Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
. A person could denounce collecting some types of stamps, but not the others in which has more value and more worth to them. The ones that are crazy to collect because it makes no sense too, will cause the collector to denonce the ones that are not worth collecting. How hard are these things to understand in life?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.
. Yes and then it depends on who is doing the evaluation these days... There are so many leftist activist infiltrating everything anymore, that the analysis would be slanted badly. The person being analized would be more messed up in their head than ever before after one of these so called leftist educated brainiacs got done with them..It is very difficult to understand how so-called sex change surgery could be performed before extensive psychological consulting and counseling were employed.
This is why it's important to understand that when cults take over institutions, the very first thing to go is any scientific principles. You can't have pesky facts getting in the way of your dogma and agendas.. Yes and then it depends on who is doing the evaluation these days... There are so many leftist activist infiltrating everything anymore, that the analysis would be slanted badly. The person being analized would be more messed up in their head than ever before after one of these so called leftist educated brainiacs got done with them..It is very difficult to understand how so-called sex change surgery could be performed before extensive psychological consulting and counseling were employed.
It is very difficult to understand how so-called sex change surgery could be performed before extensive psychological consulting and counseling were employed.
This is why it's important to understand that when cults take over institutions, the very first thing to go is any scientific principles. You can't have pesky facts getting in the way of your dogma and agendas.. Yes and then it depends on who is doing the evaluation these days... There are so many leftist activist infiltrating everything anymore, that the analysis would be slanted badly. The person being analized would be more messed up in their head than ever before after one of these so called leftist educated brainiacs got done with them..It is very difficult to understand how so-called sex change surgery could be performed before extensive psychological consulting and counseling were employed.
This is why the article from Johns Hopkins said (note part in red):
******
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.
********
Disappearing the science happened in the American Psychological Association too (defunct now, it's merely a branch of a cult at this point)
Cue to 2:10
But it is informative, and it backs the recent stance of professionals re: the article in the OP
For the purpose of evaluating whether sex reassignment is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria, it is reasonable to compare reported gender dysphoria pre and post treatment. Such studies have been conducted either prospectively or retrospectively, and suggest that sex reassignment of transsexual persons improves quality of life and gender dysphoria.
Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
Murad 2010 said:Male-to-female and FM individuals had the same psychological functioning level as measured by the Symptom Checklist inventory (SCL-90), which was also similar to the psychological functioning level of the normal population and better than that of untreated individuals with GID....
Hormonal therapy and sex reassignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of quality of life and psychosocial outcomes - Murad - 2009 - Clinical Endocrinology - Wiley Online Library
Ainsworth 2011 said:The mental health quality of life of trans women without surgical intervention was significantly lower compared to the general population, while those transwomen who received FFS, GRS, or both had mental health quality of life scores not significantly different from the general female population.
Quality of life of individuals with and without facial feminization surgery or gender reassignment surgery. - PubMed - NCBI
. Kidding right ? All this created theory and agenda riddled information proves absolutely nothing. The defence for the exploitation of mental disorders or the creating of mental disorders where there were none in the beginning, uh is downright dispicable... Wow. It has reached critical mass where there is now this new thinking that so called transgender people should just choose a restroom that suits them, instead of using the one that matches their birth certificate. Some states are already countering that craziness, by passing bills to make sure that doesn't happen (I.e. the choosing by them to use which ever one they think suits them).But it is informative, and it backs the recent stance of professionals re: the article in the OP
Its a 17 year old article based on a lone 37 year old study. A study contradicted by dozens since.
Here's the very researcher cited in your list, Dr. Steensma, finding in a follow up study looked at the intensity of dysphoria felt as a factor in persistence, it turned out that it was actually a very good predictor of which children would transition.
Factors associated with desistence and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: a quantitative follow-up study. - PubMed - NCBI
With Dr. Steensma's follow up findings reaffirmed by other studies that found 'children who meet the clinical guidelines for gender dysphoria are as consistent in their gender identity as the general population."
Gender Cognition in Transgender Children
Here's contradiction by the DSM.
http://www.dsm5.org/documents/gender dysphoria fact sheet.pdf
Here's contradiction by the American Psychological Association
http://www.apadivisions.org/division-44/resources/advocacy/transgender-children.pdf
Another study debunking the 'desistance' claims of the fringe right ACP:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-01-transgender-kids-gender-identity.html
A study refuting the claims of the fringe right ACP regarding homone blocking, finding instead a positive effect on the psychological health of said children, with no significant permanent consequences or side effects:
Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment | Articles | Pediatrics
With the Endrocrine Society in a research study of the effects of hormones on chilren with gender dysphoria found that depression and anxiety improve greatly with recognition and treatment of gender dysphoria.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150308091402.htm?
With the very researcher cited above regarding 'regret rates', even the author of the study was frustrated with the way it was misrepresented. As the conclusions that are drawn by the fringe right ACP are explicitly contradicted by the study:
For the purpose of evaluating whether sex reassignment is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria, it is reasonable to compare reported gender dysphoria pre and post treatment. Such studies have been conducted either prospectively or retrospectively, and suggest that sex reassignment of transsexual persons improves quality of life and gender dysphoria.
Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
Here's the interview where Dr. Dhejne herself personally shreds the misrepresentations of her study by people like the fringe right ACP:
Fact check: study shows transition makes trans people suicidal
And her follow up study that found that regret rates for those who had gender reassignment surgery between 1970 and 2001.....were only 2.2%. Again, this is your own source.
An Analysis of All Applications for Sex Reassignment Surgery in Sweden, 1960-2010: Prevalence, Incidence, and Regrets
With the 'regret rate' for those who had surgery between 2001-2010 only 0.3%. This too from your own source.
With regret rates of about 1% affirmed here:
Sex reassignment: outcomes and predictors of treatment for adolescent and adult transsexuals. - PubMed - NCBI
With studies showing NONE of the participants regretted their transition (that's a 0.0% regret rate)
Male-to-female transsexualism: a technique, results and long-term follow-up in 66 patients. - PubMed - NCBI
And again, 0.0% regret rate:
Long-term follow-up: psychosocial outcome of Belgian transsexuals after sex reassignment surgery
With a 2015 study finding that transitioning improves quality of life for most, with regret being quite rare:
[Effect of sex reassignment on mental well-being and quality of life]. - PubMed - NCBI
This finding reaffirmed in another 2015 study:
http://www.psycontent.com/content/y4016k965241600p/
With yet another study confirming positive outcomes from transitioning:
Long-Term Follow-Up of Adults with Gender Identity Disorder - Springer
And another....
http://www.europsy-journal.com/article/S0924-9338(14)77643-6/abstract
With the fringe right ACP's conclusions regarding the effects of hormone therapy contradicted by two more studies, both finding found that individuals who receive treatment not only are better-off than those who didn’t but are not significantly different in daily functioning than the general population:
Murad 2010 said:Male-to-female and FM individuals had the same psychological functioning level as measured by the Symptom Checklist inventory (SCL-90), which was also similar to the psychological functioning level of the normal population and better than that of untreated individuals with GID....
Hormonal therapy and sex reassignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of quality of life and psychosocial outcomes - Murad - 2009 - Clinical Endocrinology - Wiley Online Library
andAinsworth 2011 said:The mental health quality of life of trans women without surgical intervention was significantly lower compared to the general population, while those transwomen who received FFS, GRS, or both had mental health quality of life scores not significantly different from the general female population.
Quality of life of individuals with and without facial feminization surgery or gender reassignment surgery. - PubMed - NCBI
The fringe right ACP is overwhelmingly contradicted by study after study, many of them the very studies cited by the ACP that were outrageously and intentionally misrepresented.
But then, that's what you get when you have a fringe right religious group trying to push their theistic agenda posing as a pediatric association. Which might explain why they've managed between 60 and 200 members in total
Kidding right ? All this created theory and agenda riddled information proves absolutely nothing. The defence for the exploitation of mental disorders or the creating of mental disorders where there were none in the beginning, uh is downright dispicable... Wow...
.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.
Please provide a link to an professional outfit since the date of the article in the OP who has come out to denounce its conclusions.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.
.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.
Please provide a link to an professional outfit since the date of the article in the OP who has come out to denounce its conclusions.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.
Please provide a link to where Johns Hopkins denounced sex change procedures as you lied about in your OP>
Please provide a link to where Johns Hopkins denounced sex change procedures as you lied about in your OP>
Have you not seen the credentials of the author in the OP? And have you not read the article from Johns Hopkins posted here below? I know you have. Now who is lying?
******
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.
********
Disappearing the science happened in the American Psychological Association too (defunct now, it's merely a branch of a cult at this point)
Cue to 2:10
I guess you're blind then? Can't see post # 393?
. “It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”
a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely. ]
Stopping the procedure at their outfit because the science is weak "supporting" doing it and because it is rough surgery is one and the same as denouncing it. Yes, it is. You can split hairs all day long but others will see your bullshit for what it is..So I cut it down to your highlighted quotes:
And not once there does Johns Hopkins "denounce sex change operations'.
Stopping collecting stamps is not me denouncing stamp collecting.
“It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”
a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely.
Stopping the procedure at their outfit because the science is weak "supporting" doing it and because it is rough surgery is one and the same as denouncing it. Yes, it is. You can split hairs all day long but others will see your bullshit for what it is..So I cut it down to your highlighted quotes:
And not once there does Johns Hopkins "denounce sex change operations'.
Stopping collecting stamps is not me denouncing stamp collecting.
Johns Hopkins published in their journal their reasons for CEASING performing sex change operations because there wasn't sufficient science backing up that mutilating patients was ethical.
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.
