I long for the day when you and others can turn your focus solely towards holding those responsible for the worst impacts to children & women accountable for their actions, and even more so for a day when you can turn your attention elsewhere entirely.
Until then keep your elbows up & keep fighting the good fight for evidence-based care and policy.
While the authors remain anonymous, it wouldn't be unreasonable to presume they were HHS employees. You know, the career bureaucrats that are apolitical and only want to work hard for all Americans. Weird how those apolitical do gooders produced a politically motivated report. I think the only political motivation on display here is that of the critics of the HHS report.
This is an important development. I doubt it's the final nail in the gender affirming care coffin, but it's a nail that should make it easier for many to hang their hat on when they dissent. The "all in" tranny activists aren't going to be convinced otherwise, but this report should help, dare I say it, marginalize those muppets. And, yes, some groups DO need to be marginalized by society. Not for their immutable characteristics, but for their terrible ideas.
Loss-of-function elective cosmetic chemical and surgical sex trait modifications are not an effective suicide prevention protocol.
Removal of “lifesaving” as a modifier for this inherently mislabeled “medical care” means an immediate recall of the gross manipulation of patents and the public. “Do you prefer a dead child or a trans child?” This question, engineered to manufacture consent, is tethered to the weakest evidence imaginable: anonymous self reporting to online surveys.
I’m grateful for the HHS report, grateful for your wise and sober voice, Colin, and ever hopeful that once the manic momentum of this barbaric treatment of would-be healthy same-sex-attracted young people is interrupted, genuine care and compassion to encourage self-acceptance / embracing reality may ensue.
Great work here Colin!!! I especially like these lines: [documents how WPATH’s guidelines shifted over the years from a cautious medical model to an ideologically driven affirmation model in its current Standards of Care, Version 8, promoting early medicalization based on self-declared identity alone. Internal documents reveal that WPATH authors chose language not to reflect evidence-based medical practice but to influence court cases, legislation, and insurance policy.] You clearly show how WPATH is not at all Professional !!! Excellent. Keep up the good work! I hope the world reads the HHS report and gets its bearings back soon.
If and when the fad for believing trans kids are real and common disappears, I wonder what will fill the "trans-shaped hole" in believers' minds? After all, we seem to be dealing with people of the "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast" class!
"The chapter on terminology is especially significant. Unlike most U.S.-based clinical guidelines, which adopt ideologically loaded terms like “assigned sex at birth,” the HHS report rejects euphemistic language and insists on terminological clarity."
A recent UK Supreme Court ruling looked at this issue and drew a clear line between terms such as 'gender certification' and 'biological sex'. The mistake was to allow somewhat vague and exploratory terms such as gender - which to be fair are certainly trying to capture something about the human experience - become synonymous with biological terms such as sex.
Thank you, Colin.
I long for the day when you and others can turn your focus solely towards holding those responsible for the worst impacts to children & women accountable for their actions, and even more so for a day when you can turn your attention elsewhere entirely.
Until then keep your elbows up & keep fighting the good fight for evidence-based care and policy.
💪💪🇨🇦
> the potential for irreversible harm is substantial. Risks include sterility, sexual dysfunction
'Substantial risk' of sterility after a boy has had his genitals cut off you say?
Yes, they language is still too soft.
While the authors remain anonymous, it wouldn't be unreasonable to presume they were HHS employees. You know, the career bureaucrats that are apolitical and only want to work hard for all Americans. Weird how those apolitical do gooders produced a politically motivated report. I think the only political motivation on display here is that of the critics of the HHS report.
This is an important development. I doubt it's the final nail in the gender affirming care coffin, but it's a nail that should make it easier for many to hang their hat on when they dissent. The "all in" tranny activists aren't going to be convinced otherwise, but this report should help, dare I say it, marginalize those muppets. And, yes, some groups DO need to be marginalized by society. Not for their immutable characteristics, but for their terrible ideas.
Loss-of-function elective cosmetic chemical and surgical sex trait modifications are not an effective suicide prevention protocol.
Removal of “lifesaving” as a modifier for this inherently mislabeled “medical care” means an immediate recall of the gross manipulation of patents and the public. “Do you prefer a dead child or a trans child?” This question, engineered to manufacture consent, is tethered to the weakest evidence imaginable: anonymous self reporting to online surveys.
I’m grateful for the HHS report, grateful for your wise and sober voice, Colin, and ever hopeful that once the manic momentum of this barbaric treatment of would-be healthy same-sex-attracted young people is interrupted, genuine care and compassion to encourage self-acceptance / embracing reality may ensue.
This is nothing less than Mengelian style mutilation. These kids are now Frankensteins with no normal sexual function.
Pediatric gender medicine is a phrase that shouldn't exist, puberty is natural transition, you don't even know who someone is until that occurs.
Let’s hope this is the death knell for this insidious gender nonsense.
Thank you and keep fighting the good fight!
Great work here Colin!!! I especially like these lines: [documents how WPATH’s guidelines shifted over the years from a cautious medical model to an ideologically driven affirmation model in its current Standards of Care, Version 8, promoting early medicalization based on self-declared identity alone. Internal documents reveal that WPATH authors chose language not to reflect evidence-based medical practice but to influence court cases, legislation, and insurance policy.] You clearly show how WPATH is not at all Professional !!! Excellent. Keep up the good work! I hope the world reads the HHS report and gets its bearings back soon.
Thanks Dano!
If and when the fad for believing trans kids are real and common disappears, I wonder what will fill the "trans-shaped hole" in believers' minds? After all, we seem to be dealing with people of the "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast" class!
"The chapter on terminology is especially significant. Unlike most U.S.-based clinical guidelines, which adopt ideologically loaded terms like “assigned sex at birth,” the HHS report rejects euphemistic language and insists on terminological clarity."
A recent UK Supreme Court ruling looked at this issue and drew a clear line between terms such as 'gender certification' and 'biological sex'. The mistake was to allow somewhat vague and exploratory terms such as gender - which to be fair are certainly trying to capture something about the human experience - become synonymous with biological terms such as sex.
I've written a short piece about this and how we must be wary of confusing the language we sometimes use with the underlying reality: https://sajmalhi.substack.com/p/nature-does-not-lie?r=2cl55d.