Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Gender Theory


Recommended Posts



Some research apparently states that dysphoria is symptomatic of an underlying mental problem, not a mental illness per se

Link to comment
Share on other sites


There needs to be a balance of love and truth, not one or the other. You can share the truth with someone in a respectful way.

Is everyone but Our Lord and Lady a sinner? Yes. However, that doesn't mean that we should ignore or condone sin. I don't pretend to be sinless. I go to confession and at least try to be better. It's not a contest of who is holier. Imagine parents never correcting their kids when they sin throughout their lives. "My toddler just lied. I won't talk to them about why that's wrong, because I've sinner in my past too and even this day. We should just let people do whatever they want."

St. Therese prayed for the conversion of a murderer before he was put to death, but didn't hate him. She prayed for Him because she wanted to bring him home to Jesus.

Jesus lovingly welcomed everyone, but He didn't want anyone to continue to sin. He called them to conversion. For example, He told the woman caught in adultery "Neither do I condemn you; go and do not sin again" (John 8:11).





Link to comment
Share on other sites


This is an extensive article by a whistle-blower at the Transgender Clinic in St. Louis, MO, a division of the medical school at Washington University in St. Louis (that's the full name of the place, to distinguish it from other universities with 'Washington' in the name). There are somewhere around 100 "gender clinics" in the country. 

This clinic treats about 250 children per year. The whistle-blower maintains that the clinic is unethical - doesn't ask enough questions, little to no oversight in protocols, doctors prescribe according to the wishes of minor children, the assumption is that "the sooner they transition, the less they will suffer," etc. I will follow up with two more articles - one from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, contesting the whistle-blower, and a follow-up article by the Free Press and the whistle-blower. 

The upshot: There's money to be made in this field, and there are plenty of people willing to make it. 


This is appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in response to the whistle-blower article by Jamie Reed in the article (above) that appeared in the Free Press. The Post-Dispatch is pure Liberal Party Line in all of its positions; that's fine for editorials, but it also colors what they call "reporting." Naturally, this article includes parents saying "Nothing's wrong at the Transgender Clinic, they gave my child just what s/he needed" and so forth. And, of course, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis Children's Hospital (affiliated with their medical school), and the Transgender Clinic (a division or department of St. Louis Children's Hospital) all say that nothing untoward occurs at the clinic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, male or female (Gen. 1:26-27)

Nearly 60 years ago, Johns Hopkins Hospital opened a first-of-its-kind clinic to provide gender-affirming surgery. The Gender Identity Clinic blazed a new trail, with more than a dozen new clinics opening across the country in the decade that followed.

But in 1979, the clinic shut its doors. And while the institution claimed for years that the decision was made based on the evidence — which, they argued, showed such surgeries didn’t benefit patients 




Johns Hopkins Hospital established the first gender-affirming surgery (GAS) clinic in the United States in 1966. Operating for more than 13 years, the clinic was abruptly closed in 1979. According to the hospital, the decision was made in response to objective evidence claiming that GAS was ineffective. However, this evidence directly contradicted many contemporaneous studies and faced immediate criticism from the scientific community. Despite this resistance, it took the hospital nearly 40 years to resume performing GAS. Scientific evidence—imbued in scandal, bias, and moralism—was instrumentalized to serve broader institutional interests. The burgeoning field of plastic surgery tethered and then untethered GAS from its auspices in response to poor technical outcomes and transphobia. No longer serving surgeons' interests, the clinic was marginalized to “barely minimal facilities” in 1974, five years before GAS was formally banned. Over the next 5 years, the clinic co-inhabited space with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Simultaneously, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology navigated scandals related to reproductive technology (namely, the Dalkon Shield [A.H. Robins] controversy) until the clinic space was demolished in 1979. The study that informed the GAS ban was preferentially funded in keeping with the political economy of biomedical research. This article presents a spatial argument for how the closure of the nation's first GAS clinic was not based in empirical data alone but was manipulated to fuel political and institutional agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This is an in-depth interview, published in the Free Press, with the mother or a Transgender Clinic patient. She details the lack of protocols, the pressure she felt from the clinic's professionals, the staff's tendency to accede to the wishes of a minor child even when long-term consequences were involved.

I find it interesting that, when a youthful criminal is about to be sentenced, the argument is often made that "He's not fully mature yet - researchers say that the human (or at least, the male) brain isn't mature until age 25." And yet, if a sixteen-year-old says he wants to become a female, the medical staff start prescribing medications that have serious long-term consequences. Some of the hallmarks of immaturity are: the inability to think ahead; not anticipating the consequences of one's actions; acting impulsively (a consequence of the previous two). But if a teenager says s/he wants to switch genders, the adults accede immediately. Apparently, the professionals (adults) are no more mature than the confused kid. Unless, of course, the professionals know exactly what they're doing, and just don't care about anything but the money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Didacus said:

How many de-trans lawsuits from then-minors have been initiated at this time?


I have no idea, and I think it would be tough to find figures because the mainstream media is going to be unwilling to publish anything they think is politically incorrect; admitting that transitioning minors was wrong would be tantamount to admitting that this politically correct movement is incorrect. 

But run the numbers with me: If the clinic in St. Louis did intake on 250 kids per year, and if the other 99 or so clinics in the country are approximately the same size (or average out the to same number of patients annually), that's 25,000 children per year who are transitioning. That's an awful lot of children! - about 100,000 nationally in the four years this whistle-blower was working in St. Louis. And I have every confidence that many of those children will live to regret their "decision" and the cooperation of their families and the medical community. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't go looking for this video; I stumbled upon it. I sort of know who Jordan Peterson is - I've seen maybe half a dozen of his YouTube videos of 5 or 10 minutes each.

Here, Peterson is talking to Dr. Miriam Grossman, MD (psychiatry; sub-specialty child & adolescent psychiatry) about the medical case that - she claims - began the transgender movement within the medical field (in other words, she doesn't discuss transgenderism from a social perspective at all).

SUMMARY: A pair of twin boys, Bruce and Brian Reimer, were born in Canada in 1965. Medical conditions indicated they needed to be circumcised at 8 months of age. Things went horribly wrong for Bruce, who lost his penis in the process; Brian's circumcision was cancelled. The family found Dr. John Money (no honestly - that was his name!) at Johns Hopkins (see little2add's post above), who believed that gender identity was pure social construct; he had no proof, but here was the perfect opportunity for a living experiment - twin boys, but one would be raised as a girl. Bruce was castrated, plastic surgery was done to create some female anatomy, his name was changed to Brenda, and the family raised him as a girl. They (twins and parents) had annual meetings with Dr. Money. Money published "scientific articles" in "scientific journals" claiming that this was working like a charm. But it was all falsified. Brenda never adapted to being a girl; he reverted (I guess that's the right word) to being male (now called David) and went public with what had been done to him. He married, adopted three children, and committed suicide at age 38 in 2004. 

I've found information about Dr. Grossman online, and Dr. John Money, and there are interviews with David Reimer online (but I haven't found them yet) - I have found the Wikipedia article about him. I need some time to look up and read this information, verify it, and so forth. 

The upshot is that - at least within the medical profession - sex re-assignment surgery based on the assumption that gender identity is socially constructed originated with one experiment (not duplicated), which was a total failure, performed by one scientist (I use the term loosely), who seems to have been unethical, to say the least. I will say that this "experiment" happened before the days of Institutional Research Boards that are supposed to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects. But that's the only defense I can think of for Dr. Money. 

Edited by Luigi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am familiar with both Petterson and the case you mentionned, which is nothing short of horrific.

homosexuality, trans, and these similar tendencies are both a function of genetics and social influence (this is the most plausible explanation I've found), akin to alcoholism.

We all have the potential to be alcoholics, but some of us have greater tendencies towards it than others.  Someone with a very heavy tendency towards alcoholism will never be an alcoholic if he or she is never exposed to alcohol.  On the other hand, even those with small inclinations may very likely become alcoholic if they are exposed to it constantly, have it endorsed as normal or even celebrated...

Social construct - in that context, sure there may be 'some' substance there.  But man and woman being the socially accepted norm is not a bad thing on the macro scale of things.  Should we pretend to change reality for the benefit of a few and putting at risk the whole?  And the 'benefit' is an illusion at best - should we all endorse and celebrate alcoholism to make the alcoholics feel better, or help them live with or resolve their condition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are individuals who truly believe that they are no longer male or female, or never were, in opposition to the testimony of their own bodies. With them, you must tread lightly and love, as you would also do with anyone afflicted by a mental disorder, for that is what it is. How you act depends on the situation, I think. If a man were to come up to me insisting he was the real Napoleon Bonaparte, I might call him that, but that would not necessarily be the most loving thing to do either. If he threatened suicide unless I did it, well, I might, but that's more along the lines of talking someone down from a cliff. That's pretty extreme behavior.

For other people to insist that I need to call him Napoleon Bonaparte, and if I didn't, that it amounted to hate, and contributed to his feeling bad, and perhaps to blame me calling him by his birth name Dave - I would call that emotional blackmail.

Some Catholics who argue for "affirming", say, a man who does not want to be addressed as his proper sex (as a rule) have argued in the following way, if I understand correctly:

1) yes, it's false; he is still a man;

2) he would feel unloved if you call him by his proper pronouns;

3) to love him, you ought to call him by female pronouns.

Premise 3) is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, there can be no obligation to affirm a falsehood. Secondly, it is not clear that calling him by female pronouns actually amounts to loving him. In just the same way, not actively celebrating your son's wedding with another man may make him feel unloved, even if you tell him you love him over and over again. But celebrating that would not be loving him.

The modern wave of the transgender political and cultural movement does talk about compassion. Unfortunately the movement itself is attracting poor souls, who are often troubled at home, and the movement itself, by denying that the idea one can "be" trans is a problem, is helping cause their pain to metastasize. The word "healthcare" in a trans-affirming context is a lie; it actually stands for "mutilation".

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Research has shown that sex changes didn't make the problems of those with gender dysphoria go away. The roots of their issues need to be addressed. Serious health and psychological problems can result after these procedures. https://sexchangeregret.com/

The Church has spoken out against sex-changes. Over time, more resources and pastoral approaches will further develop. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/upload/Gender-Ideology-Select-Teaching-Resources.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it is impossible for anyone who really does see the truth of God's creation and natural law to support or pretend that a person can really be in the wrong body. This is of course, of Satan and is definitely mental illness. I have never been prone to be one to sugar coat things and I won't here either.

Here is a thought that most people can grasp.  If you have a friend who is anorexic, which is a mental illness where a skinny person thinks they are fat and they starve themselves, and would starve themselves to death if no one intervened, would you support this person in their delusion? Would you accommodate them to make sure they were allowed to kill themselves through starvation? Would you hold that up as something of God? Would you be compassionate enough to try to get them some help? Would you be truthful?

No one, no matter how many drugs they take, how many body parts they mutilate, will ever be able to become the opposite sex. The sickness is in their mind and when you help them transfer that to their body, you are only assisting them in destroying the body that the Lord God graced them with. God does not make mistakes and He does not create people in this manner. To do this to a minor child is the ultimate crime. There is no gay gene. There is no, "I am in the wrong body" gene. These are all constructs of human beings and are a result of many factors, most of them due to psychological damage and physical abuse.  

The big trend to push this on society is coming from the LGBT activists, who are doing the work of Satan.  Don't be a party to it, but speak the truth. Truth may hurt, but cutting off your penis and digging a hole in your body for a fake vagina, which will never work, or cutting off your breasts and sterilizing yourself and which you will never find a partner who wants to be with someone they  know is very seriously damaged, mind, body and soul, will hurt much worse. The number of suicides after transitioning is higher than those among people who get professional help with this.  You can see how the government wants to ban psychological therapy, because they know it works.  When you work for Satan, you do not want any avenue there to save souls.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...