Biden names transsexual Dr. Rachel Levine to HHS position ... And?

First, yes, my blog post headline about President Joe Biden's nomination of Dr. Rachel Levine is correct. Don't like it? I'll be blunt. On this site, on issues like this, first of all, I get the last word, not you.

As for WHY it's right?

Repeat after me:

Sex is not gender and gender is not sex.

Sex is not gender and gender is not sex.

Sex is not gender and gender is not sex.

Also repeat after me a phrase I intend to use more and more as I get older:

Period and end of story.

Period and end of story.

Period and end of story.

Gender may be in part based on biological sex, that is of course true. But, given that women's (and men's) cultural roles, whether stereotypical or not, are culturally based, that's proof No. 1 that gender is not sex.

And, this is very important for other reasons. If, like Dr. Levine, you want to go into a woman's restroom, you're fine. You're a woman, to the best that modern transitioning surgery and medications can make that so. No problem. Likewise on attending a variety of woman's functions. Ditto, if you were a much poorer version of Dr. Levine and needed to use a woman's shelter.

BUT?

If you're a man wearing a dress and makeup, but with no intention of ever sexually transitioning, or even transitioning to the degree your wallet can afford the costs, you're NOT a woman — especially if you make clear that you have no plans to transition and that cost isn't an issue, or that you would still have no plans to sexually transition if cost weren't a factor but it is right now.

That's the difference between "transsexual" and "transgender," and per philosophy of language, and sociology of language as well, it's why I'm careful on what word I use where.

Now, do I think that any agenda Biden has behind the appointment is "nefarious"? 

Unless Levine identifies as a nebulous "trans activist," and is activist, and Biden knew this, no.

I've said before in these pages that I'm not, NOT, not, a "gender-critical radical feminist." Instead, if you want to label me, I'm a "gender-skeptical non-radical feminist."

Per the above, I'm "gender-skeptical" in noting gender ain't sex. At the same time, I do note the two are intertwined. On the third hand, I reject excesses of critical theory on "gender critical," "race critical" and other things that come primarily from certain segments of academia.

On the third hand, Levine DOES appear to support UNWARRANTED medical interventions on gender-dysphoric youth. She's therefore a danger to kids, and also a violator of her Hippocratic oath.

Did I say "unwarranted"? Yes I did, and I've written before on WHY. Twice. 

To start?

Without "prods" from reading too much social media or other things, 60-90 percent of gender dysphoric adolescents stay with their birth sex — and come out as gay or lesbian.

The author, Debra Soh says:

Previous research has shown that homosexuality is associated with gender-variant behaviour in childhood. All 11 studies following gender dysphoric children over time show the same finding – if they don't transition, 60 to 90 per cent desist upon reaching puberty and grow up to be gay.

There we go.

Dr. Kenneth Zucker has similar figures, per this piece in part about him winning a wrongful termination lawsuit. (Sidebar, and an "interesting" one: Soh, as well as Zucker, is in Canada, though Zucker was born in the U.S.)

But, we can just use puberty-blockers, can't we, without physical or mental risk, even if they may not be as necessary as some "trans activists" claim?

Wrong.

I stand with the Mayo Clinic, which notes that puberty blocking medications should only be used for children who:

• Show a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria.
• Have gender dysphoria that began or worsened at the start of puberty.

Note that the first stipulation has an AND, not an OR. The dysphoria must be BOTH long-lasting and intense. Note also the second stipulation. Gender dysphoria that starts after puberty should NOT be treated with these medications. And these bullet points, plus two others, including one that says a child who is a candidate for such medications should at the same time be addressing any "psychological, medical or social problems" that could interfere with such treatment.

I also stand with the Mayo Clinic, vs those who I will consider and call "child transgender manipulation activists," in that these medications, from what we already now, likely DO have some long-term effects. I've seen, and it's a public Facebook group, so no privacy violations, direct claims that such medications have no such effects. When I pointed that out, the leading advocate just "moved on" to another talking point. PBS's Frontline has more about possible long-term effects. Any major multiyear hormonal changes on a pre-adult, a child, are almost guaranteed to have some brain effects. Frontline also notes (as of the time of the piece) that use of puberty blockers for gender-dysphoric children is an off-label use.

More here.

“The bottom line is we don’t really know how sex hormones impact any adolescent’s brain development,” Dr. Lisa Simons, a pediatrician at Lurie Children’s, told FRONTLINE. “We know that there’s a lot of brain development between childhood and adulthood, but it’s not clear what’s behind that.” What’s lacking, she said, are specific studies that look at the neurocognitive effects of puberty blockers. The story also notes that there’s health risks behind transitioning hormones, and that these risks may vary based on the age at which they’re started.

Here's another piece about long-term effects for women who received Lupron for other reasons. (Leupron is the main trade name for leuproleptin, the only puberty blocker on the market.) Besides thinning bones, similar problems such as thinning tooth enamal and joint issues are listed.

Meanwhile, the BBC reported last fall that the newest British research study both found some possible mental health side effects and had ethical problems in the study itself. But, many Radically Active Transgenderism Supporters continue to claim that there's basically no problems.

Beyond that, which I had forgotten until doing a blog search, I first wrote about the willful misuse of the word "transgender" 15 years ago. For whatever reason, I didn't use "transsexual" as a blog tag before this point, though. But, that's been fixed.

At the same time, I'm not blind to politics that are involved on different sides of this issue. Some wingnuts want to deny that there is any such thing as being born to the wrong sex, and therefore reject transsexualism as well as transgenderism. On the "other" side (there's more than two sides, as this piece indicates, or should), there's a large SJW-type contingent. It's their effort to "thank" for the word "transsexual" being considered pejorative by many.