When the activists take full control
It’s Satanic Panic all over again.
Last paragraph of the statement:
CAAPS supports eliminating the use of ROGD and similar concepts for clinical and diagnostic application given the lack of empirical support for its existence and its likelihood of contributing to harm and mental health burden. CAAPS also encourages further research that leads to evidence-based clinical guidelines for gender-affirming care that support child and adolescent gender identity development.
CAAPS does not encourage further research that leads to evidence-based clinical guidelines for watch and wait care that support child and adolescent body-acceptance.
At this rate, 5 or 10 years down the road, will psychology organizations be supporting “species-affirming” care that helps children and adolescents look like horses, cheetahs, giraffes, swans? I don’t suppose many children and adolescents will be identifying as hippos or rats or wart hogs.
Who knows? I would highly suspect that today there are already individual psychologists (probably not yet any organizations) that endorse this view.
You know what else there’s a lack of empirical support for? Boy souls and girl souls. That’s what there’s a lack of empirical support for. If GD were a biological thing meaning that boys and girls soul genes could get mixed up in the wash of hormones in the Pregnant Person’s womb, then that would mean that gender stratification is based on biological destiny, sanctioned by science, explaining why pink is a girl thing and blue is a boy thing. Why submission is a girl thing and domination is a boy thing.
These people never think this shit through. It’s all “be kind” and ignore the implications. Girls are for using, and boys do the choosing, and anyone who doesn’t want to be that way must be physically changed to match.
From the CAAPS Statement:
Would it be that difficult to do a study on ROGD? I note that they don’t say “Numerous studies have been done evaluating the onset of gender dysphoria and the majority found that 95% of friends and family would doctor photos to try to prove there had been no signs of GD in a child till adolescence” or whatever. Surely they could examine something . I’m sure there’d be no problem obtaining funding.
Of course, if the theory they’re testing says
1.) children who identity as transgender were often in denial of their true selves beforehand, living a lie that caused secret anguish
2.) if they say they weren’t in secret anguish, they were.
3.) if they say they were, this is their lived experience.
then there could be problems.
I have learned to hate the phrase “lived experience”. I didn’t mind it applied to subjects like racism and sexism, though I do think even then empirical evidence is important. In both of those cases, empirical evidence supported the “lived experience”.
Now, however, we have to bow to any piece of nonsense if someone says it is their ‘lived experience’. Except, of course, if that someone is Rachel Dolezal. Or if that someone is a rad fem.
I am of the impression that it would be quite difficult to get funding, based on anecdotes of researchers being pressured away from these areas for fear of offending the woke brigade. Littman’s original paper was pulled and then reinstated, if I recall correctly, and Littman lost a job over it.