Herein I conclude a report which goes beyond simply dealing with Dr. Zucker, I review how a medical facility has basically been forced to change its science based methods due to socio-political feelings based activism. These changes are officially admitted to be based on how “society has also shifted in its understanding and acceptance of gender variance.” That medically trained personnel are to “Refrain from treatment of the child that targets reduction of gender-variant behaviors or use of language that pathologises these.” And also, how there are such things are “gender-affirming hormones.”
I will break up this report so as to cover trans-suicide causes, Dr. Zucker’s ousting from academia and the external review of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health—find all segments of this report here.
Now to CAMH’s Summary of the External Review of the CAMH Gender Identity Clinic of the Child, Youth & Family Services, January 2016 AD.
Being that which it is, a review, it is generic yet, note that it notes that “a” as in one “community based group” meaning socio-political activists “presented to CAMH a number of concerns” to the effect that “its present practice model was out of step with emerging practices” with “emerging practices” being therapies meant to simply accept and endorse LGBTQP.
The review also notes that “Community stakeholder focus groups were conducted and information was obtained from former patients and family members.” I did not realize that science was based on whatever “Community stakeholder focus groups” means—capiche?
Also, “the GIC [Gender Identity Clinic] appears to be” well, I cannot say that “appears to be” is exactly conclusive but hey, this is science so who needs technical accuracy—or right! In any case, they it “appears to be out of step with current clinical and operational practices” based on what? “client and community stakeholder feedback was both positive and negative regarding the clinic” so the common persons opinions varied just as the professional ones do, “Some former clients were very satisfied…others felt the assessment approach was uncomfortable, upsetting and unhelpful.” And again, “some” but not all “community stakeholders voiced concerns with regard to the present model of care.”
Here is part of the “summary of feedback provided by the reviewers” who were Dr. Suzanne Zinck1 and Dr. Antonio Pignatiello2: FYI: it does not mention Dr. Zucker nor any others by name.
They note:
Research knowledge and clinical guidelines have evolved, particularly in the last five years, and society’s understanding and acceptance of the diversity of gender expression and identity have changed. There appears to be a mismatch between literature research findings (including those from GIC itself), and clinical practice and approach.
Note the emphasis upon who society has changed. The dichotomy mismatch between “literature research findings” and “clinical practice and approach” may mean that the science comes to one conclusion but that which is clinically practiced based on socio-political activism comes to another conclusion. Or, conversely, the neo “literature research findings” are driven by socio-political activism and thus, would demand that scientifically established clinical practices and approached be changed to meet the activism de jour.
At least part of this is described as follows,
The Clinic describes its approach as a model that employs play therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy or a combination of both as part of its treatment paradigm. Play and combination therapy do not reflect current approaches to the treatment of anxiety, a primary condition of many of the clients seen by the GIC and thus this practice may be outdated.
So even this non-invasive approach (I mean that play and/or cognitive behavioural therapy is not exactly hardcore drugs or radical surgery) “may be outdated” which means that it may not be.
GIC is viewed by some as being overly-conservative in its patient referral times. A concern was raised with regard to the GIC criteria for diagnosing readiness for referral for gender-affirming hormones and the inherent risk of delays to referral.
This seems to mean that the GIC does not say, “What? Hey, you are a mere child and due to socio-political activism on the part of your parents (or parent, singular, or guardian) you want to radically change your body? Sure, have at it!” Also, note that hardcore pharmaceuticals the specific purpose of which is to radically change that which a person’s body is naturally doing are referred to as being “gender-affirming hormones” which is outrageous.
Some of the recommendations by Dr. Suzanne Zinck and Dr. Antonio Pignatiello are as follows.
“Refrain from treatment of the child that targets reduction of gender-variant behaviors or use of language that pathologises these.” So, just go with whatever a child demands or, rather, whatever the socio-political activist parents/parent/guardian demands. This is with regards to both aiming at a reduction of behavior and not even employing medically accurate language: this is straight up Orwellian 1984 style “newspeak” censorship. If a child with a perfectly well functioning schmekel wants it sliced to pieces then you cannot imply that there may be something pathologically problematic with that.
Also, “Refrain from allowing parent alone to choose the treatment path” this seems like a balanced failsafe. It would keep either the child or parent from being in full charge of the outcome.
And “Educate parents and children about gender expression, gender identity, gender variance across the lifespan” which is fascinating as that is part of the issue as feelings based gender expression, gender identity and gender variance can and often do in such personages change across the lifespan but what will happen if they have undergone radical reconstructive surgery and turned their bodies into chemistry labs?
Also,
Refer teens taking hormone-blockers for gender-affirming hormone treatments when ready and eligible in collaboration with endocrinologists involved.
This is just to point out that the teens are taking “hormone-blockers” meaning that their bodies’ natural processes are being arrested and radically reengineered to do something and become something which utterly goes against its own nature—and this is supposed to lead to greater physical and mental health.
The recommendations also move to what I will term turning a medical facility into an activism organization:
GIC and CAMH as a whole are encouraged to develop a campaign towards collaborative creation of “safe spaces” for transgender children, youth, families, and community caregivers.
Apparently, there will be no “safe spaces” for those who dare to disagree.
The “CAMH’s Action Plan” notes that “Knowledge of gender identity and expression has advanced significantly and” note this emphasis, “society has also shifted in its understanding and acceptance of gender variance.” Lastly, “At present, the political climate is palpable and this is an emotionally charged issue that would benefit from incorporating all evidence and voices.”
Well, the “science” is being changed due to emotion based activism which is utterly unethical but I love honesty and at least their official review is honest enough to admit as much.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.