Take a bow J. Allen Cartwright.
There are at least eleven common themes (see below) in these transphobic diatribes.
“… according to the research incongruent gender is the cause of transitioning not a consequence.”
J. Allen Cartwright has penned: When I Was A Kid, It Was Nothing For Boys To Play With Girl Toys. Now, It’s Life-Threatening. Right off the bat we know what we are dealing with.
Cartwright drones on about his childhood and having “rational parents” over two paragraphs. And then: Eureka:
Unfortunately, we now live in an increasingly irrational time among irrational people, and I increasingly wonder what may have happened were I a toddler today. What if my parents had assumed that because I wanted a dollhouse I must be suffering from gender dysphoria? Would they have repeatedly asked an impressionable, confused toddler whether I was a boy or girl?
Presumably I have a different definition of irrationality. One example consists of dogmatists. These are the folks who accept religious doctrine as incontrovertible truth despite evidence to the contrary.
Moreover, Cartwright’s narrative (born of convenience) does not resemble reality. Parents assume that their children are cisgender. Parents do not ask a child what their gender is. Children inform their parents and, quite often, with considerable certainty. Parent refers to child as a boy. Child responds, quite adamantly, I am not a boy. I am a girl!
Moreover — and this is at the core of the issue — according to the research incongruent gender is the cause of transitioning not a consequence.
“I am sure that there are a few — very few — kids who are transgender in school and cisgender at home. This is largely a Christian trope.”
Furthermore, parents do not diagnose gender dysphoria. They take their kid to a qualified clinician. Most, I suspect, get a second opinion. I write “opinion” but a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is more objective than subjective.
Oddly enough, Mr. Cartwright links to a tweet which demonstrate precisely what I wrote above and cuts against his own argument:
Scenario: Your 4 year old child (assigned male at birth) comes to you and says, “I’m a girl. Can I wear a dress to school?”
Do you allow your child to wear a dress, and would you be willing to use she/her pronouns? 👦🏻👗
— Ann Lesby, PhD (she/her) 🌈 (@AnnLesbyPhD) September 4, 2021
You can tell from the reactions that this tweet received a great deal of Christian attention. Neither answer is completely correct but Dr. Lesby realizes the importance of supporting children in their gender.
Deeper into the doo:
Maybe I would have mentioned my toy to a teacher. Would the school have pushed a different gender identity on me, without parental consent? At that point, could a court remove me from my parents’ custody to ensure that I could undergo medical mutilation? I can imagine what would follow: puberty blockers, chemical castration, and perhaps even mental health problems and higher mortality risks … all starting with an innocent request for a toy.
The answer to those rhetorical questions is an unqualified “no.” Toy preference is relatively meaningless (I’ll get back to that). It is only meaningful when considered with other criteria. Moreover, schools do not “push” gender. I am sure that there are a few — very few — kids who are transgender in school and cisgender at home. This is largely a Christian trope.
“In the vernacular, J. Allen Cartwright does not know what the fuck he is talking about.”
Furthermore, schools are not involved in transgender medicine. “Mutilation,” “castration,” “mental health problems” and “higher mortality rates” are examples of moronic hyperbole. Cartwright’s sources of information are outlets like Breitbart and Heritage Foundation. Absent from his sources is peer-reviewed research published to a reputable academic journal.
One of Cartwright’s sources is a 2019 article in USA Today. It is religiously inspired babble that I wrote about at the time.
He just doesn’t get it:
Surely a life-changing decision of the magnitude of changing a child’s gender must be based on something more substantial.
No one “changes a child’s gender.” Children have a clear sense of what their gender is. If gender incongruence persists over a period of time then it is not a phase. Gender is not subject to the influences of other people.
Among the “not getting it:”
I was thus chilled when I came across the unfortunate case of seven-year-old James Younger, who requested a feminine toy at McDonalds, wanted to imitate female characters from the Disney hit “Frozen” (allegedly with urging from his mother), and asked to wear dresses. As a result, he is now undergoing “social transition” as a girl named Luna.
In the vernacular, J. Allen Cartwright does not know what the fuck he is talking about. The bottom line to this saga is that Luna’s mom, Dr. Anne Georgulas, is a highly respected, board-certified pediatrician. Furthermore Luna is in the care of qualified clinicians. There is considerable evidence that Luna’s ne’er-do-well father is a pathological liar.
Moreover, in August of this year a Texas judge gave Dr. Georgulas exclusive control over Luna’s primary residence, counseling, medications, education, and extracurricular activities.
“The notion that priests and preachers should be the arbiters of medical care is spectacularly stupid.”
Of course it is a political issue:
Republicans Need Unity on This Issue
The issue presents a crossroads for the conservative movement. Republican-led states such as Tennessee and Arkansas have banned gender reassignment mutilation for minors, and other states are proposing similar legislation. Yet the right is far from united on this front.
The Tennessee legislature did not ban gender-affirming care. The amended bill neutered the measure.
The Arkansas ban is facially preposterous. Championed by a property manager and the assistant manager of a hardware store (prime sponsors) the legislature consisting of farmers, insurance salesmen, lawyers and so on decided that their judgment was superior to the clinical practice standards of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
On what galaxy does that make a bit of sense? Meanwhile a federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order. I am still waiting for an evidence-based alternative to gender-affirming care. Mr. Cartwright doesn’t seem to have one. Perhaps one of the eunuchs at the Vatican, a catechist and theologian, has the inside track on medical care.
The notion that priests and preachers should be the arbiters of medical care is spectacularly stupid. That level of stupidity is exceeded, though, by the idea of treating a medical condition in conformity with Bronze Age texts.
“Of course there are victims. There are always victims.”
Have a helping of bullshit to obfuscate the religious objection to the existence of transgender persons:
How Transgender Issues Profoundly Affect Us All
The reality is that the transgender issue profoundly affects all of us, particularly parents of impressionable children. Children are increasingly exposed to transgenderism via lesson plans, cartoons, toys, and books. The number of children undergoing gender transitions has skyrocketed in the past decade.
The imbecility is astonishing. Gender identity is formed by about age two. There is no evidence that gender identity can be influenced by others. The one bit of research (the Littman study) attempting to link gender dysphoria to social exposure was eviscerated by the publisher.
Furthermore, people transitioning earlier in life is the result of scientific realities. The total transgender population (about 0.5% to 0.6%) has remained consistent. As Dr. Jack Turban explained for the New York Times about four years ago:
Of course there are victims. There are always victims:
Censorship of Opposition
Those who criticize gender transition are immediately censored. For example, Dr. Lisa Littman of Brown University published a 2018 article describing the phenomenon of “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” in which gender transitions are significantly influenced by social factors. Leftist activists quickly pushed back and Brown University removed a press release regarding the publication.
Scientists who disagree with conservative Christians on an issue of, well … science are not “leftist activists.” If Cartwright took a moment to read the correction notice then he would realize that this was an issue pertaining to scholarship; particularly to methodology.
Along with the correction notice was a “formal comment” written by Dan Romer at the University of Pennsylvania. I have no idea what Dr. Romer’s politics are but he is an expert in “social influences on adolescent health and development.”
“The key to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is that the child has “experienced significant distress for at least six months.”
Mr. Cartwright is going to need a new kitchen sink:
Two similar works on the topic, “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters” by Abigail Shrier and “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment” by Ryan T. Anderson have also been banned by various booksellers.
Ms. Shrier, an ultra-conservative Jew, has no scientific training. Her book is based on the highly flawed Littman study. Her objective was to make some money. As a raging capitalist I find nothing wrong with seeking economic rewards.
Ryan T. Anderson is a catechist, philosopher and fierce defender of the Catholic Church.
Neither Shrier nor Anderson are remotely qualified to opine on medical care. They have no applicable training or experience.
J. Allen Cartwright regurgitated the religious talking points which he presumes to be correct. There is only one link to research and that is to a highly flawed study. In fact, Cartwright’s entire polemic is based upon the utterly preposterous idea that toy preference causes parents to alter the gender identity of their children. It is craziness.
These essays always have a few things in common:
- Absence of a research foundation.
- The assumption that parents are stupid.
- A further assumption that clinicians are predators.
- Lack of an alternative to gender-affirming care.
- Obfuscation of the real issue which is religious disapproval.
- A presumption that people with no medical training are authoritative with respect to gender identity.
- Denigration of medical science as a leftist, politically correct enterprise.
- Promotion of the false premise that there are many scientists who disagree with gender-affirming care. Those folks are supposedly afraid of the leftists which causes them not to air their views.
- The 0.6% of the population that are transgender have some mystical, vast and toxic effect on society.
- Gender-affirming care is somehow a form of child abuse.
- Complete disregard for the wellbeing of children in an effort to defend religious doctrine.
“I am quite certain that yet another nitwit will come along [in the week ahead] to regurgitate the same idiotic arguments from talking points.”
With respect to item #6, above: I have no medical training either. However, I am not posing an alternative to the clinical practice standards of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society. Moreover, my disagreement with one study is not a reflection of my opinion. Rather, it reflects the judgment of the study publisher and other experts.
The key to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is that the child has “experienced significant distress for at least six months.” Then they have to meet six of eight criteria.
Among the criteria is this (in regards to toy preferences):
Note the word “strong.” More importantly that has to be combined with five other markers and significant distress and persistence over at least six months.
We have a long week ahead of us. I am quite certain that yet another nitwit will come along to regurgitate the same idiotic arguments from talking points. Just as J. Allen Cartwright conformed to the 11 points I outlined above, so will the next week’s polemicists.