transgenderism

[Rosebud77]

This topic fazes me and reading this article has me wondering what this obsession with sexual “identity” is really about now. It reads like science fiction or like some new occult brainwashing space age cult like they film on bad sci fi movies.

independent.ie/life/family/family-features/irish-mum-on-accepting-her-sons-are-now-daughters-theyre-still-my-children-i-love-them-more-than-anything-in-the-world-34992482.html

are they for real? on mind bending drugs?

 

[edwest2]

This topic fazes me and reading this article has me wondering what this obsession with sexual “identity” is really about now. It reads like science fiction or like some new occult brainwashing space age cult like they film on bad sci fi movies.

independent.ie/life/family/family-features/irish-mum-on-accepting-her-sons-are-now-daughters-theyre-still-my-children-i-love-them-more-than-anything-in-the-world-34992482.html

are they for real? on mind bending drugs?

It’s about any mix and match combination of sexual experiences anyone can imagine. Modify your body, pick your gender. The public is being subjected to brainwashing. This is a social engineering project. And so far, they’ve ended badly.

From the article: “Chloe said she came out as gender fluid before coming out as transgender…”

Gender fluid. Of course, “everyone” knows what that means. Facebook has 71 gender choices so far, and who invented them, because they are invented.

Ed

• Brought to you by the Global Cabal of Repackagers and Relabelers. Who are obviously a lot of bored people.

 

[holyrood]

Science has been increasingly showing that sex is a lot less binary than commonly thought. It also appears that brain sex and body sex can be different due to hormonal imbalances in the womb causing the brain to over or under masculinize.

churchleaders.com/daily-buzz/285441-johns-hopkins-university-study-no-scientific-evidence-people-born-gay-transgender.html?utm_content=buffer958ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The newest study from Johns Hopkins is quite decisive that there is no evidence people are ‘born gay’ or transgender.

 

[holyrood]

And do you agree that if countries execute homosexuals it is reasonable to class them as uncivilised?

I’m still waiting to see liberals rise up against the Muslim countries that are pushing gay men off rooftops. Yes, it is terrible, but so far what I hear from liberals in this country is a chiding of others to not be so ‘Islamophobic,’ which I find odd considering it is MUSLIMS, not Christians, who are actually executing homosexuals.

 

[Rau]

churchleaders.com/daily-buzz/285441-johns-hopkins-university-study-no-scientific-evidence-people-born-gay-transgender.html?utm_content=buffer958ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The newest study from Johns Hopkins is quite decisive that there is no evidence people are ‘born gay’ or transgender.

I believe that report is not at odds with what Joie said, but concludes that there isn’t convincing evidence that any such effect is definitive.

 

[Rosebud77]

It’s about any mix and match combination of sexual experiences anyone can imagine. Modify your body, pick your gender. The public is being subjected to brainwashing. This is a social engineering project. And so far, they’ve ended badly.

From the article: “Chloe said she came out as gender fluid before coming out as transgender…”

Gender fluid. Of course, “everyone” knows what that means. Facebook has 71 gender choices so far, and who invented them, because they are invented.

Ed

• Brought to you by the Global Cabal of Repackagers and Relabelers. Who are obviously a lot of bored people.

THANK YOU for this. I was starting to wonder, As an aside, the Irish mother;s reaction explains a lot of the pro SSM vote in the referendum. Let the kids have their immediate gratification… sigh

 

[Rau]

…Facebook has 71 gender choices so far, and who invented them, because they are invented.

I learned that the UK, until mid-2014, was restrained by Facebook to only 50 genders. Recognising this situation as wholly inadequate, facebook than made available a further 21 genders (though to an amateur, some look rather like those in the 50)…

**The 21 new options for UK users **

Asexual
Female to male trans man
Female to male transgender man
Female to male transsexual man
F2M
Gender neutral
Hermaphrodite
Intersex man
Intersex person
Intersex woman
Male to female trans woman
Male to female transgender woman
Male to female transsexual woman
Man **
M2F
Polygender
T man
T woman
Two* person
Two-spirit person
**Woman **

**The list of the 50 previous gender options **

Agender
Androgyne
Androgynes
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans Female
Trans Male
Trans Man
Trans Person
TransFemale
TransMale
TransMan
TransPerson
Trans*Woman
Transexual
Transexual Female
Transexual Male
Transexual Man
Transexual Person
Transexual Woman
Transgender Female
Transgender Person
Transmasculine
Two-spirit

telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10930654/Facebooks-71-gender-options-come-to-UK-users.html

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

churchleaders.com/daily-buzz/285441-johns-hopkins-university-study-no-scientific-evidence-people-born-gay-transgender.html?utm_content=buffer958ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The newest study from Johns Hopkins is quite decisive that there is no evidence people are ‘born gay’ or transgender.

The study isn’t by John Hopkins, or even a study. It is by two individual authors one of who is a professor at John Hopkins one of who is a well known partisan hack who engages in lies, damned lies and lying with statistics resulting in him being a darling of the right wing anti-LGBT groups. From a brief look as I don’t currently have time to read the whole thing it looks like McHugh regurgitating his standard polemic which is bereft of scientific merit.

 

[edwest2]

I learned that the UK, until mid-2014, was restrained by Facebook to only 50 genders. Recognising this situation as wholly inadequate, facebook than made available a further 21 genders (though to an amateur, some look rather like those in the 50)…

**The 21 new options for UK users **

Asexual
Female to male trans man
Female to male transgender man
Female to male transsexual man
F2M
Gender neutral
Hermaphrodite
Intersex man
Intersex person
Intersex woman
Male to female trans woman
Male to female transgender woman
Male to female transsexual woman
Man **
M2F
Polygender
T man
T woman
Two* person
Two-spirit person
**Woman **

**The list of the 50 previous gender options **

Agender
Androgyne
Androgynes
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans Female
Trans Male
Trans Man
Trans Person
TransFemale
TransMale
TransMan
TransPerson
Trans*Woman
Transexual
Transexual Female
Transexual Male
Transexual Man
Transexual Person
Transexual Woman
Transgender Female
Transgender Person
Transmasculine
Two-spirit

telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10930654/Facebooks-71-gender-options-come-to-UK-users.html

This is entirely insane, There is no other word to describe it. Someone(s) woke up to create confusion and I hope everyone who sees this realizes it is mental poison.

Transmasculine? A perfect example of turning your mind upside down. Reject it.

Ed

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

This is entirely insane, There is no other word to describe it. Someone(s) woke up to create confusion and I hope everyone who sees this realizes it is mental poison.

Transmasculine? A perfect example of turning your mind upside down. Reject it.

Ed

Transgender people I’ve talked to also find the list absurd.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The study isn’t by John Hopkins, or even a study. It is by two individual authors one of who is a professor at John Hopkins one of who is a well known partisan hack who engages in lies, damned lies and lying with statistics resulting in him being a darling of the right wing anti-LGBT groups. From a brief look as I don’t currently have time to read the whole thing it looks like McHugh regurgitating his standard polemic which is bereft of scientific merit.

Which one, pray tell, is the “partisan hack” and which is the “professor?”

Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer:

Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., Ph.D. is a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.

He is a biostatistician and epidemiologist who focuses on the design, analysis, and interpretation of experimental and observational data in public health and medicine, particularly when the data are complex in terms of underlying scientific issues.

Mayer studied psychology (pre-med) at Arizona State University and Ohio State University; studied medicine and mathematics at Ohio State University; and trained in medicine and psychiatry in the United Kingdom, obtaining his M.B. (the British equivalent to the American M.D.) in 1970 from the Guy’s Hospital Medical School, although he never practiced medicine (including psychiatry) in the United States or abroad. He earned an M.S. in mathematics from Ohio State in 1969 and a Ph.D. in statistics and biostatistics from Ohio State in 1971. His dissertation was titled “Utilizing Initial Estimates in Estimating the Coefficients in a General Linear Model.”
thenewatlantis.com/authors/lawrence-mayer

Dr Paul R. McHugh:

Paul R. McHugh, M.D. is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He was for twenty-five years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Dr. McHugh was elected a member of the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) in 1992. From 2002 to 2009, he was a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics.

He received his medical education at Harvard Medical School (obtaining his M.D. in 1956) and did an internship at the Peter Bent Brigham (now Brigham and Women’s Hospital) and a neurology and neuropathology residency at the Massachusetts General Hospital. He continued his education in psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London and in the Division of Neuropsychiatry at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. After his training, he was eventually and successively Professor of Psychiatry at Cornell University School of Medicine, and Clinical Director and Director of Residency Education at the New York Hospital Westchester Division; Professor and Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the Oregon Health Sciences Center; and from 1975 to 2001, Henry Phipps Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Professor of Mental Hygiene, Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health.

Dr. McHugh was the founder and first director of the Bourne Behavioral Research Laboratory of New York Hospital, Westchester Division at Cornell. From 1984 to 1989, he was chairman of the medical board of Johns Hopkins Hospital. From 1985 to 1991, he was chairman of the professorial promotions committee at Hopkins School of Medicine. He also was the leader of the Blades Center for Clinical Practice and Research in Alcohol/Drug Dependence; the co-chairman of the ethics committee of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology; the chairman of the NIH Bio-Psychology Study Section; and a trustee of the Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease.
thenewatlantis.com/authors/paul-mchugh

And your credentials, other than your heightened sense of personal credibility with regard to discrediting leaders in their fields, would be?

How is your post not an infringement of the forum rule which prohibits personal attacks on whichever of the two professors you referred to as a “partisan hack?”

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Which one, pray tell, is the “partisan hack” and which is the “professor?”

Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer:

Dr Paul R. McHugh:

And your credentials, other than your heightened sense of personal credibility with regard to discrediting leaders in their fields, would be?

How is your post not an infringement of the forum rule which prohibits personal attacks on whichever of the two professors you referred to as a “partisan hack?”

Paul McHugh has repeatedly distorted studies ranging from misrepresentation, cherry picking and quote mining to outright lying and claiming that studies say the exact opposite of what they do.

When Paul McHugh became in charge of Psychiatry at John Hopkins he wanted to kill the program for surgeries for transgender people so he commissioned a study. The study showed that surgery was substantially improving the life of transgender patients. Instead of accepting this and backing down he decided to announce that the study proved him right and therefore he was going to shut the program down. He often distorts studies, his favourite one is a Swedish one which shows that there is a statistically significant elevated level of suicide in post-op transgender patients which is which is one reason he advocates banning it, he completely neglects to mention that this is only true for patients who transitioned before 1989 and it is not true for the people who had transitioned afterwards let alone born after 1989 which isn’t what he is claiming. Said study also showed a regret risk of 0.3%, but why would he mention the extremely low risk of regret when that doesn’t fit his narrative. His whole desistance rate claims are based on a fatally flawed study. While he listed a lot of dangers for estrogen the largest longitudinal sample ever on HRT found none of the risks to be true when using modern medicines (as opposed to ones that haven’t been used in the past 15 years) under the care of a physician who knows what they are doing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Paul McHugh has repeatedly distorted studies ranging from misrepresentation, cherry picking and quote mining to outright lying and claiming that studies say the exact opposite of what they do.

When Paul McHugh became in charge of Psychiatry at John Hopkins he wanted to kill the program for surgeries for transgender people so he commissioned a study. The study showed that surgery was substantially improving the life of transgender patients. Instead of accepting this and backing down he decided to announce that the study proved him right and therefore he was going to shut the program down. He often distorts studies, his favourite one is a Swedish one which shows that there is a statistically significant elevated level of suicide in post-op transgender patients which is which is one reason he advocates banning it, he completely neglects to mention that this is only true for patients who transitioned before 1989 and it is not true for the people who had transitioned afterwards let alone born after 1989 which isn’t what he is claiming. Said study also showed a regret risk of 0.3%, but why would he mention the extremely low risk of regret when that doesn’t fit his narrative. His whole desistance rate claims are based on a fatally flawed study. While he listed a lot of dangers for estrogen the largest longitudinal sample ever on HRT found none of the risks to be true when using modern medicines (as opposed to ones that haven’t been used in the past 15 years) under the care of a physician who knows what they are doing.

Care to explain why Mayer, a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State, who specializes in “the design, analysis, and interpretation of experimental and observational data in public health and medicine, particularly when the data are complex in terms of underlying scientific issues,” would fall for such obviously problematic datasets?

You still haven’t provided your credentials for us to suppose that you would correctly assess the situation when two supremely competent men - who have proven their competency over years of serving in positions at the top of their fields - would miss the obvious?

Perhaps they are both “partisan hacks,” then?

Dr. Paul McHugh, “…was for twenty-five years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.”

And you are?

 

[Rau]

Paul McHugh has repeatedly distorted studies ranging from misrepresentation, cherry picking and quote mining to outright lying and claiming that studies say the exact opposite of what they do.

When Paul McHugh became in charge of Psychiatry at John Hopkins he wanted to kill the program for surgeries for transgender people so he commissioned a study. The study showed that surgery was substantially improving the life of transgender patients. Instead of accepting this and backing down he decided to announce that the study proved him right and therefore he was going to shut the program down. He often distorts studies, his favourite one is a Swedish one which shows that there is a statistically significant elevated level of suicide in post-op transgender patients which is which is one reason he advocates banning it, he completely neglects to mention that this is only true for patients who transitioned before 1989 and it is not true for the people who had transitioned afterwards let alone born after 1989 which isn’t what he is claiming. Said study also showed a regret risk of 0.3%, but why would he mention the extremely low risk of regret when that doesn’t fit his narrative. His whole desistance rate claims are based on a fatally flawed study. While he listed a lot of dangers for estrogen the largest longitudinal sample ever on HRT found none of the risks to be true when using modern medicines (as opposed to ones that haven’t been used in the past 15 years) under the care of a physician who knows what they are doing.

Has none of this misbehaviour earned him sanction from the profession / professional body?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Has none of this misbehaviour earned him sanction from the profession / professional body?

Apparently, not from Mayer, a professor of statistics and biostatistics, who is now collaborating with McHugh.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Care to explain why Mayer, a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State, who specializes in “the design, analysis, and interpretation of experimental and observational data in public health and medicine, particularly when the data are complex in terms of underlying scientific issues,” would fall for such obviously problematic datasets?

You still haven’t provided your credentials for us to suppose that you would correctly assess the situation when two supremely competent men - who have proven their competency over years of serving in positions at the top of their fields - would miss the obvious?

Perhaps they are both “partisan hacks,” then?

Dr. Paul McHugh, “…was for twenty-five years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.”

And you are?

Mayer actually researches Alzheimer’s and related dementias. Coincidentally he seems to have been at John Hopkins too.

Here is a response to the article with plenty of citations and links
medium.com/@anne.hilt1974/the-new-atlantis-paper-on-lgbt-people-is-catholicism-masquerading-as-science-5efd56516b74#.mxjdaere1

Has none of this misbehaviour earned him sanction from the profession / professional body?

I honestly don’t know.

 

[Rau]

Here is a response to the article with plenty of citations and links
medium.com/@anne.hilt1974/the-new-atlantis-paper-on-lgbt-people-is-catholicism-masquerading-as-science-5efd56516b74#.mxjdaere1.

I do not know why anyone feels Catholicism cannot cope with the idea of a grievous biological error (of some kind) affecting sexuality. Just about every other aspect of our mind and body fails in various ways, so why reject out of hand that such a mechanism may adversely affect sexuality? And to believe that whatever drives these conditions is correctable by psychological / psychiatric means is equally lame.

There is simply no reason that “orthodox Catholics” ought feel compelled to hold any particular view on the causes of these conditions or the sincerity of the people who endure them. It is a question for science and science does not know the answer.

 

[Rau]

Here is a response to the article with plenty of citations and links
medium.com/@anne.hilt1974/the-new-atlantis-paper-on-lgbt-people-is-catholicism-masquerading-as-science-5efd56516b74#.mxjdaere1

And I should add that amongst the worthwhile commentary in this article, there is a bunch of anti-catholic tripe and hyperbole. You could probably call it “hate speech” given the way that term is used these days!

 

[edwest2]

I do not know why anyone feels Catholicism cannot cope with the idea of a grievous biological error (of some kind) affecting sexuality. Just about every other aspect of our mind and body fails in various ways, so why reject out of hand that such a mechanism may adversely affect sexuality? And to believe that whatever drives these conditions is correctable by psychological / psychiatric means is equally lame.

There is simply no reason that “orthodox Catholics” ought feel compelled to hold any particular view on the causes of these conditions or the sincerity of the people who endure them. It is a question for science and science does not know the answer.

Saying “science does not know the answer” does not explain laws and propaganda that treat such things as settled science. A great deal needs to be understood about what psychology and psychiatry can and cannot do. There are mental health issues that have a biological component and those involved in such studies are simply doing what they need to do to correct these conditions. In the meantime, no effort is being spared to convince the public that “we’re done.”

So there is no reason for orthodox Catholics to believe that nothing’s wrong and further, to believe that it is just the way it is. To say no particular view should be held ignores changes in public discourse and social policy.

Ed

 

[Rau]

…To say no particular view should be held ignores changes in public discourse and social policy.

The question I’m addressing is “cause”. What causes SSA? What causes gender dysphoria? Science doesn’t know. As Catholics we have no basis in our faith to reject out of hand biological influences, just because the “pro-LGBTQI”, “pro-transgender” lobbies hold that view on that question, and attempt to use it to justify social changes we do have reason to reject.