"Gender Dysphoria in Children: Understanding the Science and Medicine"

[pisacake]

This is a panel from the Heritage Foundation, which is a mainstream US conservative thinktank

And summary: dailysignal.com/2017/11/02/what-these-3-doctors-think-should-be-done-for-children-who-think-they-are-transgender/

What they are saying is sensible, however I feel that it's likely to be ignored in many quarters simply because they are the Christian right and by definition on the wrong side of the argument. Even when they are right.

The Heritage Foundation is pretty far right, not mainstream right. And the American College of Pediatricians, which sounds like it ought to be some sort of official professional body, is in fact simply a group of conservatives who happen to be doctors, who oppose abortion and gay couples being allowed to adopt.

If you're looking for a reputable medical source talking about the dangers of medicalising non-gender-conforming children, I'd stick with Professor Winston.

It's mainstream in the US. Far right is not an accurate descriptor, they are more like neoconservative.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

As you correctly identify, the American College of Pediatricians is a small (500 members, cf. the American Academy of Pediatrics with 64,000) group of conservative doctors.

The question is WHERE is the impetus for this comes from. Hoping that Prof. Winston will campaign on this issue is wishful thinking IMO.

The parties:

(a) TERFs ('old white women')
(b) social conservatives
(c) a tiny handful of people, e.g., gender critical parents with trans children

verus:

(a) Angry violent men (trans) with the law and on their side
(b) Socially conditioned liberals who have been told that the angry men are victims
(c) The entire medical establishment
(d) The entire political establishment in Western Europe
(e) The entire educational establishment

I don't see how this ends up with anything other than the angry violent men getting what they want.

And as you identify, having the same arguments as the anti-abortionist, anti-gay marriage, anti-sex-before-marriage, US conservatives, is likely to lose you support.

I'm not sure exactly if history is a cycle of liberalism followed by increasing conservatism, but my sense is that in the UK the current trans rights movement is perceived is all part of the same wave of progress as banning racism, homophobia, and that it's not seen as a cycle but rather an ongoing process of improvement, ever increasing tolerance.

I think this is a misguided view of history - in the 70s, paedophile rights were a popular cause of the left, in the early part of the 20th century eugenics was seen as all part of the wave of human progress. So it now seems that the TRAs will inevitably get everything they want and perhaps in due course and half-a-century down the road we will go through a similar process of reappraisal that we did with lobotomy, eugenics, and other past errors.

But for the time being, as I think you allude to, we are on the wrong side of history - the social conservatives are by definition opposed to progress and this is progress and if you don't agree well you are isolated I am afraid.

The problem though is PricklyBall is able to undermine the Heritage Foundation etc as a source of information in a few words, and in order to defend them you have to use many many words.

In making the defence you're not talking about the issue, you're talking about something else. So you've already been derailed. Also, the defence would probably cause a casual reader to switch off. Many wouldn't see beyond it being a matter of the far right going after persecuted people.

I wasn't defending them.

I was just pointing out that they (or their ilk) are one of the few parties on this side of the argument.

Which means it's probably lost.

Whilst disagreeing with gay marriage and abortion may make the ACP less palatable as a source of medical expertise, I disagree that it makes them less reputable, Prickly.

I do agree with nauticant, however, that the masses are not interested in/capable of not throwing the baby out with the bath-water .

And I agree with Prickly that, strategically and tactically, you're better off relying on Prof. Winston.

I wasn't defending them.

Sorry, you're right, you weren't. I should have written "and in order to defend your argument you have to use many many words."

I have to say, i don't want the Heritage Foundation on our side. They are truly, truly awful.

You should watch this other panel hosted by a group called "Hands across the aisle"

handsacrosstheaislewomen.com/home/

It includes conservatives, radical feminists and people from across the political/ideological spectrum. It about sums up how this issue cuts right across those boundaries, so making some unlikely bedfellows!

This is the panel:

hmm, it still seems to be hosted by The Heritage Foundation

They might be responding to it being a problem in their own communities, what with the emerging tendency for Christian fundos to trans their potentially gay offspring.

Well that was a garbled post! Just when I wanted to be clear, as I don’t usually put my head above the parapet! Oh well.

Basically, what I was trying today is nobody can agree on everything, but I think everyone who opposes this dangerous ideology maybe need to put their differences aside and focus on this fight.

I am doing what I can to try and raise awareness - I am so thankful for this board as it was what made me aware of the negative consequences for women. I managed to speak to a friend the other day who really didn’t have a clue - I sent her here and I think it was an eye-opener for her.

Yes hosted by them, but listen to the talk - it's very powerful in that on the panel are women, from radically different backgrounds, all coming together to argue for biology over ideology.