Dr. Cretella on Transgenderism: A Mental Illness Is Not a Civil Right

Nov 15, 2017

https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/dr-michelle-cretella-on-transgender-ideology

Watch the exclusive interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s57T27M1ZXk

John Ritchie (TFP): Could you please give us a little background on your professional training and your position in the American College of Pediatricians?

Dr. Michelle Cretella, MD:  Yes, certainly.  I received my medical degree from the University of Connecticut and completed my internship and residency in pediatrics at the Connecticut Children's Medical Center.  I did some additional training in adolescence at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, and had the privilege to practice general pediatrics for fifteen years before going on full-time with the American College of Pediatricians in advocacy for children. I am entering my second term as president with that organization.

John Ritchie:  You've stated that the transgender ideology is responsible for large-scale child abuse. Could you please explain why you call it child abuse?

Dr. Cretella:  Essentially, transgender ideology holds that people can be born into the wrong body: It's simply not true.  We can demonstrate this by looking at twin studies. No one is born in the wrong body. So to take that lie and essentially indoctrinate all of our children from preschool forward with that lie, we are destroying their ability for reality testing.

This is cognitive and psychological abuse.  I want to say just a little more about that.  The reason it destroys reality testing is because most children at age three (pre-school age) can correctly identify themselves by saying "I am a boy" or "I am a girl" and most children will not understand that a boy grows into a man and stays a man and that a girl grows into a woman and stays a woman. So when many seven-year-olds see a man get into a dress and put on makeup, they may believe that he just became a woman. The other side is not being honest and not acknowledging that.

This happened most recently in Rocklin, California.  It was the end of the kindergarten school year and the teacher called the whole class together, at the behest of the boy's parents, and had the children sit down and she read them two stories. I will call them "gender bending stories." One was The Red Crayon in which you have a crayon that's actually blue wrapped in red paper. That primes the kids to think, "Oh, what's on the outside doesn't have to match the inside."

The next story the teacher read was I Am Jazz, which is about a boy whose parents helped him impersonate a girl from the age of three.  He's 17 now, has his own television program and looks like a girl from the waist up.  After these two stories were finished, a boy (I'll call him Joey) left the classroom, presumably to use the bathroom and came back in a dress. The teacher said: "Boys and girls, Joey is actually a girl just like Jazz.  From now on we need to call her Josephine" (again I'm making the names up). This was very confusing to the other children in kindergarten and it terrified one girl in particular, which was clear from something that happened when she was home with her mother. Her mom had wrapped her up after she had go out of the tub and she was going by the mirror when she saw her hair slicked back. Then, she burst into tears, saying, "Mommy, am I turning into a boy? I don't wanna turn into a boy! Joey turned into a girl, am I gonna turn into a boy?"

Now, I know this because the mother called me. As the president of the College of Pediatricians I've been outspoken and parents reach out to me. This mother is being told that she is the one who's crazy and that her daughter is the one who's having a problematic reaction.

So transgender ideology -- yes, it's child abuse because we are gaslighting our children. And now that they're thoroughly confused they will think that they really are the opposite sex and will be sent down a medical pathway.  As they approach puberty, they will be put on puberty blockers and then on cross-sex hormones.  That combination will permanently sterilize most, if not all, of those children and also puts them at risk for heart disease, diabetes, and various cancers. If girls have been on testosterone, which is their sex change hormone, for a full-year, by age 16 they can get a double mastectomy.
So, gaslighting, pubertal castration and surgical mutilation: It's institutionalized child abuse.

To make matters worse you must realize that prior to transgender ideology, these children were treated with watchful waiting, because for many kids it may be a passing phase. Sometimes the girls may just be tomboys.  So with either watchful waiting or family and individual therapy the vast majority, 75-95% of kids, would accept their biological sex by young adulthood. This is child abuse!

If the parents find that their child is questioning their sex, if things on your own at home are not going well, I encourage all parents to seek out a local therapist who will work with them to find underlying family dynamics or conflicts. If the only therapist you find locally says, "You must accept them as transgender," you can reach out to us at bestforchildren.org, that's our website. We can recommend some therapists who will work with families. If they're not in the local area, they can even do it by Skype.

John Ritchie: College students are pressured more and more to let go of reality, accept the transgender narrative and even use transgender pronouns. If you were in medical school today, how would you respond to that pressure?

Dr. Cretella:  (Laughs.) That's a good question. I would hope that I would cling to reality and sound reason. Words matter... biology is reality, not bigotry.

We're at a point now in which we have documented at least 6,500 genetic differences between men and women. Men and women cannot be treated the same in medicine. Because of these genetic differences women are more prone to autoimmune diseases than men are. We must approach our patients in accordance with their biology, not in accordance with their perceptions which are delusional.

I hope I would be able to respond in that fashion, but it would be very difficult because just as we are seeing this tyrannical enforcement of newspeak on our college campuses, it is the same within the highest levels of medicine. At our office at the American College of Pediatricians, I receive e-mails and phone calls even from physicians and therapist, psychologists on the left who are clearly against us because we're pro-life, and they're even LGB[T] affirming, but they will thank me for speaking out because they say, "We wish we could, but we can't because we'll lose our jobs. We'll get death threats."

I receive emails from concerned parents throughout the nation asking me to review health curricula because it has now become "transphobic" to teach middle school students that women have ovaries and men have testes. That's transphobic!

I have not received any death threats.  I have been accused of being the "leader of the skinheads of pediatricians" and a lot of other things that you wouldn't repeat in polite company. One of my greatest fans who goes by the name of "Slowly Boiled Frog" has decided that I'm not even licensed to be a doctor. He or she writes to imply that I'm some sort of charlatan, or maybe that I did something illegal. So for the record:  Yes, I still am licensed.  I've chosen not to do clinical practice because I believe advocacy requires a full-time commitment.

John Ritchie: Can a person ever be "trapped in the wrong body"?  What does science tell us about this?

Dr. Cretella:  The argument, if you can even call it that -- I'll just call it a claim -- the claim by the activist physicians on the other side is that when a child persistently and consistently insists that he (I'll use he for ease of example) is really a girl, well then that's it -- that's how you diagnose transgender.  That is proof that they have the brain of the opposite sex in their body. They say, "We have proof, we have studies that prove changes or differences between adult transgender brains and the brains of their biological peers who are not transgender."

Okay, so let's unpack that:

#1. The definition of a delusion is a fixed false belief. So if I persistently and consistently insist that I am Margaret Thatcher, or persistently consistently insist that I am a cat, or that I am an amputee trapped in a normal body -- I am delusional.  In fact, there are people who believe they're amputees trapped in a normal body and they are appropriately diagnosed as having Body Identity Integrity Disorder, a mouthful, but you get my drift. So if you want to cut off an arm or a leg you're mentally ill, but if you want to cut off healthy breasts and genitals then you are transgender and you don't have a mental illness. That's completely unscientific. That's no diagnosis.

#2.  Let's talk about the brain studies.  There have been several.  Many have found no brain differences, but "we don't talk about those." There are a few that have found some differences on what's called functional MRIs and they prove nothing. The reason they prove nothing is because the brain changes due to behavior. We have documented in numerous studies that behavior changes the appearance, the physiology and function of the brain.  So to have a few studies that are very small, have never been replicated, say, "Hey, there are brain differences."  More than likely, the fact that the person has lived transgender is what caused those differences, if they're even real.

You may ask, "So how do we know, Dr. Cretella, that what you said, that no one's ever born this way, is true?  How do we know that?" If a brain were somehow the wrong sex, due to factors before birth, every single identical twin would have the same gender identity all the time, but they don't.

Why? Identical twins have identical DNA.  So if it were in the genes and solely in the genetic DNA, then 100% of the time they would both be transgender or both be non-transgender. The best twin study we have shows that the vast majority do not match. If you have one identical twin who's [considered] transgender, 72% of the time the other twin is normal. That tells us that it's post-birth effects that primarily impact your identity -- post-birth effects, not pre-birth.

John Ritchie:  If I told you that my Ford was really a Ferrari, you'd question my mental sanity. So why do some medical doctors validate the idea that a man can become a woman.

Dr. Cretella:  Ideology. Really, it comes down to an ideology and worldview. I mean, it's been that way since the beginning.

Gender as a term, prior to the 1950s:

#1. Did not refer to people;
#2. Was not in the medical literature.

Sexologists were PhDs and MDs in the 50s who were taking people who believed they were transsexuals (the term was transsexual at the time), mostly men who wanted to be women, and basically invented the so-called "sex reassignment surgery." Amongst themselves in the 50s, they said, "What are we treating? How are we going to justify this?" because they knew full well even then that sex is in the DNA and that mutilating the body does not change a person's sex. They basically looked at the word gender, which meant male and female referring to grammar.

So in the 1950s, one of the sexologists at the time was Dr. John Money. And they said, "We're gonna take gender and say that for people it means "the social expression of an internal sex identity." That's what we're treating. They pulled it out of the air to justify lining their pockets to do mutilating surgeries. And this is the very same definition that the activists are using.  It has no basis in reality.

John Ritchie: So what you're saying is that even radical surgery cannot change a man into a woman?

Dr. Cretella:  Right, radical surgery... no. NO surgery will change the DNA which is imprinted in every single cell of the body. Again, this is a combination of reason and science.  They meld.  They go together.

Human sexuality is binary, okay.  We know this because in nature, reproduction is the rule and human beings engage in sexual reproduction. You need a man and a woman to do that.

Chromosomes: women are XX, those are the sex chromosomes.  Women have two Xs and men have an X and a Y. Those are genetic markers, they are genetic markers for female and male respectively -- binary.  That's the rule and it's self-evident.  Biological exceptions to the rule do not invalidate the rule, and by that I am referring to intersex conditions. We live in an imperfect world.  We live in a world with disease and disorder.

There are a variety of very rare biological genetic disorders that result in disorders of sex development.  These individuals have a true physiological, genetic, biological problem,  so it may be appropriate within those cases to give them surgery or they may need hormones.  But that's a case-by-case basis and they are the exception, not the rule. Why do we refer to them colloquially as intersex? Because they are between the norms.

Many people with intersex conditions can lead very happy and healthy lives, but their treatment is very personalized. Someone who identifies as transgender, however -- that's not a problem in their body. Gender identity... all identities are in our thoughts and feelings. Those are not hardwired, they develop and they may be factually wrong or factually correct.  Individuals with disorders of sex development are being used as pawns in the fight for basically a civil right to a mental illness.  There's no such thing as a civil right to a mental illness, but that is in fact what we are dealing with in the transgender rights movement.

John Ritchie:  Now a lot of liberal professors claim that the male-female binary is only a social construct, that you grow up learning that men and women are different, but it's really something that's entirely fluid.  How would you refute that?

Dr. Cretella:  Well, we started to in the last question. Again, to believe that, you have to be completely ignorant of genetics.  There are 6,500 genetic differences between men and women.  Now the fact that it's a binary as I said, comes down to the fact that the reality is we have sexual reproduction in the human species and reproduction is the rule in biology. Okay, number one: We have a binary. To rationalize outside of that, you have to rationalize away the entirety of medicine, because with 6,500 genetic differences between the two, it impacts how we treat disease.

Women are not small men! That is how women used to be treated. Science used to do research predominately on men and then look at women and say, "Oh, you're just a smaller body mass, so we're gonna treat your heart attack the same way and your high blood pressure the same way."  And now we're realizing, "Wow! No wonder we had different results with women, look at this. Now we can prove and understand why!" And there's a big push to get more women into pharmaceutical studies than ever before because we are different.

Transgenderism is a social construct.  The "fluidity" of sexuality: That's a social construct.  They have it exactly backwards. And the word gender, as I said earlier, is nothing more than a linguistic engineering term and should have no place in medicine.

We have biological sex, we have sex differences, some of which are purely biological and others that develop as a result of nature and nurture. Women have loads more oxytocin and oxytocin receptors than men do. That is the hormone that is associated with nurturing. It is released during labor, breast-feeding and is so key and important in the first three years of the mother and infant bonding.  It's the bonding hormone.  Although men have oxytocin as well, they have far fewer receptors in their brains. Every organ of the body is "sexed," if you will, genetically speaking and it's utterly ridiculous to make that assertion.

John Ritchie:  So it seems to me that you're saying that at a very deep level, the transgender movement is attacking the order that exists in human nature. Would you go that far and say that human nature is under attack?

Dr. Cretella: Oh, certainly!  If my feelings alone determine who I am, then there really is no such thing as a man or a woman.

We're essentially promoting doping. Men are doping on estrogen to become handicapped men.  Women are doping on testosterone to become handicapped men in a sense.

This whole "Oh, what do we do in sports?" I mean, really... doping is illegal, period. The end! That's it.  Giving a woman testosterone does not make her a man, giving a man estrogen does not make him a woman, the estrogen makes a man a handicapped man. And the testosterone makes the women the equivalent of a handicapped man. Well, I shouldn't even say a handicapped man because you can't change sex.

And in fact, in the Olympics, if a woman were extremely excelling, they [officials] would be concerned about doping and they would be looking in her system for testosterone, high levels of it. So this is utterly ludicrous.

In the past, a man puts on a dress, he's wearing drag. Well now, the drag is no longer made out of cotton and silk. Now the drag is hormones and surgery: It's still drag!

John Ritchie: It seems to me like it's a refinement of the radical idea of total equality.

Dr. Cretella: The error is to equate equality with sameness... they're not. Same does not mean equal.  Because we're equal in human dignity, but being male or female, that is the ultimate diversity we should be celebrating. There is no greater diversity than female and male. That is our innate identity and it's written on every cell of our body at the level of our DNA.

I would agree, we're making the mistake of equality meaning same. If that's what you believe, then ultimately we're eliminating:  There's no such thing as a woman, there's no such thing as a man.

John Ritchie: Finally, could you say something to encourage more Americans to stand up for the sacred institution of the family?

Dr. Cretella:  Absolutely.  I would say, the natural family, meaning a loving marriage between a man and a woman, is the most pro-child institution we have. So if you love children, nurture your marriage first of all.  It's the greatest gift you can give a child. We must stand up for that, because our children are hurting. Decades, decades of social science demonstrates that this is the most important thing we can do in terms of children's physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health. It's the family... it's the family.

Transparencia Biológica en las Fuerzas Armadas. LA CONFUSA CONTROVERSIA SOBRE LA CONFUSIÓN DE GÉNERO

SHARON SLATER /  MENSAJE DE LA PRESIDENTA
12 de Agosto,  2017

Transparencia Biológica en las Fuerzas Armadas.

LA CONFUSA CONTROVERSIA SOBRE LA CONFUSIÓN DE GÉNERO

Recientemente en Estados Unidos, un frenesí de respuestas de los medios estalló cuando el presidente Trump anunció planes para impedir que individuos transgénero sirvieran abiertamente en las fuerzas armadas de EEUU. Bajo la administración Obama, las fuerzas armadas habían sido instruidas para transversalizar, afirmar y apoyar el comportamiento transgénero y permitir que tropas con confusión de género pudieran travestirse y compartir dormitorios, baños y regaderas con miembros del sexo opuesto. SHARON SLATER PRESIDENTA FWI

Y mientras esto está siendo debatido acaloradamente en EEUU ahora mismo, es cierto que muchas naciones están luchando con ello también. Debido al acalorado debate que ha estallado sobre este tópico, una cosa se ha vuelto abundantemente clara -- existe una tremenda cantidad de desconcierto, acerca de la confusión de género. ACLARANDO LA CONFUSIÓN, SOBRE LA CONFUSIÓN DE GÉNERO En ambos lados de este debate ha sido insuficiente el reconocimiento de muchos de los hechos fundamentales relativos a cuestiones de identidad de género. (Ver el resumen de Family Watch International “16 Facts on Gender Confusion” (“16 Hechos sobre Confusión de Género”) para leer una extensa lista de estos importantes hechos que son frecuentemente ignorados.) En principio, no existe evidencia científica en absoluto que respalde los muchos supuestos falsos y controvertidas ideologías de género que subrayen el impulso mundial de establecer nuevos “derechos” transgénero. Y entre más se ahonde en esta contemporánea ideología de género, más confusa se vuelve. Así es que, tratemos de enderezar algunas de las más populares teorías con “inclinación de género”. Hecho 1: No existe evidencia científica en la afirmación de que algunas personas están atrapadas en el cuerpo equivocado. El Dr. Lawrence Mayer y el Dr. Paul McHugh quienes recientemente condujeron una de las revisiones más intensas de la literatura científica relativas al transgenerismoconcluyeron que la hipótesis base de este movimiento de “que una persona puede ser ‘un hombre atrapado en el cuerpo de una mujer’ o ‘una mujer atrapada en el cuerpo de un hombre’ – no es apoyada por la evidencia científica.” Hecho 2: La confusión de género que causa extrema angustia emocional es reconocida como un trastorno mental. De acuerdo con el Manual de Diagnóstico y Estadística de Trastornos Mentales (DSM por sus siglas en inglés) de la Asociación Psiquiátrica Americana, cuando una persona está severamente angustiada sobre su confusión de género, lo cual afecta seriamente su habilidad de funcionar normalmente en sociedad, esto puede llegar a ser diagnosticado como Disforia de Género. Activistas transgénero declaran a menudo que no es un trastorno mental la confusión de género que causa que una persona quiera “cambiar” su sexo o amputar sus genitales. Esto es…a menos que quieran que otra persona pague por su terapia hormonal travesti o por cirugía de “reasignación” de sexo. Para obtener la terapia hormonal de “afirmación de género” o la cirugía pagada por el gobierno o el seguro, una persona debe ser diagnosticada con disforia de género. De otro modo, dichos procedimientos serían considerados tratamientos electivos o por elección. La mayoría de la gente estaría de acuerdo en que, si una persona ha sido diagnosticada con un trastorno mental, en primer lugar, sería descalificada para entrar al servicio militar o habría motivos para despido médico. Sin embargo, defensores transgénero están tratando de convencer en ambas maneras (v.gr. es un trastorno mental cuando es conveniente, pero no es un trastorno mental cuando no es conveniente), lo cual simplemente no tiene sentido. Hecho 3: Las tasas de suicidio de la gente que se identifica como transgénero son mucho más altas que en la población general. Algunas estimaciones consideran que son altas, hasta de 30 – 45 por ciento. Cualquier población de individuos con mayor riesgo significativo de suicidio que la población en general, debe ser, y a menudo lo es, descalificada del servicio militar. Individuos que son clínicamente depresivos, o experimentan trastorno bipolar o trastorno de ansiedad, no son elegibles para servir en la milicia. Las tasas de suicidio son especialmente altas entre individuos que han tenido cirugía de reasignación de sexo. Por ejemplo, un estudio sueco encontró que la tasa de suicidio en pos-cirugía de transgéneros era 19 veces más alta que la de la población en general. Esto enfatiza la alta tasa de fracaso de la estrategia de tratamiento, así como el profundo sufrimiento humano asociado con este fracaso. Para conocer más acerca de aquellos quienes se han arrepentido de sus cirugías de reasignación de sexo, una excelente fuente es sexchangeregret.com elaborada por nuestro amigo Walt Heyer. Walt es ampliamente reconocido como experto en esta área. Él se arrepintió de su transición de varón a mujer y finalmente decidió vivir nuevamente como varón, después de ocho años de tratar de “ser” mujer. También los estudios muestran que más del 60 por ciento de aquellos que sufren trastorno mental de disforia de género, también sufren de por lo menos otro trastorno mental. Considere el siguiente resumen de los resultados de un extenso estudio, la Encuesta Transgénero en EEUU, elaborada en 2015 por el Centro Nacional para la Igualdad Transgénero, grupo de defensa de “derechos” transgénero. Cincuenta y tres por ciento (53%) de encuestados USTS de edades 18 a 25 años reportaron que experimentan en la actualidad seria angustia psicológica [comparados con el 10% de la población en general]. Cuarenta por ciento (40%) de los encuestados han intentado suicidio de alguna forma en su vida, comparados con el 4.6% en la población en EEUU. Cuarenta y ocho por ciento (48%) de los encuestados han pensado seriamente en matarse a sí mismos durante el año pasado, comparados con el 4% de la población de EEUU, y el 82% han tenido serios pensamientos de matarse a sí mismos en algún momento de sus vidas. El 29% de los encuestados reportaron uso ilícito de drogas, consumo de mariguana y/o uso de medicamentos con prescripción no-médica durante el mes pasado, cerca de tres veces más que la tasa en la población de EEUU (10%). Puesto de manera simple, individuos que están confundidos acerca de algo tan básico como su sexo biológico y que han estado tan consternados acerca de ello al grado de necesitar intervenciones de alteración de vida ya sea médicamente o psicológica debido a su condición (y debido a los trastornos mentales coexistentes que ellos puedan estar sufriendo) para mantener su salud emocional, no se encuentran en postura para llenar las demandas del servicio militar. Hecho 4: Intervenciones médicas para afirmación transgénero (v.gr. hormonas y cirugía) son no sólo altamente controvertidas, sino que son caras. Con respecto a transgéneros en la milicia de EEUU, la decisión del Presidente Trump puede ciertamente estar justificada aún sobre bases del costo. Mientras que la decisión del Presidente Trump puede considerarse abrupta, vino después de una reciente enmienda fallida al Acta de Autorización de Defensa Nacional de EEUU que podría haber prohibido fondos de la milicia para cubrir caros tratamientos hormonales para transgéneros y cirugía de reasignación de sexo para personal militar transgénero. Para expresar su decepción por el fracaso de la aprobación de esta enmienda, el Rep. Gohmert de Texas advirtió “Los costos médicos sólo por una cirugía de reasignación de género, pueden promediar hasta $130,000 dólares, incluyendo tratamientos hormonales de por vida, además de sus gastos generales y costos salariales por un mínimo de un período de dos años, cuando ellos están en un status no-disponible. Él además explicó que “…el proyectado costo a 10 años será de $3-4 billones y que pueden ser usados para realmente defender nuestra patria y libertad. Ya que el proyectado costo es para el ejército, se vuelve como el lugar para tener cirugía de cambio de sexo con todos los gastos pagados, incluyendo comidas y habitación. Si esto fuera cualquier otra condición médica ¿consideraría siquiera el gobierno de EEUU subsidiar dichos predecibles y costosos tratamientos utilizando dólares militares? El despliegue de personal militar transgénero está comprometido porque los continuos tratamientos hormonales que son requeridos crean una situación de dependencia médica, y la cirugía de reasignación de sexo puede estar cargada de complicaciones que requieren un extenso período de recuperación. Una solución menos cara, menos invasiva y ciertamente más segura para tratar la disforia de género es propuesta por muchos terapeutas y aún por un número de los mismos transgénero. Esto es, proveer de terapia y ayudar a individuos a aceptar e identificarse con su sexo biológico, en lugar de tratar de alterar su cuerpo quirúrgicamente y químicamente para que se ajuste a una identidad confundida de género.   Sin embargo, activistas transgénero están impulsando a que el ejército no sólo les permita servir, sino también pagar por intervenciones médicas de “afirmación” transgénero caras que pueden causar mayor daño que algo bueno para ellos. Hecho 5: Excluir a transgéneros del servicio militar no tiene nada que ver con odio, con intolerancia o “transfobia”. Como en el caso del aborto, muchos ciudadanos norteamericanos fuertemente objetan a ser forzados a pagar procedimientos por elección que consideran que pueden ser dañinos, o que pueden violar sus creencias religiosas, o que van en contra de la realidad biológica. De hecho, mucha gente es opuesta a políticas de afirmación trans-género, debido a su preocupación por la salud y bienestar de las personas transgénero mismas. Biología no es intolerancia. Varones y mujeres son fundamentalmente diferentes y por tanto no son intercambiables. Ninguna intervención quirúrgica o química puede jamás cambiar el hecho de que varones y mujeres son diferentes entre ellos en cada célula de sus cuerpos. Con respecto al servicio militar, por ejemplo, sólo porque una mujer escoja identificarse como varón, esto no significa que ella automáticamente tenga las mismas capacidades físicas que un varón en situaciones de combate. Considere una reciente editorial en el diario Los Angeles Times que detalla algunas diferencias biológicas entre varones y mujeres. El promedio de mujeres poseen sólo el 55 – 58 por ciento de la fuerza física corporal en su parte superior, que el promedio de varones. Los varones tienen 40 por ciento más capacidad aeróbica y mayor resistencia, comparados con las mujeres. Los corazones de menor tamaño en las mujeres requieren más sangre para ser bombeada cada minuto a un cierto nivel de esfuerzo porque tienen menos hemoglobina en su sangre para llevar el oxígeno. Estas diferencias ponen a las mujeres en una desventaja distinta para trabajos de infantería recientemente abiertos, en donde se espera que carguen rutinariamente paquetes de 100-libras, o en trabajos de defensa en donde tendrán que cargar series de 35 libras una y otra vez. Las mujeres en estos puestos tendrán que trabajar constantemente en un porcentaje mayor a su máxima capacidad para lograr el mismo rendimiento que los varones. Ningún sistema de entrenamiento podrá cerrar este hueco. Estudios han encontrado que el comportamiento de carga pesada y el entrenamiento de paracaidismo pueden contribuir significativamente a incontinencia urinaria y a prolapso orgánico pélvico en las mujeres. Las mujeres tienen un 67 por ciento aproximado de mayor tendencia que los varones en recibir licencia por incapacidad física en el ejército, debido a trastornos musculares y esqueléticos. IMPLICACIONES POLÍTICAS PARA LAS FUERZAS ARMADAS Sería insensato continuar con una política que: Permita que la gente con un trastorno mental reconocido y con altas tasas de suicidio y otros asuntos mentales potenciales, sirva en puestos cruciales del servicio militar. Obliga a todo el personal militar a pretender que los varones son mujeres y que las mujeres son varones, cuando esto no es real. Obliga a los contribuyentes a financiar procedimientos médicos caros, lo que muchos consideran que son (a) moralmente erróneos, (b) dañinos para el individuo, o (c) no son del mejor interés para nadie, y menos para el ejército. Requerir que el personal militar afirme el comportamiento transgénero, no contribuye en nada para fortalecer a las fuerzas armadas de EEUU, sólo da avance a una agenda sin rigor científico, dañina e ideológica que puede realmente dañar a la misma gente que está asignada para ayudar. La misión de las fuerzas armadas de EEUU (o en este caso, de cualquier otro) no es afirmar el género preferido de una persona, más bien, es dar protección a la gente de una nación.

Cordiales Saludos:

Traducido por: NORMA MENDOZA ALEXANDRY http://archive.mlgnbit.com/?u=e51aa8e9806a70a036a77fec150d1407&id=6de35052&e=3f1bf1e1

ACÓRDÃO DO TRIBUNAL DE ESTRASBURGO: Não existe o direito ao casamento homossexual

Acórdão de 9 de Junho 2016

Estrasburgo, França. - Por unanimidade, o Tribunal líder mundial dos Direitos Humanos estabeleceu textualmente que "não existe o direito ao casamento homossexual"

Os 47 juízes dos 47 países do Conselho da Europa, que integram o pleno do Tribunal de Estrasburgo (tribunal mais importante do mundo dos direitos humanos) emitiram uma declaração de grande relevância, que tem sido surpreendentemente silenciada pelo progressismo informativo e sua área de influência.

Na verdade, por unanimidade, os 47 juízes aprovaram o acórdão que estabelece que "não existe o direito ao casamento homossexual"

A sentença foi baseada num sem número de considerandos filosóficos e antropológicos baseados na ordem natural, senso comum, relatórios científicos e, claro, no direito positivo. Dentro deste último, principalmente, a sentença foi baseada no artigo n ° 12 da Convenção Europeia dos Direitos Humanos. Dito é equivalente aos artigos dos tratados de direitos humanos, como no caso do 17 do Pacto de San José e No. 23 do Pacto Internacional sobre os Direitos Civis e Políticos.

Nesta histórica, mas nada divulgada, resolução, o Tribunal decidiu que a noção de família não só contempla "o conceito tradicional de casamento, ou seja, a união de um homem e uma mulher", mas também que não devem ser impostas a governos a "obrigação de abrir o casamento a pessoas do mesmo sexo".

Quanto ao princípio da não-discriminação, o Tribunal também acrescentou que não existe qualquer discriminação, já que "os Estados são livres de reservar o casamento a apenas casais heterossexuais."

Textualmente: “there had been no violation of Article 12 (right to marriage) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention”.

Mais Informação: 

Sexual orientation issues

Chapin and Charpentier v. France

9 June 2016 (6)

This case concerned the marriage of two men conducted by the mayor of Bègles (Gironde) and subsequently declared null and void by the courts. The applicants submitted that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples amounted to a discriminatory infringement of the right to marry. They also contended that they had been discriminated against, in the exercise of their right to respect for family life, on the basis of their sexual orientation.

The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 12 (right to marriage) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. It reiterated in particular its finding in Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (see above) that neither Article 12, nor Article 8 taken together with Article 14, could be interpreted as imposing an obligation on Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage. The Court also observed that it had reiterated that conclusion in the Hämäläinen v. Finland (see above) and Oliari and Others v. Italy (see above) judgments and, given the short period of time that had elapsed since then, it did not see any reason not to reach the same conclusion in the present case. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Law of 17 May 2013 had granted same-sex couples access to marriage in France; the applicants were therefore free to marry.

(6) This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.

          http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Sexual_orientation_ENG.pdf

CINQUIÈME SECTION

Requête no 40183/07

présentée par Stéphane CHAPIN et Bertrand CHARPENTIER

contre la France

introduite le 6 septembre 2007

EXPOSÉ DES FAITS

          http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-113081"]}

AFFAIRE CHAPIN ET CHARPENTIER c. FRANCE (Requête no 40183/07)

ARRÊT

STRASBOURG

9 juin 2016

          http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{"itemid":["001-163436"]}

I can’t ‘celebrate’ but it doesn’t mean I hate you

FRIDAY, 17 JULY 2015

I can’t ‘celebrate’ but it doesn’t mean I hate you

BY STEVE C. CRAIG

 3 |  |       

From left to right, the car’s bumper stickers read: “Hatred is Not a Family Value,” “Celebrate Diversity” (in rainbow colors), and “Obama-Biden.”
Collectively, these refreshed my growing fear that I should soon “celebrate” certain lifestyle choices or suffer the consequences. There was once another option, but memory of it is fading rapidly like an image in my rear view mirror.
Both the imperative tone and intolerance of the bumper messages are troubling; as is the shallow and muddled thinking behind them. A polite “no thank you” is now an unacceptable response to the colorful and demanding “celebrate”. It is time we rediscovered the validity of conscientious objection.
Conscientious objection is objection to an act, not a person. Equating conscientious objection with bigotry is unkind and a particularly egregious kind of ignorance. And restricting and penalizing the exercise of religiously-informed civil rights is simply wrong -- though in modern parlance it is “evolved” behavior.
Two examples might help.
First, most would agree that a manufacturer of forceps has the right not to sell her product to an abortion clinic, due to a conscientious objection to dismemberment.
Forceps play a direct and key role in late-term abortion, an act many Americans consider immoral. This act is the basis of the forceps maker’s objection; not the sex, race or sexual orientation of the clinic’s staffers, customers or victims. The objection concerns the act, and the same is true for any vendor or employer who would refuse to enable an abortion.
Returning to “celebrate”, consider cakes or photographs at gay weddings. Gay weddings are also acts, not people. The difference is real, although in some circles conflating acts and people produces the ugly charge of bigot against those who would avoid celebrating.
Like forceps, these cakes and photos play a material role in an act many find immoral. Their materiality is confirmed by the importance assigned them by both sides of a very intense debate, one that recently played out in Indiana over a religious freedom law.
However, even though religiously-informed bakers and photographers object to material cooperation in gay weddings, their doors are open to homosexuals for the purchase of regular cakes and every day photographs. This is important. It tells us that participation in the act of gay marriage is found unconscionable, but not the customers themselves.
Bigotry, on the other hand, is comprehensive, more proactive, much more personal and far less nuanced – lynching being an extreme, but crystallizing example.
Yet it is the unjust charge of bigotry that is masking the broad daylight theft of the right to conscientious objection. Many are confused and this confusion results directly from a media-induced failure to think, loud and hysterical demagoguery, and an aggressive and unprincipled quest by some to have their sexual choices celebrated and publicly validated, though this is not a right.
Out of guilt and fear citizens have succumbed to a widely promoted fiction that wedding cakes and photos are a homosexual civil rights issue; that this is Selma all over again; and that discrimination against homosexual persons across numerous goods and services is a big problem, leading to disenfranchisement, segregation, exploitation and violence. It is not, and to assert that it is makes light of Selma.
Homosexuals have equal access to goods and services, cakes and photos, in all but one scenario: an act in which some religious people would prefer not to participate. If Selma’s biggest problem were that a few Black residents could get cake all of the time from most bakers but only 95 percent of the time from the rest, Selma’s movies would have been much better attended than Selma’s marches.
The conscientious objection of the forceps manufacturer to their use in abortions is not a civil rights issue for women as such, because that manufacturer provides equipment for women for all other purposes, and because other manufacturers, who do not have the same objection, can supply what is need to protect the right to abortion.
In a similar way, the conscientious objections of the baker and photographer concerning gay weddings are not civil rights issues for homosexuals, because those vendors sell to homosexuals the rest of the time, and because other businesses can meet the demand.
The one, very predictable exception in either case concerns an objection to a particular action, not to person. We should all be intelligent, stable and mature enough to understand this.
These questions have nothing to do with sexism or bigotry and should be resolved consistently in favor of the right to conscientious objection. Everyone should have the right not to be forced into material cooperation with an act they find immoral.
For the law or public policy to say otherwise represents an invasion of government into personal conscience. Our longstanding system of pluralism embraces a diversity of views, whereas forced affirmation requires unanimity through the power of the police state.
Clearly, the better answer is a live-and-let-live, bi-lateral, peace-be-with-you agreement. For the same reason that Christians don’t force gay bakers and photographers to work on their weddings, homosexuals shouldn’t force Christian bakers and photographers to work on theirs.
But live-and-let-live is what the “celebrate” movement won’t tolerate. Now that rights have been recast as the ability to force others to validate, to do things -- sell products, render services and provide benefits -- force is being applied in a new way. It is now trained on the elimination of dissent.
The recent attack on an Indiana pizzeria, a $135,000 fine imposed on an Oregon baker, and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s comment about Christian school tax exemptions being at risk, prove the crusade is growing more predatory. “Celebrate” is now a menacing and direct order. The validation movement’s use of force is an aphrodisiac driving new conquests.
This is a problem. As the right to judge, live and work according to one’s conscience is checked by the newly manufactured right to validation, Americans will find it increasingly difficult to live according to standards that differ from those held by a minority of influential citizens seeking celebration of or validation for one thing or another.
And although ours and every generation fancies itself modern, evolved and unprecedented, we have seen this before. Henry VIII forced consciences to validate his sexual choices, and state tyranny resulted. The preamble of his Suppression of Religious Houses Act is eye opening. Many who were religious were deprived of their property, liberty and lives. Henry proved that forced validation is a bad path and no business of the state.
History‘s arc is looping and those in charge are again targeting religion in the name of sex. Last time the enforcer was Cromwell as Vicegerent. This time it will likely be Verrilli as Solicitor General or Koskinen as IRS Commissioner.
A chasm again exists between those who believe that chastity is virtuous and those who reject the concepts of both chastity and virtue. In twenty first century America these two groups should be able to live freely, each guided by their very different beliefs. But just as in 1535, the latter group is increasingly intolerant of the former’s view of vice, and wrongly seeks to police its thought and constrain its religious civil rights. Then, Henry labeled priests and nuns “vicious, unthrifty and abominable”. Now, sexual validation crusaders label Christians sexist and bigoted.
As before, these are lies. The premise of bigotry on which the attempt to constrain conscientious objection rests is a smokescreen. Christians see a homosexual person’s dignity as rooted in something great and common -- that we are all children of God -- whereas those insisting on the validation of sexual choices are fixated on a mere act as the source of a homosexual person’s dignity -- a far lower and less glorious standard.
The realization of a common dignity gratuitously gifted by God is both why there is no Christian pride parade and why Christians can’t condemn others for their parades. It is also why Immanuel Kant’s invention of autonomy and Justice Kennedy’s more recent version of it as the “right to define one’s own… existence… meaning… and mystery” ring so hollow. Ask the truly mysterious ex-NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal about the difficulty of defining your own existence.
The Kant/Kennedy approach is a heavy yoke and an uncertain foundation for living. Defining our own meaning is as improbable as creating ourselves. Plus, it casts us as islands and makes us needy, insecure and irritable when validation isn’t forthcoming or constantly awarded. It leads to frustration from time wasted by inventing troubles, instead of living life.
Christians may not throw stones but they may rightfully ask not to be force marched, as validators, in others’ acts or parades. This is what they are asking – that their diversity be tolerated (actual celebration is not necessary) and rights of conscientious objection respected. It is a courtesy we must extend, in the name of freedom of conscience, intellectual honesty, pluralism, rediscovering actual bigotry, mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence.

Steve C. Craig is a financial analyst who lives in Texas.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/i-cant-celebrate-but-it-doesnt-mean-i-hate-you/16524#sthash.tGqI1KD6.dpuf

Free speech: what banning ‘gay conversion therapy’ will really stop

Free speech: what banning ‘gay conversion therapy’ will really stop

A professional therapist explains his work and what it is not.

Christopher Rosik | Jul 15 2015

 38 |  |       

Not every man or woman who finds himself or herself sexually attracted to someone of the same sex is happy with that attraction. Parents of adolescents who show such tendencies may consider it best for the happiness of their child to seek counseling or other professional help for them. And such help is available.
However, the assumption that homosexual attraction, and, in some cases at least, more established orientation, can change, runs into a wall of opposition from gay rights campaigners and professional bodies. These assert that it is harmful to try and change something they believe is not even a problem, but a naturally occurring phenomenon.
In April this year the White House threw its weight behind this anti-therapy campaign, which had already seen three US states ban sexual orientation change therapy for minors (New Jersey, California and Washington, D.C.). In May the openly lesbian Governor of Oregon, Kate Brown, signed another such law. At the same time Representative Ted W. Lieu introduced a bill into the US Congress that would ban so-called "conversion therapy" throughout the United States.
MercatorNet believes this is a very one-sided culture war. Where is there space given to professional therapists who work in this area to explain what they do and to defend it? Well, right here. We emailed some questions to Dr Christopher Rosik, a practising psychologist and director of research at Link Care Center in Fresno, California, as well as a clinical faculty member of Fresno Pacific University. Here, in the first of three articles, we begin his responses.

* * * * * *

Earlier this year President Obama endorsed a ban on “gay conversion therapy” for minors. What would this mean for the kinds of young people you see in your practice?
In my opinion, this topic is above our President’s pay grade. What the ban in California has meant for me is that I immediately added language to my advanced consent forms, which parents and adolescents read at the outset of therapy, indicating that the law is in effect and therefore I can no longer engage in any intervention that could be construed as promoting change in unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors.
The California law is very nebulous, as I am still allowed to share information, talk about change, or provide support to a minor, but not say anything that could be viewed as promoting change. Given that costly ethics complaints are made by patients, whose perceptions may vary wildly, such distinctions are of little practical value, and I suspect these laws will hinder the provision of any type of professional psychological care to these minors that is not overtly gay-affirmative in nature.
The White House defined “conversion therapy” as “any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” – Does this term and its definition describe what you do?
The progressive left has done a superb job of demonizing terms such as “conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy” beyond recognition. These terms have been repeatedly and widely associated with abusive aversive techniques that have not been used within the psychological professions for over three decades, and this includes licensed therapists who do such work.
We are further characterized as coercing minors into treatment and telling such patients they must have been sexually abused.
However, my colleagues and I always follow the lead of the client in goal setting because we understand that there is no genuine therapeutic process without client self-determination. Nor do we assume every client has a history of childhood sexual abuse, although there is reason from the literature to believe such abuse can be an important influence on the development of sexual orientation for some people (Beard et al. 2013; Bickham et al. 2007; O’Keefe et al. 2014; Roberts, Glymour, & Koenen, 2013; Wells, McGee, & Beautrais, 2011; Wilson & Widom, 2009).
Such poor practices, were they actually being used by licensed therapists, would surely risk ethical censure or even loss of licensure without the aid of such bans. Yet I am not aware of a single therapist who has had to deal with an ethics complaint on such a basis. Indeed the lack of any ethics complaints against such therapists at the state level suggests that their professional conduct is not the problem but rather their willingness to entertain the possibility of change for some patients.
Recent legislation in Washington State further disclosed ban supporters motives as seeking to suppress the free speech rights of therapists. A bill with bipartisan support to prohibit harmful aversive techniques with minors (e.g., electrical shocks, chemically induced nausea, ice baths) eventually died after ban advocates protested that the bill still allowed for therapist speech in the potential facilitation of change.
In point of fact, there is no one special kind of therapy for such patients. I am not a reparative therapist, but I do see insights from this paradigm as being applicable to some patients. Therapists like me who work in this area typically utilize a number of mainstream interventions that address relevant emotional and cognitive processes as well as certain relational dynamics. While many of these therapists operate from a psychodynamic and developmental perspective, they often incorporate insights from the cognitive, interpersonal, narrative, and psychodrama traditions as well, to name just a few (Hamilton & Henry, 2009).
Often these therapists are not focusing on same-sex attractions at all, but rather on the broader issues of identity and specifically gender identity in an attempt to resolve various factors that may contribute to the patient’s difficulties.
For those patients who prioritize their traditional religious and/or cultural values above acting upon their same-sex attractions, chastity/celibacy, behavioral management, and the modification of same-sex attractions and behaviors are all valid options that should be embraced by their faith communities.
Having said all this, it has to be acknowledged that conservative hyperbole on these issues (e.g., Ben Carson’s recent statements on people choosing to be gay; mean-spirited and scientifically uninformed comments by some leaders of the religious right) also does damage to how this work is seen by the public and makes a reasoned discussion around these issues more difficult.
Are there any questionable practices in this field, in your opinion?
Among licensed therapists working in this area I believe questionable practices are kept to a minimum by accountability to a professional code of ethical conduct, including full informed consent and careful assessment of client motivation. I spearheaded a related effort to provide practice guidelines for clinicians who affirm the right of patients to pursue change of unwanted same-sex attractions and behavior. Therapists doing work in this area should be familiar with this document.
There is much greater variability regarding questionable practices among unregulated and unaccountable religiously oriented counselors and life coaches. It is a great irony that legal bans that prevent licensed therapists from assisting a patient’s free choice to pursue change actually increase the risk of harm by causing some of these individuals to seek out such non-licensed counselors.
Any sort of “therapeutic” nudity, which has apparently been offered by some ministries, is an invitation to (so to speak) get one’s pants sued off.
Less egregious but very important concerns arise when the counselor wanders too far from what current science says (or does not say) about sexual orientation.
Examples of this include the counselor overselling the likelihood and degree of change, not sufficiently exploring the role of outside pressure on the client’s motivation to pursue change, offering reductionistic explanations for homosexuality, overstating the co-occurrence of psychopathology in homosexuality, and ignoring or minimizing the potential impact of stigmatization and discrimination, both as a cause for the symptomology of a client or possibly resulting out of their pursuit of change.
Do many of these patients drop out of therapy or decide to embrace a gay identity after all?
Psychotherapy patients in general do drop out of therapy with some regularity.  In itself, this is not a clear indicator of harm.  Some may drop out because of dissatisfaction, but others may drop out because they are doing better and no longer feel a need to continue in therapy.  Some patients do decide to adopt a gay identity, and that is their right. As a psychologist, I am obligated to honor that decision as well.
Next: In Part 2 of this interview Dr Rosik discusses his work with minors and the position of the leading US professional groups on sexual orientation therapy.
Christopher Rosik is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Oregon and earned his doctorate in clinical psychology from Fuller Graduate School of Psychology.  He is currently a psychologist and director of research at Link Care Center in Fresno, California, as well as a clinical faculty member of Fresno Pacific University. He has published more than 45 articles in peer reviewed journals and has served as President of the Western Region of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies.  He is currently Past-President of the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/child-abuse-or-free-speech-what-do-bans-on-gay-conversion-therapy-aim-to-st/16507#sthash.nsJp00Qi.dpuf