From Retraction Watch: “A psychology journal has expressed concern about a 46-year-old paper which described attempts to correct ‘deviant’ gender identity in a 5-year-old boy using physical violence — the latest example of journals purging (or semi-purging) their pages of offensive studies.”
Oh really? They used to do studies on how to “set that boy straight!”? You know what’s really sad? I know people (really…) who would think along the lines of; “Nowadays, just throw that man a condom! libtards, etc,etc.”
We may be headed for a civil war, and if so, really only one side is armed, and the police are their friends. Am I the only one who thinks about that?
This retraction notice leaves no mention of why reinforcing sex-based behaviors and expressions is abusive. Nor does it mention that children who now do not display the culturally appropriate behaviors and expressions for their sex are encouraged to think they are transgender. Gender is a harmful social construct and this trend is abuse, full stop. Leave children to express and behave how they naturally are – boys can be feminine and girly and nice and girls can be sporty and masculine and hate pink and dresses. Natural variation in the behaviors and likes does not literally make the child the opposite sex. This propaganda has to stop!
Removed for moderation.
Removed for moderation.
People are not their biology. I dream of a better future where people can look at their genitalia and see it as part of them; regardless of their “gender”.
Removed for moderation.
Sex and gender are not the same, just as brain and mind are not the same. One is physical and describes anatomical and reproductive characteristics; the other is abstract and refers to social prescriptions for behavior based on one’s sex.
Oh my God, this Jeffrey Craig must be a monster. Who could say such things that are not safe to hear, and respond to if someone feels that perspective or a correction is needed, or simply disagree. This must be a man who has hurt a lot of people.
And at what point do we begin locking people up for hurting people? This should make one think.
To retract or not, is that the question? To create history or erase history, is that the question? For to understand the development of a human, at what point will the better information be in place for the individual to realize the implications for the pursuit of happiness? Or, from the breadth and depth of the acquired knowledge and understanding that is recorded in the postings, then at what point will the rivers of insight release an awakening for restorative justice? Will law be the necessary arbiter of justice or will the insights shared create a different expression unimaginable at the moment, though never the less one potential way forward (or backward)…. whatever….. Thanks for your insights ……and raising the expecatations…
Interesting thoughts Bill. Yes we don’t know if it gets worse. One
thing we can be sure of is that it changes.
There are interesting comments at the bottom of the article, mostly suggesting that it was about “behaviour” not “identity”.
“By today’s standards and in light of our current scientific knowledge, the study would be considered unethical. However, the available evidence does not make it clear that the original study was unethical by the standards of that day. Therefore, the journal is instead issuing this expression of concern to readers.
Well all “mental hell” treatment is unethical. If something is wrong by todays standards, it was wrong then.
Now kids brain are slapped and beaten with drugs. Perfect behaviour.
Okay psychiatry, get ready because like EVERY single thing you’ve EVER done, this too will be taken away from you and that is a GUARANTEE.
Look at your history.
This paper tells me that some opposition to transgender rights and opposition to not enforcing social gender norms is caused because for various reasons some people want to force their idea of gender onto others.
I’ve heard people say, “Sex is determined be the private parts someone is born with” yet later they’d say something such as, “boys wearing pink will confuse them. Not calling a boy a boy will make it so they don’t know what sex they are.”
If it is true that the private part you have determines sex, wearing pink and being called by gender neutral pro-nouns can’t make someone a different gender. A irony is that those statements show the people making them accept that gender is at least partly a social construct.
