The Dangers of Gender-Affirmative Care

“Rainbow face paint on child, Leeds pride 2015. Family event. E67A9850” by TerryGeorge. is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Another important piece from UnHerd.com with this essay by Eliza Mondegreen.

[Standard link disclaimer1Links from this blog to online resources don’t necessarily mean I support everything found there. But as adults we should embrace viewpoint diversity. And make alliances where we can.]

American doctors are unnecessarily harming children

The Biden administration recently announced a plan to ban “conversion therapy” and dismantle barriers to “gender-affirming care” for transgender-identifying children and adolescents. A few days later, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal introduced the  “Transgender Bill of Rights” on Capitol Hill which sought to legislate what the Biden Administration proposed to impose by executive order.

On this issue, the Democratic Party assumes the mantle of righteousness. Who could oppose “life-saving” “gender-affirming care”? Who supports “conversion therapy”, which the Biden administration described as “a discredited and dangerous practice that seeks to suppress or change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQI+ people”?

The reality diverges sharply from the loaded language the Biden Administration deploys, lifting terms directly from the most radical trans activists occupying positions at the outermost extreme of an ongoing debate between different factions of gender clinicians.

The dispute over how best to treat gender-questioning children that the Biden Administration seeks to resolve by enshrining “gender-affirming care” and stigmatising “conversion therapy” boils down to whether or not clinicians regard the children in their care as exceptions to everything we know about child development, human biology, sexual orientation, and more. Attending closely to the language of the activists with whom the Biden Administration has sided provides a masterclass in how to manipulate language to normalise risky and invasive medical intervention on a class of people — children — who are widely understood to be unable to provide consent in other contexts.


What’s changed are the ideas and expectations that we’ve raised children on and the way we’ve turned them loose in an online world whose terrain no one has mapped. Many of these children have grown up with extended experiences of online disembodiment. They may not be free to run around outside with their friends but they’re free to roam the darkest corners of the Internet. Who knows what strangers and strange ideas they encounter there.

These children have grown up hearing a very new and confusing set of fairy tales about gendered souls that can end up in the ‘wrong bodies’. Adults who should know better — adults who do know better — have made these children impossible promises.

Children who identify as trans aren’t sages. They aren’t sacred. They haven’t been endowed with wisdom beyond their years. It’s not fair to treat them as exceptions to the safeguards we place around children, so that when they grow up and change their minds and ask why we let them do this, we say: You wanted it. You asked for it. You were so sure. What else could we have done? 

There’s a way in which everything that touches trans must be exceptional — the children, the stakes, the feelings, the possibility of knowing anything for sure — because if these kids aren’t exceptional, then we threw everything we knew out the window. We didn’t ‘help’ exceptional children but harmed ordinary ones, struggling with ordinary challenges of development, sexual orientation, identity, meaning, and direction.

[emphasis added]


Read the whole thing.

+++

Fact-Checking the HHS

Two months ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued an official document “Gender Affirming Care and Young People.” In a recent blog the Society For Evidence Based Gender Medicine fact-checked this important document and found an alarming number of errors and misrepresentations.

SEGM is an international group of over 100 clinicians and researchers concerned about the lack of quality evidence for the use of hormonal and surgical interventions as first-line treatment for young people with gender dysphoria. They represent expertise from a range of clinical disciplines.

Here are the bullet points of their fact-check:

Inaccurate Claims
  • Misstatements of the effects of social transition
  • Unsupported claim of the reversibility of puberty blockers
  • Inaccurate statement regarding the age eligibility for surgeries
  • Overreaching claims of “proven benefits” of gender transition on adolescent mental health
  • Omission of any discussion of risks
  • Conflation of distinctly different concepts
Insufficient Process
  • Inadequate literature review
  • Biased recommendations that do not acknowledge the low quality of evidence
  • Failure to consult a range of stakeholders with diverse views
  • Lack of identification or acknowledgement of alternatives

Full Fact-Check Report

“Gender crossing” by arboltsef is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0.

+++

Twitter Suspends Jordan Peterson For ‘Misgendering’

Jordan Peterson
 by Gage Skidmore is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. 

Peterson referred to actor Elliot Page by her birth name Ellen Page and the “her” pronoun.

Twitter informed Peterson that his comments…

Violated our rules against hateful conduct.  You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.

Peterson’s daughter, Mikhaila, announced the suspension on her own Twitter, tagging Elon Musk and adding that the site is “Definitely not a free speech platform at the moment.”

Dave Rubin (who is gay) is also suspended for mentioning Peterson’s suspension.


Years ago Peterson opposed Canadian Government Bill C-16 on free speech grounds. He argued that bill would open up the floodgates for prosecuting people who refuse to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns.

+++