Nurse Investigated by FBI for Exposing Fraudulent Transgender Program

Vanessa Sivadge, a nurse at Texas Children's Hospital admitted that she was the anonymous whistleblower who helped (along with Dr. Eithan Haim) expose a secret transgender medicine program taking place at the hospital. She writes:

I knew what Dr. Haim reported to be true because I worked in the endocrine clinic, and had first-hand knowledge of patients being prescribed puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones despite the hospital repeatedly and publicly denying the program's existence.

Texas Children's Hospital is using Medicaid to cover transgender treatments and cross-sex hormones. I know this because I saw it. Medicaid specifically prohibits any coverage of hormones related to transgender medicine, and yet the hospital for years has continued to prescribe and use hormonal therapies for transgender Medicaid patients. In addition, I saw examples of doctors who intentionally misdiagnosed patients for the purpose of justifying cross-sex hormones for transgender patients to get around state law.

Soon after I anonymously came forward to corroborate Dr. Haim, two agents from the FBI came to my home and threatened me. They and told me they were aware of my strong views against "gender-affirming care” and asked to recruit my help in order to expose Dr. Haim. They said they could make my life difficult, and said I was not safe unless I helped them. I felt scared, intimidated, and overwhelmed.

Continue ReadingNurse Investigated by FBI for Exposing Fraudulent Transgender Program

J.K. Rowling Explains Why She Stood Up for Women

Why did J.K. Rowling take a strong stand in support of women, exposing herself to "a tsunami of death and rape threats"? See the following excerpt from J.K. Rowling's new book, The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht:

The thing is, those appalled by my position often fail to grasp how truly despicable I find theirs. I’ve watched “no debate” become the slogan of those who once posed as defenders of free speech. I’ve witnessed supposedly progressive men arguing that women don’t exist as an observable biological class and don’t deserve biology-based rights. I’ve listened as certain female celebrities insist that there isn’t the slightest risk to women and girls in allowing any man who self-identifies as a woman to enter single-sex spaces reserved for women, including changing rooms, bathrooms or rape shelters. . . . I’ve asked people who consider themselves socialists and egalitarians what might be the practical consequences of erasing easily understood words like “woman” and “mother”, and replacing them with “cervix-haver”, “menstruator” and “birthing parent”, especially for those for whom English is a second language, or women whose understanding of their own bodies is limited. They seem confused and irritated by this question. Better that a hundred women who aren’t up to speed with the latest gender jargon miss public health information than that one trans-identified individual feels invalidated, seems to be the view.

Continue ReadingJ.K. Rowling Explains Why She Stood Up for Women

Facts First on Sex

Alan Sokal discusses "sex is assigned at birth" as Exhibit A on how well-intentioned science can run off the rails when it fails to put facts first. His article at The Critic is titled: "Woke invades the sciences: The intrusion of irrational ideology is distorting and censoring science."

Fast forward four decades. Now the entire American medical establishment, from the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics to the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association and even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, insists that sex — as in male or female — is, in the AAP’s words, “an assignment that is made at birth”. What could this mean?

What are the indisputable facts?

The facts about sex are straightforward, and are taught in any half-decent high-school course in biology. Nearly all animals, as well as many plants, reproduce sexually. In almost all sexually reproducing multicellular species this occurs by combining a large gamete, called an ovum (or egg), with a small gamete, called a sperm. Though some (“hermaphrodite”) plants and animals produce both ova and sperm, there are no hermaphrodite mammalian species. In mammals, each individual produces only one kind of gamete. Those individuals that produce (relatively few) ova are called female; those that produce (large numbers of) sperm are called male. Whether a mammal embryo develops into a male or a female is determined (at least when things go right, which is nearly all the time) by a pair of sex chromosomes: XX for females, XY for males. In short, sex in all animals is defined by gamete size; sex in all mammals is determined by sex chromosomes; and there are two and only two sexes: male and female.

I've had this discussion with several people who want to claim that there are more than two sexes (or that sex is "fluid") "because some people are intersex." This is an extraordinarily misguided claim because only a tiny percentage of people who claim to be transgender have intersex conditions. The same is true of the general population. Very few people have intersex conditions:

For sure, quirks of mutation or prenatal development may leave some individuals unable to produce viable gametes at all. But an infertile individual with a Y chromosome is still male, just as a one-legged person remains a full member of our bipedal species.

Much is speciously made of the fact that a very few humans are born with chromosomal patterns other than XX and XY. The most common, Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), occurs in about 0.1 per cent of live births; these individuals are anatomically male, though often infertile. Some extremely rare conditions, such as de la Chapelle syndrome (0.003 per cent) and Swyer syndrome (0.0005 per cent), arguably fall outside the standard male/female classification. Even so, the sexual divide is an exceedingly clear binary, as binary as any distinction you can find in biology.

See also, this article on intersex, pointing to the work of biologist Colin Wright. Consequently, almost all newborn babies are obviously male or female. It's the same whether we are talking about human animals, dog, cats or any other mammal.

A baby’s name is assigned at birth; no one doubts that. But a baby’s sex is not “assigned”; it is determined at conception and is then observed at birth, first by examination of the external genital organs, and then, in cases of doubt, by chromosomal analysis[1]. Of course, any observation can be erroneous, and in rare cases the sex reported on the birth certificate is inaccurate and needs to be subsequently corrected. But the fallibility of observation does not change the fact that what is being observed — a person’s sex — is an objective biological reality, just like their blood group or fingerprint pattern, not something that is “assigned”. The medical associations’ pronouncements are social constructivism gone amok — this time about a subject that has been more-or-less accurately understood by humans (albeit without all the scientific details) ever since the beginning of our species. Sex, unlike quarks, is not subtle.

How can all of these formerly prestigious medical organizations suddenly (at the same time) forget the basic facts regarding sex?

The cause is evidently political. The medical establishment’s new-found reluctance to speak honestly about biological reality — and its insouciance in speaking dishonestly about it — presumably stems from a laudable desire to defend the human rights of transgender people. But while the goal is praiseworthy, the chosen method is misguided. Protecting transgender people from discrimination and harassment does not require pretending that sex is merely “assigned”.

Continue ReadingFacts First on Sex

Newly Released CASS Study Highly Critical of Transgender Ideology

From the Free Press, a summary of the recent Cass Review that is highly critical of transgender ideology:

A long-awaited report out this week found that medical professionals in the UK who advocate for gender transition in children are misguided ideologues.

Written by British pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, The Cass Review, which is nearly 400 pages and took more than four years to compile, comes to the following conclusions: Thousands of vulnerable young people were given life-altering treatments with “no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.”

“It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion.”

“Social justice” ideology is driving medical decision-making, and “the toxicity of the debate” has created an environment “where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views.”

Activists insist the science on this matter is settled, but Cass’s tone recalls a stern British nanny calmly explaining to unruly children how to get their room in order. She shows us that everything about this issue is unsettled, and unsettling. For instance, she notes that “social transition”—when very young children assume other gender identities—is an “active intervention” that may set youths on a path to medical transition. And it may even make gender dysphoria worse.

From the National Review:

Which argument is more compelling? That children distressed by their sexual characteristics should be given counseling that acknowledges sex is immutable and aims to resolve their distress by treating its root psychological causes? Or the argument that asserts that sex can be changed, dismisses the cause of distress as irrelevant, and declares that any children who ask to have their sexual characteristics disfigured through drugs and surgeries should be given the go-ahead on the understanding that if they later regret it, it’s their problem?

Thanks to the tireless work of whistleblowers, journalists, and concerned citizens — the British public has given the only sane and responsible answer.

Continue ReadingNewly Released CASS Study Highly Critical of Transgender Ideology