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