Daniel Peterson: "Gender Ideology Harms Children"

[_Mary]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America ... iatricians

Aargh, that group...American College of pediatricians. Is a catholic apologetic group hiding under science. Despicable.

[_DrW]

I would suggest that folks who wish to comment on the OP in any serious way here read the entire text of the ACPeds statement before doing so.

Once again, DCP demonstrates that he is fully willing to comment before he understands. With his now famous Ready - Fire, (Aim is optional) approach, DCP apparently does not fully understand, either due to his limited knowledge or experience in the subject matter area, what the ACPeds statement he refers to actually means, or its intent.

[_Kishkumen]

No. I don't read the article that way at all, Kish. I read it (the article) to say that hormonal interventions in childhood/puberty are ill advised.

See Mary's post.

[_just me]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians

Aargh, that group...American College of pediatricians. Is a catholic apologetic group hiding under science. Despicable.

A group of only about 70 doctors. That's pretty insignificant.

[_Lemmie]

I would suggest that folks who wish to comment on the OP in any serious way here read the entire text of the ACPeds statement before doing so.

Once again, DCP demonstrates that he is fully willing to comment before he understands. With his now famous Ready - Fire, (Aim is optional) approach, DCP apparently does not fully understand, either due to his limited knowledge or experience in the subject matter area, what the ACPeds statement he refers to actually means, or its intent.

Thanks for the recommendation, drW, hopefully there will be some background information about their statistical conclusions. The brevity of the statement above by its nature of course leaves a lot of gaps regarding the analysis on which their statement is based. I'm curious especially about the 88%-98% numbers and their working definition of 'confused about sex.'

(Also, I'm sure it was not intentional, but this statement cracks me up:

A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.

It really depends on who's doing the deciding regarding what one is, doesn't it??

My TBM Mom said almost exactly that same statement to me when I disagreed with her about a 'woman's place' in marriage, education and career.

Specifically, she said it was a sign of my confusion that I thought I was a person who could think for myself when thinking for me was the role of my Priesthood bearing husband, brothers, and father!)

[_Jersey Girl]

I would suggest that folks who wish to comment on the OP in any serious way here read the entire text of the ACPeds statement before doing so.

Once again, DCP demonstrates that he is fully willing to comment before he understands. With his now famous Ready - Fire, (Aim is optional) approach, DCP apparently does not fully understand, either due to his limited knowledge or experience in the subject matter area, what the ACPeds statement he refers to actually means, or its intent.

Thanks, DrW!

[_Jersey Girl]

No. I don't read the article that way at all, Kish. I read it (the article) to say that hormonal interventions in childhood/puberty are ill advised.

See Mary's post.

Yes, thank you. My time was interrupted so I haven't been able to check it out like Mary has.

[_Sky]

This is the comment that I posted a response to, but was shortly afterwards deleted:

Gilgamesh, I agree that we should treat individuals with kindness and respect their civil rights.

But I think that the carefully cultivated narrative that these attractions and dysphorias are anything but unfortunate aberrations gives them too much weight. At present public policies are attempting to deal with these atypical attractions, dysphorias, and behaviors by "normalizing" them.

Individuals who suffer from these problems may be harmless but they are certainly not normal from a statistical standpoint.

Nor is it surprising that these individuals should want to "normalize" these behaviors since the afflicted tend to try to create a positive identity out of them and to respond negatively to those who notice that these attractions, dysphorias, and behaviors are 1) atypical and 2) tend to come clustered with a number of co-morbidities or pathologies.

Unfortunately, those afflicted are unable to objectively weigh in on the matter of their own abnormal or atypical attraction and its consequences of it for themselves to say nothing of the general public.

All one has to do is look at how homosexuals dealt with public health issues surrounding the appearance of AIDS/HIV to realize that their concern with avoiding a stigmas and avoiding having their private lives curtailed by restrictions imposed by public health workers were, for them, paramount. Rather than protecting the health of the public in general they made efforts to decry what they saw as discrimination of homosexuals and their stigma as a public health risk.

AIDS/HIV ran rampant through homosexual circles even after its transmission was understood because that group was not willing to quarantine infected members of their community or share with public health workers the identities of individuals who transmitted the virus.

American homosexuals writ large also did damage to attempts to stop AIDS/HIV transmission by attempting to prevent restrictions on blood donation going into place because of the perceived stigma this attached to the homosexual community.

Clearly, this is a group of people for whom an identity is extremely important and for whom (speaking collectively) other considerations, even considerations of public health, are of lesser import.

With that kind of track record, it would be foolish for the other 98% of the population to relegate policies on how to relate to gender and sexuality in the hands of groups who have demonstrated a propensity to downplay the very legitimate health and safety concerns of the other 98%.

That is not to accord them any nefarious motives, merely tribal ones, i.e. protect one's own identity group from perceived threats regardless of the costs to others.

Indulging in adulation of those who "come out" as we are now, or to those who are "transitioning" to a new gender before or after sex reassignment surgery only increases the problem and induces individuals to further confusion. It is cruel to them and an example of moral hazard.

Which is to say that there are objective dangers that come with these atypical attractions, dysphorias, and behaviors. These will be downplayed by those who suffer from them. Their opinions should be noted but also understood as ultimately self-serving/self-justifying and the health and safety of the other 90+% of the population should be given greater weight in policy and legal considerations.

I posted a link to http://www.mormonsandgays.org, which says that same-sex attractions, in and of themselves, are not considered a sin by the LDS Church. Only acting on them is considered a sin.

Then, I posted a link to the American Psychological Association's website on sexual orientation and gender identity:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

I pointed out that being LGBT/same-sex attracted is not considered an abnormality or pathology. I pointed out that HIV/AIDS is not something limited to only the homosexual male population. I pointed out that HIV/AIDS can't be transmitted by casual contact, so keeping AIDS patients "quarantined" does not make sense.

I also pointed to the American Red Cross website, pointing out their support for gay men to donate blood after a one-year deferral, as opposed to a lifetime ban.

http://www.redcross.org/news/press-rele ... ent-on-MSM

I also pointed out that there is evidence that "coming out" is usually beneficial for the individual:

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/01/30 ... 50989.html

So apparently Daniel C. Peterson did not like me posting this. Also noted is that he let the above comment stay, while deleting my response. These are all mainstream sources, but they seem to support a less conservative interpretation, so DCP would not have it!

[_just me]

It's sad how the failure of the US to take the AIDS epidemic seriously is spun as the gays fault.

[_Mary]

Yes, thank you. My time was interrupted so I haven't been able to check it out like Mary has.

I followed it up when it came up on DCP's page a few days ago, Jersey Girl. They are quite controversial.