April 4, 2016
Civilization is before all, the will to live in common….
Barbarism is the tendency to disassociation. –Ortega y Gasset
What is meant by “republic” in the United States is the
slow and quiet action of society upon itself. –Tocqueville
John Locke exemplified objective
values when he described liberty taking place within the “bounds of the law of
nature,” or the law of human nature, the law of right and wrong; and by that
same law, our reciprocal equality. We were to be equally free and, at the same
time, mutually equal within a moral context defined by truth drawn from an
objective reality.
Equal
freedom and mutual equality are interdependent premises; you cannot have one
without the other. But without virtue these premises tend to become the law of
primeval nature and end in the same way: the dystopian rule of the brute. In
the hands of progressives liberty and equality become stand-alone imposters
with which they bludgeon society into a fractured mass of incoherence.
Progressives have destroyed the salutary inter-relationship; any understanding
of an objective reality; and the virtue of just sentiments. A dogmatic
adherence to objective values has been replaced with something much more pliant
and open to arbitrary change: a subjectivism that denies “the belief that
certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of
things the universe is and the kind of things we are.” (Lewis) So equality comes to mean the ever
growing government and its despots will manage our lives and tell us how to
live and what to believe. In this way we shall be free—to do and believe as we
are told.
Like Plato’s cattle what is true will be
no more; our appetites will plod to the fore.
In view
of this thesis of destruction progressivism must be defined. By my definition
it is synonymous with what I have termed Totalitarian Socialism. Totalitarian
because it invades and forces its control of our lives; and to achieve this
victory of “progress” it discredits, corrupts and eventually nullifies any
authority but its own. Free to vote, we are, but having been bound by the
authority of our rulers we are mostly expressing our hope of a better prince.
Antecedent to this the centers of power were heterogeneous. They could be found
in a multiplicity of institutions and the individual. Today there is no
guardian of liberty undefeated or not substantially altered for the worse by
progressive doctrines. Everything that made us a culture united has been
stripped or twisted, deformed or depraved, denied or forbidden, ad nauseam and
made subject to the authority of policy and laws formed by the guiding hand of
“progress”; hence the Court has continued its tradition as an unaccountable
chief political/social policy magistrate (e.g., Dredd Scott, Roe, and Windsor)
and perforce corrupted the interpretation of the Constitution to absurdity—it
is all relative; the Executive has assumed the powers of a Tyrant, and Congress
has fiddled away its responsibilities and gone to sleep. In the sphere of law
enforcement organized criminals are ascendant and law enforcements focus is
limited to the lower stratum of society. Having been given access to the
minutia of our lives by the force of law they bring such things as tanks to
minor disputes; bomb innocents, including children, whose seared flesh is
further evidence of the insanity of this militarization; they do roadside
vaginal searches (Why not anal? Why not everybody? Just in case); turn its
citizens into human torches; and sometimes twist the law to make up crimes and
sometimes make laws that make up crimes. Aggravating force, lengthy
sentences for one and affluenza for another, or the stigma of a criminal record
arbitrarily created gives the impression of justice’s absence.
The military
has rules of engagement that if egregiously violated will result in prison
time; these authorities seem to, at times, have but a mysterious few. One might
incur their deadly wrath for offering up a license and registration or reaching
for a cell phone, playing with a toy gun, or rebuffing their advances; this
while the majority of society cannot be bothered to turn around in their car
seats when backing up, so the unwary are killed or greatly injured, too often
without penalty. Of business, the connected rule the market by a force of law
put on the market—and other means—while politicians are rewarded in secret.
Furthermore, if you object to transgressions of the law for the sordid benefit
of criminal profit try persuading those politicians with a resounding thus
sayeth the law. You are likely to be laughed out of the room. Law shapes
only that part of society not exempted by influence.
(For the
sake of the honorable it is here noted that a rotten few can cast a pall of
criminality over the righteous, so it has come to be that by the corruption of
our trust good police work is too often labeled as bad police work. However, on
the federal level that proposition is reversed, the perpetration of injustice
being the norm.
And
socialistic in that progressivism insists society must be insured by government
from any anxiety—the vicissitudes of life will be smoothed out into pure
boredom; we will be equal, something like lab rats; and forced to live as if in
a maze that directs our existence according to other people’s plans. Society
having been defeated by forces beyond its control has opted for the forlorn
comfort of despotism over freedom. Instead of self-determination we take
what crumbs of happiness fall from the masters table and hope for a better prince.
The
legitimate American offspring of character and convention born of us have
been delegitimized by a tyranny of progressivism hostile to our society’s
coherence, actuated by hate for American success and given force by the
conquered authority of government. Thus has the republic that acts on itself
been driven into retreat to make way for the bastard child of a preponderate
progress, “a real domination of the few, under an apparent liberty of the many”
(Madison); therefore the few fain command us, submit and obey. A liberal good
faith has come to a bad end.
It is
thus concluded the manifest disassociation in American society has been brought
about by the abandonment of liberalism for a reckless progressivism that
knowingly acts to fracture and, therefore, subjugate society, destroying what
is required for that end. Their “progress” necessarily tramples equal
liberty according to nature’s law; so it is that we have traded mutual equality
for a solvent and a fraud that destroys and empowers but a few to command the
many. Their “truth” is drawn from the well of fancy.
If the
measure of a statesman is, as Edmund Burke thought, “A disposition to preserve
and an ability to improve,” we ought to pay attention to the designs and
character of those we delegate our authority to. (That can be part of an
argument for a common good in annulling the 17th Amendment.)
The Donald, where to begin? One
is tempted to dismiss him as a mobbed up, slobbering, sharp toothed,
short-winged whiner of low tastes and high intrigue who would if he could
indenture Americans to serve his particular interests. This summation is not
unfair, he is a man of disreputable associates and tastes—that protester should
have been roughed up—ruled by appetites that leave him drooling in anticipation
of their fulfilment. His flagging business endeavors might be revived by his
newly acquired office—a bit of favor mongering with the captains of enterprise
certainly would not hurt his accounts; and the access and consequent influence
that he could exert from the White House in plucking the ripe fruit of civil
society for the benefit of himself and like-minded traders could bring life to
his grandiose vision of self-aggrandizing success. But he fancies himself a
political hero as well; he longs to carry on the corruption of our republic, in
which society may act upon itself, by imposing a blank slate on which
progressives will continue to scratch out their ukase for our lives. This
is a man of hostile and cruel intent, not to be dismissed.
However,
his emotional maturity is that of a gamboling clown, suitable only for a
frivolous game show. When called to account for saying, in regard to John
McCain, he “likes people who didn’t get captured” by a father whose son had
been captured and killed in Iraq, the worms that are his lips seemed to wriggle
across his face in surprise. The reality that some people
suffer terribly, even to death in service—not to mention
their survivors—and that that fidelity to duty ought to be thus hallowed will
never be given entrance to his subjectivist mind. Bring me some wine he might
command, or perhaps a boy, or his buddy Robert Craft, but never will it occur
to him, as he slurps up the benefits the captured sometimes give their lives to
guard, to dignify their service with an expression of simple human gratitude
and lament. Life’s just a game show.
This
leads one to the contemplation of justice and dispensations. That it might be
possible to bring to justice those who have discarded their humanity—leaving
nothing but disdain for ours—with a special dispensation in the law.
Moreover, this benefits Bill Clinton who put Trump up to this. Bill is
desperate to stay out of court and, therefore, prison for launching on his
authority as president, a terror attack on a child whose only crime was being
my daughter. Bill wanted to punish us for his own gratification, and he wanted
to make her mom and I watch. He wanted us to see and to feel her daily,
unceasing degradation and he wanted Lynn and Gwen and Ashley to understand
their utter powerlessness to resist. In brief, he wanted to feel our pain—he
wanted to feed on it. We were all to be reposed in a prostrating grief because
Bill, and perhaps “Gang Rape Hillary,” said so. With the presumed nominations
of Hillary and Donald no matter who wins he will have a powerful friend in the
White House. Slick, Willy.
(Note: I
am easy to find Bill—and Hillary? And do please understand that whereas you
have in your filthy cowardice and your vicious plots savaged my child and
family, your daughter will never be savaged by my pen. History will show you as
you are, a couple of festering old trolls who, as everyone who knows trolls
will tell you, gave up light for darkness a very long time ago and run from the
consequences ever since. Keep running.)
Now we
know the “what” of Bill’s vile scheming. But there is more to the why of it.
Certainly Bill is gay and a sociopath. Nobody thinks more of smiling Bill than
Bill. So we may have been a somewhat random target; it has been my experience
that gays and feminists are often random killers. Yet even
they, sometimes, have a criterion to which they recur. Gays are
viciously hostile to anyone who does not, unreservedly, buy into their
doctrines; feminists take it a step further, nursing their hostility to men as
such: men are bad, if you are a man you are bad. Thus it may be that Bill and
“Gang Rape Hillary” perceived a variance of objective values and standards not
to be bridged by subjective relativism. The Christians, the “Platonic,
Aristotelian, Stoic…and Oriental,” had to go. Those holders of objective values
couldn’t be tolerated, “We’ll put them in their place, ship them off to be
dealt with by ISIS like those Christians and other religious minorities in the
middle-east,” they might have said. “What is wrong with genocide—they are
asking for it,” they might have said. (Genocide has been aided by the
policies that ignore the plight of Christians and other disfavored groups in
the middle-east.)
This may
all sound a little far-fetched, but no more so than walking into a place of
business and finding a pretty young woman wants to flirt with an older man, who
is decidedly less than irresistibly handsome, to thereby fabricate an excuse to
harm him—reciprocal flirting may now be worthy of the death penalty. But when
he doesn’t engage her with witty wordplay she wants to hurt him anyway. Or
walking into another business to be confronted, on separate occasions, by a
feminist and a homosexual, respectively, that wanted to hurt him for no
apparent reason.
Neither
is it any more improbable than Bill making tacit threats on a national scale
with Big Media’s help. Toward the end of his second term there was a spurt of
brief but seemingly incessant news coverage about the character of cat lovers.
They were, it was claimed by experts (so you know it’s true), prone to hold
grudges and seek revenge. This intellectual refuse—evidence of the misleading
stories frequently planted by the media—was followed by, of all things, news
coverage were Bill made his feline affections known while holding a cat. Having
taken a national stage to address a national audience it seems his object was
to threaten the nation. Jump for joy, Bill was on the job. In that one
action Bill, the homosexual movement, and the media, confessed their
unequivocal insanity for all to see. Moreover, they confessed themselves
terrorists who bear certain culpability for all the dead bodies that have
resulted from their illicit objects. Thus they have the same options as
any other terrorists at bay, surrender or die. (It is fervently hoped Bill
surrenders. On that day he is sentenced to spend the rest of his life in
prison, I have him pegged as a blubbering screamer.)
Further,
to name homosexuals terrorists is not hyperbole. Violence and threats of is
unexceptional, the usual means when the society does not acquiesce to their
demands and grovel; a record of which is not made known
by media but nevertheless exists.
In a
recent incident in Texas, two homosexuals, who approached bakers Edie and David
Delorme for a wedding cake whipped homosexuals into a frenzy of violence and
intimidation with the help of the local media when their request for that cake
was, with all courtesy, politely declined. In addition to various terror
threats of horrible violence, (e.g., burning down their house) the couple’s
young son was threatened with anal rape with a broken beer bottle if they did
not comply and participate in that homosexual “wedding” by baking a cake. The
bakers recently lost their 19 year old daughter in a car accident and because
of the intimidating phone calls had to send “their younger daughter to stay
with relatives.” There is no question that they were terrified. (Family
Research Council, 3/9/2016)
Their
names can now be added to the list of bakers, in this case, whose liberty,
religious and otherwise, has been forbidden by law and its oft masters,
homosexual terrorists, (male and female). Jack Phillips, Colorado; Victoria
Childress, Iowa; Daniel and Amy McArthur, Northern Ireland; David and Lily
Stockton, Indiana; and Aaron and Melissa Klein whose vicious treatment at the
hands of Oregon’s comrade Brad Avakian is instructive as to how freedom
including religious, is in peril at the subversive hands of progressives. In
the Klein’s case, Avakian seemed to be taking his instructions from
homosexuals—he was in touch with them frequently. The outcome surely pleased
them. Avakian issued a monstrous ORDER to pay a 135,000 fine and he, moreover,
decreed “the Klein’s…restrict expressing their religious views on marriage!”
Disdainful of constitutional authority he simply voided it; how very
progressive. Then he “garnished the Klein’s private bank accounts, to enforce payment
of the fine.” This included an account labeled “God’s Money” on bank documents.
However, the coup de grace to western thoughts of liberty may
be Avakian’s avowed intention to “rehabilitate” the Klein’s from their Biblical
beliefs. But, of course, if a restoration was what progressives had in
mind they would attack themselves. They must be confused. What they want is to
indoctrinate us. It is not enough to take physical possession of and
dominate a population, we must accept their conditioning, and grovel. (Family
Research Council, 3/14/2016)
If you
think the chattering class does not endorse homicide think again. Years after
Bills admission of his insanity a story came up on the national news about a
child who had been playing unsupervised with a gun. It was documented with a
video-tape taken not far away by some progressives. The parents were shooting
on a range. The child escaped their notice, went to the car, retrieved the
weapon and as children are prone to do he gave it a thorough examination. As
the parents knew, the weapon was unloaded, so no worries. However, the
videographers did not know that, and thinking the gun was loaded kept on
recording for something like half an hour. They said they feared for the
child’s safety if they intervened. The parents were savaged by the media even
though the gun was unloaded. But nary a word of condemnation was to be heard
for the good progressives taking the pictures. They wanted that kid to die.
That is why they did not intervene. And the media supported them.
Progressives, of whom the Donald is one, want to be the big dog and call the
shots for America; Trump wants to be the biggest. Having distinguished
himself as the alpha pooch he stands at the head of the mostly gay presidential
pack, lifting his leg on good sense and common decency, our objective values
and liberties. Like demagogues of all time he happily hurls empty epithets to
play on citizen’s frustration and fear in order to lure the despairing to his
side. He is adept at entertaining an exasperated crowd that, having become
accustomed to living on empty promises and drama, yet for their patriotism
desperate to see reform, does not notice his is just another empty
entertainment. The audience is “having a lot of fun,” he says, “We are going to
be so great,” he says, “This is huge,” he says. But what he says is nothing but
airy adjectives and vituperative posturing. He has nothing to say of substance
except that which he will not say publicly. That is, society will be
formed by progressives, not society.
Nor does
this put him at odds with republican moderates who as a species are
parasitical creatures with no real principles. They are just along for the
ride. Pestilent little wretches, they content themselves with gnawing at the
substance of what they do not understand in order to keep, what are, for the
most part, the best jobs they ever had. Theirs is not to excel but to keep the
cash and benefits coming. So they sink their sharp little teeth into the body
national and content themselves with nibbling at the necrosis of standards
along the way; political, intellectual, moral, philosophical, cultural, they
are all to be debunked. What they are to be replaced with they do not know, but
progressives will inform them at the proper time.
These
are charges that will certainly be fought. Politicians who raise their, mostly
pinkish, rumps in surrender to hostile insurgents (manliness taken aback, or in
arrear) cannot just admit it, they would lose their jobs. So they will
make much of such things as “no new taxes,” conveniently ignoring the reality
that such as this ploy is analogous to a recreant knife in the back of the
nation. These politicians want public and private institutions to keep paying
for superfluous stuff; it makes them look good, hence electable. Yet at the
same time refusing to raise taxes to pay for these indulgences drives up the
nation’s debt. The status quo or the results of their policies becomes that
which progressives want moderates to conserve, so far so good. They get elected
but it is a callous strategy that they know will end in a heritable harm to the
country and its people—especially to those in the lower half of the earnings
spectrum. (There is a fallacious argument that debt, national and
unfunded, isn’t really that bad because posterity is inheriting our assets as
well. That is like willing a mortgaged property to your child. Title is always
held by the debtee; until the account is settled the child holds title to but a
reckoning, thus made a slave to the former generation’s self-indulgence.)
But this
does not budge them from hitching a ride on the progressive bandwagon that
daily trundles down the imaginary road of a fallacious progress. If they were
to refer to history they would find that even a mere fifty years ago things
were quite different in America. It was a time when a single mother could take
a job as an office girl and buy a car and pay for it in a short time, rent a
home (on the beach), and live; a time when pennies would be pinched but there
would be enough. A time of happiness in one’s little platoon where conversation
was a skill taken for granted and the social graces and good will a common balm
in a common life; a time when law was not a tyrant and often had a short
memory; when authorities other than the law often as not resolved matters; the
cops (if I may) might very well have been respected neighbors; and federal
involvement in citizen’s lives was definitely more limited. Of course, that was
all about to change, and it did.
America
has been defrauded. There is no evidence that for all the pretensions of
“progress” we are any better off. In fact we are worse off, and the deleterious
results seem to have been foreordained by progressives, i.e., they seem to be
making a deliberate attempt to tear down liberalism and replace it with
Totalitarian Socialism or Progressivism.
Montesquieu wrote, “The customs of an enslaved people are a part of their
servitude, those of a free people are a part of their liberty.” Furthermore,
the principle of a republic is virtue, that of despotism is fear, said he.
The
habits and manners of American society were shaped by its religious
constitution and the practical experience of governing themselves. Having
separated themselves from the strictures of the former system, equality was
defined by individual participation, political and economic; hence laws and
manners accorded with the nature of the society that formed them, they were
reciprocal. Habits of liberty came of opportunities taken to improve their
fortunes; hence entrepreneurship and respect for property became the norm. And
self-interest came to fruition and liberty was guarded in cooperative endeavors
for the common good, independent associations. No man is an island and they
knew it.
This
produced a culture fashioned after external standards, actuated and sustained
by gratitude and affection for the equality and liberty that shaped the
nation—with resulting muscles, so to speak—improving and reproducing society
according to its foundations, for a very long time. (Remember the move from the
Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.)
But a
youthful liberty that moved of its own free will has aged to decrepitude.
Permissions and punishments have supplanted freedoms vigor and equality has
surrendered to privilege. This while nature’s law has been subverted by an
elite few who, directed by their appetites, decide what is better and what is
worse.
Societal
norms form its physiognomy. Today, the mores, habits, attitudes and
beliefs—even those of science, sometimes—that come into conflict with so called
progress are connoted walls, society’s benighted opposition to progressive’s
tenets, to be torn down by authorities from on high who know better, or so we
are told. But, in fact, these are the last vestiges of our former ethos,
and an accountability that progressives oppose with servitude. (For an
example of progressives assault on science and children see attached)
Progress
can be like putting a bandage on a wound that never heals, that being our less
than perfectible human nature (though that does not foreclose trying) that can
bring about entropy in the best of institutions. A Burkean incremental change
addressed to specific needs, while mindful of the whole, can bring about
improvement while guarding systemic integrity. But neglect and stratagem
and ultimately a state of ethical and political desuetude that hollows out our
institutions has left them prone to occupation by political speculators.
Separation of church and state is a useful illustration. The metaphor, in the
style of progressives, has been perverted by the courts. The religion clause in
the First Amendment was meant to shield the exercise of faith from government
interference, including Establishment. So the institution of democracy as
equality would be preserved for religion; and the resulting freedom would
protect the individual and corporate lives in which it dwelt from coercion,
both individuals and communities were to be free. But equal liberty and
reciprocal equality, and the law of nature as understood from their religious
constitution, those same that formed our nation, are now considered
illegitimate parturitions to be declared by, not the law, but, the political
cant of the courts, unviable. Benign expressions of faith are now their sworn
enemy.
This
ought not to surprise us given the courts hostility to the integrity of
institutions and private associations that formerly guarded our independence.
Shock and terror, shame and mourning are the appropriate sentiments. For
whatever institution is thus enervated will simply cease to exist, continuing
as a witting or unwitting puppet of the state, if anything. The objective
values in the Declaration have been repudiated by progressives. They are nearly
empty words that have very little of their original meaning left. The courts,
glutted on their, now, unchallenged sovereign authority, will redefine and
sanction what they please. Thus progress will make irrelevant the accountability
of the state. The people can shut up or suffer the consequences. Stalin’s
smiling.
The race for the presidency goes
on. But it is not a pretty picture. One is reminded of childish disputes of
yore when tantrums gave voice to the reign of immaturity until proper habits
and attitudes had been inculcated by example. Unfortunately, those dispositions
did not take, so to speak, in the current crop of hopefuls. Perhaps they need a
time out.
The
political insincerity and scheming of the mostly gay candidates is, however,
fascinating. Chris Christie has endorsed the Donald. But he has always
been Mitt Romney’s boy, and Mitt (who wanted to give me a ride in his airplane
after I denounced him. I have the email) has lambasted Donald. Ted Cruz has
made overtures of an alliance accepted by the Donald and yet their
choreographed war of words goes on. And poor Marco, perhaps, unaware of the
swirling intrigues traipsed on, until the polls collapsed. And we ought not to
forget John Kasich who just wants everybody to come together. This is his
general policy, hugs for everybody. Yet if he had bothered to consult thinkers
such as Robert Bork he would understand things are not that simple. Kasich is
like his fellow candidates an experienced politician. But given their reticence
in speaking to issues that harm the nation, their complaisant acceptance of the
status quo, or the establishment, and his apparently comfortable place in their
company he appears to have nothing to offer the nation. The liberty of our
republic to act on itself is in conflict with a barbarous disassociation that
means to vanquish it. There is no indication he will take a stand for the
nation. He is another dog to be fed from the table, not unlike his
co-conspirators.
So ends
this missive.
I have the honor to be,
Lynn Swartos
Gender
Ideology Harms Children
March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full
statement will be published in summer 2016.
The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and
legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal
a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not
ideology – determine reality.
1. Human sexuality is an objective biological
binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers
of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived
either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious
purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle
is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs),
including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal
hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary
norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with
DSDs do not constitute a third sex.1
2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born
with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or
female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective
biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as
male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental
processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships,
and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling
like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex.
They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4
3. A person’s belief that he or she is something
they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an
otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy
biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem
exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such.
These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly
listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in
the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the
American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The
psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5
4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking
hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking
hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit
growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.6
5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of
gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their
biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5
6. Children who use puberty blockers to
impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late
adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with
dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood
clots, stroke and cancer.7,8,9,10
7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater
among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery,
even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.11 What
compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate
knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will
eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?
8. Conditioning children into believing a
lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal
and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as
normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and
parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will
be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they
will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex
hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy
body parts as young adults.
Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians
President of the American College of Pediatricians
Quentin Van Meter, M.D.
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist
Paul McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital
References:
1. Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development,
“Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in
Childhood.” Intersex Society of North America, March 25, 2006. Accessed 3/20/16
from http://www.dsdguidelines.org/files/clinical.pdf.
2. Zucker, Kenneth J. and Bradley Susan J. “Gender Identity
and Psychosexual Disorders.”FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong
Learning in Psychiatry. Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 2005 (598-617).
3. Whitehead, Neil W. “Is Transsexuality biologically
determined?” Triple Helix (UK), Autumn
2000, p6-8. accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm;
see also Whitehead, Neil W. “Twin Studies of Transsexuals [Reveals
Discordance]” accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transs_stats.htm.
4. Jeffreys, Sheila. Gender Hurts: A Feminist
Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge, New York,
2014 (pp.1-35).
5. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth
Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013
(451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.
6. Hembree, WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of transsexual
persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94:3132-3154.
7. Olson-Kennedy, J and Forcier, M. “Overview of the management
of gender nonconformity in children and adolescents.” UpToDate November 4,
2015. Accessed 3.20.16 from www.uptodate.com.
8. Moore, E., Wisniewski, & Dobs, A. “Endocrine treatment of
transsexual people: A review of treatment regimens, outcomes, and adverse
effects.” The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism,
2003; 88(9), pp3467-3473.
9. FDA Drug Safety Communication issued for Testosterone
products accessed 3.20.16:
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm161874.htm.
10. World Health Organization Classification of Estrogen as a
Class I Carcinogen:
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment