Friday, October 16, 2020

Time for the Sprigg to Upchuck Some Vomit

Peter Sprigg
At some point in the future Peter Sprigg will enjoy a reputation comparable to David Duke's.
via YouTube - 2016
Friday, a post at Family Research Council's blog is titled: Why Joe Biden Is Wrong on Gender Transition for Eight-Year-Olds: FRC Action Explains. Oh do tell.

Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council (an anti-LGBTQ hate group) is smearing LGBTQ persons again. It is his favorite hobby. This time around he is combining the smear with an effort to ding Joe Biden's presidential campaign.

What Mr. Biden said was something to the effect that a transgender eight-year-old or ten-year-old should be free from discrimination. The folks at FRC are advocates of oppressing people that they do not approve of due to ancient superstitions.

The aforementioned blog post is a lead-in to a new pamphlet from Peter Sprigg. According to FRC, Sprigg's hatework “details the scientific evidence of long-term harm of gender transition procedures on minors.”

Before I get to Sprigg's new pamphlet it is important to point out:
Prepubescent youth transition through hairstyle and apparel. They are only candidates for puberty blockers after entering puberty.
Sprigg gives his work a lengthy title: Do Not Sterilize Children: Why Physiological Gender Transition Procedures for Minors Should Be Prohibited.

The idea that any of this drivel is scientific is like saying that the existence of Noah's Ark can be proven through scientific evidence. A claim that some people like Sprigg actually make.

Mr. Sprigg, who is trained as a Baptist minister, would have people substitute his judgment for that of a child's doctors and parents. On what planet does that make any sense?

Sprigg attempts to demonstrate some meaningful erudition:
It has long been known that some children suffer from “gender incongruity” (a disconnect between one’s psychological, self-perceived “gender identity” and one’s biological sex) or “gender dysphoria” (distress about such incongruity). Studies have shown that, when left to themselves, most children with such conditions outgrow them and do not identify as “transgender” adults. However, such conditions and identities are increasingly being embraced and actively affirmed, not only through “social transition” (changing one’s public expression of gender identity), but through radical physiological interventions as well. These include the use of drugs to block normal puberty, cross-sex hormones, and gender reassignment surgery.
Peter Sprigg is confused and confusing. This dialogue about kids desisting is repeated over and over and over again. It is irrelevant!
  1. It is true that most kids naturally desist.
  2. The persistence of gender dysphoria is a function of its severity.
  3. Ergo, the children who desist are not severely affected by the condition.
  4. Children who desist never transition in the first place according to the nation's leading expert, Dr. Kristina Olson at University of Washington.
Mr. Sprigg is attempting to torture science into conformity with scripture. Simply the presence of transgender persons of any age offends Sprigg because he believes that their existence conflicts with Genesis 1:27. None of this nonsense has anything to do with the welfare of minors.

Peter Sprigg is trying to convince people that, if they just leave the child alone with no intervention, gender dysphoria will resolve. Sprigg's recommendation would kill kids. Those kids who are in severe distress are not going to desist. They have a significant potential for self-harm.

In contrast, kids who do transition have levels of depression and anxiety at, or nearly, comparable to the general population. They are happy, healthy and productive. If Sprigg really wants to help then he would stop promoting bigotry. But there's that Genesis thingie.

Fear mongering to promote a religious worldview:
Each of these procedures has serious negative side effects—up to and including permanent sterilization. Despite claims to the contrary, these procedures are often not reversible, and they are not evidence-based, because research has not shown that these procedures are effective in accomplishing their purpose, which is to improve the patient’s mental health. They violate the most fundamental principle of medical ethics—“First, do no harm.”
Well, if Sprigg says so … First of all, according to the pediatric endocrine society, puberty blockers are fully reversible.

Every medication we consume has the potential for side effects including serious side effects. Take enough aspirin for a headache and you could die from a bleeding ulcer. Yes, cross-sex hormones (reserved for patients in their late teen years) could cause sterility.

However, the patient, his or her doctors and his or her parents are capable of evaluating risks and benefits. Peter Sprigg has neither the training nor experience to be authoritative. Who should people listen to? Sprigg? Anyone who would model their child's healthcare to the ravings of Peter Sprigg rather than medical professionals is guilty of child abuse.

Moreover, contrary to Sprigg's drivel, the research clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of transitioning.

Peter Sprigg has an odd notion of what is factual:
These facts fully justify—in fact, they demand—state and federal legislation to prohibit such procedures from being performed upon minors. The rights of parents who affirm their child’s transgender identity are not of a higher value than the public interest in protecting children from physical harm. Legislators should not be dissuaded from acting on this issue because of economic blackmail.
Very few legislators, at the state or federal levels, are medical doctors. I cannot find any legislator who treats pediatric gender dysphoria. Many legislators are lawyers. Many state legislators are small business owners.

Sprigg's appeal is for those legislators to substitute religious views for science. He wants lawyers and small business owners to impose their will on pediatrics based upon so-called “facts” that are not factual at all.

Earlier this year they tried to do this in South Dakota. The prime sponsor, Rep. Doug LaMalfa is a farmer. The blowback from medical professionals caused the two bills to die in Republican controlled committee.

Fortunately, most people (even religious conservatives) are smarter than Peter Sprigg. They know that some decisions should rest with parents and doctors. Sprigg's hypocrisy is astonishing. Here is a small portion of a Family Research Council diatribe from April, 2019:
The Attack on Parental Rights and the Constitution

Parents across America are fighting for the lives of their children, and losing. Doctors, judges, and hospitals are ignoring parental decisions for their children in myriad situations which have created some major lawsuits around the globe. This presentation puts forward the notion that an international children's rights framework pulls kids away from parental protection to instead be guarded by the state.
FRC routinely argues that parents have a right to do all sorts of awful things to their children. Yet, Peter Sprigg would have government prevent parents and their children's doctors from adhering to clinical practice guidelines for the best care of those children.

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.