Sunday, September 15, 2019

Where do they grow these nitwits?

Megan Fox
Megan Fox | via Twitter
There is an endless supply. There must be a factory somewhere that manufactures them. Eventually they are electrically animated. They end up writing for outlets like Breitbart or PJ Media where they exploit the confirmation biases of the Trump base. Money doesn't grow on trees but morons might.

Megan Fox is among those who write for PJ Media. On Saturday she displayed great erudition with: UK Gender Clinic to Offer Sex Change to Kids as Young as 3 — Online. None of that is factually accurate. Yet the reader comments doth flow. Ms. Fox can bathe in adulation from a grateful audience.
The Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), run by the Tavistock and Portman National Health Service (NHS) Trust in the UK is offering appointments, diagnosis, and even medication for children who are "transitioning" because they suffer from gender dysphoria. The children in question can be as young as three years old.
That idiotic paragraph doesn't give Megan Fox a moment of pause. It should. The simple fact is that prepubescent children with gender dysphoria do not receive medication. As they approach puberty they might receive puberty blockers but, until then, transitioning consists of hairstyle and attire. That's it. Puberty usually occurs in girls at 10 to 14 years of age; in boys, between the ages of 12 and 16.

The earliest application of GnRH agonists mentioned in the WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) guidelines is Tanner stage 2; about 11 years of age. The range is Tanner stage 2 to 4 or about 11 to 13 years of age.

Young (prepubescent) children and their parents might receive appointments for the purpose of diagnosis. I do not know what the protocol is in the UK. In this country a child can be diagnosed with gender dysphoria if they have experienced significant distress for at least six months while meeting at least six of eight objective criteria.
Puberty-blocking drugs are highly controversial and can lead to infertility and sterilization. …
That statement is incorrect. Puberty blockers are not “highly controversial” when used to treat gender incongruent children approaching puberty. There is a great deal written about puberty blockers in the WPATH guidelines. The conclusion reads as follows:
Neither puberty suppression nor allowing puberty to occur is a neutral act. On the one hand, functioning in later life can be compromised by the development of irreversible secondary sex characteristics during puberty and by years spent experiencing intense gender dysphoria. On the other hand, there are concerns about negative physical side effects of GnRH analogue use (e.g., on bone development and height). Although the very first results of this approach (as assessed for adolescents followed over 10 years) are promising (Cohen-Kettenis et al., 2011; Delemarre-van de Waal & Cohen-Kettenis, 2006), the long-term effects can only be determined when the earliest treated patients reach the appropriate age.
I should mention that WPATH stresses the need for informed consent. Somehow we have gone from three-year-olds to children about 11 years of age (Tanner stage 2 can occur as early as nine years of age). Returning to Ms. Fox's diatribe:
Even as experts are sounding alarm bells about the safety of such drugs, the doctors of NHS are increasing the number of children they prescribe them to exponentially by adding "telemedical" appointments to their process.
Rubbish! Ms. Fox is too damned lazy to visit the GIDS website. In July, they announced: Our Leeds clinic pilots earlier contact through telephone consultations. Here is how they describe the service:
Our GIDS clinic in Leeds is piloting a new way of supporting young people and their families through telephone consultations.

When children under ten are added to our Leeds waiting list, we are offering the option of speaking with a clinician on the telephone in the first instance.

The children on the pilot get to speak with a clinician earlier than their first in-person appointment. These calls offer a supportive introduction to the service. They provide current information about our service and the approach we usually take with younger children. This enables younger children and their families to think about when might be the right time to come for a face-to-face appointment at GIDS. We treat every young person who visits our service individually on a case-by case basis, with no preference or expectation for what the right outcome might be for any individual.
In other words, the tele-conference is nothing but an introductory conversation. It is not for the purpose of either a diagnosis or prescribing medications. Indeed, children under 10 aren't even candidates for puberty blockers in most instances and, if they were, they would require a comprehensive in-person evaluation.
The clinic is offering this "sex change by Skype" in the middle of rising controversy from psychologists and other professionals who say these methods are rushing children towards irreversible consequences. Some experts are calling this method child abuse. PJ Media's Tyler O'Neil recently spoke to Dr. Michael Laidlaw, an edocrinologist [SIC], who says these drugs are giving children a disease.
In accordance with the quoted material above, “sex change by Skype” is a Megan Fox fantasy. Dr. Laidlaw is not a board-certified endocrinologist and he does not treat gender incongruent children. Laidlaw is at odds with his own professional organization, the endocrine society. Laidlaw is simply a religious zealot; a Defender of the Faith™.
The rush forward to add more and more children to an untested experiment that can cause lifelong injury is a head-scratching fact of modern medicine. … One can only hope that the victims who will be injured by these experiments will file lawsuits to finally put an end to it.
There is no “rush forward” and puberty blockers are not untested. They have been in use for about 40 years for the treatment of precocious puberty and a number of conditions in adults. Where is all of the litigation? After paragraph upon paragraph of misinformation, the comments on this idiotic post are vomit-inducing.

At least Megan Fox spared us “treat the underlying issues” BS. Perhaps she has not fully memorized the talking points.

It is not harmless. People who care very little about facts are arming gullible idiots with misinformation which they can use to hone their prejudices of a very fragile minority group. For her part, Ms. Fox has the intellectual curiosity of a goldfish. She misinforms with authority.

I have pretty much given up on this segment of our society. These include people who believe that Hillary Clinton is the leader of a pedophile cult, that QAnon is real, that the “deep state” exists to usurp Trump's authority (they don't seem to be terribly proficient), that President Obama was a secret Muslim “illegal alien” and that LGBTQ people are determined to destroy Christianity. It's all very depressing and they will crawl through broken glass to vote for Trump in 2020.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.