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

[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.

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

I'm saying exactly what I've said:

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'.

Keep running, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

The article below isn't from the American College of pediatrics. It is From HOPKINS MEDICAL NEWS, Winter 1999. It is a publication FROM JOHNS HOPKINS ITSELF!! Note their statement that the science behind sex mutilation is "Pretty damn weak"..

*************
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.

 

[Skylar]

That's not John Hopkins. That's not John Hopkins 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations. That's not even breaking. That's a 1999 article citing a 1979 study. Neither of which 'formerly' denounce sex change operations.

Show us anywhere that John Hopkins found hormone therapy to be 'carcinogenic' Show us the link where John Hopkins 'formerly' denounced sex change operations.

 

[beagle9]

That's not John Hopkins. That's not John Hopkins 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations. That's not even breaking. That's a 1999 article citing a 1979 study. Neither of which 'formerly' denounce sex change operations.

Show us anywhere that John Hopkins found hormone therapy to be 'carcinogenic' Show us the link where John Hopkins 'formerly' denounced sex change operations.

. She could produce anything that would be factually correct, but you would find someway to denie it.

 

[Skylar]

That's not John Hopkins. That's not John Hopkins 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations. That's not even breaking. That's a 1999 article citing a 1979 study. Neither of which 'formerly' denounce sex change operations.

Show us anywhere that John Hopkins found hormone therapy to be 'carcinogenic' Show us the link where John Hopkins 'formerly' denounced sex change operations.

. She could produce anything that would be factually correct, but you would find someway to denie it.

When she does we'll find out.

That's still not John Hopkins. That's not John Hopkins formally denouncing sex change operations. Nor is it John Hopkins claiming that hormone therapy for transgender people is 'carcinogenic'.

 

[Syriusly]

That's not John Hopkins. That's not John Hopkins 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations. That's not even breaking. That's a 1999 article citing a 1979 study. Neither of which 'formerly' denounce sex change operations.

Show us anywhere that John Hopkins found hormone therapy to be 'carcinogenic' Show us the link where John Hopkins 'formerly' denounced sex change operations.

. She could produce anything that would be factually correct, but you would find someway to denie it.

What I find fascinating is that you don't care that Silhouette is clearly and obviously lying from the very beginning- from the title of the thread.

That you accept what she has posted knowing that it is factually incorrect shows that facts simply do not matter to you- your posts are based upon your faith in your own unsubstantiated conclusions.

 

[Syriusly]

The article below isn't from the American College of pediatrics. It is From HOPKINS MEDICAL NEWS, Winter 1999. It is a publication FROM JOHNS HOPKINS ITSELF!! Note their statement that the science behind sex mutilation is "Pretty damn weak"..

*************
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.

Silhouette,

Your OP was a lie.

You pumped up a false claim about Johns Hopkins to try to lend the credibility of the Johns Hopkins to support the claims of a small group of ideologue physicians.

You lied.

 

[beagle9]

The article below isn't from the American College of pediatrics. It is From HOPKINS MEDICAL NEWS, Winter 1999. It is a publication FROM JOHNS HOPKINS ITSELF!! Note their statement that the science behind sex mutilation is "Pretty damn weak"..

*************
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.

Silhouette,

Your OP was a lie.

You pumped up a false claim about Johns Hopkins to try to lend the credibility of the Johns Hopkins to support the claims of a small group of ideologue physicians.

You lied.

. Well you can say she lied, but many might see the information as not being a lie, but rather it being some great investigating skills where she found the article from 1999... Wow..

 

[Silhouette]

Well you can say she lied, but many might see the information as not being a lie, but rather it being some great investigating skills where she found the article from 1999... Wow..

Thank you beagle9. Yes, it bothers the LGBT cult when their MO is upended. The article is from the Johns Hopkins university and since their emeritus CHIEF psychiatrist was going around saying that Johns Hopkins, where he draws his retirement from presumably, has denounced sex change operations, I didn't even have to research the article from JH themselves. I knew there existed one. There was no lawsuit from Johns Hopkins or publication denouncing what McHugh was saying so ....of course they agree with him. The article I found sealed the deal. There was no deception at all. I merely relied on the fact that a public announcement from a leading official from an institution meant that the institution was behind him.. Lacking any denouncement from JH or any other institution for that matter, means the community is on board if even in silent begrudged consensus...

After all, the article said "the science is pretty damn weak"... Hard to refute that conclusion with mere opinion and no science! ...lol..

 

[Syriusly]

The article below isn't from the American College of pediatrics. It is From HOPKINS MEDICAL NEWS, Winter 1999. It is a publication FROM JOHNS HOPKINS ITSELF!! Note their statement that the science behind sex mutilation is "Pretty damn weak"..

*************
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.

Silhouette,

Your OP was a lie.

You pumped up a false claim about Johns Hopkins to try to lend the credibility of the Johns Hopkins to support the claims of a small group of ideologue physicians.

You lied.

. Well you can say she lied, but many might see the information as not being a lie, but rather it being some great investigating skills where she found the article from 1999... Wow..

Well some people might look at the Eifel Tower and see the Statue of Liberty- but they aren't the same.

The article from 1999 doesn't call for the end of sex change surgery.

Silhouette lied.

Again

 

[Syriusly]

Well you can say she lied, but many might see the information as not being a lie, but rather it being some great investigating skills where she found the article from 1999... Wow..

Thank you beagle9. Yes, it bothers the LGBT cult when their MO is upended. The article is from the Johns Hopkins university .

And where in the article does Johns Hopkins denounce sex change procedures as you lied and claimed?

 

[beagle9]

Well you can say she lied, but many might see the information as not being a lie, but rather it being some great investigating skills where she found the article from 1999... Wow..

Thank you beagle9. Yes, it bothers the LGBT cult when their MO is upended. The article is from the Johns Hopkins university .

And where in the article does Johns Hopkins denounce sex change procedures as you lied and claimed?

. Well if they stopped doing it, then isn't that denouncing it ?

 

[Silhouette]

It's like debating the meaning of the word "the"... Let's look again:

*******

From HOPKINS MEDICAL NEWS, Winter 1999. It is a publication FROM JOHNS HOPKINS ITSELF!! Note their statement that the science behind sex mutilation is "Pretty damn weak"..

*************
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 IS denouncing sex reassignment.

 

[Syriusly]

Well you can say she lied, but many might see the information as not being a lie, but rather it being some great investigating skills where she found the article from 1999... Wow..

Thank you beagle9. Yes, it bothers the LGBT cult when their MO is upended. The article is from the Johns Hopkins university .

And where in the article does Johns Hopkins denounce sex change procedures as you lied and claimed?

. Well if they stopped doing it, then isn't that denouncing it ?

If you stop eating pork does that you have publicly denounced pork?

 

[Skylar]

Well you can say she lied, but many might see the information as not being a lie, but rather it being some great investigating skills where she found the article from 1999... Wow..

Thank you beagle9. Yes, it bothers the LGBT cult when their MO is upended. The article is from the Johns Hopkins university .

And where in the article does Johns Hopkins denounce sex change procedures as you lied and claimed?

. Well if they stopped doing it, then isn't that denouncing it ?

Nope. Nor is it 'formally denouncing it'.

Sil lied. You're trying to spin the lie. That's not very Christian of you.

 

[Syriusly]

It's like debating the meaning of the word "the"... Let's look again:
t.

Shouldn't be that hard for you to provide the actual quote- if Johns Hopkins ever 'denounced' sex change operations.

Here is an example of denouncing something- which you have yet to provide- since of course Johns Hopkins never said what you lied about.

Hillary Clinton Denounces Donald Trump Before Pro-Israel Lobby Group

At Aipac meeting, Democratic front-runner calls billionaire businessman inconsistent and dangerously unqualified

 

[Silhouette]

If you stop eating pork does that you have publicly denounced pork?

If I could put the large font in post #373 in size 36 or 48 instead of just 7, I would. Because apparently you're having a great deal of difficultly reading that Johns Hopkins said in THEIR OWN PUBLICATION that there isn't good science behind sex-change operations and because of that THEY AS A GROUP STOPPED DOING THEM. If that is not a "denouncement" of a practice, then nothing is. You can just erase the word "denouncement" from the dictionary like you've tried to erase the words "male" and "female"..

 

[Syriusly]

If you stop eating pork does that you have publicly denounced pork?

If that is not a "denouncement" of a practice, then nothing is. .

Then clearly nothing is.

See its easy to tell when someone denounces something- they actually- you know- denounce it- rather than just decide to stop doing it.

Perhaps for you- deciding to stop collecting stamps is the same as denouncing stamp collecting.

But not to anyone else.

 

[beagle9]

Well you can say she lied, but many might see the information as not being a lie, but rather it being some great investigating skills where she found the article from 1999... Wow..

Thank you beagle9. Yes, it bothers the LGBT cult when their MO is upended. The article is from the Johns Hopkins university .

And where in the article does Johns Hopkins denounce sex change procedures as you lied and claimed?

. Well if they stopped doing it, then isn't that denouncing it ?

If you stop eating pork does that you have publicly denounced pork?

. Uh yes, it means that I have denounced pork... And if I have done that, and if anyone ask why, then of course I will tell them why I denounced it.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is very difficult to understand how so-called sex change surgery could be performed before extensive psychological consulting and counseling were employed.