Stories like these make me wonder about the parents. A few months ago, I read about this case of a boy who supposedly enjoys wearing tutus, and immediately my "lesbian mommies with a blank-slatist-agenda" antennae started twitching. I mean, I dunno, I guess such things could exist, but the environment makes me damned skeptical.

Anyone wanting a lefting wing or feminist or homosexual community critique of the movement can google "gender critical".

This gets painted as a right vs left wing issue but it really is not

First off, 11 year olds are not getting sterilised. As she notes, they are only infertile if they go straight from puberty blockers to cross sex hormones. Which, they can do AFTER they're legally adults. That's the entire point of the puberty blocker... to delay the decision until they're old enough. Putting an 11 year old on puberty blockers doesn't make them sterile, it just gives them the possibility to be sterile later.

I do want grandchildren, but you know, that's what having multiple kids are for. Even if your kid is physically capable of having their own children, doesn't mean you're going to get any either. They could very well grow up to childfree. Seems to be common these days.

Well ... I think EVERYONE should be sterilized.

Apart from the very-rare cases of actual physiological disorders, 'transgenderism' is a mental disorder, a psychological delusion. And we do not perform surgery (including chemical surgery) on people who suffer from mental disorders, in order to try and make reality more-closely resemble their current delusions. And doubly-so on children, who are not mature enough to decide for themselves. We stopped trephining people to let the demons out quite-a-few years ago now.

If I wake up tomorrow suffering from the delusion that I am Admiral Horatio Nelson, nobody would countenance for a moment allowing a doctor to cut off my arm and put out my eye, in order to make my physical reality more-closely match my mental delusions. Never mind unethical, it would be barbarous. What I need is help to overcome my delusions - not the surgeon's knife.

Same for 'transgenderism'. It is a mental delusion, and actually allowing - never mind encouraging - physiological interventions like surgery and radical hormonal therapy is actually piling more cruelty onto a person who is already suffering. People who do this should be struck off and put in jail.

llater,

llamas

Renee: Puberty blockers are ok with you? Your entire body and even your brain changes with puberty. Castration was how the old church created choir boys. Many many tom boys discover that they suddenly are not so interested in being a tom boy when the hormones kick in. Likewise, girly boys may suddenly get very interested in sports. You really should not mess around with hormones--it is irreversible. None of this should be done to children ever under any circumstances. If an adult wants to go through this, it is still problematic but they are adults.
And of course, homosexual males may act girly as children but ask gay men if they would have wanted to be turned into girls and I bet almost all of them would say no.

"drop the t" is another thing to google if you want to hear homosexual arguments against this movement.

Maybe now with a republican president we will all be able to question this fruit cakiness without being accused of hate speech.

Isab, that's funny. Of course its hate speech, especially since there's a Republican to blame.

Regarding the comment from TheMom:

Of course it's considered abusive (by most) for outsiders, per se, to sterilize adults with mental disabilities. However, it's not considered quite the same thing when we're talking about the parental decisions of the person in question. Whether or not that should be the case is not something I can comment on, since every case is different.

I seem to remember a case with a reference to Norplant (which would put it between 1996 and 2007). The young woman's parents wanted her sterilized because they couldn't watch her all the time (she didn't actually have a boyfriend, I think, but the parents were of course worried about her possibly being assaulted in her lifetime); they couldn't be sure she would always be taking her birth control pills, and they couldn't give her Norplant because she scratched herself a lot. I don't remember the outcome, but there didn't seem to be any public outcry over the parents' wishes. I can't remember if the young woman understood the idea of sterilization or not.

At any rate, one has to wonder just how well a baby is going to live (if at all) when cared for by someone who can't even live alone. How is "choosing" to have and raise one a decision that an 11-year-old can be allowed to make?

That gets mentioned in this article, from 2013 (the teen in question is like a 3-year-old):

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/sterilizing-a-child-for-a-better-life/279765/

I can't seem to copy and paste any of it, but there are 147 comments.

Whoops - I should have written "parental decisions FOR the person in question."

"Apart from the very-rare cases of actual physiological disorders, 'transgenderism' is a mental disorder, a psychological delusion."

Nice of you to clear that up. We can all go home now.

Meanwhile...

What is "very rare"? Does this eliminate the problem for those with androgen insensitivity syndrome, which afflicts victims from birth, and which varies in severity?

Not imaginary. Johns Hopkins had a lengthy debate about what to do with children born with "nonstandard" equipment, because it's not as cut/dried that raising all such cases as feminine is the answer it was, once, surgery or not. Yes, they once cut infants to make things "right".

No, gender is not binary, any more than libido is.

Agree with Radwaste. No trans or even merely cross-dressing people ever caused me even a moment of distress. Anyone suffering genuine disorientation over this kind of thing first deserves our sympathy.

I resent the clumsy politics about it, but they always come from people who are clumsy about politics and personal lives anyway.

Specifically:

• People who believe in programmatic responses to this, —who presume there's a best course of action to be pursued in all cases (and that they know what it is)— are likely to do a fantastic amount of damage to the lives of those they'd claim to assist.
• People who believe in programmatic responses to this must never contend that the sexual problems of other people, distant strangers to me, are in my heart. They're not. And I won't be condescended to by socially needy busybodies of the SJW kind. Grrr. I'm smarter than they are, more courageous, kinder and much better-looking. Grrr. And meaner.

I mean--

> It is a mental delusion, and
> actually allowing - never mind
> encouraging - physiological
> interventions like surgery and
> radical hormonal therapy is
> actually piling more cruelty
> onto a person who is already
> suffering.

-- I see where Llamas is going with that, too.

The joker Carolla used to ask: "What if I said I was a one-armed guy trapped in a two-armed body?" Would you let me cut my arm off?" Coarsely phrased, but on to something....

I'm a short guy but figured out reasonably early that the problems in my life, and the reactions I was getting from my surrounding community, were not happening because I was short. There are people who are shorter and maybe sometimes taller than they want to be... They don't deserve harsh dismissal of their thinking any "delusional," nor do the sex types.

Shit, Llamas had already covered some of that same territory.

I'm a short guy but figured out reasonably early that the problems in my life, and the reactions I was getting from my surrounding community, were not happening because I was short. There are people who are shorter and maybe sometimes taller than they want to be... They don't deserve harsh dismissal of their thinking any "delusional," nor do the sex types.

Crid at November 17, 2016 12:29 AM

I was reminded of how short I really am when I had to borrow a mop from two isles over at WalMart to reach the last six pack of Perrier in the drink isle.

In Japan the highest shelf in the grocery store is below my eye level and about a foot deep for a really good reason, but not, I believe, because of some government mandate.

Having grown up in a time and place where many of my relatives had a one hole outhouse, and a handpump over the kitchen sink, I see public restrooms as a civilized convenience especially for women wearing pants.

They dont exist as affirmation of gender identity for the few unfortunate souls with indeterminate plumbing, or sexual identity issues, and I would like the wars over public policy catering to such identity to end with a sound defeat for those who want to impose their preference and comfort on the vast majority of tax payers (who don't want to be poked in the eye with someone flaunting their *rights* in a public restroom)

I want you to use whatever restroom you look like you belong in and keep your genitals out of public view.

This was never really about toilets, it was about school locker rooms.
Public policy is too blunt a tool to deal with sexual identity issues.

Radwaste wrote:

'No, gender is not binary, any more than libido is.'

Well, I hate to break it to you, but for all but a very small number of persons born with genetic or congenital disorders, gender very-definitely is binary. There are two genders, defined by basic anatomy and genetic configuration, and it is not possible to 'transition' completely from one to the other.

That's the reality. Reality doesn't care about your feelings about how things are, or should be.

For the very small number of persons mentioned, medical and surgical interventions may be in their best interest. Leave it to the patients and their doctors to figure it out.

But those are not the people we are talking about here. What we're talking about are people who are unambiguously, anatomically, genetically one gender, who claim that they 'feel' that they are really the other gender. And - much worse - parents and guardians of children who claim that they 'feel' that the child is of the other gender.

If it were just that, it wouldn't be a problem. Not my circus, not my monkeys, if somebody claims to 'feel' that they are of the other gender than what they are, who cares? It's a mental disorder, a failure to grasp reality, but that's OK. Get treatment, if you want it. Cross-dressers have been with us since the dawn of time, and this trend is just an extension of that activity - these people have now found doctors who are willing to perform medical interventions to make the patient look a little bit more like what their delusion tells them they 'should' look like.

Let's take the example du jour, which is Caitlyn Jenner. He's changed his name, but not his gender. Sure, he's had some hormone treatments, and he has a fabulous stylist, but he is anatomically, genetically, male, and always will be. His life, his delusions, once again, NMC, NMM. I don't care.

When I start to care - very much - is when folks who have these delusions start to try and enforce their delusions on the rest of the world, with the force of law. Remember, the force of law, in the last reduction = Men with Guns.

For example, in New York state, if you refer to a person by a different pronoun than the one they prefer, or allow others to do so, you may be civilly and criminally penalized by the state, with penalties up to $250,000.

A Quarter of a Million Dollars. For calling a person 'he' instead of 'she'. Just let that sink in for a minute.

A Quarter of a Million Dollars. For speaking the factual truth - because it does not align with the delusions of the person you are addressing.

Does this seem like good law to you?

And all the other laws that get put forth, about bathrooms, and locker rooms, and so forth - what they are really about is not where you pee, but about forcing the vast majority of people to conform their thoughts, words and actions to match the internal delusions of a tiny few. Again, not to the objective facts of gender - but to the internal delusions of others.

Coming back to my Admiral Nelson example - it's nothing to you if I wake up one day with the delusion that I am Admiral Horatio Nelson. It's nothing to you if I can persuade some doctor to cut off my arm and put out my eye, in order that my physical body more-closely resemble my mental delusions. Not your circus, not your monkeys.

But how do you feel about a law that says you must address me as Admiral, or face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and imprisonment if you cannot pay?

Or how do you feel about a law that says that your healthcare dollars (premiums, taxes, whatever) must be made available to pay for surgery to make me look more like Admiral Nelson?

There is a special place in Hell reserved for parents and guardians of very young children who buy into the 'transgender' delusion, and who allow or encourage medical interventions to be performed on their children to try and 'change' their gender. In many cases, these parents are actually acting out their own delusions, or responding to progressive fashions, or virtue-signaling to other, likeminded idiots. Look, our little Johnny is 'transgender' - aren't we cool?

Again - reality doesn't care about your 'feels'. Gender is binary, always has been, and it is not possible for a person unambiguously of one gender to 'transition' to the other gender. Sorry if that doesn't match current progressive dogma - but we need to run the world based on reality, not on 'feels'.

llater,

llamas

And "Admiral Horatio Nelson" now has access to anywhere admirals are allowed to go, they are not allowed to speak privately discuss naval matters without him, and he has access to sailor pensions and other benefits now. And every sailor's insurance monthiea go up because the cosmetic surgery required to make llamas look like Admiral Nelson is pricey.

It is nice that no transgendered person has ever harmed you. They have, however, harmed many women by being granted access to female only spaces such as homeless shelters. Not to mention the harassment lesbians get for not liking dick (google "cotton ceiling"... Lesbians who don't like dick are transphobic bigots apparently)

They have, however, harmed many women by being granted access to female only spaces such as homeless shelters.
_________________________________

Um, got a source on that?

Btw:

https://www.thenation.com/article/north-carolinas-anti-lgbt-law-is-not-the-way-to-keep-women-safe/


North Carolina’s Anti-LGBT Law Is Not the Way to Keep Women Safe
"The threats to women’s safety are posed by men, not trans women. So why should trans women suffer for those sins?"
By Katha Pollitt
April 21, 2016

Excerpts:

"...One thing North Carolina should never have done, though, if its goal was preventing real-life male violence against real-life women, was to pass HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act. Overturning Charlotte’s recently passed trans-friendly bathroom bill, HB2 requires people to use the restroom and locker room of the sex on their birth certificate in public schools, colleges, and universities and in government buildings, and bars municipalities from passing LGBT-friendly ordinances. (Just for fun, the legislation also prevents cities and counties from passing a local minimum wage for private employers.) The ostensible reason for the bathroom rules is that if transgender women could use the ladies’ facilities, so could men dressed as women, and either group could go in there and commit sexual assaults and no one could do a thing about it. Never mind that supporters of the bill couldn’t point to a single case of trans women committing such crimes in ladies’ rooms, and municipalities around the country with trans-friendly bathroom rules report no increase in incidents of men doing so, either. The real reason is to foment disgust and horror at the existence of trans people in order to keep the Republican base excited, now that same-sex marriage is off the table thanks to the Supreme Court. It’s no accident that the bill was passed after a mere 30 minutes of debate in a one-day special session and signed the same night by Governor Pat McCrory. Nor is it an accident that HB2 contains provisions making it more difficult to sue one’s employer under a state law that protects workers from discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, or religion. If the legislators care about women, why would they be OK’ing bias on the job?

"The bathroom provisions have rightly outraged the nation. Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam, and other artists have canceled their concerts; PayPal decided not to open a global-operations center that would have employed 400 people; Duke University reports that academics are refusing to attend its conferences. Boycotts hurt a lot of innocent people, but this one seems to be having its desired effect: Governor Nikki Haley has said she’ll veto a similar law in South Carolina, and Georgia Governor Nathan Deal says he’ll do the same in his state. That’s great...

"...In fact, women are sometimes attacked in the bathroom area of bars and clubs, and I won’t pretend I don’t think about that possibility when, for example, the ladies’ room in a restaurant requires a trip to an otherwise empty basement or second floor. There’s a reason why so many ladies’ rooms situated in office-building hallways require a key or a key code. In many public bathrooms without this kind of security, a man could easily push his way in—and some do, including a few who dress in women’s clothing.

"I’m immensely sympathetic to the fears of traumatized women, but fear can’t have the last word—otherwise, no Muslim could take a plane, no Sikh could wear a turban, and no black person could take a walk in a white neighborhood. The simple fact is that the threats to women’s safety and privacy are posed by men, not trans women—so why should trans women suffer for these men’s sins? It doesn’t seem right, moreover, to force trans women to use the men’s room, where their own safety may be at risk. Ironically, the bathroom bill 'solves' an imaginary problem by creating a more realistic one, because it will force trans men to use the ladies’ room. Having to endure the presence of a female-looking person who may be a male pervert in a dress seems far less of a concern than having to wonder if that burly man at the sink is trans or not.

"North Carolina NOW, NC Women United, and the NC Coalition Against Sexual Assault have all come out strongly against HB2. They know a lot more about the real threats to women’s safety than the Republicans who passed this unjust law."

From the article which lenona linked:

"The threats to women’s safety are posed by men, not trans women. So why should trans women suffer for those sins?"

Repeat after me - "trans women" are not women - they are men. Not women - men. And it is indeed men who pose the real threats to women's safety - regardless of what they want you to believe they are. Mentally-normal men are dangerous enough for women - men suffering from delusions all the more so.

Here's a thought experiment. Take a look at this person:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066324/Now-PASSENGERS-wear-dress-code-planes.html

and tell me that you don't think that he has some mental-health issues. He is self-evidently a man - but he 'identifies' as a woman.

Now tell me that you're OK with a law which says that he must be allowed to use a women's restroom, or a women's locker room, and that anyone who prevents him from doing so may be criminally charged and face fines or jail time.

Do you really think that it's just fine and dandy that his gender delusions must be, not merely tolerated, but affirmed, by force of law? By men with guns, in the final reduction, you may be forced to say 'this is a woman, and 'she' must be referred to as 'she', and 'she' must be allowed into female-only facilities just as though 'she' were actually of the female gender'?

You may be OK with that, but I don't think we should be compelling vast numbers of people, under penalty of law, to deny obvious, factual reality, simply to cater to the personal delusions of a few individuals.

llater,

llamas

"Again - reality doesn't care about your 'feels'. Gender is binary, always has been, and it is not possible for a person unambiguously of one gender to 'transition' to the other gender. Sorry if that doesn't match current progressive dogma - but we need to run the world based on reality, not on 'feels'."

Well, there goes the irony meter. I cite what actually happens - real, genetic diversity - and you not only call that "feels" but then follow up with a comment chock full of appeals to hurt feelings and fear. Wow.

None of these people get to be an unperson because you claim the plumbing is everything there is about you, so it oughta be that way for everybody.

Resources. Go tell them about "feels".

Radwaste - you are gloriously, violently, missing my point. I wish you would not do this because I generally have respect for your opinions.

Once again, I agree and accept your point that there is a very small number of individuals who suffer from genetic or congenital disorders which make them (to a greater or lesser degree) "transgender". These people may benefit from surgical and/or hormonal treatments to better-adjust their lives to their actual, clinical disorders. The vast majority of these people are genetically male (have the XY chromosome expression) but are anatomically somewhere between male and female.

But that's not who we're talking about. The current "transgender" rights movement is driven almost-entirely by persons who are unambiguously, factually, genetically, anatomically of one gender, but who 'feel' that they are of the other gender.

Caitlyn Jenner does not have AIS in any of its degrees. He is genetically and anatomically male, and always has been. What he has is a mental disorder, stemming from his distress at his feelings about the gender which he was 'assigned' at birth. Not my opinion - his public statements.

The man whose image I linked does not have AIS in any of its forms. He is genetically and anatomically male, and always has been. What he has is a mental disorder.

Both these men express their views of themselves by cross-dressing, and nowadays they may be able to find physicians who will allow them to surgically and hormonally modify their bodies to appear more like what they think they are. But that does not change the fact that they are male, and always will be.

'Transgender' activists have latched onto disorders such as the AIS you mention, and used them as a springboard to try and push the idea that all gender is always 'fluid', and something of a sliding scale, and that the white, cisgender, heteronormative, oppressive patriarchy has enforced a binary gender model on the world and enforced it by 'assigning' gender at birth and then 'enforcing' gender throughout life. These folks want you to believe that it's perfectly normal for gender to be somewhere along a sliding scale for everybody, and that it's possible and even desirable for a person to change their gender somewhere along the way. And that this must be accepted and affirmed by everybody else, with the force of law.

Nature and reality say different. For all but a few people who have actual physical, medical disorders, gender is determined and fixed in the womb, and it stays that way for life. Persons who have difficulty with this are not suffering from a physical disorder, but a mental delusion. We should help and support those who have these disorders, but recognize that they are two distinctly different conditions - one physical and genetic, the other mental and social - and treat them accordingly.

If I cut off my arm in an accident with a woodchipper, I need a surgeon to fix me. If I cut off my arm to bolster my delusion that I am Admiral Horatio Nelson, I may need a surgeon to fix the physical damage, but I what I really need is help with the mental delusions that would cause me to do such a thing. Not to have those delusions validated.

No clearer proof of the fatuousness of the cause of 'transgender' activists can be found than the matter of 'transgender' suicide rates. Activists proclaim that 'transgender is a real thing!' and how we need to support and encourage 'transgender' people to transition to the gender they 'feel' they 'really' are. As justification for this, they cite the elevated suicide rate among 'transgenders' - it's so horrible to be 'trapped' in the 'wrong' body, these poor people are driven to suicide by the suffering it causes. This 'proves' that 'transgender is a real thing!', they say.

Suicide rates of 'transgenders' after complete 'gender reassignment', including radical surgery, hormone treatments etc - the complete switch. Just the same as before, and maybe worse. Because it's not a physical disorder, but a mental one. Why is this so difficult to accept? One of the pioneering places in the field of 'gender reassignment' - Johns Hopkins University Hospital - has come to realize this, to the extent that they now counsel that 'transgender' of the kind I described is primarily a mental disorder, and they no longer perform 'gender reassignment'.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

llater,

llamas

"They have, however, harmed many women by being granted access to female only spaces such as homeless shelters.
_________________________________

Um, got a source on that?"

Why yes, I do have a source on that.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender

"They have, however, harmed many women by being granted access to female only spaces such as homeless shelters.
_________________________________

Um, got a source on that?"

Why yes, I do have a source on that.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender

How am I supposed to tell the difference between a 'real' transwoman and some peeping Tom in a muumuu?

You said "they" and "many." Gross exaggeration. The article was about ONE predator - and four women. Really.