Silencing the Opposition to Child Mutilation

And now, as something of a follow-up to yesterday’s post, it appears that Libs of TikTok has now been suspended permanently from Facebook. We shall see whether or not this is true, but it shows clearly that social media is more concerned with controlling your mind than with fostering public debate in the marketplace of ideas.

It is worth noting, for what it’s worth, that the transmania sweeping the medical profession does not just involve what adults choose to do with their bodies. And it does not just involve human sacrifice, mutilating children. The other important issue is that the movement insists that you and I and everyone else affirm the truth of delusional beliefs.

As I said yesterday, this is not an advance in the fight for human rights. It is a sign of cultural disintegration.

So, yesterday Libs of TikTok posted a video accompanied by this affirmation, from Yale University:

Yale Pediatric Gender Program director says she treats kids as young as THREE on their “gender journey” including medical intervention.

And you thought that the maniacs running these programs were worrying over whether a seventeen year old can be biochemically and surgically mutilated. Naive you.

And Yale is not alone. The University of San Francisco has been practicing on toddlers. Yes, indeed. 

The Post Millennium reports:

The University of San Francisco Benioff Children's Hospital's Child and Adolescent Gender Center (UCSF) is offering treatments through its transgender health center to children as young as two. Speaking on a promotional video to potential patients and their families, mental health director Diane Ehrensaft said that they "see children as young as two and as old as 25." Ehrensaft describes her own child as "gender creative."

"We support children and their families through their social, medical, and/or surgical transition," says UCSF's Child and Adolescent Gender Center (CAGC) website.

The ushering of young children into trans medicine is done in the "absence of solid evidence" on the use of puberty-blocking drugs, hormones, and surgeries they administer to minors, they rely on the "opinions of innovators and thought leaders." This was written in an editor's note on 2016 guidelines on "Health considerations for gender non-conforming children and transgender adolescents" penned by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy for UCSF.

And, of course, no clinician has the right at UCSF to question a child’s belief, to explore the underlying reasons for choosing to change sexes:

UCSF abides by the "gender-affirmative" model of care, meaning that a child’s asserted belief about their "gender identity" are taken at face value without question. "We were early adopters of the Gender Affirmative model and putting into practice some of the best thinking about how to care for trans and gender-creative kids," said Erica Anderson, a trans-identified psychologist for two locations of UCSF's gender clinic for children.

The gender-affirmation model prevents medical professionals from questioning a child’s self-reported transgender identity, and from exploring possible underlying factors causing their dysphoria. The standard protocol for gender affirmation is administering puberty blockers, followed by cross-sex hormones and then surgery, if desired.

"If a child is not feeling seen about who they are, they're at risk for some pretty serious psychological problems, including anxiety, depression, even suicidal thoughts," said Ehrensaft, referring to the debunked affirm-or-suicide myth used to pressure parents into green lighting their child’s transition under the threat of suicide.

And, just in case you are still worrying over the age limit for mutilating children, the Los Angeles Times reports that an international association promoting child mutilation has lowered the age for mutilation:

The World Professional Assn. for Transgender Health said hormones could be started at age 14, two years earlier than the group’s previous advice, and some surgeries done at age 15 or 17, a year or so earlier than previous guidance. The group acknowledged potential risks but said it is unethical and harmful to withhold early treatment.

And, on the question, raised by researcher Lisa Littman and reported extensively by Abigail Shrier, of whether or not the current increase in the number of trans children represents a social contagion, the American Academy of Pediatrics has just decided to shut down debate over the issue. 

Julia Mason and Leon Sapir wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal this morning:

A spate of headlines this month declared that America’s surge in transgender identification wasn’t being caused by a social contagion. These articles were prompted by a new study by Jack Turban and colleagues in Pediatrics, flagship journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The study claimed that social influence isn’t the reason that as many as 9% of America’s youth now call themselves transgender. Thus, Dr. Turban argues, efforts in conservative states to regulate on-demand puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery must be resisted.

Yet Dr. Turban’s study is deeply flawed and likely couldn’t have survived a reasonable peer-review process. The swift response from the scientific community made both points clear—with even those who support hormones and surgery for gender-dysphoric youth noting that Dr. Turban’s shoddy science undermined their cause.

Did you notice the number-- 9% of children now identify as transgendered? Does the concept of grooming apply here?

Countries around the world are catching on. America is not:

The AAP has ignored the evidence that has led Sweden, Finland and most recently the U.K. to place severe restrictions on medical transition for minors. The largest pediatric gender clinic in the world, the U.K.’s Gender Identity Development Service, was ordered to shut down in July after an independent review expressed concerns about clinicians rushing minors to medical transition. Medical societies in France, Belgium and Australia have also sounded the alarm. The U.S. is an outlier on pediatric gender medicine.

An outlier? To say the least. Then again, big tech and big social media are hard at working shutting down debate.