Pediatrician: Transgender Treatments Are ‘Child Abuse’

The movement to normalize transgender medical treatments for children has seemingly come out of nowhere. In the course of a few short years, cases of gender-confused children, some in kindergarten, seeking medical treatment to alter their sexual characteristics have become commonplace. Today, at least one pediatrician is speaking out to call the practice “child abuse.”

In an op-ed for the Daily Signal, Dr. Michelle Cretella writes that the treatments advocated by many in the “transgender affirming movement” can cause severe damage to children and “constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse.”

“Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation,” Cretella says, “are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts, and untold psychological damage.”

Michelle Cretella is no stranger to controversy and criticism from the left. A graduate of the University of Connecticut School of Medicine in 1994, she practiced pediatric medicine for 15 years before becoming president of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) in 2015, a group that the Southern Poverty Law Center labels “an anti-LGBT hate group.”

Cretella attacks the sacred cows of the gay rights movement with science and logic. She points out that scientific studies of identical twins prove that gay and transgender identities are not a product of genetics since in 72 percent of cases of a transgender twin, the other twin’s sexual orientation is different. If sexual orientation were purely genetic, correlation would be 100 percent in identical twins.

She also points out that gender identity is very malleable in young children. Cretella cites the American Psychological Association’s Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology which acknowledges that 75 to 95 percent of children eventually come to accept their biological gender. In most cases, puberty is the cure for a confused gender identity.

Unfortunately, a new trend is preventing many sufferers of gender dysphoria, the new medical term for the problem, from going through puberty. A treatment that is becoming more common is the prescription of puberty blockers. Cretella writes that there have been no studies that prove these drugs are safe for the treatment of gender dysphoria. She writes that a new study of the treatments shows “evidence for decreased bone mineralization, meaning an increased risk of bone fractures as young adults, potential increased risk of obesity and testicular cancer in boys, and an unknown impact upon psychological and cognitive development.”

Perhaps even more disturbing, Cretella points out that there is not a single case in the scientific literature of transgender children choosing to discontinue the puberty blockers. “The only study to date to have followed pre-pubertal children who were socially affirmed and placed on blockers at a young age found that 100 percent of them claimed a transgender identity and chose cross-sex hormones,” says Cretella. Cross-sex hormones are associated with health risks including cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes, diabetes, and cancers.

“There is an obvious self-fulfilling effect in helping children impersonate the opposite sex both biologically and socially,” writes Cretella. “This is far from benign, since taking puberty blockers at age 12 or younger, followed by cross-sex hormones, sterilizes a child.”

Cretella also debunks the liberal claims that therapies affirming gender identities will result in fewer suicides of transgender children. “Adults who undergo sex reassignment—even in Sweden, which is among the most LGBT-affirming countries—have a suicide rate nearly 20 times greater than that of the general population,” Cretella says.

The fundamental problem is that the transgender politics have outstripped medical studies and laws. The controversy over bathroom policies shows how difficult it can be to enact laws that restrict perceived transgender rights. Restrictions on the ability to administer puberty-blocking drugs to children or even commit children to gender-reassignment surgery would be no different. In the end, it will be the children who suffer.

Why Principals Cuss Out Kids

A few weeks ago, Zach Ruff – assistant principal at the STEM high school in Pennsylvania – suffered an absolute meltdown on a public sidewalk at the end of the school day. He was triggered by the scientifically sound Christian conservative opinion being expressed by two teenagers that abortion kills a living human child.

His profane explosion cost him his job, but there’s something far more important to expose and understand here than just Ruff’s contempt for free speech. That’s the topic of this week’s 414 Project video:

Finally: Bill Nye Shoves His Credibility Through a Wood Chipper

Despite the predictable perversion, despite the embarrassing attempts to gain street cred amongst the millennials he used to dazzle with science experiments, despite his dangerous misinformation about gender and sexuality that is exploiting confused and sick people for political gain, despite the inexplicable conundrum of how people like this get TV shows when there are so many other more talented and deserving folks in the world, count me as one person thrilled that Bill Nye Saves the World is now airing on Netflix.

No, I couldn’t watch more than just a few short clips of the panel discussion where his experts pontificated about punishing Americans for child-bearing. And yes, Bill’s ham-handed attempt to inspire and entertain made for such a spectacle of buffoonery that it no doubt made even Nye’s most adoring fans uncomfortable. And obviously, the disgusting and awkward gyrations of some woman named Rachel Bloom singing about her “sex junk” while a DJ dressed up like a seahorse (seriously) bounced around the side of the stage was equal parts bizarre and gross.

But I am sincerely ecstatic that all this is airing for people to see and mock. Because maybe, just maybe, Bill Nye will finally lose the intellectual credibility that he has always received but never deserved.

A year ago, Weather Channel founder John Coleman fumed to the weather site Climate Depot:

“I have always been amazed that anyone would pay attention to Bill Nye, a pretend scientist in a bow tie.”

On the surface that could come off as sour grapes or petty jealousy. Calling a colleague a “pretend scientist in a bow tie” could be regarded as professionally tacky, until you realize that Bill Nye is not Coleman’s colleague. He actually is a pretend scientist who wears a bow tie.

Yes, Nye earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. Yes, he worked for Boeing for a short period of time. But after that, Nye won a contest impersonating comedian Steve Martin and used that as a springboard to launch a career in comedy. Following a lackluster few years in the business, Nye landed his renowned gig as a knock-off Mr. Wizard on the PBS Kids program, “Bill Nye the Science Guy.”

In other words, Bill Nye was and is a performer. He’s built a nice career as a performer, and while no one should deny him that success, neither should they confuse what he does with science. And that was Coleman’s point:

“As a man who has studied the science of meteorology for over 60 years and received the AMS (American Meteorological Society’s) ‘Meteorologist of the Year’ award, I am totally offended that Nye gets the press and media attention he does.”

You can understand his frustration. Nye consistently gets “science” wrong.

  • He says that tornadoes are an indication of more severe weather coming because of the very real problem of climate change. Science proves that the frequency of violent tornadoes has decreased.
  • He seemingly coined the bizarre term “Sou’wester” for West Coast weather patterns, equating it with the East Coast’s “Nor’easters.” Science rejects any notion of there being anything like a “Sou’wester.”
  • He actively promotes the silencing and imprisonment of those scientists who would disagree with his position on climate. Science demands open-mindedness and a humility towards ideas, theories, and beliefs.

Nye is a cartoonish performer with dangerous tendencies towards political authoritarianism. Confusing that with being a scientist is a mistake that sane people will no longer tolerate.

Stars Are Moving Away From The Beach Out Of Global Warming Fears

For the longest time Hollywood has been the bastion of meterologists and climate scientists. These distinguished members of he scientific community have often built palatial homes on the beach, but now as their fears of global warming continue to grow, they’re starting to put their money where their mouth is, not by donating to causes or helping develop green technology, but by moving away from the beach.

That’s right – the formerly gauche land side of the Pacific Coast Highway has become more attractive as the stars worry about rising sea levels.

“The whole ‘being on the beach’ thing has started to fade away in Malibu because of global warming and climate change,” said Anthony Paradise, an international agent for Sotheby’s, to the Hollywood Reporter. “Some people will buy on the land side because they’re fearful that ocean-side homes may disappear.”

Celebrities are also discovering that the once undesirable hills above Malibu offer more privacy, but their primary concern is disappearing beaches.

Most important, it features sweeping ocean views without the worries of dry sand slipping away. “From Lady Gaga’s house, you actually feel like you’re on the beach — you can even see people walking on the sand — but you’re not on the beach,” says [real estate executive Santiago] Arana, whose current Malibu Park listing offers a similar sense of beachfront living without the rising sea-level fears: The $13.95 million, ocean-view modern farmhouse sits on more than 4 acres. “It’s got acreage, a tennis court, barn and organic gardens. It’s also gated and extremely private.”

There’s no need to worry, however; even though the stars are giving up their beachside homes and heading for the hills, they’re not letting go of their limousines and private jets, so their anti-technology hypocrisy will remain on full display. After all, some things never change.

Washington Post Labels Yale Professor “Anti-Intellectual” for Daring to Think Independently

Yale computer science professor David Gelernter is a brilliant scientist and thinker. He and his wife developed a programming language in the 80s that allowed smaller computers to link to a single supercomputer – something we take for granted today. He is a thoughtful and talented writer, with articles appearing in magazines like Commentary and the Weekly Standard. And he has furthered the debate over the ethics of artificial intelligence. Clearly, Gelernter is an intellectual’s intellectual.

Oh, and Gelernter sustained critical injuries when one of the Unabomber’s devices exploded in his hand.

The Washington Post has slapped Gelernter with an interesting label in the wake of the Trump inauguration: “fiercely anti-intellectual.” What’s the professor’s crime against the academic world? Why, thinking differently from the leftwing orthodoxy, of course.

Gelernter has been a particularly vocal critic of President Obama, going so far as to call him a “third-rate tyrant” in the same Wall Street Journal opinion piece in which he called Hillary Clinton a phony. He has criticized the political bent of academia on numerous occasions, particularly in his 2013 book America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered In the Obamacrats).

But it gets worse: Gelernter has taken a stand against the man-made climate change narrative that is so pervasive in the science world. And the kicker? The professor is under consideration to be Donald Trump’s science adviser.

In case you were wondering, the Union of Concerned Scientists has weighed in:

Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, opined, “He’s certainly not mainstream in the science community or particularly well known. His views even on most of the key science questions aren’t known. Considering the huge range of issues the White House needs to consider, I don’t know if he has that kind of capability.”

Gelernter is obviously an independent thinker, and the leftists in academia can’t stand it.