I welcome the news about the law suits. At the same time, I wonder why the responsibility for leading the charge has to fall on the shoulders of the injured children, while our president entertains trans activists at the White House, and the AMA submits legal briefs on behalf of the trans lobby.
You can bank on it. The litigation will finally get the facts out there. The victim pool will increase. Healthcare companies and hospital CEOs will be named parties.
There is no reasonable defense because the plaintiffs were children. What can they say to the parents, "You shouldn't have believed us?"
My heart goes out to these girls. This sounds like a very strong case, and I predict that many more will eventually come forward. After the topless circus at the White House, all they need is to start hearing trans widows' stories, with the porn and prostitution elements. This is child sacrifice, as in Roman times. It will become unavoidable for the main stream media, despite the capture.
Though, arguably, the "problem", or a large part of it, is that, while there is some merit in the concept of "gender" itself, too many have turned it into a rather toxic brew. Largely because of a rather "obstinate" refusal by many to differentiate between the two concepts of sex and gender. As Colin put it recently:
Colin: The distinction between sex and gender must first be disentangled. The term “sex” signifies whether a person is male or female, a categorization rooted in objective reproductive biology. Conversely, “gender” is usually characterized by notions of masculinity and femininity or the social roles, behaviors, and expressions traditionally linked to sex.
Teens now have lived their entire lives in a sea of radical social constructivist propaganda. I don't fault them. They're not shallow, they're brainwashed.
Would be nice to see a high profile case lead to "punitive damages" against those peddling "gender-affirming care". Might make the rest sit up and take notice.
But what an odious euphemism is that "gender-affirming care" -- hard to imagine a worse one, maybe "ethnic cleansing"? The procedure boils down into sterilizing, eugenics, and turning autistic and dysphoric children into sexless eunuchs. The "Doctors" responsible should at least lose their licenses, if not be strung up by their nuts and left to twist in the wind, figuratively speaking, of course ...
Though I wonder how likely it is that those responsible might claim that those procedures were more or less "conventional wisdom".
The gender activists now recognize both "eunuch" and "non-binary." At least some of the gender clinics that perform so-called masculinizing or feminizing procedures also perform surgeries to remove male genitals to get the look of a "flat front," and for the "non-binary" males will add a vagina to their existing male genitals.
I would like it if wokesters had to identify the dates when their bizarre fantasies became "what is done." Part of their manipulation is to act like their policies were all decided upon by the inner priesthood, and everyone but you knows this is how it has always been.
As far as I'm concerned, "gender activists" can have as many genders as they want. As long as it's understood that the standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. For those who haven't bookmarked the page yet ..., see the Glossary here:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
Which means that regardless of how often those activists change their gender fluid, if they remove their gonads then, depending on the definitions for the sexes one subscribes to, they have either turned themselves into sexless eunuchs or sterilized themselves -- maybe a favour to the rest of us that they've removed themselves from the gene pool ...
But something from Colin I've posted here before that kind of cuts through that particular "Gordian Knot", one which has, more or less, shackled us to a rather enervating if not debilitating "debate" -- so to speak:
Colin: The distinction between sex and gender must first be disentangled. The term “sex” signifies whether a person is male or female, a categorization rooted in objective reproductive biology. Conversely, “gender” is usually characterized by notions of masculinity and femininity or the social roles, behaviors, and expressions traditionally linked to sex.
Seems the first order of business in resolving the whole transgender clusterfuck is that "disentangling". It may well be debatable exactly what that "objective reproductive biology" encompasses, and likewise "masculinity" and "femininity". But it should be manifestly obvious from the above that sex and gender are entirely different kettles of fish.
Somewhat apropos of the latter, you might have some interest in a rather lengthy though illuminating essay -- from what I've read so far -- on "In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes " by Yassine Meskhout ["Public Defender; Saracen Invader"] -- and my comment thereon:
Incredibly convoluted and complicated topic, a real dog's breakfast. But of particular note therein was his reference and link to several articles by UK feminist philosopher Rebecca Reilly-Cooper [RRC]:
But it reminded me of an Aeon article by her which is also a bit of a dog's breakfast, although I think she provided a number of useful and cogent arguments or perspectives:
RRC: "Once we assert that the problem with gender is that we currently recognise only two of them, the obvious question to ask is: how many genders would we have to recognise in order not to be oppressive? Just how many possible gender identities are there?
The only consistent answer to this is: 7 billion, give or take. There are as many possible gender identities as there are humans on the planet."
More or less consistent with the view that genders are personalities, and personality types.
But she also had a "nice" insight and analogy -- which I may have "stolen" in putting it into a different format -- by which we can assert that gender is both a binary -- masculine and feminine -- as well as a spectrum:
RRC: "To avoid this, the proponent of the spectrum model must in fact be assuming that gender is both a binary and a spectrum. It is entirely possible for a property to be described in both continuous and binary ways. One example is height: clearly height is a continuum, and individuals can fall anywhere along that continuum; but we also have the binary labels Tall and Short. Might gender operate in a similar way?"
Think she kind of snatches defeat from the jaws of victory in later muddles, but still something of a useful insight and analogy.
"Gender" is probably a continuous rather than a dichotomous variable, but those frequency distributions are once again what needs to be examined. When women and men are asked to take a single test consisting of "stereotypical" interests of both sexes, the results separate into sex-linked frequency distributions. Very few women score in the range of men considered to be high in "masculinity," and conversely, few men score in the range of women considered to be high in "femininity" relative to other members of their own sex.
Sandra: "Gender" is probably a continuous rather than a dichotomous variable, but those frequency distributions are once again what needs to be examined.
Agree entirely -- more or less in any case 🙂.
But "more" particularly in the case of those frequency distributions. Apropos of which, a pair on "agreeableness" -- one of the "Big Five" personality traits -- on which women tend to score higher:
One might argue that agreeableness is a more feminine trait than a masculine one. But why I and a number of others argue that gender is not just a single dimensional spectrum, but a multi-dimensional one.
For example, any one person might have a more feminine score on agreeableness, but a more masculine score on one or more of the other Big Five traits. Not to mention on many other "sexually dimorphic" ones, many of which might also be included under the rubric of "gender".
Though not sure what particular value there is in that framework. Which bears some resemblance to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator system -- which some have called pseudoscience and no better than a Chinese fortune cookie.
But that multidimensional "framework" may shed some light on a rather toxic and enervating "debate".
Yes, I agree with you about the multidimensionality of feminine vs. masculine. The tests that were developed to sort people on those dimensions are all inadequate. The intent of my comments was just to highlight that differences usually are seen between the men's and women's distributions. There is a lot of variability cross culturally: consider the level of freedom Italy allows for emotional expressivity versus the level that England allows. Italian men might feel much freer to cry in public, for example, than English women do.
Quite agree on the "inadequate" for many reasons. As you suggest or argue, many of those traits have a significant "socially constructed" aspect or contribution. Not all nature, some contributions from nurture.
Though, arguably, that may give some way of comparing different societies on the basis of degrees of "enlightenment" or sexism.
However, there does seem to be some differences that are more or less constant across societies. Maybe some value in understanding the roots of those differences. The "multidimensional masculine-feminine gender spectrum" may be a rather limited tool, but humanity didn't go from making fire by rubbing two sticks together to Bessemer furnaces in a fortnight. So to speak. 🙂
So effen what? It "proves" that "sexless" term is not a nonsense term, not pulled out of thin air like your "arguments", that it has some credibility even if it leaves hanging the question of what it means to have a sex in the first place.
But here's another "authority" for you in a tweet thread featuring Tomas Bogardus:
"Toby Bartels: Sure, that's fine. As long as you agree that there are many human beings who are neither male nor female."
Nice that Bogardus at least alluded to Griffiths' paper, even if he seems unwilling to address the substance of it.
But I notice that you have yet to explain exactly how it is that any organism can be said to "produce gametes" while not having any "functional gonads":
What a gutless wonder you are and outright charlatan.
You're the fraud -- apparently sitting on a whole steaming pile of butthurt and desperate to retain your membership in the "male" category. Nobody expresses such anger, peevishness, & outright viciousness except if their "articles of faith" are being challenged -- you & the woke and religious fundamentalists. Bravo, bravo 👏🙄
I totally agree, it's high school all over again but on a much larger scale. Bring Trans and oppressed is the new "cool" so all these kids are jumping on the bandwagon trying to fit in because this is the ages where kids are trying to find themselves and their place in life. It's very much a fad and a trend
It is kind of hard to believe this has not already happened. Surgery on a child that consented? Not many courts allow testimony from children and now they can decide to "transition" themselves? Hmmm...hopefully all the money these POSs' are making on this will be eaten 10x by legal fees and settlements.
She only started regular psychotherapy *after* they performed cosmetic surgeries on her? Is this the ‘standard of care’ for any minors?
Do they just give ‘cisgender’ 13 year old girls breast implants for body image issues, perhaps rooted in seeing endless magazines with models that have been airbrushed, only then sending them for mental health therapy after the surgery?
Look at the precedent set by the Kardashians: get a plastic surgery ‘makeover’, resemble a platonic-style ideal formed by the merging of societal misogyny and technological possibility, and achieve fabulous wealth and fame.
"She only started regular psychotherapy *after* they performed cosmetic surgeries on her? Is this the ‘standard of care’ for any minors?"
The gender activists have declared that the cause of anxiety, depression, non-suicidal self harm and suicidality is "minority stress." They thereby proclaim that all psychiatric symptoms in any trans-identified child or adult are situational reactions to external stressors, especially bullying, parental refusal to support a child's trans gender claims, and other forms of what gender activists define as discrimination. The fact that patients report severe psychiatric symptoms does not lead the evaluators at gender clinics to conclude that the patients may have significant mental illnesses, even when many trans-identified patients report histories of psych hospitalizations. In research reports written by gender treatment advocates, the authors often directly tell the reader that any psychiatric symptoms reported prior to medical transitions should be framed as reactions to "minority stress."
The gender treatment professionals in gender clinics also believe that giving people opposite sex hormones and cosmetic surgeries alleviates their psychiatric distress and they have reported that patients' distress is alleviated after medical transition. They appear to believe these things without openness to considering alternative hypotheses about the patients' mental diagnoses or their possible causes. These claims by gender activist treatment professionals are not consistent with evidence-based healthcare.
I suspect that the belief that "gender affirming" medical transition is the gold standard for treating psychiatric conditions in trans people is the basis for clinical decisions to start transitioning the trans patients as soon as they are diagnosed. The treatment teams probably expect that the patients will be cured and won't need psychotherapy anymore after the surgery.
Note the clever strategy of legally declaring psychotherapy in such a situation to be "conversion therapy" and as such, illegal. There are not many laws that mandate a certain treatment for a particular complaint, and fewer still that mandate the wrong treatment. In many jurisdictions it is no longer legal to demur at processing the child through transition, and even asking 'are you sure?' will get you in trouble. One consequence of this that has not yet been used in civil proceedings by detransitioners is that surgical consent forms are only valid if consent is 'informed'—there has been a full discussion of possible drawbacks and potential side-effects. But such a discussion is now 'conversion therapy' and illegal. Therefore the consent is not valid.
It is the case in Oregon that "conversion therapy" is illegal. You make a good point, that the law runs counter to informed consent. I hadn't even thought of that.
Another consequence of the law is that some psychotherapists will stop seeing adolescents altogether. So many of these kids decide one morning that they are "trans" or "non-binary," there is no way to screen them out during initial evaluations. Therapists are not going to want to have a major ethical dilemma dumped on them because a patient suddenly caught the trans virus.
these surgeons and endocrinologists, and the politicians and educators who prop them up, are latter day Mengeles and should be treated accordingly. doctors were hung at Nuremberg for doing things that weren't considered crimes when they did them but were so obviously heinous that laws against them should not have been necessary. the same standard should apply to these butchers
The minute the first multi-billion dollar judgment hits a "gender-affirming healthcare" provider, gender transition will be over in this country, dropped down the memory hole with eugenics.
Her life is not ruined. It's just taken a very painful detour. Her life is very important, and may prove to be a beautiful life. She's already taking action to protect younger people. She may feel that her life is ruined, because she's suffered tremendously, but I have faith her life is not ruined. Something beautiful is in store for her, because she's brave and proactive.
She is very courageous, but her life will never be the same...she will never have the joy of nursing a baby, if she can even ever have a baby. There are other physical and mental,issues with which she will have to struggle. I feel very sorry for her, but admire her courage!
Chloe's right...oddly it feels comforting to know there are people out there who share this pain, as awful as it is.
Chloe and Layla have been through more than me--they're full blown detrans, while I'm only a desistor, but their genuine bravery and resilience helps me through tough times, especially because they're my age.
I hope Layla Jane wins her case against her doctors and Kaiser. Big pharma has taken advantage of people for too long, all to chase a dollar. It doesn't help when society and the government jumps on the band-wagon to help push kids down this dark rabbit hole.
These girls are brave.It must be so good for them to have a peer. I hope there are more lawsuits. What these medical professionals did to these children is on par with Mengele's Nazi experiments.
I hope they can forgive their parents. Don't let these monsters take them from you, too.
I think it's a tactical error to use loaded language like "mutilated" in these proceedings. Lots of transgender adults have had these procedures and are happy with them, and using emotional language like this I think makes it harder to persuade people who are caught in the middle of the culture war on this issue.
I welcome the news about the law suits. At the same time, I wonder why the responsibility for leading the charge has to fall on the shoulders of the injured children, while our president entertains trans activists at the White House, and the AMA submits legal briefs on behalf of the trans lobby.
You can bank on it. The litigation will finally get the facts out there. The victim pool will increase. Healthcare companies and hospital CEOs will be named parties.
There is no reasonable defense because the plaintiffs were children. What can they say to the parents, "You shouldn't have believed us?"
Watch Generation Affirmation documentary. Shocking.
My heart goes out to these girls. This sounds like a very strong case, and I predict that many more will eventually come forward. After the topless circus at the White House, all they need is to start hearing trans widows' stories, with the porn and prostitution elements. This is child sacrifice, as in Roman times. It will become unavoidable for the main stream media, despite the capture.
"child sacrifice", indeed. Sacrificing a whole generation, or large parts of it, on the altar -- or alter -- of "gender ideology".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice
Though, arguably, the "problem", or a large part of it, is that, while there is some merit in the concept of "gender" itself, too many have turned it into a rather toxic brew. Largely because of a rather "obstinate" refusal by many to differentiate between the two concepts of sex and gender. As Colin put it recently:
Colin: The distinction between sex and gender must first be disentangled. The term “sex” signifies whether a person is male or female, a categorization rooted in objective reproductive biology. Conversely, “gender” is usually characterized by notions of masculinity and femininity or the social roles, behaviors, and expressions traditionally linked to sex.
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/dont-take-pride-in-promoting-pseudoscience
But often rather difficult to separate the wheat from the poisonous chaff.
Maybe all this is happening because this Roman Empire is close to collapsing too?
Good guess. I'm hoping info like this might help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VWQsCtcQkk&t=11s
Teens now have lived their entire lives in a sea of radical social constructivist propaganda. I don't fault them. They're not shallow, they're brainwashed.
Yes, that is the primary mechanism of their brainwashing
Would be nice to see a high profile case lead to "punitive damages" against those peddling "gender-affirming care". Might make the rest sit up and take notice.
But what an odious euphemism is that "gender-affirming care" -- hard to imagine a worse one, maybe "ethnic cleansing"? The procedure boils down into sterilizing, eugenics, and turning autistic and dysphoric children into sexless eunuchs. The "Doctors" responsible should at least lose their licenses, if not be strung up by their nuts and left to twist in the wind, figuratively speaking, of course ...
Though I wonder how likely it is that those responsible might claim that those procedures were more or less "conventional wisdom".
The gender activists now recognize both "eunuch" and "non-binary." At least some of the gender clinics that perform so-called masculinizing or feminizing procedures also perform surgeries to remove male genitals to get the look of a "flat front," and for the "non-binary" males will add a vagina to their existing male genitals.
I would like it if wokesters had to identify the dates when their bizarre fantasies became "what is done." Part of their manipulation is to act like their policies were all decided upon by the inner priesthood, and everyone but you knows this is how it has always been.
As far as I'm concerned, "gender activists" can have as many genders as they want. As long as it's understood that the standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. For those who haven't bookmarked the page yet ..., see the Glossary here:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Which means that regardless of how often those activists change their gender fluid, if they remove their gonads then, depending on the definitions for the sexes one subscribes to, they have either turned themselves into sexless eunuchs or sterilized themselves -- maybe a favour to the rest of us that they've removed themselves from the gene pool ...
But something from Colin I've posted here before that kind of cuts through that particular "Gordian Knot", one which has, more or less, shackled us to a rather enervating if not debilitating "debate" -- so to speak:
Colin: The distinction between sex and gender must first be disentangled. The term “sex” signifies whether a person is male or female, a categorization rooted in objective reproductive biology. Conversely, “gender” is usually characterized by notions of masculinity and femininity or the social roles, behaviors, and expressions traditionally linked to sex.
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/dont-take-pride-in-promoting-pseudoscience
Seems the first order of business in resolving the whole transgender clusterfuck is that "disentangling". It may well be debatable exactly what that "objective reproductive biology" encompasses, and likewise "masculinity" and "femininity". But it should be manifestly obvious from the above that sex and gender are entirely different kettles of fish.
Somewhat apropos of the latter, you might have some interest in a rather lengthy though illuminating essay -- from what I've read so far -- on "In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes " by Yassine Meskhout ["Public Defender; Saracen Invader"] -- and my comment thereon:
https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/in-this-house-we-believe-in-gender/comment/17229001
Incredibly convoluted and complicated topic, a real dog's breakfast. But of particular note therein was his reference and link to several articles by UK feminist philosopher Rebecca Reilly-Cooper [RRC]:
https://sexandgenderintro.com/gender/
But it reminded me of an Aeon article by her which is also a bit of a dog's breakfast, although I think she provided a number of useful and cogent arguments or perspectives:
RRC: "Once we assert that the problem with gender is that we currently recognise only two of them, the obvious question to ask is: how many genders would we have to recognise in order not to be oppressive? Just how many possible gender identities are there?
The only consistent answer to this is: 7 billion, give or take. There are as many possible gender identities as there are humans on the planet."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison
More or less consistent with the view that genders are personalities, and personality types.
But she also had a "nice" insight and analogy -- which I may have "stolen" in putting it into a different format -- by which we can assert that gender is both a binary -- masculine and feminine -- as well as a spectrum:
RRC: "To avoid this, the proponent of the spectrum model must in fact be assuming that gender is both a binary and a spectrum. It is entirely possible for a property to be described in both continuous and binary ways. One example is height: clearly height is a continuum, and individuals can fall anywhere along that continuum; but we also have the binary labels Tall and Short. Might gender operate in a similar way?"
Think she kind of snatches defeat from the jaws of victory in later muddles, but still something of a useful insight and analogy.
"Gender" is probably a continuous rather than a dichotomous variable, but those frequency distributions are once again what needs to be examined. When women and men are asked to take a single test consisting of "stereotypical" interests of both sexes, the results separate into sex-linked frequency distributions. Very few women score in the range of men considered to be high in "masculinity," and conversely, few men score in the range of women considered to be high in "femininity" relative to other members of their own sex.
Sandra: "Gender" is probably a continuous rather than a dichotomous variable, but those frequency distributions are once again what needs to be examined.
Agree entirely -- more or less in any case 🙂.
But "more" particularly in the case of those frequency distributions. Apropos of which, a pair on "agreeableness" -- one of the "Big Five" personality traits -- on which women tend to score higher:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joint_probability_distribution_by_sex_and_agreeablenes.jpg
One might argue that agreeableness is a more feminine trait than a masculine one. But why I and a number of others argue that gender is not just a single dimensional spectrum, but a multi-dimensional one.
For example, any one person might have a more feminine score on agreeableness, but a more masculine score on one or more of the other Big Five traits. Not to mention on many other "sexually dimorphic" ones, many of which might also be included under the rubric of "gender".
Though not sure what particular value there is in that framework. Which bears some resemblance to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator system -- which some have called pseudoscience and no better than a Chinese fortune cookie.
But that multidimensional "framework" may shed some light on a rather toxic and enervating "debate".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator
Yes, I agree with you about the multidimensionality of feminine vs. masculine. The tests that were developed to sort people on those dimensions are all inadequate. The intent of my comments was just to highlight that differences usually are seen between the men's and women's distributions. There is a lot of variability cross culturally: consider the level of freedom Italy allows for emotional expressivity versus the level that England allows. Italian men might feel much freer to cry in public, for example, than English women do.
Quite agree on the "inadequate" for many reasons. As you suggest or argue, many of those traits have a significant "socially constructed" aspect or contribution. Not all nature, some contributions from nurture.
Though, arguably, that may give some way of comparing different societies on the basis of degrees of "enlightenment" or sexism.
However, there does seem to be some differences that are more or less constant across societies. Maybe some value in understanding the roots of those differences. The "multidimensional masculine-feminine gender spectrum" may be a rather limited tool, but humanity didn't go from making fire by rubbing two sticks together to Bessemer furnaces in a fortnight. So to speak. 🙂
🙄
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/sexless
"neither male nor female"
So effen what? It "proves" that "sexless" term is not a nonsense term, not pulled out of thin air like your "arguments", that it has some credibility even if it leaves hanging the question of what it means to have a sex in the first place.
But here's another "authority" for you in a tweet thread featuring Tomas Bogardus:
"Toby Bartels: Sure, that's fine. As long as you agree that there are many human beings who are neither male nor female."
https://twitter.com/TomasBogardus/status/1667668900023083013
Nice that Bogardus at least alluded to Griffiths' paper, even if he seems unwilling to address the substance of it.
But I notice that you have yet to explain exactly how it is that any organism can be said to "produce gametes" while not having any "functional gonads":
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/dont-take-pride-in-promoting-pseudoscience/comment/17359865
What a gutless wonder you are and outright charlatan.
You're the fraud -- apparently sitting on a whole steaming pile of butthurt and desperate to retain your membership in the "male" category. Nobody expresses such anger, peevishness, & outright viciousness except if their "articles of faith" are being challenged -- you & the woke and religious fundamentalists. Bravo, bravo 👏🙄
I totally agree, it's high school all over again but on a much larger scale. Bring Trans and oppressed is the new "cool" so all these kids are jumping on the bandwagon trying to fit in because this is the ages where kids are trying to find themselves and their place in life. It's very much a fad and a trend
It is kind of hard to believe this has not already happened. Surgery on a child that consented? Not many courts allow testimony from children and now they can decide to "transition" themselves? Hmmm...hopefully all the money these POSs' are making on this will be eaten 10x by legal fees and settlements.
She only started regular psychotherapy *after* they performed cosmetic surgeries on her? Is this the ‘standard of care’ for any minors?
Do they just give ‘cisgender’ 13 year old girls breast implants for body image issues, perhaps rooted in seeing endless magazines with models that have been airbrushed, only then sending them for mental health therapy after the surgery?
Look at the precedent set by the Kardashians: get a plastic surgery ‘makeover’, resemble a platonic-style ideal formed by the merging of societal misogyny and technological possibility, and achieve fabulous wealth and fame.
"She only started regular psychotherapy *after* they performed cosmetic surgeries on her? Is this the ‘standard of care’ for any minors?"
The gender activists have declared that the cause of anxiety, depression, non-suicidal self harm and suicidality is "minority stress." They thereby proclaim that all psychiatric symptoms in any trans-identified child or adult are situational reactions to external stressors, especially bullying, parental refusal to support a child's trans gender claims, and other forms of what gender activists define as discrimination. The fact that patients report severe psychiatric symptoms does not lead the evaluators at gender clinics to conclude that the patients may have significant mental illnesses, even when many trans-identified patients report histories of psych hospitalizations. In research reports written by gender treatment advocates, the authors often directly tell the reader that any psychiatric symptoms reported prior to medical transitions should be framed as reactions to "minority stress."
The gender treatment professionals in gender clinics also believe that giving people opposite sex hormones and cosmetic surgeries alleviates their psychiatric distress and they have reported that patients' distress is alleviated after medical transition. They appear to believe these things without openness to considering alternative hypotheses about the patients' mental diagnoses or their possible causes. These claims by gender activist treatment professionals are not consistent with evidence-based healthcare.
I suspect that the belief that "gender affirming" medical transition is the gold standard for treating psychiatric conditions in trans people is the basis for clinical decisions to start transitioning the trans patients as soon as they are diagnosed. The treatment teams probably expect that the patients will be cured and won't need psychotherapy anymore after the surgery.
Note the clever strategy of legally declaring psychotherapy in such a situation to be "conversion therapy" and as such, illegal. There are not many laws that mandate a certain treatment for a particular complaint, and fewer still that mandate the wrong treatment. In many jurisdictions it is no longer legal to demur at processing the child through transition, and even asking 'are you sure?' will get you in trouble. One consequence of this that has not yet been used in civil proceedings by detransitioners is that surgical consent forms are only valid if consent is 'informed'—there has been a full discussion of possible drawbacks and potential side-effects. But such a discussion is now 'conversion therapy' and illegal. Therefore the consent is not valid.
It is the case in Oregon that "conversion therapy" is illegal. You make a good point, that the law runs counter to informed consent. I hadn't even thought of that.
Another consequence of the law is that some psychotherapists will stop seeing adolescents altogether. So many of these kids decide one morning that they are "trans" or "non-binary," there is no way to screen them out during initial evaluations. Therapists are not going to want to have a major ethical dilemma dumped on them because a patient suddenly caught the trans virus.
these surgeons and endocrinologists, and the politicians and educators who prop them up, are latter day Mengeles and should be treated accordingly. doctors were hung at Nuremberg for doing things that weren't considered crimes when they did them but were so obviously heinous that laws against them should not have been necessary. the same standard should apply to these butchers
The minute the first multi-billion dollar judgment hits a "gender-affirming healthcare" provider, gender transition will be over in this country, dropped down the memory hole with eugenics.
We can only hope! Those suing are battling some very powerful agencies: government, Big Pharma and the Medical Industrial Complex!
I wait with anticipation to see these charlatan quacks in the dock. Another beautiful young woman’s life ruined for profit. Evil.
Her life is not ruined. It's just taken a very painful detour. Her life is very important, and may prove to be a beautiful life. She's already taking action to protect younger people. She may feel that her life is ruined, because she's suffered tremendously, but I have faith her life is not ruined. Something beautiful is in store for her, because she's brave and proactive.
She is very courageous, but her life will never be the same...she will never have the joy of nursing a baby, if she can even ever have a baby. There are other physical and mental,issues with which she will have to struggle. I feel very sorry for her, but admire her courage!
Chloe's right...oddly it feels comforting to know there are people out there who share this pain, as awful as it is.
Chloe and Layla have been through more than me--they're full blown detrans, while I'm only a desistor, but their genuine bravery and resilience helps me through tough times, especially because they're my age.
I hope Layla Jane wins her case against her doctors and Kaiser. Big pharma has taken advantage of people for too long, all to chase a dollar. It doesn't help when society and the government jumps on the band-wagon to help push kids down this dark rabbit hole.
Congratulations.
This is actually the third lawsuit in the U.S. Chloe Cole is the second lawsuit and in California following Camille Kiefel in Oregon.
Imagine if this all had been precisely predicted even ten years ago. No one would believe it. It would be called bad science fiction.
We are going to see many many more of these as time goes on. Maybe that will finally be what ends this contagion once and for all.
These girls are brave.It must be so good for them to have a peer. I hope there are more lawsuits. What these medical professionals did to these children is on par with Mengele's Nazi experiments.
I hope they can forgive their parents. Don't let these monsters take them from you, too.
I think Cali Keefell in Oregon is the 1st Lawsuit in the country and Chloe Cole in California Is the 2nd? Still good news
I think it's a tactical error to use loaded language like "mutilated" in these proceedings. Lots of transgender adults have had these procedures and are happy with them, and using emotional language like this I think makes it harder to persuade people who are caught in the middle of the culture war on this issue.