“Gender ideology harms children” – American College of Pediatricians

9 Mar

Gender Is War

Encouraging children to transition is “child abuse.” Please signal boost this policy statement by the American College of Pediatricians.

Gender Ideology Harms Children

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 sexual differentiation (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm…

View original post 545 more words

15 Responses to ““Gender ideology harms children” – American College of Pediatricians”

  1. Deborah Peifer 2016/03/09 at 3:43 pm #

    Unfortunately, the American College of Pediatricians is a right wing, anti-gay, forced birth christianist group, not the reputable American Academy of Pediatricians. What they say is correct, but they are not a trustworthy source. Thanks to the left joining the transmania parade, and throwing women under the bus is a feature, not a bug in transmania land, we are left with few organizations who are willing to let the science speak on this topic.


    • lovetruthcourage 2016/03/09 at 4:25 pm #

      I can understand not agreeing with all of ACP’s positions, but they actually *are* letting the science speak for itself. I am a scientist and I agree with every word in this particular paper.


    • Miep 2016/03/09 at 4:27 pm #

      Wasn’t that the Johns Hopkins guy who wrote that article for the WSJ?

      I’ve seen his writing, and yes, he is a genderist, it’s grating. But I think the right-wing associations’ criticism of transgenderism can just as easily be read to indicate how far off base transgenderism is, that this is something that we agree with them on. And this piece does not in any way denigrate homosexuals.

      It is more than bizarre that radical feminists, the conservative right in the USA, and scientists are in concurrence on this topic, aside from those who search ardently for gendered brain differences. But we all agree the sky is blue, too.

      Liked by 2 people

    • stchauvinism 2016/03/09 at 4:40 pm #

      Notice they omit that from their statement that most gnc children come to accept their sex are also largely grow up to be gay, lesbian or bi. Conservatives are going to use the excesses of trans politics to attack gay and lesbian rights and women’s rights, I see no reason to support them


      • Miep 2016/03/09 at 4:51 pm #

        All the more reason to get the jump on them by documenting a history of agreeing with them when they get it right, as far as it goes. Also I am not convinced that everybody who identifies as conservative considers homosexuality a sin.

        The framing gets very muddy with this one. When the Johns Hopkins guy wrote that article, everybody was all “Wow, this Johns Hopkins guy just published in the WSJ saying you can’t change sex, isn’t that great?” And then it was “No, it’s not great, he’s a genderist, this sucks,” while meanwhile all the trans activists were saying “this sucks, he’s a bigot.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • lovetruthcourage 2016/03/09 at 5:00 pm #

        We aren’t supporting “them.” We are agreeing with this one particular paper only.


  2. stchauvinism 2016/03/09 at 3:55 pm #

    That organization is anti gay and lesbian and anti feminist and anti women, go to their site and search for terms, here’s their position on gay and lesbian parents raising children, which is that it is harmful. They also believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder that should be treated.


  3. lovetruthcourage 2016/03/09 at 4:14 pm #

    I do not agree with everything the ACP stands for, but this is dead on!


  4. Miep 2016/03/09 at 4:42 pm #

    Also, would it really be that good an idea to ignore this sort of statement? Might make us look like we have something to hide. The right in general is a mixed bag on transgenderism. Iran actively enforces it, a few USian members of the religious right think it might be a good thing, others lump it in with homosexuality as wrong. In this case they are using good science to support their position, as opposed to using bad science to support anti-homosexual stances. Shouldn’t we encourage them using good science? I understand it’s dodgy, but it’s nuanced, too.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lovetruthcourage 2016/03/09 at 4:58 pm #

      We should support them on this piece because it is correct scientifically. This does not imply blanket approval. We stay with people when they are correct, and part company when incorrect. Simple and honest.


  5. Cynthia 2016/03/11 at 12:22 am #

    If we really want to protect women from the menace of men invading their public spaces, then I think we have to link arms with people whose politics may radically differ from our own. Yes, it’s true that this organization is Christian focused, and very traditional in its outlook on marriage and family.; Yet, they have acurately and concisely summarized the awful child abuse that is occurring right now in families all over Northern America due to media propaganda and school socialization that is actually encouraging children to reject their own natural biological sex. This is extremely sick. Thus, I think this is an article we can all agree is valid, makes points in a reasoned, scientific, and rational fashion, and as such this summary deserves wide distribution for any woman who wants to protect other women and girls. You don’t have to be a radical feminist, a lesbian, or a progressive left voter to support protecting women and girls in public spaces. In fact, ironically, here in Washington state, it is radical lesbians with progressive agendas who are largely to blame for the new rule that allows males into showers, spas, locker rooms, saunas, etc. It is a crisis in that the war against women is very real here, and was set in motion by those people who most vocally champion lefist organization and pro-gay messages.

    Thus, my point is that it’s a gray area when it comes to the basic fundamental rights of women and girls to privacy, and rights of all children not to be encouraged to hate their own sex when they’re toddlers. I would say, if it’s fact based, use it, and stop critizing those who really want to wage the war against men’s appropriation of womens’ identities but may not share your or mine exact political stance on gay rights or leftist politics. We must be real politik, and not lose sight of the big picture and the ultimate battle just because of ideological differences. I saw Gallas Mag chew out someone for posting this on her blog and was stunned at how short-sighted and ridiculous it seemed, since I thought the whole point of her blog is to stop the insanity of men appropriating women’s identities. It really made her look small, conceited, and selfish to censor comments and threaten the poster who probably innocently suggested this link.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Miep 2016/03/11 at 3:14 am #

      Radical feminism does not support genderism, so I don’t know what you mean by “radical lesbians” supporting this agenda. Mostly who I see supporting transgenderism are liberals and queer theorists, whose philosophy is postmodernism.


    • lovetruthcourage 2016/03/11 at 11:11 am #

      I agree! I was not previously aware of the politics of this org, but I do agree with this one specific paper. I know I would not like to be chewed out in that fashion for innocently suggesting a link. I would have appreciated a critique of the org from someone like Gallus. We should indeed be using real politik as we can not win as rad fems alone.


      • Miep 2016/03/11 at 11:20 am #

        This is an interesting discussion in that it’s possible to defend either side without resorting to dishonesty or attacks, and it is not, I think, an unimportant question to address: how to deal with it when politics makes for strange bedfellows. I am sorry to hear that Gallus Mag didn’t see it that way.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: