MICHAEL JACKSON and PROGRESSIVE SCIENCE. Parts 1 and 2

Before I write anything else in this blog there is a certain stumbling block that needs to be overcome. At first sight it does not have a direct connection to Michael Jackson but my deep conviction is that he would very much want me to say it – because it concerns protection of children in the first place.

The issue of my concern is grooming children done under the guise of acting in their interests.

Last December someone sent me a message accusing me of “ultimate hypocrisy about keeping children safe and sexuality”.

The email was full of straw man rhetoric against me reminding me of a person who wrote here under different names, but whether it is the same person or different doesn’t matter as all progressives speak and think in stereotypes, as if in copy-pasted clichés, typically throwing at their counterparts tons of straw man declarations.

Note: “Straw man” means pretending to know what another person thinks and then fiercely fighting these ideas though they have nothing to do with what the person ever said or even thought (me in this case).

To explain what I really think I will answer that straw man message, and will even claim that my views are echoing those of Michael Jackson.

Part 1. SCIENCE ?

The message alleged the following:

• You didn’t even TRY to understand or grasp the fact that everything you spout about trans people is the product of misinformation and smear campaigns.

My alleged ‘spouting’ amounted to a few surprised comments made a couple of years ago when I first learned that progressive science claims that genders and biological sexes are many and come in a spectrum, and that transition to the opposite sex is solely a matter of one’s choice even for children – in case they feel they were born in “the wrong body” (gender dysphoria) .

Previously I had heard only of babies who had the misfortune to be born with the genitalia of both sexes. In evolutionary terms hermaphrodites are a dead end as most of these people are sterile. Usually some surgery is performed on them, however not so much for making them fit certain social expectations but because being “neither this, nor that” gives them enormous mental suffering that needs compassion and as much help as only possible.    

It is not true that 1.7% of the population is ‘born between the sexes’. The proportion of people with DSDs (‘intersex’ conditions) is 0.018%.

But gender dysphoria is not physical but a mental problem – when a male thinks that he is a female and vice versa. Currently the wildly popular trend is to press the fluid gender spectrum on youngsters and encourage them to explore their feelings for their “right” gender. Even preschoolers are offered the game of finding their true selves within this spectrum.

                               Where on a spectrum might your gender identity be?

When you come to think of it, the purpose of the game may be fun but pointless. So what if a girl finds that she is a tomboy? Or if a boy learns that manhood also comes in a variety of versions – some are tender and emotional like Michael Jackson, while some are rowdy and aggressive like one of his brothers?

The only good this spectrum can do is make everyone feel at ease that it is not mandatory to look like the extremes on both ends – a macho or a Barbie-like woman, and it is perfectly okay to be the way you are. Besides this simple idea, universally accepted around the world, there is no reason whatsoever to focus children’s attention on it any further.

However, when gender self-exploration becomes the centre piece of the educational process is when problems really arise. Instead of studying Maths, writing and reading the minds of schoolchildren are gripped with the incessant game of “exploring their sexual identity” and are much more preoccupied with their gender feelings, correct pronouns for their ever-changing personality and developing their instincts rather than their intellect and cognitive abilities which are incomparably more important at a stage when a kid’s brain is still maturing.

And the game totally ceases to be fun when as a result of these gender experiments kids begin to think that they were born in the wrong body and need to “transition” to conform to the gender feelings they currently feel, and the medical community enthusiastically supports them in this decision.

In fact, EVERY part in the above formula is wrong. Firstly, the biological sex cannot be changed – it is a hard science fact. Secondly, children with gender dysphoria tend to grow out of the problem over time in about 85% of cases.  And thirdly, the medical community is not really medical if they offer puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone treatment and even gender surgery to children claiming that it is completely normal to “re-assign” one’s sex.

This type of science is not evidence-based, and it is far from being ‘settled’. In fact, science is almost never settled as each new wave of research may overturn the previous scientific dogmas and new breakthroughs are even expected of real science.

Lobotomy and Thalidomide were also considered “settled science” only several decades ago but both turned out to be medical disasters. The lobotomy pioneer even received the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1949, which made the popularity of lobotomies spread like wildfire. Before-and-after photos were publicly circulated, showing a “manic-looking” person followed by a photo of the same person looking calm, or even smiling.

Are you depressed? Do you suffer from anxiety and migraines? You May Need a Lobotomy. Before and After. Only takes 10 minutes!

And it took more than 50,000 lobotomies in the US alone, hundreds of deaths and decades of practicing this monstrous procedure for the medical community to finally realize that in the “after pictures” the patients were more zombies and vegetables than human.

Does the gender medicine want to repeat that “success”?

The current situation suggests that the craze around gender dysphoria and transition has every sign of being a social contagion and is totally man-made, whether intentional or not.

The District of Columbia has three and a half times more people who identify as trans than any State in the US, per head of the population.

Only 20 years ago, the number of those who sought cross-sex surgery was 1 per 30,000 adult males and 1 per 100,000 adult females (according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Jan.1, 2000). The transitioners were predominantly middle-aged males. 

But in the past few years the number of those seeking transition has suddenly soared by 1,460% among males and 5,330% among females.  The profile of transitioners also drastically changed and is now overwhelmingly adolescent girls. All of a sudden young girls decided they don’t want to be girls anymore!

Again, until the year 2005 children under 12 did not even make any noticeable presence among those seeking transition – you won’t be able even to find them on this graph that spans 1975-2015. But in 2005 transgenders suddenly appeared in a sort of a bang, affecting mostly girls under 12 years, and their number has been sky-rocketing ever since.

Trans women and trans men in 1975-2015

If any other malady spread at such a high speed, this would be a reason for grave concern, but not in this case, as transitioning is hailed by the medical industry, media and the establishment, and gender dysphoria itself is now declared a norm. Progressive science is quick in progressing….

But the same progressive science keeps silence when those who transitioned want to go back and reverse their sex change. When de-transitioners tell their gruesome stories, they suddenly face a wall of silence from the same media, establishment, and medical institutions.  Or worse, they meet a massive angry backlash from the gender activists.

Caelie is a transitioner. Her video is no longer there

The stifling of de-transitioners’ voices is so aggressive and so immediate that today you may see their anguished testimony on Youtube, but tomorrow it will be gone with only some remnants left of the original (here is an example).  

But why are detransitioners denied the right to speak if the gender medicine is as good as it is said to be?

Because there is an agenda behind it and the sad real-life experience of detransitioners hinders further promotion of this practice.

Because all is not clear there, otherwise there would be no need to suppress.

Because the problem itself is not so much about medicine but about politics.

Actually, the very fact that the voices of detransitioners are so effectively silenced betrays the ulterior motives of those who want to set other children on the road to transitioning and do it without informing their parents at that.

To me the big idea is obvious, though people hardly realize it yet and mostly think that the race for more profit is the only one to blame here. This factor is certainly at play, however the ultimate goal of the game is still under the public radar.

To see where this trend is taking you all you need to do is make a logical projection of its consequences, and this will show you the really troubled waters we are heading for.

Currently we are already in stage one of the project. The idea is to turn innocent kids into sexual beings through mandatory “comprehensive sex education” (mostly in US public schools) and make everyone think that kids are “sexual beings from birth”. Children should become sexually active and uninhibited since early age and at the same time extremely vulnerable and confused, so that they can’t tell left from right and are unable to see where this path will lead them.

Simple logic is taking us to stage two – the inevitable proclamation of children’s right to have the “autonomy over their bodies” and “freedom of choice” in matters of sex, as it is an inseparable right of every human being. Children are human beings, aren’t they, so how can anyone deny them these sacred rights?

Simultaneously parents will be shifted aside and intimidated into thinking that if they don’t comply with their children’s sexual fantasies, feelings, preferences and choices they will lose them to imminent suicides. 

You’ve probably guessed what the ultimate goal is.

Yes, some lobby which is powerful enough to have turned the civilization upside down, is set to reach the goal of pedophilia acceptance, only from the back door this time – by corrupting children and neutralizing their parents’ influence, and teaching the sexually disturbed children that they should take their life choices into their own hands.

Incredulous of this gigantic shift even since Michael Jackson’s times I rarely allowed myself a comment as I hoped that the new craze would die out of itself or would be curbed by responsible physicians and parents concerned with their kids’ future.

And until only recently there was no sign of recovery – the subject is still heavily politicized and everyone who dares ask questions is stigmatized, ostracized and accused of ‘hate speech’.

Even those who used to be transgender activists themselves but later began doubting the new religion, are similarly intimidated by a small, but vocal lobby that immediately labels them ‘transphobic’, bans their activity and approaches them with threats.

An LGBT activist is branded politically incorrect

James Caspian, for example, is an LGBT activist who has been campaigning on transgender rights for years.

But when he noted that the increasing number of young people changing their gender might regret it, he was branded ‘politically incorrect’ and his respective research with Bath Spa University was blocked.

James Caspian signaled of a growing calamity with detransitioners already five years ago, in 2017:

‘I’m not anti-trans. I’ve helped hundreds of people while they were transitioning, but when I started to do preliminary research I was taken aback by what I discovered,‘ he says. 

‘Traditionally, people had always thought the regret rate among those who transition is between 1 and 5 per cent, so the general attitude was it was so low that it wasn’t really important. 

But that was based upon old research from the Eighties and Nineties [when transitioners were few and predominantly middle-aged males]

‘You just need to look at the increasing numbers of those reversing their transition on websites and in blogs. There are many posts on the internet from those who regret changing gender. Each of them makes for desperately sad reading.

‘When people talk about young people transitioning, perhaps they don’t quite understand what a huge thing it is to do.

‘It involves treatments that can be impossible to reverse, such as hysterectomies, mastectomies and genital surgery. You need hormones for life. You change everything — the pituitary gland, the brain, everything — and there is always a risk of side effects.’

‘Many of the younger people who present at gender clinics have a history of mental health issues such as self-harming, social anxiety, eating disorders and so on. They see transitioning as their panacea. In addition, the proportion of people attending gender clinics who are on the autistic spectrum is approximately six times higher than the general population.’

‘The activist line is, ‘Oh that’s because they’re trans so if they weren’t discriminated against and could just be themselves and transition they wouldn’t have mental health issues’.

‘ That’s far too simplistic.’

He chooses his words carefully. He fears he has to be cautious about what he says for fear of being ‘slaughtered’ by the vocal minority.

Fear seems to define the debate surrounding trans rights, he says. Challenge the extremists and you’ll be accused of being transphobic — prejudiced against transgender people.

‘The problem is that the activists feel only they have any right to say anything.’ 

‘Discussion is being suppressed by a small, but vocal, minority in the LGBT community who seem to have an agenda to push the boundaries of trans rights whatever the cost.’

‘I honestly felt I was the only person in the world who was carrying the interests of people who had transitioned and regretted it.’

 It seems almost absurd James should find himself in this position, as he’s one of Britain’s foremost transgender experts. This has all become a kind of Kafkaesque weird tangle. Somebody needs to call it out.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4979498/James-Caspian-attacked-transgender-children-comments.html

Well, some courageous people have begun to call it out and this gives me the first sparks of hope that common sense will finally enter the picture. Here are only some.

• The defiant movement of Gays against groomers has emerged.
  

  An interview with Gays against groomers founder

  These people are looking into the root of the problem and seem to realize the danger of sexual indoctrination of children best of all. Their motto is ‘Gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children’ and if they don’t succeed in curbing this process no one will. Let me say BRAVO to these people and wish them every success possible despite the terrible vilification and suppression policy they are facing.  
• The parents’ outrage flares up here and there at learning that sexual and transgender ideology is part of the school curricula in public schools in the US now.  Numerous detransitioners also speak up, supported by doctors and pediatricians like Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians. She qualifies the effects of transgender ideology as large-scale child abuse and occasionally gets bans from Youtube for telling the truth.  
• A growing number of Western European countries did their own research of the gender medical practice, were abhorred by what they saw and recently revised their “gender-affirmative” model of care in favor of psychological (not medical) interventions. Finland was the first, and Sweden, which is among the most LGBT-affirming countries, followed suit. Sweden found that adults who underwent sex reassignment have a suicide rate nearly 20 times greater than that of the general population, so sex reassignment was not the solution to their problem.
• An international group of 100+ top clinicians formed The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) which gathers in-depth studies from all over the world. They were also amazed to find that transgender medicine is based on self-serving data and is lacking quality evidence.

The SEGM clinicians say it point-blank that the current gender narrative is fallacious and is deeply flawed, and that gender clinics have taken an activist stance instead of upholding the solemn oath to “first, do no harm.” 

 “Insistence by the gender medicine community that demanding rigor in research is akin to “science denialism” or “transphobia” places the field at risk of becoming one of the biggest medical epidemics of harm.

Currently as many as 1 in 10-20 high school and college youth in the U.S. self-identify as transgender. This self-identification, “affirmed” by healthcare professionals, puts them at risk for what has been demonstrated to be a largely irreversible “gender-affirming” medical treatment pathway which results in irreversible changes and is expected to lead to infertility or sterility.

Thousands of harmed young detransitioners are already speaking out, and recent studies indicate medical detransition rates of up to 30%.   Prior research suggests there is roughly an 8–11 year gap between gender reassignment and the emergence of long term regret and markedly increased morbidity and mortality. 

Medical societies and scientific journals that suppress debate in gender medicine, while uncritically promoting the fallacious “settled science” narrative by publishing deeply flawed studies, are contributing to this crisis.   

https://segm.org/Dutch-studies-critically-flawed

Several people who used to work in youth gender clinics are also ready to tell the truth about what’s going on in those clinics even at a risk to their personal lives and professional careers.

Jamie Reed is one of these people. She herself is a queer woman married to a transman, but despite her progressive views she warns that “What’s happening to children is morally and medically appalling”.

She was the main intake person at The Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital and says that the clinics like the one where she worked are creating a whole cohort of kids with atypical genitals.  

Here are some excerpts from Jamie Reed’s testimony to Missouri’s attorney general (see the full text).

I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle.

…Until 2015 or so, a very small number of boys comprised the population of pediatric gender dysphoria cases.

Then, across the Western world, there began to be a dramatic increase in a new population: Teenage girls, many with no previous history of gender distress, suddenly declared they were transgender and demanded immediate treatment with testosterone. 

I certainly saw this at the center. One of my jobs was to do intake for new patients and their families. When I started [in 2018] there were probably 10 such calls a month. When I left there were 50, and about 70 percent of the new patients were girls. Sometimes clusters of girls arrived from the same high school. 

The girls who came to us had many comorbidities: depression, anxiety, ADHD [Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder], eating disorders, obesity. Many were diagnosed with autism, or had autism-like symptoms.

To begin transitioning, the girls needed a letter of support from a therapist—usually one we recommended—who they had to see only once or twice for the green light. The next stop was a single visit to the endocrinologist for a testosterone prescription. 

That’s all it took. 

When a female takes testosterone, the profound and permanent effects of the hormone can be seen in a matter of months. Voices drop, beards sprout, body fat is redistributed. Sexual interest explodes, aggression increases, and mood can be unpredictable. Our patients were told about some side effects, including sterility. But after working at the center, I came to believe that teenagers are simply not capable of fully grasping what it means to make the decision to become infertile while still a minor.

How little patients understood what they were getting into was illustrated by a call we received at the center in 2020 from a 17-year-old biological female patient who was on testosterone. She said she was bleeding from the vagina. In less than an hour she had soaked through an extra heavy pad, her jeans, and a towel she had wrapped around her waist.

We found out later this girl had had intercourse, and because testosterone thins the vaginal tissues, her vaginal canal had ripped open. She had to be sedated and given surgery to repair the damage. She wasn’t the only vaginal laceration case we heard about.

Other girls were disturbed by the effects of testosterone on their clitoris, which enlarges and grows into what looks like a microphallus, or a tiny penis. I counseled one patient whose enlarged clitoris now extended below her vulva, and it chafed and rubbed painfully in her jeans.

There are rare conditions in which babies are born with atypical genitalia—cases that call for sophisticated care and compassion. But clinics like the one where I worked are creating a whole cohort of kids with atypical genitals.  Yet all it took for them to permanently transform themselves was one or two short conversations with a therapist.

Another disturbing aspect of the center was its lack of regard for the rights of parents—and the extent to which doctors saw themselves as more informed decision-makers over the fate of these children.

In 2019 one of our doctors testified in a custody hearing against a father who opposed a mother’s wish to start their 11-year-old daughter on puberty blockers. The father adamantly disagreed, said this was all coming from the mother, [but] after the hearing where our doctor testified in favor of transition, the judge sided with the mother. 

Sometimes the parents’ understanding of what they had agreed to do to their children came forcefully: 

Jun 9, 2022

Please be advised that I’m revoking my consent for this course of medical treatment. Grades have dropped, there’s been an in-patient behavioral visit and now he’s on 5 different medications. Lexipro, Trazadone, Buspar, etc.  [..] is a shell of his former self riddled with anxiety. Who knows if it’s because the hormone blockers or the other medications. I revoke my consent. I want the hormone blocker removed. Thank you.

In 2019, a new group of people appeared on my radar: desisters and detransitioners. Desisters choose not to go through with a transition. Detransitioners are transgender people who decide to return to their birth gender. 

The one colleague with whom I was able to share my concerns agreed with me that we should be tracking desistance and detransition. We thought the doctors would want to collect and understand this data in order to figure out what they had missed. 

We were wrong. One doctor wondered aloud why he would spend time on someone who was no longer his patient. 

My concerns about what was going on at the center started to overtake my life. By spring 2020, I felt a medical and moral obligation to do something. So I spoke up in the office, and sent plenty of emails. 

Things came to a head at a half-day retreat in summer of 2022. In front of the team, the doctors said that my colleague and I had to stop questioning the “medicine and the science” as well as their authority. Then an administrator told us we had to “Get on board, or get out.”

I gave my notice and left the Transgender Center in November of 2022. 

…Then I came across comments from Dr. Rachel Levine, a transgender woman who is a high official at the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The article read: “Levine, the U.S. assistant secretary for health, said that clinics are proceeding carefully and that no American children are receiving drugs or hormones for gender dysphoria who shouldn’t.”

I felt stunned and sickened. It wasn’t true. And I know that from deep first-hand experience. 

Two weeks ago, I brought my concerns and documents to the attention of Missouri’s attorney general. He is a Republican. I am a progressive. But the safety of children should not be a matter for our culture wars. 

Given the secrecy and lack of rigorous standards that characterize youth gender transition across the country, I believe that to ensure the safety of American children, we need a moratorium on the hormonal and surgical treatment of young people with gender dysphoria. 

In the past 15 years, according to Reuters, the U.S. has gone from having no pediatric gender clinics to more than 100. A thorough analysis should be undertaken to find out what has been done to their patients and why—and what the long-term consequences are.

There is a clear path for us to follow. Just last year England announced that it would close the Tavistock’s youth gender clinic, then the NHS’s only such clinic in the country, after an investigation revealed shoddy practices and poor patient treatment. Sweden and Finland, too, have investigated pediatric transition and greatly curbed the practice, finding there is insufficient evidence of help, and danger of great harm. 

The doctors I worked alongside at the Transgender Center said frequently about the treatment of our patients: “We are building the plane while we are flying it.”

No one should be a passenger on that kind of aircraft.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids

The countries that are also reversing their transgender practices are Australia, New Zealand and France where researchers made their own studies and as a result called for psychotherapy to be the first line of treatment for gender dysphoria in youth.  Even the Netherlands hears the first critical voices.

Why “even” the Netherlands?

Because the Dutch were the first to start gender transitioning of minors and it was a single-site study of theirs, later named The Dutch Protocol that launched this practice worldwide.  

On January 2, 2023, just two months ago, a damning review of the Dutch protocol was made by several independent (non-SEGM) clinicians under a telling title “The Dutch Studies and The Myth of Reliable Research in Pediatric Gender Medicine”.

The authors thoroughly examined the protocol, and were shocked to find that the Dutch research was critically flawed. 

A new open-access publication, “The Myth of Reliable Research in Pediatric Gender Medicine,” demands urgent attention from the medical community.

It focuses on the Dutch studies that gave rise to “gender-affirmative” care for youth worldwide. The authors convincingly demonstrate that rather than “solid prospective research” or even the “gold standard” in research, as these studies are frequently described by the proponents of “gender-affirmative care,” the Dutch research suffers from profound, previously unrecognized problems.

What was found is that the so-called Gender-Affirmative model consisting of……..

• Puberty blockers
• Lifelong cross-sex-hormones
• Mastectomy or breast implants
• Removal of ovaries or testes
• Hysterectomy (removal of the womb (uterus)
• Surgical removal of sex organs

……..is based on a single Dutch study of:

• 55 subjects (only 40 with complete data)
• Only 1.5 year post-surgery follow-up at an average age of under 21
• No control group
• No physical health effects evaluation
• Unchanged or worsening gender dysphoria while on puberty blockers, especially among adolescent females
• Under-reported negative outcomes. One adolescent died as a result of post-operative complications, several others could not pursue treatment due to new health issues after hormonal administration (obesity and diabetes)

The authors conclude that the Dutch studies are of unacceptably low quality by today’s standards.

“Had the Dutch studies been published today for the first time, the “innovative practice” of using hormones and surgery to gender-transition children and young adults would never have been permitted to enter general medical settings due to the very low quality of the research, and problematic outcomes.

What happened is that the gender medicine mistook a small innovative experiment for a proven practice and rapidly extended it as if it were a “gold standard”.

Unfortunately, since the publication of the final Dutch study in 2014, the practice of youth gender transitions underwent what’s known as “runaway diffusion”— a not uncommon phenomenon whereby the medical community mistakes a small innovative experiment as a proven practice, and a potentially non-beneficial or harmful practice “escapes the lab,” rapidly spreading to general practice settings.”

On January 26, 2023 the Amsterdam Youth Gender Clinic, where the Dutch protocol originated, prided itself on its first 20 years of practicing the protocol and boasted of success (here). However, the critical analysis that followed made an incredible discovery – it turned out that the positive conclusions of the clinic were not supported by the data presented by the clinic itself.  

Here is the SEGM review of that analysis: 

February 2, 2023

New “20-year” Study from Amsterdam’s VUmc Youth Gender Clinic: A Critical Analysis

The study’s conclusions and “clinical implications” are not supported by the data presented

…. to date, the entire model of “gender-affirming” care is based on the Dutch experience. The seminal importance of the Dutch studies is evidenced by the fact that the Endocrine Society Guidelines, and WPATH “Standards of Care 7” under which the practice proliferated, refer only to the Dutch experience as proof of “benefits” of the practice.

However, these newer studies, which purport to have definitively proven that puberty blockers and cross sex hormones are “as benign as aspirin, as well-studied as penicillin and statins, and as essential to survival as insulin for childhood diabetes” are even more flawed than the original Dutch research.

Below are only some of the flaws highlighted by SEGM researchers in the conclusions of the Amsterdam clinic which claimed that it followed up on its patients for 20 years:

• While it is technically true that the study data span over 20 years, in terms of patient-level treatment trajectories, the median follow up is only 4.6 years from the first intake appointment. For 25% of the sample, follow up is less than 3 years.
• To properly evaluate outcomes, follow up consisting of months to a few years after starting medical treatment is insufficient. Prior research suggests that health problems and regret often do not peak until a decade later. 
• Only best-case scenario outcomes were included in the studies’ results.
• The studies only focused on potential benefits and failed to evaluate risks.
• The conclusion that gender dysphoria disappeared after “affirmative” treatment is wrong.
• The study claims that “detransition was very rare”—but the authors never attempted to evaluate the rate of detransition.
• The study overlooks the earlier study of 879 Dutch children conducted at the same Amsterdam clinic before the advent of the Dutch protocol which initially found that 6% of the young children were considered “gender variant,” but 24 years later none had chosen to undergo medical transition despite being eligible for gender reassignment as mature adults.
• The same earlier study reported that remarkably, 80% of the gender-dysphoric youth who were rejected from gender reassignment in adolescence were no longer interested in gender transition as adults and found other ways to address their gender dysphoria.
• However, the patients who transitioned even under the strict version of the Dutch Protocol appear to have substantial reproductive regret, body shame, and sexual dysfunction. 
• The Dutch studies ignore the well-documented phenomenon of “peer contagion” spreading through social circles for conditions like eating disorders and self-harm. In the context of gender, the theory of peer contagion has been named “ROGD” and endorsed by a growing number of clinicians and detransitioners. Thus, the study’s conclusion that “ROGD subtype likely does not exist,” is unreliable. The time has come to acknowledge the possibility that the ROGD theory may hold the key to explaining some of the surge in gender dysphoria in adolescents.
• The Dutch studies are best described as a “case series”—the lowest and least reliable level of evidence.

How could it happen that no one noticed that those studies were so flawed? SEGM explains that busy clinicians often rely on abstracts only, which are trumpeting success, and seldom look inside to critically appraise the studies or lack the methodological skills to do so:

“Few busy clinicians have the time and skills to engage in an in-depth critical appraisal of this and other studies, and thus, they rely on abstracts.”

SEGM calls on the medical community to reevaluate the Dutch experience using rigorous research that will be made by experts with no conflict of interest in this area, and to not rely on the conclusions of gender clinics themselves which, fighting for the survival of their practices, have increasingly assumed a politicized and activist stance.

 “The Myth of Reliable Research in Pediatric Gender Medicine” mounts a formidable challenge to the claim that the Dutch studies’ conclusion that psychosocial benefits arise from “solid prospective research.”

Far from having perfected previously flawed research methods, the researchers have perfected the art of spin—misrepresenting weak, uncertain, or even negative findings as strong and positive.

The authors remind readers that medicine is adouble-edged sword, and that the history of medicine is replete with examples of “cures” that turned out to be far worse than the “diseases” they purported to treat.

They also note the gender-clinicians’ relentless political activism. Rather than engaging in reflection and improving research methods, many gender-clinicians-turned-advocates are instead trying to quell the ongoing scientific debate by calling it “science denialism” motivated by ignorance, religious zeal, and transphobia.

Newer studies suffer from even more significant limitations than do the Dutch studies. This point is illustrated by three recent studies where the studies’ weak or even negative findings were spun into favorable results.

https://segm.org/Dutch-studies-critically-flawed

What could Michael Jackson say about all that if he were alive?  About the new fad that warps the minds and bodies of children who are unable to grasp that they will be mutilated for life as a result of an experiment that doesn’t even have any solid science behind it?

Would he go with the crowd and support the craze? Or would he try to protect at least his children from it, and join the voices of those parents who don’t want to have their kids’ lives ruined?

And what do you think?

MJ’s kids

Part 2.  SCIENCE !

If you are still undecided look at the young man who lost his manhood forever and the woman who suffers from a severe genital pain and became bloated as a result of hormonal treatment (usual condition after females stop taking testosterone).

Both spoke of their regret to transition to a filmmaker Charlotte Fantelli in her film “No Turning Back.”

12 October 2022 

‘I should have never done this’

Ritchie detransitioned after spending nearly a decade as a trans woman. 

After feeling ‘different’ as a young boy, he discovered gender dysphoria while browsing online forums in his early 20s. When he explained his feelings to other forum users he was told he was ‘100 per cent trans and should act on it’.  

In 2014, Ritchie went to an NHS gender clinic in Brighton. 

 “They wanted me to have surgery more than I wanted to have surgery – it was really bizarre. I refused it in 2015, I refused it in 2016, then in 2017 the psychiatrist said to me ”you’re established on your hormones, if you don’t want surgery we’ll discharge you”.

Ritchie described the surgery he went through to transition from male to female as ‘extremely brutal’. 

 ‘I think I’ve made a really mad decision’.  ‘I would go back every month and at every session say I feel the same, ”This is f*****g mental, I should have never done this’.

The 35-year-old said, ‘This is not reversible, the experiment is over for me, there really really isn’t any turning back’.

In powerful testimony to the film No Turning Back, Ritchie (left) and Amber (right) bravely reveal their regrets at going through sex change operations

Amber – who is in her early 30s, also first went to a private gender clinic, where after just two appointments she was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and received cross sex hormones. She then had surgery to remove her breasts on the NHS.  

After three years on testosterone she said she began to question her decision but found the medics at her private clinic were not supportive. 

‘About two and a half years on testosterone I started to experience a lot of severe pain in my genital region. I have facial and bodily hair – female hormones don’t remove the hair that we’ve grown on testosterone. I also have genital changes that are permanent and of course I had a double mastectomy’. 

Taking testosterone for a long period had caused her internal female organs to begin to atrophy. Amber said the usual pathway at this point would have been full hysterectomy but she refused and came off the testosterone.  

‘I think I regret the speed at which I approached transition, especially the medical side. ‘I wish I’d have explored in therapy the feelings I was having’.

Filmmaker Charlotte Fantelli told MailOnline she had never covered transgender issues before but decided to, following her own personal experiences.   

‘My children were aged 11 or 12 when they came home after a sex education session in which they’d talked about transgender ideology and how they could potentially have been born into the wrong body. I questioned why a group of pre-pubescent teenagers would be taught that kind of ideology.’

Ms Fantelli said she had always been ‘very openly liberal’, but felt children ‘were being given answers to questions that they had never asked’. 

She added: ‘Children should be allowed to explore their own identities in an innocent way, but what I thought was wrong was adults starting to put seeds in their minds that came from a very adult, sexualised and gender orientated place. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11302085/Patients-detransitioned-sex-change-operations-reveal-regret.html

Same as Ms Fantelli I also wonder who and why presses transgender ideology on children and why kids are given answers to questions they have never asked.

All of it amounts to sexual indoctrination of children.  On how early sexualization affects kids, I refer you to a psychotherapist from Perth, Australia who speaks about the harm of an infinitely lesser form of sexualization, which is done by parents when they simply dress their kids as ‘mini-adults’.

Loss of Childhood and Sexualisation of Children

 By: Richard Boyd Copyright © 2022 [excerpts]

The old saying that the person who grows up too soon spends the rest of their life as a child is full of wisdom.

Nothing is more vulnerable than childhood and it’s never been more under threat. The trend in our society is that childhood is being devalued so much that many parents seem increasingly restless to get their children’s childhood over as quickly as possible.

Parents, mass media marketing, peer pressure, are all propelling our children into premature adolescence as if innocence, magical thinking, wonder and make-believe are detrimental and should be replaced with “the realities of life” as soon as is possible.

Psychiatrists define sexualisation of children as the imposition of adult models of sexuality on children and adolescents, and categorically state it creates psychological harm to children.

Studies of children have confirmed that many children feel pressure to grow up too quickly and to dress, act and behave as “mini-adults”, often to impress parents, or have parents impress friends by parading them out like Barbie dolls or spunky, cool little dudes.

In many childhood and teen programmes we are being bombarded with the notions and images of children having intimate partners or relationships, troubles with boyfriends or girlfriends, concerns over appearance, popularity and desirability.

Unfortunately now in therapy we are seeing as a result more teenage and early twenty something people who have lost their innocence early, who are street wise, have tried it all by age 18, and are jaded, burnt out, depressed, disillusioned, lost, and have no reason why they feel this way.

This disillusioned generation is angry, and now experiencing higher rates of Depression, Anxiety, Drug and alcohol addictions, and anti-social behaviours. Suicide rates are rising in this affected 18-29 age group and there is entrenched hopelessness, pessimism and a sense of being lost.

Childhood is the only safe psychological foundation and process for children to experience if they are to become secure and healthy adults. Full text here: https://www.energeticsinstitute.com.au/articles/sexualisation-of-children/

It was incredible to hear the psychotherapist echo the exact words of Michael Jackson who also spoke of the need to maintain the kids’ innocence, their magical thinking, wonder and make belief, however the cynics scorned them as something naive.

With the knowledge Michael Jackson gained a hard way in his own childhood he was like a psychotherapist himself and always talked about the need for a trouble-free childhood, the harm of losing it too soon and the disastrous effect of placing adult responsibilities on a child’s shoulders.

The burden of having to work for a living and be a breadwinner for the whole family since age 5 did Michael tremendous harm, which is still underestimated by many, but as the old saying says, “The person who grows up too soon spends the rest of their life as a child”, it explains why he remained a child in a man’s body almost to his dying day. This old wisdom perfectly applies to MJ himself and child stars like Macauley Culkin, for example, and it was their loss of normal childhood that bonded them together like no other.

But if a child loses his childhood in a different way and is indoctrinated with sexual matters at a young age, the effect is even more disastrous.

To quote that psychotherapist again, these kids are “street wise, have tried it all by age 18, and are jaded, burnt out, depressed, disillusioned and lost”. They are “angry, experiencing higher rates of depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol addictions, and anti-social behaviours”, are often on the brink of suicide and have “no reason why they feel this way”.

The ruinous effect of sexual corruption of children has been well known since long ago and is the real reason why responsible parents restrain their children from early sex – this is a way to protect children from their risky selves in the first place, and ensure a safe foundation for their healthy and secure future.

But what was new to me in the above piece was that a seemingly innocent parading of girls as mini-adults in high-heeled shoes and padded bras may also be part of an early sexualization of children and may even hamper their natural maturing process.

But if this is true, how much more damaging to a child psyche would be parading a boy in the same attire? And encouraging him to wear dresses on a near permanent basis – like this mum does who makes a name for herself by placing the photos of her 5-year old on the net?

Mum photographs five-year-old son in dresses to inspire other parents to be more accepting

The mother claims that her son wants to wear those dresses himself, but it is still she who keeps buying them, so her motives in promoting her son that way are somewhat questionable.

Walt Heyer, a male who lived as a woman for 8 years and then detransitioned, says that his gender confusion started with exactly this type of fun when he was 4 years old and his grandmother put on him a cute little purple dress.  He says that it began ‘a creepy psychological and emotional destruction that starts within a 4-year old boy who doesn’t know what the consequences of it are going to be’.

‘That dress set in motion a life filled with gender dysphoria, sexual abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, and finally, an unnecessary gender reassignment surgery. My life was ripped apart by a trusted adult who enjoyed dressing me as a girl’.

Walt Heyer in 1977, 1984 and now

The grandma kept her little secret from the boy’s parents for nearly two years during which time the boy ‘grew accustomed to wearing that purple dress and became sort of addicted to hearing the affirmation how cute he was.

Walt Heyer tells his powerful story in “I Was a Transgender Woman” and “Hormones, surgery, regret: I was a transgender woman for 8 years — time I can’t get back” , in this Youtube video and here too  – in short, whenever he is given an opportunity to speak up.

His story starts with a crucial question that haunts him even today: Why didn’t his grandma love him the way he was?

 “Would you love me if I were a boy?” The boy in that glowing documentary about parents raising transgender kids dared to voice a question I always wanted to ask. Why didn’t she love me the way I was?

My grandmother withheld affirmations of me as a boy, but she lavished delighted praise upon me when I was dressed as a girl. Feelings of euphoria swept over me with her praise, followed later by depression and insecurity about being a boy. Her actions planted the idea in me that I was born in the wrong body. She nourished and encouraged the idea, and over time it took on a life of its own.

Eventually, my parents found out, and my unsupervised visits to Grandma’s house ended. I thought my secret was safe, but my teenage uncle heard about it and felt I was fair game for taunting and sexual abuse. I wasn’t even 10 years old.

That abuse caused me to not want to be male any longer. Cross-dressing gave me an escape. I lay awake at night, secretly begging God to change me into a girl. In my childlike thinking, if I could only be a girl, I would be safe.’ 

… I was never homosexual; I was interested in dating girls. In my early 20s and engaged to be married, I confided to my fiancée about my cross-dressing. She figured we could work it out. We got married and had two children.

In my work life I was successful, but the girl persona still occupied my thoughts. With weekly travel away from home, I easily indulged in cross-dressing, fueling the desire to be a woman.

By the time I was 40, I couldn’t take the pressure of living two separate lives. I felt torn apart, wanting to be a good husband and father, but in severe torment about needing to be a woman.

The seeds sown by Grandma developed deep roots.

I sought out the top gender specialist at the time, Dr. Paul Walker, who told me that sex change was the only solution. Thrilled that I could finally attain my lifelong dream, I underwent a surgical change at the age of forty-two. My marriage ended shortly before surgery.

…At first, I was giddy with excitement. It seemed like a fresh start. I could sever ties with my former life as Walt and my painful past. But reality soon hit. It’s hard for me to describe what happened next.

The reprieve provided by surgery and life as a woman was only temporary. Hidden deep underneath the make-up and female clothing was the little boy carrying the hurts from traumatic childhood events. Being a female turned out to be only a cover-up, not healing.

I knew I wasn’t a real woman, no matter what my identification documents said. I had taken extreme steps to resolve my gender conflict, but changing genders hadn’t worked. It was obviously a masquerade.

It was all so puzzling. What was the point of changing genders if not to resolve the conflict? After eight years of living as a woman, I had no lasting peace.

I was once again experiencing gender dysphoria, but this time I felt like a male inside a body refashioned to look like a woman. Emotionally, I was a mess. Feeling lost and depressed, I drank heavily and considered suicide.

…Rather than going to gender-change activist psychologists like the one who had approved me for surgery, I sought the opinions of several “regular” psychologists and psychiatrists who did not see all gender disorders as transgender.

They agreed: it was apparent that I had developed a dissociative disorder in childhood to escape the trauma of the repeated cross-dressing by my grandmother and the sexual abuse by my uncle.  

That should have been diagnosed and treated with psychotherapy. Instead, the gender specialist never considered my difficult childhood or even my alcoholism and saw only transgender identity.

With expert guidance, I dared to revisit the emotional trauma of my youth. It wasn’t easy, but it was the only way to address the underlying conditions driving my gender dysphoria.

In 1996, at the age of 55, I was finally free from the desire to live as a woman and changed my legal documents back to Walt, my biologically correct male sex. I am on a hormone regimen to try to regulate a system that is permanently altered.

You will hear the media say, “Regret is rare.” But they are not reading my inbox, which is full of messages from transgender individuals who want the life and body back that was taken from them by cross-sex hormones, surgery and living under a new identity.

Had I not been misled by media stories of sex change “success” and by medical practitioners who said transitioning was the answer to my problems, I wouldn’t have suffered as I have.

After de-transitioning, I know the truth: Hormones and surgery may alter appearances, but nothing changes the immutable fact of your sex.  Genetics can’t be changed.  Feelings, however, can and do change. Underlying issues often drive the desire to escape one’s life into another, and they need to be addressed before taking the radical step of transition.

Changing genders is short-term gain with long-term pain. Its consequences include early mortality, regret, mental illness, and suicide. Instead of encouraging them to undergo unnecessary and destructive surgery, let’s affirm and love our young people just the way they are.

“Why didn’t she love me the way I was?” is actually the key to Walt Heyer’s sad story. Persistent cross-dressing of a boy at a whim of his grandma did take root early in his mind but became visible only many years later. To prevent a similar tragedy from happening to other children Walt Heyer is now calling on parents not to repeat the same mistake and love their kids just the way they are.

However the problem is that gender activists also call for loving and accepting children the way they are, but advise parents to do exactly the opposite – to follow the transgender feelings of their children and help them realize their dreams of being the opposite gender.

The two paths are mutually exclusive, so where is the truth?

Those who are familiar with Michael Jackson’s nature, mind-set and real motives (and not those proclaimed by the media) know that he could have given the answer.

Despite the nasty allegations against him, he loved and cherished the children’s innocence, and called on families to protect their kids from the world of adulthood in its every aspect – until they grew up and were ready to face adult life in its full entirety. Including sexual matters of course.

MJ and his kids

Michael’s own sexuality was often questioned by those who noted his tenderness and gentle ways. They called him feminine-looking, gay, asexual, whatever, because his appearance and behavior didn’t fit their stereotypes of masculinity.

Indeed, his looks did dramatically change – but that was due to vitiligo, which made him porcelain white, and lupus that was destroying his hair and skin on the nose (after only two nose operations, by the way). The make-up was just a way to cover up the spots and scars, and add a little color to his fully discolored face.

Another case of vitiligo and black skin turning white

But as to his maleness Michael never questioned it and initially laughed at those who were in doubt, and was later extremely upset when the media called him nasty names where “a poor black boy who grew up to be a rich white woman” was just one of the kindest.

His gender was never an issue for him, and his sexual orientation was the same as his father’s, same as his sex drive and love of women in his later years.

And just like his father it is impossible to imagine Michael Jackson to encourage his own or anyone’s children to explore their ‘true gender identity’ and let them transition to the opposite sex.

Raising Paris as a tomboy or Blanket as a fragile long-haired wonder was okay for Michael, but questioning their gender? No way. The idea itself is a sure way to confuse the young minds, arouse their fantasy and sow the seeds of doubt and distress that they might be born in the wrong body. And distress was the last thing he wanted for any child.

He wanted every kid’s childhood to be undisturbed.

Add to it his tendency to refrain from discussing sexual matters with anyone at all – even with adults, not to mention young children, and his strict adherence to biblical principles of chastity in his early years, as well as his aversion for any cross-dressing he explicitly expressed in those taped conversations with Rabbi Schmuley, and you will get an even clearer picture of MJ’s views.  

Just as a reminder:

“Madonna laid the law down to me before we went out. “[She said]: “I am not going to Disneyland, OK? That’s out.”

I said: “I didn’t ask to go to Disneyland.”

She said: “We are going to the restaurant. And afterwards, we are going to a strip bar.”

I said: “I am not going to a strip bar, where they cross-dress… Guys who are girls, and girls… I said, “I am not going there.” “If that’s how it is, forget this whole thing.” 

 

Michael: She said, “I love spanky books”. Why would I want to see that?”

The King and Queen of Pop’s relationship ended abruptly. One of the purported causes of the fallout was divulged by producer Kenneth “Babyface” Edmonds during a 2020 Verzuz online rap battle with Teddy Riley, who co-produced MJ’s “In The Closet”.  

“Babyface, can you believe she [Madonna] wants me to dress like a girl?” Edmonds recalled Jackson saying. “He was like, ‘I’d never do that.’ He said, ‘She was trying to change it all up. It was crazy.’ He was really mad about it.”

https://news.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/09/08/22/inside-michael-jackson-and-madonnas-failed-relationship

No, Michael Jackson was definitely old school in matters like these.

Some claim that MJ could become much more ‘progressive’ as time went on. But they forget that Michael was over forty when he had his own children (his third child Blanket was born in 2002 when MJ was already 44), but even at that age he was still known to cover the pictures of nudes in his friends’ homes, when he resided there with his children.

See what Burkle’s friend George Maloof recalled about Michael in 2007:

After spending Thanksgiving with Burkle in California, Jackson flew to Las Vegas and moved into the Hugh Hefner suite in the Palms’ “Fantasy Tower.” It was the finest and most secure accommodation he could offer, explained Maloof, who didn’t realize until a week later that it was not the place for Michael Jackson. “I came in there one day and Michael had covered up all the nude pictures,” George Maloof recalled. “This was because of the kids. He didn’t want them looking at those pictures.” [Sullivan, p.122]

Michael’s idea was that nothing should disturb the innocent minds of children and distract them from playing their innocent games – until it was the right time for them to enter the life of adults.

Would Michael Jackson have felt love and compassion for transkids if he had met any? He certainly would, however he wouldn’t have supported their transition until they grew up, and knew how much they were giving up if they agreed to a medical intervention.

Having love and compassion for troubled kids vs. stopping their normal development by administering puberty blockers, changing their body chemistry by cross-sex hormones and then mutilating them by severing some of their healthy parts (out of much love of course), are too different things for both to be considered “love and compassion”. So it still remains to be seen where real compassion in – in allowing children to be mauled or restraining them from it.

Michael Jackson was very much into medicine and was very well read in this field too as he himself suffered from a burn on his head, vitiligo, lupus, sleeplessness, and whatnot, so I am more than sure that if Michael had encountered a case of “gender dysphoria” among his loved ones, he would have done massive research and found the thing that I’ve found which is shattering the gender medicine into pieces.

What is it?

Neuroscience and its brain scans tell us that the frontal lobes of the brain, which are responsible for “higher order cognition” like judgment and impulse control, mature by the mid twenties only, so any decisions taken by a young person before that age are relatively infantile and lacking in maturity almost by default.

The frontal lobes are involved in problem solving, spontaneity, memory, language, initiation, judgment, impulse control, social and sexual behavior.

Michael himself was an illustration of that ironclad neuroscience fact – by the age of 20 his music skills were already superb (Thriller was released when he was 24), but in the emotional sphere, social behavior and making judgments he was sometimes more of a child than a grown-up person.

So the big question is, given that the brain matures only by the mid-twenties, can young people give really informed consent to changing their gender?

Consider these facts from the The National Institute of Mental Health and similar sources:

• For girls, the brain reaches its largest physical size around 11 years old and for boys, the brain reaches its largest physical size around age 14.
• Although the brain stops growing in size by early adolescence, the teen years are all about fine-tuning how the brain works. The brain finishes developing and maturing in the mid-to-late 20s.
• The brain develops somewhat unevenly. The part of the brain behind the forehead, called the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for planning, prioritizing and good judgment, is the last to mature. It is also responsible for the ability to control impulsive behavior and focus on long-term goals. Because the prefrontal cortex is still developing during the teenage years, this explains why teenagers sometimes show poor judgment and are so driven by emotion, excitement and short-term reward.

To put it simply, reason, long-term planning, good judgment and the ability to see cause and effect – all of them come last in the brain maturity process. But what comes first then?

• The parts of the brain to develop first are those that control physical activity (cerebellum), emotion (amygdala) and motivation (nucleus accumbens).

The strange word amygdala [əˈmiɡdələ] stands for that part of the brain which is responsible for emotions and regulates fear/stress and reward/ pleasure as the basic emotions necessary for survival – the baby feels safe and smiles at seeing his mother, and cries with fear when facing the unknown. Not surprisingly, amygdala starts developing immediately after birth.

The prefrontal cortex as the “voice of reason” is able to regulate emotions, but its full development is lagging behind amygdala by nearly 20 years and before it finally matures teenagers are driven mostly by feelings and may have emotional outbursts, like yelling at their parents and stomping out of the room, and slamming the door.

Amygdala also undergoes changes and in early adolescence the fiery emotions of risk and reward fuse into a dangerous combination when the brain starts perceiving rewards from risk.

Psychologist Laurence Steinberg, a giant in the field of adolescent development, likens this period to engaging a powerful engine before the braking system is in place. To be more exact, the teenagers’ impulsivity isn’t so much because of lack of brakes, but because of planned and enjoyable pressure to the accelerator.

This explains why adolescents are more prone to risky behaviors than are children or adults, and why teens in mid-adolescence take more risks than older teens.

More about it here. 

Now that we know some basic facts from neuroscience let us answer the questions we encountered earlier:

• Can children give informed consent to changing their gender if their brains reach their normal physical size by the ages of 11 to 14 only?

• Should adolescents go on a transgender adventure guided by their feelings only when the brain center for emotions (amygdala) is still having full rein and the voice of reason is lagging behind?

• Can teenagers have good judgment about the risky game of trying the opposite sex hormones when their brain even derives pleasure from risk-taking and perceives the joy of pressing the accelerator as a reward for discarding fear?

• Should adults encourage young children to cross-dress and show delight at seeing them ‘so cute’ and thus reward them for the masquerade during the period when emotions are the first to develop in a child’s brain? Given that children generally don’t hear any delighted exclamations when they wear their usual clothes, and the emotional reward they get from cross-dressing may be interpreted by a little child’s mind as ‘This is a correct thing to do” or “If I put on a dress they will love me more” and may develop into a habit to elicit more love and attention from their parents?

Neuroscience gives a definite NO to all these questions.

 

Drag kid Desmond on ABC’s Good morning America (owned by Disney)

But even that is not all. Another nuance should be added to the whole story as it may become the decisive factor in shaping an adolescent’s future.

The thing is, during early adolescence the brain increases in size and in late adolescence it (surprisingly) decreases again. This is done at the expense of white matter – bundles of nerve fibers that help the brain areas to communicate and sort of “chat” with each other.

You might think that this kind of pruning is a bad thing, but it is actually the process of fine-tuning the brain as it cuts weak connections and reinforces strong ones. This allows the brain to focus energy and resources on the connections that are used most and discard the unused ones in order to increase its overall efficiency.

Neuroscientists call this phenomenon synaptic pruning (“the process by which extra neurons and synaptic connections are eliminated in order to increase the efficiency of neuronal transmissions”).

The rule at work here is a “Use it or Lose it” principle.

Use it or Lose it!

In practical terms it means that when adolescents spend their free time reading, or playing sports, or focusing on academics, or training management skills, the respective “neuron connections will be reinforced as parts of the brain that are responsible for those behaviors are physically going to be strengthened.” 

“But if they spend most of their time watching TV and sitting on a couch and procrastinating, that’s what’s going to be strengthened instead”. And at some point the door of opportunity will be closed.

“A kind of scary implication of this is that what we do during our teenage years might be literally shaping our brains for the rest of our lives.”

If you are still incredulous of this mind-boggling fact, watch this short video from Khan Academy from which the above statements were quoted:

There is no need to panic yet – the brain also has compensatory mechanisms to make up for some of its lost functions, but the importance of the above “pruning” cannot be overestimated.

With regard to gender ideology the “Use it or Lose it” principle means that if children lose the period which is best suited for intensive learning and use it on exploring sex, their “gender identity” and their deepest “feelings” about it, the latter brain connections will be strengthened first – and in the current atmosphere of gender craze there is no doubt that the gender issue is what is occupying their minds most.

Everything else that is not that important and is therefore less exercised by the brain will be cut by it as simply unnecessary and what remains will literally shape the children’s character and their future.

If the worst comes to the worst we will have sexually obsessed youngsters, who are burnt out and mentally unstable, deeply confused and unable to realize what happened to them because their brain is lacking the “higher order cognition” mentioned above and is not used to looking into cause and effect of what they’ve been doing. 

In fact psychotherapists are already registering much distress and depression among young people as well as a growing rate of their suicides.

This pruning seems to be the biological explanation why children are so susceptible to the disastrous practice of indoctrinating them with various ideologies – be it political like militarizing their minds (in my part of the world) or sexual and transgender indoctrination (in your part of the world), both of which imprint on children things that are incompatible with the young innocent minds and are antagonistic to their natural maturing process.

All they need to do to indoctrinate children with a certain ideology is flood them with respective rhetoric while their brain is still immature and is highly emotionally responsive, and all the rest will be simply cut by the brain itself.

Are those who press transgender ideology on children aware that they are doing them immense harm by warping their young minds with disputable theories that are not even based on quality evidence and have absolutely no place in a school curriculum?  

Do they know that their narrative goes counter to neuroscience which proves that children cannot give informed consent to any experiments with their gender because their brain is simply not ready for it?

It may come as a surprise but they do know, as they openly admit that the biggest danger to gender medicine comes from neuroscience.

Being unable to dispute it, they pick on anything they can get their hands on – some insignificant details like, for example, the age of 25 which is sometimes mentioned in scientific journals as the average age of brain maturity.

Consider this article of September 2022 in Slate, for example.   

It doesn’t dare confront neuroscience directly and just makes fun of the “myth of the 25 year-old brain” calling it “bunk” (Why 25? It’s a nice-sounding number? It’s divisible by five?), while 25 is merely a median between early and late twenties, and in real life the brain maturity may certainly occur earlier or later.

But see what tremendous conclusions are made from the above and how the blame of political indoctrination is shifted from the guilty to the innocent:

The real-world consequences of the “brains are fully mature at 25” myth are only beginning to emerge. As people continue to cite this factoid, it has the power to create serious societal change. Anti-trans activists cite this as evidence that young people should not be allowed to access lifesaving, gender-affirming care. The ultimate trajectory of this growing belief is impossible to know, but it’s clear that neuroscience has and will be deployed to shape policy.

Let’s translate it from newspeak into common language. Neuroscientists (not “anti-trans activists”) caution youngsters from taking life-altering (“lifesaving”) decisions on changing their sex (“gender-affirming care”) until they grow older because this reprieve may indeed be lifesaving for them. But according to gender activists this scientific evidence will be used to shape (bad) policy while it is perfectly okay for them to shape the policy they like.

Perhaps the whole enterprise needs a reframe. It’s naive to believe that scientific evidence won’t be weaponized for political purposes.

Again, scientific evidence is not meant to be “weaponized” by anyone. It is simply scientific evidence – no more, no less. But gender activists make it clear that they are not going to allow any scientific evidence to stand in the way of their political purposes. In the face of neuroscience unbeatable facts they feel that they are somewhat losing ground, so now they suggest that “the whole enterprise” should be reframed.

It feels inevitable that people will gravitate toward a neat, simple story that feels intuitively true: We’re adults at 25. But rather than using that factoid to defend bad decisions, why not use its lessons to reframe youth as an opportunity? As the brain develops in adolescence and early adulthood, it stays open to change; that’s what allows us to learn. And while adolescence is typically a time of big changes, reaching adulthood doesn’t mean the end of that growth. You can make good or bad decisions at any age.

Sly statements like “you can make good or bad decisions at any age” are tongue-in-cheek arguments that require clarification – the decisions of kindergarten children may be good or bad for their age, but they are no comparison to good or bad decisions taken by an adult.  Children and adults will never think the same.

But nothing is impossible for our gender activists. Instead of accepting the objective biological limitations of the brain at each stage of it maturity they are set to mold the kids’ brains according to the brave new world they are creating for them, which is sexually free, gender-fluid and totally devoid of any oppression from their parents, of course. 

They openly call it an “opportunity to reframe youth” which is actually a public declaration of their ideology and intentions.

The only reasonable explanation for their dogged effort to impose sex and gender ideology on children – in open defiance of hard scientific facts – is the agenda to turn children into deeply disturbed sexual beings and then promote sexual relations between children and adults.

Logically speaking, this will probably be done under the pretext that it is going to be “beneficial” for children. Indeed, “Who can guide the poor young soul better than an adult partner? No one can” – this is the same old argument that was used by aristocracy in ancient Greece to institutionalize pedophilia with young boys as a way to educate them and ensure their success in life.  

And it is already being done in the name of “love and compassion” for troubled kids though it is they who first confuse them with their theories and then pretend to be helping them with the resulting problems.

All of the above does not mean that true gender identity disorders don’t exist – they do, but the genuine cases are rare and many of them border on autism and other mental disorders. Whatever the reason, they certainly require much attention, sophisticated medical care and a whole lot of love, patience and compassion.  

But apart from that, the present epidemic of child transgenders seems to be wholly man-made and driven by a very, very specific agenda.

Gays against groomers were the first to notice it and are completely spot on in their diagnosis.

We’re saying NO.  

There are millions of gays within the community that want nothing to do with this Alphabet religion and join the fight with parents and concerned people everywhere to protect children. We also aim to return sanity and reclaim the community we once called our own. 

The gay community is not a monolith. Those pushing this agenda do not represent or speak for us all, nor do we want to be associated with them in any way. What we are witnessing is mass scale child abuse being perpetrated on an entire generation, and we will no longer sit by and watch it happen.

​It is going to take those of us from within the community to finally put an end to this insanity, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/about

If Michael Jackson had lived to see it, would he have joined these people? No doubt, he would.

He worshipped children like others worship God and was all about letting kids enjoy their innocent childhood.

He constantly spoke about the need to build family-oriented parks and called on parents to spend more time with their children and care for their needs.

He himself was a wonderful father and would have certainly been among those parents who fiercely object to their kids’ corruption.

And considering his enormous popularity all over the world, he could have done a lot to prevent or reverse the current trend.

And this is most probably why they struck him where it hurt most, and why they were so set on destroying him.

Prince, Paris and Bigi (former Blanket) in December 2022