BREAKING: Johns Hopkins & American College of Pediatricians Formerly Denounce Sex-Change Procedures

[Skylar]

I can't speak for Sil....

But have a great weekend.

You too!

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, great weekend all, and for some light reading while you're relaxing...

From 1999 to present, there have been no medical advancements that make a person any more "male" that was born female or any more "female" that was born male. The same reality applies today as then: PURE INSANITY DEFINED: which is the refusal to accept reality on its own terms.

From HOPKINS MEDICAL NEWS, Winter 1999:

*************
JHMN: Sexual Healing

The Hopkins sex clinic got started back in 1971, when Schmidt, who was treating a couple of patients grappling with sexual problems, consulted with psychoanalyst Jon Meyer, M.D., and other colleagues specializing in classical Freudian analysis. The group agreed that while analysis was useful, it didn’t help resolve sex problems. At just about the same moment, Masters and Johnson’s landmark research put them on the covers of Time and Newsweek, and the onset of the sexual revolution in the late ’60s sparked a wave of activism. Thus was born the Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit.

Soon after that low-key beginning, the unit found itself in the midst of a national brouhaha over one of the field’s most controversial topics—gender reassignment surgery. Hopkins’ involvement with the procedure dated to 1960, when surgeons removed both breasts from a woman who wanted to become male. Then, during the ’70s, John Money, Ph.D., now an emeritus faculty member, developed an international reputation for his pioneering studies identifying the condition of transsexualism. A Hopkins committee began to screen applicants for gender reassignment surgery, and the unit began seeing candidates through the lengthy preparation process.

Controversy over sex-change surgery at Hopkins raged, both in the media and inside the institution. “This was taking place at a very conservative place and in a highly charged atmosphere,” Schmidt recalls. “It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”

Finally, in 1979, the unit’s then-director, Meyer, published a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely. But that early foray into gender reassignment here has maintained a long media shelf life. Before a recent case conference, Strand passed around a copy of a New Yorker essay containing a sex-change joke punctuated with a reference to Hopkins; it was published last May, nearly two decades after the Hospital last performed such surgery.

To psychiatrist Wise, who’s been with the sex unit since 1974, its strength lies in a set of practices poles away from the New Yorker portrayal. Not being “buffeted about” by all the societal changes of the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s on issues like gender dysphoria is one of the qualities that makes this group stand out, he says. Without looking beyond mainstream America, the unit’s been able to see thousands of men and women through deep sexual conflicts.

********

 

[Esmeralda]

The politics and push for laws to normalize the abnormal just got turned on their head:

Leading medical authorities call coercion of children to use hormones or have 'sex change' surgery "child abuse". Finally the experts grow a pair.

From the official statement: Gender Ideology Harms Children
*****
Gender Ideology Harms Children
March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full statement will be published in summer 2016.

The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.1

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.6

5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5

6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.7,8,9,10

7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.11 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians

Quentin Van Meter, M.D.
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist

Paul McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital

References:

1. Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development, “Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in Childhood.” Intersex Society of North America, March 25, 2006. Accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.dsdguidelines.org/files/clinical.pdf.

2. Zucker, Kenneth J. and Bradley Susan J. “Gender Identity and Psychosexual Disorders.” FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry. Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 2005 (598-617).

3. Whitehead, Neil W. “Is Transsexuality biologically determined?” Triple Helix (UK), Autumn 2000, p6-8. accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm; see also Whitehead, Neil W. “Twin Studies of Transsexuals [Reveals Discordance]” accessed 3/20/16 from Twin Studies of Transexuality | transsexuals | transexuality genetic?.

4. Jeffreys, Sheila. Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge, New York, 2014 (pp.1-35).

5. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.

6. Hembree, WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of transsexual persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94:3132-3154.

7. Olson-Kennedy, J and Forcier, M. “Overview of the management of gender nonconformity in children and adolescents.” UpToDate November 4, 2015. Accessed 3.20.16 from www.uptodate.com.

8. Moore, E., Wisniewski, & Dobs, A. “Endocrine treatment of transsexual people: A review of treatment regimens, outcomes, and adverse effects.” The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2003; 88(9), pp3467-3473.

9. FDA Drug Safety Communication issued for Testosterone products accessed 3.20.16: Testosterone Information.

10. World Health Organization Classification of Estrogen as a Class I Carcinogen: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf.

11. Dhejne, C, et.al. “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.” PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.

They are talking about children. Your OP suggests it is a denouncement to all sex change surgery. Very misleading OP.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, great weekend all, and for some light reading while you're relaxing...

From 1999 to present, there have been no medical advancements that make a person any more "male" that was born female or any more "female" that was born male. The same reality applies today as then: PURE INSANITY DEFINED: which is the refusal to accept reality on its own terms.

From HOPKINS MEDICAL NEWS, Winter 1999:

*************
JHMN: Sexual Healing

The Hopkins sex clinic got started back in 1971, when Schmidt, who was treating a couple of patients grappling with sexual problems, consulted with psychoanalyst Jon Meyer, M.D., and other colleagues specializing in classical Freudian analysis. The group agreed that while analysis was useful, it didn’t help resolve sex problems. At just about the same moment, Masters and Johnson’s landmark research put them on the covers of Time and Newsweek, and the onset of the sexual revolution in the late ’60s sparked a wave of activism. Thus was born the Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit.

Soon after that low-key beginning, the unit found itself in the midst of a national brouhaha over one of the field’s most controversial topics—gender reassignment surgery. Hopkins’ involvement with the procedure dated to 1960, when surgeons removed both breasts from a woman who wanted to become male. Then, during the ’70s, John Money, Ph.D., now an emeritus faculty member, developed an international reputation for his pioneering studies identifying the condition of transsexualism. A Hopkins committee began to screen applicants for gender reassignment surgery, and the unit began seeing candidates through the lengthy preparation process.

Controversy over sex-change surgery at Hopkins raged, both in the media and inside the institution. “This was taking place at a very conservative place and in a highly charged atmosphere,” Schmidt recalls. “It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”

Finally, in 1979, the unit’s then-director, Meyer, published a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely. But that early foray into gender reassignment here has maintained a long media shelf life. Before a recent case conference, Strand passed around a copy of a New Yorker essay containing a sex-change joke punctuated with a reference to Hopkins; it was published last May, nearly two decades after the Hospital last performed such surgery.

To psychiatrist Wise, who’s been with the sex unit since 1974, its strength lies in a set of practices poles away from the New Yorker portrayal. Not being “buffeted about” by all the societal changes of the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s on issues like gender dysphoria is one of the qualities that makes this group stand out, he says. Without looking beyond mainstream America, the unit’s been able to see thousands of men and women through deep sexual conflicts.

********

Still not John Hopkins. Still not John Hopkins 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations. Its not even 'breaking'. As its a 1999 article citing a 1979 study.....that doesn't denounce sex change operations. 'Formerly' or otherwise.

Please show us the link where John Hopkins denounces sex change operations, liar.

 

[Silhouette]

They are talking about children. Your OP suggests it is a denouncement to all sex change surgery. Very misleading OP.

Well here's how that works Esmeralda.. Cult members are seeking public and private insurance funding for these surgeries and hormone treatments. But if medical experts have declared them carcinogenic and unethical, even child abuse for children, then the same exact procedures for adults are equally carcinogenic and unethical. Ever hear of malpractice suits? Insurance companies aren't ignoring the announcement, even if you and your buddies want everyone else to..

 

[Skylar]

They are talking about children. Your OP suggests it is a denouncement to all sex change surgery. Very misleading OP.

Well here's how that works Esmeralda.. Cult members are seeking public and private insurance funding for these surgeries and hormone treatments. But if medical experts have declared them carcinogenic and unethical, even child abuse for children, then the same exact procedures for adults are equally carcinogenic and unethical. Ever hear of malpractice suits? Insurance companies aren't ignoring the announcement, even if you and your buddies want everyone else to..

Carcinogenic? Are you just picking arguments at random now?

As for the ethics of the issue, most medical professionals fall on side of hormone treatments being ethical. Which is why the hard right religious group called the 'American College of Pediatricians' has 60 members. And the American Academy of Pediatrics, which contradicts them......has 62,000 members.

 

[beagle9]

The politics and push for laws to normalize the abnormal just got turned on their head:

Leading medical authorities call coercion of children to use hormones or have 'sex change' surgery "child abuse". Finally the experts grow a pair.

From the official statement: Gender Ideology Harms Children
*****
Gender Ideology Harms Children
March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full statement will be published in summer 2016.

The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.1

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.6

5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5

6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.7,8,9,10

7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.11 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians

Quentin Van Meter, M.D.
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist

Paul McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital

References:

1. Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development, “Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in Childhood.” Intersex Society of North America, March 25, 2006. Accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.dsdguidelines.org/files/clinical.pdf.

2. Zucker, Kenneth J. and Bradley Susan J. “Gender Identity and Psychosexual Disorders.” FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry. Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 2005 (598-617).

3. Whitehead, Neil W. “Is Transsexuality biologically determined?” Triple Helix (UK), Autumn 2000, p6-8. accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm; see also Whitehead, Neil W. “Twin Studies of Transsexuals [Reveals Discordance]” accessed 3/20/16 from Twin Studies of Transexuality | transsexuals | transexuality genetic?.

4. Jeffreys, Sheila. Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge, New York, 2014 (pp.1-35).

5. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.

6. Hembree, WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of transsexual persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94:3132-3154.

7. Olson-Kennedy, J and Forcier, M. “Overview of the management of gender nonconformity in children and adolescents.” UpToDate November 4, 2015. Accessed 3.20.16 from www.uptodate.com.

8. Moore, E., Wisniewski, & Dobs, A. “Endocrine treatment of transsexual people: A review of treatment regimens, outcomes, and adverse effects.” The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2003; 88(9), pp3467-3473.

9. FDA Drug Safety Communication issued for Testosterone products accessed 3.20.16: Testosterone Information.

10. World Health Organization Classification of Estrogen as a Class I Carcinogen: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf.

11. Dhejne, C, et.al. “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.” PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.

They are talking about children. Your OP suggests it is a denouncement to all sex change surgery. Very misleading OP.

SHOULD there be any difference to John's Hopkins ? A human being is a human being, especially when it comes to altering the human being and his or her body to become someone or something it wasn't supposed to be or wasn't born to be.The mind can be tricked, and the younger the victim probably, then maybe the better the brainwashing ? Let's see now, maybe it's this brainwashing within a short window of time, and then comes the surgery later on down the line or when much older ?

 

[Silhouette]

Carcinogenic? Are you just picking arguments at random now?

As for the ethics of the issue, most medical professionals fall on side of hormone treatments being ethical.

From item #8 in the OP article quote:

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Does that help?

 

[Skylar]

The politics and push for laws to normalize the abnormal just got turned on their head:

Leading medical authorities call coercion of children to use hormones or have 'sex change' surgery "child abuse". Finally the experts grow a pair.

From the official statement: Gender Ideology Harms Children
*****
Gender Ideology Harms Children
March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full statement will be published in summer 2016.

The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.1

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.6

5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5

6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.7,8,9,10

7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.11 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians

Quentin Van Meter, M.D.
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist

Paul McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital

References:

1. Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development, “Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in Childhood.” Intersex Society of North America, March 25, 2006. Accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.dsdguidelines.org/files/clinical.pdf.

2. Zucker, Kenneth J. and Bradley Susan J. “Gender Identity and Psychosexual Disorders.” FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry. Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 2005 (598-617).

3. Whitehead, Neil W. “Is Transsexuality biologically determined?” Triple Helix (UK), Autumn 2000, p6-8. accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm; see also Whitehead, Neil W. “Twin Studies of Transsexuals [Reveals Discordance]” accessed 3/20/16 from Twin Studies of Transexuality | transsexuals | transexuality genetic?.

4. Jeffreys, Sheila. Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge, New York, 2014 (pp.1-35).

5. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.

6. Hembree, WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of transsexual persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94:3132-3154.

7. Olson-Kennedy, J and Forcier, M. “Overview of the management of gender nonconformity in children and adolescents.” UpToDate November 4, 2015. Accessed 3.20.16 from www.uptodate.com.

8. Moore, E., Wisniewski, & Dobs, A. “Endocrine treatment of transsexual people: A review of treatment regimens, outcomes, and adverse effects.” The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2003; 88(9), pp3467-3473.

9. FDA Drug Safety Communication issued for Testosterone products accessed 3.20.16: Testosterone Information.

10. World Health Organization Classification of Estrogen as a Class I Carcinogen: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf.

11. Dhejne, C, et.al. “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.” PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.

They are talking about children. Your OP suggests it is a denouncement to all sex change surgery. Very misleading OP.

SHOULD there be any difference to John's Hopkins ?

Ask John Hopkins. They've never denounced sex change operations. Nor have they denounced hormone therapy....for anyone. You're offering us a RELIGIOUS argument regarding a scientific issue. Which is meaningless.

A human being is a human being, especially when it comes to altering the human being and his or her body to become someone or something it wasn't supposed to be or wasn't born to be.The mind can be tricked, and the younger the victim probably, then maybe the better the brainwashing ? Let's see now, maybe it's this brainwashing within a short window of time, and then comes the surgery later on down the line or when much older ?

And who said a thing about 'brainwashing'? Prove that transgender people are 'brainwashed'. You can't. You're offering us your emotion again as evidence.

 

[Skylar]

Carcinogenic? Are you just picking arguments at random now?

As for the ethics of the issue, most medical professionals fall on side of hormone treatments being ethical.

From item #8 in the OP article quote:

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Does that help?

That's not John Hopkins. That's your fringe right religious group of 60 folks posing as pediatrics association. Show us anywhere that John Hopkins found hormone therapy to be 'carcinogenic'

As for your ethical argument, most medical professionals disagree. There's a reason why your fringe religious group of 60 is one side of this argument....and the American Academy of Pediatrics with its 62,000 members contradicts them.

 

[beagle9]

Carcinogenic? Are you just picking arguments at random now?

As for the ethics of the issue, most medical professionals fall on side of hormone treatments being ethical.

From item #8 in the OP article quote:

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Does that help?

That's not John Hopkins. That's your fringe right religious group of 60 folks posing as pediatrics association. Show us anywhere that John Hopkins found hormone therapy to be 'carcinogenic'

As for your ethical argument, most medical professionals disagree. There's a reason why your fringe religious group of 60 is one side of this argument....and the American Academy of Pediatrics with its 62,000 members contradicts them.

. What you people defend or do to human beings is traggic as well as a huge sin according to what I as well as countless others do believe in, and if you want to take the chance on whether you'll be OK in the after life or not is gonna be based upon your own emotions, interpretations, and opinions in which you have in life also, but don't think because you want to discount our opinions or emotions and/or truths in which we believe in, that we can't stand up for what we believe in just like you are in life. Let the readers decide, and soon enough you'll know if you were defending a lie in which you tell or a truth as according to you in which you tell. Sad thing is, is that you won't be able to do what the canidates or politicians do as.men who are of this world, and that is to apologize for their speak once they find they were wrong in life about their positions in life. Well you could apologize, but would you ? Very doubtful you will, because your in to deep I think.

 

[hazlnut]

Refer to the OP folks, then ask your redundant questions.

American College of Pediatrics is a far-right homophobe front group. NOT real doctors.

You fail.

Again.

 

[hazlnut]

A cheek swab would determine the sex of the person in the photo. If it is "Jazz", the sex is xy or male.

She's XY, and has always looked and been treated as female so, that's a boy? Gonna stand on that?

Absolutely, firmly and unwaveringly YES. XY is male.

What is retarded bigot?

XQWY?

 

[beagle9]

A cheek swab would determine the sex of the person in the photo. If it is "Jazz", the sex is xy or male.

She's XY, and has always looked and been treated as female so, that's a boy? Gonna stand on that?

Absolutely, firmly and unwaveringly YES. XY is male.

What is retarded bigot?

XQWY?

. There's that word " bigot " being slung out there when the argument is being lost. Do people realize that the word can be slung in either direction, and it can be used at anytime that one decides they are offended about something concerning their beliefs, ideology or culture in life ? The question can always be, is it being used wisely or stupidly when it is used ? I see it being slung out of desperation is what I see.

 

[Silhouette]

Refer to the OP folks, then ask your redundant questions.

American College of Pediatrics is a far-right homophobe front group. NOT real doctors.

You fail.

Again.

OK, so you're calling the American College of Pediatrics "a homophobe group". With all their college degrees and everything eh? Are you going to say next that Johns Hopkins is a "homophobe group"?

*******
From HOPKINS MEDICAL NEWS, Winter 1999:

*************
JHMN: Sexual Healing

The Hopkins sex clinic got started back in 1971, when Schmidt, who was treating a couple of patients grappling with sexual problems, consulted with psychoanalyst Jon Meyer, M.D., and other colleagues specializing in classical Freudian analysis. The group agreed that while analysis was useful, it didn’t help resolve sex problems. At just about the same moment, Masters and Johnson’s landmark research put them on the covers of Time and Newsweek, and the onset of the sexual revolution in the late ’60s sparked a wave of activism. Thus was born the Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit.

Soon after that low-key beginning, the unit found itself in the midst of a national brouhaha over one of the field’s most controversial topics—gender reassignment surgery. Hopkins’ involvement with the procedure dated to 1960, when surgeons removed both breasts from a woman who wanted to become male. Then, during the ’70s, John Money, Ph.D., now an emeritus faculty member, developed an international reputation for his pioneering studies identifying the condition of transsexualism. A Hopkins committee began to screen applicants for gender reassignment surgery, and the unit began seeing candidates through the lengthy preparation process.

Controversy over sex-change surgery at Hopkins raged, both in the media and inside the institution. “This was taking place at a very conservative place and in a highly charged atmosphere,” Schmidt recalls. “It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”

Finally, in 1979, the unit’s then-director, Meyer, published a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely. But that early foray into gender reassignment here has maintained a long media shelf life. Before a recent case conference, Strand passed around a copy of a New Yorker essay containing a sex-change joke punctuated with a reference to Hopkins; it was published last May, nearly two decades after the Hospital last performed such surgery.

To psychiatrist Wise, who’s been with the sex unit since 1974, its strength lies in a set of practices poles away from the New Yorker portrayal. Not being “buffeted about” by all the societal changes of the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s on issues like gender dysphoria is one of the qualities that makes this group stand out, he says. Without looking beyond mainstream America, the unit’s been able to see thousands of men and women through deep sexual conflicts.

********

And see this is interesting because in the 1970s when the university dropped the procedure was when the gays took over the American Psychological Association, which is now part of their cult's mouthpiece. At that same time frame after the takeover, the gay gestapo "disappeared" the APA's former scientific principle which was called "The Leona Tyler Principle" which said that any position the (former, doesn't exist now in practice) APA took publicly HAD to be backed by raw science.

You can't even find the words "Leona Tyler Principle" now in the APA's archives. The Principle was dropped without even a board meeting. It just *vanished* without an up or down vote by the new management..

 

[Skylar]

Carcinogenic? Are you just picking arguments at random now?

As for the ethics of the issue, most medical professionals fall on side of hormone treatments being ethical.

From item #8 in the OP article quote:

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Does that help?

That's not John Hopkins. That's your fringe right religious group of 60 folks posing as pediatrics association. Show us anywhere that John Hopkins found hormone therapy to be 'carcinogenic'

As for your ethical argument, most medical professionals disagree. There's a reason why your fringe religious group of 60 is one side of this argument....and the American Academy of Pediatrics with its 62,000 members contradicts them.

. What you people defend or do to human beings is traggic as well as a huge sin according to what I as well as countless others do believe in, and if you want to take the chance on whether you'll be OK in the after life or not is gonna be based upon your own emotions, interpretations, and opinions in which you have in life also, but don't think because you want to discount our opinions or emotions and/or truths in which we believe in, that we can't stand up for what we believe in just like you are in life. Let the readers decide, and soon enough you'll know if you were defending a lie in which you tell or a truth as according to you in which you tell. Sad thing is, is that you won't be able to do what the canidates or politicians do as.men who are of this world, and that is to apologize for their speak once they find they were wrong in life about their positions in life. Well you could apologize, but would you ? Very doubtful you will, because your in to deep I think.

And what you 'believe' doesn't define ethics, morality or anything else objectively. You're literally offering us your subjective opinion and personal emotions as defining objective reality. And then laughably insisting that we're bound to whatever you *feel*.

Um, no...we're not. Your imagination, personal opinions and subjective emotions define YOUR beliefs. They define nothing objectively. Why then would I or any other rational person accept your subjective opinion as defining all of ethics, morality, science and law?

There is no reason.

 

[Skylar]

Refer to the OP folks, then ask your redundant questions.

American College of Pediatrics is a far-right homophobe front group. NOT real doctors.

You fail.

Again.

OK, so you're calling the American College of Pediatrics "a homophobe group". With all their college degrees and everything eh? Are you going to say next that Johns Hopkins is a "homophobe group"?
*******
From HOPKINS MEDICAL NEWS, Winter 1999:

*************
JHMN: Sexual Healing

The Hopkins sex clinic got started back in 1971, when Schmidt, who was treating a couple of patients grappling with sexual problems, consulted with psychoanalyst Jon Meyer, M.D., and other colleagues specializing in classical Freudian analysis. The group agreed that while analysis was useful, it didn’t help resolve sex problems. At just about the same moment, Masters and Johnson’s landmark research put them on the covers of Time and Newsweek, and the onset of the sexual revolution in the late ’60s sparked a wave of activism. Thus was born the Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit.

Soon after that low-key beginning, the unit found itself in the midst of a national brouhaha over one of the field’s most controversial topics—gender reassignment surgery. Hopkins’ involvement with the procedure dated to 1960, when surgeons removed both breasts from a woman who wanted to become male. Then, during the ’70s, John Money, Ph.D., now an emeritus faculty member, developed an international reputation for his pioneering studies identifying the condition of transsexualism. A Hopkins committee began to screen applicants for gender reassignment surgery, and the unit began seeing candidates through the lengthy preparation process.

Controversy over sex-change surgery at Hopkins raged, both in the media and inside the institution. “This was taking place at a very conservative place and in a highly charged atmosphere,” Schmidt recalls. “It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”

Finally, in 1979, the unit’s then-director, Meyer, published a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely. But that early foray into gender reassignment here has maintained a long media shelf life. Before a recent case conference, Strand passed around a copy of a New Yorker essay containing a sex-change joke punctuated with a reference to Hopkins; it was published last May, nearly two decades after the Hospital last performed such surgery.

To psychiatrist Wise, who’s been with the sex unit since 1974, its strength lies in a set of practices poles away from the New Yorker portrayal. Not being “buffeted about” by all the societal changes of the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s on issues like gender dysphoria is one of the qualities that makes this group stand out, he says. Without looking beyond mainstream America, the unit’s been able to see thousands of men and women through deep sexual conflicts.

********

That's not John Hopkins. That's not John Hopkins 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations. That's not John Hopkins insisting that hormone therapy is 'carcinogenic'. That's not even 'breaking'. That's a 1999 article about a 1979 study.....none of which denounces sex change operations.

Please show us the link to John Hopkins 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations. Please show us the link to John Hopkins claiming that hormone therapy is 'carcinogenic'.

And see this is interesting because in the 1970s when the university dropped the procedure was when the gays took over the American Psychological Association, which is now part of their cult's mouthpiece. At that same time frame after the takeover, the gay gestapo "disappeared" the APA's former scientific principle which was called "The Leona Tyler Principle" which said that any position the (former, doesn't exist now in practice) APA took publicly HAD to be backed by raw science.

You can't even find the words "Leona Tyler Principle" now in the APA's archives. The Principle was dropped without even a board meeting. It just *vanished* without an up or down vote by the new management..

With the 'cult' being in your head. You've accused the 'gay cult' of doing everything from unseating a Pope to infiltrating Gallup polling to give false results on same sex marriage. You've ignored any and all studies that contradict you. From any source, any country, any organization, any college, any country. Insisting they are all controlled by the 'gay cult'.

And you've imagined it all.

 

[Silhouette]

I guess Johns Hopkins will have to sue whoever it is then for using their name and their publication to print "falsehoods"...lol. You're mentally cracked Skylar. It's out there for everyone to see.

 

[Skylar]

I guess Johns Hopkins will have to sue whoever it is then for using their name and their publication to print "falsehoods"...lol. You're mentally cracked Skylar. It's out there for everyone to see.

Or.....your lies will remain gloriously irrelevant to John Hopkins and everyone else. As John Hopkins has yet to 'formerly' denounce sex change operations. And has never said that hormone therapy for transgender people is carcinogenic.

That's just you....citing you. And you're nobody.

 

[Silhouette]

I guess Johns Hopkins will have to sue whoever it is then for using their name and their publication to print "falsehoods"...lol. You're mentally cracked Skylar. It's out there for everyone to see.

Or.....your lies will remain gloriously irrelevant to John Hopkins and everyone else. As John Hopkins has yet to 'formerly' denounce sex change operations. And has never said that hormone therapy for transgender people is carcinogenic.

That's just you....citing you. And you're nobody.

Are you saying I created a false webpage and that isn't a Johns Hopkins publication? JHMN: Sexual Healing