I write this as the Green Party's 2020 presidential convention has launched, virtually, and it is unknown how much of a crackup, as asked in the question-marked header, may actually happen. That said, the label Just.Another.Political.Party™ is brand-new and introduced here for the first time.

Specifically, what has brought things to a boiling point is what constitutes "medical care" for minor children with gender dysphoria. But the kick-starter was the Georgia Green Party's approval of "Declaration on the Sex Based Rights of Women." The actual declaration calls for reaffirming women sex workers' rights as based on sex not gender. I agree!

Transgender or transsexual (yes, that word) advocates seem to be in a huge furor over that. They seem to be in a secondary furor because "detransitioning" is mentioned in one linked document (and maybe others), and its explicitly tied to treatment for gender-dysphoric minor children.

And now, questioning rushes to treatment is being reframed as "denying medical care."

Tosh.

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.

Anyway, it’s a lie to claim there are no risks. These risks that we're seeing, like the tooth thinning and such, are only coming out decades later. If we have a new explosion in use, we'll have a new explosion in problems, in all likelihood. It’s a lie to claim that the benefits are guaranteed to outweigh the risks. It’s a lie to claim that, in the case of minor children, that issues behind the first or second lies don’t apply in spades. Therefore, I generally support "watchful waiting" being the first option for minor children with gender dysphoria.

And, a bigger therefore?

I stand AGAINST certain Greens like Brian Setzler, Noah Martin, and the hate-speeching Mike Gamms (calling people who disagree with him "genocidal" does approach that, IMO), along with Amergin Ó Kai and Aric Hopkins among newer ones, and it's from a public FB group, so no anonymity busting) who claim that trans activists aren't forcing or pushing anything.

In addition, per the Georgia Green Party's response to Dario Hunter's issuing a call for dialogue between the party and the caucus, among other things, it notes these comments and more. It also notes that Hunter was at the Georgia GP state convention and sat silent while the amendment up top was adopted.

I also wonder if Hunter saw this as a campaign wedge issue. And, if he did, if Howie Hawkins felt compelled to respond. The Greens as Just.Another.Political.Party™? I am shocked there are politics going on in this third party.

There is another reason for that. 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.

I have previously snarked on Twitter against the so-called “TERFs,” or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. While not saying they’re totally right, they’re not totally wrong, either. So, I’d like to withdraw the snarking.

There’s also the issue of whether or not, within the adult world, there are multiple varieties of transgenderism, or transsexualism.

Cue Alice Dreger.

Galileo's Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science by Alice Domurat Dreger My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Starts well, but one-sided on Ev Psych

I had thought about rating this as four stars, but ... couldn't quite do it.

I do think, per other commenters, some of Dreger's claims are overarching, but not the ones they think are.

First, the science on the two main issues. I have long thought, as some of Dreger's interviewees do, that there are (at least) two types of transgenders. And, I think she's spot-on on intersex issues as well.

Second, on the issue of "social justice warriors." I've been caught in their crosshairs more than once myself, so I agree with Dreger here — overall. Read below for caveats.

Third, I agree with her that science, when properly done, can indeed be part of social activism. Beyond examples she mentions, an obvious one is DNA showing that human "races" don't exist.

Truncating review at this point for purposes of this blog post.

View all my reviews

Now, many transgender activists hate, HATE the word “transsexual” because it cues up pictures of men with boob jobs on porn sites or something like that.

Well, you know, that might just confirm the idea that there are multiple versions of transgenders. It might also confirm that “transsexual," even if not a "good" word because of pejorative angles that became connotatively associated with it, was getting at the issue. And, some of those pejorative angles may have been fueled by activists.

Societal conditions of gender, such as whether a biological male wants to wear a dress or not, or whether he wants to wear makeup or not, are different from biological conditions of sex. That's why, versus an older word, I question whether transgenderism is the best word to use.

Per the one person who seems to be the most vocal advocate of child drug treatment, and lying about no side effects? And others?

I asked rhetorically how many of them who find no harm with these drugs call circumcision "mutilation." And I asked rhetorically how many of them who think "Big Pharma's" every action, including on vaccines, of course, is a big conspiracy, but that this is somehow pristine and different.

Given what I said above about gender vs. sex, the detransitioning issue, to the degree transgender has been fused with transsexual, is not the same as gay or lesbian detransgendering and therefore is NOT "anti-trans." Certainly, watchful waiting for minor children is not "anti-trans."

These crude attempts at framing are lies.

And, since I did tweet something, I got a response from Lavender Greens:

Transgender is the set and Transsexual is a sub-set.    Transgender is an umbrella term to cover a wide range of people within the trans community whereas transsexual people are a specific group.

thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

Related Articles

Microsoft Cloud Gaming: Where Imagina…
Tryazon Taste Republic – Pasta for …
Best Steam Irons in India
Malaysia vs Indonesia: Battling to Be…

— Lavender Greens 🌻 (@LavenderGreens) March 1, 2020

Thanks for not being too snarky with that last line. "Thanks" also for ignoring the distinction I pointed out in my tweet to which you were responding:

I'm about ready to stop using the word "transgender" & go back to "transsexual."
Don't like it? Your problem.

— Super Dooper for #SuperTuesday 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) March 1, 2020

I'm more and more inclined to be less and less charitable on this issue. While this was a politer reframing than I met in the GP Facebook group, I still see it as an attempt to reframe.

Speaking of? There used to exist a private, semi-official GP issues and discussion Facebook group. As of March 20, it was "archived," apparently to cut off discussion on this issue.

Sooo ...

If you're not Dahlia Blackthorn, AND you have more enlightened stances on puberty blockers, then you need to educate her, as I indicated back without naming names.

I know who you are, or one of you, in the Green Party, from Facebook. That person, at least, conflates transgender and transsexual and appears to do so willingly, among other issues.

— I'll Be Biden Time in South Carolina primary 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) March 1, 2020

If you are her, or someone like her? Then you need to either educate yourself, or to undo any "re-education" you've received on this issue.

And, I basically stand with feminists if men presenting as gender females but still clearly biological men, not women, invade their spaces. And, we're not talking reassignment surgery. If you're not even taking reassignment hormones, and it's a simple refusal, not a financial issue? But you're still wearing women's clothes, etc?


Some people may consider that word even more pejorative than "transsexual."

That's your problem.

As for Dahlia herhimself? And a subset of others? Maybe the old "transvestite" IS a more appropriate word, especially if associated with some sort of autogynephilia. That concept, and its apparent growth, was floating around the scientific world well before the trans movement. See this piece. (Yes, it's Quillette; still good stuff.)

Related? Starlene Rankin, a moderator for the GP Facebook group, has publicly said she wants Howie to pick Dahlia as his Veep.

I also wonder, per the information above, whether some of these people don't have an undercurrent of homophobia. Maybe that was learned from their parents, and it became safer to them to think they were really the other gender rather than to think they actually had gay or lesbian, rather than straight, sexual orientation. As homophobia is most pronounced by men, and against gays, rather than by women, or against lesbians, this would explain why the problems above present themselves much more in biological men than women.

I hadn't really jumped into details of controversy the last couple of years on this issue, especially the "TERFs vs transgender advocates" stuff. The Green Party and the Georgia state party have brought it to the forefront of my mind and I'm sorry I hadn't better informed myself sooner. Apologies for snarking aside, that's not to say that some of the transgender-excluding radical feminists don't have problems or issues of their own, and not limited to sexual identity issues. Many are still SJWs; witness Stephanie Zvan throwing Julian Assange under the bus, including refusing to even consider that Sweden's history of actions against him might have an international geopolitical background.

I also support the Georgia Green Party and outsiders for responding to Lavender Greens' call for expulsion with a call, and petition, for dialogue instead.

And, I also don't like Dario Hunter appearing to try to politicize the issue.

As for nominee Howie? He has said, in an online response to questions from the Lavender Caucus, that he opposes de-accrediting Georgia Greens. That, at least, is good, but what will he say if the party votes to do that at the convention. That said, how does he know enough to suspect the majority of the party opposes the declaration? It passed by a strong margin at the state convention. 

That said, for Greens on this issue? The not-so-noble advocates seem to be at least as lacking in science as anti-GMOers or antivaxxers, with the additional handicap of being even more shrill.

Calling opponents of "pushed" transitioning words like "genocidal" are repellent.

And, for both Greens and non-Greens? The amount of threats of violence, and attempts at intimidation. on this issue that it seems many trans activists engage in, and others support, at least tacitly, has just really come to light for me. I consider it disgusting. And it needs to be repudiated. Period.

As for the transvestites? If you want to be like RuPaul, that's your choice and you already have the freedom to do so. If you want to be RuPaul but walk into women's bathrooms, attend women's-only events, and otherwise invade women's only spaces? You shouldn't have that right, and I don't support your desire to do so.

AT THE SAME TIME ...

Adults who are making sex-based transitions have the right to be called by their new pronouns. Contra another Green, Chelsea Manning is not "he."

Contra some opponents of Lavender Greens and their like, having a functional uterus is not a sine qua non for being a woman. If you're doing what you can to biologically transition sexes, then you "qualify." In short, I may be a "gender critical" person of some sort, in looking critically at attempts to substitute "gender" for sex, but I am not a gender critical "radical" anything.

To put it another way? On this issue, just like with GMOs, as well as with climate change, I do my best to understand the science and follow the science, rather than doing so only on the last of the three issues.

Once again, there are more than two sides to this issue. But to the degree one VISIBLE side tries to lump everybody who doesn't have a Maoist-level of agreement with them into a second, and allegedly but falsely the ONLY other side, I resist.

So, to bluntly conclude?