American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

when I was a kid in middle school I made 3 close mates, we were thick as thieves, about 3 years after we started hanging out together we realised we all had single parent mums, in fact we were the only boys in school from broken homes without fathers in our lives (this is the early seventies when it was still a rarity in the UK).

Looking back on it now we found each other because we were the kids that didnt invite other kids home, we were ashamed of not having a dad, and so we natural found it easy to be friends with each other, no one asked any difficult questions like 'what does you dad do?' we all stayed away from the subject, we all hang out outside our homes, never invited each other back.

That's why trans and gay kids are finding each other now, one comes out and the 4 or 5 other kids feeling exactly the same way breathe a huge sigh of relief and come out after.

Everything you say here is true. And it doesn’t invalidate the concerns about assessments raised in the article I posted. Concerns raised - for those who haven’t taken the five minutes to read the article - by top physicians in the field, who themselves are transgendered.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Multiple people replying to you on the same topic isn't a dog pile, it's just how a forum works. It's also not an excuse to ignore replies that expose you to reply to ones where you can play victim.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Everything you say here is true. And it doesn’t invalidate the concerns about assessments raised in the article I posted. Concerns raised - for those who haven’t taken the five minutes to read the article - by top physicians in the field, who themselves are transgendered.

I can barely get my kid to go to the dentist, trans or not she aint going to have her genitals removed and I cannot see any parent, no matter how dumbass, and trust me I have seen many many dumbass parents, decide for no good reason that they think (presumably) that it would be cool to have a trans kid and so persuade a bog average kid that they should spend hours a week seeing a counselor just for the 'prize' of unpleasant painful surgery.

No parent or child wants this, no one involved is doing any of this for any other reason than they are tearing their hair out trying to work out what is best for their kid, trust me this I know, I am tearing myself up worrying that by not exploring hormone replacement I am maybe negatively affecting the rest of his/her life

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I did kick off my participation on this subject by posting a detailed and credible article about the issue that we might talk about.

I'll certainly give you that. And it was a great starting part for me who really doesn't know much or have a strong opinion one way or the other. Looking at anecdotal evidence out there that the "affirmative approach" might have gone too far, but then I read the next article and it seems to suggest that the anecdote doesn't happen or at least very often.

But I also looked up the names and saw the very real criticisms they were getting. An anonymous study targeting parents who think their children came out of the blue to announce they were a different gender doesn't give us insight into the children's thoughts. It's probably is a better indicator on how well children are able to hide personal struggles even (especially) from their parents (like when we hear about the suicidal student who was outgoing, loved life and never showed signs of suicide before).

So yeah, if you were completely caught off guard that your child identifies as another gender, there's probably some communication missing there. It's not exactly surprising they were on social media.

And yeah if your daughter is transgendered, it makes sense that her friendship group includes LGBTQ+ as she's part of the community and accepting of her identity.

But instead people used that to argue that being on social media, or having a transgendered friend was the reason for these supposed social pressure, that it was a trend, they would grow out of it. Okay, that seems a lot of what we heard from the homophobes of last generation but it's worth research into it...

And then the research was done:
https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-...4/fulltext#%20

It did not support the hypothesis.

So I appreciate your first post and the message around it (nuance needed, conflicting views even within the organizations, new research, politicizing medicine, all important topics).

But then I think you took it to ####oo-town with you saying research was being suppressed in my opinion.

Although less important, I'd also be curious how you found the article. Did you look up "best practices for diagnosing and treating gender dysmorphia in adolescents?" Is Dr. Lisa Littman someone you have followed for years and respect her studies? Are you on a WebMD newsletter that sends you any new article regarding adolescent transgendered people's health? Or was it just the first credible article you found that supported this view? Obviously nothing wrong with looking at both sides of an issue, far from it, but the spins you put on it seemed to be motivated beyond just what was read in the article.

It's like someone who believes in ivermectin for the treatment of COVID. They type in:

"Ivermectin protects from COVID"

First link: https://journals.lww.com/americanthe...ment_of.7.aspx

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

And then they reach this conclusion: "Wow mainstream media is in the pocket of big pharmacy and suppressing research."

[nfotiu]

These types of laws just seem like an obvious attempt to bait liberals. Outlaw something that isn't a common thing happening anyway, and get liberals to start saying things like all kids should be able to get gender reassignment surgery. It just serves to further siphon off moderate Democrat voters.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I can barely get my kid to go to the dentist, trans or not she aint going to have her genitals removed and I cannot see any parent, no matter how dumbass, and trust me I have seen many many dumbass parents, decide for no good reason that they think (presumably) that it would be cool to have a trans kid and so persuade a bog average kid that they should spend hours a week seeing a counselor just for the 'prize' of unpleasant painful surgery.

No parent or child wants this, no one involved is doing any of this for any other reason than they are tearing their hair out trying to work out what is best for their kid, trust me this I know, I am tearing myself up worrying that by not exploring hormone replacement I am maybe negatively affecting the rest of his/her life

The concern isn’t that parents are pressing for transition. The concern is that people doing assessments aren’t exercising due diligence, and are instead defaulting to gender affirmation because of pressure from outside the scientific community.

A proper evaluation for gender dysphoria requires a comprehensive analysis of every young person, their journey, and a medical and psychological profile, Anderson stresses.

"To simply act as if a child is a reliable reporter about this area but not nearly every other area is preposterous," she says.

Anderson says she's not criticizing all providers or all transgender care.

But she's concerned "that in the haste which some, in my opinion, have exercised to provide gender care to youth...some providers are either ignoring what they know about adolescents, or they're setting it aside for the time being in the service of expediting care that's gender-affirming."

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

These types of laws just seem like an obvious attempt to bait liberals. Outlaw something that isn't a common thing happening anyway, and get liberals to start saying things like all kids should be able to get gender reassignment surgery. It just serves to further siphon off moderate Democrat voters.

Kind of, they’re more meant to bait and outrage the right into action. You have to remember that these people don’t care if liberals say something like “all kids should be able to” they care that anyone is able to because they believe it is fundamentally wrong to begin with.

Take the statement out of Texas. It touches on things that (like you said) aren’t even happening and that no medical professionals recommends. Things that serious people aren’t fighting for or wanting access to. It’s not to bait liberals into fighting for something more extreme, it’s to suggest these people want all of these actions to be available to children, and to cue up the disgust from their base. Talking about whether a child who has started puberty with properly diagnosed gender dysmorphia should get to take reversible medication to halt puberty for 6 months isn’t exciting, but making people think pre teens are going under the knife to have gender reassignment surgery sure is. It baits people like White Out easily.

There is an interesting rolling stone article on some of the strategies the Christian Right use against trans folks in light of having “lost” the fight against same sex marriage:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...nt-203248/amp/

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The concern isn’t that parents are pressing for transition. The concern is that people doing assessments aren’t exercising due diligence, and are instead defaulting to gender affirmation because of pressure from outside the scientific community.

Can you address any of Optimal’s comments about the article?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The concern isn’t that parents are pressing for transition. The concern is that people doing assessments aren’t exercising due diligence, and are instead defaulting to gender affirmation because of pressure from outside the scientific community.

What you mean like Crazy Al's Tire Lube and Gender Reassignment Shop?

[GirlySports]

Slippery slope politics!! If we don't stop this now, all kids will choose to change their gender! Please think of the children!!!

Republicans: slippery slope, OMG
Democrats: Outrage, OMG

It's like vaccine mandates! OMG! They're making us have to get a vaccine to eat in a restaurant? If we allow this, there's no stopping making them! Castration is next!

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The concern isn’t that parents are pressing for transition. The concern is that people doing assessments aren’t exercising due diligence, and are instead defaulting to gender affirmation because of pressure from outside the scientific community.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov...22/kp-0401.pdf

That's what actually prompted the discussion. Just so it doesn't get lost in other discussion. And it has nothing to do with due diligence. It is simply the opinion of the AG that any sex-change procedure could constitute child abuse.

Therefore, a court could find these procedures and treatments to
be child abuse under section 261.001(1)(A). Further, attempts by a parent to consent to these
procedures and treatments on behalf of their child may, if successful, “cause or permit the child to
be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an
observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological
functioning[,]” and could be child abuse under section 261.001(1)(B). Additionally, the failure to
stop a doctor or another parent from conducting these treatments and procedures on a minor child
can constitute a “failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent an action by another person that
results in physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child[,]” and this “failure to make
a reasonable effort to prevent” can also constitute child abuse under section 261.001(1)(D). Any
person that conducts or facilitates these procedures or treatments could be engaged in child abuse,
whether that be parents, doctors, counselors, etc.

Whether or not the court would we will most likely see. But according to the AG, and now Abbott acting on it, a 16 year old could want to be on blockers, discussed it with her doctors and psychiatrists for 5 years, have full support from her parents. And if she took those blockers then her doctors and parents would be committing a crime. According to the AG.

[OptimalTates]

So in Texas, according to the AG and supported by the governor, if you are a child you can not legally go through with sex-change procedures which includes non-invasive techniques like puberty blockers and other hormones.

But "child" is defined in Texas Family Code as someone under the age of 18 that is not married.

You can get married at 16 with parental consent in Texas.

This has an easy solution. Just start having the transgendered kids all marry each other then legally go for your sex-change procedures.

I'm sure the Texans supporting the usage of child abuse laws to prevent transgendered kids from getting proper medical procedure done will not be too pleased to see marriage laws get around that and will quickly change their interpretation.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Slippery slope politics!! If we don't stop this now, all kids will choose to change their gender! Please think of the children!!!

Republicans: slippery slope, OMG
Democrats: Outrage, OMG

It's like vaccine mandates! OMG! They're making us have to get a vaccine to eat in a restaurant? If we allow this, there's no stopping making them! Castration is next!

Except the slippery slope argument that democrats and those opposed to it are like "If we allow this, soon it will be illegal to try and help our informed children get the proper medical procedures they need from trained professionals" while the Republicans are like "Let's make it illegal to try and help children get the proper medical procedures they need from trained professionals."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/u...ans-youth.html

Among the first to be investigated was an employee of the state protective services agency who has a 16-year-old transgender child. On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and Lambda Legal went to state court in Austin to try to stop the inquiry.

The employee, who was not named in the court filing, works on the review of reports of abuse and neglect. She was placed on administrative leave last week, according to the filing, and on Friday was visited by an investigator from the agency, which is also seeking medical records related to her child. The family of the child, identified in court documents only as Mary Doe, has refused to voluntarily turn over the records.

A person who was responsible for reviewing reports of abuse and neglect is now being accused of it because she accepted their daughter and got her health care.

According to the lawsuit, the state’s investigator told the parents that the only allegation against them was that their transgender daughter might have been provided with gender-affirming health care and was “currently transitioning from male to female.”

[OptimalTates]

So pretty much in this case, this is the slope:

[jayswin]

Just excellent posts from OptimalTates in this thread. Love it.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Just excellent posts from OptimalTates in this thread. Love it.

Thanked for reminding me to thank Optimal

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Can you address any of Optimal’s comments about the article?

He discredited the methodology of one study. As to his other points, I’m going to side with the experts cited in the article rather than some rando on social media.

Here’s another one:

Activists would have the public believe that anyone who expresses a wish to be the other gender should be allowed and encouraged to do so. Credulous politicians have translated their demands into law. To date, however, there is no evidence that there is such a thing as a “true” trans, just as there is no marker that would identify a “false” trans. To accept the thinking and wishes of those with ASD at face value, without understanding why they feel the way they do, is not a kindness, and may in fact be extremely damaging.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/sus...change-genders

So here’s the card:

* President-elect of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health

* President of the U.S. Professional Association for Transgender Health

* President of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research

* Former chief of psychiatry at Hospital for Sick Children and head of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Toronto.

vs

* OptimalTates

I’m going with the scientists on this one.

Siding with the science =/= siding with trans activists. Top experts say powerful social and political pressure is being exerted to default to gender affirmation - to accept a child’s self-assessment of dysphoria as sufficient for a diagnosis to pursue hormone-blockers and transitioning. And they say this is causing harm.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Interesting back and forth. I think what is missing here is that transitioning is not something that happens over night. It takes years of counseling and then drug treatment before someone is eligible for a reassignment surgery. Do those years of counseling and treatment not provide an ample body of support to the need for the surgery? Considering we allow all sorts of modification or augmentation surgery without appropriate counseling, even for people below the age of majority, this seems like an over-reach. There are more boob jobs performed on teens in most clinics than there are gender reassignment surgery in the entirety of the country. This is a silly law supported by silly people. People should be outraged that the Texas legislature has time to take this garbage on and allow an existential problem like poor power infrastructure to be an ongoing and never ending problem. When people fall for this nonsense they get the government they deserve.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So here’s the card:

* President-elect of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health

WPATH supports reversible and partially reversible actions in adolescents who meet the guidelines and acknowledge that unnecessarily delaying intervention could be harmful.
https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Docu...V7_English.pdf

Adolescents may be eligible for puberty suppressing hormones as soon as pubertal changes have
begun. In order for adolescents and their parents to make an informed decision about pubertal
delay, it is recommended that adolescents experience the onset of puberty to at least Tanner
Stage 2.
...
Refusing timely medical interventions for adolescents might prolong gender dysphoria and contribute
to an appearance that could provoke abuse and stigmatization. As the level of gender-related abuse
is strongly associated with the degree of psychiatric distress during adolescence (Nuttbrock et al.,
2010), withholding puberty suppression and subsequent feminizing or masculinizing hormone
therapy is not a neutral option for adolescents.

Dr. Bowers biggest gripe with puberty blockers isn't because she fears the patient may revert back to their gender assigned at birth, it's almost the complete opposite. She fears that it keeps the penile tissue too small for a transwoman when she does have the operation resulting in poorer functioning vaginas.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

* President of the U.S. Professional Association for Transgender Health

Ex-president of USPATH. Her beliefs did not align with WPATH and USPATH. Here's the joint statement they released after she went rogue:

https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Docu...012%202021.pdf

The United States Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH) and the World
Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) stand behind the appropriate care of
transgender and gender diverse youth, which includes, when indicated, the use of "puberty blockers"
such as gonadotropin releasing hormone analogs and other medications to delay puberty, and, when
indicated, the use of gender- affirming hormones such as estrogen or testosterone. Guidelines for the
assessment of transgender and gender diverse youth, as well as for the use of pubertal delay and
gender affirming hormone medications have been published by reputable professional bodies, including
the Endocrine Society, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the American
Psychiatric Association

But sure, both of them bring up reasonable position that pretty much amount to "doctors should be competent and do their jobs well, follow best practices and guidelines." It's not so much the guidelines, which can include sex-change procedures, but moreso the failing of doctors that they take issue with.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

President of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research

You're talking about Littman and her hypothesis about ROGD. ICGDR was created a year ago by Littman. It's a nothing organization which seems to be largely because Littman was being lambasted by the actual organizations for her views on ROGD. I'll defer to WPATH as you obviously highly respect that organization given the credit you gave a past president. It released a letter specifically addressing Littman's rapid onset gender dysphoria:

The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD)” is not a medical
entity recognized by any major professional association, nor is it listed as a subtype or
classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International
Classification of Diseases (ICD). Therefore, it constitutes nothing more than an acronym created
to describe a proposed clinical phenomenon that may or may not warrant further peer-reviewed
scientific investigation.

But they are far from the only ones to critique Littman's hypothesis and methods.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...508-019-1453-2

Littman’s methodological flaws in the conceptualization and design of the study illustrate the importance of and need for more rigorous survey design and data analysis in descriptive studies.

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-...085-4/fulltext

Although emergence of gender dysphoria at puberty is long established, a distinct pathway of rapid onset gender dysphoria was recently hypothesized based on parental data. Using adolescent clinical data, we tested a series of associations that would be consistent with this pathway, however, our results did not support the rapid onset gender dysphoria hypothesis.

https://psychology.org.au/about-us/n...20Riggs%20said.

The Australian Psychological Society (APS) today released the following statement in support of transgender people in Australia, and challenging the unfounded claim that social media influences the gender of young people specifically:

“Empirical evidence consistently refutes claims that a child’s or adolescent’s gender can be ‘directed’ by peer group pressure or media influence, as a form of ‘social contagion’,” APS Fellow Professor Damien Riggs said.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191028....org/advocacy/

The term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” is not, and has never been, a diagnosis or health condition but has been used in a single report describing parental perception of their adolescent’s gender identity without exploration of the gender identity and experiences of the adolescents themselves

Here's CAAPS also not supporting Littman's ROGD hypothesis:
https://www.caaps.co/rogd-statement

As an organization committed to the generation and application of clinical science for the public good, the Coalition for the Advancement and Application of Psychological Science (CAAPS) supports eliminating the use of Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of rigorous empirical support for its existence.

There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD and it has not been subjected to rigorous peer-review processes that are standard for clinical science. Further, there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents.
...
Signatories:

American Psychological Association (APA)

Society for the Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, American Psychological Association, Division 44

Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology (SSCP)

Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (SCCAP), American Psychological Association, Division 53

Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM)

Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI)

Association for Behavioral & Cognitive Therapies (ABCT)

National Association of School Psychologists

Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP) Board

Asian American Psychological Association (AAPA)

Society for the Psychological Study of Culture, Ethnicity, and Race

MSU Research Consortium on Gender-based Violence

State, Provincial and Territorial Psychological Association Affairs (Division 31, APA)

American Psychological Association, Division 22 Rehabilitation Psychology

New York Association of School Psychologists (NYASP)

Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA)

Society for the Study of School Psychology (SSSP)

Society for Child and Family Policy and Practice (Division 37 of the American Psychological Association)

Society of Personality and Social Psychology

Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD)

Psychologists' Association of Alberta

Saint Louis University, Clinical Psychology Program

American Psychology-Law Society; Division 41 of APA

Michigan State University, Department of Psychology, Clinical Science Area

Psychologists in Public Service, American Psychological Association, Division 18

American Psychiatric Association

Society of Pediatric Psychology (SPP), Division 54 of the American Psychological Association

Society for Research in Child Development

National Association of Psychological Research and Graduation Programs

Council on Social Work Education

Stony Brook University, Clinical Psychology Program

Michigan State University Twin Registry (MSUTR)

Society of Counseling Psychology, Division 17, American Psychological Association

National Latinx Psychological Association (NLPA)

Anxiety and Depression Association of America

The Society of Clinical Psychology, APA Division 12

American Group Psychotherapy Association

University of Miami Department of Psychology

Portuguese Psychologists Association

Diverse Sexualities Research and Education institute

National Association of Social Workers

Puerto Rico Psychology Association

Association for Psychological Science

Connecticut Psychological Association

Howard Brown Health

American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy

British Columbia Psychological Association

World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)

Associations for Psychologists in Academic Health Centers

Nebraska Psychological Association

GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality

Michigan Psychological Association

Arizona Psychological Association

New Hampshire Mental Health Counselors Association

Florida Psychological Association

Minnesota Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (MAMFT)

AIP— Italian Association of Psychology

Manitoba Psychological Society

Georgia Psychological Association

Vermont Psychological Association

Illinois Psychological Association

Delaware Psychological Association

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

vs

* OptimalTates

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I’m going with the scientists on this one.

Which ones? The one that support your view?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

He discredited the methodology of one study. As to his other points, I’m going to side with the experts cited in the article rather than some rando on social media.

Here’s another one:



So here’s the card:

* President-elect of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health

* President of the U.S. Professional Association for Transgender Health

* President of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research

* Former chief of psychiatry at Hospital for Sick Children and head of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Toronto.

vs

* OptimalTates

I’m going with the scientists on this one.

Siding with the science =/= siding with trans activists. Top experts say powerful social and political pressure is being exerted to default to gender affirmation - to accept a child’s self-assessment of dysphoria as sufficient for a diagnosis to pursue hormone-blockers and transitioning. And they say this is causing harm.

I find it really interesting that you say you side with the scientists and that siding with the scientists does not equal siding with trans activists when, very often, it can and does, as I think most people understand that both “scientists” and “activists” are not homogenous groups with identical findings and beliefs.

You have to consider that OptimalTates, a rando on the internet, cited a study conducted by actual scientists and has followed up by citing an overwhelming number of scientific and medical organisations and professionals which don’t suit your position. Susan Bradley, an “actual scientist” with an opinion piece in the National Post, cited a Catholic mommy blogger we zero credentials that finishes off the cited article with “young people with special needs will just be the latest victims in the left-wing cultural assault against human biology.” Are opinion pieces in newspapers citing religious blogs as evidence how most scientists in your sphere report their findings?

It seems as though, if that’s your very of siding with the scientists, it’s very conveniently a version high on credentials, fear, and bias confirmation, and low on actual science.

Usually when people side with scientists they’re… you know, siding with actual science, not the ramblings of transphobic Catholic bloggers.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I find it really interesting that you say you side with the scientists and that siding with the scientists does not equal siding with trans activists when, very often, it can and does, as I think most people understand that both “scientists” and “activists” are not homogenous groups with identical findings and beliefs.

You have to consider that OptimalTates, a rando on the internet, cited a study conducted by actual scientists and has followed up by citing an overwhelming number of scientific and medical organisations and professionals which don’t suit your position. Susan Bradley, an “actual scientist” with an opinion piece in the National Post, cited a Catholic mommy blogger we zero credentials that finishes off the cited article with “young people with special needs will just be the latest victims in the left-wing cultural assault against human biology.”

It seems as though, if that’s your very of siding with the scientists, it’s very conveniently a version high on credentials, fear, and bias confirmation, and low on actual science.

Usually when people side with scientists they’re… you know, siding with actual science, not the ramblings of transphobic Catholic bloggers. But you side with Susan Bradley’s methodology in that piece, do you?

OptimalTates cited experts rejecting one of the concerns about gender affirmation - rapid onset gender dysphoria. So let’s give him that - strike Littman’s research from the debate.

That doesn’t negate the core concern I’m citing - that there is pressure on people doing assessments to validate gender affirmations without due diligence, and that this can cause harm. The people making that assertion seem to be credible experts in their field (and, it bears repeating, are transgendered themselves). They say many colleagues share their concerns, but are afraid to speak out due to the political climate.

Is your position that this is not happening?

And just to make sure I’m not wasting my time here, have you read the first article I linked to?