The H & W Show: The medical and social implications of gender multiplicity

[bjorb]

[quote author= luc]A stretch perhaps, but I got the feeling as well that the media is slowly 'legitimizing' autism, i.e. promoting the view that it's not a mental illness, but a somehow valuable way of life. There seems to be some admiration for spectacular 'insular talents' by such people, and even Aspergers is portrayed somehow favorably (for example in the Danish series The Bridge), the total lack of empathy being seen as 'cool'. I guess all this fits into the overall picture of a society that goes down the tubes on every level.[/quote]

Yes, but that's not autism, It's this false stereotype that makes people hysterical about those who act distant and have trouble socializing. It only makes matters worse for autistic people. And gives true psychopaths a free pass because it makes them even more undetectable. Because people are looking for the wrong characteristics that defines them.

When society tells you are no good, you start believing it yourself. Which could make ''gender theory'' only more attractable for those who have been made to hate themselves. Thinking it is the solution for being accepted and normal.

Autistic people hardly get tolerated from what I have seen, but ''gender theory'' apparently is. So you get pushed to a certain direction.


And indeed, there are TV shows that promote psychopathy as a necessary tool for society to make the hard right decisions nobody else can. The opposite is true of course. But their image of how a psychopath behaves is totally flawed. True psychopaths carry a mask of sanity and are often very charming.

 

[luc]

Yes, but that's not autism, It's this false stereotype that makes people hysterical about those who act distant and have trouble socializing. It only makes matters worse for autistic people. And gives true psychopaths a free pass because it makes them even more undetectable. Because people are looking for the wrong characteristics that defines them.

Indeed, the media gets all those things horribly wrong. Which of course further confuses people and denies them the crucial psychological knowledge that could make a difference.

Speaking of getting it wrong, another issue that kind of goes into the same direction as the whole gender craze (thanks BTW for the very interesting show, had a chance to listen to it the other day) is how society treats mental retardation such as Down syndrome. Here in Germany, there is a big push towards 'inclusion', which means treating mentally retarded people the same as normal people. For example, the plan is that they go to the same schools as normal children, nevermind that the teachers are not prepared at all to deal with them and that they have totally different needs! Forgive the political incorrectness, but this seems like another symptom of 'dumbing down'. I mean, come on!

From wiki about inclusion:

The inclusive attitude is quite divergent from, and usually the exact opposite of, the prevailing attitude in most countries worldwide. Inclusion's opposite tends to be an attitude or undercurrent of pity and/or sorrow among the population of the able-bodied towards people with disabilities — and, among the medical community, a prevalence of the medical model of disability focusing on the physical and/or mental therapies, medications, surgeries and assistive devices that might help to "normalize" or "fix" the disabled person so that they may have an easier time in their surrounding environment.

The attitude of inclusion, which has a lot in common with the social model of disability, alleges that this entire approach is wrong and that those who have physical, sensory and/or intellectual impairments are automatically put on a much more effective and fulfilling road to a good, complete, and 'full' life if they are, instead, looked at and valued by society from the outset as totally "normal" people who just happen to have these "extra differences." Like the social movements of feminism, anti-racism and gay rights before it, inclusion is often derided by critics from the right as naïvité, and by critics from the left as identity politics. As it looks less towards 'overcoming' and 'achieving', and more towards being and existing in the moment, inclusion by its very nature forces others in the world to possibly begin to actually accept bodily forms and processes they may not be immediately comfortable with.

Also, I heard from someone who does social work in an institution taking care of mentally retarded people, that while all this 'inclusion' stuff sounds good on paper, what they actually do is cut the funding for the various daycare institutions who deal with these people, supervised living etc., by pretending that they can just live like everyone else, blending into society. This is so wrong! We should have compassion with these people, but compassion doesn't mean pretending there is no problem, but learning about them, facing reality, and then coming up with ways that actually support and help these people!

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= luc]We should have compassion with these people, but compassion doesn't mean pretending there is no problem, but learning about them, facing reality, and then coming up with ways that actually support and help these people![/quote]

I also don't get how this should help people with down syndrome because they require special needs.

And what happens if they get bullied. I mean, kids aren't that nice these days.


Gender Theory and all that,

Through this 'tolerance' programming people are losing their ability to see that there are people out there that just need help. It's good to be tolerant of course, but it's another to encourage mental illness.

And there is a lot of poison being spread about how we should life our lives. Western society is losing the ability to recognize what is normal behavior and what isn't. But pointing out that abnormal behavior exists makes you apparently intolerant.

I mean, excuse me from pointing out that people who identify themselves as a Transsexual Houseplant or whatever isn't normal.

 

[Perri475]

Didn't sott run an article a few months ago about how the human brain is a culmination of male and female traits? With that in mind, is it really so hard to accept that some people don't feel like either gender? I listened to this SOTT focus, and one of the first things said *paraphrased* was "these people don't like being called what they are, words that have always been used to describe gender'', this confused me because him/her/he/she aren't some sort of objective system of identification, but man-made constructs that apply to physiology (now) and profiency (back then, i.e. hunter/gathering).

I do think that euro-centrism has latched onto the concept and is being very ridiculous in trying to police language, but writing off non-binary people as mentally ill is really jumping the gun, especially when you can trace people feeling that way all throughout history. Of course most people didn't hear about it at all, history has had a tendency to white-wash anything that doesn't fit the pre-made narrative. Because of social media and the internet, it gives the disenfranchised more of an opportunity to voice themselves. With that comes societies slow acceptance, but first it has to be turned into a fashion trend, which is exactly what's happening right now.

You can see the same thing happen with anyone else's acceptance in the LGBT spectrum. For example: when homosexuality started to gain western societal acceptance, the identities/personalities/etc of homosexuals were pigeon-holed into a glittery pink jack in the box that says ''fabulous'' when you crank it all the way. Do some homosexual men have that inherently in their personality, sure and there's nothing wrong with that. Does that represent the whole demographic of homosexuals worldwide? Of course not, that's only what we saw on tv.

http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Gender-variant_identities_worldwide

To me, pidgeon-holding non binary people as a mentally ill fad, would be the same as as saying the C's material is no different then all the new-age mumbo jumbo. Obviously there's more to the C's than ''law of attraction'', ''love'', ''self knowledge'', or any other buzzword that gets peoples' noggins turning, but those associations might be the only thing someone sees when you pair ignorance with confirmation bias.

 

[Oxajil]

Didn't sott run an article a few months ago about how the human brain is a culmination of male and female traits?

I think you are referring to this article, yes? No such thing as a 'male brain' or 'female brain' - Your brain is a mosaic of male and female

I'm not surprised that there is variability in each brain. As it says at the end:

Though hormonal influences are important, the real story is far more complex, according to a 2011 review in Nature Neuroscience. A growing body of evidence suggests that development is a give-and-take between genetic, environmental and epigenetic (above the genome) factors, all of which are acting in parallel and influencing one another in complicated ways. Different brain regions react in different ways to sex-specific influences, which are not limited to estrogen and testosterone, that review found. Meanwhile, environmental influences such as prenatal or early-life stress can feed back into this process, again altering how the brain develops.

There are many factors involved. Having said that, the majority of people around the world do not have serious gender issues, which suggests that certain parts of the brain (or perhaps more correctly, certain connections) are similar among the majority.

I remember from a lecture I attended on this, that there are some studies that indicate that one of the causes of gender confusion might be a brain anomaly that occurs at some point during the prenatal stage (perhaps due to certain stresses). I haven't looked into that further, but that was what those researchers were suggesting at that point in time, as it's still unclear what it is that causes it.

With that in mind, is it really so hard to accept that some people don't feel like either gender?

It's not that it's hard to accept, it's the glorification of it that is concerning (as well as the state itself, as not feeling like either gender means that something is 'off'! Which doesn't mean it is necessarily a bad thing, it really just depends on the person and each specific situation.)

I do think that euro-centrism has latched onto the concept and is being very ridiculous in trying to police language, but writing off non-binary people as mentally ill is really jumping the gun,

Their condition isn't a mental illness per se, but there is something that is 'unnatural', but I suppose it depends on how you look at it. What is notable is an increase of people with this type of confusion, maybe it's because people are willing to speak out about it more, but considering that it's not just male/female confusion but the types of confusions that bjorn posted (a whole list), it's a pretty big sign of the times that people's minds are all over the place.

especially when you can trace people feeling that way all throughout history. Of course most people didn't hear about it at all, history has had a tendency to white-wash anything that doesn't fit the pre-made narrative. Because of social media and the internet, it gives the disenfranchised more of an opportunity to voice themselves. With that comes societies slow acceptance, but first it has to be turned into a fashion trend, which is exactly what's happening right now.

The Netherlands already had institutions that help transsexuals for example, and even pays for all the operations they go through. There already was some sort of acceptance, before the whole fashion trend thing surrounding transsexuals.

You can see the same thing happen with anyone else's acceptance in the LGBT spectrum. For example: when homosexuality started to gain western societal acceptance, the identities/personalities/etc of homosexuals were pigeon-holed into a glittery pink jack in the box that says ''fabulous'' when you crank it all the way. Do some homosexual men have that inherently in their personality, sure and there's nothing wrong with that. Does that represent the whole demographic of homosexuals worldwide? Of course not, that's only what we saw on tv.

I think that unfortunately some people still hold that view. Yes, that's what we saw on TV. It's not just series, movies, etc. that gives that kind of image. It's also all the parties and parades that are organized that give off this image, that were supposedly held to 'bring more awareness to the issue' or to 'celebrate being homosexual and being proud of it' etc. There are a lot of distasteful things happening during those parades, which is not a good image for homosexuals. That's not how you will gain acceptance from the main population. The effect it really has, is that it furthers the agenda of an 'over-sexualized' society that we currently live in.

Also, an ambassador of transsexuals in Amsterdam once told us that he (who used to be a she) thinks that the whole parade and loads of focus on gender issues actually has a negative effect. They don't want to be in the spotlight, they don't want the attention, they just want to live their lives like everyone else. A documentary or a course on it educating the people about it is one thing, but the fashion trend they make out of it is a whole other story. The glorification happens undoubtedly with a reason, as bjorn said, I wouldn't be surprised that with more and more focus on 'accepting' those who 'feel differently' may eventually lead to acceptance towards 'poor pedophiles who also just feel differently'. FWIW.

 

[lainey]

Also, an ambassador of transsexuals in Amsterdam once told us that he (who used to be a she) thinks that the whole parade and loads of focus on gender issues actually has a negative effect. They don't want to be in the spotlight, they don't want the attention, they just want to live their lives like everyone else. A documentary or a course on it educating the people about it is one thing, but the fashion trend they make out of it is a whole other story. The glorification happens undoubtedly with a reason, as bjorn said, I wouldn't be surprised that with more and more focus on 'accepting' those who 'feel differently' may eventually lead to acceptance towards 'poor pedophiles who also just feel differently'. FWIW.

I agree, just where does one draw the line? I knew a girl a while back who partook in some horrific practices under the guise of feminine liberation and these things extended to her friends and grew into parties and meet ups of people who wanted to be accepted for feeling differently. It basically became the fashion for them and it was terrifying to see the sheer amount of people who bought into it and helped it grow horns as it were.

 

[luc]

Perri475, I can understand where you are coming from - but if the hosts of the show came across a bit 'jokey' about the whole issue, I think it's because of the sheer amount of ridiculousness about this topic in the mainstream media. I didn't take it as hostility against trans people. As always, this topic is not so simple. Here are a few thoughts:

Didn't sott run an article a few months ago about how the human brain is a culmination of male and female traits? With that in mind, is it really so hard to accept that some people don't feel like either gender? I listened to this SOTT focus, and one of the first things said *paraphrased* was "these people don't like being called what they are, words that have always been used to describe gender'', this confused me because him/her/he/she aren't some sort of objective system of identification, but man-made constructs that apply to physiology (now) and profiency (back then, i.e. hunter/gathering).

I don't know, but I think this is a bit simplified. As far as I know, gender theory postulates that everything about gender is forced on people by society. Although some of the things we associate with gender nowadays (blue pants for boys, pink for girls etc.) is of course due to societal influence, there are obviously biological facts as well, including hormones and such. Then I think there is the more spiritual dimension of 'male energy' and 'female energy', which probably ties in with the idea of archetypes. Obviously, we can manifest both components, but I guess the biological gender has a big influence on which of these energies/archetypes we connect more to.

What seems to be a running theme in our psychopathic society, and I think this shows in the whole gender debate as well, is that we are fed the illusion that we can be 'free of all restraints', biological and spiritual, which I think is a dangerous path. There is something like a 'natural law', although since the 'enlightenment', this concept was kind of abolished. But as Gurdjieff said - spiritually, we can only choose which influence we come under to an extent, we cannot be without influence from the higher realms. So in terms of gender issues, I think an 'anything goes' attitude is not helpful, which is not to say that there exist cases where male and female energies mix, or gender identification problems arise due to biological factors and/or spiritual reasons.

Which brings us to the question of how to treat such people. I think they deserve compassion and love as everyone else does, and it is clearly inhumane to discriminate against them in any form. But compassion means to know what is going on with them (as the Cs said - to love is to know). Just postulating "every gender issue should be accepted without question" isn't helpful here I think. We should ask instead which underlying psychological issues are at play, which biological problems there are etc., to help these people find their way, however it will look like. In other words, it depends on the specific situation, as always: for some the gender issues come from childhood trauma, some may have biological malfunctions, and might just connect more with 'female energy'. But if society promotes an 'anything goes' attitude, no questions asked, those who have psychological problems will never get them solved, and some people will just change genders on a whim, while still others use their gender issues to have their way with society at large (bathrooms, language etc.), nevermind they are an extremely small minority. Not to mention the very problematical surgery option, which clearly hasn't existed until recently and seems to be done even to teens and children nowadays! That is child abuse indeed.

I do think that euro-centrism has latched onto the concept and is being very ridiculous in trying to police language, but writing off non-binary people as mentally ill is really jumping the gun, especially when you can trace people feeling that way all throughout history. Of course most people didn't hear about it at all, history has had a tendency to white-wash anything that doesn't fit the pre-made narrative. Because of social media and the internet, it gives the disenfranchised more of an opportunity to voice themselves. With that comes societies slow acceptance, but first it has to be turned into a fashion trend, which is exactly what's happening right now.

I think that such things become 'fashion trends' is precisely the problem. It is a way for the psychopaths to co-opt genuine interests of a minority and align them with their soulless 'anything goes' agenda. Look at what happened to feminism, which started with some clever women imagining a different world where the feminine energy has the place it deserves and that the world needs. And now? Women have the same 'rights' as men to live out their psychopathy on a global level, yay! Or the gay movement: again, as far as I know, the early gay movement had some very sound political visions, but the psychopaths and their media quickly turned it into a totally degenerated, over-sexualized freak show that society 'had to accept'. And now the transgender thing: what was a very small minority with genuine interests now became a fashion trend, and we know 'have to accept' the lunacy of totally unscientific new genders, an invasion of our language, and children being surgically 'gender-changed'! It's the same dynamic playing out again IMO.

Anyway, these were a few aspects that came to mind.

 

[Oxajil]

Not to mention the very problematical surgery option, which clearly hasn't existed until recently and seems to be done even to teens and children nowadays! That is child abuse indeed. [...] And now the transgender thing: what was a very small minority with genuine interests now became a fashion trend, and we know 'have to accept' the lunacy of totally unscientific new genders, an invasion of our language, and children being surgically 'gender-changed'! It's the same dynamic playing out again IMO.

I second your thoughts, luc. Just one small note. As far as I know, when it comes to changing gender, it is actually best for a child (who has been correctly and seriously assessed), to start early. Long-term, it really makes a difference in their quality of life (for most of them). At least here, at min. 12 years old they start with a drug that slows down pubertal development, and from the age of 16 they can decide whether to do surgery and/or hormonal treatment. I suspect these drugs don't go without side-effects, and the surgery probably will have its effects as well... but I think it's probably the best option for some of them. It's a really serious issue, and it's a shame that reality tv shows and the like dramatize it for their own gain.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Perri475]With that in mind, is it really so hard to accept that some people don't feel like either gender?[/quote]

No that shouldn't matter, if it's harmless people should do whatever is right for them. But if you look at the statistics most people after these life chancing surgeries regretted it. Admitting they just needed therapy. So it basically ruined their lives.

I think a more careful approach is necessary to figure out what exactly is happening with these people. But instead of doing that, society is encouraging it. Certainly the MSM, and when that happens, we should be rather careful I think. The media isn't on our side after all.

Life-styles the MSM or society in general is most often selling aren't designed to make us happy. But rather are meant to cause suffering.

 

[Woodsman]

The more I look at this, the more I see two situations which are deeply connected, and yet remain isolated in people's minds...

The first is our food system. It is creating across entire populations widespread hormonal imbalances which lead to changes in how sexuality expresses on a physical and mental layer.

We have already identified certain mineral deficiencies, like Iodine, as having an effect on common psychology today, but there have been other recent changes in our food supply which are even more closely linked to gender issues, I think.

One of the most consumed food substances is Soy. It is no understatement to say that it is in almost everything at the grocery store, from the meat section to every processed foodstuff one can think of. -Soy contains plant-based chemicals which can partly simulate estrogen. -It is powerful enough that male babies fed on soya milk can experience serious physical health issues.

Another element of the food system which astonished me to learn was that many of the plastics we use to contain food and eat and drink from contain chemicals which also create estrogen-like reactions in the body.

There are other vectors as well; I remember reading a story about men reporting their breast tissue and nipples enlarging and hurting and feeling tender after eating daily plate fulls of chicken wings during a vacation visit to a South American resort in a country where growth hormones were less carefully regulated in feed lots. But even when we do not include growth hormones added to animal feed, Soy consumption and plastic use alone are two items simply staggering in the raw scope of their potential and, I think, observable effects on society.

If you wanted to domesticate humans and make them easier to manage, I can't think of a more efficient way than to initiate broad hormone therapy through the food supply. To somebody without any knowledge of higher densities, the appearance of estrogen-like chemicals in both food and food containers should at the very least seem suspiciously convenient. However, to those with expanded knowledge, I don't see how it could seem to be anything other than a cold calculation.

Anyway...

That's the physical environment half of the equation; the half which popular culture has barely acknowledged, let alone organized huge annual parades around in every major city.

There is a disconnect. -And that disconnect is due to the fact that it's hard to look at these sorts of details, soy and plastic toxins, and to extrapolate from them probable results and then to create meaningful behavioral responses based on that frontal-lobe heavy lifting.

What is much easier and what people ARE good at, do automatically in fact, is looking at their immediate feelings and at the behavioral changes, the feelings of the people around us, -and then to come up with stories and myths to rationalize those feelings. -Adaptive psychological coping mechanisms which allow whole populations to react and morph mechanically to the new reality of their altered biology -without necessarily attempting to understand its origins.

The new psychological environment is thus accepted as normal because to all outward (and inward) appearances, it now IS normal.

This is 2D thinking, -well practiced in previous lives before having graduated to 3D and thus easy and comfortable. -As opposed to making use of our new ability to dig into an observed phenomenon in order to understand it and make structural changes with knowledge-based choices.

Rather than run around doing everything possible to accommodate the new physiological changes being wrought upon us against our will by outside forces (which want to eat us!), I think the wiser option is to look at those manipulations and to decide whether or not we want to accept being subverted by them.

 

[mcb]

Not to mention the very problematical surgery option, which clearly hasn't existed until recently and seems to be done even to teens and children nowadays! That is child abuse indeed. [...] And now the transgender thing: what was a very small minority with genuine interests now became a fashion trend, and we know 'have to accept' the lunacy of totally unscientific new genders, an invasion of our language, and children being surgically 'gender-changed'! It's the same dynamic playing out again IMO.

I second your thoughts, luc. Just one small note. As far as I know, when it comes to changing gender, it is actually best for a child (who has been correctly and seriously assessed), to start early. Long-term, it really makes a difference in their quality of life (for most of them). At least here, at min. 12 years old they start with a drug that slows down pubertal development, and from the age of 16 they can decide whether to do surgery and/or hormonal treatment. I suspect these drugs don't go without side-effects, and the surgery probably will have its effects as well... but I think it's probably the best option for some of them. It's a really serious issue, and it's a shame that reality tv shows and the like dramatize it for their own gain.

The surgery option has existed for a very long time. It was done differently in earlier times.

As both a primary transsexual and someone on the autistic spectrum, I am dismayed by some of the developments I see on both fronts. I can't say that I really understand or can explain what I am seeing in the trans world. The issues that I do have ideas about break down in complex ways that I can't go into at the moment.

I do not even know what happened to me. I can identify epigenetics, my mother's poor health, her post-term pregnancy, possible oxygen deprivation at birth, and trauma from the use of forceps as likely factors. There may have been a prenatal event as well. The C's once named the cause as "brain damage," which is consistent with the diagnosis I eventually received.

Autistic spectrum issues are not surprising following such a birth. I also have broad endocrine dysfunction resulting from insufficient synthesis of pregnenolone, which results in deficiencies throughout the entire cascade of adrenal steroid synthesis. This could possibly explain the gender identity issues.

I suspect that the underlying issue is metabolic dysregulation, possibly caused by brain damage. There doesn't appear to be anything physically wrong with my adrenals. Pregnenolone is synthesized in the mitochondria, and I have other mitochondrial-related issues as well. I have had my mtDNA sequenced, and I know that there are any number of other people out there with the identical sequence; I can name some of them. It doesn't appear to be systematically mutated. Projecting from the limited number who have their mtDNA fully sequenced, I would say many people have that sequence.

Endocrine dysfunction of this nature is not normally associated with transsexualism. I only was able to confirm it because I transitioned and took estradiol for a time, and it turned up on my baseline tests for doing that. Most people who transition the way I did would learn of it the same way; that seems to confirm that it is rare.

Legally, I am female. I have a court order to that effect. If I had to pick a gender identity apart from that, which normally I don't, it would most likely be androgynous. I associate primarily with women. My sexual identity would seem to be asexual. It's been an interesting experiment.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= MB]As both a primary transsexual and someone on the autistic spectrum, I am dismayed by some of the developments I see on both fronts.[/quote]

Autism can be a confusing mess for our 'authentic self' Although personal experience is not objective, so I can't speak for everyone. But also having it myself I can imagine that 'gender Dysphoria' isn't that far off for many who have to endure it.

That's why I mentioned that they may push 'gender theory' as a possible solution for autism.

I think that for some it is the solution. Life sometimes simply isn't cut out to be like it 'normally' goes for the majority.

But I think that for most, it isn't the solution and it will only cause more suffering for them.


Before I used the words, 'normal' and 'abnormal' to explain 'gender theory' If it fits and works for the person. It's normal, and with that I mean healthy.

So 'Gender Theory' isn't abnormal as a rule.

But it must be adopted seriously and not carelessly like how it is treated now.

 

[dugdeep]

Not to mention the very problematical surgery option, which clearly hasn't existed until recently and seems to be done even to teens and children nowadays! That is child abuse indeed. [...] And now the transgender thing: what was a very small minority with genuine interests now became a fashion trend, and we know 'have to accept' the lunacy of totally unscientific new genders, an invasion of our language, and children being surgically 'gender-changed'! It's the same dynamic playing out again IMO.

I second your thoughts, luc. Just one small note. As far as I know, when it comes to changing gender, it is actually best for a child (who has been correctly and seriously assessed), to start early. Long-term, it really makes a difference in their quality of life (for most of them). At least here, at min. 12 years old they start with a drug that slows down pubertal development, and from the age of 16 they can decide whether to do surgery and/or hormonal treatment. I suspect these drugs don't go without side-effects, and the surgery probably will have its effects as well... but I think it's probably the best option for some of them. It's a really serious issue, and it's a shame that reality tv shows and the like dramatize it for their own gain.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your post here, Oxajil, but it sounds like you're suggesting it's better for gender reassignment to be done in children because of procedural reasons. I would have to disagree with you there.

As we said in the show, a child is really and truly incapable of making such a momentous decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives. A child really has no concept of the future, of possible consequences or of the extraneous factors that may be affecting their decision. To leave this kind of decision to a prepubescent child is completely irresponsible, IMO. Considering how many changes all children go through between childhood, adolescence and adulthood, how could one be sure that a child's feelings wouldn't change entirely during that time? I believe elective surgeries and hormonal manipulation should be illegal in children. It is reckless and irresponsible.

If you're referring to cases of hermaphrodism, where the transition is used as a corrective measure, than I think that's different.

 

[SeekinTruth]

I read this thread earlier (when it was shorter) but didn't comment on it as I hadn't listened to the Health & Wellness Show episode (still haven't) and didn't look further into the links, etc. in this thread (still haven't had time). But another really important thing to keep in mind - to kinda emphasize, actually - is the complementarity of the male / female relationship both on the physical and the spiritual levels.

What Pierre discovered and wrote about in Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection (and later, SOTT Focus articles) has compelling scientific evidence that the higher psychic and "paranormal"/spiritual abilities are enhanced in couples of the opposite sex, and damped in couples of the same sex when intent is employed to have "paranormal" effects on external reality, etc. So this whole widespread promotion and further hystericization of the entire human society over these issues raises questions about not just those with the "gender issues" but the functioning of humans as energy and information transducers on the planet (as elaborated by Gurdjieff and the 4th Way teachings; also many things the C's have said about humans and information transduction into our reality, interaction with the objective reality, etc). Or so I think.


ADDED: Just your post, dugdeep.

 

[theos]

As far as I know, when it comes to changing gender, it is actually best for a child (who has been correctly and seriously assessed), to start early. Long-term, it really makes a difference in their quality of life (for most of them). At least here, at min. 12 years old they start with a drug that slows down pubertal development, and from the age of 16 they can decide whether to do surgery and/or hormonal treatment. I suspect these drugs don't go without side-effects, and the surgery probably will have its effects as well... but I think it's probably the best option for some of them. It's a really serious issue, and it's a shame that reality tv shows and the like dramatize it for their own gain.

For the life of me I cannot imagine that a child, or even teen for the matter, would have the mental capacity to make that decision for themselves. They cannot consent for even the most minor of surgeries or medical procedures let alone a lifetime or hormonal treatments and radical surgery -- the long term effects of which have not even been determined. As this article put it, it is medical malpractice. What adults choose to do with their own bodies, even if the feelings behind the decision are just as changeable, is their own business. Radically changing your entire life based on a decision made in your childhood is unconscionable to me.

The fact that this is even given as a option for children is disturbing. IMO it seems like an extension of male and female genital mutilation or circumcision promoted by religion and carried out by families except now with 'choice' thrown in. I was reading a bit recently on the history of childhood, child sacrifices, infanticide and mutilation (eunuchs and such) and how it was rife with physical and sexual abuse and I couldn't help but link this current trend and the above history together. I can't really find the exact data at this point but the question that popped into my mind was something like this: If there has been a long history of transsexualism, how did that necessarily start? Was this really a conscious choice in the minds' of these young people in remote history or was it part and parcel of the sexual mutilation and resultant sexual abuse that they were forced to undergo (i.e. eunuchism)? And moreover, is this where we as a society are headed currently?

Here is the source that I was reading recently. Here's another one. They are very harrowing and disturbing reads, but heavily referenced. I've ordered some books on the reference list to continue researching this topic so excuse me if the above is not fully fleshed out.

Edit: clarity