It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American College of Pediatricians Says Reject Transgenderism

page: 20
75
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
So ... are "Family Restrooms" dangerous? (Men have free access alongside women and children.)

How about "Unisex Restrooms"? (Same.)

Where's the outrage?

(It's really a simple question.)




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Sorry, had to add that, I dont think you're crazy FWIW.

I don't think you're an asshole either. Sorry, had to add that.


I do think its brave to cut a path nearly alone considering the time period, but could it be that the disconnect from your birth sex be something not "gender directed", maybe a deeper form of dysmorphia?

I don't know why it is so hard to recognize gender dysphoria is not something else. It has it's own section, separate from everything else in the DSM-V.


At the time, some of these more subtle forms of conditions were not realized/admitted/recognized. What did your doctors have to say about it, were they already hip?

I was first seen by child psychiatrists in 1965 when I was 10. Dr. Harry Benjamin's pioneering work, The Transsexual Phenomenon, wasn't published until 1966. There was no language in use at the time to describe what I was and honestly, I wasn't privy to what kind of things doctors told my parents and I saw a LOT of doctors always under the guise of going for an "IQ test".

All I really know is even before high school, my folks were told I was going to be gay which is kind of funny because I never acted gay and the few gay kids there were at school avoided me like the plague the way every other kid did because I was so damn confusing to everyone. Even at 14, "Christine" was used as a taunt because the only person people had ever heard of that changed sex was Christine Jorgensen. I was attacked, beaten by a group of phobic boys and ended up in the ER with broken ribs and needing stitches when I was a sophomore in HS and that's when my folks finally started to get it. There was never some big moment of transition in my life, there was nothing to transition from but when name and pronouns were changed, it was actually a huge relief for my folks.

Even when I was 18 (1973) it took months of letter writing and inquiry to find a doctor that had any experience at all with transsexualism and he (and his wife) were 150 miles away. Junior and senior year of high school, I had waist length hair and was androgynously femme although still technically a boy, away from the school environment, most gendered me as female. By the time I did find a knowledgeable doctor, my folks were already calling me Freija (which of course is not my real name) and I hadn't even tried to pretend to be a boy for a very long time. My gender, my knowledge of what I was and my behavior has never changed.

It still wasn't called gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder. I was diagnosed with "primary transsexualism" as I had whatever you call it since I was born. Later, prior to surgery, another round of psychiatric and psychological evaluations were performed (to weed out mental illness or other conditions) but by then it was called GID. My own opinion is regardless of what it called, it is still the same damn thing. I never met another person anything at all like me until I was 22 and even they weren't trans as kids. It was only a year ago before I met someone with a similar experience and she was on the blocker protocol and publicly transitioned at 12.


This leads into conspiracy land, but I'm concerned that doctors(big pharma) may pander to some dementia to create a market for profit anyway they can.

How original. Any other crazy theories you want to throw out there?


Not trolling, I am seriously asking you to weigh in with your personal experience.

Yeah, read all the sh!t going on in all these trans threads and see if you think it is a welcoming environment or that anybody will listen? It is hostile and toxic here and people are so ignorant of the facts. I am willing to share my experience so people can learn but it is a little tough to read how mentally ill I am, how confused I am, how my parents must have screwed up when I was little, how I'm this way due to some sort of trauma and on and on. It is all bullsh!t. I've lived a happy and very normal life, been married 12 years and divorced and own my own business and been successful in spite of a stupid medical problem that was corrected nearly 40 years ago. None of this trans crap has a damn thing to do with my daily life but I am here advocating for transgender youth and their families because I know how important early intervention and affirming care is for these kids.

Gah! So busy today but will return when I can.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

You have a very strange idea of "factual" Electric. Care to address my actual argument?


You know full well that at least a couple other people before you were proclaiming that segregation laws were being used by conservatives to claim that these laws were needed to protect women, which is false. You responded as if you were agreeing with their claims. Or did you not see those claims by members such as "deaf aliens" and magically you started talking about the same claim?...



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Did you read my last post on the previous page?



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

Ok let's dispense with the political parties. How about addressing the points we've made? The same argument is being used (forget about the Republicans or the Democrats). Address that.


Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with sexual nor trasngender discrimination, it was racially motivated. Transgenderism is not a race.

Notice that among my arguments is that PERVERTED MEN would use this government mandate to gain more access to women's bathrooms...
edit on 17-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66

You have a very strange idea of "factual" Electric. Care to address my actual argument?


You know full well that at least a couple other people before you were proclaiming that segregation laws were being used by conservatives to claim that these laws were needed to protect women, which is false. You responded as if you were agreeing with their claims. Or did you not see those claims by members such as "deaf aliens" and magically you started talking about the same claim?...


You addressed me. You called me a liar.

It turns out, you were the one mistaken.

I'll accept this as a tacit apology for your lack of decorum.

Now, perhaps you'll argue the claim:

Jim Crow laws (racial discrimination) were used to discriminate against Blacks being able to use the appropriate public restrooms because "women and girls were in danger."

The Anti-Trans Bathroom Laws (gender identity discrimination) are being used to discriminate against Trans* folks being able to use appropriate public restrooms because "women and girls are in danger."

Common element in both fallacious claims "women and girls are in danger" if we allow "equality in public restroom use."

But again ... this thread is not about bathroom use ... please stay on topic.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



Notice that among my arguments is that PERVERTED MEN would use this government mandate to gain more access to women's bathrooms...


Oh boy you're not getting it. That's the EXACT the same argument they've been using!!!! Knock on your head!



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
At this point, I'm really wondering if we could get a title change in this thread, or at least, a clarification that the "American College of Pediatricians" is a right-wing media/activist group.

Or move it to the Hoax Bin ...



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Or move it to the Hoax Bin ...


Oh GOD please.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
It turns out, you were the one mistaken.

I'll accept this as a tacit apology for your lack of decorum.


Your lack of addressing the previous members referring to "conservatives as doing the same thing to blacks" meanwhile using their same argument that "jim crow laws were used to claim blacks would sexually assault women" shows a lack of decorum.

If you would have stated as: "it wasn't done by conservatives but..." I would have responded differently.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
Now, perhaps you'll argue the claim:

Jim Crow laws (racial discrimination) were used to discriminate against Blacks being able to use the appropriate public restrooms because "women and girls were in danger."


Wrong... racial discrimination was used to segregate, among the tactics used by the pro-slavery/pro-segregation movements they included. (and this from wikipedia a leftwing source)


Jim Crow laws
...
Origins of Jim Crow laws
Main article: Disfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era

During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the U.S. South for freedmen, the African Americans who had formerly been slaves, and former free blacks. In the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures, having used insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress their voting. Extensive voter fraud was also used. Gubernatorial elections were close and had been disputed in Louisiana for years, with increasing violence against blacks during campaigns from 1868 onward. In 1877, a national Democratic Party compromise to gain Southern support in the presidential election resulted in the government's withdrawing the last of the federal troops from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every Southern state.[3] These Southern, white, Democratic Redeemer governments legislated Jim Crow laws, officially segregating black people from the white population.

Blacks were still elected to local offices through the 1880s, but the establishment Democrats were passing laws to make voter registration and electoral rules more restrictive, with the result that political participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease .[4][5] Between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states, starting with Mississippi, passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disenfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements.[4][5] Grandfather clauses temporarily permitted some illiterate whites to vote but gave no relief to most blacks.

Voter turnout dropped drastically through the South as a result of such measures. In Louisiana, by 1900, black voters were reduced to 5,320 on the rolls, although they comprised the majority of the state's population. By 1910, only 730 blacks were registered, less than 0.5 percent of eligible black men. "In 27 of the state's 60 parishes, not a single black voter was registered any longer; in 9 more parishes, only one black voter was."[6] The cumulative effect in North Carolina meant that black voters were completely eliminated from voter rolls during the period from 1896–1904. The growth of their thriving middle class was slowed. In North Carolina and other Southern states, there were also the effects of invisibility: "[W]ithin a decade of disfranchisement, the white supremacy campaign had erased the image of the black middle class from the minds of white North Carolinians."[6] Alabama had tens of thousands of poor whites disenfranchised.
...

en.wikipedia.org...




originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Anti-Trans Bathroom Laws (gender identity discrimination) are being used to discriminate against Trans* folks being able to use appropriate public restrooms because "women and girls are in danger."
...


The pro-slavery/pro-segregation movement were in favor of slavery and in favor of segregation because they were racists...

If you would have noticed in my argument i clearly pointed out "if a person has the opposite sexual organs they shouldn't be in a woman's bathroom, and only minors accompanied by their mothers should be allowed into a woman's bathroom."

I didn't say that transgenders who have done the full transition shouldn't be allowed in women's bathrooms. The reason for this is simple. You cannot know for certain who is claiming to be a woman but still has male sexual organs and is only going to use this claim to gain access to women's bathrooms to film women/children, or worse.


edit on 17-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

If coed bathrooms and locker rooms weren't considered dangerous, we'd long have copied what a country like Germany does and have had coed bathrooms and locker rooms all along.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I've told you to drop the political parties and address the point we've made. The Conservatives TODAY (pay attention) are making the SAME argument TODAY. Don't worry about the political parties back then.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

And i were pointing out the fact that the two topics are completely different... One is about RACE, the other is about letting people with male organs in the bathrooms with females including children.

BTW, in what world were any of you living that women and men were using the same bathrooms in the 1960s or before?... From were came this claim that "women would be raped by black men in the bathrooms"?... Were men being allowed inside women's bathrooms?... Or is this yet another false claim?...
edit on 17-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Oh brother. Still not getting it.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

Oh brother. Still not getting it.


No, it seems you are not the one getting it...

BTW, in what world were any of you living that women and men were using the same bathrooms in the 1960s or before?... From were came this claim that "women would be raped by black men in the bathrooms"?... Were men being allowed inside women's bathrooms in the 60s?... Or is this yet another false claim?...
edit on 17-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Gryphon66

If coed bathrooms and locker rooms weren't considered dangerous, we'd long have copied what a country like Germany does and have had coed bathrooms and locker rooms all along.


We have "Family Restrooms" for a decade or more.

We have "Unisex Restrooms" since the 1960s.

I guess it's only "dangerous" when equal rights are involved, eh?



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Again, this thread is not about bathrooms.

It's about a bogus "Pediatrician" group claiming that "Trangenderism" should be rejected.


edit on 17-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

Oh brother. Still not getting it.


No, it seems you are not the one getting it...

BTW, in what world were any of you living that women and men were using the same bathrooms in the 1960s or before?... From were came this claim that "women would be raped by black men in the bathrooms"?... Were men being allowed inside women's bathrooms in the 60s?... Or is this yet another false claim?...


The claim under Jim Crow prohibiting Blacks from using public restrooms was that women and girls would be in danger.

Why not just address that instead of trying to wiggle your way into any other possible argument?

The only one making false and hypocritical claims and charges is you, Electric.

That's painfully obvious.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The same claim has been made in the 1940's and since then! The claim was about women's and children's safety!



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

We have "Family Restrooms" for a decade or more.

We have "Unisex Restrooms" since the 1960s.

I guess it's only "dangerous" when equal rights are involved, eh?



We are not talking about "family restrooms" that started becoming a trend a decade ago or more.

Were men (strangers) allowed to be with women TOGETHER in a bathroom in the 1960s?...

I am trying to figure out where this new claim came from that "Jim Crow laws were used to segregate black men from women because it was thought black men were going to rape women in bathrooms"....

edit on 17-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join