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

[Silhouette]

Hope this helps Skylar


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.

********

Is it hard for you to click the link in post #294 Skylar?

I did. That's not John Hopkins 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations. That's not even 'breaking'......being an article from the 90s.....referencing a study from the 70s...Show us a link to John Hopkins where they 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations.

Oh, cute, you're hung up on the typo in the thread title instead of the substance which is huge news...

Shocker..

 

[Skylar]

Hope this helps Skylar


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.

********

Is it hard for you to click the link in post #294 Skylar?

I did. That's not John Hopkins 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations. That's not even 'breaking'......being an article from the 90s.....referencing a study from the 70s...Show us a link to John Hopkins where they 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations.

Oh, cute, you're hung up on the typo in the thread title instead of the substance which is huge news...

Shocker..

That's not John Hopkins. That's not John Hopkins denouncing sex change operations. That's not 'breaking'. But an article from the 90s.

Show us a link to John Hopkins where they 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations.

That's what? The 5th time I've asked for the link?

 

[Syriusly]

Johns Hopkins, for a FACT stopped doing "sex change" operations in the 1970s. ..

The fact is that you claimed that Johns Hopkins denounced sex change operations.

The facts show that Johns Hopkins did no such thing.

You just made it up- i.e.- you lied.

Again.

 

[Syriusly]

Ohhhhh....but Obama and the LGBT community is going to be pissed and come after them!

LOL- wingbat Right wing nut jobs like you are always seeing Konspiracy theories.....

 

[Syriusly]

1. You claimed that Johns Hopkins denounces sex change operations
2. Johns Hopkins never denounced sex change operations
3. You lied
4. Again.

2. They DID!!\.

When?

So far all you have provided is an announcement by another organization entirely- that happens to include an employee of Johns Hopkins.

Johns Hopkins has never denounced sex change operations.

You just lied

Again

. Well maybe they wouldn't announce it directly as an institution, and all because of possible retribution being brought to bear against them, so indirectly would be better than directly if they finally realized the wrong in it all, especially after following the twisted logic in which they may have agreed to early on, but then sorely regretted later.

Well that is as compelling of a fantasy as Silhouette's invention that Johns Hopkins denounced sex change operations.

Let me make this simpler for you.

If I were to say "Silhouette claimed that n*ggers are lazy child rapers"- when Silhouette never said any such thing- I would be lying.

Silhouette lied about what Johns Hopkins said.

She lies like this regularly.

She calls a paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall a Mayo Clinic study(it wasn't)
She misquotes from the same paper- leaving out the very next line which specifically repudiates what she claims the paper says.
She makes claims about a "Prince's Trust Study" that have nothing to do with the study.
She invents that murderers are gay in order to blame gays for murder.

She lies.

Consistently.

 

[Skylar]

1. You claimed that Johns Hopkins denounces sex change operations
2. Johns Hopkins never denounced sex change operations
3. You lied
4. Again.

2. They DID!!\.

When?

So far all you have provided is an announcement by another organization entirely- that happens to include an employee of Johns Hopkins.

Johns Hopkins has never denounced sex change operations.

You just lied

Again

. Well maybe they wouldn't announce it directly as an institution, and all because of possible retribution being brought to bear against them, so indirectly would be better than directly if they finally realized the wrong in it all, especially after following the twisted logic in which they may have agreed to early on, but then sorely regretted later.

Well that is as compelling of a fantasy as Silhouette's invention that Johns Hopkins denounced sex change operations.

Let me make this simpler for you.

If I were to say "Silhouette claimed that n*ggers are lazy child rapers"- when Silhouette never said any such thing- I would be lying.

Silhouette lied about what Johns Hopkins said.

She lies like this regularly.

She calls a paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall a Mayo Clinic study(it wasn't)
She misquotes from the same paper- leaving out the very next line which specifically repudiates what she claims the paper says.
She makes claims about a "Prince's Trust Study" that have nothing to do with the study.
She invents that murderers are gay in order to blame gays for murder.

She lies.

Consistently.

I get the sense that there's a part of her still connected enough to reality to want to tell the truth. But when it comes to gays, I don't think she can.

She lies constantly. And not even new lies. Often its the same recycled nonsense that was debunked weeks before, and months before that, and years before that.

 

[Syriusly]

1. You claimed that Johns Hopkins denounces sex change operations
2. Johns Hopkins never denounced sex change operations
3. You lied
4. Again.

2. They DID!!\.

When?

So far all you have provided is an announcement by another organization entirely- that happens to include an employee of Johns Hopkins.

Johns Hopkins has never denounced sex change operations.

You just lied

Again

. Well maybe they wouldn't announce it directly as an institution, and all because of possible retribution being brought to bear against them, so indirectly would be better than directly if they finally realized the wrong in it all, especially after following the twisted logic in which they may have agreed to early on, but then sorely regretted later.

Well that is as compelling of a fantasy as Silhouette's invention that Johns Hopkins denounced sex change operations.

Let me make this simpler for you.

If I were to say "Silhouette claimed that n*ggers are lazy child rapers"- when Silhouette never said any such thing- I would be lying.

Silhouette lied about what Johns Hopkins said.

She lies like this regularly.

She calls a paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall a Mayo Clinic study(it wasn't)
She misquotes from the same paper- leaving out the very next line which specifically repudiates what she claims the paper says.
She makes claims about a "Prince's Trust Study" that have nothing to do with the study.
She invents that murderers are gay in order to blame gays for murder.

She lies.

Consistently.

I get the sense that there's a part of her still connected enough to reality to want to tell the truth. But when it comes to gays, I don't think she can.

She lies constantly. And not even new lies. Often its the same recycled nonsense that was debunked weeks before, and months before that, and years before that.

Where I am convinced it is beyond delusional and into intentional lying is how she specifically misquotes Dr. Hall's report to leave out the very next sentence which refutes everything she claims that the report says.

It is intentional deceit.

 

[Skylar]

2. They DID!!\.

When?

So far all you have provided is an announcement by another organization entirely- that happens to include an employee of Johns Hopkins.

Johns Hopkins has never denounced sex change operations.

You just lied

Again

. Well maybe they wouldn't announce it directly as an institution, and all because of possible retribution being brought to bear against them, so indirectly would be better than directly if they finally realized the wrong in it all, especially after following the twisted logic in which they may have agreed to early on, but then sorely regretted later.

Well that is as compelling of a fantasy as Silhouette's invention that Johns Hopkins denounced sex change operations.

Let me make this simpler for you.

If I were to say "Silhouette claimed that n*ggers are lazy child rapers"- when Silhouette never said any such thing- I would be lying.

Silhouette lied about what Johns Hopkins said.

She lies like this regularly.

She calls a paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall a Mayo Clinic study(it wasn't)
She misquotes from the same paper- leaving out the very next line which specifically repudiates what she claims the paper says.
She makes claims about a "Prince's Trust Study" that have nothing to do with the study.
She invents that murderers are gay in order to blame gays for murder.

She lies.

Consistently.

I get the sense that there's a part of her still connected enough to reality to want to tell the truth. But when it comes to gays, I don't think she can.

She lies constantly. And not even new lies. Often its the same recycled nonsense that was debunked weeks before, and months before that, and years before that.

Where I am convinced it is beyond delusional and into intentional lying is how she specifically misquotes Dr. Hall's report to leave out the very next sentence which refutes everything she claims that the report says.

It is intentional deceit.

I think its delusion motivating intentional deceit. She's imagined vast, specific and ludicriously elaborate conspiracies. The 'gays got the pope' batshit. The 'gays infiltrated gallup' insanity. The secret 'LGBT' cult' hallucination. The 'Kennedy is a homosexual' nonsense. And that's all pure delusion.

But having hallucinated this elaborate conspiracy against her, she seems to think it justifies her use of deception. So she intentionally lies to combat her conspiracy.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's another one of my "lies" besides the "lie" that Johns Hopkins publicized they no longer practice "sex change" operations:

Washington (CNN)North Carolina's governor on Wednesday signed a controversial bill blocking cities from allowing transgender individuals to use public bathrooms for the sex they identify as -- as well as restricting cities from passing nondiscrimination laws more broadly.

House Bill 2, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, puts in place a statewide policy that bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex. The bill also reserves the right to pass nondiscrimination legislation to the state government, saying state laws preempt any local ordinances. North Carolina governor signs controversial LGBT bill - CNNPolitics.com

Wa Wa Waaaaa You all knew that reality would eventually stand in the way of your Agenda. Delusions running amok always come up against it eventually. And so they have. North Carolina recognizes the distinction between men and women. And a full-stop comes for the "T" of LGBT...

 

[Skylar]

Here's another one of my "lies" besides the "lie" that Johns Hopkins publicized they no longer practice "sex change" operations:

Washington (CNN)North Carolina's governor on Wednesday signed a controversial bill blocking cities from allowing transgender individuals to use public bathrooms for the sex they identify as -- as well as restricting cities from passing nondiscrimination laws more broadly.

House Bill 2, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, puts in place a statewide policy that bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex. The bill also reserves the right to pass nondiscrimination legislation to the state government, saying state laws preempt any local ordinances. North Carolina governor signs controversial LGBT bill - CNNPolitics.com

Wa Wa Waaaaa You all knew that reality would eventually stand in the way of your Agenda. Delusions running amok always come up against it eventually. And so they have. North Carolina recognizes the distinction between men and women. And a full-stop comes for the "T" of LGBT...

And as South Caroline's own Attorney General admitted, the law is a 'national embarassment' for the State. And he won't defend anyone under that law:

One day after civil liberties groups filed suit to fight a controversial “bathroom bill” in North Carolina that they say discriminates against the LGBT community, state Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that he would not defend its constitutionality.

“We should not even be here today, but we are. We’re here because the governor has signed statewide legislation that puts discrimination into the law,” Cooper told reporters in Raleigh Tuesday.

According to Cooper, House Bill 2 (HB2) is in direct conflict with nondiscrimination policies at North Carolina’s justice department and treasurer’s office, as well as many of the state’s businesses. Though the LGBT community is targeted, he said, it could ultimately result in the discrimination of other groups as well.

“House Bill 2 is unconstitutional,” he said. “Therefore, our office will not represent the defendants in this lawsuit, nor future lawsuits involving the constitutionality of House Bill 2.”

North Carolina attorney general won’t defend transgender law: It’s a ‘national embarrassment’

When your own State's Attorney General rejects the newly passed law as unconstitutional, you know you've got quite a piece of legislative horseshit.

Oh, and we're still waiting for you to show us the link of John Hopkins 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations. Its been.......how many days? And you've still never managed to back that nonsense up.

 

[beagle9]

In 1965, the Hopkins Hospital became the first academic institution in the United States to perform sex reassignment surgeries. Now also known by names like genital reconstruction surgery and sex realignment surgery, the procedures were perceived as radical and attracted attention from The New York Times and tabloids alike. But they were conducted for experimental, not political, reasons. Regardless, as the first place in the country where doctors and researchers could go to learn about sex reassignment surgery, Hopkins became the model for other institutions. But in 1979, Hopkins stopped performing the surgeries and never resumed... Hopkins Hospital: a history of sex reassignment | The Johns Hopkins News-Letter

Johns Hopkins was the pioneer and leading academic institution training gender-reassignment specialists for years. Then after finding that amputating healthy body parts was counter to the patient's long term health, they stopped doing them. Smart move. Many patients who get hacked up report in moments of quiet honesty that they are now "neither male nor female". Their angst and anxiety is not alleviated and commonly they get to add sexual numbness and urinary incontinence to their previous depression, which is still not cured.

Your own sources show a regret rate of about 2 to 3%. Roughly the regret rate of gastric bypass surgery.

Your own sources don't back your narrative. So you ignore your own sources.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

And that, friends, is where malpractice lawsuits come from. Smart move discontinuing.

That's adorable! After a literal *perfect* record of failure in predicting any legal outcome, with every prediction -without exception- that you've ever made on the law being laughably, comically, wrong......you're going to dip back into the same fetid sack of failure and offer us *another* lump of pseudo-legal gibberish?

Sil....seriously, you don't have the slightest clue how the law works. You're embarrassing yourself.

. The law is currently being used, and is being interpreted by those who have gained power over the law of course, but just as time goes by, the holding of power by those who have abused it, and have made fools of us with it now, uh will cause it certainly to change back to the light soon enough, and the changing of the power of interpretation shall come along with it. So enjoy it while it last, because it won't last for much longer... It has lasted only for a season, and of course with all seasons there comes much needed change, and yep a change is a coming for sure.... Yes, I feel the winds of change just a blowing now, and a coming home soon.

 

[Skylar]

In 1965, the Hopkins Hospital became the first academic institution in the United States to perform sex reassignment surgeries. Now also known by names like genital reconstruction surgery and sex realignment surgery, the procedures were perceived as radical and attracted attention from The New York Times and tabloids alike. But they were conducted for experimental, not political, reasons. Regardless, as the first place in the country where doctors and researchers could go to learn about sex reassignment surgery, Hopkins became the model for other institutions. But in 1979, Hopkins stopped performing the surgeries and never resumed... Hopkins Hospital: a history of sex reassignment | The Johns Hopkins News-Letter

Johns Hopkins was the pioneer and leading academic institution training gender-reassignment specialists for years. Then after finding that amputating healthy body parts was counter to the patient's long term health, they stopped doing them. Smart move. Many patients who get hacked up report in moments of quiet honesty that they are now "neither male nor female". Their angst and anxiety is not alleviated and commonly they get to add sexual numbness and urinary incontinence to their previous depression, which is still not cured.

Your own sources show a regret rate of about 2 to 3%. Roughly the regret rate of gastric bypass surgery.

Your own sources don't back your narrative. So you ignore your own sources.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

And that, friends, is where malpractice lawsuits come from. Smart move discontinuing.

That's adorable! After a literal *perfect* record of failure in predicting any legal outcome, with every prediction -without exception- that you've ever made on the law being laughably, comically, wrong......you're going to dip back into the same fetid sack of failure and offer us *another* lump of pseudo-legal gibberish?

Sil....seriously, you don't have the slightest clue how the law works. You're embarrassing yourself.

. The law is currently being used, and is being interpreted by those who have gained power over the law of course, but just as time goes by, the holding of power by those who have abused it, and have made fools of us with it now, uh will cause it certainly to change back to the light soon enough, and the changing of the power of interpretation shall come along with it. So enjoy it while it last, because it won't last for much longer... It has lasted only for a season, and of course with all seasons there comes much needed change, and yep a change is a coming for sure.... Yes, I feel the winds of change just a blowing now, and a coming home soon.

How is recognizing and protecting individual rights 'abusing power'?

And you realize that you're literally offering us your emotions as legal evidence, yes?

 

[Silhouette]

The law is currently being used, and is being interpreted by those who have gained power over the law of course, but just as time goes by, the holding of power by those who have abused it, and have made fools of us with it now, uh will cause it certainly to change back to the light soon enough, and the changing of the power of interpretation shall come along with it. So enjoy it while it last, because it won't last for much longer... It has lasted only for a season, and of course with all seasons there comes much needed change, and yep a change is a coming for sure.... Yes, I feel the winds of change just a blowing now, and a coming home soon.

 

[Skylar]

The law is currently being used, and is being interpreted by those who have gained power over the law of course, but just as time goes by, the holding of power by those who have abused it, and have made fools of us with it now, uh will cause it certainly to change back to the light soon enough, and the changing of the power of interpretation shall come along with it. So enjoy it while it last, because it won't last for much longer... It has lasted only for a season, and of course with all seasons there comes much needed change, and yep a change is a coming for sure.... Yes, I feel the winds of change just a blowing now, and a coming home soon.

Then perhaps you can answer the question that Beagle never could:

How is recognizing and protecting individual rights 'abusing power'?

And you realize that Beagle is literally offering us his emotions as legal evidence, yes?

 

[Silhouette]

Then perhaps you can answer the question that Beagle never could:

How is recognizing and protecting individual rights 'abusing power'?

And you realize that Beagle is literally offering us his emotions as legal evidence, yes?

Nobody has a "right" to force others to accept and play along with their mental delusions or aberrant behaviors. That is the answer to your question.

As I explained to you and others long ago, and have maintained ever since...behaviors are not static like race or gender...and unless you're going to declare LGBTQ a religion, you have no coverage under the Constitution. The false premise you wrapped up and sold to the USSC will be overturned in probably less than two years.

Enjoy your ill-gotten legal victories while you still can..

 

[Skylar]

Then perhaps you can answer the question that Beagle never could:

How is recognizing and protecting individual rights 'abusing power'?

And you realize that Beagle is literally offering us his emotions as legal evidence, yes?

Nobody has a "right" to force others to accept and play along with their mental delusions or aberrant behaviors. That is the answer to your question.

Gays and lesbians certainly have a right to legal recognition of their marriages. And the LGBT community certainly has the right to be free from legislation that targets them for discrimination as the Romer v. Evans decision makes clear.

How is protecting individual rights 'abusing power'?

Oh, and we're still waiting for your link to John Hopkins 'formerly' denouncing sex change operations. It being 'breaking' news after all.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays and lesbians certainly have a right to legal recognition of their marriages.
.

The legality of their "marriages" is in question because of the false premise I mentioned in my last post AND the fact that children had implicit enjoyments to the marriage contract (both mother and father) that were stripped from them without representation, consent, and outside the parameters of infants and contract law.

As you know from New York vs Ferber, even if everyone on earth agreed that gays have a Constitutional coverage for their aberrant sex behaviors "marrying" in the Constitution, they may not enjoy that (nonexistent) right if it harms children either physically or psychologically...

 

[Skylar]

Gays and lesbians certainly have a right to legal recognition of their marriages.
.

The legality of their "marriages" is in question because of the false premise I mentioned in my last post AND the fact that children had implicit enjoyments to the marriage contract (both mother and father) that were stripped from them without representation, consent, and outside the parameters of infants and contract law.

Nope. The legal issues were settled in Obergefell. And there is no law nor court ruling that recognizes children as any party to the marriage of their parents. Not 'implied', not 'explicit', not 'third party beneficiaries'.

You made that up. And you making up pseudo-legal gibberish has no effect on the actual law in the slightest.

As the Obergefell ruling made clear when it found the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them. Killing your silly argument yet again. All of which you know....but really hope we don't.

As you know from New York vs Ferber, even if everyone on earth agreed that gays have a Constitutional coverage for their aberrant sex behaviors "marrying" in the Constitution, they may not enjoy that (nonexistent) right if it harms children either physically or psychologically...

Ferber never even mentions marriage. Nor finds that same sex marriage harms children in anyway.

Remember......you're just making up pseudo-legal nonsense. And it has no effect on any law.

Oh, and we're still waiting for you to show us the link where John Hopkins 'formerly' denounced sex change operations. Its been how many days now?

......and still nothing.

 

[Syriusly]

Then perhaps you can answer the question that Beagle never could:

How is recognizing and protecting individual rights 'abusing power'?

And you realize that Beagle is literally offering us his emotions as legal evidence, yes?

Nobody has a "right" to force others to accept and play along with their mental delusions or aberrant behaviors. That is the answer to your question.

As I explained to you and others long ago, and have maintained ever since...behaviors are not static like race or gender.....

What behavior are you talking about?

How someone worships?

Or how someone dresses?

In the United States rights are not determined by whether or not a trait is 'static'

 

[Syriusly]

Gays and lesbians certainly have a right to legal recognition of their marriages.
.

The legality of their "marriages" is in question...

Not anywhere in the United States.

There is not a single court in the country where the legality of those marriages is being argued.

The issue is settled.