There is a simple reason why WPATH members do not accept the Cass Review's comments. The WPATH members make vast sums of money removing the breasts of young women, putting young men and young women on wrong-sex hormones, and otherwise mutilating children. As always, the operative question is "Qua bono?" Who benefits?
Well, it’s one thing for the WPATH acolytes to hold firm to their religious faith.
However, a supposedly evidence-based outfit like the PPA should be thrilled that the Cass report was an exemplar of the scientific method, and they should be upholding its findings. The fact that they are not tells us that they are NOT evidence-based.
All of the surgeries are barbaric and very costly, removal of testes, turning a penis into a vagina. And even the ones whom they all praise, like Jazz Jennings had to go back multiple times because of medical issues after the surgery caused by the surgery. It’s a goldmine for these doctors!
I don't understand why you are comparing this to Nazis. I don't see any parallels between the beliefs. I think that both groups would be offended to be compared to the other, since I am not aware of any overlaps in their beliefs or even methods of operating.
I find it bizarre that you have referred to my comment that way. Have you even tried to think of any parallels between these folks and Nazis? What justification is there for making the comparison.
The Nazis rewarded medical professionals who furthered their ideological aims by being willing to participate in eugenics programs aimed at eliminating "the unfit" or to engage in experiments on human subjects that were harmful to those individuals. The Nuremburg Codes were adopted after WWII in order to prevent physicians and others from engaging in such practices. The Transgender movement creates a reward structure for medical professionals who advance its ideology by subjecting their patients to procedures that destroy the function of healthy vital organs, make them dependent on artificial hormones and which often render them sterile.
And a vastly disproportionate number of test subjects are autistic or gay/lesbian. It actually seems right up the alley of nazis getting rid of undesirable people, even some of the same people.
As noted in my other reply, the Nazi case was not by request so can't really be compared as similar. Also, these practitioners are not trying to get rid of (or even intentionally harm) the children. So it is not comparable as similar.
Mister Delgado, thanks for your discourse. As far as I know, the Nazi experiments you are referring to were all involuntary. A voluntary request cannot be compared to that. These are self selected individuals, not people being grabbed off the street. Additionally, the advocates claim they are trying to help the individuals. So this cannot be compared ideologically with Nazis. The syphilis experiments on the other hand probably could be, but I make that as a side comment, not to derail the thread.
This presuposes the proposition that mentally ill children are capable of knowingly volunteering. Given the WPATH files discussing how to try and avoid liability for just that issue, it' wrong to assume they have any real understanding of the procedures.
Hey kid, we're gonna pump you full of hormones and cut your genitals up, your bones will be brittle, and you'll never be able to have kids. If we don't do this, you'll kill yourself. - that's not informed consent.
That cannot be compared. That is forced sterilization and experimentation. This is individuals electing with desire for the procedure. The Nazis were also eliminating people, and these practitioners allege to be trying to help people. These are so dissimilar that they are more like opposites than being similar. Both the people undergoing the procedure and the ones doing the procedure have totally different ideologies.
You make a good point about voluntary versus involuntary. Indeed, the fact that people choose to be castrated, have their breasts removed and subject themselves to a lifetime of medicalization, which includes going to the doctor several times a week to have their fake vaginas dilated, all of this makes it even more incomprehensible. But here is a question: can you call something "voluntary" when we are talking sometimes about children and teenagers who are incapable of understanding the consequences? Or even about adults who are being told that they can literally become the other sex?--which is a lie. All they are being given is esthetic surgery. These are patients that are victims of doctors who are making money off them. In which case, to what can you compare these practices if not to medical experiments?
I agree with your point, but is still voluntary. It is not fully informed consent. The distinction between voluntary and involuntary is still important. Doing it involuntarily would be antithetical to these practitioners. Avoiding doing it involuntarily would have been antithetical to the Nazis. It is more like opposites than similar, on this crucial point. Only doing it to those who want it versus not.
Edit: I do agree with this part:
"Or even about adults who are being told that they can literally become the other sex?--which is a lie. All they are being given is esthetic surgery."
I do think that calling it a sex change surgery, treatment etc. should be banned and that there should be other wording. Like... genital cosmetic surgery or some such wording. Similarly, hormone injection rather than hormone therapy for these cases, because it is not clear to me that we should call these injections therapy.
The Nazi comparison does have some merit. The way in which Nazi occupied Poland functioned during WW2 is a great example. No one was forced per se to alienate and victimise the Jewish population. However the Nazi government made it clear through extensive propaganda that the Jewish were unclean and spreading disease and if you were Polish and wanted to be a good citizen under occupation then ratting out your Jewish neighbours and friends was doing yourself and society a big favour. And you would also be financially rewarded in some cases. However if you were the brave minority who decided that this was wrong and you wanted to hide your Jewish friends and neighbours to protect them, you risked your life doing so. Poland was the only occupied nation where you were killed for harbouring Jews. Approximately 30,000 Polish men and women including children were sentenced to death by the Nazis (most of them shot on the spot) for standing up against their occupying regime. No one forced them to take such action.
The analogy here is that transgender health care is similar. No one forces anybody to undergo transgender affirmative care. But in many cases parents are pressured by the health care providers to consent to this care (e.g. „would you rather a dead daughter or a live son?”), societal expectations (i.e. transphobia) or by the child themselves (threat of suicide). The child themselves if they can make a choice independently also is subject to peer pressure, societal expectation and flawed medical authority (e.g. „you were born this way”). Those children who in later life detransition honor the fact that they and their parents took direct part in their decision making however they express anger towards society for propagandising and financially incentivising one view over another and eliminating access to the breadth of alternative options available.
So although there is no direct coercion in both the cases of the Poles under Nazi Germany and the transgender medical system, the tacit manipulation that exists is still wrong. And can lead to good people making poor decisions that they later regret because they think that thought their decision was the right decision at the time. I wouldn’t let transgender medical practitioners get off the hook as easily as suggesting because their not dragging children off the street and castrating them, that they are not doing any harm.
Then you are unaware of how the doctors in Germany were quick to jump in with the National Socialists and how stringently they did so. They rushed into the arms of the regime for higher pay and guaranteed positions of authority. This was quite pervasive- to the point that every mass grave you read about had at least one doctor overseeing it.
On a broader ideological level, the regime had no compunction doing whatever they wanted to those they considered less than themselves, and they certainly were not fans of gay people either, considering them subhuman as well. So I have zero doubt, and zero evidence, that the Nazi regime would be against this so-called treatment.
I think you are missing the point. What you are saying is like saying because someone is found eating cake, that it means they will also eat ice-cream. It is not logical. Even if we take for the sake of argument as a given that Nazis were willing to do harmful things to innocents, and take as a given that these treatments are harmful to innocents, there is nothing in the Nazi ideology that I am aware of that suggests they would support doing this. If anything, I think they would view it as unnatural and be against it. They were more against frivolous tattoos than for them, for example. Prisoner number tattoos don't contradict that. Tattoos of blood type, like a medical bracelet, was an exception.
I think you’re being a little too literal in your interpretation here. No one here is saying transgender health care providers are actual Nazis and have national socialism as their core philosophy. No one is arguing that national socialism would in fact support transgender care (Nazis were more in favour of eliminating all mental illness, so transgender children would have been in all likelihood killed early).
What people are arguing here is that many of the same psychological tactics used by the National Socialists of Germany can been seen to be used in transgender activism. These are: intense one-sided propaganda, social coercion and manipulation, incentivising of moral corruption, manipulation of human greed and envy, the perception of the pursuit of the common good or advancement of society through the use of evil means.
The Nazis are only one group that have successfully used such means to support their cause, the abortion and euthanasia industry are two contemporary examples that also use such measures that society is very comfortable supporting, despite the direct loss of life it seeks for the most vulnerable in our society.
Yours is one of the few reasonable comments. However, if you look at the other comments, that is not in fact what others are saying. They appear to be just using the word Nazis frivolously as a pejorative. If one said "they used xyz tactic like the Nazis did" then that would be a fair comment. But if one says "they are Nazis" or "they are poets", then the comparison should be something that is defining for what is being compared to. And here, the defining characteristics of Nazis are absent. We might as well say "They are basketball coaches! Because they are telling people what to do!" You have some good comparisons, and I do agree you've made some fair comparisons to Nazis. Enough to fuel an essay, but I don't see anything compelling enough to say it's reasonable to either Nazis or this group to say they are Nazis [and I'm not disagreeing on the grounds that they aren not literal Nazis, I am disagreeing on the grounds that this particular case is not a good simile].
I mean sure. I get you, we shouldn’t use ad hominem for good argumentation. But most people don’t study philosophy, so for most people to say “they are Nazis” carries more nuance than a philosopher would express.
But even philosophers express themselves poorly. One of my favourite philosophers Peter Boghossian consistently calls the transgender movement or woke ideology “religious”. He thinks it’s a good argument because he is an atheist so for him it’s just obvious that by equivocating the two he is making a statement about how irrational behaviour can be found in ideological fundamentalism. Does he seek to tear down his religious ideological travellers, probably not (although he does hate religion with a passion, so maybe). But I always have to take him with a grain of salt when he’s insulting my religion to make his points.
So I don’t worry about language like this. The Nazis even as individuals were bizarre people. Hitler decided to marry his longtime secret girlfriend hours before their suicides. He also shot his dog, for no good reason prior to his own suicide. His close colleague Goebbells killed his entire family in the bunker, including his innocent children who could have survived the war unscathed. Nothing in socialist ideology predicted those actions. People are complex!
I do find this unusual because you could easily argue the other side (and I do in my workplace). When people push this nonsense argument to me, I rebut with “as a religious person, it deeply offends me that my philosophical underpinning, i.e. natural law, is under direct threat. It hurts me that men and women who I believe are created in the image and likeness of God are being erased through coercive medical procedures and it hurts me that no one considers how an e-mail like this makes me feel alienated and scared to express my views in my workplace, a workplace that tells me that I’m included by seeks to deliberately erase every religious holiday I celebrate and replace that with secular ideological feast days like Pride.”
That usually garners a more positive response than I would imagine. Most people simply haven’t thought through the fact that discrimination is a core facet of society. You’re always going to be alienating someone, it’s very hard to be inclusive and respectful whilst also holding deep moral convictions.
How pathetic. These people (I deliberately did not say “professionals”) put their fragility and intellectual weakness ahead of the truth, ahead of evidence. Disgraceful.
America is famous for prohibition, lobotomy, transgenderism, and shooting presidents on live TV.
Prohibition
Act or practice of forbidding something by law; more particularly the term refers to the banning of the manufacture, storage (whether in barrels or in bottles), transportation, sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The word is also used to refer to a period of time during which such bans are enforced.
In the early twentieth century, much of the impetus for the prohibition movement in the Nordic countries and North America came from moralistic convictions of pietistic Protestants. Prohibition movements in the West coincided with the advent of women's suffrage, with newly empowered women as part of the political process strongly supporting policies that curbed alcohol consumption.
Lobotomy
A lobotomy (from Greek λοβός (lobos) 'lobe', and τομή (tomē) 'cut, slice') or leucotomy is a discredited form of neurosurgical treatment for psychiatric disorder or neurological disorder (e.g. epilepsy, depression) that involves severing connections in the brain's prefrontal cortex. The surgery causes most of the connections to and from the prefrontal cortex, the anterior part of the frontal lobes of the brain, to be severed.
In the past, this treatment was used for treating psychiatric disorders as a mainstream procedure in US. The procedure was controversial from its initial use, in part due to a lack of recognition of the severity and chronicity of severe and enduring psychiatric illnesses, so it was an inappropriate treatment.
The use of the procedure increased dramatically from the early 1940s and into the 1950s; by 1951, almost 20,000 lobotomies had been performed in the United States and proportionally more in the United Kingdom. A large number of patients were gay men. More lobotomies were performed on women than on men: a 1951 study found that nearly 60% of American lobotomy patients were women, and limited data shows that 74% of lobotomies in Ontario from 1948 to 1952 were performed on female patients. From the 1950s onward, lobotomy began to be abandoned, first in the Soviet Union and Europe.
Transgenderism
From Cass herself: Despite the best intentions of everyone with a stake in this complex issue, the toxicity of the debate is exceptional. I have faced criticism for engaging with groups and individuals who take a social justice approach and advocate for gender affirmation, and have equally been criticised for involving groups and individuals who urge more caution. The knowledge and expertise of experienced clinicians who have reached different conclusions about the best approach to care are sometimes dismissed and invalidated.
To be fair both the protestants and the feminists weren’t wrong that alcohol causes severe domestic violence, and a great way to curb that is to restrict access to alcohol especially at a young age. So theie hearts were in the right place.
Prohibition didn’t work because human vice has a way of working between the cracks, and the establishment of a black market was too powerful for the government to reasonably control.
But we still have massive issues with alcohol and domestic violence and alcohol and violent crime. What we’ve done now is invested in prohibition for some people, and not all.
Both protestants and feminists are quite intolerant individuals and movements, they seem to empower its followers, to make decisions that will keep their hearts in the right place
without understanding that there is a culture of courtship, dancing, enjoyment, culture of drinking, cooking, eating, going out.
The more people teach their children to dance, simple and complicated, native, traditional, but also more universal, modern dances, less will be investment of energy into what protestants and feminists call vice.
The protestants and the feminists got the wrong end of the stick. Alcohol in excess causes drunkeness, not domestic violence. Hatred causes domestic violence, hatred of oneself or the other person or even both. Hatred contains the anagram 'heart'.
The heart that is wicked causes domestic violence. It has been written "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"
Those who pushed for prohibition did not address the root causes, the heart of the person.
I wrote a bit about it here indirectly relating it to the COVID nonsense in the UK.
You are not making sense. Domestic violence is violence in homes, that is the meaning of the word.
Drunkenness does not always lead to violence, but it does lead to lack of self-control and that can take various forms.
Banning alcohol never works although denying alcohol to a violent person is another matter. But one cannot say alcohol causes domestic violence, only that it makes a violent person, or someone prone to violence, worse.
You mentioned earlier “…a great way to curb that is to restrict access to alcohol especially at a young age.”
In France alcohol, typically wine, is drunk at mealtimes and so alcohol and food go together. Bring children up with a right attitude to the use of alcohol is the key.
It is written ‘Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.’
I think I’m being very sensible. I come from a culture that has serious domestic violence issues and serious alcoholism issues. The two are highly correlated. In my culture not only is it normal for drinking to start young and in small doses, like for the French, but alcohol is extremely accessible and socially acceptable. And we see plenty of examples of this type of perversive behaviour in other cultures like indigenous cultures that have only had exposure to alcohol since colonisation.
Does this mean we have to wholescale ban alcohol? No. But to fail to recognise alcohol’s correlation to enabling violent behaviour, particularly in domestic settings is simply being ignorant. No one needs alcohol to function, if we banned it tomorrow no one would die. Many people abstain from alcohol for religious or health reasons.
Your comment "If that were true wouldn’t domestic violent be more prominent in houses, given most houses are sober?" made no sense.
You said earlier that "...alcohol causes severe domestic violence" and now you say more reasonably "...alcohol’s correlation to enabling violent behaviour".
That is my point, but you seem to want to ban alcohol and that is plain foolish.
The problem is the culture, not the alcohol, and you appear to admit this. I repeat what I have said before, you have to deal with the root cause, the heart of mankind, not the superficial.
This is beyond daft, it's evil. The Left simply cannot be influenced by reason, argument nor evidence. What are we to do with fellow citizens who insist on doing such clear harm to children? It seems to me that this becomes criminal at a certain point. I really hope a Trump DoJ investigates the crap out of all these peddlers of lies and harm. This is a fraud. It has to stop.
It is alas true that these activist ideologues will suffer harm to learn that their core beliefs are bogus.
"There's no such thing as trans" is painful news to face. Recall when you were a young child and it dawned on you that Santa Claus was fake. "I saw mommy kissing Santa Claus...." tra-la tra-la.
So one line in the letter caught my eye. States they encourage the list serve members to read the Cass report and draw their own conclusions, but they will no longer allow discourse on the topic on the listserv. Apparently, because some members of listserv find it hurtful. So basically the PPA is full of fragile people that can't deal with hard facts. Apparently from the letter this is largely from members that are LBGT themselves. This would be like the American Cancer Society blocking discourse on a type of cancer because some members may have had personal experience with that cancer.
I don't intend to insult psychologists, but since when were they qualified to assess medical studies anyway? It's 48 years since I went to medical school, but I don't regard myself as qualified to interpret the psychology literature. Likewise, I would not take the word of a psychologist over that of Dr Hilary Cass, a paediatrician with a distinguished career, when interpreting medical literature.
Your idea makes sense, but this appears to be outside of her expertise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Cass So from my point of view, while she is closer to the field than a psychologist, I’m not sure that I would trust her view any more than a well respected academic psychologist. This is essentially a metareview anyway. In fact, she’s a clinician. I might better trust it if they took some kind of well respected biology professor known for metareviews. My point is (a) it’s not her specialty (b) her career isn’t evidence of this specific kind of skill. I would also add that gender dysphoria is presumably a psychological condition, so I don’t think it would be unreasonable to think a psychologist would be a good choice for analyzing the papers about whether a treatment was successful or not.
Honestly, how many here are Douglas Adams fans? The "trans kids" self diagnosing on the internet and paying their own butcher remind me of the cow in the restaurant at the end of the universe.
Interesting that their assertion is emotionally based. The quest for data should be stopped because it’s hurtful to their members. Nevermind the devastating harm to those it affects…. CHILDREN.
This is what woke ideology has become. In their warped minds, facts can be hurtful, and must therefore be abolished. Anyone who hurts their wittle feelings or offends them must be censored and canceled. When feelings are prioritized over facts, society (maybe even humanity) is done.
I believe you are operating under the assessment that it is a bad thing to do these things, thus Nazis wouldn't do it. You are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of not just Nazi behavior but general: you are assuming everyone agrees it is bad. The Nazis did their experiments and actions because they thought they were good things to do, not because they are cartoon villains "out to do evil".
The Nazi's were in favor of sterilizing or eliminating "undesirables" - and they certainly considered anything outside of heterosexuality undesirable. Thus from the sterilization aspect they would be in favor of it - especially early in the regime when they needed cover. Are you aware of how they developed the "gas them in the shower" method?
Their first camps were "health camps" where undesirables (typically ideological or political opponents, this was before they narrowed down to Jews), with the assertion that the person taken was going to get treatment. Those they felt were "too far gone" were sent to the showers on arrival, where they would be gassed. The others typically became experiment fodder.
The experimentation is another aspect you are ignoring or not considering. This "care" is a ripe grounds for all sorts of experimentation into creating a "super soldier" via hormonal treatment, for example. While most discussion of the later camps focuses on the abuse, forced labor, and torture, human experimentation was a big component of it as well - especially for the doctors.
Furthermore, they didn't view their undesirables as innocent. So that doesn't play into it.
The underlying point you are not grasping is that the Nazis were:
a) very much in favor of sometimes/often horrendous experiments on humans they found undesirable, initially on the unsuspecting,
b) early on they professed these as a good thing for all involved, even the subject of their experiments,
c) they believed they were doing good, and
d) their horror engine was driven by doctors en masse, who flocked to the regime in higher rations than any other profession, and did so for guaranteed employment with higher wages and the opportunity to carry out whatever experimentation they desired,
e) the experiments and activities were sanctioned by the government
Further, among the experiments they did, were sexual experiments. These included the injection of drugs and chemicals, particularly studying how it affected the organs and reproductive capability - in service to their goal of devising a way of mass sterilization. To drive home how extensive they were willing to go, the Nuremburg Code of medical ethics came from a result of what the Nazi doctors did. There are more than a few arguments that these activities today constitute violations of that code.
In fact, in Germany at the time there was the notion that "sexual deviancy from the norm" was in fact biological. The ideas that transactivists today use comes right out of Germany, though they likely are unaware of this. You can trace almost all of the trans-ideology to Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s, from gender identity to what today is called "non-binary" and was deemed as biologically determined, to symposiums on rights based on gender identity.
However, the man running the institute was Jewish, and the Germans avoided any science from Jewish scientists. Had he not been Jewish, they quite likely would have embraced it as a way to "prove scientifically" that those people would have become ripe fodder for their sexuality and sexual experimentation programs.
The acts being discussed today are experiments done on humans, without their understanding that it is just that rather than a treatment; the people doing these things profess to be doing good, and likely believe it; it is being driven by doctors and medical companies who are profiting quite heavily by it; and it is being sanctioned (even advanced) by the government.
If you still cannot see the comparison and similarities, then perhaps you need to study the actual Nazi history including the development of their methods and propaganda. Or perhaps you need to avoid any attempts to make a literal thing, and understand that comparisons are by nature comparisons, rather than explicit and identical entities. As someone who has spent a decade studying the Nazis and how they came into power and developed their methods, the comparison is clear.
Let me fix that for you: "The PPA rightfully rejected the very flawed and inaccurate Cass Review while promoting scientifically sound WPATH guidelines."
The Cass review does not follow established standards for evaluating evidence and evidence quality. Far from evaluating the evidence in a neutral and scientifically valid manner, the Review obscures key findings, misrepresents its own data, and is rife with misapplications of the scientific method.
There is a simple reason why WPATH members do not accept the Cass Review's comments. The WPATH members make vast sums of money removing the breasts of young women, putting young men and young women on wrong-sex hormones, and otherwise mutilating children. As always, the operative question is "Qua bono?" Who benefits?
Well, it’s one thing for the WPATH acolytes to hold firm to their religious faith.
However, a supposedly evidence-based outfit like the PPA should be thrilled that the Cass report was an exemplar of the scientific method, and they should be upholding its findings. The fact that they are not tells us that they are NOT evidence-based.
and they sound like whining kids demanding their feelings not be hurt
Don't forget the WPATH perverts writing erotica about castration.
https://reduxx.info/academics-involved-with-top-transgender-health-authority-publish-paper-on-choosing-castration/
https://reduxx.info/exclusive-california-gender-academic-inspired-pedophilic-fantasy-on-castrating-enslaving-young-boys/
All of the surgeries are barbaric and very costly, removal of testes, turning a penis into a vagina. And even the ones whom they all praise, like Jazz Jennings had to go back multiple times because of medical issues after the surgery caused by the surgery. It’s a goldmine for these doctors!
The Cass Report is no doubt very hurtful to the bank accounts of psychologists who write treatment authorization letters for their minor patients.
“pediatric gender-transition treatment”
HOW is this even a thing?
What is the difference between the Nazis and these sick fucks?
I don't understand why you are comparing this to Nazis. I don't see any parallels between the beliefs. I think that both groups would be offended to be compared to the other, since I am not aware of any overlaps in their beliefs or even methods of operating.
Well, that has to be the Dumbshit Statement of the Year and it’s only July.
I find it bizarre that you have referred to my comment that way. Have you even tried to think of any parallels between these folks and Nazis? What justification is there for making the comparison.
The Nazis rewarded medical professionals who furthered their ideological aims by being willing to participate in eugenics programs aimed at eliminating "the unfit" or to engage in experiments on human subjects that were harmful to those individuals. The Nuremburg Codes were adopted after WWII in order to prevent physicians and others from engaging in such practices. The Transgender movement creates a reward structure for medical professionals who advance its ideology by subjecting their patients to procedures that destroy the function of healthy vital organs, make them dependent on artificial hormones and which often render them sterile.
And a vastly disproportionate number of test subjects are autistic or gay/lesbian. It actually seems right up the alley of nazis getting rid of undesirable people, even some of the same people.
As noted in my other reply, the Nazi case was not by request so can't really be compared as similar. Also, these practitioners are not trying to get rid of (or even intentionally harm) the children. So it is not comparable as similar.
Mister Delgado, thanks for your discourse. As far as I know, the Nazi experiments you are referring to were all involuntary. A voluntary request cannot be compared to that. These are self selected individuals, not people being grabbed off the street. Additionally, the advocates claim they are trying to help the individuals. So this cannot be compared ideologically with Nazis. The syphilis experiments on the other hand probably could be, but I make that as a side comment, not to derail the thread.
This presuposes the proposition that mentally ill children are capable of knowingly volunteering. Given the WPATH files discussing how to try and avoid liability for just that issue, it' wrong to assume they have any real understanding of the procedures.
Hey kid, we're gonna pump you full of hormones and cut your genitals up, your bones will be brittle, and you'll never be able to have kids. If we don't do this, you'll kill yourself. - that's not informed consent.
In as diplomatically a way as possible, are you truly that stupid? People lost jobs, careers, homes and businesses unless they got the shot.
And, please, waste no time with your response.
I find it bizarre you find it bizarre.
You have got to read "The Nazi Doctors"
That cannot be compared. That is forced sterilization and experimentation. This is individuals electing with desire for the procedure. The Nazis were also eliminating people, and these practitioners allege to be trying to help people. These are so dissimilar that they are more like opposites than being similar. Both the people undergoing the procedure and the ones doing the procedure have totally different ideologies.
You make a good point about voluntary versus involuntary. Indeed, the fact that people choose to be castrated, have their breasts removed and subject themselves to a lifetime of medicalization, which includes going to the doctor several times a week to have their fake vaginas dilated, all of this makes it even more incomprehensible. But here is a question: can you call something "voluntary" when we are talking sometimes about children and teenagers who are incapable of understanding the consequences? Or even about adults who are being told that they can literally become the other sex?--which is a lie. All they are being given is esthetic surgery. These are patients that are victims of doctors who are making money off them. In which case, to what can you compare these practices if not to medical experiments?
I agree with your point, but is still voluntary. It is not fully informed consent. The distinction between voluntary and involuntary is still important. Doing it involuntarily would be antithetical to these practitioners. Avoiding doing it involuntarily would have been antithetical to the Nazis. It is more like opposites than similar, on this crucial point. Only doing it to those who want it versus not.
Edit: I do agree with this part:
"Or even about adults who are being told that they can literally become the other sex?--which is a lie. All they are being given is esthetic surgery."
I do think that calling it a sex change surgery, treatment etc. should be banned and that there should be other wording. Like... genital cosmetic surgery or some such wording. Similarly, hormone injection rather than hormone therapy for these cases, because it is not clear to me that we should call these injections therapy.
The Nazi comparison does have some merit. The way in which Nazi occupied Poland functioned during WW2 is a great example. No one was forced per se to alienate and victimise the Jewish population. However the Nazi government made it clear through extensive propaganda that the Jewish were unclean and spreading disease and if you were Polish and wanted to be a good citizen under occupation then ratting out your Jewish neighbours and friends was doing yourself and society a big favour. And you would also be financially rewarded in some cases. However if you were the brave minority who decided that this was wrong and you wanted to hide your Jewish friends and neighbours to protect them, you risked your life doing so. Poland was the only occupied nation where you were killed for harbouring Jews. Approximately 30,000 Polish men and women including children were sentenced to death by the Nazis (most of them shot on the spot) for standing up against their occupying regime. No one forced them to take such action.
The analogy here is that transgender health care is similar. No one forces anybody to undergo transgender affirmative care. But in many cases parents are pressured by the health care providers to consent to this care (e.g. „would you rather a dead daughter or a live son?”), societal expectations (i.e. transphobia) or by the child themselves (threat of suicide). The child themselves if they can make a choice independently also is subject to peer pressure, societal expectation and flawed medical authority (e.g. „you were born this way”). Those children who in later life detransition honor the fact that they and their parents took direct part in their decision making however they express anger towards society for propagandising and financially incentivising one view over another and eliminating access to the breadth of alternative options available.
So although there is no direct coercion in both the cases of the Poles under Nazi Germany and the transgender medical system, the tacit manipulation that exists is still wrong. And can lead to good people making poor decisions that they later regret because they think that thought their decision was the right decision at the time. I wouldn’t let transgender medical practitioners get off the hook as easily as suggesting because their not dragging children off the street and castrating them, that they are not doing any harm.
Then you are unaware of how the doctors in Germany were quick to jump in with the National Socialists and how stringently they did so. They rushed into the arms of the regime for higher pay and guaranteed positions of authority. This was quite pervasive- to the point that every mass grave you read about had at least one doctor overseeing it.
On a broader ideological level, the regime had no compunction doing whatever they wanted to those they considered less than themselves, and they certainly were not fans of gay people either, considering them subhuman as well. So I have zero doubt, and zero evidence, that the Nazi regime would be against this so-called treatment.
I think you are missing the point. What you are saying is like saying because someone is found eating cake, that it means they will also eat ice-cream. It is not logical. Even if we take for the sake of argument as a given that Nazis were willing to do harmful things to innocents, and take as a given that these treatments are harmful to innocents, there is nothing in the Nazi ideology that I am aware of that suggests they would support doing this. If anything, I think they would view it as unnatural and be against it. They were more against frivolous tattoos than for them, for example. Prisoner number tattoos don't contradict that. Tattoos of blood type, like a medical bracelet, was an exception.
I think you’re being a little too literal in your interpretation here. No one here is saying transgender health care providers are actual Nazis and have national socialism as their core philosophy. No one is arguing that national socialism would in fact support transgender care (Nazis were more in favour of eliminating all mental illness, so transgender children would have been in all likelihood killed early).
What people are arguing here is that many of the same psychological tactics used by the National Socialists of Germany can been seen to be used in transgender activism. These are: intense one-sided propaganda, social coercion and manipulation, incentivising of moral corruption, manipulation of human greed and envy, the perception of the pursuit of the common good or advancement of society through the use of evil means.
The Nazis are only one group that have successfully used such means to support their cause, the abortion and euthanasia industry are two contemporary examples that also use such measures that society is very comfortable supporting, despite the direct loss of life it seeks for the most vulnerable in our society.
Yours is one of the few reasonable comments. However, if you look at the other comments, that is not in fact what others are saying. They appear to be just using the word Nazis frivolously as a pejorative. If one said "they used xyz tactic like the Nazis did" then that would be a fair comment. But if one says "they are Nazis" or "they are poets", then the comparison should be something that is defining for what is being compared to. And here, the defining characteristics of Nazis are absent. We might as well say "They are basketball coaches! Because they are telling people what to do!" You have some good comparisons, and I do agree you've made some fair comparisons to Nazis. Enough to fuel an essay, but I don't see anything compelling enough to say it's reasonable to either Nazis or this group to say they are Nazis [and I'm not disagreeing on the grounds that they aren not literal Nazis, I am disagreeing on the grounds that this particular case is not a good simile].
I mean sure. I get you, we shouldn’t use ad hominem for good argumentation. But most people don’t study philosophy, so for most people to say “they are Nazis” carries more nuance than a philosopher would express.
But even philosophers express themselves poorly. One of my favourite philosophers Peter Boghossian consistently calls the transgender movement or woke ideology “religious”. He thinks it’s a good argument because he is an atheist so for him it’s just obvious that by equivocating the two he is making a statement about how irrational behaviour can be found in ideological fundamentalism. Does he seek to tear down his religious ideological travellers, probably not (although he does hate religion with a passion, so maybe). But I always have to take him with a grain of salt when he’s insulting my religion to make his points.
So I don’t worry about language like this. The Nazis even as individuals were bizarre people. Hitler decided to marry his longtime secret girlfriend hours before their suicides. He also shot his dog, for no good reason prior to his own suicide. His close colleague Goebbells killed his entire family in the bunker, including his innocent children who could have survived the war unscathed. Nothing in socialist ideology predicted those actions. People are complex!
So "feeling targeted, harmed, and hurt" = actually harmed = more important than the children being castrated. Got it.
Lawsuits are the only way out
Basically, the PPA said: "You can't talk about the Cass Review because some people feel sad."
The entire email is summarized by that one sentence.
I do find this unusual because you could easily argue the other side (and I do in my workplace). When people push this nonsense argument to me, I rebut with “as a religious person, it deeply offends me that my philosophical underpinning, i.e. natural law, is under direct threat. It hurts me that men and women who I believe are created in the image and likeness of God are being erased through coercive medical procedures and it hurts me that no one considers how an e-mail like this makes me feel alienated and scared to express my views in my workplace, a workplace that tells me that I’m included by seeks to deliberately erase every religious holiday I celebrate and replace that with secular ideological feast days like Pride.”
That usually garners a more positive response than I would imagine. Most people simply haven’t thought through the fact that discrimination is a core facet of society. You’re always going to be alienating someone, it’s very hard to be inclusive and respectful whilst also holding deep moral convictions.
“Please don’t speak the truth…I cannot take it”.
How pathetic. These people (I deliberately did not say “professionals”) put their fragility and intellectual weakness ahead of the truth, ahead of evidence. Disgraceful.
America is famous for prohibition, lobotomy, transgenderism, and shooting presidents on live TV.
Prohibition
Act or practice of forbidding something by law; more particularly the term refers to the banning of the manufacture, storage (whether in barrels or in bottles), transportation, sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The word is also used to refer to a period of time during which such bans are enforced.
In the early twentieth century, much of the impetus for the prohibition movement in the Nordic countries and North America came from moralistic convictions of pietistic Protestants. Prohibition movements in the West coincided with the advent of women's suffrage, with newly empowered women as part of the political process strongly supporting policies that curbed alcohol consumption.
Lobotomy
A lobotomy (from Greek λοβός (lobos) 'lobe', and τομή (tomē) 'cut, slice') or leucotomy is a discredited form of neurosurgical treatment for psychiatric disorder or neurological disorder (e.g. epilepsy, depression) that involves severing connections in the brain's prefrontal cortex. The surgery causes most of the connections to and from the prefrontal cortex, the anterior part of the frontal lobes of the brain, to be severed.
In the past, this treatment was used for treating psychiatric disorders as a mainstream procedure in US. The procedure was controversial from its initial use, in part due to a lack of recognition of the severity and chronicity of severe and enduring psychiatric illnesses, so it was an inappropriate treatment.
The use of the procedure increased dramatically from the early 1940s and into the 1950s; by 1951, almost 20,000 lobotomies had been performed in the United States and proportionally more in the United Kingdom. A large number of patients were gay men. More lobotomies were performed on women than on men: a 1951 study found that nearly 60% of American lobotomy patients were women, and limited data shows that 74% of lobotomies in Ontario from 1948 to 1952 were performed on female patients. From the 1950s onward, lobotomy began to be abandoned, first in the Soviet Union and Europe.
Transgenderism
From Cass herself: Despite the best intentions of everyone with a stake in this complex issue, the toxicity of the debate is exceptional. I have faced criticism for engaging with groups and individuals who take a social justice approach and advocate for gender affirmation, and have equally been criticised for involving groups and individuals who urge more caution. The knowledge and expertise of experienced clinicians who have reached different conclusions about the best approach to care are sometimes dismissed and invalidated.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/
Toxicity of debate, exceptional as it is, reminds one of debate on prohibition, lobotomy, and shooting of a president on live TV.
Still, American exceptionalism gives us hope that US will find the way out. The world is watching with some enthusiasm.
I’ve come to recognize that we can know we are close to correct when both sides are coming at us.
To be fair both the protestants and the feminists weren’t wrong that alcohol causes severe domestic violence, and a great way to curb that is to restrict access to alcohol especially at a young age. So theie hearts were in the right place.
Prohibition didn’t work because human vice has a way of working between the cracks, and the establishment of a black market was too powerful for the government to reasonably control.
But we still have massive issues with alcohol and domestic violence and alcohol and violent crime. What we’ve done now is invested in prohibition for some people, and not all.
The culture of drinking
Both protestants and feminists are quite intolerant individuals and movements, they seem to empower its followers, to make decisions that will keep their hearts in the right place
without understanding that there is a culture of courtship, dancing, enjoyment, culture of drinking, cooking, eating, going out.
The more people teach their children to dance, simple and complicated, native, traditional, but also more universal, modern dances, less will be investment of energy into what protestants and feminists call vice.
The protestants and the feminists got the wrong end of the stick. Alcohol in excess causes drunkeness, not domestic violence. Hatred causes domestic violence, hatred of oneself or the other person or even both. Hatred contains the anagram 'heart'.
The heart that is wicked causes domestic violence. It has been written "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"
Those who pushed for prohibition did not address the root causes, the heart of the person.
I wrote a bit about it here indirectly relating it to the COVID nonsense in the UK.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/3-tier-system/
If that were true wouldn’t domestic violent be more prominent in houses, given most houses are sober?
Drunkness so to speak enables violence to emerge as inhibitions dwindle down.
It’s why drunk sports spectators fight more easily than when sober.
I think the correlation is strong and obvious.
You are not making sense. Domestic violence is violence in homes, that is the meaning of the word.
Drunkenness does not always lead to violence, but it does lead to lack of self-control and that can take various forms.
Banning alcohol never works although denying alcohol to a violent person is another matter. But one cannot say alcohol causes domestic violence, only that it makes a violent person, or someone prone to violence, worse.
You mentioned earlier “…a great way to curb that is to restrict access to alcohol especially at a young age.”
In France alcohol, typically wine, is drunk at mealtimes and so alcohol and food go together. Bring children up with a right attitude to the use of alcohol is the key.
It is written ‘Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.’
I think I’m being very sensible. I come from a culture that has serious domestic violence issues and serious alcoholism issues. The two are highly correlated. In my culture not only is it normal for drinking to start young and in small doses, like for the French, but alcohol is extremely accessible and socially acceptable. And we see plenty of examples of this type of perversive behaviour in other cultures like indigenous cultures that have only had exposure to alcohol since colonisation.
Does this mean we have to wholescale ban alcohol? No. But to fail to recognise alcohol’s correlation to enabling violent behaviour, particularly in domestic settings is simply being ignorant. No one needs alcohol to function, if we banned it tomorrow no one would die. Many people abstain from alcohol for religious or health reasons.
Your comment "If that were true wouldn’t domestic violent be more prominent in houses, given most houses are sober?" made no sense.
You said earlier that "...alcohol causes severe domestic violence" and now you say more reasonably "...alcohol’s correlation to enabling violent behaviour".
That is my point, but you seem to want to ban alcohol and that is plain foolish.
The problem is the culture, not the alcohol, and you appear to admit this. I repeat what I have said before, you have to deal with the root cause, the heart of mankind, not the superficial.
This is beyond daft, it's evil. The Left simply cannot be influenced by reason, argument nor evidence. What are we to do with fellow citizens who insist on doing such clear harm to children? It seems to me that this becomes criminal at a certain point. I really hope a Trump DoJ investigates the crap out of all these peddlers of lies and harm. This is a fraud. It has to stop.
It is alas true that these activist ideologues will suffer harm to learn that their core beliefs are bogus.
"There's no such thing as trans" is painful news to face. Recall when you were a young child and it dawned on you that Santa Claus was fake. "I saw mommy kissing Santa Claus...." tra-la tra-la.
Wait mommy is cheating on daddy and kissing a fat guy in a red suit?
So one line in the letter caught my eye. States they encourage the list serve members to read the Cass report and draw their own conclusions, but they will no longer allow discourse on the topic on the listserv. Apparently, because some members of listserv find it hurtful. So basically the PPA is full of fragile people that can't deal with hard facts. Apparently from the letter this is largely from members that are LBGT themselves. This would be like the American Cancer Society blocking discourse on a type of cancer because some members may have had personal experience with that cancer.
I don't intend to insult psychologists, but since when were they qualified to assess medical studies anyway? It's 48 years since I went to medical school, but I don't regard myself as qualified to interpret the psychology literature. Likewise, I would not take the word of a psychologist over that of Dr Hilary Cass, a paediatrician with a distinguished career, when interpreting medical literature.
Your idea makes sense, but this appears to be outside of her expertise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Cass So from my point of view, while she is closer to the field than a psychologist, I’m not sure that I would trust her view any more than a well respected academic psychologist. This is essentially a metareview anyway. In fact, she’s a clinician. I might better trust it if they took some kind of well respected biology professor known for metareviews. My point is (a) it’s not her specialty (b) her career isn’t evidence of this specific kind of skill. I would also add that gender dysphoria is presumably a psychological condition, so I don’t think it would be unreasonable to think a psychologist would be a good choice for analyzing the papers about whether a treatment was successful or not.
Honestly, how many here are Douglas Adams fans? The "trans kids" self diagnosing on the internet and paying their own butcher remind me of the cow in the restaurant at the end of the universe.
https://remotestorage.blogspot.com/2010/07/douglas-adamss-cow-that-wants-to-be.html?m=1
I'm a fan. I even wrote my own piece on 42.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/42-the-ultimate-answer-to-life-the-universe-and-everything/
Interesting that their assertion is emotionally based. The quest for data should be stopped because it’s hurtful to their members. Nevermind the devastating harm to those it affects…. CHILDREN.
This is what woke ideology has become. In their warped minds, facts can be hurtful, and must therefore be abolished. Anyone who hurts their wittle feelings or offends them must be censored and canceled. When feelings are prioritized over facts, society (maybe even humanity) is done.
That is a fatally mistaken analogy.
I believe you are operating under the assessment that it is a bad thing to do these things, thus Nazis wouldn't do it. You are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of not just Nazi behavior but general: you are assuming everyone agrees it is bad. The Nazis did their experiments and actions because they thought they were good things to do, not because they are cartoon villains "out to do evil".
The Nazi's were in favor of sterilizing or eliminating "undesirables" - and they certainly considered anything outside of heterosexuality undesirable. Thus from the sterilization aspect they would be in favor of it - especially early in the regime when they needed cover. Are you aware of how they developed the "gas them in the shower" method?
Their first camps were "health camps" where undesirables (typically ideological or political opponents, this was before they narrowed down to Jews), with the assertion that the person taken was going to get treatment. Those they felt were "too far gone" were sent to the showers on arrival, where they would be gassed. The others typically became experiment fodder.
The experimentation is another aspect you are ignoring or not considering. This "care" is a ripe grounds for all sorts of experimentation into creating a "super soldier" via hormonal treatment, for example. While most discussion of the later camps focuses on the abuse, forced labor, and torture, human experimentation was a big component of it as well - especially for the doctors.
Furthermore, they didn't view their undesirables as innocent. So that doesn't play into it.
The underlying point you are not grasping is that the Nazis were:
a) very much in favor of sometimes/often horrendous experiments on humans they found undesirable, initially on the unsuspecting,
b) early on they professed these as a good thing for all involved, even the subject of their experiments,
c) they believed they were doing good, and
d) their horror engine was driven by doctors en masse, who flocked to the regime in higher rations than any other profession, and did so for guaranteed employment with higher wages and the opportunity to carry out whatever experimentation they desired,
e) the experiments and activities were sanctioned by the government
Further, among the experiments they did, were sexual experiments. These included the injection of drugs and chemicals, particularly studying how it affected the organs and reproductive capability - in service to their goal of devising a way of mass sterilization. To drive home how extensive they were willing to go, the Nuremburg Code of medical ethics came from a result of what the Nazi doctors did. There are more than a few arguments that these activities today constitute violations of that code.
In fact, in Germany at the time there was the notion that "sexual deviancy from the norm" was in fact biological. The ideas that transactivists today use comes right out of Germany, though they likely are unaware of this. You can trace almost all of the trans-ideology to Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s, from gender identity to what today is called "non-binary" and was deemed as biologically determined, to symposiums on rights based on gender identity.
However, the man running the institute was Jewish, and the Germans avoided any science from Jewish scientists. Had he not been Jewish, they quite likely would have embraced it as a way to "prove scientifically" that those people would have become ripe fodder for their sexuality and sexual experimentation programs.
The acts being discussed today are experiments done on humans, without their understanding that it is just that rather than a treatment; the people doing these things profess to be doing good, and likely believe it; it is being driven by doctors and medical companies who are profiting quite heavily by it; and it is being sanctioned (even advanced) by the government.
If you still cannot see the comparison and similarities, then perhaps you need to study the actual Nazi history including the development of their methods and propaganda. Or perhaps you need to avoid any attempts to make a literal thing, and understand that comparisons are by nature comparisons, rather than explicit and identical entities. As someone who has spent a decade studying the Nazis and how they came into power and developed their methods, the comparison is clear.
Let me fix that for you: "The PPA rightfully rejected the very flawed and inaccurate Cass Review while promoting scientifically sound WPATH guidelines."
The Cass review does not follow established standards for evaluating evidence and evidence quality. Far from evaluating the evidence in a neutral and scientifically valid manner, the Review obscures key findings, misrepresents its own data, and is rife with misapplications of the scientific method.
Read more here: https://shorturl.at/2NXgC
Communism. This is not a drill. 🚨