There is good evidence that many ancient societies sacrificed children to their gods. Parents in ancient Phoenician colonies in Carthage, Sicily, Sardinia and Malta slew their offspring prior to cremating them, hoping that the gods would hear their voices and bless them.
We are rightly appalled by this, though sometimes I wonder whether we
understand child sacrifice far more than we’d like to admit.
I saw a video the other day featuring an American surgeon bragging
that he had performed more than 3,000 double mastectomies on young women
who had paid for gender reassignment,
individuals confused – one might say encouraged – by those who profit
from it into believing that their adolescent emotional trials can be
‘cured’, and happiness reign forever, if they subject themselves to this
brutal practice.
And it is brutal – a process that often includes not only the
aforementioned mastectomies but other appalling surgical processes:
orchiectomy (that’s castration, in blunter language), the removal of the
uterus, the demolition of the musculature of the forearm to make what
is not a penis but must be referred to as such – all of that.
For someone purporting to be a physician to perform this on children,
to me at least, seems like something worthy of a prison sentence.
Whatever happened to the doctrine expressed by the ancient language as primum non nocere – first, do no harm?
The Hippocratic Oath has been replaced by a delusion: a belief that
can be summarised as ‘by blocking the puberty of children, and then
surgically altering them, we are only restoring what is theirs by right.
A child’s feelings are the final arbiters of their reproductive
destiny, and any attempt to contest their gender identity risks
increasing their proclivity for suicide’.
Lies. Lies. Lies. Then butchery.
Changing standards
Psychologists – those in my own personal field of medicine – have
also surrendered to this groupthink. The American Psychological
Association’s ‘Task Force on Guidelines for Psychological Practice with
Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People (TGNC)’ insists that
psychologists and other professional counsellors offer
“trans-affirmative” care, starting with such niceties as displaying
“TGNC-affirmative resources in waiting areas”. Practitioners are also
asked to examine “how their language (e.g. use of incorrect pronouns and
names) may reinforce the gender binary in overt or subtle and
unintentional ways”.
These guidelines first read like a manual of indoctrination written
by Marxist ideologues, and second like a document designed to undermine
and destroy the practice of therapy itself.
But at an alarming rate these ‘guidelines’ have transformed
themselves into punitive laws governing what a psychologist or
counsellor may say and think in relation to their clients.
Let me make myself perfectly clear: speaking as a professional, whether in America, Britain,
or anywhere, it is not the place of a therapist to “affirm” or,
conversely, to deny, the “identity” of anyone whom they take into their
care. People come to see a therapist, often after long and painful
deliberation, because they are suffering, confused, or both. The job of
that therapist is to listen, to question, and proceed with due caution,
neither providing cheap advice (and thereby stealing their client’s
successes or heaping failure upon them) nor assuming special knowledge
of the proper outcome for a given individual.
There is simply no way that I would ever tell an 18-year old woman
that she is absolutely correct if sometimes she feels more masculine
than feminine (however that feeling might emerge), and that if she feels
that surgery is the answer then recommend hormones that day. I would
instead spend many weeks, perhaps even months or years, listening to her
unwrap her story, using caution as my watchword, and help her come to
some thorough and well-developed understanding of both her
autobiographical history and her destiny.
That is not “affirmation” and neither is it “denial.” How could I
possibly dare to do either when someone has come to me because they are
mixed up and desperate – a state of twinned experience indicating a
profound confusion about identity itself?
Radical new guidelines
I am focusing on the American Psychological Association (APA) because
it is the body charged with establishing the norms and ideals for
clinical practice in the most populous democracy on Earth
– principles that will, and are, spreading around the West more
broadly, including in Britain. Some of their ‘guidelines’ are appalling
enough to deserve dissection:
“Guideline 1. Psychologists understand that gender is
a nonbinary construct that allows for a range of gender identities and
that a person’s gender identity may not align with sex assigned at
birth.”
I don’t understand this radical postmodern definition of gender, one
that rests on a person’s “deeply felt” or “inherent sense” of being one
sex over another, regardless of biology.
Psychologically it is indisputably the case that a non-trivial
proportion of males have a feminine temperament (which essentially means
that they experience higher levels of negative emotions such as anxiety
and the analogs of pain – grief, frustration, disappointment,
depression) and are more agreeable (compassionate/polite) than typical
males, and equally true that a non-trivial proportion of females have a
masculine temperament. But this does not change how, objectively,
professionals should measure a person’s gender.
Psychologists once cared if measurement followed standard practices
of validity and reliability. Try reading, for example, a document
published by the APA itself in 2014, where you will learn that a
psychologist worth their salt is obliged to utilise “constructs” (i.e.
terms such as “gender”) in a technically appropriate manner. This means,
at the very least, that fundamental attributes must be measurable and
measured properly.
But all that goes out the window when we are discussing the magic of
“gender” now, which is entirely subjectively defined, even though that
insistence indubitably contravenes the earlier standards. But feelings über alles,
folks. And it's no joke. Particularly if you’re 15, and have undergone
surgery that makes you incapable of reproducing, often to foster someone
else’s sense of moral superiority or sense of self-attributed
“compassion”– a word that increasingly makes me shudder when I encounter
it.
New doctrines
Psychologists are also now adopting the simple-minded and
anything-but-revolutionary doctrine of “intersectionality” without
question. And what is that doctrine? Nothing more than the claim that
human beings are characterised by identities that span multiple
dimensions. Any given person has a race, ethnicity, sex, temperament
(five dimensions there alone), intelligence level, etc. We’ve known that
forever. It's only become a hot cultural item since fools noted the
obvious fact that minority status might be additive or multiplicative. I
hate to even point that out given that anyone with any sense whatsoever
also knew, without any statistical training, that it was possible to be
of Latino extraction, say (or even ‘LatinX’, to use that absurd,
demeaning and patronising term) and female simultaneously.
One cannot question this, however, without fear of being ostracised
by one’s colleagues. Note the chilling wording of Guideline 7:
“Psychologists understand the need to promote social
change that reduces the negative effects of stigma on the health and
well-being of TGNC people.”
In summary: if you’re not an activist (and one of our activists) then you better be watching over your shoulder.
So what should govern my behaviour as a therapist, and your
expectations as a client? The answer to that is: whatever the activists
deem a priority at their whim. And remember that in court, folks.
Active malevolence
I’m increasingly ashamed to be a clinical psychologist given the
utter cowardice, spinelessness and apathy that characterises many
colleagues and even more so my professional associations. At least in 20
years when we all come to regret this terrible social experiment I will
be able to say “I said no when they all came to insist that we
participate in the sacrifice of our children.” Other countries, and Britain in particular, must not make the same mistakes as in the US and elsewhere.
I cannot consent to what we are doing. I cannot abide by what have
become the doctrines of my discipline. I believe that the acts of the
medical ‘professional’ rushing to disfigure, sterilise, and harm young
people with what are clearly ill-advised, dangerous, experimental
procedures cross the line from ‘do no harm’ to outright harm.
Only if we bury our heads in the sand will sterility, impaired or
absent sexual function, complex reactions to poorly understood hormones,
expense – and, intermingled with all that, misery and confusion –
continue for countless young people. We must address the threat posed to
the integrity of the entire education system as indoctrination into the
same philosophy that spawned this surgical enterprise and the APA
‘guidelines’ grows. It threatens general public trust that our peace and
prosperity depends upon.
And, by the way: it will definitely be the case that a
disproportionate number of children “freed” from their gender confusion
would have grown up to be physically intact and fully functional gay
adults. Need I point out that this unpalatable fact makes a mockery of
any claim that the extended alphabet world of the LGBTQ+ coterie
constitutes a homogeneous and unified “community.”
We have crossed the line from ideological possession to active
malevolence – and we are multiplying our sin (there’s an intersection
for you) by attributing our appalling actions to “compassion”. Heaven
help us. Truly.
• Apocalypse Now In...
Video: Amazing Evidence For God - Scientific Evidence For - 
