Transgenderism to be declared mental illness by ACP in Summer 2016 statement

Good info for those doing apologetics on this issue:

The ACP statement, written by the ACP’s president Michelle A. Cretella, vice president Quentin Van Meter, and Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Paul McHugh, listed eight reasons why the ideology believing in gender transitioning is harmful. …

Fourth, using puberty-blocking hormones to reverse a natural biological sexual trait can be dangerous both physically and mentally.

Fifth, up to 98% of gender ambiguous boys and 88% of gender ambiguous girls are likely to accept their biological sex after passing through puberty naturally, according to the APA.

Sixth, “Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence.”

Full article at Daily Wire

What caught my eye was the criticism of the ACP by transgender advocates who stated that we should stop trying to “fix” persons who are transgendered.

The irony is that these advocates choose instead to go about “fixing” the rest of society to make everyone else more accommodating of their increasingly outrageous demands.

You are aware that the American College of Pediatricians is a socially conservative group of doctors and other healthcare professionals whose agenda is driven more by ideology than by science, right? Its should not be confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics. Their primary differences are over the matter of LGBQ issues.

The AAP was formed in 1930 and currently has about 60,000 members. The ACP split off from the AAP in 2002 and is estimated to have between 60 and 200 members. The ACP is generally not recognized by other medical professional groups.

In other words, the American College of Pediatricians can declare transgenderism a mental illness all it wants, but few besides themselves are going to give it any credibility.

The idea that psychology or psychiatry is some sort of objective science that is not usually driven by an agenda, forgive me, strikes me as being entirely naive. What you accuse the ACP of being, I would encourage you to extend to far more of the field than perhaps you are willing.

Although not closely related to this topic, I’d encourage you to read this article for a taste of what I’m alluding to:

I can’t find anything on the internet that says point five except stuff which traces back to the ACP so I am dubious of the veracity of it.

The ACP was directly founded to be anti-LGBT, it is a partisan group and is no better than an advocacy group that is funded by the Tobacco lobby and claims that Tobacco is perfectly healthy.

As opposed to medical associations, judicial bodies and colleges of physicians and surgeons which have done a complete about-face on issues such as abortion, homosexuality and transgenderism in the past few decades where previous to that they opposed all of these. Speaking of “agenda driven.” How could so many have been so wrong and now are so sure about being right for no other reason than because it is the politically correct posture to take?

Notice there is no attempt to actually rebut the points made by the ACP except to put labels on the group. Where is the research that demonstrates enabling and supporting individuals with “feelings” of gender dysphoria to act on those feelings has been shown to be the best course of action or even a good option?

When those peer-reviewed studies are done and substantiated then your points might have some merit, but at this point they are extremely tenuous. It seems some individuals will go wherever the latest social fad takes them no matter where it leads and condemn those opposed using whatever new PC derogations that become available. No need to make a case, just slap on a derogatory label and push a majority in society to get on the bandwagon and voila – the case and the “science” are closed.

What do you have to say about RIchard Hernandez and his moving beyond being a woman to claiming to be a dragon and having the surgery and tattooed body to match?

Now see if you can apply whatever “logic” you can to justify transgenderism without also justifying having your ears and nose removed should you happen to begin believing you are a dragon.

Or another individual who went from transgender to parrot? It would seem to be the logical end of the same absurd trajectory. At one time it was called an argumentum or reductio ad absurdum, but in modern times it appears to be viewed as a critical challenge to come up with the next engrossing “special” cause.

At some point, hopefully, enough individuals will wake up to the fact that they are being played and are victims of a colossal SJW prank owing to their own need to be “accepted” and looking “good” and virtuous in front of others. Let’s see it for what it is – pride and the need for social acceptance – which is why a 60 000 member strong organization will be correct merely by default and not by research or logic regardless of the actual reasons or case NOT being made.

Or perhaps the LGBT lobby is no better than the advocacy group funded by the tobacco lobby because of its claims, media backing and funding by a narcissistic wealthy elite who want nothing more than to tear down the last vestiges of morality in their quest to be free of all encumbrances.

Perhaps it is the ACP who are the ones concerned about the truth of the issues and are being persecuted just like those who tried to oppose the “Tobacco lobby” at its peak strength?

I mean, tobacco became socially acceptable despite its health repercussions, just like gay behaviour, abortion and gender reassignment therapy are being pushed despite detriments to health.

It is simply mind-boggling that LGBT advocates will claim gender reassignment therapy is a good thing despite all the research otherwise, but insist that therapies sought to restore a person to their biological sex or orientation are strictly verboten.

It is also incomprehensible that those who advocate for homosexual orientation BECAUSE it is not a choice will, at the same time, argue that individuals should be free to choose their gender simply BECAUSE they have a right to. Nothing confused there, I suppose :hey_bud:

And that those who support “reassignment surgery” are trying to “fix” the body.

You have a person who’s mind and body are at odds. So to “fix” this, surgery proponents say–––change the body. Even that body is empirically healthy and even sexually potent with the opposite sex. :shrug:

Gratuitous assertion.

Perhaps I’m comparing apples to oranges here, but would you entertain the delusions of a schizophrenic? Is it responsible to do so? All we do by justifying how these people feel is hurt them. They don’t need verification, they need help. Identifying this as a problem is the first step.

The ACP is more accurate than the AAP when it comes to transgender issues. The ACP refuses to bow down to political correctness.

The ACP is short on verifiable facts and long on unwarranted and uncharitable speculation. They aren’t guilty of detraction, they are guilty of calumny.

Is there any evidence that a psychologist diagnosed that person with gender dysphoria?

The brain being over or under masculinised in utero fairly easily explains transgender people and the case of David Reimer shows that gender identity doesn’t change even when everyone around them is trying to convince them otherwise.

How is it more accurate?

They realize that transgenderism is disordered.

So they are more accurate because they agree with you?

It is not just because they agree with me, but because it is Christian and scientific truth.

A verifiable fact is a man is a man and a woman a woman. This can be verified by chromosomes. You are suggesting a man or woman is some mix of in utero hormones. What is that mix? And if this mix is the determinant what do we make of chromosomes?

As to the claim a person thinks they are a different sex that is really utterly ridiculous. How can a person know they are another sex? What knowledge do they possess that tells them this? This is especially absurd if sex is a mix of hormones. The brain or mind isn’t a scientific instrument for measuring hormone levels in the past.

Given that Dr. Paul McHugh has been, over a number of decades, the Henry Phipps Professor of Psychiatry and the director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at Johns Hopkins University and psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, and is currently University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, it appears that your critique of what he has to say is “short on verifiable facts and long on unwarranted and uncharitable speculation.” It would be safe to conclude that your aren’t merely “guilty of detraction,” but “guilty of calumny” since you provide nothing to make the case against his conclusions – conclusions from years of treating psychiatric patients and of doing research into the area – except your own shortage of “verifiable facts” and lengthy “unwarranted and uncharitable speculation.”

Time to use your “standards” to self-check what you post, don’t you think?

What does this demonstrate except that an individual can hold tenaciously to their own beliefs about reality in the face of external influence? Cecile Richards thinks what she does about dismembering babies inside their mothers despite many around her trying to convince her otherwise. Mental disorders can be systemic and difficult to change. I think that is not a new discovery.

It doesn’t mean that merely because a person can hold onto false beliefs that those beliefs somehow get legitimated and made true by the tenacity of the individual in the process, does it?

Any reasonable person knows that it isn’t how strongly you hold beliefs that make them true, it is their truth value. I would submit that pretty much everyone has abandoned the truth sometime in their lives because they found it too difficult or costly to uphold or defend. Again, the fact that they easily changed their support of a truth BECAUSE others around them succeeded in pressuring them does NOT mean the truth of the matter changed BECAUSE they abandoned it.

Here is a PDF of article appearing in the Journal of American Physicians and Plastic Surgeons, written by Michelle A. Cretella, MD, from the American College of Pediatricians. ABSTRACT
Gender dysphoria (GD) of childhood describes a psychological condition in which a child experiences marked incongruence between his experienced gender and the gender associated with his biological sex. When this occurs in the prepubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence. Currently there is a vigorous albeit suppressed debate among physicians, therapists, and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for GD in children. Modeled after a paradigm developed in the Netherlands, it involves pubertal suppression with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists followed by the use of cross-sex hormones—a combination that will result in the sterility of minors. A review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is rooted in an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base, and violates the long-standing ethical principle of “First do no harm.”

Are you saying that a man (boy) who claims an overwhelming “experience” that they are, in some sense a woman, despite their objectively male characteristics, is lying - or do you agree that the person is genuine in what they report?

Its a mental disorder, just like the numerous other mental disorders many people suffer with, we dont around justifying their disorders and having them believe nothing is wrong, would this be done to a person with schizophrenia, constantly tell them, what they are feeling in their head is real and they should not think its a disorder?

The first step is to recognize there IS a disorder present, that has to happen before they can attempt to ‘treat it’.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit