RUTHFULLY YOURS

John Whitehall is Professor of Paediatrics at Western Sydney University.

What astonishes me is the lack of evidence to support massive medical intervention aimed at “changing” a child’s sex when such procedures are simply not necessary. The enthusiasm of ethics committees in hospitals, health regions and universities for such procedures is an ongoing mystery.
In recent years, the issue of transgender identity in children has leapt from the periphery of public consciousness to centre stage of a cultural drama played out in the media, courts, schools, hospitals, families, and in the minds and bodies of children. It is a kind of utopian religion with committed believers.

The drama is “gender dysphoria” and it is about children believing they belong to the opposite sex[1]. It is about parental anguish and commitment, court battles to instigate some therapies, laws to prevent others, cross-dressing, drugs that will block puberty, others that will transform an adolescent towards the opposite sex, pending feats of surgery that will castrate while turning a penis into an opening like a vagina, or producing a penis from a forearm in a foray into reproduction unrivalled since the days of eugenics. It is no wonder this drama is repeated on the media, especially as its players may be toddlers whose future is in the hands of the audience. Accept the pathways of “medicine”, we are urged. Welcome transgender as but one hue in a natural rainbow. Or the children will kill themselves[2].

But is this massive intrusion into the minds and bodies of children necessary? What will happen if parents do nothing but “watch and wait” while their child muses on its gender? Can the child grow out of it?

The answer astonishes. While proponents argue for massive intervention, scientific studies prove that the vast majority of transgender children will grow out of it through puberty if parents do little more than gently watch and wait. Studies vary but from 70 to 97.8 per cent of gender-dysphoric male and 50 to 88 per cent of gender-dysphoric female children have been reported to “desist” prior to the onset of puberty. This likelihood of “growing out of it” is declared in no less than the current, official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association[3] (DSM-5), and is supported by a number of independent studies[4][5].

The Western medical profession boasts that it rests on “evidence-based medicine” but the tiny fraction involved with “affirmation” of gender identity in confused children is proceeding without supportive evidence for claims of high incidence, the need and safety of medical and surgical intervention, the avoidance of self-harm, and for the concept that the process will produce a happier human being in a happier society. Faith is needed for affirmation.

During a discussion on these matters, a leading endocrinologist declared to this writer, twice, that the issues of gender dysphoria are “utterly arbitrary … utterly arbitrary”, and that his greatest fear was that a mistake would be made by intervention. If most gender-dysphoric children desist without treatment, the “utterly arbitrary” medical pathways are also utterly unnecessary.

How common is childhood gender dysphoria?

No one really knows because there is “an absence of formal prevalence studies”[6][7] and estimates vary greatly. The leader of Toronto’s Transgender Youth Clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, Dr Joey Bonifacio, says estimates based on adult dysphoria clinics range from 0.005 to 0.014 per cent for men convinced they are women and 0.002 to 0.003 per cent for women convinced they are men, but believes they are “likely modest underestimates”[8]. Bonifacio’s statistics are the same as those declared in the bible of psychiatry, DSM-5[9].

In Australia, prominence has been given to a cross-sectional questionnaire distributed to 8500 adolescents in New Zealand (“Youth 12”) which reported 1.2 per cent answered “Yes” to the question, “Do you think you are transgender? This is a girl who feels like she should have been a boy, or a boy who feels like he should have been a girl.” 95 per cent denied being transgender, 2.5 per cent replied they were “unsure”, and 1.7 per cent “did not understand” the question. The estimate of 1.2 per cent is promoted by leaders of the gender dysphoria service at Melbourne Children’s Hospital[10], but the progenitors of the “Safe Schools” program appear to have inflated the figure to 4 per cent by adding the unsure 2.5 per cent.[11]

Every time a radical Muslim kills, the media is quick to remind us about the integrated middle-class Muslims – the hardworking cargo handler, the well liked elementary school assistant, the friendly grocer.

Unfortunately, France just arrested a hardworking cargo handler, a well liked elementary school assistant, and a friendly grocer on charges that they were getting ready to massacre a bunch of innocents.

One was a well-liked elementary school assistant. Another was a hard-working cargo handler. The third was a friendly grocer. They were longtime friends in their quiet suburban neighborhood, and they joked with teenagers and greeted children with a smile.

They found weapons in the apartment of the well liked elementary school assistant, and the authorities intimated that the group of well-liked Muslims were about to launch a massive attack.

Yet in the early hours of Nov. 20 agents from France’s internal security agency swooped down, plucking the three and one other from their apartments, charging them with plotting a terrorist attack, and locking them up in a prison outside Paris.

Here was a new type of terrorism arrest: decently paid men in their 30s giving no warning signs of radicalization – no beards, no robes, no proselytizing[.] … There were certainly more obvious candidates for jihad. The four arrested gave no outward hint of radicalization.

And unlike many troubled youths in Paris and Brussels who have latched onto the Islamic State, they did not live on the margins. They had stable jobs and no previous brushes with drugs or crime.

“We will have a new ballistic missile test in the near future that will be a thorn in the eyes of our enemies.” – Iranian President Hassan Rouhani

The range of existing Iranian ballistic missiles has grown from 500 miles to over 2,000 kilometers (roughly 1,250 miles), which can easily reach Eastern Europe, as well as countries such as Israel.

In addition, Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan said that there would be no limit for the range and amount of missiles that Iran will develop.

The nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Agreement (JCPOA) — effective, as of October 18, 2015, according to the State Department – clearly and distinctly stipulates that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missile activity “until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.”

Not only is Iran avoiding honoring this stipulation, but also Iran’s ballistic missile operations have significantly ratcheted up. More importantly, there has been no criticism at all from the Obama administration or other involved parties regarding this critical violation.

As cited by Iran’s state-owned Fars News Agency, Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Iran’s commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, said in Tehran on Dec 6, 2016:

“In addition to enhancing the precision-striking power and quality of ballistic missiles, the Iranian authorities and experts have used innovative and shortcut methods to produce inexpensive missiles, and today we are witnessing an increase in production [of ballistic missiles].”

Iran is bragging about it.

Though Europeans bridle when confronted with the possibility that Americans have something to offer, the Champs Élysées is not called Unter den Linden, and the Thousand-Year Reich and Warsaw Pact are no more, because—intelligently, successfully, and sacrificially—the U.S. came three times to Europe’s aid.

But for the past quarter-century the U.S. has had no effective, proactive strategy in regard to the defense of Europe. Should it not awaken to this with strategic clarity and resolve, the price may be beyond calculation.

Although the Continent is dangerously weakened by ideological fevers, economic malaise and the importation of bereft masses from war-crazed cultures, keep your eye upon the sparrow—a resurgent, revanchist Russia, which with continued success in recobbling its lost empire will look westward to the rich lands between it and the Atlantic. Rather than arriving late as in the two world wars, the U.S. should take military and diplomatic measures now to deter yet another catastrophe.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was able to keep the Soviets at bay because its nuclear forces and resolution were at least equal to those of the U.S.S.R.; its powerful conventional elements were properly positioned opposite their adversaries; its command structure was unified; and American echelons were deployed in strength.

Despite the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the migration of most of its members to NATO, and the U.S.S.R.’s collapse, the European military balance is shifting toward Russia. While the U.S. has reduced the number of its nuclear weapons, failed to modernize them, and pacified its nuclear doctrines, Russia has cut less, steadily modernized, and promiscuously issued nuclear threats.

Some examples in regard to conventional forces: In 1987 the U.S. had 354,000 military personnel in Europe and surrounding waters, and 735 combat aircraft. Now it deploys 40,450 and 130, respectively. Between 1987 and 2015, Great Britain’s main battle tanks have dwindled to 227 from 1,200, France’s to 200 from 1,340, and Germany’s to 306 from 4,887. Britain’s combat aircraft have fallen to 194 from 596, France’s to 360 from 520, and Germany’s to 235 from 604.

Given the strategic chaos in the Mediterranean, it is astounding that while in 1985 the U.S. Sixth Fleet often comprised two aircraft carriers, six nuclear submarines, and 28 other warships, during most of the Obama administration it had been reduced to one virtually unarmed command ship.

Though to save themselves the Europeans must be pressured to increase defense expenditures, threatening publicly and without warning to refrain from U.S. treaty obligations, and eight years of military retreat under President Obama, have emboldened Russia and pushed Europe further into creating a European defense separate from NATO. Herding 28 countries into a coherent military structure is difficult enough without adding another level of command. And even if the possibility of aligning with Russia to balance out China were not met with Russian betrayal, the price would be Western Europe, which is obviously unacceptable. CONTINUE AT SITE

BRUSSELS—The European Union is prepared for a more deal-oriented relationship with the U.S. once President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the bloc’s chief diplomat said Wednesday, adding that approach won’t prevent cooperation on a broad range of issues, including the Iranian nuclear deal.

“We are ready for a transactional way of working….one more based on an analysis of where our interests coincide,” Federica Mogherini said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in Brussels. “I believe that going through the list of global conflicts and regional issues, we would come out with a very long list of things where we have an interest in either a division of labor or a common approach.”

The bloc’s foreign-policy chief suggested a new trans-Atlantic relationship could have upsides for the EU, playing down the prospect that Mr. Trump’s interest in warmer ties with Russia would necessarily counter Europe’s interests. Indeed, she said a more independent EU might line up with Russia against any efforts on the Trump administration’s part to scuttle the Iran accord, shake up Middle East policy, or reduce the role of the United Nations.

Senior European officials have openly worried about the possible impact of the Trump administration’s foreign policy on Europe. They have expressed concerns not only about his stance toward Russia, but also that he will demand a higher price for underwriting the region’s security and will be less committed to working with the EU to press for democracy and the rule of law in Europe’s neighborhood.

However, Ms. Mogherini pointed to a range of shared interests where the EU and U.S. are bound to work closely, including counterterrorism, crisis prevention in key regions and fighting migrant-smuggling gangs. Since taking her job, the 43-year-old former Italian foreign minister has also made it a priority to deepen the bloc’s defense and security structures to allow it to start deploying hard power more effectively in its neighborhood.

“Since 2013, Bangladesh has experienced a series of violent attacks by extremists. The victims have included besides atheists, secular bloggers, liberals and foreigners — many Buddhists, Christians and Hindus as well as Ahmadis and Shia Muslims.” — Minority Rights Group International.

“A new school of Islam from Saudi Arabia is transforming South Asia’s religious landscape. Wahhabism, a fundamental Sunni school of Islam originating in Saudi Arabia, entered South Asia in the late 1970s. With public and private Saudi funding, Wahhabism has steadily gained influence among Muslim communities throughout the region. As a result, the nature of South Asian Islam has significantly changed in the last three decades. The result has been an increase in Islamist violence in Pakistan, Indian Kashmir, and Bangladesh.” — Georgetown Security Studies Review, 2014.

Minority communities across Bangladesh are once again facing violence and persecution by the Sunni Muslim majority. In the last month or so, dozens of Hindu temples have been vandalized and hundreds of houses burned down by Muslims in different districts across the nation.

In one incident alone, a group of Muslims carried out attacks that left more than 100 injured and several hundred victims homeless. Hindus, at 9% of the total population the largest religious minority in Bangladesh, were targeted in the attack on October 30, about 120 km from the capital city, Dhaka. Muslims, led by two Islamic organizations — the Tawheedi Janata (“Faithful People”) and Ahle Sunnat-Wal-Jamaat –vandalized more than 15 temples and 200 houses belonging to Hindus. Violence continued a few days later, when, on November 5, extremists repeated similar attacks in the same area despite police “vigilance.”

A day before the attacks began, a rumor circulated that a 27-year-old Hindu man named Rasraj Das edited a photograph superimposing the Hindu God Shiva onto an image of the Kaaba (the holiest site in Islam) and posted it on his Facebook page. Within hours of the post, he was caught by local Muslims and handed over to the police. Prior to his arrest, Das pleaded his innocence on his Facebook page, saying:

“At first I am apologizing to Muslim brothers because someone has posted a photograph from my facebook account without my knowledge. When I came to know yesterday night (October 28), I deleted it immediately. Here we live side by side as Hindu-Muslim brothers, I have no such mentality and of course I don’t have such imprudent courage.”

Yet the uproar of the Muslim community was not appeased, and on October 30, shortly after the early morning prayer, religious Muslims, in the name of “hurting Muslims’ feelings,” called on fellow Muslims, using loudspeakers from the neighboring mosques, to come out to retaliate. According to some witnesses, the local administration and police had a nonchalant attitude and did not intervene to protect the minority community.

The United Church of Christ (UCC) published a guide to Israel-Palestine affairs in August and again in September 2016. Entitled, “Promoting a Just Peace in Palestine-Israel”, this toxic document is a desperately one-sided, inaccurate, and counter-factual exercise in futile politics. It most certainly does not favour justice or peace in the Holy Land, as its contents show on every page.

The naïvety of the UCC is particularly striking in its choice to take at face value the Palestinian statement that if Israel ended its occupation peace would follow as day follows night. When, after 1949, Gaza was occupied by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan, no one protested, no one attacked Egyptians or Jordanians. In other words, Israel occupied only itself. But Palestinian terrorism against Israelis continued up to 1967, right through the period of Israeli non-occupation. There were no “settlements” then. Rather, the Palestinians have always regarded all of Israel as one big “settlement.” Just look at any Palestinian maps; they cover both the entirety of Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians have a history of regarding every retreat by Israel as a triumph of aggression over diplomacy, as if to say: We shoot at Israelis and they leave; so let’s keep doing it.

In its introduction, the UCC, knowing full well that Israel has not occupied Gaza since 2005, still speaks of “the Israeli military occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories: the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.”

The UCC Guide states flatly that “Israeli settlements in the West Bank are identified as illegal by the international community” — even though international law says exactly the opposite. The West Bank and Gaza were both occupied as a result of a defensive war against Egypt and Jordan in 1967, in which the Israelis were victorious. It is never illegal to occupy territory obtained in defensive military action.

The Palestinians not only reject all offers of peace on that basis but go much farther and call every day for the abolition of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state covering Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank.

The UCC Guide states that “Israel has built hundreds of permanent and mobile military checkpoints throughout the West Bank.” This, again, is pure fantasy. In 2015, there were no more than fifteen checkpoints across the West Bank. These checkpoints are not there to target innocent Palestinians. They are there to restrain terrorists from setting out to kill innocent Israelis. The only people to criticize the checkpoints across Northern Ireland during the many years of terrorism there were supporters of the Provisional IRA, who apparently did not like being obstructed from killing people.

On December 9, Geert Wilders was found guilty by a Dutch court of “incitement to anti-minority discrimination.” His crime was asking a crowd in The Hague in 2014, “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?” “Fewer, fewer!” came the reply, to which he responded: “I’ll take care of that!” That was enough to get Wilders arrested and put on trial nine months ago, and convicted last Friday.

Wilders called the verdict “madness” and promised to fight back, but other Europeans accused of deviant thoughts are not as sanguine. In late 2015, Christoph Biro, editor-in-chief of Austria’s top-circulation daily, the Kronen Zeitung, was charged with “hate speech” for writing that “young men, testosterone-fueled Syrians, carry out extremely aggressive sexual attacks.” Only weeks later, the New Year’s Eve orgy of rape and sexual assaults by Muslim immigrants in Germany and elsewhere in Europe provided ample empirical evidence of Biro’s assertions. He nevertheless had to take a month-long leave of absence, and was subsequently pressurized into confessing, Moscow-1936-style, that he had “lost a sense of proportion.” That will not save him from standing trial in Graz next year.

The writing on Europe’s wall was clear a decade ago, when the late Oriana Fallaci—for decades Italy’s best-known journalist—was indicted in the Italian city of Bergamo for “hate crimes” and “defaming Islam.” Fallaci, a self-described “Christian atheist” and a leftist, in the aftermath of 9/11 had become an outspoken foe of Europe’s Islamization. Her 2002 book The Rage and the Pridecaused a sensation. It is not just the Western culture and way of life that the jihadist hates, she wrote. Blinded as they are by cultural myopia, the Westerners should understand that a war of religion was in progress, a war that the enemy calls Jihad, which seeks the disappearance of our freedom and our civilization. It wants to annihilate, she wrote,

. . . our way of living and dying, our way of praying or not praying, our way of eating and drinking and dressing and entertaining and informing ourselves. You don’t understand or don’t want to understand that if we don’t oppose them, if we don’t defend ourselves, if we don’t fight, the Jihad will win . . . And with that it will destroy our culture, our art, our science, our morals, our values, our pleasures.

The most heartening poll of the post-Brexit era was published by YouGov last week. It shows that 68 per cent of people want Britain to crack on with Brexit. That’s a pretty clear majority in favour of enacting the June referendum result. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of Leave voters who responded to the poll said we should get on with leaving the EU, but strikingly so did around half of Remain respondents. That is, a great swathe of the people who on 23 June expressed a desire to stay with Brussels recognise that there’s something more important than their political preferences: democracy; the right of a majority within a nation to shape that nation’s political destin

There are many positive things about this poll. There’s its suggestion that, outside of the anti-Brexit bubble of the political class, business world and liberal media, a great chunk of people still understand that democracy is important. There’s its wiseness to the anti-democratic swindle of a second referendum: 59% said the call for a second referendum is ‘illegitimate’. There’s its scepticism about the insistence that parliament must get to pore over Brexit: 47 per cent to 36 per cent think the government should probably enact Brexit now.

But perhaps the most positive thing in the poll is what it tells us about that new political tribe ‘the 48%’, which presents itself as the voice of the 16.1million people who voted Remain. It tells us this tribe doesn’t really exist. That it’s a cynical fabrication of a small elite that merely uses the 16.1million as a cover to pursue its own self-interested agenda.

‘The 48%’ fancies itself as an edgy, rebellious movement. ‘We’re the insurgents now’, says Tony Blair. Blair, who has openly discussed the possibility of stopping Brexit, poses as the spokesman for a revolution when he says there should be ‘a new movement born from the 48%’ and it must ‘mobilise and organise’.

On social media, journalists and campaigners plaster their photos with stickers saying ‘I am the 48%’. There’s now a ‘newspaper of the 48%’, The New European, a superbly snooty affair whose first issue was adorned with a photo of two slovenly Leave voters plonked on a couch as their pet dog wonders why ‘these idiots’ voted against the EU (dogs being cleverer than plebs).

Who will speak for the 48%?’, cries The Economist. That bible of the business elite says ‘the 48%’ are actually probably ‘a majority of the British population’ — not all Remainers turned out to vote, or something — and these millions of ‘big-city dwellers, Millennials, globe-trotters, university students… [and] perfectly Middle-England types’ need to have their concerns about leaving the EU heeded, perhaps even as a means of softening Brexit. Keir Starmer, Labour’s anti-Brexit shadow Brexit secretary — like having someone who hates education in charge of education — says ‘the 48% feel they’re being written out of their own history’.

Does ‘the 48%’ really feel this? All 16.1million? Of course not. There is no movement of the 48 per cent. There’s no mass desire to thwart Brexit. As that YouGov poll shows, a nice majority thinks democracy should take its course. The vast majority of both Leavers and Remainers, having made their political views plain on 23 June, are now getting on with life again. One side has not launched an insurgency against the other, except in Blair’s febrile imagination. ‘The 48%’ is an utter invention, a front for tiny but influential cliques that want to appear at least semi-democratic as they seek to thwart Brexit. Let’s call them by their real name: the 0.48%. Actually, that might be too generous. Perhaps the 0.048%.

The brilliant democratic cry of the Levellers remains unanswered

It is arguable that democracy as we know it, the modern, much fought-for ideal that a people should be sovereign over itself, was born in a pokey church in Putney in south-west London. There, in St Mary’s, by the Thames, members of the New Model Army that fought on the side of parliament against the king in the English Civil War met in 1647. They spent 15 days, from 28 October to 11 November, discussing the constitutional set-up of a new, freer Britain, the fate of the king, and the idea, put forward by more radical attendees, that there should be manhood suffrage — that is, one man, one vote; a parliament elected by all men, including poor men. For two weeks the church fizzed with ideas and proposals that would reverberate not only across Britain, but around the world, inspiring American revolutionaries, French revolutionaries and others to depose of rotten regimes and stagger towards democracy. The church is still there, and emblazoned on its wall is perhaps the key cry of the more radical elements who gathered in it 350 years ago: ‘The poorest hee that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest hee.’

‘The poorest hee hath a life to live as the greatest hee.’ It was a plea for the franchise for all men, regardless of station or wealth or even intellect. The words were uttered by Thomas Rainsborough, an MP for Droitwich in Worcestershire and a leading spokesman for a group called the Levellers in these Putney Debates, as history has recorded them. Rainsborough continued: ‘I think it clear, that every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under.’ It was a searingly radical idea then, and arguably remains radical now: that even the poorest, least well-educated person should not be ruled by any institution whose existence he has not in some way consented to. It was the expression of a new idea — or rather of an old idea stretching back to Athens, but lost for millennia, in a new form. And it’s no exaggeration to say, as one historian does, that this proposal in a church to enfranchise ‘the poorest hee’ became ‘the spark that was to light the fire which eventually razed centuries of tyranny, monarchy, feudalism and oligarchy’, not only in England, but beyond (1). Around the world, ‘the poorest hee’ forced himself into public life, rudely intruded on history, remade the political world.

The Levellers were not an especially coherent group on the parliamentarian side in the Civil War. They were also not the most radical body in this most brilliant and tumultuous of periods in English history. The Diggers, for example, a collection of Protestant radicals who called themselves True Levellers, went further in terms of agitating for a wholly open politics and even economic equality. But the Levellers’ case for democracy, and for the thing that is essential to democracy, freedom of the press, stands as the most articulate and long-lasting cry of the Civil War. It’s also an unanswered cry. It helped to raze tyrannies, and moved millions, yes, but it remains unfulfilled. The Levellers’ proposals, or questions, on how the sovereignty of the people should be embodied and exercised, and why all ‘hees’, not just the ‘greatest hee’, should get to steer the fate of the nation, and why press freedom must be unfettered and unpunished if we are genuinely to have an open, democratic politics, remain unsettled, remain unresolved. Indeed, events of 2016, in particular the rash, unforgiving reaction of the elites to Brexit and the ill-educated ‘hees’ who voted for it, show that the ideas pushed by the Levellers in that church 350 years ago are still controversial; they’re the unfinished business of history brimming under the terra firma of our polite politics; they’re yet to be won.

The ideas pushed by the Levellers in that church 350 years ago are still controversial; they’re the unfinished business of history brimming under the terra firma of our polite politics

The English Civil War was in fact three wars, which took place between 1642 and 1651. They were wars over the manner of government in England, pitting parliamentarians, or Roundheads, against royalists, or Cavaliers. Their impact was extraordinary. There was the execution of Charles I in 1649. There was the complete replacement of the monarchy with a Commonwealth of England from 1649 to 1653, and then a Protectorate from 1653 to 1659, through which Oliver Cromwell, the key commander of the parliamentarian forces, and later his son became Lord Protector — effectively dictator — of England, Scotland and Ireland. In 1660, the monarchy was restored, with Charles II put on the throne; but his successor, James II, was then deposed in 1688 by the specially arranged coup of an invasion of England by the Protestant William of Orange from the Netherlands, who ruled under terms set by parliament. These terms imposed dramatic limits on royal power. And so, following years of conflict and monarchical rearrangement, was the supremacy of parliament established.