The prime target of journalist Evan Urquhart's scathing reporting about Finland's pediatric gender clinics characterizes his article as "intentional defamation."
So the group that wants to remove reproductive organs, believes discussing sexual habits is a bridge too far?
These must be the same folks that get married without discussing their desire to have children with their partner, to only get divorced shortly after when inevitably learning the truth. Never considered they were just avoiding these questions of ultimate importance because they are too "gross". I just thought they were idiots.
Honestly, some of these people seem like moral monsters. This is like the Planned Parenthood clinician who said, effectively, that they don’t talk about the negative side effects of T because they don’t want to deter girls from going on it since they’ll commit suicide otherwise, and Dr. Metzinger the BC pediatric endocrinologist who said you can’t really get informed consent from 14 yo’s because they a) don’t have a handle on basic biology and b) have no concept of what it might be to want your own children, but that they render these kids infertile anyway because “you want to make them happy in the moment.” Ghoulish.
"to the claim by A. J. Eckert, an Attending Physician at the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital, Los Angeles, that this is “gross!”"
Lots of medicine is gross. If you can't deal with gross stuff, don't be a doctor.
I think what bothers me most about these gender ideologues is that they rarely promote their actual beliefs. If Urquhart believes that any one, of any age, who wants blockers/hormones/surgery should get them, solely at their own discretion, I wish he'd just say so. Instead, he employs one of two derailing tactics to counter his opponents.
First, he clouds the issue by throwing up dust about the data, or by using euphemisms like "top surgery" instead of double-mastectomy. By the time he's finished, you're having difficulty knowing what is true, and you start thinking that maybe these procedures aren't really *that* extreme. Thus confused, most people will back off and yield the battle.
Second, Urquhart sifts closely through his opponents' history to find some way--some statement, some affiliation--in which they are peronally unacceptable. Hilary Cass once had dinner with a conservative politician! Jaime Reed did not post a black square on her Facebook page after George Floyd was killed! The specifics are important only as far as they associate one of Urquhart's opponents with the right-wing, such association being, of course, sufficient to warrant dismissing whatever that opponent might have to say.
If Urquhart believes in a 100% informed consent, no-gatekeeping, any-age, everything-goes approach to gender treatments, I wish he'd just advocate directly for that instead of poisoning the discourse with a bunch of bullshit.
So the group that wants to remove reproductive organs, believes discussing sexual habits is a bridge too far?
These must be the same folks that get married without discussing their desire to have children with their partner, to only get divorced shortly after when inevitably learning the truth. Never considered they were just avoiding these questions of ultimate importance because they are too "gross". I just thought they were idiots.
Honestly, some of these people seem like moral monsters. This is like the Planned Parenthood clinician who said, effectively, that they don’t talk about the negative side effects of T because they don’t want to deter girls from going on it since they’ll commit suicide otherwise, and Dr. Metzinger the BC pediatric endocrinologist who said you can’t really get informed consent from 14 yo’s because they a) don’t have a handle on basic biology and b) have no concept of what it might be to want your own children, but that they render these kids infertile anyway because “you want to make them happy in the moment.” Ghoulish.
"to the claim by A. J. Eckert, an Attending Physician at the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital, Los Angeles, that this is “gross!”"
Lots of medicine is gross. If you can't deal with gross stuff, don't be a doctor.
I think what bothers me most about these gender ideologues is that they rarely promote their actual beliefs. If Urquhart believes that any one, of any age, who wants blockers/hormones/surgery should get them, solely at their own discretion, I wish he'd just say so. Instead, he employs one of two derailing tactics to counter his opponents.
First, he clouds the issue by throwing up dust about the data, or by using euphemisms like "top surgery" instead of double-mastectomy. By the time he's finished, you're having difficulty knowing what is true, and you start thinking that maybe these procedures aren't really *that* extreme. Thus confused, most people will back off and yield the battle.
Second, Urquhart sifts closely through his opponents' history to find some way--some statement, some affiliation--in which they are peronally unacceptable. Hilary Cass once had dinner with a conservative politician! Jaime Reed did not post a black square on her Facebook page after George Floyd was killed! The specifics are important only as far as they associate one of Urquhart's opponents with the right-wing, such association being, of course, sufficient to warrant dismissing whatever that opponent might have to say.
If Urquhart believes in a 100% informed consent, no-gatekeeping, any-age, everything-goes approach to gender treatments, I wish he'd just advocate directly for that instead of poisoning the discourse with a bunch of bullshit.