Rebuttals of the Week #19: Your sense of self-righteousness doesn’t mean people who don’t agree are evil.

Rob P: The advances that have been made in this area over the past decade are heartwarming – the prejudices so many people had being removed through education. Unfortunately there are still a few (such as Lyle Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby) who spread lies and misinformation, and campaign against the health and well-being of trans* people.

The deliberate ignorance of such people clearly demonstrates the harm they wish on others they see as “different” or not confirming to their narrow interpretation of what people should be, and how they should live their lives.

Going to Getugly : “The deliberate ignorance of such people clearly demonstrates the harm they wish on others they see as “different” or not confirming to their narrow interpretation of what people should be”.

So you mean exactly what you are expressing by labeling everyone who doesn’t conform to your interpretation as ‘ignorant’ and desiring to inflict ‘harm’ on people?

Rob P:  I’m guessing comprehension isn’t your strong point?

Being deliberately ignorant on gender dysphoria, ignoring the actual medical science in this area, and propagating debunked faux (religious based) “science” IS harming vulnerable people – particularly younger trans* identifying people.

It’s not a matter of “conforming” – it’s a matter of spreading lies and misinformation based on deliberate ignorance. Trans* people exist, gender dysphoria exists – that is scientific and medical reality and beyond dispute, unless you choose to ignore the evidence.

Going to Getugly:  You give the impression that you don’t distinguish between “guessing” and ‘knowing’ as a rule. Fortunately, I don’t have to guess to know that logical consistency isn’t your “strong point”.

The truth is that there isn’t much to comprehend in your comment. It’s just a series of unsubstantiated, self-confirming assertions about other people’s motives with the phrase actual medical science” tacked onto it as if that’s the same thing as demonstrating you have the slightest clue about the “actual medical science”.

You are not a spokesperson for ‘science’, Rob. Science is predicated on objectively demonstrable proof of any truth claims. What you are a spokesperson for is ideology.

And your position is absolutely about “conforming” as you have arbitrarily designated anyone who doesn’t conform to your unsubstantiated ideological concepts as being motivated by maliciousness and a conscious desire to inflict harm on people.

Which makes you a hypocrite and strongly suggests that self-awareness isn’t your “strong point” either.

Rob P: I give the impression of not distinguishing between “guessing” and “knowing”?

That’s interesting, because I “know” about gender dysphoria, I “know” the published medical research in this area because I’ve read it, I “know” medical practitioners in this field, I “know” trans* people; and I “know” that people like Lyle Shelton deliberately ignore such research and the qualified practitioners in their attempts to belittle, demean, and marginalise the trans* minority within society.

I “guess” you side with Shelton, since you offer nothing other than an ad hominem attack; you’ve certainly done nothing to dispel my assertion that Shelton et al operate from a position of deliberate ignorance.

Going to Getugly: Claiming to “know” things isn’t a particularly convincing argument, Rob. And the way it works is that the onus is on you to justify your ad hominem and attribution of motives about people like Shelton and everyone else who doesn’t conform to your opinions about this subject. The onus is not on me to “dispel” your arbitrary, unsubstantiated and biased assertions.

And if you ‘know’ so much about the “actual medical” scientific opinion about this subject, perhaps you “know” about the official view of the American College of Pediatricians? Their position is that it’s the perspective which you are embracing and promoting that inflicts “harm” on “vulnerable people”. Or are you now going to claim that this body of medical professionals don’t “know” as much as you do about the subject? Or perhaps you want to claim they are “propagating debunked faux (religious based) science”? Or maybe you will default to the self-justifying, circular reasoning you’ve already demonstrated and simply invent sinister motivations for them?

The American College of Pediatricians: Gender Ideology Harms Children

Updated September 2017

The American College of Pediatricians urges healthcare professionals, educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs (also referred to as “intersex”) do not constitute a third sex.1

The bottom line is this:  Our opponents advocate a new scientifically baseless standard of care for children with a psychological condition (GD) that would otherwise resolve after puberty for the vast majority of patients concerned.  Specifically, they advise:  affirmation of children’s thoughts which are contrary to physical reality; the chemical castration of these children prior to puberty with GnRH agonists (puberty blockers which cause infertility, stunted growth, low bone density, and an unknown impact upon their brain development), and, finally, the permanent sterilization of these children prior to age 18 via cross-sex hormones. There is an obvious self-fulfilling nature to encouraging young GD children to impersonate the opposite sex and then institute pubertal suppression. If a boy who questions whether or not he is a boy (who is meant to grow into a man) is treated as a girl, then has his natural pubertal progression to manhood suppressed, have we not set in motion an inevitable outcome? All of his same sex peers develop into young men, his opposite sex friends develop into young women, but he remains a pre-pubertal boy. He will be left psychosocially isolated and alone. He will be left with the psychological impression that something is wrong. He will be less able to identify with his same sex peers and being male, and thus be more likely to self identify as “non-male” or female. Moreover, neuroscience reveals that the pre-frontal cortex of the brain which is responsible for judgment and risk assessment is not mature until the mid-twenties. Never has it been more scientifically clear that children and adolescents are incapable of making informed decisions regarding permanent, irreversible and life-altering medical interventions. For this reason, the College maintains it is abusive to promote this ideology, first and foremost for the well-being of the gender dysphoric children themselves, and secondly, for all of their non-gender-discordant peers, many of whom will subsequently question their own gender identity, and face violations of their right to bodily privacy and safety.

link: The American College of Pediatricians: Gender Ideology Harms Children

Advertisements Share this:
Like this:Like Loading... Related