shown to be anywhere near as effective.

 

[ricmat]

There is no other treatment that has been shown to be anywhere near as effective.

So the only answer is the one you seem to prefer. In other words, don’t look for a different solution because we already know that it won’t work?

I suspect I need to understand more about the problem before condemning those involved.

I don’t think anyone is condemning those who suffer from this problem.

If you are referring to the doctors involved, then I would ask, is it moral to cut off a person’s perfectly healthy limbs because they have a desire to be handicapped? (This is a real thing, I can’t think of the medical term offhand). How is this situation different? This is “fixing” something that’s not the problem, and ignoring the real problem.

Also, there is a moral aspect here that seems to be missing. A man cannot become a woman, or a woman become a man. It may appear to be so from the outside, but no DNA is changed. It remains as it was. So basically we have a person pretending to be something that they are not. Someone they are not. It is a lie, a very big lie. There may be the mitigating factor of mental illness, but the fact remains that the outcome is a lie.

Those who facilitate the lie - doctors, LGBT activists, or those supporters whose compassion overcomes their common sense and moral sense, become active accomplices in the lie. And the worst part is that they insist that the rest of society participate in the charade as well. We must allow men into women’s restrooms, applaud the courage of those who transition, etc. That makes us unwilling accomplices to the lies. And the force of law, starting at the White House says that we all must make it so. And be sure to use the right pronouns or else you will be punished. Doesn’t this bother you?

 

[chris62]

It is also incomprehensible that those who advocate for homosexual orientation BECAUSE it is not a choice will, at the same time, argue that individuals should be free to choose their gender simply BECAUSE they have a right to. Nothing confused there, I suppose :hey_bud:

100 percent correct.
You will probably end up in prison, though, for offending someone.

 

[MarcoPolo]

60 members… 3,500 members

Ad populum is a fallacy of logic. You should measure their presentations on said merit. I’ve noticed an awful lot of their critics cleverly avoiding their data and presentations. And I understand many of the ACP are peer reviewed scientists. The Dr. Cretella article I linked to earlier was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. These are legitimate voices in the medical industry.

 

[Strydersroom]

“The ACP is not a legitimate medical organization; its name is designed to be mistaken for the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is a national organization with some 60,000 members. The ACP, by contrast, is estimated to have no more than 200 members, and it has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its anti-LGBT positions.”

 

[Rau]

“The ACP is not a legitimate medical organization;… it has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its anti-LGBT positions.”

Here is an overview of the ACP.
acpeds.org/about-us

The Leaders are all MD’s, though the issues that guide their positions are broader than solely clinical matters. I agree that the name of the group is misleading.

The SPLC makes broad statements about what it means to be anti-LGBT, slamming the “religious right”, and referring in generalities to name-calling and other general bad behaviour that such organisation are accused of. It “names” the ACP as anti-LGBT in its “Hate Map”, however I could not find any specific references to it, or charges against it.

Have you seen something from ACP that qualifies as “hate speech” ?

 

[Rau]

Good info for those doing apologetics on this issue:

The ACP statement, written by the ACP’s president Michelle A. Cretella, vice president Quentin Van Meter, and Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Paul McHugh, listed eight reasons why the ideology believing in gender transitioning is harmful. …

Fourth, using puberty-blocking hormones to reverse a natural biological sexual trait can be dangerous both physically and mentally.

Fifth, up to 98% of gender ambiguous boys and 88% of gender ambiguous girls are likely to accept their biological sex after passing through puberty naturally, according to the APA.

Sixth, “Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence.”

Full article at Daily Wire

According to ACP, point 5 is based on a claim of the DSM, and using the optimistic end of the data from the DSM:

*Regarding Point 5: “Where does the DSM-V list rates of resolution for Gender Dysphoria?”

On page 455 of the DSM-V under “Gender Dysphoria without a disorder of sex development” it states: “Rates of persistence of gender dysphoria from childhood into adolescence or adulthood vary. In natal males, persistence has ranged from 2.2% to 30%. In natal females, persistence has ranged from 12% to 50%.” Simple math allows one to calculate that for natal boys: resolution occurs in as many as 100% – 2.2% = 97.8% (approx. 98% of gender-confused boys) Similarly, for natal girls: resolution occurs in as many as 100% – 12% = 88% gender-confused girls*

acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

 

[Peter_Plato]

"The ACP is not a legitimate medical organization;

It is made up of legitimate pediatricians. Why would it NOT be a “legitimate medical organization?”

its name is designed to be mistaken for the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is a national organization with some 60,000 members. The ACP, by contrast, is estimated to have no more than 200 members,

“Designed to be mistaken” goes to the intention of the ACP. However, the members of the group are all pediatricians with appropriate medical training. What should they call themselves that wouldn’t be “designed to be mistaken” for what they actually are?

I suspect that, politically speaking, you would prefer they simply go along to get along with the main body BECAUSE it suits YOUR political agenda.

and it has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its anti-LGBT positions."

Given that the SPLC doesn’t give any reason why the ACP is on its list of hate groups, one can assume any conservative group - say the Catholic Church - that takes a certain position on gay ‘marriage’ or homosexual behaviour or transgender ‘rights’ should also be on that list.

There was a petition on the White House petitions site a while back that demanded just that actually. The SPLC didn’t act on it. Why not?

A little background on the SPLC is in order…

renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/100325

It seems the SPLC restricts its “labeling” to groups it can kick around in order to profit from those donors who have an interest in seeing other organizations defamed. Interesting little funding scheme the SPLC has going.

 

[anon67074017]

I am glad that these physicians are joining the crusade against crossdressing.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Here is an overview of the ACP.
acpeds.org/about-us

The Leaders are all MD’s, though the issues that guide their positions are broader than solely clinical matters. I agree that the name of the group is misleading.

The SPLC makes broad statements about what it means to be anti-LGBT, slamming the “religious right”, and referring in generalities to name-calling and other general bad behaviour that such organisation are accused of. It “names” the ACP as anti-LGBT in its “Hate Map”, however I could not find any specific references to it, or charges against it.

Have you seen something from ACP that qualifies as “hate speech” ?

splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/american-college-pediatricians-defames-gays-and-lesbians-name-protecting-children

 

[Peter_Plato]

splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/american-college-pediatricians-defames-gays-and-lesbians-name-protecting-children

You didn’t answer Rau’s question:

Have you seen something from ACP that qualifies as "hate speech?”

It is pretty clear what SPLC’s agenda is. No one disputes their position, but, again, what have you seen from ACP that qualifies as “hate speech?"

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

You didn’t answer Rau’s question:

Have you seen something from ACP that qualifies as "hate speech?”

It is pretty clear what SPLC’s agenda is. No one disputes their position, but, again, what have you seen from ACP that qualifies as “hate speech?"

Rau:

It “names” the ACP as anti-LGBT in its “Hate Map”, however I could not find any specific references to it, or charges against it.

This was the latest “specific reference” I found on their site.

 

[Rau]

Rau:

This was the latest “specific reference” I found on their site.

Thanks. Criticism of ACP positions and some claims of misrepresenting “facts” etc but nothing approaching hate speech cited. I guess we need to keep in mind that “hate speech” these days is a relative term.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Thanks. Criticism of ACP positions and some claims of misrepresenting “facts” etc but nothing approaching hate speech cited. I guess we need to keep in mind that “hate speech” these days is a relative term.

1. I’m very cautious about labeling any group as a “hate group,” but certainly it is a fitting label in some circumstances. I certainly don’t think I would apply that label as freely as the SPLC seems to, but then again, I haven’t really researched many of these groups, so I must reserve my judgment.
2. I don’t think however, that engaging in “hate speech” should be the determinative factor. Hate groups are far more clever than that, and may even be deluded into believing that they are acting out of a sense of the greater good, or may even justify their actions and rhetoric as ultimately “loving” in nature. Instead of focusing on the PR messaging of a group, I’m far more concerned with how they actually treat people.

One thing that is abundantly clear about this particular group, having chosen a name that sounds very close to that of the group from which they apparently cut ties, is that they are trying to utilize the legitimacy of the AAP, knowing that most people are not going to know the difference. I certainly didn’t. Secondly, from their website it is quite clear, I’m not going to learn anything from this group about head injuries in sports, the zika virus, childhood diabetes, etc. They obviously exist for only one purpose, which is to promote anti-LGBT causes and other conservative interests, far more consistent with a political advocacy group, rather than one concerned with medical issues affecting children.

 

[Rau]

…1. I’m very cautious about labeling any group as a “hate group,” but certainly it is a fitting label in some circumstances. I certainly don’t think I would apply that label as freely as the SPLC seems to, but then again, I haven’t really researched many of these groups, so I must reserve my judgment.

I agree that caution is warranted before such an extreme claim is made.

They (the ACP) obviously exist for only one purpose, which is to promote anti-LGBT causes and other conservative interests, far more consistent with a political advocacy group, rather than one concerned with medical issues affecting children.

The information I posted is pretty clear about the vision, mission and values of the group, and they clearly transcend the purely medical focus of the typical professional medical body.

I suggest we not worry about “why they exist”, but rather what they say and do.

I don’t see them promoting “causes” per se, but rather the values they espouse, which are mostly linked to a view of the well-being of children. Those values are certainly likely to be rejected by those who support: abortion, same sex marriage, sex outside marriage, surrogacy arrangements to bring children into non-traditional family structures, and so on. These are all valid positions to hold, and valid to promote, though they are broader than would be expected from the typical professional medical body (hence I do object to the name the group has chosen).

1. I don’t think however, that engaging in “hate speech” should be the determinative factor. Hate groups are far more clever than that, and may even be deluded into believing that they are acting out of a sense of the greater good, or may even justify their actions and rhetoric as ultimately “loving” in nature. Instead of focusing on the PR messaging of a group, I’m far more concerned with how they actually treat people.

A previous post seemed to find something definitive in the fact that that the SPLC considers the ACP a “hate group”, though I think we agree that doesn’t count for much. I’ve seen nothing to support the hate group charge, in either the words of the ACP or its actions. And to qualify as a hate group, there would need to be a consistency of “hateful behaviour”. The ACP’s positions may be consistently held, but they are not “hateful”.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Thanks. Criticism of ACP positions and some claims of misrepresenting “facts” etc but nothing approaching hate speech cited. I guess we need to keep in mind that “hate speech” these days is a relative term.

Indeed!
It’s been so over-used that the meaning of the word ‘hate’ has (ironically) been diluted so badly that we are gong to have to invent a new word for that truly angry, satanic and pathological form of violent hatred that really DOES desire death and misery for ones enemy.

If a person truly hated someone else, the very last thing they would do is intervene to warn them about the wages of sin. As Napoleon Bonaparte said;

Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.

 

[Bradski]

Ad populum is a fallacy of logic. You should measure their presentations on said merit. I’ve noticed an awful lot of their critics cleverly avoiding their data and presentations. And I understand many of the ACP are peer reviewed scientists. The Dr. Cretella article I linked to earlier was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. These are legitimate voices in the medical industry.

I’m sure they are. And of course, just because these few dozen people represent such a miniscule fraction of a tiny percentage of views that are direct contradiction to such a world wide and monstrously large amount of evidence doesn’t mean that we should simply discount those views.

So please feel free to measure their presentations on their merit.

Myself…I have better things to do with my time. But please let me know how you get on. I won’t be the slightest bit interested, but I just want to know that someone is checking these guys out.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

A previous post seemed to find something definitive in the fact that that the SPLC considers the ACP a “hate group”, though I think we agree that doesn’t count for much. I’ve seen nothing to support the hate group charge, in either the words of the ACP or its actions. And to qualify as a hate group, there would need to be a consistency of “hateful behaviour”. The ACP’s positions may be consistently held, but they are not “hateful”.

Actually, I cannot agree with you there. While I think we should always be incredibly cautious about using the word “hate” as a label, I don’t so quickly dismiss the concerns about the ACP. The SPLC is a well respected organization, that, despite claims to the contrary, still works closely with the FBI as an important resource. If they listed every organization or group that opposes gay marriage, gay adoption, etc., their map would have far more dots on it than it currently does. They are obviously far more selective about it than suggested by those upset that they would put any group on their list as anti-lgbt. I am personally not ready to label the APC as a hate group, but neither am I ready to dismiss the SPLC’s concerns until I do more research.

 

[Micosil]

If people are going to quote an organisation that has 60 members (maybe a few more) who are in direct conflict with not just one, but multiple organisations, not just in the US but worldwide, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, then good luck to them. Smacks of desperation to me. But hey, just because my running club has more members doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to put forward their views.

Incidentally, did you know that the Flat Earth Society had 3,500 members at one point. They have a lot of interesting stuff that we should discuss as well.

:tsktsk:
"Galileo Galilei:

…for in the sciences the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.

Ad populum is a fallacy of logic. You should measure their presentations on said merit. I’ve noticed an awful lot of their critics cleverly avoiding their data and presentations. And I understand many of the ACP are peer reviewed scientists. The Dr. Cretella article I linked to earlier was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. These are legitimate voices in the medical industry.