Main Edition
US
FR
August 28, 2024 - 8:30pm
The American Medical Association’s new draft style guide on gender-related language promotes activist terminology which downplays sex differences in medical literature.
The guide, which is still in draft form and must go through a public comment and approval process before it becomes official, suggests the organisation has no plans to pivot away from its longstanding support for cross-sex medical interventions to treat gender-related distress, including for minors. It expands on the AMA’s previous support for what it calls “inclusive language”, such as its suggestion that researchers use the term “sex assigned at birth” rather than “sex”.
GLAAD, an LGBT activist group that staunchly opposes legal limits on child medical transitions and has pushed social media companies to censor discussion of the procedures, is referenced seven times in the new guide. The AAP repeats the group’s definitions of terms such as “queer” and “nonbinary”. When explaining that the term “homosexual” should be avoided in favour of “gay” or “men who have sex with men”, the AMA guidance again cites GLAAD.
“Gender” is a “social construct”, according to the document’s 300-word definition of the term. The definition notes that “all cultures do not use a binary masculine-feminine system.” It also cites a World Health Organization definition, which reports that gender “is hierarchical and produces inequalities that intersect with social and economic inequalities”.
Authors and editors of medical research are encouraged to use gender-neutral terminology in the context of pregnancy, childbirth and infant care. While “chestfeeding” should generally only be used when transgender people are involved, other gender-neutral terms are encouraged in all contexts, including “pregnant people”, “persons with childbearing potential”, and “nonpregnant partners”. The AMA guide does endorse some limits on activist language. For instance, “people with uteruses” and other “overly clinical” terms are discouraged.
The AMA boasts of more than 700,000 members and publishes the highly influential Journal of the American Medical Association. Its support for cross-sex treatments for minors, and its opposition to legislation restricting the practice, has helped form the perception in the US that there is a consensus within the medical community on the matter, a favourite talking point among activists. While there is considerable debate within the medical community on the subject, most major medical institutions formally endorse “gender-affirming care” for children, a phenomenon that opponents attribute to ideological capture by a vocal minority of members.
The AMA has been contacted for comment.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeEveryone, please understand this: the AMA represents less than 15% of America’s practicing physicians. What the AMA “thinks” is not what the majority of US physicians think. This may change in the next decades if the woke-educated take the profession over as time churns on.
But the public does not know this. And believes this is medical gospel.
The public has it correctly. The AMA represents the overwhelming majority of American physicians. The fringe group ACPeds is the opposition among American doctors insofar as LGBTQ people go, and they have 0.02% of American physicians as members.
15% compared to 0.02% membership of the whole group. Can you math?
The AMA’s membership includes most practicing physicians, but the Woke political views of its radical permanent staff most definitely do not represent those of its mainstream members.
“The AMA’s membership includes most practicing physicians” <– Nevermind anything else, you think 15% is most?! :rolleyes:
The fact is that AMA membership is voluntary, as is membership in the (on this issue) competing anti-LGBTQ hate group ACPeds. AMA has 15% membership out of licensed American physicians, ACPeds has 0.02%
Are you disregarding 85% of the silent majority of doctors?
I am regarding the relative membership fractions of 15% vs. 0.02%.
Honest question – Why do you come on here, day after day, to argue the same points that literally no one agrees with? I understand that your beliefs are the basis for your life as a trans person, but you need to understand that doesn’t mean everyone is going to agree with you. Just as not everyone believes the same as a Christian or Jew or Muslim, you have to let it be.
The physical reality is you cannot change your sex. You can alter the appearance through hormones and surgery, but your sex is set by your chromosomes and gametes. Yes, there are people with DSD, but they are estimated to be .018 percent of human beings, and nearly all of them are genetically male or female.
It is has been especially hurtful to include women with PCOS in the statistics of “intersex” to artificially inflate those statistics. As PCOS indicates, Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome is a condition only WOMEN can get. It is not an intersex condition. My good friend with PCOS is now 6 months pregnant and healthy. Only a woman can be so.
Live your life as you choose. Most people don’t have an issue with that. But trying to force everyone into your reality has brought the resentment your are fighting here. Invading women’s spaces unnecessarily (there are unisex bathrooms or single unit bathrooms nearly everywhere now), taking women’s sporting trophies, going to women’s rape and homeless shelters – this is just wrong.
Before all this, plenty of men who identified as woman quietly passed and no one had an issue. But this obnoxious demand that we all join in your beliefs has done great harm to every LGB person.
“Why do you come on here, day after day, to argue the same points that literally no one agrees with?” <– To say what is real into the teeth of lies. And no one here maybe — I know how pathetic, wrong, and in the minority you really are.
“The physical reality is you cannot change your sex” <– Physical reality is “sex changes” work exactly as described on the several applicable labels.
“you need to understand that doesn’t mean everyone is going to agree with you.” <– Imbecile, it is not that I doubt you really believe the child abusing nonsense you claim to which is the reason I bother to be here.
“You can alter… can be so.” <– None of which has anything to do with it. Every word you said there is untrue or irrelevant.
“But trying to force everyone into your reality has brought the resentment your are fighting here.” <– There is only one reality, you are in denial of it. For the sake of affirming your delusion, you seek to hurt people. You don’t get to do that without friction.
“Live your life … every LGB person.” <– And also is irrelevant and untrue every word you said there.
Every thing you have said here is based on your delusional views of what is physically true. What is measured, how biology actually works and how complicated it really is. You are uneducated drastically and think it is far more simple than it really is.
It’s LGBTQIA.etc.etc, because every member of every minority in sexual dimorphism is equally reviled and loathed by you bigots, the Social Conservatives. What details of bigotry an individual social conservative may have mean nothing to how your herd stampedes.
If you succeed in pushing transgender people into misery unto depression, quietude, and death, you won’t stop there.
So calling me an imbecile is supposed to sway my opinion? It seems you come on here to rage at people. Not the sign of a very healthy mind.
As for LGBTQIA, who is persecuting Asexuals? Who even knows you don’t have sex unless you tell them? How perfectly absurd.
And intersex is a medical misnomer, and people with DSD did not ask nor want to be included in your acronym. They were put there to be used as “proof” that sex was not binary, which it most certainly is. As I said, even people with DSD are genetically male or female.
No one is pushing transgender people into depression, etc. But your demands are hysterical and narcissistic. If you are so convinced you are a woman, why do you need everyone else to agree? It’s like me demanding everyone tell me I am beautiful.
Your obsession with the world bending to your will is quite unreasonable and more than a little unhinged.
“So calling me an imbecile is supposed to sway my opinion?” <– It is only accurate description of you. Repair your faults.
So litttle as the proposal that children be subsidized by the public purse is an abuse of assexual people — and that has been quire seriously proposed recently.
“And intersex is a medical misnomer, and people with DSD did not ask nor want to be included in your acronym” <– You have not mentioned any reason I should take seriously what you pretend. Even if you could find a person willing to say they are in that category and agree with you, it would not change that they are in the category. Feelings do not change facts, that you feel otherwise is an example of your imbecility.
“No one is pushing transgender people into depression, etc” <– Nonsense liar, you are trying your very hardest here to do exactly that.
“Your obsession with the world bending to your will is quite unreasonable and more than a little unhinged.” <– Yes it was so unreasonable for Rosa Parks to not got to the back of the bus.
You viscous little bigots will be made to bend yourselves to the just and common good. Every bit as much as the Klan was. You are no better or different from they.
You exemplify that groups of people are stupid, panicky animals, by with reasonless fears easily exploited for political gain.
I wonder at what innocents you will point your vile hatred next. It could be gingers. It would make as much sense.
Then I will argue here for the gingers.
Do you have a job? Or are you on government assistance? Because you are posting on here all day ever day.
I work my a$$ off every workday, however — I am motivated to assail you proud, stupid child abusers at any and every opportunity.
It’s easy to do, I have facts on tap and you don’t even care what they are.
It has a sad life. Neither fish nor fowl.
And you are too invested in your love of lies and child abuse, to realize we do this so we can be less of “neither fish nor fowl”.
You brainless, heartless moron.
Please understand this — they represent near all American physicians — very much in contrast to their opposition in this who number about 0.02% of American physicians. That is the ACPeds organization and those illustrious quacks number among themselves a dentist running a church where an attempt was made to resurrect the dead through prayer. I am not joking or exaggerating at all.
So your equivalent medical colleagues in politically motivated child abuse are outnumbered 1 to about 825.
AMA membership ~271,000, US active physicians ~1,109,000
So that is 24.4%, or less if you add non practicing and retired doctors.
I believe the 15% refers to license holding/practicing physicians.
And the point stands overall quite well, there are almost 3 orders of magnitude of difference between the numbers supporting or rejecting the WPATH standards of care — with gender affirming care being that supported.
Membership of the AMA or for that matter the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) does not signify agreement with the statements from these organizations. The reason physicians are members is because they are associated with board certification. At lest in the UK some common sense in the form of the Kass report has emerged.
The Cass Report is quite properly pointed out to be cherry picking writ overlarge, it has no legitimacy.
The relative membership fraction of the AMA vs. the ACPeds hate group are perfectly illustrative of the relative support of the two viewpoints among American physicians.
15% vs 0.02%.
Unlike the UK, which enjoys socialist politics first, budgeting next, patients last medical care — the US understands and respects data first, and fiscal reality next, with patients well-being the overarching goal.
“Membership of the … report has emerged.” <— Bullshit, Johann.
The fact the AMA has as members 15% of American physicians is as significant as the ACPeds hate group having 0.02% membership – it shows the impression American physicians have generally of the two organization’s policies.
How hysterically funny “The UnHerd” had to protect its herd from hearing facts that damage the gender critical narrrative! They disappeared this:
***
Please understand this — they represent near all American physicians — very much in contrast to their opposition in this who number about 0.02% of American physicians. That is the ACPeds organization and those illustrious quacks number among themselves a dentist running a church where an attempt was made to resurrect the dead through prayer. I am not joking or exaggerating at all.
So your equivalent medical colleagues in politically motivated child abuse are outnumbered about 1 to 825.
***
What praytell is the reason they think no one should know that?
***
***
And now the original has reappeared. I will leave this up, as that should never have disappeared.
Nobody has any objections to adults mutilating their bodies and call themselves whatever they want, but to mutilate children’s bodies is a whole different case. Do you have children? If you have, you know that they don’t possess the ability to decide life altering changes in their life. They hardly know what food is good for them.
There is no point in replying to TP. This person is a trans activist and is not open to facts or reason. Avoid responding. TP is very well defended, as comments here show. I follow my own advice because of this.
Funny, you have never even attempted to present any actual facts supporting what you say you want.
“They hardly know what food is good for them.” <– Except data proves you wrong, and, you seek to force some boys to have breasts and periods, and to force some girls to have beards and deep voices. The gender of a person is created by the processes of fetal development — they are only deciding what to about the very accurately diagnosed, uncommon discrepancy.
You are the only person here proposing to mandate children be mutilated.
Thanks for making that clear. I just couldn’t believe that the whole medical institution is going gaga.
They are claiming a lie. For those so motivated to join either organization for any reason the AMA outnumbers the opposition about 825 to 1.
Thanks for sharing this information; I hope your prediction is wrong, and that sanity instead reasserts. That said, Samantha (below — I feel so bewitched!) has a point that the public weighs AMA stances as authoritative.
“ all cultures do not use a binary masculine-feminine system.” this had me chuckling. It may be the case that not all cultures use binary system, but most do. When the WHO can’t even write in scientifically accurate language we might question its relevance as an advisory body.
I’m not actually sure the claim is even true. While some cultures (e.g. Thai, Indian, Polynesian) have a concept vaguely akin to trans (albeit, almost exclusively male-attracted males, and usually overlapping conceptually with effeminate gay men), as far as I know, all of those cultures still have ‘man’ and ‘woman’ as fixed, distinct concepts.
The idea of ‘non-binary’, as in, a person who is supposedly not a man or a woman at all but something else entirely is, as far as I can tell, a completely 21st century Western phenomenon. The binary masculine-feminine system is a cultural universal.
“I’m not actually … a cultural universal.” <– You’ve already revealed yourself to be a moon landing hoax grade of conspiracy nutjob, so I have no trouble believing you understand and seek to understand nothing of this.
Non binary has nothing to do with being a 3rd category.
Maybe I could learn something from you?
If ‘non-binary’ is not a third category, what is it?
The classical model would be that all humans come in one of two categories, male or female, with, OK, a tiny group of ‘cannot determine’ (intersex). Could you describe your model, and how ‘non-binary’ fits into it?
Both. Just like they say. Over and over. Not either alone.
Often enough I have no idea where you got they idea they were thought a ~3rd~ sex category.
‘Both’ is logically impossible – without redefining what male and female means.
Two ways of looking at it, I guess:
I identify as male, which by (my) definition means I cannot be female. My wife identifies as female, which by (her) definition means that she cannot be male. If you identify as both together, that is a new category that does not match what other people mean by those words. You could divide people by how they identify, which means that ‘non-binary’ would become a third category of identification (never mind that the various identifications do not add up to a consistent model). Or a third social role, if you like.
Or you could insist that ‘male’ and female’ do not exist, which would amount to forcing your categories and your identification onto me (as in ‘I am really non-binary, everybody is, just that I am deluded and think differently’). At which point I will answer back in spades, and insist on applying my categories to you.
How would you clarify this one?
“‘Both’ is logically impossible” <– Uhuh, tell it to the visibly intersex, or for example someone with an ovotestes.
Human (for that matter, most large multi-celled organisms) have two sexes, which are directions towards which sexual dimorphism can go, for any given sexual characteristic. That is the extent to which it is literally a binary. The individual results per individual are quite typically able to reproduce, heterosexual and cisgender for about 92%+/-2% for the population overall. The distribution of results is strongly bimodal.
Non-binary refers to a relatively evenly mixed result with respect to the development of gender in an individual and has no connotations as to reproductive capabilities or intentions.
This is interesting.
Can I propose some definitions, to make it clearer what we are saying?
Sex (in my definition) is biological and objective.
Gender is a matter of ‘social role’, and is defined by social consensus. Who is accepted as which gender is defined by the people in your society.
Identification is a matter of where you feel you belong. It is a purely internal matter, with no connection to social consensus or biological reality.
To illustrate:
‘Am I a biological child of King Charles?’ is biological and objective.
‘Am I the heir to the throne?’ is social. It depends on the rules people apply and various circumstances ‘Am I the eldest, born out of wedlock, male or female, …).
‘Do I believe I should be the next King’ is purely subjective.
So, when you say
what do you mean? Do you mean that you have an evenly mixed development of sex in an individual (objective and biolocigal), something like what I call intersex? If so, how can it be unrelated to reproductive capability? Or are you talking about what I call identification, or gender – and if so how does it make sense to talk about ‘evenly mixed’?
“Gender is a matter of ‘social role’, and is defined by social consensus.”
What is supported by evidence is that gender is as physical as is the sex of a person. What you are referring to as gender are gendered behaviors and expectations, those are social.
The sex of the person is between the legs, the gender is between the ears — it averages about 4cubic mm apparently, what is known of it. It is sexually dimorphic in size, shape, connectivity, and patterns of activity. Not being involved in the production or development of gametes, it is not directly involved in reproduction.
Being a portion of the physical sexual dimorphism of people, it is as susceptible to intersex variations with itself and within other sexually dimorphic tissues.
OK, just one more question before we start arguing: What does ‘gender’ (in your definition) control: Just the sense of identity? Or behaviour, attitudes, levels of aggression, nurturing behaviour etc.? How dimorphic is it?
Rasmus, thank you, thank you. We owe you.
I have already answered your every question before, try reading.
And we won’t argue at all — I will say what I know to be true and relevant, you will say what I can prove is untrue or irrelevant.
OK. Thanks for the detailed answers – I think I understand what you are saying. Which, as I see it is logical, consistent and makes sense of your position – only it is (as I see it) totally lacking in proof. If you can prove that it is true, could you please send me the links?
As I understand it, you are saying that what you call gender is an objective biological feature of the brain showing sexual dimorphism (I shall call it ‘brainsex’) that is independent of the ‘bodysex’. If the two clash (as it were), you get a trans person, and if the ‘brainsex’ is intermediate you get a non-binary person, which is the ‘brainsex’ equivalent of intersex.
If that is true it can be proved objectively, but you need to do a lot. First you need to show that the brain region you are looking at does show a clear sexual dimorphism. You need to be able to identify (cis) men and women reliably from brain scans alone, for large, double-blind samples to guard against bias and errors. Next you need to show that the ‘brainsex’ correlates with gender identification, for trans people where the two are not parallel, again on large data sets in double-blind mode. Finally you need to show that intermediate results for the ‘brainsex’ correlate with non-binary people.
Once you have done that you need to face up to some political consequences. If cis/trans orientation is caused by an objectively identifiable brain feature, then self-identification must be rejected out of hand. You would have the support that people with a trans ‘brainsex’ were provably trans, and would deserve recognition and support accordingly. But at the same time people whose ‘brainsex’ did *not* support an identification as trans would have to be barred from accessing whatever rights or facilities were made available to trans people – since they were objectively and provably cis by the same criterion you are using.
Even after this, there would still be a few discussions to be had about exactly how society should deal with people who were, by your definition, objectively ‘brain-intersex’ (or non-binary). After all, society still has not settled exactly what is the best way of dealing with physically intersex people, like Caster Semyona. But you would be in quite a strong position – if you can prove your claims.
Unfortunately I have never heard of anyone who came even close to proving the kind of thing you are claiming. In fact even scientists who tried to define male and female brains and identify them from brain scans – a much easier proposition – never managed to convince a consensus of their scientific peers. So, unless you can come up with a lot of convincing evidence I am afraid I shall continue to reject your conclusions.
“Which, as I see it is logical, consistent and makes sense of your position – only it is (as I see it) totally lacking in proof.” <– Then prove that.
You’ll have a tough time, there is no evidence for anything other.
No, the brain is a part of the body, it a part of the sexual dimorphism of the body. It is already indisputable as a factual matter, that the brain is sexually dimorphic and that a portion of that dimorphism produces the gender. Solely political motivations bring anyone including supposed scientists such as Lise Eliot to otherwise.
Nothing you have claimed follows logically from anything I have said, in fact does so. All of it is your strawman stupidity.
Transgender women used the ladie’s room for decades without any trouble at all for anyone, and there is no grounds for your moral panic about it now — and that was before the development of facial feminization surgery at that. There was no furor about it until you Social Conservatives began to propose checking people’s privates.
The sole issue with any sort of intersex athlete is their blood testosterone level in the two years prior to competing in women’s categories — it is already known that that being reduced to typical cisgender females levels removes any masculine advantage.
“Unfortunately I have never heard of anyone who came even close to proving the kind of thing you are claiming.” <– Yes, it was already clear you only pay attention to the lies you love.
The evidence proving what I say is in fact overwhelming — that is why for example the AMA outnumbers its competitors in this area 825 to 1, and why gender affirming care became the standard approach over 20 years ago, why the regret rate is below 1% and the desistance rate not possibly higher than 5% even in youth (and that before they do anything surgical, afterwards that <1% applies), and why the lawsuits representing the “backlash” are so laughably few.
Of course you will reject my conclusions, you do not care what is real at all, you have a lie you love too much to endanger it with information, objectivity, or compassion.
Of course you will still continue to seek to force some boys to have breasts and periods, and to force some girls to have beards and deep voices — that is you being the monster you prefer to be.
No more, no less, no other.
We are at the end of a road here. Up till now it was all a matter of science, where you can prove things and convince people. One comes up with a theory (you did, ‘brainsex’), one uses the theory to predict experiemental results (I did, above), and one checks if the predictions are borne out, in order to prove the theory. In this case you cannot point to any confirming results, and until you do your theory can be dismissed as mere speculation. If you believe it strongly anyway, that is a question of faith. And your faith does not trump mine.
I do care what is real, actually, which is why I might change my mind if you can point me to convincing evidence for any of your points, but you need to provide that evidence. Raising your voice and insulting me will not do it. And just for an example, there is absolutely no consensus that “the sole issue with any sort of intersex athlete is their blood testosterone level in the two years prior“, and any evidence you could come up with would have to be strong enough to overturn the obvious conclusions anyone would draw from simply seeing a photograph of Lia Thomas alongside her competitors.
Of course I cannot prove that a trans woman is ‘really’ a man, mentally, any more than you can prove that she is ‘really’ a woman. But then, I do not have to. The ‘body sex’, is clear, objective and provable. The sense of identity is a matter personal feelings (or choices) that have no validity outside the confines of your own mind. We do not need to agree about what you ‘really’ are, only about how you should be treated by society. And that is a question of how society is willing to accommodate a minority who feels extremely strongly about something that the vast majority rejects. Which goes for trans people much as it goes for orthodox mormons or other groups who believe in polygamy.
“It is already known that removing testosterone 2 years before athletic competition gets rid of any advantage” yeah ok. No advantage due to male puberty then
None that persists without continuous testosterone.
Oh, man…you are going down a rabbit hole with her.
True enough, but then it can be hugely entertaining travelling down that rabbit hole, especially when the insults start pouring out.
Since you appear to believe that sex (male vs female) is purely a social construct, I suggest you get in the ring with an average man in. gloves-off boxing match. Let’s see how you come out of it.
You appear to be able to comprehend any aspect of it, as I have never — ever — said any such thing as “(male vs female) is purely a social construct.
But then only being able to fight strawmen is your sort’s style.
You’re hilarious!
And not wrong.
Can we please stick to the proper term for non-binary: narcissist. No one cares how you identify! It’s absolutely meaningless. No one is watching you dance. So stop bulling people with nonsense pronouns and making up ridiculous identities like non-binary. It’s not a thing. It won’t age well. Unless you’re in high school trying to piss off your parents you’re too old for this ridiculousness.
“Can we please … for this ridiculousness.” <– Says the narcissist complaining so loudly about what they claim to not care about.
Quite. “all cultures do not use…” means “no culture does use…”, which is false. No doubt the AMA feels entitled to invent its own grammar too.
Indeed. Such phrases, which can be parsed two or more ways, are a necessary recourse of those who would argue that two plus two equals five. A true poker ‘tell’.
There is only one honest way to parse that, and I have pointed out the gender critical are not honest.
If in US-English ‘all As are not F’ is standardly used to mean ‘not all As are F’, then we really are two nations divided by a common language. Or perhaps two generations.
It means what is literally say, no what you want it to. It does not mean “no culture does use”, it means “not all cultures do use”, aka, some do not.
“all cultures do not use a binary masculine-feminine system.” <– That is a literally true statement, so, it is scientifically accurate in the cultural context it refers to.
In actual science, all exceptions prove how a rule is wrong.
…You’re back-to-front there I’m afraid Talia. It’s the exception which proves the rule. From Cicero: “exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis”,
No, you are incorrect. Folk wisdom regarding the occurrence rates of exceptions as dictating the way to bet are not science.
In science, every exception proves how a rule is wrong.
As Rasmus notes in his comment, when an exception appears a rule is not wrong for the unexcepted Talia. You seem to want ‘science’ to make the unexcepted disappear altogether, possibly an inclination common with dysphoria?
He claimed exceptions proved rules in science, the opposite is the case.
Had for example Mercury not appeared in its orbit as described by Einstein, relativity would have been discarded.
…next you’ll be wandering off-point into quantum theory about dual physical states Talia.
Stick to explaining your claims for the special treatment of people with sex related physical anomalies or mental dysphoria.
Why must the the very tiny percentage of humans excepted from dimorphism (physically or mentally) occupy a superior social hierarchy position, relative to the vast majority who are the unexcepted, (those who are unequivocally dimorphic)?
What is the excepted’s contribution which justifies our language and thought being rewired, alongside the compromising of elements of our social and economic institutions?
Given the excepted’s lack of self-replication capacity the future is hardly going to be predominantly theirs is it?
They deserve society’s tolerance, but not the subjugation of its attention.
“…next you’ll be … of its attention.”
What special treatment? What superior social position?
What you are here to argue is that transgender and by extension — all minorities of sexual dimorphism whether the variance is between the legs, between the ears, or between the sex nd the gender — that all are subhuman worthy of abuse in law and policy.
“What is the excepted’s contribution which justifies our language and thought being rewired” <– What justifies you not burning witches? Being taught it is wrong to do so? What justifies the “Whites Only” signs going away, and people being taught it is not right they were ever there? What contribution is only that they are as fully human as you are.
The fact you never had the right to do or put up the signs in the first place.
I hate to say it, but TP has a point here. The Cicero quote only makes sense in a very particular legal context, as in ‘If a legal text makes an exception to a rule, we can infer from that that the rule exists and applies in non-excepted cases‘. I am not sure her epistemiology si particularly sound as regards rules that are only almost universaly valid, but we would need more than single-line quotes to deal with that discussion.
Talia, genuine question, do you believe that gender is a social construct?
Your previous posts suggest that you believe a transwoman is a biological woman.
Surely the above are contradictory opinions? Either
(1) gender (and sex) are social inventions that don’t reflect scientific reality, or
(2) gender (and sex) are real and defined by something in the brain which informs how people feel about themselves, and therefore a transwoman really is a woman and gender is **not** a social construct but biological reality.
If gender is – for want of a better term – fake, then why would anyone be trans? The logical endpoint of recognising this fakery would surely be to recognise yourself (and insist that everybody else both cis and trans did the same) as non-binary rather than adopting a persona at one or other end of the fake spectrum.
I already assume you have ruled out (3) and (4) below:
(3) sex is immutable and fixed by genitals and chromasomes, or
(4) gender is a social construct which varies by time and place and is how cultures present people of different sexes; sex being a scientific reality, determined by multiple characteristics including hormones, genitals and chromasomes some of which can be partially altered by medical intervention but complete transition (including fertility) is not (yet) possible.
Further to the above, if you hold view (1) above, that “gender is a social construct”, that is, not real, then it follows that gender-affirming care is care that affirms an unscientific (unreal) construct.
I will entertain your questions if you will first answer this.
Do you believe gender has no anatomical, physical existence?
or
Do you believe that any physical gender is always identical to the sex of a person?
POI, I’m confused by your equating of “a social construct” to “fake”/”unreal”.
Money is a social construct. Government is a social construct. Laws are a social construct. Ownership is a social construct.
This does in no way imply that they are not real. But that they are a product of social agreement, and can be changed by social agreement. The same applies to the rules and customs that we use when interacting with the people around us.
Money is a physical object. I know, I just picked a quarter up off from my desk.
The significance of money is a social construction.
You appear to be confusing the map for the territory, as do most who insist social constructions are “real”.
We know that since COVID the WHO lost all its remaining credibility
If ‘other cultures’ can be right, ours can, too. It’s a red herring proposition.
“There’s more than one way to look at a problem, and they all may be right.”
— General Norman Schwarzkopf,
U.S. Army, leader of all Coalition forces in the Persian Gulf War.
What is it when one has difficulty accepting reality? Far right extremism, fascism, nazism, racial prejudice? Any of those but not psychosis……..
“What is it when one has difficulty accepting reality?”
Stupidity or delusion. Which both describe the gender critical very well.
….what needs to be understood by the gender facsists, is that there’s two SEXes, yeah, only two. Nothing in between, it’s all about chromosomes, that’s it. No one cares about gender idiocy, do whatever they want, they can’t undo the perfect work of God. Gender ideology is the latest insanity of the permanently expectant, hard done by and self obsessed. It’s the latest dog whistle of the stupid and delusional to try to get the attention they crave, the love they can’t find, the submission of those happy with themselves and the validation they thirst because they really don’t have a life themselves. The gender identitarians are sad and actually mentally ill, perfectly formed examples of psychosis.
You are the only gender fascist here of the two of us, and “Nothing in between” is so stupidly wrong you are beneath contempt.
The fact is every letter in LGBTQIA — all of them — represents a result in an individual which is in some way “between” the results which are usual. Physically, materially, biologically intermediate results in one way or another.
Grow up and get real.
Unfortunately most physicians tacitly follow the guidance.
Sins of commission and omission are equally egregious.
And you want to force a sin of omission, mandating the child abuse of forbidding proper medical care for transgender youth.
Touch some grass.
Get a clue.
We are all in favour of ‘proper medical care’, Talia – no arguments from me there.
No, you are not. The gender critical aim to destroy it for transgender people.
Your statement is idiotic. Gender affirming care by use of puberty blockers and surgery in minors is nothing short of criminal. This type of so-called care is irreversible. I have no problem with adults deciding they wish to transition and in most cases the individuals involved have severe psychiatric issues. But I absolutely object to doing this with minors and catering to a transient fad which would likely go away in a few months or couple of years. Adults can do as they please and that’s their affair. But that is not and should not be the case with children. Think about it for a second. A famous parent is receently accused of child neglect because she allowed her 15 year old to take a train trip through Europe, but it’s OK for children to decide they want to change sex permenanently. And that change is only superficial in any case.
“Gender affirming care by use of puberty blockers and surgery in minors is nothing short of criminal.” <– There by you demonstrate your love of children being abused. No more, no less.
“This type of so-called care is irreversible.” <– So what? No choice ever is reversible. None. The error rate in this category of choice is below 1%.
“I have no problem with adults deciding they wish to transition” <– Stop lying, the actual predicate is the same in both cases, if you object to one, you have no grounds on which to approve of it later. You disapprove of both or neither. Or, you are completely clueless — which I suspect.
“and in most cases the individuals involved have severe psychiatric issues” <– Turns out not, not when transgender people are affirmed from presentation early. Not even greater rates of depression. For those unfortunate elders who were gaslit and abuse throughout their lives, not so much.
“But I absolutely object to doing this with minors and catering to a transient fad which would likely go away in a few months or couple of years.” <– A falsehood entire, the invention of fraudsters, popularized by propagandists. There is no reality to what you claim.
“but it’s OK for children to decide they want to change sex permenanently.” <– When done per WPATH standards of care it is done with satisfaction about 99% of the time, and the alternative is to force 99 boys and girls to respectively grow up and have to live with breasts and periods for the former, and, beards and deep voices for the latter. Which is some regards is the least of it.
You are a grotesque monster. That is what the reality of what you say you want means.
In a nutshell, we live in a society with a shared conviction that there is innocence and naivete in a child which must be protected. To challenge that conviction is to undercut one of the most primal instincts of all animals which is to protect their young. Whatever new evidence you believe in that insists there is a physiological (not mental) association to a gender that is not reflected in reproductive organs is not proven scientifically, and to introduce radical medical changes to children based on a suspect orthodoxy is grossly harmful.
You cannot mandate this as scientific dogma. Only persuasion will work. And to persuade you at least have to show respect to those you want to persuade.
“we live in a society with a shared conviction that there is innocence and naivete in a child which must be protected” <- Which not only has nothing to do with it, the gender critical are the only ones involved dedicated to hurting children.
None of the evidence is new, this was settled almost 30 years ago.
You in contrast have no evidence there is no a physical gender, as has been accepted by science for almost those 30 years because of the evidence gathered and empirical results of theories tried in the almost 50 years before that 30 began..
The only thing which is new is the massive propaganda push by Social Conservatives to gin up the moral panic you have fallen for.
The term “depraved” seems appropriate.
Oh you absolutely are.
Better quality trolling. Fewer words makes you look less idiotic.
It would be trolling if you were not trying to force boys to have breasts and periods, and trying to force girls to have beards and deep voices. But that is exactly what you are doing.
‘The definition notes that “all cultures do not use a binary masculine-feminine system.”’
Maybe… but this is the West. Our culture does use such a system, and the AMA should conform to it.
Our system used to permit slavery. We got better.
What legal aspects we mandate towards sexual dimorphism should evolve away from bestial primitivism as newly discovered facts indicate.
Slavery is not about biological realities, Talia.
We will win this eventually. The only issue is how much damage you and your fellow travellers get to inflict before we win.
Being gender critical is not about biological reality. You are ignoring biological reality which you don’t like, in order to propound your current views.
Slavery is about saying you own someone else’s life. Being gender critical is about saying you own the lives of those who are transgender, and you have the right to prohibit our proper medical care and otherwise dictate our lives.
Talia, you genuinely appear to be unhinged. Slavery has got absolutely nothing to do with gender, gender affirming care or the trans debate. Simply put, except in rare chromosomal abnormalities or conditions like Swyers syndrome where an aromatase deficiency results in an XY male with external female genitalia and internal male (testes), sex is binary – male and female. The differences are evident for all to see. This isn’t about feelings but about biology and reality. The fact of the matter is that as a female you would not want to get into a fight with an average male as the chances of you coming out uninjured are very small.
“Slavery has got absolutely nothing to do with gender, gender affirming care or the trans debate”
Except insofar as you presume you have a right to own transgender people, their lives and medical care.
It is only about reality and biology, and you are here to deny reality and biology. Reality is that gender is as physical, anatomical, and biological as is the sex of a person.
“The fact of the matter is that as a female you would not want to get into a fight with an average male as the chances of you coming out uninjured are very small.” <– They aren’t wrong about my odds in an average fight with an average actual male, but who’s going to tell the moron?
You are a kook, TP. Get help!
You admit to being a witch doctor. You are the kook.
They’ve simply turned over the writing of the guidelines to identity interest groups, haven’t they?
Quite simply, surrendered responsibility.
Not even Duggan claims that, you’ve managed to be more unhinged than she is.
Why do you assume the author identifies as female?
Why do you presume I should not, given her name and arguments?
IOW, why are you so stupid as to not look at the whole field of data?
How dare you label me as ‘stupid’. My preference is to identify as ‘flawed genius, albeit a little sarcastic’.
“How dare you label me as ‘stupid’.” <– Because it is so perfectly clear.
So much for the Democrats being the party of science. ♀️
It is not so much that they are, but that the gender critical are definitely not.
You are the worst pseudo medical child abusers for the sake of politics since the Nazis on the one hand, and, since that quack Bettelheim pushed the “refrigerator mom” theory of autism.
You have the only gender ideology involved here, the “gender critical” one.
All of you gender critical child abusers believe one of two things foundationally about it, both are utterly false:
You think gender has no physical existence.
You think gender is always identical to the sex of a person.
All of the evidence goes against. All of it. None of you ever manage to find any evidence in support of what you claim, yet you persist, delusionally.
Those two are not the only false things you believe, but they are the beginning of your madness.
For the sake of your delusions you seek to do what will cause 99 youth to be forced to grow up with beards and deep voices for the girls among that 99 and be boys with breasts and periods for the rest. All for the sake of saving just one from erroneously doing the same.
You never find any facts backing you up. None. The lies in the field are all yours. Like the high desistance rate lie — it’s <1%. If nothing else, simply the minuscule number of “backlash” lawsuits filed well confirm that figure.
Or the recent lie that the ASPS had “broken the consensus”, when in fact they clearly wrote they had never endorsed any standards of care and still did not — they had changed nothing.
You lie over and over again.
You are insane monsters.
Your trolling quality is decreasing. Remember: less is more.
To go by your attempts, your ability to make any counterargument whatsoever has collapsed. You resort purely to base assertion now.
At least we are not party to the death of a 24 yr old ‘trans man’ from phalloplasty infection
And? That is much better at the price of forcing boys to have breasts and periods and forcing girls to have beards and deep voices — not to mention you never could be party to it, it wasn’t your call at all !
I cannot believe you are suggesting that children should be medicalised through puberty then have healthy body parts removed, rendering them infertile in later life. Surely we can all reach an agreement that gender just isn’t that important, that each of us can express ourselves as we truly are without becoming patients for the rest of our lives?
You claim to be a doctor, I do not believe it for a second. If you are, you are one of those few 200 evil and stupid enough to be members of ACPeds — and quite properly dismissed in every way possible for your being in love of your ideology more than you care for people.
Medical problems are not infrequently lifelong, or, have lifelong sequelae. If you were a doctor, it would in no way trouble you that this was one which may.
Nothing of gender affirming care mandates or suggests anyone should make themselves infertile in any way. For those who choose medical intervention for their medical problem which makes them such, gamete banking is discussed and urged to be considered. Many medical interventions produce infertility, why do you pretend this one is different?
“Surely we can all reach an agreement that gender just isn’t that important” <– And yet it is that important, and has been throughout all of human history. You stand near alone in claiming gender is not important. Only the most monstrous totalitarian state could begin to suppress its expression.
“that each of us can express ourselves as we truly are” <– You are the one here complaining people because you oppose people being allowed to express themselves as they truly are as they see fit.
“without becoming patients for the rest of our lives?” <– Wouldn’t it be great if there were no such thing as a medical problem, atypical development, accident or injury, or disease of any kind?
Grow up.
It is all about money. Psychiatrists, paediatricians and surgeons who couldn’t make a buck honestly are usually found in academia and the higher echelons of organisations such as the AMA.
They probably get sponsored by big Pharma, who manufacture all these hormone blockers and enhancers. Another case for RFKJr….
Now do dentistry, antibiotics, and chemotherapy, insulin, etc…
Which is in line with feminists, and with their non-binary pushing descendants, but not with those trans activists for whom gender is something very real, innate and more fundamental to identity than the physical body itself.
““Gender” is a “social construct”, according to the document’s 300-word definition of the term.” <– And nothing real. No such concept is operative in gender affirming care.
The actual theory, proven by data and clinical, empirical results, is that gender is that anatomy between the ears which produces the perception of one’s own gender.
Never mind the propensity of propagandists like Duggan to misquote things, which I suspect from the use of small out-of-context quotations.
Sorry but you are living in la-la land dominated by feelings at the level of the nursery and kindergarten. If you can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman and you don’t realize that this is immutable no matter what surgery or homone therapy an individual may undergo, I am truly sorry for you.
I do know the usual differences between men and women. You choose to obsess about one of the visible but least accurate and meaningful differences..
I am sorry for your victims.
What Talia is saying, in my view, is that for the majority of people a simple male female binary is the case. In the jargon most people are cis and heterosexual. A minority of people do not have the default sexual attraction. And a minority do not identify with the sex they were born into. These minorities sometimes overlap.
And Talia is a biological realist. She believes there are physical reasons for this, and these are to be found in the brain. It is inaccurate to think she is denying biology.
And when you figure out they do not care what is and is not accurate, you will have begun to improve.
Words often have multiple meanings. I think one has to distinguish between “gender” (social, external, imposed) and “gender identity” (internal, personal). They are not the same thing.
Gender is physical, and quite literally internal, it is what produces the gender identity. Gendered behaviors and expectations may be imposed from externally, socially.
What is fascinating with the word gender is the the meanings are almost opposite of each other, though they are used almost interchangeably.
The medicine I studied 30 years ago, the precepts and principles, the reliance on objectivity and the scientific method, free of personal or political bias, is history. What is most dispiriting, is that the adoption of these views and guidelines can very well bring more HARM in the treatment of illnesses, injuries, and disorders of the human body.
Well said.
“What is most dispiriting, is that the adoption of these views and guidelines can very well bring more HARM in the treatment of illnesses, injuries, and disorders of the human body.” <– To prove that, you would need to have facts showing it to be so.
Where are they?
Another once-reliable institution hollowed out and corrupted by the Woke political activists of its permanent staff.
When it comes to the medical community, sex is real. Ask any woman whose heart attack isn’t taken seriously, who is pushed out of the ER with anxiety, a muscle spasms, or gas because her symptoms dare be different than her male counterparts. What next? We’ll use trans women to define how females experience periods? All of the evidence says there are distinct differences between the sexes, but the medical community has ignored them from the very beginning. Females have long had trouble breastfeeding or giving birth, but until males experienced it, nobody was looking into giving females functional uteruses or helping them lactate. It’s just another way to push females aka women further down the totem pole and ignore their very specific needs.
“When it comes to the medical community, sex is real.”
And as has been known true for over twenty years, so is gender.
Which is what this is about, the refusal of the gender critical to accept the overwhelming evidence that gender is physically, anatomically, biologically real.
Well said, Carissa. Given that only women get pregnant, give birth and lactate, I can only hope that trans-identified women (who wish to be seen as males) in that circumstance are less self-centered than trans-identified men seem to be more generally. I hope they acknowledge that the well-being of all pregnant women — which proceeds from scientifically grounded, unambiguous language — is the top priority of medical professionals, not ensuring validation of their “gender identity” in every instance. If it’s truly too painful for a woman to ever be seen as such — even when engaged in the most undeniably female of experiences (pregnancy, childbirth, lactation) — she needn’t get pregnant.
“Given that only women get pregnant, give birth and lactate”
A wrong “given” as transgender men can do so and are men.
As of this moment there are 82 comments to this article. Talia Perkins made 34 of them. Is there anyone else that thinks Unherd should instititute some kind of comment rate limit or maybe just and absolute number limit on comments? This is ridiculous. I lose interest in reading other comments because it becomes totally dominated by this one unhinged person’s point of view who just has to comment on everything.
How about you actually make an effort to “shut me up” by providing actual evidence for what you claim?
I agree it is ridiculous this paddock for the Herd has only one apparently contrary voice to your narrative in it, but 34 to 82 seems to be nothing you have to legitimately complain about.
No it’s fun, watching it (TP) getting closer to the edge of reason
Obviously a very tormented soul, lonely, no partner (what normal man or woman would ,,,,)
No, don’t you see? It’s the genius of free speech. TP spends a crazily inordinate amount of time responding to every comment on the thread, showcasing the mindset that causes virtually every normal person cringe. I love it personally. Rest assured, nothing that person says is convincing. It makes the hair on the back of the neck stand up for most people. What a boon, all that effort spent self-revealing what untruth looks like.
Nonsense, you want to force a boy’s puberty onto girls, and a girl’s puberty on to boys — you aren’t normal at all.
It is not convincing to you, but you are a partisan dedicated to abusing those children you think are fit for no better.
The AMA is not the voice of the majority of American physicians despite its public persona as such. Just look at the enrollment numbers
I am US physician who has not belonged to the AMA for decades for several reasons: 1. Exorbitant membership dues for practicing physians (added to multiple other costs such licensing, specialty-specific dues, etc), 2. A perception that the AMA dies not represent my views, 3. A reluctance to participate in the AMA hierarchy because of personal time constraints.
However I am reconsidering my decision in light of the types of policies that are being promoted by the AMA and thus being understood by the general public as gospel. A very small group of vocal activists have inordinate control over policy decisions (whatever they may be). On the other hand, my alternative voice also has the ability to influence policy given this scenario.
Activism by reasonable alternative voices is helpful in preventing radical policy decisions by organizations such as the AMA or BMA, particularly in the case of gender care, where a small outspoken minority are unduly influential.
It’s hysterically funny watching the herd roll out the talking points of it’s propaganda masters.
The AMA represents all American physicians as virtually as does an elected representative. The measure of opposition is how many are members of a group in opposition to the AMA. Notably, in the US the numbers of Democrats and Republicans are relatively even.
In contrast, the number of American physicians who oppose the AMA on this topic number approximately 200 actual license holding physicians, the those members of the ACPeds hate group who were expressly formed to advance from a medical perspective, the abuse in law and policy of LGBTQ people. They include among their number a “doctor” — and I must here use that word loosely, no matter that they apparently still have a license. — who led a church in attempting raise the dead through prayer.
Please let that sink all the way in.
That is the proportion and caliber of physician who opposes gender affirming care.
825 to 1. The 1 part includes witch doctors.
“I am US physician” — What a grotesque, obvious lie. Even if you had a license, you have no more credibility as a physician than that idiot trying to pray someone back to life, who was a dentist.
“Activism by reasonable alternative voices is helpful in preventing radical policy decisions … particularly in the case of gender care, where a small outspoken minority are unduly influential.” Yes, and thank you. I hope you find the time and energy to be a voice of reason and restraint. Such voices are especially needed in the United States, increasingly an outlier as other countries conduct evidence-based reviews and rethink an overly credulous acceptance of gender ideology and associated “medicine,” especially hormonal and surgical alteration of minors.
There are no nations conducting evidence based reviews. As with the Cass Report they for politcal reasons are conducting evidence ongoing reviews.
Male. Female. Mental illness. Simples said the meerkat
Wittgenstein famously said that most philosophy is essentially “language on holiday”. Well, have a look at “Talia Perkins’” comments below. It’s language on a world cruise.
With the hysterically funny thing being it’s the “gender critical” making philosophical, atmospheric, factless arguments.
This is the American Medical Association, right? Not the American Media Association, or the American Madness Association? That a professional organization supposedly grounded in science, and influential in matters concerning biological reality and related medical treatments — thus affecting millions of patients — is so politically co-opted is ridiculous. Not surprising — what is, in the surreal world of gender ideology? — but unhinged, and an abdication of the AMA’s responsibility to the American people.
Like other gender acolytes, the AMA conflates the idea (“social construct”) of “gender” with the material reality of sex, having seemingly forgotten that the latter is biological fact, and the former unfalsifiable ideology outside their purview as medical professionals. That supposedly trained physicians aver sex is “assigned at birth,” rather than observed and noted, thoroughly discredits the organization. Never mind linguistically erasing the material reality of “female” and “motherhood,” an insult to all women, whose amazing bodies deserve unambiguous, informed and profound respect, especially from their doctors.
Imbecile, gender is as physical, material, and biological as is the sex of a person. That concept is the sole one on which gender affirming care is based.
You are the gender acolyte here, pretending otherwise.
Inclusive language’ must mean inclusive of multiple interpretations.
High-profile organisations can afford very expensive copywriters, and ambiguities are no accident. This stuff isn’t just dashed off: every word is agonised over.
One other word for this sort of language might be ‘slippery’.
Talia, you emphasise that gender has a physical basis—a four cubic mm region in the brain apparently. Can you give us a citation, reference, link, book title, whatever, for this research, so that we can judge for ourselves?
The links I’ve collected here are representative.
https://taliaperkinssspace.quora.com/People-are-born-transgender-they-are-not-mentally-ill-it-is-no-paraphilia-it-is-a-physical-birth-defect-no-more-a-men
I will be reworking that list by the end of Sept., it has some link rot and needs updating generally. Should all relating to anatomy in brains still be good, please note on reading the papers and on subsequent searches that size, shape, connectivity, and activity are are all involved — the particularly absent thing being any cisgender person with involved brain anatomy typical to the other sex, and, any transgender person with brain anatomy typical to the sex they had at birth. Please also note the papers found elsewhere claiming there are no such differences are using means to find them which can not find the features in the papers which I link to there.
Thank you, Talia. Interesting. Your case is that there is evidence that brains (and hence minds) are sexed in pretty much the same way as bodies are, and that this process can be similarly disordered by genetic mutations. For example, a mutation in the gene (on the X chromosome) coding for androgen receptor protein can prevent cells from responding to testosterone, resulting in a genetic male (with Y chromosome) developing a body with female sexual character. And as for the body, so for the brain. Quoting from the first paper,
I suspect that there is a reluctance in the West to accept a genetic component to the mental. We tend to think that minds are ‘blank slates’ on which experience writes. This is convenient for postmodern ideologies. The AMA guide simply declares gender a social construct. The thrust of the research you cite is to qualify this, perhaps substantially, but it seems we are just at the beginning.
“We tend to think that minds are ‘blank slates’ on which experience writes.”
And to the extent true, that stops being the case for near all medical practitioners whether general practitioners, endocrinologists, surgeons, or psychiatrists by the time the facts of David Reimer revealing the fraud of Dr. John Money sank in.
“This is convenient for postmodern ideologies”
Not so much, as it bounds the malleability of gender in an individual to be nil, and it’s importance irreducible.
“The AMA guide simply declares gender a social construct.”
While in fact basing gender affirming care in the exact and entire opposite concept — but consistent with gendered behaviors being social constructs. What you observe is not a contradiction, so much as an acknowledgement of how the word is used in the soft sciences generally vs actual sciences like biology, endocrinology, anatomy, and what the soft science of psychiatry has accommodated itself to — how measured physical facts bind from being possibly relevant to reality, some of their fields once most beautiful theories.