“Ryan T. Anderson is willing to kill children if the teachings of the Church are defended. … Anderson is neither sane nor rational.”

Thursday. According to Ryan T. Anderson, Defender of the Faith™: Protect Good Medicine, Stop the Censorship of Good Counseling. Once again, this functional nitwit is promoting gender identity conversion therapy which can cause lifelong adverse mental health consequences.

Overall, Ryan T. Anderson is convinced that he is a great deal more intelligent than he really is. Anderson is also wed to the notion that he is an expert with respect to juvenile gender dysphoria.

None of Anderson’s drivel has any connection to the best interests of children. This is a ridiculous exercise in trying to prevent people from becoming transgender lest they pose a contradiction to scripture.

It is ridiculous because it is based on the premise that the ancient texts are infallible; thus transgender people cannot possibly exist. They must be just “confused.” Therefore, Anderson becomes obligated to propose a method to unconfuse people.

Most sane, rational people accept the premise that neither the teachings of the Catholic Church nor scripture constitute clinical standards of practice for the treatment of a medical condition. Ryan T. Anderson is neither sane nor rational.

Most sane, rational people will also realize that Anderson, who has no medical training, is in no position to pontificate about how a medical condition should be treated. Anderson presumes to be more authoritative than, say, the American Academy of Pediatrics. As I said, the religiously simplistic Ryan T. Anderson is neither sane nor rational.

We are not discussing treatments for adolescent acne. Dr. Deanna Adkins of Duke University School of Medicine is an expert. She has said:

With the exception of some serious childhood cancers, gender dysphoria is the most fatal condition that I treat because of the harms that flow from not properly recognizing gender identity. Attempted suicide rates in the transgender community are over 40%, which is a risk of death that far exceeds most other medical conditions. The only treatment to avoid this serious harm is to recognize the gender identity of patients with gender dysphoria and differences of sex development.

Dr. Adkins has also said that the brain structures of people with gender dysphoria are different from those without the condition.

Another expert is Dr. Jack Drescher, a member of APA’s DSM-5 Workgroup on
Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders. Dr. Drescher has said:

I don’t know of anybody who’s discovered a way to actually talk a transgender person out of their gender dysphoria.

Following the prevailing religious script

  1. Falsely claim that conversion therapy bans are based on adverse interventions like shock therapy.
  2. If we can treat “Condition X” with talk therapy then it is suitable for gender identity. That’s like saying that dialysis is approved for kidney failure. Thus it should work on macular degeneration.
  3. Falsely suggest that children receive gender confirmation surgery.
  4. Falsely claim that conversion therapy bans are an unconstitutional restraint of speech. The Supreme Court disagrees.
  5. Falsely claim that interventions are experimental.
  6. Falsely claim that transitioning is a radical physical intervention in spite of the fact that prepubescent children transition by changing apparel and hairstyle.
  7. Falsely claim that there is a surge of gender dysphoria among minors. What is really happening is that people with gender dysphoria are transitioning earlier in life.
  8. Falsely manipulate statistics.
  9. … and more.

The above reads like a recipe for medium-rare bullshit. Add one cup shock therapy to two cups of surgery, etc.

Quoted material below is often without surrounding text and often without the preceding or subsequent paragraphs.

An increasing number of children, both here in America and around the globe, are experiencing deep discomfort, confusion, and alienation from their sexed body, a condition known as gender dysphoria.

Actually, the number of children with gender dysphoria is probably the same although the condition is more widely recognized causing some increase in diagnoses. About 10 years ago, the consensus of medicine was to prevent children from transitioning. The science has improved allowing children in distress to do what makes them most comfortable.

“Confusion and alienation?” Gender dysphoria means having incongruent gender identity and natal sex. This incongruence can cause a wide range of symptoms; from mild discomfort to life-threatening distress.

Some people insist that the proper course of action involves experimental interventions directed at the boy or girl’s body itself—puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgery. Others suggest that therapy be directed to the child’s thoughts and feelings, not the body.

Treatment does not consist of a concurrent combination of interventions. Treatment is incremental based upon the needs of the minor.

Children initially transition through hairstyle and clothing. If that did not improve their wellbeing they would desist. If the condition persists (persistence is a function of severity) a child might receive puberty blockers after entering puberty.

According to the Pediatric Endocrine Society, puberty blockers are fully reversible.

In their late teens, an adolescent might receive cross-sex hormones. Minors are not candidates for surgery.

Treatment is based on the consensus of multiple doctors, the minor’s parents and the minor himself or herself.

Anderson’s mental health is comprised of the projection of Catholic doctrine (based on faith) as scientific fact:

Physical interventions on minors to “affirm” a mistaken “gender identity” violate sound medical ethics and should be prohibited. And yet, in all fifty states, such interventions are entirely legal.

Incongruent gender identity is not a “mistake.” It is a medical fact that has to be dealt with. Interventions range from a change in apparel to hormone therapy. There is no evidence that any reutable medical association believes that these treatments are unethical.

What is unethical is the attempt to conform science to religious dogma. Children deserve treatment consistent with the best available scientific knowledge. That body of knowledge does not include the utterances of religious crackpots.

If Anderson would simply say something to the effect that he, as a conservative Catholic, believes thus and so then he would not be the object of criticism. Instead, Ryan T. Anderson dishonestly pretends that his beliefs are based on science (which does not exist).

Woe is us!

An increasing number of jurisdictions—both in the US and in other countries—are banning therapy that aims to help minors with gender dysphoria feel comfortable about their own bodies without transforming their bodies.

To be effective such therapy would have to convert the child’s gender identity from incongruent with natal sex to congruent. There is nothing to alter a child’s body until they are in their late teens. Conversion therapy should be banned federally. It is ineffective and harmful.

Ignoring the science of gender:

Children deserve access to the therapeutic assistance they need to feel comfortable being what they are as a plain and ineradicable matter of biological fact: male or female. And parents have a natural right to seek this care for their children.

In other words, gender, as a separate construct, does not exist. “Natural right?” A parent might believe that the best treatment for a child with dangerously acute depression is injections of bee venom. That does not constitute a natural right.

If the religious set — for some dogmatic reason — asserted that bee venom was the most effective treatment for depression then that would get banned too.

Again, Anderson is projecting erudition and experience that he does not have. When he appends “MD” to his name and demonstrates having the requisite clinical experience under the mentorship of experts then he might be credible if he was not trying to conform science to dogma.

In other words, who the fuck is Ryan T. Anderson to insist that he knows what the best treatment for a medical condition is? Exactly what makes him more authoritative than the clinical practice guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics? How is he qualified to do so?

Regarding advocates of conversion therapy bans:

…they never provide credible evidence, and the therapy bans they support don’t target harmful practices. Instead, they prohibit working toward goals and outcomes that sexual progressive activists oppose.

Anderson is projecting the idea that conversion therapy bans are based on the notion that such therapies use abusive practices like shock therapy (which he mentions elsewhere). More importantly, such laws do include findings based upon medical science which is based on evidence.

The New York State law, for example, includes numerous findings. One of these is:

The American Psychological Association convened a Task Force on
Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. The task force
conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal literature on
sexual orientation change efforts, and issued a report in 2009. The task
force concluded that sexual orientation change efforts can pose critical
health risks to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people, including
confusion, depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social
withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-
blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-
hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and
betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in
sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual
behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of
faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources.

As a result, one-on-one counseling to help a teen struggling with body image due to anorexia would be permitted, but the very same counseling would be prohibited if the goal is to help a teen struggling with body image due to gender dysphoria.

Anorexia has no commonality with gender incongruence. Science supports talk therapy for anorexia. Science does not support gender identity conversion therapy.

Told ya that the shock therapy was coming:

Activists use emotionally charged language, labelling all such techniques “conversion therapy.” They do not apply this label only to certain discredited techniques (such as electro-shock therapies), but to any therapeutic service—including basic talk therapy—to help a gender dysphoric youth feel comfortable without “transitioning.”

In theory, the only way to make someone comfortable would be to eliminate the incongruence. It is conversion therapy in an attempt to change a minor’s gender identity. It is a conversion from male to female or vice versa. It is the consensus of medical science that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful. See the above text from NY’s law.

Amputations too:

First, everyone should hope that minors experiencing gender dysphoria can find resolution without hormonal interventions or the amputations of perfectly healthy body parts.

Hope is not medical science. The science is clear and consistent. I once hoped for a 12 inch …

… these sorts of counseling bans engage in misguided—and unconstitutional—viewpoint discrimination and content censorship.

The United States Supreme Court disagrees. The Court noted that professional speech does not have First Amendment protections.

… there is no credible evidence to support such bans. The surge in gender dysphoria among minor children is a very recent phenomenon—tracking the rise of gender ideology. The United Kingdom, for example, has seen a 4,515 percent rise in gender dysphoria in girls over the past decade.

Anderson knows that there is a mountain of evidence that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful. It is particularly harmful as gender identity conversion therapy. Due to religious beliefs Anderson wishes that the evidence did not exist. Claiming that evidence does not exist is dishonest.

Then there is the logical fallacy of small numbers (sometimes called “hasty generalization fallacy”). The increase was from 97 in 2009/10 to 2,519 in 2017/18. Furthermore, that does not depict an increase in gender dysphoria. It demonstrates an increase in obtaining diagnoses because of increased awareness. It has absolutely nothing to do with trans youth.

People can be influenced to seek a diagnosis. People cannot be influenced to be gender incongruent.

Most kids with gender dysphoria see it resolve. Trans kids almost never desist. They are transgender because their condition is severe. Persistence correlates to severity.

… the best available empirical studies show no benefit of either hormonal or surgical transition. But whatever one may think about the ethics of medical professionals’ “transitioning” adults, everyone should be able to agree that adults should not interfere with the natural, healthy development of the bodies and minds of children, as Robert George and I have explained.

It is not “studies” (plural). Anderson’s claim is based on one study which is an outlier. Surgery is not relevant in regards to children. Here is just one example of research detailing the benefits of supporting the gender of youth. With respect to transitioned children, the researchers note:

… these results provide clear evidence that transgender children have levels of anxiety and depression no different from their nontransgender siblings and peers.

Children with acute gender dysphoria who do not transition have extraordinarily high levels of anxiety and depression which puts them at serious risk for self-harm.

Ryan T. Anderson is willing to kill children if the teachings of the Church are defended. As I said, Anderson is neither sane nor rational. This makes Anderson dishonest and unethical. Yet he calls other unethical:

… to block the child from going through normal puberty—all in an attempt to “affirm” a “gender identity” that rejects the child’s biological reality—is profoundly unethical.

The above commits the medium-rare bullshit to the deep fryer. There are a number of reasons why children are prescribed puberty blockers. They prevent the formation of physical characteristics that cause severe distress. A trans boy, for example, does not want to grow female breasts. A trans girl would be distressed if she forms a male Adam’s apple.

Puberty blockers are supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Pediatric Endocrine Society and the Endocrine Society. To call their clinic practice guidelines unethical is preposterous. Unethical to a dogmatist like Anderson means not in conformity with Church doctrine. Masturbation and contraceptives are equally “unethical.”

The law must protect the freedom of parents to seek, children to receive, and doctors to practice good medicine. The law must protect the ability of doctors and families to help children feel comfortable as what they actually are, namely, male and female children—not to radically transform their bodies.

Translation: “Law and science must conform to the catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Related content: