USA TV Show Promotes Training in Transgender Ideology for Teachers, Sterilization & Surgical Mutilation of Minors

[Vegilante]

www.nbcbayarea.com/multimedia/Transgender-Kids-A-Changing-Student-Body-502987641.html

It's the Susie Green/Mermaids script all over again.

Right off the bat, at 0:42, mom says "I would rather have a trans daughter than a dead son".

At 1:25 reporter eagerly begins championing "new medical guidelines that allow trans kids to begin physically transforming their bodies at younger ages".

At 1:48 child born Sophia but called Jack for the past year is seen getting first puberty-blocking implant, which "will keep Jack from growing breasts". No mention here or elsewhere in the show that never going through puberty will most likely also leave Jack sterile, with stunted genital development, diminished sexual function & a loss of 8-9 IQ points. Nor is Jack made aware that if he goes on to take testosterone as is pretty much inevitable once on blockers, Jack will eventually experience so much agonizing genital/pelvic pain that a hysterectomy at an early age will be required. And of course, there's no mention - or consideration - of the likelihood that by preventing puberty, the blockers are keeping Jack from going through a natural, normal process of human development that in the vast majority of cases puts an end to childhood gender dysphoria & confusion.

In bonus footage at the bottom of the page, Stephen Rosenthal MD waxes lyrical about using puberty blockers on children. "I'm not talking about a three, four or five-year old now; I'm talking about someone maybe the age of nine, ten, 11". Because, he goes on contrary to all known evidence, if a child thinks s/he is trans at nine, ten or 11, "then it is very likely that that person's identity as a transgender individual will continue through that individual's adult life". And because kids whose growth & development is stunted by puberty blockers will better be able to pass as the other gender without tons of surgery. (This POV is based on boy-to-girl transitioners, & does not apply as well to girls-to-boys, whose ability to pass as adult males is often ruined by the short stature & dainty hands & feet that puberty blockers will freeze in place - & which will force them forever to shop for their masculine clothing in the boy's department, not the men's.)

A doctor opposed to experimenting on children with puberty blockers is also included, briefly, but the objections he's shown raising are vague - basically "we just don't know what the longterm effects of these drugs on children will be."

The accompanying article includes a photo of Jack getting the puberty blocker implanted, & what stands out is how incredibly young this poor child is. There's no way this vulnerable child is old, wise & informed enough to consent to being sterilized & all the rest. How can people not see that this is blatant child abuse?

I will watch later.

From.what you have said it's frightening

I asked the Dr at my 6 week check if I could be sterilized (reversible on a then thirty yr old who had 2 children) and was told that I would probably change my kind about wanting more (I haven't) so told me I would have trouble getting it done.

Yet on children who can't possibly know who they are, what they want to be when they grow up, can consent to this.

So wrong.

Ask on MN if your 10 year old can be left home.alome while you pop to the neighbours and someone will mention social services.

Yet here we are. Robbing children of their future families, sexuality and sexual pleasure and ability. And that's ok...

Agree about the sterilisation point. My GP finally agreed when I was 35. I had been asking for many years.

Iirc wasn't there a case in the papers not so long ago. About a 14 year old girl who suffered from a very very extreme form of pms that left her suicidal and unable to function normally every single month . Her mum had the same thing. Only cure was a hysterectomy . She was refused one.

How can you feasibly get any case of fgm through court whilst signing off on chemical castration and stunted development. You cant agree with one then prosecute the other.

(Not that anyone's been prosecuted of course. Given it's only little black girls affected:( )

"I'm not talking about a three, four or five-year old now; I'm talking about someone maybe the age of nine, ten, 11"

But for many children puberty starts before 9,especially female children.

I think that 9. 10. 11 is used as it's deemed more palatable to the public > they are "big" children and so old enough to make these decisions.

If it were a genuine medical necessity, it would need to be younger, from 7 or 8. But they can't say that,because people would baulk>

At the moment... I think the plan is to normalise it for 10, 11, 12, then gradually push the age down.

We have seen through eg SW's writing that trans activitists, some of them, are playing a long game and have been quietly lobbying and getting things changed behind the scenes for more than a decade.

Example:
All that hoo-ha about promising to get rid of mixed sex wards on NHS. That was years ago.Now it transpires that it was always the case that the wards should be single gender (pick your own), and the NHS flagged this with ??? is this really right, and govt told them yes, and more than that, that while the policy was single gender (mixed se) wards only, this should be described to the public as single sex, to avoid confusion. So in this step not only was the concept of sex essentially got rid of for at least some parts of NHS policies,the public were deliberately lied to about it, miseld.

This is the sort of thing I find v scary. What else has been doen behind the scenes that has not yet come out yet? And WHY? Who was pushing this in the NS all these years ago, who had the right and the power to tell the NHS to lie to the public and the press about policy?

At the moment... I think the plan is to normalise it for 10, 11, 12, then gradually push the age down

And while you are at it who needs an age of consent..

That may be a push from some sides.

The idea of being able to pause sexual development so that you end up with people who are legal in terms of years passed, but still have the bodies and minds of children (the brain undergoes huge changes during puberty we all know what they are having been and met children, teens and adults!). That also muddies a lot of waters and means people can raise questions about what is a number anyway etc

The main point though I think is about it being very important to back up the clain that
Gender identity (internal) is real and
Most / all people have it and
Know what it is from as soon as awareness comes (toddler type age)

Points 1 and 2 have never really been researched / surveyed widely and my guess would be that an awful lot of people when given definitions etc as per stonewall and told to think about it and how they feel rather than just ticking the "usual" box, would say they didn't have one. Would be (according to gender definitions) agender or genderfluid etc

No-one wants anyone to look to closely at this so if they can "prove" tha little tiny kids definitely have this feeling and look they all need drugs to make them better then it puts a great big emotional wall in front of anyone who wants to question it.

For sure there are some quarters for whom the age / consent stuff is of extreme interest.

I had years of severe pelvic pain - periods & ovulation as bad as labour - that caused me to seek a hysterectomy in my 30s. But no doctors would entertain the idea. Instead, they all said have more children because during pregnancy the pain disappeared. Physicians' codes of ethics mean most of them don't like removing anyone's presumably healthy organs in general, & they especially don't like removing reproductive organs from a woman still of child-bearing age in particular. So how these transgender docs can justify doing what they're doing to children is beyond me. How can it be legal?

(BTW, I finally was "allowed" to get a hysterectomy in my 40s, but only after I went through a years-long plethora of tests, procedures & counseling sessions to rule out a wide array of causes that didn't involve my uterus. And the hysterectomy got rid of the pelvic pain, which it turns out was caused by outbreaks of shingles (varicella zoster virus) in/on my uterus each time I ovulated & menstruated.)

So I mean if they actually investigated properly this "internal ID" claim and it turned out that most people just feel like a person, and male / female isn't in any way a major or noticable part of their "identity"

Then that doesn't help trans desires at all.

It all hinges on the idea that
pretty much everyone has an internal sense of gender ID
which is strongly felt
not based on stereotypes (?what else is there)
not based on physical sex (trans-sexual is out it's about feelings not bodies)
and that most people "align" and are therefore cis and inherently safe in the world and also oppressive of trans people

Because if most people don't have this feeling then most people are trans and the whole thing falls over

I do wonder if men have more of this internal sense of gender / sex than women? On here once ages ago when asked most posters (99%) said they did not "feel" like a woman and struggled to even imagine what this meant outside of biology (sex) and how they were treated (gender in the original feminist sense).
It would be interesting to see if men "feel" like men inside more or same or less than women "feel" like women.

I suspect this research is disallowed though.

I find it baffling that one small group have said "everyone else is like this and feels like that" and hardly anyone has questioned it.

Vegilante

Thanks for the story and sorry you went through all that

So many simialr stories on here

Excellent example of how medicine sticks to its misogynist roots and doesn't even realise it

Just have more children WTAF

Glad you are better now.

I think this is why the trans stuff is different though

Boy / man says he is really female > males know their own mind and have total authority over their own bodies so their desires should be met

Girls and women who say they are male > is admirable (stepping up) so they should be allowed that, as well

You can bet your bottom dollar that the medical profession is not genuinely seeing transgirls and transwomen as female as if they did, they would say you're mentally ill, have some CBT, take these happy pills, pick yourslef up and get on with it, there's nothing really wrong with you, stop wasting our time and money.

At the moment... I think the plan is to normalise it for 10, 11, 12, then gradually push the age down.
All this reminds me horribly of PIE's attempts in the 1970s to have the age of consent lowered, even arguing that 5-year olds were capable of consenting to sex with a suitably 'loving' adult. On Twitter, I see some TRAs interacting with paedophiles - who now call themselves MAPs (Minor-Attracted Persons) who have a definite agenda around normalising their attraction (by, for a start, changing the name). At least one such TRA has tweeted that T*RFs are worse than paedophiles! And there are already groups of fetishists of various kinds who are actively grooming trans teenagers online, encouraging them to leave their parents and "join their sparkle family".
Since giving puberty blockers to prepubertal children will effectively keep them childlike for years, it should be no surprise that paedophiles are interested!

YY
The paedophiles PIE style are back
Multiple articles on > I forget the word > something paedophiles, who claimed that they did not rape children and wanted cookies for it as if it made them saints
Also recently some otehr stuff>
Oh yes that Alok person describing little girls as "kinky"
Then there's all the adult baby connections

All the no kink shaming nonsense means people aren't ssupposed to call out weirdy fucking perves when we see them
Including weirdy perves who like kids

NothingOnTelly Thanks for your kind words. Your last point is spot on. If medical professionals truly saw trans girls & women as female, they'd dismiss their gender dysphoria as imaginary, a symptom of hysteria & malingering. Or if they considered it a valid health issue, they'd see it as minor issue. Certainly they wouldn't see it as a grave problem responsible for unimaginable suffering & pain the way trans people portray it. In the conventional trans narrative, particularly the typical trans woman narrative, gender dysphoria is the worst condition a person can be afflicted with. Nobody knows the suffering they've seen...

grooming trans teenagers online, encouraging them to leave their parents and "join their sparkle family".

Our favorite women's cycling champ (does Martina Navratilova even know who I AM?) Rachel McKinnon has done this on YouTube, on Mother's Day no less:

4thwavenow.com/2017/05/14/mtof-tells-trans-kids-to-dump-moms-on-mothers-day-and-join-the-glitter-queer-family-of-adult-trans-activists/

Thing is how can parents counter this. It's every child's nightmare to have their parents discuss their bodies and sex.

To the kids we are going to look like the sex obsessed weirdos..

Ironic how we have to try and prevent our young chikdren from.having underage sex whilst simultaneously fighting for the right for them to ever experience it in a pleasurable way at all

In my darkest moments, I think it’s truly the cancer industry that’s promoting all this.

Well, Big Pharma certainly is involved, along with other powerful men/forces.

As shown by this lengthy, thought-provoking article about who's behind the push for transgenderism in the US (& internationally), this isn't a grass-roots movement like the civil rights movements of the past. It's an "astroturf" movement that's being imposed from on high.

medium.com/@sue.donym1984/inauthentic-selves-the-modern-lgbtq-movement-is-run-by-philanthropic-astroturf-and-based-on-junk-d08eb6aa1a4b

"grooming trans teenagers online, encouraging them to leave their parents and "join their sparkle family"

Most won't be trans in the sense of disphoric anyway >
But perfectly standard teens questioning their place in the world
It's the new tribes thing like in my day it was music tribes, these are the "alternative" kids of today, but music tribes never required life altering medical treatment nor changes in laws.

Re the PIE discussion, this paper was linked on Reddit recently. It explains a LOT.

...autopedophilic men tended to be sexually aroused by imagining themselves as the kinds of children (with respect to gender and age) to whom they are sexually attracted.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797616677082

It's obvious in a way, but helpful to have a name for the concept.