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

[Rau]

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.

Sounds like you almost agree with me, though you might not want to admit it! . Seems as though neither of us have yet seen anything from ACP to qualify them as a hate group, so reserving judgement is certainly called for!

I’ll reserve my judgement on the SPLC too!

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Sounds like you almost agree with me, though you might not want to admit it! . Seems as though neither of us have yet seen anything from ACP to qualify them as a hate group, so reserving judgement is certainly called for!

I’ll reserve my judgement on the SPLC too!

Believe me, I would be very pleased to be in agreement with you, but I think our positions are further apart than you’ve acknowledged. My issue is with the word “hate.” It’s a word that I believe should be applied with great caution and while it’s possible that I may take issue with the SPLC in some circumstances about this label, I have no disagreement with their assessment of the ACP as an anti-lgbt group.

 

[Rau]

… I have no disagreement with their assessment of the ACP as an anti-lgbt group.

What does “anti-LGBT” actually mean? The term is vague and general in reality, but means something specific in the mind of those who use it. What it means depends on the stance of the person speaking. To consider same sex marriage morally wrong and not deserving acknowledgement or support by the State will be considered “anti-LGBT” by some and an entirely proper position by others.

Clearly the ACP is opposed to many ideas which are endorsed or promoted by groups that might be called “pro-LGBT”…but that does not make them wrong or bad, and certainly not deserving of the “hate” descriptor (which I recognise you are not applying).

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

What does “anti-LGBT” actually mean? The term is vague and general in reality, but means something specific in the mind of those who use it. What it means depends on the stance of the person speaking. To consider same sex marriage morally wrong and not deserving acknowledgement or support by the State will be considered “anti-LGBT” by some and an entirely proper position by others.

Clearly the ACP is opposed to many ideas which are endorsed or promoted by groups that might be called “pro-LGBT”…but that does not make them wrong or bad, and certainly not deserving of the “hate” descriptor (which I recognise you are not applying).

Well, to be clear, the SPLC is quite explicit about the fact that simply being opposed to same sex marriage or “viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.” Richard Cohen, head of the SPLC has further clarified: “Nowhere in our report do we equate taking a position against same-sex marriage with hate speech.” They define hate groups as those that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and that promote “known falsehoods”

Apparently, the ACP continues to make the claim that gay men have far higher rates of child sexual abuse, a claim that has been thoroughly debunked time and again. Researchers like Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, objected to their use of her research, saying,"It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality…the information they present is misleading and incorrect.”

To be sure there a groups that are on a totally different level and that I have no problem labeling as “hate groups.” After the Orlando shooting, here are what some pastors had to say:

“The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die…I’m kind of upset he didn’t finish the job — because these people are predators……Are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today? Um, no. I think that’s great. I think that helps society. I think Orlando, Fla., is a little safer tonight…It is unnatural for a man to be attracted to another man….I wish the government would round them all up, put them up against a firing wall, put the firing squad in front of them and blow their brains out.”

Pastor Roger Jimenez, Verity Baptist Church, Sacramento, CA

Pastor Donnie Romero of Fort Worth, TX told his congregation that all every gay person was a pedophile, saying “I’ll pray to God that God will finish the job that that man started," so that no more children would be harmed.

Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ., also referred to the victims of the shooting as pedophiles, applauding that “these dangerous, filthy predators are off the street.” He had more to add:: “These people all should have been killed, anyway, but they should have been killed through the proper channels, as in they should have been executed by a righteous government.”

The ACP obviously does not advocate the execution of gay people or celebrate their murders, but notice the common theme among those who do. The ACP gives legitimacy to those beliefs, so I don’t think they can so easily wash their hands of any responsibility.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…Apparently, the ACP continues to make the claim that gay men have far higher rates of child sexual abuse, a claim that has been thoroughly debunked time and again.

The reason they continue to make the claim is because that claim has NOT been debunked
…let alone thoroughly debunked.

There is ample statistical data which supports the facts that;

• Gay men are much more likely to have been sexually abused as children.
• Children who have been sexually abused are much more likely to sexually offend in later life.

 

[Lion_IRC]

“Debunk” - To prove false.

They may want to “challenge” or “question” or “dispute” that claim but they haven’t disproven it.

 

[meltzerboy]

As opposed to medical associations, judicial bodies and colleges of physicians and surgeons which have done a complete about-face on issues such as abortion, homosexuality and transgenderism in the past few decades where previous to that they opposed all of these. Speaking of “agenda driven.” How could so many have been so wrong and now are so sure about being right for no other reason than because it is the politically correct posture to take?

Notice there is no attempt to actually rebut the points made by the ACP except to put labels on the group. Where is the research that demonstrates enabling and supporting individuals with “feelings” of gender dysphoria to act on those feelings has been shown to be the best course of action or even a good option?

When those peer-reviewed studies are done and substantiated then your points might have some merit, but at this point they are extremely tenuous. It seems some individuals will go wherever the latest social fad takes them no matter where it leads and condemn those opposed using whatever new PC derogations that become available. No need to make a case, just slap on a derogatory label and push a majority in society to get on the bandwagon and voila – the case and the “science” are closed.

What do you have to say about RIchard Hernandez and his moving beyond being a woman to claiming to be a dragon and having the surgery and tattooed body to match?

dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3524063/Transgender-woman-Eva-Tiamat-Medusa-ears-nose-removed-dragon-lady.html

Now see if you can apply whatever “logic” you can to justify transgenderism without also justifying having your ears and nose removed should you happen to begin believing you are a dragon.

Or another individual who went from transgender to parrot? It would seem to be the logical end of the same absurd trajectory. At one time it was called an argumentum or reductio ad absurdum, but in modern times it appears to be viewed as a critical challenge to come up with the next engrossing “special” cause.

At some point, hopefully, enough individuals will wake up to the fact that they are being played and are victims of a colossal SJW prank owing to their own need to be “accepted” and looking “good” and virtuous in front of others. Let’s see it for what it is – pride and the need for social acceptance – which is why a 60 000 member strong organization will be correct merely by default and not by research or logic regardless of the actual reasons or case NOT being made.

Since you seem to trust peer-reviewed studies, has the ACP done any to substantiate its claims?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Since you seem to trust peer-reviewed studies, has the ACP done any to substantiate its claims?

Except that the ACP isn’t advocating invasive surgery or education programs that enable dysphoria or delusion to ameliorate a problem which hasn’t been properly researched and understood.

The onus is on those like the AAP who are advocating such techniques to demonstrate success or potential for success before implementing them. The ACP only needs to demonstrate that chance for success hasn’t been established by those who propose those kinds of approaches.

It seems very odd to me that reparative therapies to resolve homosexual proclivities even on behalf of those who positively want to resolve their orientation are frowned upon ostensibly because homosexuality is not a choice, but all kinds of “reparative” surgeries and counseling are advocated for transgender or gender dysphoric individuals because it ought to be a choice completely and finally left up to the individual, even when that individual is as young as 5 or 6 years of age.

Do you not see a problem there? I do.

In the first instance, it is claimed that homosexuality is not a choice and should not be left up to the individual to choose how to resolve their own “orientation,” but, in the second instance, gender is completely a choice where the individual should have free reign to seek whatever destructive reconstruction or hormone therapies they choose regardless of the chance for success.

If homosexual “reparation” is out of bounds BECAUSE success has not been proven, shouldn’t reconstructive surgeries or therapies which encourage going down the rabbit hole of gender dysphoria also be out of bounds precisely for the same reason, i.e., probability of success has not been proven?

 

[meltzerboy]

Except that the ACP isn’t advocating invasive surgery or education programs that enable dysphoria or delusion to ameliorate a problem which hasn’t been properly researched and understood.

The onus is on those like the AAP who are advocating such techniques to demonstrate success or potential for success before implementing them. The ACP only needs to demonstrate that chance for success hasn’t been established by those who propose those kinds of approaches.

It seems very odd to me that reparative therapies to resolve homosexual proclivities even on behalf of those who positively want to resolve their orientation are frowned upon ostensibly because homosexuality is not a choice, but all kinds of “reparative” surgeries and counseling are advocated for transgender or gender dysphoric individuals because it ought to be a choice completely and finally left up to the individual, even when that individual is as young as 5 or 6 years of age.

Do you not see a problem there? I do.

In the first instance, it is claimed that homosexuality is not a choice and should not be left up to the individual to choose how to resolve their own “orientation,” but, in the second instance, gender is completely a choice where the individual should have free reign to seek whatever destructive reconstruction or hormone therapies they choose regardless of the chance for success.

If homosexual “reparation” is out of bounds BECAUSE success has not been proven, shouldn’t reconstructive surgeries or therapies which encourage going down the rabbit hole of gender dysphoria also be out of bounds precisely for the same reason, i.e., probability of success has not been proven?

Where are the peer-reviewed studies to show that sex reconstructive surgery is not successful for (most) transgender people to match those peer-reviewed studies which show that reparative therapy is not successful for (most) gay people? Gender identity and homosexuality, as you know, are not the same.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Where are the peer-reviewed studies to show that sex reconstructive surgery is not successful for (most) transgender people to match those peer-reviewed studies which show that reparative therapy is not successful for (most) gay people? Gender identity and homosexuality, as you know, are not the same.

See footnotes:

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

Actually, I would assume that before doing anything as radical as reconstructive surgery or the like, there ought to be peer-reviewed studies showing that it is positively beneficial to the extent that it justifies the treatment. Otherwise, there is no justification for that kind of recourse,

Again, it is not sufficient merely to prove it isn’t harmful, it is necessary to show it is positively beneficial or there is little to no reason for undertaking it,

To be clear on my position on peer-reviewed studies, there is a great deal wrong with the whole process which has been criticized on a number of levels especially that the process itself is tainted and that a very large proportion of the research cannot or has not been replicated.

 

[pnewton]

Where are the peer-reviewed studies to show that sex reconstructive surgery is not successful for (most) transgender people to match those peer-reviewed studies which show that reparative therapy is not successful for (most) gay people? Gender identity and homosexuality, as you know, are not the same.

I did link the one above that showed an elevated suicide rate (Scandinavian).

In any case, in the case of an invasive new surgery, surely the onus of proof should be on the implementation of the new procedure. If this was about anything but sex, we would accept this burden of proof as a given.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I did link the one above that showed an elevated suicide rate (Scandinavian).

In any case, in the case of an invasive new surgery, surely the onus of proof should be on the implementation of the new procedure. If this was about anything but sex, we would accept this burden of proof as a given.

It doesn’t show a statistically significant increase for those after 1989, only for those before it and the elevated death rate seems to be more deaths from cancer, but the group size is small enough that it very well could have been bad luck (or it might have to do with transgender people being more likely to smoke and drink heavily).

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

See footnotes:

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

Actually, I would assume that before doing anything as radical as reconstructive surgery or the like, there ought to be peer-reviewed studies showing that it is positively beneficial to the extent that it justifies the treatment. Otherwise, there is no justification for that kind of recourse,

You would like peer-reviewed studies to be conducted proving the benefits of surgery for transgendered people before you would permit the surgeries that you would like to be studied and pier-reviewed?

Fascinating.

 

[pnewton]

You would like peer-reviewed studies to be conducted proving the benefits of surgery for transgendered people before you would permit the surgeries that you would like to be studied and pier-reviewed?

Fascinating.

A trial study period is normative for less political, and more medical, procedures, before a procedure becomes universal. Then studies that do not support the benefit of such procedures are not dismissed as being too old, too small or too anything to be of use. If this was not about sex, the surgeries would not have been permitted.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

A trial study period is normative for less political, and more medical, procedures, before a procedure becomes universal. Then studies that do not support the benefit of such procedures are not dismissed as being too old, too small or too anything to be of use. If this was not about sex, the surgeries would not have been permitted.

When was a study dismissed as too old or too small?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

The reason they continue to make the claim is because that claim has NOT been debunked
…let alone thoroughly debunked.

There is ample statistical data which supports the facts that;

• Gay men are much more likely to have been sexually abused as children.
• Children who have been sexually abused are much more likely to sexually offend in later life.

If there is ample data could you link a source? I don’t think the first one is true and I know the second is not.

 

[meltzerboy]

The reason they continue to make the claim is because that claim has NOT been debunked
…let alone thoroughly debunked.

There is ample statistical data which supports the facts that;

• Gay men are much more likely to have been sexually abused as children.
• Children who have been sexually abused are much more likely to sexually offend in later life.

The vast majority of gay men have NOT been sexually abused. That is an old myth designed to perpetuate the other myth that many or most gay men are child molesters. Yet another myth is that gay women (lesbians) hate men and, at the same time, want to be like men. When are we going to get past this nonsense?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Who said it was a majority?
Even a tiny minority who go on to become sexual abusers themselves is still too many.

If it were a majority the statistics would reflect an even higher number of offenders.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;14054741:

The reason they continue to make the claim is because that claim has NOT been debunked
…let alone thoroughly

debunked.

There is ample statistical data which supports the facts that;

• Gay men are much more likely to have been sexually abused as children.
• Children who have been sexually abused are much more likely to sexually offend in later life.

If there is ample data could you link a source?

Yes. Of course I can. You think I invented those? LOL

But before I do, could you tell me what difference it will make? Will it change anything?
Often, people are shown surprising facts only to subsequently dismiss them as irrelevant.
Suppose it’s true that gay men are much more likely to have been sexually abused as children.
How would that change your attitude to gay men or the ACP

…I don’t think the first one is true and I know the second is not.

You don’t think its true that children who have been sexually abused are much more likely to sexually offend in later life. You don’t think there is such a thing as a cycle of abuse?
What on earth do think IS the cause otherwise?

 

[meltzerboy]

Who said it was a majority?
Even a tiny minority who go on to become sexual abusers themselves is still too many.

If it were a majority the statistics would reflect an even higher number of offenders.

If it is only a “tiny minority,” then how does one know whether it is statistically significant enough to prove a correlation let alone causation? Further, what about straight people who were sexually abused as children? Wouldn’t some of them also go on to be sexual abusers? If so, what is your point? Do you believe that sexually abused children become only or mainly gay when they are adults? And what does all of this have to do with transgender people?