FINALLY!!!
The American College of Pediatricians just put out a 🔥🔥🔥 statement calling out all the major medical associations by name for pushing the gender transition craze on kids.
They ask for these groups to "IMMEDIATELY stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex."
The full @ACPeds statement:
"Therefore, given the recent research and the revelations of the harmful approach advocated by WPATH and its followers in the United States, we, the undersigned, call upon the medical professional organizations of the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to follow the science and their European professional colleagues and immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex. Instead, these organizations should recommend comprehensive evaluations and therapies aimed at identifying and addressing underlying psychological co-morbidities and neurodiversity that often predispose to and accompany gender dysphoria. We also encourage the physicians who are members of these professional organizations to contact their leadership and urge them to adhere to the evidence-based research now available.”
They link to MANY studies on their site: https://doctorsprotectingchildren.org https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1646221380783443976
The American College of Pediatricians just put out a 🔥🔥🔥 statement calling out all the major medical associations by name for pushing the gender transition craze on kids.
They ask for these groups to "IMMEDIATELY stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex."
The full @ACPeds statement:
"Therefore, given the recent research and the revelations of the harmful approach advocated by WPATH and its followers in the United States, we, the undersigned, call upon the medical professional organizations of the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to follow the science and their European professional colleagues and immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex. Instead, these organizations should recommend comprehensive evaluations and therapies aimed at identifying and addressing underlying psychological co-morbidities and neurodiversity that often predispose to and accompany gender dysphoria. We also encourage the physicians who are members of these professional organizations to contact their leadership and urge them to adhere to the evidence-based research now available.”
They link to MANY studies on their site: https://doctorsprotectingchildren.org https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1646221380783443976
Please keep letting people in the main base in the information circulation so this is kept prominent
What they're opposing here will be seen the same in 50 years as eugenics, prefrontal lobotomies, and bloodletting.
9th circuit appeals court just did. Was getting to that...
Boosts are welcome 😉
And a reminder to all Minds users: every Minds post can be shared outside of Minds!
On Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc.
And a reminder to all Minds users: every Minds post can be shared outside of Minds!
On Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc.
Exactly - except that a MAJORITY always saw it that way. They were just being silenced.
@sj_zero@social.fbxl.net the
The American College of Pediatricians is a small advocacy group with a misleading name that has held this position for years. it's not a professional organization lol
Silencing is what is always done to allow harmful actions. Can range from outright censorship to redefining language to “progressive” claims. We need to do the same in opposition, but it is a strange concept to purposefully utilize for normal people. I say we gender celebrate what God made us, have pride in heterosexuality (hey, it has to win in the long run!), and do it positively so that censorship just doesn’t have a play.
better late than never, but people who don't even have medical degrees have been questioning this since it began.
it's not even just people without medical degrees. actual doctors have had their licenses taken away or had other consequences applied to them for saying what everyone else with common sense knew. often what they were saying wasn't "no minors should ever transition, period," but more like "we should be looking for and treating co-morbidities like mental illness or neurodivergence before we just give people hormones and schedule their surgery".
but ofc if a doctor wants people correctly diagnosed and treated, they're literally hitler...
it's not even just people without medical degrees. actual doctors have had their licenses taken away or had other consequences applied to them for saying what everyone else with common sense knew. often what they were saying wasn't "no minors should ever transition, period," but more like "we should be looking for and treating co-morbidities like mental illness or neurodivergence before we just give people hormones and schedule their surgery".
but ofc if a doctor wants people correctly diagnosed and treated, they're literally hitler...
Sorry for the long post, but it's the answer followed by some pontification about related stuff.
To answer that question, let's look at each, where it came from, and what was its downfall..
Eugenics: It is a theory based on evolution that essentially says you can engineer the human species into becoming a better human race. Although evolution is sound science, the problem with eugenics is that it's tied up in politics. Who gets to choose what is a superior human? In the times it was in vogue, what individuals considered the "superior human" was people like themselves. You can't play God and succeed. We know today that many things we used to think made humans inferior can actually be traits that cause survivability. For example, sickle cell trait gave people in Africa increased protection against malaria, and traits that look bad can be highly survivable such as traits that skew people towards obesity can cause humans to survive famines which are surprisingly common on timelines going back mere centuries. Its political expediency is ultimately what made it popular, and its downfall is that it was self-evidently used in anti-scientific ways to legitimize the state's treatment of people.
Prefrontal lobotomies: It is based on a theory that if you damage a specific part of the brain it will improve behavior. There is some science behind it, and early on it had some clinical success. It is something that actually can help in very specific cases as a last resort and is even used today. The problem is that it is incredibly easy to do, essentially requiring someone with minimal training to insert an implement through the socket of someone's eye and tapping it a bit with a hammer. What ended up happening instead is that state run mental health hospitals started using it as an "off switch" for disruptive patients as dramatized in the famous movie "One Flew over the Cuckoo's nest". Private practices tended to make use of the procedure after years of trying other treatments, whereas public medicine used the procedure shortly after patients were admitted. Ultimately, public mental health facilities ended up completing something like 96% of prefrontal lobotomies because performing a technique that could make people compliant was easier politically than asking the public to pay more tax to fully fund the mental health system. Its ease and political expediency is ultimately what made it popular, and its downfall is that it was0 used in anti-scientific ways to simplify the state's treatment of mentally ill people.
Bloodletting: A practice derived from medical treatises developed by the ancient Greeks. Those treatises suggested that the body contained a number of humors, and it is the balance of those different humors that where the primary determinant of a person's health, and so many issues were caused by an excess of one of those humors, and so various treatments sought to reduce the excess. Now there is a rational basis for this idea, just imagine if you're sick you feel like you need to throw up, and if you didn't know what the body was doing you might assume that for some reason the body was producing an excess of vomit. After all, once you successfully vomit you often feel a lot better. I think another bile is essentially feces as it moves through your digestive tract, and so a lot of the time medical issues do boil down to trying to remove excess feces from your digestive tract. One is green bile, phlegm, which obviously forms in your lungs, nose, throat, and sinuses when you are sick or as a protective mechanism for the regular basis, so too much green bile obviously feels like crap you have a runny nose or you're all stuffed up and coughing. The final of the biles is red bile, or blood, and it was assumed that certain illnesses were made better by releasing the excess blood that you had. So there was obviously a rational basis for this theory, but what really made it prevalent for a long time was the fact that there were religious taboos against digging into the human body to figure out how it worked. It wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago that rather than just trying to come up with treatments based on things that had a rational basis we started studying the body and trying to figure out what was actually wrong. That, paired with a new understanding of germ theory ended up leading to the development of treatments that actually resolve problems rather than symptoms. Once we did that, we realized that many of our treatments were wrong, and the case of something like bloodletting where people would end up being cut up on a regular basis for something that had no therapeutic value, it was considered downright barbaric.
So now we come to the matter at hand. What we know from her scientific basis he's pretty limited, but everyone kind of agrees something is going on, people have some kind of thing going on where they want to behave in a certain way, and they long to look a certain way, and that there's a dissonance between that desire and reality. But we also have is a political philosophy in postmodern neo-marxism that really wants there to be no such thing as the biological. Given a political and almost religious conviction that everyone is exactly the same, it is an extremely convenient belief to think that unalienable parts of a person's biology can be changed. Therefore, when someone wants to be changed politically and philosophically the right thing is to just do it for them, regardless of whether it's empirically and scientifically the right thing to do.
In this way, it is in many ways like the three things that I mentioned. Like eugenicism, the primary purpose of the intense attention paid to this certain thing is to advance the political cause rather than medical treatment. Like the prefrontal lobotomy, handing someone a bottle of pills (or even setting up an appointment for a brutal surgery, although the surgery itself is a current-day miracle of impressive skill and knowledge) is something relatively easy to do, and for certain aspects of the state it is convenient. Like bloodletting, it has a limited scientific basis, and mostly lives in the minds of the philosophers rather than in real empirical studies, and there are quasi religious taboos which have limited good study on it. Given the limited basis for the treatment, the highly politicized nature of its selection, and the fact that we end up engaging in Acts that would be considered atrocities at all points in human history if they aren't being done to help people, that's why I think it's likely that after the current era is over people will look upon the transiting as kids the same way as these other treatments, if not worse.
It's interesting to note that each of them could actually be helpful under certain circumstances. Though rare, prefrontal lobotomies are still very occasionally done. For some very rare conditions, removing excess blood is the modern treatment, and for people with rare genetic disorders, they may willingly choose to not have kids knowing that the future will not have as many opportunities for that disorder. In the same way, there may in fact be a small number of individuals for whom gender affirming therapy is the objectively correct course of action, but the political nature of what's going on right now will sour the whole enterprise.
Another thing (which I won't get into much here) is I think the near future will be much poorer, and much more conservative. Moon and Whatifalthist on youtube have made videos which help explain why the future will be poorer in their videos on population collapse or why the next century will look like the 30 years war, and as for why it would be more conservative, it seems logical -- the more "progressive" stuff includes killing your babies in the womb, not having kids due to climate change, moving to dense urban environments that tend to be high stress and anti-natalist, as well as stuff like child sex changes which sterilize their victims -- If you have two groups, and one of them is trying to survive and thrive, and the other is trying to commit suicide, of course the former will build the future no matter how much power the latter has in the present. Think of it like the process described in "idiocracy", but instead of intelligence, it's political affiliation which research shows is somewhat correlated to your parents.
At the moment, many western countries are importing many Muslims. Progressives seem to falsely believe that Muslims are progressive because most of them are beige and anyone who isn't a straight WASP is considered progressive by default in proportion to the amount they're not that thing, but Islam has been a highly conservative religion since the end of the Islamic golden age, and there's little evidence to suggest that's going to change because some western progressive tells them to. I'm sure you can find individual Muslims who are western progressives since populations are made of individuals and there's variation within such, but I'm talking about populations as a whole from a statistical perspective, and what happened after the Islamic golden age should be a warning to all of us. I don't think the future will look like anything even the most "far right conservative" among us wants to see.
To answer that question, let's look at each, where it came from, and what was its downfall..
Eugenics: It is a theory based on evolution that essentially says you can engineer the human species into becoming a better human race. Although evolution is sound science, the problem with eugenics is that it's tied up in politics. Who gets to choose what is a superior human? In the times it was in vogue, what individuals considered the "superior human" was people like themselves. You can't play God and succeed. We know today that many things we used to think made humans inferior can actually be traits that cause survivability. For example, sickle cell trait gave people in Africa increased protection against malaria, and traits that look bad can be highly survivable such as traits that skew people towards obesity can cause humans to survive famines which are surprisingly common on timelines going back mere centuries. Its political expediency is ultimately what made it popular, and its downfall is that it was self-evidently used in anti-scientific ways to legitimize the state's treatment of people.
Prefrontal lobotomies: It is based on a theory that if you damage a specific part of the brain it will improve behavior. There is some science behind it, and early on it had some clinical success. It is something that actually can help in very specific cases as a last resort and is even used today. The problem is that it is incredibly easy to do, essentially requiring someone with minimal training to insert an implement through the socket of someone's eye and tapping it a bit with a hammer. What ended up happening instead is that state run mental health hospitals started using it as an "off switch" for disruptive patients as dramatized in the famous movie "One Flew over the Cuckoo's nest". Private practices tended to make use of the procedure after years of trying other treatments, whereas public medicine used the procedure shortly after patients were admitted. Ultimately, public mental health facilities ended up completing something like 96% of prefrontal lobotomies because performing a technique that could make people compliant was easier politically than asking the public to pay more tax to fully fund the mental health system. Its ease and political expediency is ultimately what made it popular, and its downfall is that it was0 used in anti-scientific ways to simplify the state's treatment of mentally ill people.
Bloodletting: A practice derived from medical treatises developed by the ancient Greeks. Those treatises suggested that the body contained a number of humors, and it is the balance of those different humors that where the primary determinant of a person's health, and so many issues were caused by an excess of one of those humors, and so various treatments sought to reduce the excess. Now there is a rational basis for this idea, just imagine if you're sick you feel like you need to throw up, and if you didn't know what the body was doing you might assume that for some reason the body was producing an excess of vomit. After all, once you successfully vomit you often feel a lot better. I think another bile is essentially feces as it moves through your digestive tract, and so a lot of the time medical issues do boil down to trying to remove excess feces from your digestive tract. One is green bile, phlegm, which obviously forms in your lungs, nose, throat, and sinuses when you are sick or as a protective mechanism for the regular basis, so too much green bile obviously feels like crap you have a runny nose or you're all stuffed up and coughing. The final of the biles is red bile, or blood, and it was assumed that certain illnesses were made better by releasing the excess blood that you had. So there was obviously a rational basis for this theory, but what really made it prevalent for a long time was the fact that there were religious taboos against digging into the human body to figure out how it worked. It wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago that rather than just trying to come up with treatments based on things that had a rational basis we started studying the body and trying to figure out what was actually wrong. That, paired with a new understanding of germ theory ended up leading to the development of treatments that actually resolve problems rather than symptoms. Once we did that, we realized that many of our treatments were wrong, and the case of something like bloodletting where people would end up being cut up on a regular basis for something that had no therapeutic value, it was considered downright barbaric.
So now we come to the matter at hand. What we know from her scientific basis he's pretty limited, but everyone kind of agrees something is going on, people have some kind of thing going on where they want to behave in a certain way, and they long to look a certain way, and that there's a dissonance between that desire and reality. But we also have is a political philosophy in postmodern neo-marxism that really wants there to be no such thing as the biological. Given a political and almost religious conviction that everyone is exactly the same, it is an extremely convenient belief to think that unalienable parts of a person's biology can be changed. Therefore, when someone wants to be changed politically and philosophically the right thing is to just do it for them, regardless of whether it's empirically and scientifically the right thing to do.
In this way, it is in many ways like the three things that I mentioned. Like eugenicism, the primary purpose of the intense attention paid to this certain thing is to advance the political cause rather than medical treatment. Like the prefrontal lobotomy, handing someone a bottle of pills (or even setting up an appointment for a brutal surgery, although the surgery itself is a current-day miracle of impressive skill and knowledge) is something relatively easy to do, and for certain aspects of the state it is convenient. Like bloodletting, it has a limited scientific basis, and mostly lives in the minds of the philosophers rather than in real empirical studies, and there are quasi religious taboos which have limited good study on it. Given the limited basis for the treatment, the highly politicized nature of its selection, and the fact that we end up engaging in Acts that would be considered atrocities at all points in human history if they aren't being done to help people, that's why I think it's likely that after the current era is over people will look upon the transiting as kids the same way as these other treatments, if not worse.
It's interesting to note that each of them could actually be helpful under certain circumstances. Though rare, prefrontal lobotomies are still very occasionally done. For some very rare conditions, removing excess blood is the modern treatment, and for people with rare genetic disorders, they may willingly choose to not have kids knowing that the future will not have as many opportunities for that disorder. In the same way, there may in fact be a small number of individuals for whom gender affirming therapy is the objectively correct course of action, but the political nature of what's going on right now will sour the whole enterprise.
Another thing (which I won't get into much here) is I think the near future will be much poorer, and much more conservative. Moon and Whatifalthist on youtube have made videos which help explain why the future will be poorer in their videos on population collapse or why the next century will look like the 30 years war, and as for why it would be more conservative, it seems logical -- the more "progressive" stuff includes killing your babies in the womb, not having kids due to climate change, moving to dense urban environments that tend to be high stress and anti-natalist, as well as stuff like child sex changes which sterilize their victims -- If you have two groups, and one of them is trying to survive and thrive, and the other is trying to commit suicide, of course the former will build the future no matter how much power the latter has in the present. Think of it like the process described in "idiocracy", but instead of intelligence, it's political affiliation which research shows is somewhat correlated to your parents.
At the moment, many western countries are importing many Muslims. Progressives seem to falsely believe that Muslims are progressive because most of them are beige and anyone who isn't a straight WASP is considered progressive by default in proportion to the amount they're not that thing, but Islam has been a highly conservative religion since the end of the Islamic golden age, and there's little evidence to suggest that's going to change because some western progressive tells them to. I'm sure you can find individual Muslims who are western progressives since populations are made of individuals and there's variation within such, but I'm talking about populations as a whole from a statistical perspective, and what happened after the Islamic golden age should be a warning to all of us. I don't think the future will look like anything even the most "far right conservative" among us wants to see.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
I imagine because unless humanity is on a downward trend back to the primordial waters, the history shows that humanity struggles with bouts of mass insanity after which it proclaims how crazy all that shit used to be. In 50 years we'll either be building huts from the rubble or we'll point back to this time as a period of preposterous beliefs.
>Though rare, prefrontal lobotomies are still very occasionally done.
Seriously? Wtf!?
>performing a technique that could make people compliant was easier politically than asking the public to pay more tax to fully fund the mental health system
Yeah I wonder why 😒
Seriously? Wtf!?
>performing a technique that could make people compliant was easier politically than asking the public to pay more tax to fully fund the mental health system
Yeah I wonder why 😒
I ended up reading up about it a few years back while doing research for a post on the fediverse, and I was pretty surprised at it as well. The thing is, sometimes it is the only option, but it's the sort of thing that you do after years and years of trying every other thing.
Unfortunately I don't really have a choice in the matter. I was talking about how things are rather than how things should be.
Also, first of all we don't know that it is done against their will, and second of all we don't know just how bad whatever they would use the data's treatment against might be. Nobody wants a limb amputated, but sometimes that's just the treatment for a certain disease.
Also, first of all we don't know that it is done against their will, and second of all we don't know just how bad whatever they would use the data's treatment against might be. Nobody wants a limb amputated, but sometimes that's just the treatment for a certain disease.
Not enough is known yet. What they oud do for starters is to do MRIs of the brains of these individuals. But even then, it wouldn't be a sure-fire diagnostic device per transgenderism because a vast majority of gays would scan with asymmetrical brain hemispheres as well. (The brain hemispheres of males are symmetrical and females are asymmetrical). Studies have shown that up to 90% of young teens who feel they are trans will phase out of it by age 19. That is they will become gay or straight.
Exactly - they basically were "treating" gay and lesbian kids