Transition as Treatment: The Best Studies Show the Worst Outcomes

submitted by Bitchcraft from thepublicdiscourse.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Maly_Querent 21 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

My only problem with this article is that the writer is a pastor. Clearly shows that his stance is one of "nature=god=order" vs "man-made=satan=chaos." It just seems heavily disengenious to me. Like, i honestly believe that transsexuality isn't wrong, but the reasons why people do it, is questionable--at least to me. Religious people, at least seemingly, always have this "it's not 'natural,' therefore 'wrong'," mentality, which i feel limited and incorrect.

[–]luckystar 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This sort of thing drives me crazy. I'm a progressive in all aspects and I'm concerned about gender ideology because I find it to be regressive, sexist, homophobic etc. I hate that it's so hard to find sources that will discuss this openly that aren't right wing or conservative leaning. I feel like I'm losing my mind sometimes because so many fellow progressives seem blind to these issues.

[–]7of99 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

More progressives are silenced or ignorant of the situation (think mtfs are all naturally super feminine gay men, think no one is denying biological sex, don't realize sexual orientation is being redefined to gender identity orientation, don't know that children identifying as trans are getting medical/surgical interventions or are unaware that most children with gender dysphoria desist and that they go through a rigorous diagnostic process and they for sure are going to be trans as adults because "gender identity is set by age 3" they are told, don't know about males competing in female sports and if they do they think that it's only after surgery and years of hormones and that it's been scientifically proven that they lose all advantages because that's what they're told if they heard about it at all) than are hardcore true-believers.

Those who are clued in are either cowed into silence, or they are kicked off liberal platforms. Then when the only platforms available to them are conservative, if they use one of them, they get smeared as obviously secretly a conservative all along. This tactic is used to reinforce the idea that no true progressive has any qualms with modern gender ideology so that other progressives in their ranks are cowed into silence. It creates the illusion of consensus, and it is how totalitarianism works.

[–]lefterfield 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Where do you get that from the article?

[–]ProfessorShru 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

His religious bias is a lot more obvious in his conversion therapy article. For example, he pushes the idea that many homosexuals are just confused. You can read it here: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/03/60895/

[–]lefterfield 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I still don't see the religious bias you're referring to. If the studies are inaccurate, they should be challenged, and his actual claims are far more nuanced than the way you're presenting them. In any case, there are a lot of issues with banning conversion therapy outright, particularly when it comes to calling "watch and wait" for "transgender" children the same thing as gay conversion therapy. It needs to be clearly defined.

[–]ProfessorShru 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think the author makes some good points, but like Maly_Querent I became skeptical of the author's motives when I saw that he was a pastor. The author's only two articles on the site are focused on sexual minorities and the conversion therapy one is written using tricky wording to attempt to obscure the fact that the author is drawing his own conclusions from inconclusive data. He brings up strong arguments first before starting on a winding path of his own interpretations of data that ultimately concludes with "Many lines of evidence lead to the conclusion that some sexual-minority adults—and particularly youth—may face confusion about their sexual identities, attractions, or behaviors on account of childhood trauma or dysfunction. At the very least, these things may be linked genetically" Which, in my opinion, is vague and somewhat contradictory as well as using the word "confusion" which is often associated with many relgions' negative views on homosexuality. Reading the conversion therapy article only made me more skeptical of the author's motivation to write these articles. He brings up important issues, but I am wary of the way he presents some of his arguments.

[–]lefterfield 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you're reading into it things that aren't there and that aren't clearly part of the author's beliefs. Maybe he does believe homosexuality is unnatural, maybe he doesn't, maybe he doesn't word things perfectly accurate. But you're making very specific claims about what he must really think, based solely on the fact that he's a pastor. That may be reason to ask critical questions about some of the things he says, but not to accuse him of being disingenuous for things he never said.