I’m a Pediatrician. How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse.

by Michelle Cretella / July 03, 2017
Re-posted from The Daily Signal

trans-kool-aidTransgender politics have taken Americans by surprise, and caught some lawmakers off guard.

Just a few short years ago, not many could have imagined a high-profile showdown over transgender men and women’s access to single-sex bathrooms in North Carolina.

But transgender ideology is not just infecting our laws. It is intruding into the lives of the most innocent among us—children—and with the apparent growing support of the professional medical community.

As explained in my 2016 peer reviewed article, “Gender Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate,” professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job.

I speak as someone intimately familiar with the pediatric and behavioral health communities and their practices. I am a mother of four who served 17 years as a board certified general pediatrician with a focus in child behavioral health prior to leaving clinical practice in 2012.

For the last 12 years, I have been a board member and researcher for the American College of Pediatricians, and for the last three years I have served as its president.

I also sat on the board of directors for the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity from 2010 to 2015. This organization of physicians and mental health professionals defends the right of patients to receive psychotherapy for sexual identity conflicts that is in line with their deeply held values based upon science and medical ethics.

I have witnessed an upending of the medical consensus on the nature of gender identity. What doctors once treated as a mental illness, the medical community now largely affirms and even promotes as normal.

Here’s a look at some of the changes.

The New Normal

Pediatric “gender clinics” are considered elite centers for affirming children who are distressed by their biological sex. This distressful condition, once dubbed gender identity disorder, was renamed “gender dysphoria” in 2013.

In 2014, there were 24 of these gender clinics, clustered chiefly along the east coast and in California. One year later, there were 40 across the nation.

With 215 pediatric residency programs now training future pediatricians in a transition-affirming protocol and treating gender-dysphoric children accordingly, gender clinics are bound to proliferate further.

Last summer, the federal government stated that it would not require Medicare and Medicaid to cover transition-affirming procedures for children or adults because medical experts at the Department of Health and Human Services found the risks were often too high, and the benefits too unclear.

Undeterred by these findings, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health has pressed ahead, claiming—without any evidence—that these procedures are “safe.”

Two leading pediatric associations—the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Endocrine Society—have followed in lockstep, endorsing the transition affirmation approach even as the latter organization concedes within its own guidelines that the transition-affirming protocol is based on low evidence.

They even admit that the only strong evidence regarding this approach is its potential health risks to children.

The transition-affirming view holds that children who “consistently and persistently insist” that they are not the gender associated with their biological sex are innately transgender.

(The fact that in normal life and in psychiatry, anyone who “consistently and persistently insists” on anything else contrary to physical reality is considered either confused or delusional is conveniently ignored.)

The transition-affirming protocol tells parents to treat their children as the gender they desire, and to place them on puberty blockers around age 11 or 12 if they are gender dysphoric.

If by age 16, the children still insist that they are trapped in the wrong body, they are placed on cross-sex hormones, and biological girls may obtain a double mastectomy.

So-called “bottom surgeries,” or genital reassignment surgeries, are not recommended before age 18, though some surgeons have recently argued against this restriction.

The transition-affirming approach has been embraced by public institutions in media, education, and our legal system, and is now recommended by most national medical organizations.

There are exceptions to this movement, however, in addition to the American College of Pediatricians and the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice. These include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Catholic Medical Association, and the LGBT-affirming Youth Gender Professionals.

The transgender movement has gained legs in the medical community and in our culture by offering a deeply flawed narrative. The scientific research and facts tell a different story.

Here are some of those basic facts.

1. Twin studies prove no one is born “trapped in the body of the wrong sex.”

Some brain studies have suggested that some are born with a transgendered brain. But these studies are seriously flawed and prove no such thing.

Virtually everything about human beings is influenced by our DNA, but very few traits are hardwired from birth. All human behavior is a composite of varying degrees for nature and nurture.

Researchers routinely conduct twin studies to discern which factors (biological or nonbiological) contribute more to the expression of a particular trait. The best designed twin studies are those with the greatest number of subjects.

Identical twins contain 100 percent of the same DNA from conception and are exposed to the same prenatal hormones. So if genes and/or prenatal hormones contributed significantly to transgenderism, we should expect both twins to identify as transgender close to 100 percent of the time.

Skin color, for example, is determined by genes alone. Therefore, identical twins have the same skin color 100 percent of the time.

But in the largest study of twin transgender adults, published by Dr. Milton Diamond in 2013, only 28 percent of the twins both identified as transgender. Seventy-two percent of the time, they differed. (Diamond’s study reported 20 percent identifying as transgender, but his actual data demonstrate a 28 percent figure, as I note here in footnote 19.)

That 28 percent of identical twins both identified as transgender suggests a minimal biological predisposition, which means transgenderism will not manifest itself without outside nonbiological factors also impacting the individual during his lifetime.

The fact that the identical twins differed 72 percent of the time is highly significant because it means that at least 72 percent of what contributes to transgenderism in one twin consists of nonshared experiences after birth—that is, factors not rooted in biology.

Studies like this one prove that the belief in “innate gender identity”—the idea that “feminized” or “masculinized” brains can be trapped in the wrong body from before birth—is a myth that has no basis in science.

2. Gender identity is malleable, especially in young children.

Even the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology admits that prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of pre-pubertal children who were distressed by their biological sex eventually outgrew that distress. The vast majority came to accept their biological sex by late adolescence after passing naturally through puberty.

But with transition affirmation now increasing in Western society, the number of children claiming distress over their gender—and their persistence over time—has dramatically increased. For example, the Gender Identity Development Service in the United Kingdom alone has seen a 2,000 percent increase in referrals since 2009.

3. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria have not been proven safe.

Puberty blockers have been studied and found safe for the treatment of a medical disorder in children called precocious puberty (caused by the abnormal and unhealthy early secretion of a child’s pubertal hormones).

However, as a groundbreaking paper in The New Atlantis points out, we cannot infer from these studies whether or not these blockers are safe in physiologically normal children with gender dysphoria.

The authors note that there is some evidence for decreased bone mineralization, meaning an increased risk of bone fractures as young adults, potential increased risk of obesity and testicular cancer in boys, and an unknown impact upon psychological and cognitive development.

With regard to the latter, while we currently don’t have any extensive, long-term studies of children placed on blockers for gender dysphoria, studies conducted on adults from the past decade give cause for concern.

For example, in 2006 and 2007, the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology reported brain abnormalities in the area of memory and executive functioning among adult women who received blockers for gynecologic reasons. Similarly, many studies of men treated for prostate cancer with blockers also suggest the possibility of significant cognitive decline.

4. There are no cases in the scientific literature of gender-dysphoric children discontinuing blockers.

Most, if not all, children on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones (estrogen for biological boys, testosterone for biological girls). The only study to date to have followed pre-pubertal children who were socially affirmed and placed on blockers at a young age found that 100 percent of them claimed a transgender identity and chose cross-sex hormones.

This suggests that the medical protocol itself may lead children to identify as transgender.

There is an obvious self-fulfilling effect in helping children impersonate the opposite sex both biologically and socially. This is far from benign, since taking puberty blockers at age 12 or younger, followed by cross-sex hormones, sterilizes a child.

5. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks.

From studies of adults we know that the risks of cross-sex hormones include, but are not limited to, cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes, diabetes, and cancers.

6. Neuroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment.

Scientific data show that people under the age of 21 have less capacity to assess risks. There is a serious ethical problem in allowing irreversible, life-changing procedures to be performed on minors who are too young themselves to give valid consent.

7. There is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children.

Advocates of the transition-affirming protocol allege that suicide is the direct and inevitable consequence of withholding social affirmation and biological alterations from a gender-dysphoric child. In other words, those who do not endorse the transition-affirming protocol are essentially condemning gender-dysphoric children to suicide.

Yet as noted earlier, prior to the widespread promotion of transition affirmation, 75 to 95 percent of gender-dysphoric youth ended up happy with their biological sex after simply passing through puberty.

In addition, contrary to the claim of activists, there is no evidence that harassment and discrimination, let alone lack of affirmation, are the primary cause of suicide among any minority group. In fact, at least one study from 2008 found perceived discrimination by LGBT-identified individuals not to be causative.

Over 90 percent of people who commit suicide have a diagnosed mental disorder, and there is no evidence that gender-dysphoric children who commit suicide are any different. Many gender dysphoric children simply need therapy to get to the root of their depression, which very well may be the same problem triggering the gender dysphoria.

8. Transition-affirming protocol has not solved the problem of transgender suicide.

Adults who undergo sex reassignment—even in Sweden, which is among the most LGBT-affirming countries—have a suicide rate nearly 20 times greater than that of the general population. Clearly, sex reassignment is not the solution to gender dysphoria.

Bottom Line: Transition-Affirming Protocol Is Child Abuse

The crux of the matter is that while the transition-affirming movement purports to help children, it is inflicting a grave injustice on them and their nondysphoric peers.

These professionals are using the myth that people are born transgender to justify engaging in massive, uncontrolled, and unconsented experimentation on children who have a psychological condition that would otherwise resolve after puberty in the vast majority of cases.

Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts, and untold psychological damage.

These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse. Sound ethics demand an immediate end to the use of pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies.

It is time for our nation’s leaders and the silent majority of health professionals to learn exactly what is happening to our children, and unite to take action.

“Gender identity” — Children sacrificed on an altar of male sexual perversion

queen

Gender identity

These days we often see news stories or blogs about “transgender children.” Isn’t this proof that “gender identity” is real, and biological in nature?

Nope. There is no such thing as a “transgender child.” “Gender identity” is a completely fake and bogus idea, invented by male sexual fetishists who have thrown normal life away, and often destroyed their families, in order to pursue their strange addiction. The narcissistic parents who pimp out their children as “transgender” may have a sort of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Maybe they’re just not very smart, or maybe they’ve just been railroaded by the transgender industry’s “experts.”  Because the male trannies are so passionately delusional as well as well-connected in media, government and academia, they have successfully promoted “gender identity” in academia and clinical practice as if it really existed. The pharmaceutical industry has been glad to support this lie.

There is nothing going on in the brain or anywhere else that would make a male child want to replicate stereotypes of “femininity” (e.g. liking the color pink, wishing to wear dresses, wanting to play with dolls, etc.), or a girl replicate stereotyped “masculinity.” Children sometimes don’t conform to sex role stereotypes. Little girls may want to have short hair, build tree-forts, play football and hang out with the boys. It doesn’t mean these girls are actually boys. Little boys may want to have long hair, try on sister’s clothes, play with dolls, hang out with the girls. It doesn’t mean these boys are actually girls. Children have their own individual personalities.

Nowadays, however, out of stupidity, greed or both, many parents are jumping on the transgenderite bandwagon and coercively transsexualizing these kids.

These children who don’t comply with sex role stereotypes and are being pushed into medicalized transgenderism by their parents and crooked doctors are really being sacrificed on an altar of male transgenderist sexual perversion.

23135458811_e151867cb6_c

Gender identity

This will bring them a lifetime under medical surveillance, coping with lifelong recovery from drastic surgeries, remaining at high risk of cardiovascular and other health problems due to “hormone” treatment.

Before “gender identity,” nearly all children who didn’t comply with sex role stereotypes simply grew out of desiring to be or insisting they were the opposite sex. Nowadays, almost none of them do — they are fast-tracked for medical transsexualism.

The reality is that the vast majority of cocks in frocks  (including Bruce Jenner and around 90% of other men in dresses) are what we used to call transvestites — they get sexually turned on from the fantasy of “being a woman.” They dress-up and pretend to be women (or daydream about doing so), or watch pornography about transgenderism, and then they masturbate. It is a sexual fetish that takes over their lives. It becomes a narcissistic addiction, after years of ritualistic and highly-charged sexualized cross-dressing. Even if estrogen has reduced their sex drive somewhat, which is very debatable, their keen narcissistic desire for “validation” (e.g. through being “accepted” in women’s restrooms) keeps them very hopped up and excited. If normal people do not comply with their insistence on “the right pronouns,” or with being fully “accepted” in women’s private spaces, they are likely to fly into a towering tizzy of transgender narcissistic rage.

Researchers call this condition “autogynephilia,” and because a lifestyle based on masturbation fantasies is embarrassing the men are deadly afraid for this to become known. Indeed, it is practically forbidden to even mention autogynephilia, and although a rare few are honest enough to admit it, nearly all of the female impersonators will deny it until the cows come home.

For this reason, the male trannies have invented the notion of an innate “gender identity.” They retroactively invent or exaggerate incidents from their own childhoods that would suggest a “female gender identity.” It is extremely important to organized transgenderism for the masses of people to believe that “gender identity” is something that children are born with.

(Women who take medical measures to become fake “men” and who insist they are men have a completely different situation from the men who pretend to be “women.” In our culture, females are taught almost from infancy that their bodies are highly problematic. Women who try to be men are dealing with internalized misogyny and often internalized homophobia. GenderTrender has some excellent articles concerning these “FTM” women. The mens’ “gender identity”  lie has hooked some women into it, particularly young women.)

A female impersonator called “Autumn” Sandeen has admitted that if children can be seen to have opposite sex “gender identity,” it “takes the sex out of the equation” in regard to the male trannies.  If the world believes in “gender identity,” these men reckon, they won’t ever have to admit the embarrassing truth about why they chose to become trannies.

Please also see:

14 year old girl surgically mutilated for “gender” in California

samanthaI’m so angry I can barely see. I will keep it brief and just let you read. Samantha, a girl born with fetal alcohol syndrome and other issues, was adopted as a baby by a couple in San Diego. Now, at age 14, she insists she’s a boy. Today, Samantha’s double mastectomy was announced to the world.

He rose again at 4:30 for an early breakfast, his last meal before his 2 p.m. operation in a Thousand Oaks clinic. Going under the knife, the 14-year-old said later, “was kind of like a dream.”

“It was just pure excitement, just pure anticipation,” he said. “I was finally getting rid of something that had been bothering me for years.”

Sam, who was born female, got rid of his breasts.

Although it is not explicitly stated, it’s likely that notorious Dr. Johanna Olson has been shooting her up with testosterone — Samantha is shown shaving her face. Samantha’s “therapist,” the fake-male “husband” of Johanna Olson, is a stupid woman called Aydin Kennedy-Olson. Both Olson and her “husband” are paid consultants of Endo Pharmaceuticals, which makes “puberty blocking” hormone leuprolide as well as testosterone supplements.

A perfect set-up for Munchausen parents:

The Moehligs adopted Samantha from her homeless birth parents, tending the baby through fetal alcohol syndrome. Breathing was such a trial, her skin would turn blue. The infant needed nine medications and, from the age of six months until 3, feeding tubes.

And who was delighted to cut off this young girl’s breasts? A depraved team of plastic surgeon brothers from Israel who have set up shop in the Los Angeles area. This is where it becomes even more disturbing. Most people become doctors because they care about human life. Both of these guys are trained elite killers! Now they are making a killing in LA cutting the breasts off confused teenage girls.

Zol Kryger:

[Dr. Zol Kryger] grew up in Israel and after high school he served in an elite special forces unit of the Israeli Army specializing in reconnaissance.

Gil Kryger:

After high school [Dr. Gil Kryger] served in an elite combat unit of the Israeli Army for over three years.

It’s one thing to have served in your country’s military — especially when such service is mandatory. It’s quite another thing to boast about your “elite special forces” or “elite combat” status on a web site where you claim to help people with their health problems. “First, do no harm”? I don’t think they heard that one before.

Drastic, irreversible surgery as “treatment” for a girl’s psychological problem. I imagine that Samantha’s hysterectomy and other internal surgeries have already been scheduled.

Samantha’s adoptive “father” is a total fucking failure:

Sam’s double mastectomy was “the next step in our family as our family grows and gets closer,” said Ron, 62, a service adviser for a local automobile dealership. “God has plans for everybody, and this is how it develops.”

Yeah, what about God’s plan — the father is essentially saying that God  fucked up with Samantha, she was really supposed to be male, and now these idiots are going to set everything right.

All I can say is: What the fuck is the world coming to. Samantha’s “parents,” all of the vicious “doctors” involved and that perverted “therapist”  — all of them should be jailed for life. Immediately.

This is not technically “illegal.” The “World Professional Association for Transgender Health” (WPATH) is a gang of trans activists, billionaire “donors,” white-coated psychopaths and industry criminals whose “guidelines” for treating people with transgender delusions are about as permissive as you can imagine. Along with their cheerleaders in the mass media, WPATH has created a bizarro consensus reality in which millions of people apparently think this sort of thing is just delightful.

However, anyone whose brain still functions can see that surgically butchering a child for a psychological condition is unethical. If you would like to complain to the California Medical Board about the knife-happy Kryger twins and their debaucheries, it’s quite easy and takes about five minutes: http://www.mbc.ca.gov.

See also: Munchausen by proxy, medical child abuse and paraphilic fantasy in mainstream transgenderism

LINKS:

Hippocratic Oath

Age is just a number when it comes to neovagina surgeries

4thWaveNow

Trans activists constantly tell us “no one operates on minors.”  After all, the WPATH Standards of Care itself officially recommends genital surgeries only for those over the age of 18.

Anyone who has read this blog for awhile knows that such surgeries are already being performed on minors, at least in the United States. But how many know that gender doctors are openly discussing the advantages of early genital surgeries in highly respected medical journals?

karasic jsm piece in pressThis piece, brand-new in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, co-written by Dan Karasic of UCSF’s Center for Excellence in Transgender Health, and Christine Milrod, psychotherapist at LA’s Southern California Transgender Counseling Center, makes it clear that WPATH members have been doing plenty of underage surgeries. And most surgeons quoted in the article [currently behind a paywall], despite a few concerns, are moving full speed ahead.

Their main criterion for determining surgical candidacy for…

View original post 287 more words

Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best?

Adult transgender activists tried hard to stop this BBC documentary about so-called “transgender kids” from being aired in January 2017. Why were they so afraid of this film? Because it dared to be even-handed and show more than just the usual one-sided, activist propaganda. The documentary also presented compelling, scientific, fact-based arguments against coercively transsexualizing children who don’t conform to sex role stereotypes (i.e. “gender”).