Former Johns Hopkins Chief of Psychiatry Says Trans Movement...

[Two Thumbs]

Former John Hopkins Chief of Psychiatry Drops Another TRUTH BOMB About Transgenderism...


Former Chief of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital and Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Dr. Paul R. McHugh blasted the Left’s transgender movement, saying that those who enable the metal illness of transgenderism are “collaborating with madness.” McHugh warns against sex-reassignment surgery in particular.

The esteemed PHD has studied transgenderism and sex-reassignment surgery for 40 years, notes CNS News.

In the doctor’s book, The Mind Has Mountains: Reflections on Society and Psychiatry, McHugh says that he’s “witnessed a great deal of damage from sex reassignment.”


“We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia,” said McHugh.

The doctor explained that trans people, those who don’t identify as their biological sex, exude behaviors of “sexual misdirection,” called “autogynephilia.” Such behaviors do not cease post-op:

For the post-surgery transgender men, data collected by one of McHugh’s colleagues showed that most of the patients did not regret the genitalia change “ut in every other respect, they were little changed in their psychological condition,” said Dr. McHugh. “They had the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before.”


So if it's not helping them, and the surgeons know or should know, why is this allowed?

If someone is cutting themselves you do everything to get them help, but is someone wants someone else to cut them....


This has nothing to do with marriage or bathrooms, this has everything to do with doctors victimizing the mentally - emotionally ill.
That's what it seems like to me.

 

[Asclepias]

Former?

 

[emilynghiem]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

 

[Asclepias]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

decades of practice, years of study.

the normal things that should make a normal person listen and learn.

assuming he's not making bank off his stance.

 

[S.J.]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

Um, maybe because he's been studying sexual reassignment for 40 years?

 

[emilynghiem]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

I think we'd have to ask the transgender people and patients to find out what is true for them.

See also what ChrisL posted on Walt Heyer
Sex Change Regret
What The Media Should Know About Walt Heyer And "Transition Regrets"

Clearly we can't judge all Transgender conditions based on ones that were either misdiagnosed or otherwise mistreated. And given so, the question they pose is then why is it deemed acceptable to assume ALL Transgender cases are natural for that person where it is assumed to be healthy to recognize and pursue transition?

If science and govt are truly to be neutral and all inclusive,
shouldn't all such cases be considered fully and individually to respect diversity?
if the point is to avoid discrimination, isn't treating all cases the same
and rejecting any that don't fit that model a form of DISCRIMINATION for convenience?

 

[Asclepias]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

Um, maybe because he's been studying sexual reassignment for 40 years?

So? People thought the world was flat for centuries.

 

[Asclepias]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

I think we'd have to ask the transgender people and patients to find out what is true for them.

See also what ChrisL posted on Walt Heyer
Sex Change Regret
What The Media Should Know About Walt Heyer And "Transition Regrets"

Clearly we can't judge all Transgender conditions based on ones that were either misdiagnosed or otherwise mistreated. And given so, the question they pose is then why is it deemed acceptable to assume ALL Transgender cases are natural for that person where it is assumed to be healthy to recognize and pursue transition?

Obviously some people are just mentally ill but that doesnt invalidate people that really are transgender.

 

[Asclepias]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

decades of practice, years of study.

the normal things that should make a normal person listen and learn.

assuming he's not making bank off his stance.

Sometimes you study things for decades and even centuries and are flat out wrong.

 

[emilynghiem]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

I think we'd have to ask the transgender people and patients to find out what is true for them.

See also what ChrisL posted on Walt Heyer
Sex Change Regret
What The Media Should Know About Walt Heyer And "Transition Regrets"

Clearly we can't judge all Transgender conditions based on ones that were either misdiagnosed or otherwise mistreated. And given so, the question they pose is then why is it deemed acceptable to assume ALL Transgender cases are natural for that person where it is assumed to be healthy to recognize and pursue transition?

Obviously some people are just mentally ill but that doesnt invalidate people that really are transgender.

What further examination will show is that Transgender orientation is FAITH BASED, not proven by science
but open to interpretation. So it should technically be treated more in terms of CREED or BELIEF in what someone wishes to practice
and not be assumed to be on the level of race. Especially if the point is to STRAY from the birth designation, then this is different from race that is genetic.

 

[S.J.]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

Um, maybe because he's been studying sexual reassignment for 40 years?

So? People thought the world was flat for centuries.

I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about it than you.

 

[Asclepias]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

I think we'd have to ask the transgender people and patients to find out what is true for them.

See also what ChrisL posted on Walt Heyer
Sex Change Regret
What The Media Should Know About Walt Heyer And "Transition Regrets"

Clearly we can't judge all Transgender conditions based on ones that were either misdiagnosed or otherwise mistreated. And given so, the question they pose is then why is it deemed acceptable to assume ALL Transgender cases are natural for that person where it is assumed to be healthy to recognize and pursue transition?

Obviously some people are just mentally ill but that doesnt invalidate people that really are transgender.

What further examination will show is that Transgender orientation is FAITH BASED, not proven by science
but open to interpretation. So it should technically be treated more in terms of CREED or BELIEF in what someone wishes to practice
and not be assumed to be on the level of race. Especially if the point is to STRAY from the birth designation, then this is different from race that is genetic.

Who is saying that being transgender is not something you are born with and not just a belief? Its like being gay to me.

 

[Asclepias]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

Um, maybe because he's been studying sexual reassignment for 40 years?

So? People thought the world was flat for centuries.

I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about it than you.

That may or may not be true but that doesnt make him right.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Former?

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

Um, maybe because he's been studying sexual reassignment for 40 years?

So? People thought the world was flat for centuries.

moronic


can't even stay close to the topic.

 

[Two Thumbs]

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

I think we'd have to ask the transgender people and patients to find out what is true for them.

See also what ChrisL posted on Walt Heyer
Sex Change Regret
What The Media Should Know About Walt Heyer And "Transition Regrets"

Clearly we can't judge all Transgender conditions based on ones that were either misdiagnosed or otherwise mistreated. And given so, the question they pose is then why is it deemed acceptable to assume ALL Transgender cases are natural for that person where it is assumed to be healthy to recognize and pursue transition?

Obviously some people are just mentally ill but that doesnt invalidate people that really are transgender.

What further examination will show is that Transgender orientation is FAITH BASED, not proven by science
but open to interpretation. So it should technically be treated more in terms of CREED or BELIEF in what someone wishes to practice
and not be assumed to be on the level of race. Especially if the point is to STRAY from the birth designation, then this is different from race that is genetic.

Who is saying that being transgender is not something you are born with and not just a belief? Its like being gay to me.

you're ignorant and uninformed opinion has been proven wrong.

 

[Two Thumbs]

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

Um, maybe because he's been studying sexual reassignment for 40 years?

So? People thought the world was flat for centuries.

I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about it than you.

That may or may not be true but that doesnt make him right.

Thanks, I knew this thread was missing something;

a troll

a dr 'might' know more about medicine than you.... man, that's taking trolling to an 11

 

[Asclepias]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

I think we'd have to ask the transgender people and patients to find out what is true for them.

See also what ChrisL posted on Walt Heyer
Sex Change Regret
What The Media Should Know About Walt Heyer And "Transition Regrets"

Clearly we can't judge all Transgender conditions based on ones that were either misdiagnosed or otherwise mistreated. And given so, the question they pose is then why is it deemed acceptable to assume ALL Transgender cases are natural for that person where it is assumed to be healthy to recognize and pursue transition?

Obviously some people are just mentally ill but that doesnt invalidate people that really are transgender.

What further examination will show is that Transgender orientation is FAITH BASED, not proven by science
but open to interpretation. So it should technically be treated more in terms of CREED or BELIEF in what someone wishes to practice
and not be assumed to be on the level of race. Especially if the point is to STRAY from the birth designation, then this is different from race that is genetic.

Who is saying that being transgender is not something you are born with and not just a belief? Its like being gay to me.

you're ignorant and uninformed opinion has been proven wrong.

No. it hasnt been proven wrong. Theories are not proof.

 

[emilynghiem]

For someone born in 1931, he'd normally be expected to have retired by now:

======================
In 1992, McHugh announced that he was going to leave Johns Hopkins and accept a position as director and CEO of Friends Hospital in Philadelphia. The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine quickly sought to retain him and was successful in doing so.[5]

Throughout the decade of the 1990s, McHugh was active in debunking the idea of recovered memory—that is, the idea that people could suddenly and spontaneously remember childhood sexual abuse.[4][5]

In 2001, McHugh was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Presidential Council on Bioethics.[12] The Council was charged with the task of making recommendations as to what the U.S. federal government's policy regarding embryonic stem cells should be. McHugh was against using new lines of embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization but was in favor of the use of stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT, the nucleus of a cell is removed and replaced by another cell nucleus. McHugh felt that cells created in this fashion could be regarded as tissue; whereas, stem cells taken from embryos caused the killing of an unborn child.[13]

In 2002, McHugh was appointed to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church to look into sexual abuse by priests.[2]

I guess i was wondering why this guys opinion was valid.

I think we'd have to ask the transgender people and patients to find out what is true for them.

See also what ChrisL posted on Walt Heyer
Sex Change Regret
What The Media Should Know About Walt Heyer And "Transition Regrets"

Clearly we can't judge all Transgender conditions based on ones that were either misdiagnosed or otherwise mistreated. And given so, the question they pose is then why is it deemed acceptable to assume ALL Transgender cases are natural for that person where it is assumed to be healthy to recognize and pursue transition?

Obviously some people are just mentally ill but that doesnt invalidate people that really are transgender.

What further examination will show is that Transgender orientation is FAITH BASED, not proven by science
but open to interpretation. So it should technically be treated more in terms of CREED or BELIEF in what someone wishes to practice
and not be assumed to be on the level of race. Especially if the point is to STRAY from the birth designation, then this is different from race that is genetic.

Who is saying that being transgender is not something you are born with and not just a belief? Its like being gay to me.

Dear Asclepias
and beliefs about homosexual orientation are also faith based
and not proven by science or genetics.

From what I understand, some parts or processes of the male homosexual brain
may be closer to the female than male brain. But scientists have not identified
any gene(s) that can be pinned down as causing it. One theory is that the
chemistry in the womb may be such that it may cause the opposite gender identity
or orientation to develop. So that could still be caused by birth yet not show up in the genes.

Because people have reported changing orientation,
that seems less like race that cannot change by choice,
and more like expressions of beliefs or creeds. People
can be spiritually born to identify as Christian or Muslim
and/or change their denomination, and still have the right
to exercise their free choice of belief or creed without having to prove it.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think we'd have to ask the transgender people and patients to find out what is true for them.

See also what ChrisL posted on Walt Heyer
Sex Change Regret
What The Media Should Know About Walt Heyer And "Transition Regrets"

Clearly we can't judge all Transgender conditions based on ones that were either misdiagnosed or otherwise mistreated. And given so, the question they pose is then why is it deemed acceptable to assume ALL Transgender cases are natural for that person where it is assumed to be healthy to recognize and pursue transition?

Obviously some people are just mentally ill but that doesnt invalidate people that really are transgender.

What further examination will show is that Transgender orientation is FAITH BASED, not proven by science
but open to interpretation. So it should technically be treated more in terms of CREED or BELIEF in what someone wishes to practice
and not be assumed to be on the level of race. Especially if the point is to STRAY from the birth designation, then this is different from race that is genetic.

Who is saying that being transgender is not something you are born with and not just a belief? Its like being gay to me.

you're ignorant and uninformed opinion has been proven wrong.

No. it hasnt been proven wrong. Theories are not proof.

Neither side has been proven true or false, same with homosexuality.

What I find disturbing Asclepias is the alarming media bias and trend of discrediting, silencing or censoring the experiences and statements of people who have either healed or helped others to heal of homosexual orientation that was caused by unnatural abuse.

So when this onesidedness comes up with the Transgender issue, it looks like the same agenda being pushed by media bias (although clearly the cases are not going to be the same).

The scientific method would tell you than any person or group who has to DELIBERATELY EXCLUDE DATA from their studies to make a point, where the conclusion would be affected by INCLUDING this data, is SKEWING WHICH RESEARCH STUDIES ARE CITED OR OMITTED to push the outcome they want to argue for.

Where do you see either the "liberal/mainstream media" or "LGBT movement" publishing this:

"The simplest indication that there is no gay gene comes from the studies of identical twins, in whom all the genes are identical. If there were a gay gene, both twins would necessarily be either heterosexual or homosexual. Most of the researchers who have studied identical twins in relation to homosexuality have hoped to prove that sexual orientation is genetic. But the studies show a 50 percent concordance rate, at best, when both twins were raised at home. And with twins raised separately by different families, studies demonstrate a concordance rate of zero. *[footnote] This research indicates, then, that there is no gay gene, although there may be a partial genetic influence. Even so, gay activies have largely convinced church leaders and the public that homosexuals have been created with a same-sex orientation."

-- from "Can Homosexuality be Healed?" by Francis MacNutt

NOTE: if you do believe people were born to be gay or live as and experience gay relationships, that is where I argue it can still be SPIRITUALLY caused or predetermined independent of genetics. What we are spiritually, such as identifying Buddhist, or Muslim, or Christian is part of our spiritual path and personality and how we express our beliefs, but not necessarily in our genetics either. Yet people have their right to their religious expression without discrimination. So that is why I find a BETTER approach is to treat gender identity/orientation at the same level as people's religious beliefs, so these can be accommodated equally with no need to prove genetics. If you believe something, you automatically have the right to your own beliefs; but at the same time you cannot abuse govt to impose your beliefs on others, or punish them for not going along and following them.