juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
And human constructs in no way impede my right to say no.
Introspection on the decline of morality.
- Thread starter Faithfulservant
- Start date
I agree
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
During my years working with transgender people, I was at a group supe or conference or something, and there was a quote that stuck with me.
It was something in a published report being presented or by another clinician, about a little 5 year old who was a biological male but only happy acting and being reacted to as a girl.
The child's statement went something like this: "I'm like other girls, I like to wear ribbons and barrettes in my hair. But when I do these things to be pretty, people don't love me. They want me to act like a boy. When I do that, I don't love me."
And the truth is, trans youth made to wait for any form of treatment at all, are at a high risk for suicide.
What is a parent to do?
What would be your clinical advice to the parent in this case?
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
Damn, you mean there aren't simple solutions to complex issues? Bah!
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
As a clinician I'm sure you know this is too little information to go on. And since I am not a clinician it is not my place to provide clinical advice - I could go to jail.
Presuming the "case study" is genuine (it's not like these things have not been fabricated before, sadly), 5 is still really young to make such a decision. 5 is also plenty young to continue developing, and kids are known to go through phases. If it still persists as a teenager, then there is something that needs to be addressed. That would be my non-clinical advice.
I am not faced with these kinds of decisions, and my heart goes out to a parent that is dealing with these kinds of decisions. That doesn't negate that not only are clinical diagnoses increasing rapidly in number and volume (why the explosive increase?), but the entire matter is being "promoted" in elementary schools by non-clinicians...that is not organic, that is putting the idea in impressionable minds...what some call "grooming." Grooming is NOT acceptable.
Let me ask you...presuming the case study is genuine, how do you think a culture like the Native Americans, or Classical Rome or Greece, or modern day China, would deal with the matter?
Give the kid a chance to grow out of it. Little boys were putting on sister's clothes probably since kids wore clothes. I remember my mom having a conversation with a girlfriend about this very thing. About me? I don't know, I haven't thought about it in years, and I was the oldest and no sisters. He'll grow out of it, those were the exact words exchanged.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I sincerely, with all my heart, believe this will be a tragic thing that one day many will regret. I cast no judgment, I have my own regrets, but nothing like what I foresee for this. I would only ask to be VERY thoughtful about the consequences of what a child is being committed to years later. Give the kid a chance to grow out of it. The parent must not be an enabler.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
That's the mythos, the reality is quite different, as I've pointed out repeatedly by the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." The "scientific process" only gives way in a very grudging manner due to internal politics.
And no, there wasn't scientific consensus. Did you happen to notice the standard mechanism for reporting adverse incidents refused/declined/dismissed any and all adverse incident reports concerning Covid vax? I will not be surprised if you are not aware of this salient fact, but since ALL medications have a small percentage of adverse reactions, I dare you to look up any official adverse reactions to Covid vax...let me know what you find.
Further, Pfizer, J&J and Moderna all were shielded legally from any lawsuits from adverse reactions. Hmmmm.....
On more than one occasion, Pfizer refused Freedom of Information Act requests regarding adverse reactions...not only unethical but illegal as well, and did so with impunity. Have you tried to look up the animal studies for Covid vax development? Good luck getting those.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I think others call that "One World Order." And not in a flattering "can't we all just get along?" manner.
Last edited:
Yes, they're called conspiracy theorists.
And the Kuhn book was a major item of study in my B.Sc. at Manchester University. Carry on with your Faux News.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
It is also interesting to me, here, that you acknowledge "truth" can be challenged, yet you mock alternate daily news. I've heard people go so far as to ridicule. Consider...if you allow "truth" as science to be challenged, why do libs resist truth to be challenged as daily news?
I don't get thoughtful responses, I get shut down and shut out.
I am a thoughtful person, and I am by no means perfect, I do try sincerely to be as ethically minded as I understand. In my faithwalk, respect goes a long way. The Spanish proverb "do not wish for me what you do not wish for yourself."
Turn the other cheek never meant to lay down as a floormat. The Aramaic paraphrases as not to start a matter with a neighbor, but if a neighbor starts a matter with me - he will receive in return. That is self defense, and it is my right.
Both science and "daily news" are secular religions and arbiters of truth, they take the place of and fulfill the same function. It changed hands in 1776. That's history, not conspiracy.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I noticed the deletion of the important part. I'm not surprised. Allow me to reiterate:
And not in a flattering "can't we all just get along?" manner.
You're a smart guy, I think you can figure out what this means, in context, without me having to spell it out for you.
And the rest of my thoughtful post you dismiss with the wave of a hand....thank you for verifying my assessment. Predictable.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
The Empty Bowl Sutra
Manjushri Bodhisattva
Thus have I heard: Once when the Bhagavan was dwelling near Sravasti in the Anapindada Garden of the Jeta Forest and expounding the Dharma to the assembly, Manjushri Bodhisattva put on his robe at dawn, picked up his bowl, and proceeded slowly toward the city.
A bodhisattva named Nagasri saw him and asked, “Where are you going, Sir?”
Manjushri answered, “I’m going to Sravasti to beg for food in order to uplift and benefit others, to show compassion for all beings, and to help and comfort devas as well as people.”
Nagasri asked, “If that is so, Sir, have you not yet gotten rid of the conception of food?”
Manjushri answered, “As for the conception of food, I don’t see it as existing. What is there to get rid of? And how so?
“The fundamental nature of all things is empty. Like space, it contains nothing to put an end to. How could I get rid of it?
“Neither devas, Mara, Brahma, nor the monks and priests of this world can get rid of it. And why not? Because the essential nature of all things is like that of space: ultimately empty, immutable, and devoid of anything to get rid of.
“Moreover, since everything is like space, neither devas, Mara, Brahma, monks, nor any other being can get hold of anything. And how so? Because the essential nature of everything is ungraspable, there is nothing they can get hold of.”
Nagasri said, “If it is as you say, why then do bodhisattvas struggle against Mara?”
Manjushri said, “Bodhisattvas don’t struggle against the drum-beating forces of Mara, nor do they see the slightest thing real on which to meditate. And how so?
“Even though bodhisattvas might see those demon drummers, they aren’t frightened. It’s as if a magician conjured a hostile enemy. Despite the appearance of danger, bodhisattvas aren’t alarmed, for they know that the nature of everything is essentially empty and illusory.
“Hence, they aren’t frightened. If bodhisattvas were frightened, they wouldn’t deserve the support of humans and devas. But because bodhisattvas aren’t afraid of what they know to be empty, they’re worthy of serving as fields of pure blessings.”
Nagasri asked, “Can they realize enlightenment?”
Manjushri answered, “Yes, they can.”
Nagasri asked, “Who realizes it?”
Manjushri answered, “Those with no name, concepts, or anything to say, they can attain it.”
Nagasri asked, “If that is true, how can they realize it?”
Manjushri answered, “By not thinking about it, by not thinking about enlightenment or a seat of enlightenment….Anyone who can free themselves from projections and views can realize enlightenment.”
Nagasri asked, “In that case, what do you think about when you attain it?”
Manjushri answered, “There is nothing to attain and no one who attains. It isn’t something you consider. You don’t think, ‘I shall sit on a diamond seat under the Bodhi Tree and realize enlightenment and turn the wheel of the Dharma and rescue others from samsara.’ And why not? Because dharmas are immutable. You can’t get rid of them, and you can’t get hold of them. They’re ultimately empty. It’s by means of this thought of non-attainment that you attain enlightenment.”
Nagasri said, “Sir, what you have said is truly transcendent and will surely help others who believe and understand this teaching get free from afflictions. And by getting free from afflictions, they will finally be able to break free from Mara’s net.”
Manjushri said, “Mara’s net is unbreakable. And why is that? ‘Mara’ is simply another name for enlightenment. And how so? Neither Mara nor his demon army ultimately exist. They can’t be found. This is why I say ‘Mara’ is simply another name for enlightenment.”
Nagasri said, “How would you describe enlightenment?”
Manjushri said, “Enlightenment is present in all things at all times and in all places. Just as nothing obstructs space, which is present in all things at all times and in all places, the same is true for enlightenment.
I hope I have been respectful to the text.
Manjushri Bodhisattva
Thus have I heard: Once when the Bhagavan was dwelling near Sravasti in the Anapindada Garden of the Jeta Forest and expounding the Dharma to the assembly, Manjushri Bodhisattva put on his robe at dawn, picked up his bowl, and proceeded slowly toward the city.
A bodhisattva named Nagasri saw him and asked, “Where are you going, Sir?”
Manjushri answered, “I’m going to Sravasti to beg for food in order to uplift and benefit others, to show compassion for all beings, and to help and comfort devas as well as people.”
Nagasri asked, “If that is so, Sir, have you not yet gotten rid of the conception of food?”
Manjushri answered, “As for the conception of food, I don’t see it as existing. What is there to get rid of? And how so?
“The fundamental nature of all things is empty. Like space, it contains nothing to put an end to. How could I get rid of it?
“Neither devas, Mara, Brahma, nor the monks and priests of this world can get rid of it. And why not? Because the essential nature of all things is like that of space: ultimately empty, immutable, and devoid of anything to get rid of.
“Moreover, since everything is like space, neither devas, Mara, Brahma, monks, nor any other being can get hold of anything. And how so? Because the essential nature of everything is ungraspable, there is nothing they can get hold of.”
Nagasri said, “If it is as you say, why then do bodhisattvas struggle against Mara?”
Manjushri said, “Bodhisattvas don’t struggle against the drum-beating forces of Mara, nor do they see the slightest thing real on which to meditate. And how so?
“Even though bodhisattvas might see those demon drummers, they aren’t frightened. It’s as if a magician conjured a hostile enemy. Despite the appearance of danger, bodhisattvas aren’t alarmed, for they know that the nature of everything is essentially empty and illusory.
“Hence, they aren’t frightened. If bodhisattvas were frightened, they wouldn’t deserve the support of humans and devas. But because bodhisattvas aren’t afraid of what they know to be empty, they’re worthy of serving as fields of pure blessings.”
Nagasri asked, “Can they realize enlightenment?”
Manjushri answered, “Yes, they can.”
Nagasri asked, “Who realizes it?”
Manjushri answered, “Those with no name, concepts, or anything to say, they can attain it.”
Nagasri asked, “If that is true, how can they realize it?”
Manjushri answered, “By not thinking about it, by not thinking about enlightenment or a seat of enlightenment….Anyone who can free themselves from projections and views can realize enlightenment.”
Nagasri asked, “In that case, what do you think about when you attain it?”
Manjushri answered, “There is nothing to attain and no one who attains. It isn’t something you consider. You don’t think, ‘I shall sit on a diamond seat under the Bodhi Tree and realize enlightenment and turn the wheel of the Dharma and rescue others from samsara.’ And why not? Because dharmas are immutable. You can’t get rid of them, and you can’t get hold of them. They’re ultimately empty. It’s by means of this thought of non-attainment that you attain enlightenment.”
Nagasri said, “Sir, what you have said is truly transcendent and will surely help others who believe and understand this teaching get free from afflictions. And by getting free from afflictions, they will finally be able to break free from Mara’s net.”
Manjushri said, “Mara’s net is unbreakable. And why is that? ‘Mara’ is simply another name for enlightenment. And how so? Neither Mara nor his demon army ultimately exist. They can’t be found. This is why I say ‘Mara’ is simply another name for enlightenment.”
Nagasri said, “How would you describe enlightenment?”
Manjushri said, “Enlightenment is present in all things at all times and in all places. Just as nothing obstructs space, which is present in all things at all times and in all places, the same is true for enlightenment.
I hope I have been respectful to the text.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
First I've read this, I see nothing to disagree with, it lines up nicely - philosophically - with what little I understand of Kabala.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
That was an interesting lesson, synchronicity?, from a failed internet search for the teaching about how a man cannot learn if he already knows. "You must first empty your bowl" in order to learn.
Those who close off half of a conversation, eliminate conversation. I'm not talking about "in your face" conversation, I am talking about respectful, thoughtful, considerate, learned, polite conversation.
And those who think in this manner close their hearts to half of the world. How does that unite anybody?
Those who close off half of a conversation, eliminate conversation. I'm not talking about "in your face" conversation, I am talking about respectful, thoughtful, considerate, learned, polite conversation.
And those who think in this manner close their hearts to half of the world. How does that unite anybody?
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
I would ask them and/or look it up. However, the differing ways that ancient cultures managed transgenderism was a topic often referenced by those in that clinical subfield. The notion of "two-spirit people" in some Native American culture was frequently and heavily referenced. I honestly think we should have had a cultural anthropologist and/or tribal spokesperson in group trainings to clarify and expand on that.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
Naturally, that was partly my point. That maybe neither you nor anybody else not in the field is in a position to fully and firmly "draw the line at children" but that there be clinical assessment to determine what, if anything, is proper in that case.
On the plus side, in the group I was in, for all their fervor, our leader at least was always inclined to say "What is the hurry?" Assessments made approaching or at puberty as to whether or not a young person has so much gender dysphoria that "puberty blockers" (which delay puberty) are appropriate may be wiser than any form of across the board ban on doing anything whatsoever before someone is 18.
I believe the assessments should be more rigorous, more objective standards need to be developed, caution needs to be in place, no rushing, and more medical doctors from other fields should be part of the assessment. A social worker claiming something is medically necessary seems outrageous to me. But having psychiatrist, and neurologists, and endocrinologists be part of the assessment makes sense. As it is the endos aren't brought in until they get a letter from a social worker telling. THEM what is now medically necessary! Outrageous. And it did not go over well when I said that in my clinical "training" I think the endos and neurologists should be rigorously ruling out neurological and hormonal issues that might be the real culprit.
As it is, the whole thing is a pretty crazy mess. I have nothing but empathy for those poor kids who don't feel comfortable in their own skin, and I do listen to and take seriously the difficulty of adults (especially natal males who feel they are female) about the horrors of going through what they call "the wrong puberty" and being so masculinized it is difficult later for them to "pass" and thus they are marginalized their entire lives.
As to why there is such an explosion of cases -- lots of hypotheses out there, but I think the tangled mess could be less if they would go back to a more rigorous evaluation and maybe even make it more rigorous with more doctors ruling out more things, than ever before.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Do you think any of these cultures resorted to surgery and a lifetime of expensive mandatory medications?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
@TheLightWithin
Since I don't expect ye olde Snoopish one to address these questions, perhaps you might be willing?
Did you happen to notice the standard mechanism for reporting adverse incidents refused/declined/dismissed any and all adverse incident reports concerning Covid vax? Since ALL medications have a small percentage of adverse reactions, why were there no official adverse reactions to Covid vax reported? It isn't a matter of no adverse reactions, if one looks in the right places documented adverse reactions and the people they occurred to are out there...none of them were reported officially. It went so far as threatening the credentials of providers who insisted on reporting adverse reactions. At least one Military physician was fired for temporarily grounding some Air Force pilots for adverse reactions.
Further, Pfizer, J&J and Moderna all were shielded legally from any lawsuits from adverse reactions. What's up with that?
On more than one occasion, Pfizer refused Freedom of Information Act requests regarding adverse reactions...not only unethical but illegal as well, and did so with impunity. Have you tried to look up the animal studies for Covid vax development?
This to say nothing of the retractions from the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine...retractions of the very paper that politicians were citing to dismiss and ridicule alternative treatments. https://www.science.org/content/art...onavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions In the world of scholarship, as I am certain you are well aware, this is unprecedented. Papers typically are peer reviewed and vetted well before publication, so a retraction is a HUGE deal. And to have politicos still quoting the paper more than a year after it was retracted tells me a great deal...that isn't conspiracy, that is fact.
Comments please?
Since I don't expect ye olde Snoopish one to address these questions, perhaps you might be willing?
Did you happen to notice the standard mechanism for reporting adverse incidents refused/declined/dismissed any and all adverse incident reports concerning Covid vax? Since ALL medications have a small percentage of adverse reactions, why were there no official adverse reactions to Covid vax reported? It isn't a matter of no adverse reactions, if one looks in the right places documented adverse reactions and the people they occurred to are out there...none of them were reported officially. It went so far as threatening the credentials of providers who insisted on reporting adverse reactions. At least one Military physician was fired for temporarily grounding some Air Force pilots for adverse reactions.
Further, Pfizer, J&J and Moderna all were shielded legally from any lawsuits from adverse reactions. What's up with that?
On more than one occasion, Pfizer refused Freedom of Information Act requests regarding adverse reactions...not only unethical but illegal as well, and did so with impunity. Have you tried to look up the animal studies for Covid vax development?
This to say nothing of the retractions from the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine...retractions of the very paper that politicians were citing to dismiss and ridicule alternative treatments. https://www.science.org/content/art...onavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions In the world of scholarship, as I am certain you are well aware, this is unprecedented. Papers typically are peer reviewed and vetted well before publication, so a retraction is a HUGE deal. And to have politicos still quoting the paper more than a year after it was retracted tells me a great deal...that isn't conspiracy, that is fact.
Comments please?
Last edited:
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
There is more information coming out now and people are talking about it if anyone wants to look. My family did not take the shot because we knew enough history of the government giving thumbs up to new medicines without testing to find out later the effects. We are still dealing with the opioid crisis and big pharma not providing the results of the testing. Doctors that spoke up to even question the shot were silenced and even lost their medical licenses.
All the hate that non vaxxers were getting was horrible.. like we were the cause of so many deaths. At first they said if you took it you couldn't get covid then they said the symptoms would be lessened but there were suddenly people dying.. young healthy people.
Here is an interview with the military cardiologist on pilots developing heart issues.
www.youtube.com
All the hate that non vaxxers were getting was horrible.. like we were the cause of so many deaths. At first they said if you took it you couldn't get covid then they said the symptoms would be lessened but there were suddenly people dying.. young healthy people.
Here is an interview with the military cardiologist on pilots developing heart issues.
"Died Suddenly" Whistleblower Dr. Theresa Long on mRNA in Pilots w/ Dr. Kelly Victory – Ask Dr. Drew
Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long testified under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act that she had witnessed symptoms of myocarditis in pilots who receiv...
www.youtube.com