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.

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

How the “gender identity” lie harms children’s bodies and minds

Boy wearing purple dress, his siblings and their Munchausen parents

An embarrassing sexual fantasy and secret shame of male transgenderists to “become women” is the reason we see so many reports of young children being coercively fast-tracked by narcissistic Munchausen parents and crooked doctors into a life of medicalized transsexualism.

Experimental and irreversible “puberty blocking” drugs (specifically “Lupron”), cross-sex hormones and even surgeries are now being pushed on these children at younger and younger ages. The official rationale for starting kids on this destructive path is that “it will save them from so much hardship in life” if girls can segue directly into “manhood” without growing breasts or having menstrual cycles, and boys can simply merge into “women” without deep voices, tall height or facial hair. Doctors and trans activists insist that the effects of Lupron are “reversible.” They aren’t! It’s a lie. For starters, these kids would be forever infertile.

Lots of attention for parents of

Lots of attention for parents of “transgender children.”

The dirty doctors and crazed transgender activists make it seem as though: it would just be super easy! If the kids want go “back” to their actual sex, they can just do it!

But it won’t be that easy. Can you imagine that at age 16, a young woman who has been programmed as “male,” having missed out on menstruation, other female body changes, female socialization etc, not to mention being infertile, will simply put on the brakes and accept her life as a woman? Even if she did, her body and mind would be completely out of synch with where they would have been, had she just been allowed to “be herself,” sans Lupron. She will be scarred on many levels. Similarly, a boy of 16, programmed “female,” lacking male socialization and several inches shorter than he would have been, voice much higher, also infertile: Will he be able to simply abandon this process? Again, even if he did, his emotional and physical scars would be deep.

If the kids keep on with the process (as they are pressured to do, and as nearly all are reported to have done), the trans activist party line declares:

On the red carpet

Living it up on the red carpet with a “trans child”

The young “women” can easily just have “the surgery” to create a “neovagina,” no big deal! Then they’ll be “women,” and life will be awesome, right? They can just carry on and be “women”!

Everyone involved omits to mention that this is a massively invasive and completely unnecessary surgery, requiring two months of bed rest afterward, another year of low activity and then “dilation” of that fake vagina every day for the rest of the man’s life. They also omit to mention the necessity of taking dangerous hormones every day for the rest of his life, which brings a greatly increased risk of stroke and other adverse effects. He will not be a normal “woman” at all.

For the young “men,” nothing is ever really said about the inevitable surgeries — it is made to seem as though:  these girls will just start being “men,” and everything will somehow work out after that!

Awards ceremonies and glamor for parents of

Awards ceremonies and glamor for parents of “trans kids”

They omit to mention the immense negative health impact of surgically removing a woman’s uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes. They omit to mention that this too is a massively invasive and unnecessary surgery. They omit to mention that these women won’t have penises, and that doctors can only cobble together something that sort of resembles a penis. They omit to mention that these women will need to take testosterone for the rest of their lives, which brings a greatly increased risk of cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke.

For both women and men, they omit to mention that sooner or later, these victims will likely experience significant physical and mental health problems. It doesn’t matter that they “transitioned while young” — the entire process, starting from the Munchausen parents and ending up with life under permanent medical supervision, is going to mess up the bodies and minds of most of them. Their lives will likely be impaired significantly.

What would happen if these kids were NOT coercively fast-tracked into a medicalized “transsexual” life? Terrible things, according to trans activists, dirty doctors and pro-trans pseudo-“ethicists”:

 Specters of violence and suicide among transgender youth and adults, as inevitable consequences of puberty, are frequently mobilized to achieve a compelling narrative about the necessity of medically treating children. … One of the major bioethicists engaged in the debates over the “puberty suppression” treatment of children … argues that the distress caused by the unwanted physical changes of puberty threatens transgender children with suicide and violence and should be prevented by the “revolutionary instrument” offered by endocrinology: suspending puberty … The author argues that puberty suppression will prevent drug abuse, HIV, hepatitis, and criminal behaviors such as prostitution and illegal immigration (resulting from desperate efforts to raise money for transition and, if necessary, crossing borders to countries where treatment is more available) and imprisonment. The author concludes her article with the story of a murdered transgender prostitute, warning healthcare professionals that by withholding the treatment, they are complicit in such a horrid future, while by offering children the treatment, they can save their lives.

To pathologize their refusal of and discomfort with the social expectations of their natal sex and locate the source of the problem within the child ignores the conditions in which the suffering has developed. … The moral imperative for puberty suppression … has the power to downplay or make invisible the harms that the intervention might cause to these physically healthy children, breaching the primary medical ethics principle of “do no harm.”

Currently, the health consequences of the treatment are relatively unexplored. The treatment is being implemented, however, under the pressure of the emergency of saving the child from the devastation assumed to follow the onset of puberty. It must be remembered that puberty suppression as the first step to medical transition, if followed by cross-sex hormones, which has been the case for almost all reported cases, leads to infertility due to the permanent immaturity of the gonads and the reproductive tract. The absence of the discussion of sterilization of children as a major ethical challenge … is striking. For any other group of children, such an intervention would be discussed extensively with ethics review boards … Needless to say, children are not legally capable of consent, and 9–10 year olds are not capable of understanding all the health consequences of the treatment. Parents are asked to make life decisions on issues as critical as fertility for young children. Can they make an informed decision and evaluate benefits vis a vis risks when confronted with such horrendous forecasts for their children?

Question: IN REAL LIFE, left unmolested, without Lupron, without parental and medical “confirmation” that their non-compliance with sex role stereotypes means they “really are” the opposite sex: What would happen to these children?

Answer: Only a tiny proportion of kids would end up with “gender dysphoria.”  Some would grow up to be gay men and lesbians.

Transgenderism is erasing these normal, physically intact women and men of the future and creating instead a Frankenstein-ian cohort of permanent patients.

When boys insist they are really girls and girls insist they are really boys, an honest doctor would consider a range of possibilities to determine what’s really happening with this child. Deciding that the child “really is” the opposite sex shouldn’t even be on the list of options, let alone condemning the child to a complicated, difficult life under permanent medical scrutiny.

All of this has come to pass because male autogynephiliacs are too embarrassed to acknowledge that their own “gender identities” are based on masturbation fantasies. They invented “gender dysphoria” in children to validate their own lifestyles.

A closely related tragedy: it’s apparently OK in society now that many confused adolescents and young adults are being steered down the transgenderite path by adult transgenderists lurking on message boards. Even without Munchausen parents, naive young people who are merely exploring their personalities and learning about the world can be snagged by trans activists on these message boards and convinced that they’re also transgenderites.