Top Pediatrician Says Pushing Transgender Ideology on Kids Is 'Child Abuse'

[glorydaz]

Really? So why do anti-gay conservatives use well-known frauds and fake research to back up their claims?
Common sense says it because they don't care that they are fakes and lies and that the anti-gay lot is desperate to justify their prejudice that they will stoop to any level. But maybe you have some other insight.

You really expect me to argue against your faulty premise?

 

[glorydaz]

Can you back this up or is just a lie?

It's the truth....if you weren't a liberal, I'd suggest you do your research.

 

[glorydaz]

What you consider a fraud is not a fraud to us.

Yep, a "fraud" to a lib is a "fact" to those who dwell in the real world.

This alternate universe stuff is getting scarier by the day. I watched a video today where some liberal idiots were screaming at some fisherman for hurting those poor little fish...."they feel pain just like children do". (Excluding the unborn or soon to be born, that is).

There must be a study somewhere of the pain level of fish.

 

[patrick jane]

Glorydaze is the one that brought that up. And it is painful that you don't care about truth.

It's painful?

 

[nikolai_42]

Michelle Cretella may be a lot of things but she isn't a "top pediatrician" She is the president of the American College of Pediatrics, which is not the American Acadamy of Pediatrics. It is however one of the tiny number of organizations that are hate groups. The ACP has less than two hundred members, most of which are not peditircans or even doctors at all. THey have been exposed dozens of time as producers of fake research.

A nice example of this faking of research comes up in the OP
"Cretella referred to her 2016 peer-reviewed article, "Gender Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate,"
The article was printed in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons which is not a peer-reviewed journal. it claims to be but the "peers" that review the research are members of its own editorial staff.

You are claiming Dr. Cretella is a fraud? Based on what? On the fact that the author of an online article cited her report as a "peer-reviewed article"? How is that faking research? The only possible charge here is that the journalist mislabeled the report. How does that tarnish the data put forth by Dr. Cretella?

 

[Greg Jennings]

If it's so obvious...why aren't there mountains of studies and research to support it?

In fairness, this kind of thing has only existed for a few years. There has been no time for any studies to be done. The "evidence" will come when we see what these kids end up like as adults.

 

[gcthomas]

You are claiming Dr. Cretella is a fraud? Based on what? On the fact that the author of an online article cited her report as a "peer-reviewed article"? How is that faking research? The only possible charge here is that the journalist mislabeled the report. How does that tarnish the data put forth by Dr. Cretella?

Cretella says that she is a board certified pediatrician, but the American Board of Medical Specialities certification checker disagrees, as does the American Board of Pediatrics. She appears not to be certified even as a physician.

She referred to an opinion piece as peer reviewed research, and this was something that she wrote for an anti-LGBT, non-peer reviewed journal of an organisation that believes that vaccines cause autism and that Obama used hypnosis to get people to vote for him. They also object to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

She doesn't really come across as an honest broker here.

 

[Jonahdog]

Yep, a "fraud" to a lib is a "fact" to those who dwell in the real world.

This alternate universe stuff is getting scarier by the day.

Especially when you listen to the Hair in the White House.

 

[nikolai_42]

Cretella says that she is a board certified pediatrician, but the American Board of Medical Specialities certification checker disagrees, as does the American Board of Pediatrics. She appears not to be certified even as a physician.

She referred to an opinion piece as peer reviewed research, and this was something that she wrote for an anti-LGBT, non-peer reviewed journal of an organisation that believes that vaccines cause autism and that Obama used hypnosis to get people to vote for him. They also object to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

She doesn't really come across as an honest broker here.

I'll admit, that looks suspicious. Not sure who writes her "blurbs" but claiming board certification and not having it is certainly an issue. I will say, however, that she doesn't appear to be actively taking patients - and I wonder if that affects listing on the ABP Certification checker.

As for the "peer-reviewed" claim, I still haven't found her making that claim. Not that she didn't, just that I saw it being claimed on her behalf (by a journalist). And while the board she presides over has some who hold views that don't meet mainstream standard, that doesn't necessarily invalidate her claims. Peer-reviewed research can be very political, not to mention that research typically can only reach conclusions on very specific variables in complex issues that involve many such variables that interact on multiple levels. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM as a psychiatric disorder shows that the issue is largely driven by politics and societal values rather than science. One could argue, yes, that it was in the DSM because most of society agreed that it was a psychiatric disorder. By the same token, its removal reflects those views and so now it is de rigeur to push that which validates that view. So the whole peer review issue is, in my view, another loaded topic.

 

[WizardofOz]

One doesn't need to be a doctor to know something as obvious as this. It's a no-brainer for anyone with even an ounce of common sense. What you're doing is attacking the messenger. This is far from being the only source for this same information.

Common sense is not something I can carry around and impart to you, MrDante.

There aren't mountains of studies for anything that just requires common sense. For instance, how many studies are there to prove a person reaps what they sow? Or how many studies are out there to prove honoring your father and your mother makes for a happier life?

Teaching children their sexual identity is all in their head is nonsense. You can study it til the cows come home and you'll find just a bunch of manure.

I've learned long ago to not waste time showing liberals anything that even hints at common sense.

You just don't understand plain good old commons sense. I told you that would be the case.

Appeal to Common Sense

Description: Asserting that your conclusion or facts are just “common sense” when, in fact, they are not. We must argue as to why we believe something is common sense if there is any doubt that the belief is not common, rather than just asserting that it is. This is a more specific version of alleged certainty.

Repeating over and over that something is "common sense" sans deeper points just makes you look silly.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If it's so obvious...why aren't there mountains of studies and research to support it?

Why do you ask?
Isn't it obvious that the progressive terrorists have made it too difficult to get funding for the studies and have infiltrated the peer review system to the point where the studies that have been done are unable to get published.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Why do you ask?
Isn't it obvious that the progressive terrorists have made it too difficult to get funding for the studies and have infiltrated the peer review system to the point where the studies that have been done are unable to get published.

Exactly

 

[ClimateSanity]

Appeal to Common Sense

Description: Asserting that your conclusion or facts are just “common sense” when, in fact, they are not. We must argue as to why we believe something is common sense if there is any doubt that the belief is not common, rather than just asserting that it is. This is a more specific version of alleged certainty.

Repeating over and over that something is "common sense" sans deeper points just makes you look silly.

You are the authority on silly....I mean irrelevant.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why do you ask?
Isn't it obvious that the progressive terrorists have made it too difficult to get funding for the studies and have infiltrated the peer review system to the point where the studies that have been done are unable to get published.

Only if you're a conspiracy nut.

:AMR:

 

[patrick jane]

Appeal to Common Sense

Description: Asserting that your conclusion or facts are just “common sense” when, in fact, they are not. We must argue as to why we believe something is common sense if there is any doubt that the belief is not common, rather than just asserting that it is. This is a more specific version of alleged certainty.

Repeating over and over that something is "common sense" sans deeper points just makes you look silly.

You either have common sense or you don't, hence the name. Lefties generally lack common sense.

 

[WizardofOz]

You either have common sense or you don't, hence the name. Lefties generally lack common sense.

Thank you Jack Handy for the deep thoughts there lain:

 

[Interplanner]

To the OP poster,
thanks for putting this up. I put up mine on the same topic this morning after hearing about the accusation of 'sexual predator' (said of Trump) while this is going on.

 

[Jonahdog]

Thank you Jack Handy for the deep thoughts there lain:

Post of the week.

 

[Jonahdog]

Why do you ask?
Isn't it obvious that the progressive terrorists have made it too difficult to get funding for the studies and have infiltrated the peer review system to the point where the studies that have been done are unable to get published.

Oh, that's it, progressive terrorists. But no comment on the fraud who is quoted in the OP.
Let's just believe what makes us feel good rather than what the evidence might suggest. And it doesn't matter who supports our "common sense" as long as they agree with us and make us feel so good and tingly inside.

 

[MrDante]

In fairness, this kind of thing has only existed for a few years. There has been no time for any studies to be done. The "evidence" will come when we see what these kids end up like as adults.

Adams, J and R. Light 2015 Scientific consensus, the law and same sex parenting outcomes.
Allen, M and Burrell, N 2008 Comparing the Impact of Homosexual and Heterosexual Parents on Children
Anderson, N et al 2002 Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents.
Baiocco, R. 2015 Lesbian Mother Families and Gay Father Families in Italy: Family Functioning, Dyadic Satisfaction, and Child Well-Being.
Baily, J 2005 Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers.
Biblara, T. and J. Stacey 2010 How does the gender of parents matter?
Bos, H 2012 Planned Gay Father Families in Kinship Arrangements
Bos, H 2016 Same-Sex and Different-Sex Parent Households and Child Health Outcomes: Findings from the National Survey of Children's Health


I can list over 100 more if you like.