transgender – USA Gov Policy

Part 2 of Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) concludes his examination of the issue of parental roles and involvement in transgender issues.

Recent studies have recognized the value of “pretend play” to the development of a young child. Such activity allows a child to learn about what they like or dislike, or to confront scary and confusing situations. When a child goes to the doctor, the child will sometimes pretend to be the doctor, in an effort to assimilate and interpret the experience for him or herself. Parents who understand the value of this form of play often have “prop boxes” at home, which allow a child to pick up an item, such as a shield and helmet, and pretend they are a knight. .

While many of us may not approve of our 9 year old daughter proclaiming that she is a boy, and exclusively wearing masculine clothes, acceptance of this decision may aid in the development of your child. (I do not advocate for such a choice here – but I also will not stand in judgment of the parent who decides this is the best path for their particular child). However, the real issue of concern develops when the parent of such a child decides to use chemicals and drugs to make the child’s perceived identity into reality.

When a child moves beyond mere play, and seriously demands that others consider the child to be other than their biological gender, a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” may apply – that is, “distress” caused by a conflict in gender. For this diagnosis to apply, the child must exhibit a series of behaviors lasting more than 6 months, including insisting that they are the opposite gender; a strong desire to wear the clothes, play with the toys, and play with other children of the identified gender; and express a strong dislike of their actual anatomy. .

When is it appropriate to chemically “transition” a child with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria? The responsible answer is, not until they are an adult, and can make the decision for themselves. As reported in the New York Times, “Several studies have tracked the persistence of gender dysphoria in children as they grow. For example, Dr. Richard Green’s study of young boys with gender dysphoria in the 1980s found that only one of the 44 boys was gender dysphoric by adolescence or adulthood. And a 2008 study by Madeleine S. C. Wallein, at the VU University Medical Center in the Netherlands, reported that in a group of 77 young people, ages 5 to 12, who all had gender dysphoria at the start of the study, 70 percent of the boys and 36 percent of the girls were no longer gender dysphoric after an average of 10 years’ follow-up.” .

Well, the name sounds so intoxicating.And as time passes, many people are realizing soft tadalafil the importance of driver Education online. This was like a single person – someone who’s never even been able to get a second cialis canada online date – providing marriage counseling. Lots of men have achieved effective results to improve the cialis online uk erection quality within a few minutes of the admission. This drug interacts with some medicines; so detailed information about those drugs should be taken by following the complete instructions to get its complete side effects. http://raindogscine.com/?attachment_id=84 levitra canada prescription

Yet, there are medical professionals who would give a child as young as James Younger hormone blockers that could chemically castrate the child for life – on the orders of that child’s parent.

Why would a parent want to perpetrate such an act, with such finality, upon a child? In the Younger case, the evidence points to the mother and not the child, as truly desiring the change. Jeff Younger has video recorded his son informing him that his mother tells him he is a girl and painting his nails. Dr. Georgulas is also reported to have rejected James’ first choice for a name – “Starfire,” a character in the popular “Teen Titans” cartoon. Dr. Georgulas considered that name ridiculous and encouraged the child to adopt a name more to her liking – “Luna.” .

It is one thing to accept your child’s determination to dress as the opposite sex, and role-play that choice. But to use powerful hormone blockers and other chemicals to prevent the onset of puberty to effectuate a childish choice is irresponsible parenting in its best light, and child abuse at its worst.

Frankly, the social desire to encourage gender fluidity, which is prevalent in today’s society, must stop at the doors of the nursery.

Illustration: Pixabay

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government is honored to present this guest commentary by the distinguished retired jurist, John H. Wilson. John H. Wilson is a former Judge of the New York City Criminal Court. He has served as an Assistant District Attorney, and a Public Defender.

Every one of us have made decisions and wish we’d done things differently. However, few have the long lasting repercussion of the surgical removal of a sexual organ. When these decisions have been made by an adult, that adult can only blame themselves for their error. But what if the decision to transition from one sex to another is made by a child?

Increasingly, Transgenderism is being diagnosed in children, some as young as 5 years old. Parents with young children who identify as other than their birth sex are now frequently consenting to a medical provider giving that child hormone-blockers, in anticipation of the future removal of that child’s sexual organs.

This is obviously a controversial choice for a parent to make on behalf of their young child, one that has stirred debate across the country, if not the world. But now, the American College of Pediatricians has stepped into the controversy regarding children with “gender dysphoria” – and stated clearly and unequivocally that “conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.”

Citing to scientific standards, the Pediatric group states that “human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health,” and as such, “Everyone is born with a biological sex,” that is, either male or female. While this may seem obvious to most people, the conclusion the College draws from this fact is what has stirred controversy: “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.”

The Pediatric group has no problem with stating that “gender dysphoria.” is, in fact, a recognized mental illness. Quoting from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition(DSM-V). page 455, the College states that those distressed and impaired by “gender dysphoria” meet the definition of a psychiatric disorder. But here, significantly, the Pediatric group disagrees with the treatment generally prescribed to “cure” the disorder.

“Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous.” the doctors write. “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.”

As expected, the backlash against the College has been vicious. The website for Think Progress calls the College a “hate group,” and cites to the Southern Poverty Law Center for support. Further, the Huffington Post turns the College’s position on its head, and accuses the Pediatric Group of being the ones endangering the lives of transgender youth.

Predictably, however, the majority of the mainstream media has largely ignored the statement published by the College.

This silence is not surprising, given that the majority of coverage given to this issue favors gender reassignment. On Slate, we find headlines such as “Raising a Trans Child is not Child Abuse,” and “How to tell Aunt Esther That Her Niece is Now Her Nephew.”

In recent years, those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery are celebrated. For instance, on Slate appears an article about a 7 year old boy, “My Son Loves My Little Pony,” in which a father discusses how hard it is for “boys who want to embrace their femininity,” since “men and boys are mostly shamed for expressing anything outside of the macho ideal.”
Muscle contraction is the main sildenafil pills contributor to this type of headache. Do you know that prescription viagra prices there was no effective treatment for infections. Plus, slovak-republic.org buy super cialis your relationship with your partner deepens even more. The following is a laundry list of accidents, injuries, getting viagra in australia damages and deaths.
Stories can be found from those who deeply regret taking a knife to their sexuality. At the website “Sex Change Regret,” http://www.sexchangeregret.com/ Walt Heyer documents his own transition from male, to female, and back to male. He also reports the experience of M, who states “although I thought I was completely sure of what I was doing, I began to regret the decision a mere three weeks after the operation.”

In England, Chelsea Attonley, who transitioned from a male to a female, and lived as a female for 7 years, wishes to return to her original male identity. Chelsea states that “no amount of surgery can give me an actual female body and I feel like I am living a lie.” Yet, the sub headlines to the story in the Daily Mail focus on the cost to the National Health System of both the original and the reversal surgery.

Given the history described here, it is not surprising that the few non-conservative news outlets that have covered the statement made by the American College of Pediatricians have attacked the position, and instead document the strong necessity of supporting your child’s decision to be transgender, no matter what their age.

There are few stories available regarding the regrets felt by children at their transition. Ria Cooper began receiving female hormone treatments at the age of 16. He states that the last time he dressed as a boy was when he was 10 years old. In 2012, at the age of 18, Cooper decided to return to his male identity. In 2010, he stated the obvious truth that his doctors ignored – “People might think I’m too young to make such a huge decision.” (Daily Mail)

At his website Sex Change Regret, Walt Heyer describes “one controversial treatment for children with gender dysphoria is the administration of drugs called hormone blockers to delay puberty…(yet) most will grow out of the dysphoria. Isn’t there some way to work through the distress than experimenting on our children?”

Here, then, is the issue in a nutshell – Celebrating the “lifestyle choices,” of the gender confused ignores the medical and psychological issues involved in gender reassignment surgery, including the deep regret felt by many of those who have undergone these invasive and dangerous surgical procedures.

The American College of Pediatricians does not hesitate to point out the detrimental health effects of gender reassignment surgery. “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.” Further, “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 LGBTQ – affirming countries.”

It is one thing when the choice to transition has been made by an adult, of legal age to make such a significant decision. But when we are discussing a choice made by a child, legally incapable of making a decision without the consent of a parent, the utter irresponsibility of blocking the onset of that child’s puberty is manifest.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.