When I first saw that you were a guest on her podcast, I actually let out a happy little gasp. And then I started sobbing because of what my life has come to these days since my daughter is one of the girls in the title, and I can’t stop consuming any content (especially connected to you ) that might help me save her from this delusion.
I'm so sorry -- I hope she finds her way out soon. I think, in time, almost all of them will. But that doesn't help in the moment when parents are fearful of being cut out and worried about what their children will pursue before they snap out of it.
You are such a sane and comforting voice in this madness. While I would say you are in the minority of rational thinkers around the horrors of gender ideology, what really stands out is what a relatively lone voice you are in the willingness to speak out about it. I am intrigued as a psychologist on an intellectual level and as a ROGD mother on a personal level about what is keeping the vast majority from not only rational thought but also the courage to express dissent.
This will be as short as I can make it, but as long as is personally therapeutic to write!
I am a retired ( four years ago) GP , having worked as a paediatric registrar in a large metropolitan hospital, so my later GP life was somewhat paediatric centric. My focus here is on medical intervention in children with “ gender incongruity “ ( adults of course should be free to plot their own life course, with as much medical support as requested) I am confident that most of my colleagues have been aghast at the capture of key clinicians ( child and adolescent psychiatrists, paediatricians, paediatric endocrinologists) by the social science lead ideology. The threat of career retribution keeps heads down, so the lay legislators have been guided by the powerful activists. Were the politicians to be made aware of the level of disquiet within the profession, they might be convinced to introduce legislation to protect future vulnerable children. It would take a voluntary plebiscite/ secret ballot of those key clinicians to produce the intuitive overwhelming majority to be in disagreement with the legality obligatory “ affirmation “ treatment protocol, to be available. Such evidence might be that on what legislators could rely to introduce appropriate legislation, to protect future vulnerable children from medical ( hormonal) intervention
. Here’s where it gets tricky. Who might conduct such a plebiscite/ secret ballot, one which would be seen as ethically unassailable? Unfortunately the relevant colleges and the profession’s ( lay) regulatory body, AHPRA are currently themselves, apparent victims of the phenomenon, which Eliza describes as “ competitive compassion “. If, however, and when class actions arrive, that might stimulate a statuary body like AHPRA , (whose charter is to protect patients from harmful treatment) in an effort to be able to claim some reduction in risk of exposure, to obtain majority opinion , in such a plebiscite, of those key medical specialists to provide to legislators, hitherto only being informed by the various clinical ( social science lead ) activists. Until the ideological beast is challenged, it will just get stronger. It will take political champions, informed by evidence from medical science, rather than well meaning social science which has bluffed the medical profession and medical institutions, to our shame.
When I first saw that you were a guest on her podcast, I actually let out a happy little gasp. And then I started sobbing because of what my life has come to these days since my daughter is one of the girls in the title, and I can’t stop consuming any content (especially connected to you ) that might help me save her from this delusion.
I'm so sorry -- I hope she finds her way out soon. I think, in time, almost all of them will. But that doesn't help in the moment when parents are fearful of being cut out and worried about what their children will pursue before they snap out of it.
You are such a sane and comforting voice in this madness. While I would say you are in the minority of rational thinkers around the horrors of gender ideology, what really stands out is what a relatively lone voice you are in the willingness to speak out about it. I am intrigued as a psychologist on an intellectual level and as a ROGD mother on a personal level about what is keeping the vast majority from not only rational thought but also the courage to express dissent.
This is an excellent conversation.
Particularly the deep dive into the online Ftm communities, which Eliza has talked of before, but perhaps not in such depth.
The delusions are both fascinating and terribly sad.
This will be as short as I can make it, but as long as is personally therapeutic to write!
I am a retired ( four years ago) GP , having worked as a paediatric registrar in a large metropolitan hospital, so my later GP life was somewhat paediatric centric. My focus here is on medical intervention in children with “ gender incongruity “ ( adults of course should be free to plot their own life course, with as much medical support as requested) I am confident that most of my colleagues have been aghast at the capture of key clinicians ( child and adolescent psychiatrists, paediatricians, paediatric endocrinologists) by the social science lead ideology. The threat of career retribution keeps heads down, so the lay legislators have been guided by the powerful activists. Were the politicians to be made aware of the level of disquiet within the profession, they might be convinced to introduce legislation to protect future vulnerable children. It would take a voluntary plebiscite/ secret ballot of those key clinicians to produce the intuitive overwhelming majority to be in disagreement with the legality obligatory “ affirmation “ treatment protocol, to be available. Such evidence might be that on what legislators could rely to introduce appropriate legislation, to protect future vulnerable children from medical ( hormonal) intervention
. Here’s where it gets tricky. Who might conduct such a plebiscite/ secret ballot, one which would be seen as ethically unassailable? Unfortunately the relevant colleges and the profession’s ( lay) regulatory body, AHPRA are currently themselves, apparent victims of the phenomenon, which Eliza describes as “ competitive compassion “. If, however, and when class actions arrive, that might stimulate a statuary body like AHPRA , (whose charter is to protect patients from harmful treatment) in an effort to be able to claim some reduction in risk of exposure, to obtain majority opinion , in such a plebiscite, of those key medical specialists to provide to legislators, hitherto only being informed by the various clinical ( social science lead ) activists. Until the ideological beast is challenged, it will just get stronger. It will take political champions, informed by evidence from medical science, rather than well meaning social science which has bluffed the medical profession and medical institutions, to our shame.