'Transgender Ideology' Causes 'Child Abuse'

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Pediatrician: 'Transgender Ideology' Causes 'Child Abuse'


“Transgender ideology” is producing “large-scale child abuse,” asserts Dr. Michelle Cretella, a pediatrician and President of the American College of Pediatricians.

“Transgender ideology … is intruding into the lives of the most innocent among us — children — and with the apparent growing support of the professional medical community," writes Cretella at The Daily Signal.

Medical professionals rejecting left-wing corruption of medicine are often professionally punished by a growing adherence to leftism across the medical field, claims Cretella:

Professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job.

The mental illness of transgenderism is now often being viewed as normal and healthy by medical professionals, writes Cretella:

I have witnessed an upending of the medical consensus on the nature of gender identity. What doctors once treated as a mental illness, the medical community now largely affirms and even promotes as normal.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Pediatrician: 'Transgender Ideology' Causes 'Child Abuse'


“Transgender ideology” is producing “large-scale child abuse,” asserts Dr. Michelle Cretella, a pediatrician and President of the American College of Pediatricians.

“Transgender ideology … is intruding into the lives of the most innocent among us — children — and with the apparent growing support of the professional medical community," writes Cretella at The Daily Signal.

Medical professionals rejecting left-wing corruption of medicine are often professionally punished by a growing adherence to leftism across the medical field, claims Cretella:

Professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job.

The mental illness of transgenderism is now often being viewed as normal and healthy by medical professionals, writes Cretella:

I have witnessed an upending of the medical consensus on the nature of gender identity. What doctors once treated as a mental illness, the medical community now largely affirms and even promotes as normal.

Children do not have a need to even know such a thing exists.
For thousands of years they have not been burdened by such knowledge, and they grew up fine.


The great majority turn out fine a few turn queer and others have this mental illness.
What is there to gain in teaching them perversion at an early age, except to encourage it in them.?
Answer that question and you will know why this "teaching" is happening.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Nope, we are enlightened now, we know better :sarcasm:

uxfpz22zhxbz.jpg
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
So! Should parents be allowed to raise their children how they see fit and make decisions for their well-being, or should the government be in control of your child's welfare?

:coffee:
 
So! Should parents be allowed to raise their children how they see fit and make decisions for their well-being, or should the government be in control of your child's welfare?

:coffee:
Interesting question... here are some recent scenarios of parents choice vs. government nanny-state:

___ Free range kids; walk and play when and where they want
___ Medical conditions - chemical/machines vs. homeopathic meds/treatments
___ Gender identity - declare gender based on chromosomal/hormonal choice vs. personal choice
___ Let them drink alcohol, smoke dope, sex it up, etc. vs. mandatory govt age limit mandates
___ Make them work for what the get vs. teach them to expect others to hand it to them (this includes education)

Funny thing is when folks pick and chose from the above list rather than take the approach that parental choices good or bad result in natural selection gene pool cleansing.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
So! Should parents be allowed to raise their children how they see fit and make decisions for their well-being, or should the government be in control of your child's welfare?

:coffee:

Should Heroin addicts be allowed to shoot up their toddlers??

I mean it's THEIR kids.. THEIR lifestyle.
 

Wishbone

New Member
Interesting question... here are some recent scenarios of parents choice vs. government nanny-state:

___ Free range kids; walk and play when and where they want
___ Medical conditions - chemical/machines vs. homeopathic meds/treatments
___ Gender identity - declare gender based on chromosomal/hormonal choice vs. personal choice
___ Let them drink alcohol, smoke dope, sex it up, etc. vs. mandatory govt age limit mandates
___ Make them work for what the get vs. teach them to expect others to hand it to them (this includes education)

Funny thing is when folks pick and chose from the above list rather than take the approach that parental choices good or bad result in natural selection gene pool cleansing.

___ Free range kids; walk and play when and where they want -- This was standard childhood in the 60s

___ Medical conditions - chemical/machines vs. homeopathic meds/treatments -- Didn't this go to court over the "God will heal" crowd and get settled?

___ Let them drink alcohol, smoke dope, sex it up, etc. vs. mandatory govt age limit mandates -- Alcohol was never a forbidden thing growing up. If I wanted to have beer when others were, all I had to do was ask.

___ Make them work for what the get vs. teach them to expect others to hand it to them (this includes education) -- Cutting lawns, raking leaves, shoveling snow... we didn't have illeagals to compete with when I was a kid.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So! Should parents be allowed to raise their children how they see fit and make decisions for their well-being, or should the government be in control of your child's welfare?

:coffee:

In my humble opinion, when you are endangering the life of the child, or physical well-being, in a tangible way (beating the child vs. corporal punishment, for example), then the state must step in to protect the helpless.

When you are making a choice of parenting, then you have the choice all to yourself.

I would NEVER allow smoking in my home around my grandchild, and I would take my grandchild from an area of smokers, but I would equally NEVER advocate for parents to not be allowed to smoke in their homes or cars with their children. I BELIEVE smoking is bad for the kids, but I can't tangibly prove it (only circumstantially). However, I would not allow (via law) a pastor to hold a child under water at the request of the parents in order to see if the child is a witch or not ("if the kid drowns, she wan't a witch, so now we know" - that kind of idiocy).

Like pornography, I would know it when I saw it but not be able to define it in a short paragraph to cover every "what if" people could throw at me.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Cutting lawns, raking leaves, shoveling snow... we didn't have illeagals to compete with when I was a kid.



enterprising boys, pushed the family lawn mower around the neighborhood looking to make a couple of bucks
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Interesting question... here are some recent scenarios of parents choice vs. government nanny-state:

___ Free range kids; walk and play when and where they want
___ Medical conditions - chemical/machines vs. homeopathic meds/treatments
___ Gender identity - declare gender based on chromosomal/hormonal choice vs. personal choice
___ Let them drink alcohol, smoke dope, sex it up, etc. vs. mandatory govt age limit mandates
___ Make them work for what the get vs. teach them to expect others to hand it to them (this includes education)

Funny thing is when folks pick and chose from the above list rather than take the approach that parental choices good or bad result in natural selection gene pool cleansing.

:yay:
 

steppinthrax

Active Member
Should Heroin addicts be allowed to shoot up their toddlers??

I mean it's THEIR kids.. THEIR lifestyle.

You certainly can't have one w/o the other. People want NO government control, then your example is valid. Even though it's no suddenly wrong to those who want no gov control.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Should Heroin addicts be allowed to shoot up their toddlers??

I mean it's THEIR kids.. THEIR lifestyle.

I fully understand the art of taking an argument to the extreme to see if it makes sense the whole way.

In this case, however, I do not think the extreme is what anyone is calling for. I do not think anyone is saying, "hey, when your kid is born we, the government, are going to take them and put them in concentration camps and control every facet of their upbringing", nor is anyone suggesting, "the government has no role whatsoever to protect children from abusive parents."

Surely the answer lies at some reasonable point in between those two extremes. The pendulum has been swinging slowly to the former from the latter for the duration of the United States, as far as I can tell, and I think a lot of that swing has been positive. However, I think it's reached the tipping point (to confuse metaphors) and is now going to the wrong side.
 

steppinthrax

Active Member
Interesting question... here are some recent scenarios of parents choice vs. government nanny-state:

___ Free range kids; walk and play when and where they want
___ Medical conditions - chemical/machines vs. homeopathic meds/treatments
___ Gender identity - declare gender based on chromosomal/hormonal choice vs. personal choice
___ Let them drink alcohol, smoke dope, sex it up, etc. vs. mandatory govt age limit mandates
___ Make them work for what the get vs. teach them to expect others to hand it to them (this includes education)

Funny thing is when folks pick and chose from the above list rather than take the approach that parental choices good or bad result in natural selection gene pool cleansing.

1. Free range kids: Because you have some people who want to kidnap or harm your kids nowadays. Yep, it was OK in the 60s.
2. Medical Conditions: If we are referring to anti-vaxers, not only does this place unnecessary strain on the medical system, but you have disease carriers walking around.
4. Gender Identity: No opinion
5. Let them drink alcohol, smoke...: There are things you mentioned that should be exclusive from each other. Alcohol has changed a lot since it's inclusion on TV and some "status" associated with it. I think if you gave a kid a bottle of beer in the 60's v.s. now you'd have a higher chance turning that kid into an alcoholic now. Sex can of course result in pregnancy which is not good for anybody at that age.
6. Make them work: I agree with this, but explain to me how do you expect an 18yo to put themselves through college, w/o assistance. Especially considering their parents have the means enough but is unwilling to assist (because of that attitude). Then they don't qualify for FAFSA, since their EFC (Expected Family contribution) should be some dollar figure, that those parents are not willing to pay. I've had personal experiences in this, so I can say it's somewhat unfair to expect many to put up for college.
 

steppinthrax

Active Member
I fully understand the art of taking an argument to the extreme to see if it makes sense the whole way.

In this case, however, I do not think the extreme is what anyone is calling for. I do not think anyone is saying, "hey, when your kid is born we, the government, are going to take them and put them in concentration camps and control every facet of their upbringing", nor is anyone suggesting, "the government has no role whatsoever to protect children from abusive parents."

Surely the answer lies at some reasonable point in between those two extremes. The pendulum has been swinging slowly to the former from the latter for the duration of the United States, as far as I can tell, and I think a lot of that swing has been positive. However, I think it's reached the tipping point (to confuse metaphors) and is now going to the wrong side.

What forms of control exists now that puts parents at a....

UNREASONABLE OR DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN?
 

hotbikermama40

New Member
I fully understand the art of taking an argument to the extreme to see if it makes sense the whole way.

In this case, however, I do not think the extreme is what anyone is calling for. I do not think anyone is saying, "hey, when your kid is born we, the government, are going to take them and put them in concentration camps and control every facet of their upbringing", nor is anyone suggesting, "the government has no role whatsoever to protect children from abusive parents."

Surely the answer lies at some reasonable point in between those two extremes. The pendulum has been swinging slowly to the former from the latter for the duration of the United States, as far as I can tell, and I think a lot of that swing has been positive. However, I think it's reached the tipping point (to confuse metaphors) and is now going to the wrong side.

May be extreme, but a damn good analogy. An addict lives a lifestyle of either active addiction or a working recovery. How they got to be an addict in the first place varies only a bit: they chose to pick up a drink, or a joint, or pop some pills, etc. and found that 'something' they just couldn't put down (that is oversimplifying it in a big way) or they abused a physiologically addictive drug, like alcohol or xanax for so long that they 'rewired' their brain to think the drug is necessary to function. Either way, the heroin junkie banging dope is living a lifestyle of his choice because he rejects the choice to get treatment, get clean and change.

And I don't know that I see the potential dangers of the government taking our children from us once they're born as such a stretch. Ever heard the 'moral of the story' tale of the camper who finally allowed the bear outside his tent 'just' put his nose in?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
May be extreme, but a damn good analogy. An addict lives a lifestyle of either active addiction or a working recovery. How they got to be an addict in the first place varies only a bit: they chose to pick up a drink, or a joint, or pop some pills, etc. and found that 'something' they just couldn't put down (that is oversimplifying it in a big way) or they abused a physiologically addictive drug, like alcohol or xanax for so long that they 'rewired' their brain to think the drug is necessary to function. Either way, the heroin junkie banging dope is living a lifestyle of his choice because he rejects the choice to get treatment, get clean and change.

And I don't know that I see the potential dangers of the government taking our children from us once they're born as such a stretch. Ever heard the 'moral of the story' tale of the camper who finally allowed the bear outside his tent 'just' put his nose in?

I'm not an anarchist or a socialist. I don't want to live with NO government, just the least amount necessary.

There's a reasonable case to be made for government (laws) protecting children. There's a reasonable case to be made for parents being fully responsible for the health and care of their children. There are times those two things will be in conflict.

Those are where the real discussion lies.
 
Top