It is little things at first. For example, you may have started to notice strange wording on forms you need to fill out for various institutional interactions (such as making an appointment for a vaccination). That wording is, “assigned sex at birth.”
Those few words and variations thereof are a sign of the insidious and outsize influence of the transgenderist movement. It is trying to normalize the idea that a person’s sex is purely a matter of choice and that there are an infinite number of genders.
Language is a key weapon in the campaign by the adherents of radical gender ideology to remake the world in their image and that language is the focus of Part 2 of our series, “A Layperson Reads the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8.”
In Part 1, we examined the introduction to the standards.
In Part 2 of our series on the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8 we will work our way through Chapter 1 Terminology.
Admittedly, this chapter in the standards is a bit dry. But there are important implications for society in the way that the transgenderists are attempting to restructure the medical system via these standards, which are being forced on health care providers by the so-called experts at WPATH. And once the medical profession and allied fields are captured, the rest of us will be.
So, let’s examine some of the most significant passages in Chapter 1.
The chapter starts out thusly:
This chapter will lay the framework for language used in the SOC-8. It offers recommendations for use of terminology. It provides (1) terms and definitions, and (2) best practices for utilizing them. This document is accompanied by a glossary of common terms and language to provide a framework for use and interpretation of the SOC-8. See Appendix B for glossary.
Just a note to readers that Appendix B is fascinating reading because it captures perfectly the ambitious effort of the transgenderist movement to create a lexicon of the mutant versions of humanity it is helping to create. We will address Appendix B separately in a later installment in this series.
For now, we will deal with the purposes of Chapter 1: the creation of a framework for how to refer to the poor, troubled, tragic mutilated human beings that the transgenderist movement is exploiting and the attempt to make this weird language the norm in the medical sphere throughout the world and, by extension, society at large. Transgenderists are absolutely obsessed with language and its uses in legitimizing their project of erasing the fundamental division of the sexes into men and women.
Note that this self-appointed, self-aggrandizing, propagandistic, activist organization is calculatedly decreeing the terminology medical providers should use when treating men who think they are women and women who think they are men and children who might be going through the gender-related phases that many children do (e.g., the tomboy phase girls often pass through as they grow up). Once this terminology is created by the professional activists, its use is then deemed by this same group to be “best practice” and becomes entrenched in medical care. Questioning it is then tarred as “transphobic.” These days, you can be fired for being “transphobic.”
Let’s proceed to examining some of this terminology.
As we are discovering in this series, transgenderists are adept at coming up with seemingly innocuous terms that the rest of us may miss the ramifications of. Take this passage, for example:
In this document, we use the phrase transgender and gender diverse (TGD) to be as broad and comprehensive as possible in describing members of the many varied communities globally of people with gender identities or expressions that differ from the gender socially attributed to the sex assigned to them at birth.
Note the use of the phrase “the gender socially attributed to the sex assigned to them at birth.” This is a bizarre undermining of the field of obstetrics—particularly so given that WPATH presents itself as a medical field professional organization.
What it is saying here is that delivery room personnel, from the obstetrician to obstetrical nurses, are engaging in an oppressive, transphobic conspiracy to wrongly attribute a sex to the child they have just delivered. That is to say, they are not behaving like medical professionals with the professional judgment to look at an infant boy or girl and correctly identify the sex of the child. Oh no—what they are actually doing is imposing a heteronormative/cisgender/patriarchal etc. “assigned status” to the child. Basic biological fact does not matter to transgenderists. To them, all their personal grievances and every societal ill stem from oppressive heteronormativity. Everything to them is a venue for “misgendering.” The birth of a baby and the welcoming of a son or daughter is merely a stage before the child is tutored by transgenderists a few years later to question what sex the child is. This is incredibly creepy.
This is an important passage to keep in mind as we proceed in our series on these standards:
TGD is used for convenience as a shorthand for transgender and gender diverse.
There are, of course, only two genders and people who are say they are “gender diverse” are deluded. But it is important to note at this point what “TGD” stands for for future reference.
This passage refers to the internal conflicts within the transgenderist movement itself and is interesting in that it argues against the use of the term, “gender nonconforming,” which is used by other activists. It is all rather convoluted, but just goes to show you how much effort is expended by this group of people to try control what other people, even semi-allies, are allowed to say:
The decision to use transgender and gender diverse resulted from an active process and was not without controversy. Discussions centered on avoiding over-emphasis on the term transgender, integrating nonbinary gender identities and experiences, recognizing global variations in understandings of gender, avoiding the term gender nonconforming, and recognizing the changing nature of language because what is current now may not be so in coming years. Thus, the term transgender and gender diverse was chosen with the intent to be most inclusive and to highlight the many diverse gender identities, expressions, experiences, and health care needs of TGD people.
Note how the standards demand of health care providers that they buy into the delusions of other people:
It is vital for service providers to discuss with service users what language is most comfortable for them and to use that language whenever possible.
So, say you are a nurse and you are treating a man, a man who is unmistakably a man, and you responsible for his care and for clear communication with your co-workers. You will be expected to refer to that single individual as "she" (or, possibly, the even more confusing “they”) and if that results in medical errors that result in harm to that male patient or to actual female patients in his vicinity, oh well. These things happen, right?
At this point, you may just shrug and say, “I’m not a nurse, so why should I care if some nutty man insists on being called “she?” Well, we all need to care because these standards are designed to apply to many sectors, not just health care:
This chapter explains why current terms are being used in preference to others. Rather than use specific terms for medical, legal, and advocacy groups, the aim is to foster a shared language and understanding in the field of TGD health, and the many related fields (e.g., epidemiology, law), in order to optimize the health of transgender and gender diverse people.
law and the work of legal professionals are within the remit of these Standards of Care. As such, language used most widely in international law is included here to help with the development of the functional definitions of these terms and encourage their usage in legal contexts in lieu of more antiquated and/or offensive terms
Our country is governed by people who pledge fealty to the standards of international law. International law is shaped by activists like those of WPATH. That is one reason why we are examining in this series what WPATH wants to accomplish with these standards. And what it wants is to obliterate the idea that there are only two genders and to conjure up a world in which even children can be subjected to barbaric practices such as the removal of healthy breasts and healthy testicles.
Keep in mind that WPATH demands that those who are not transgenderists “affirm” to men who “identify” as women that these men are women. Likewise, the world is supposed to “affirm” that a woman who “identifies” as a man is a man. This is both ludicrous and oppressive because it forces us all to endorse the fantasies of other people. We read in Chapter 1 of the standards:
Gender affirmation refers to the process of recognizing or affirming TGD people in their gender identity—whether socially, medically, legally, behaviorally, or some combination of these
This statement illustrates starkly what the transgenderists are demanding across the globe—that disturbed people be “affirmed” to be what biologically they are not, no matter how many hormones they have ingested and no matter what bizarre surgical procedures they have undergone for non-medical reasons.
This chapter of the standards delineates the burdens that the transgender movement is imposing on the time and resources of health systems already struggling to provide basic care:
In providing health care to TGD people, we recommend HCPs discuss with their patients what language or terminology they prefer be used when referring to them. This discussion includes asking TGD people how they would like to be addressed in terms of name and pronouns, how they self-identify their gender, and about the language that should be used to describe their body parts.
Can you imagine how much time is going to be spent in coming years by stressed doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and so on in tedious discussions with those with artificially created penises and vaginas and voids where their breasts used to be about how these body parts (or the lack thereof) are to be referred to with the transgender patient demanding that such and such a term be used? What a dismal scenario.
And this is rich, given the disproportionate utilization by transgender patients of the medical system:
these discussions and communications can serve to build rapport and reduce the mistrust many TGD people feel toward HCPs and experience within health care systems
This is simply bizarre and unworkable:
In electronic health records, organ/anatomical inventories can be standardly used to inform appropriate clinical care, rather than relying solely on assigned sex at birth and/or gender identity designations.
Think about that. The transgenderist movement wants to create a world that does not contain men and women, only organ/anatomical inventories. And many of those organs will be artificial—like women who are provided with artificial “penises” and men who are provided with artificial “vaginas.” And these poor, disturbed people are almost certainly going to manifest who knows what genitourinary problems in coming decades given the extreme measures they take to try to live out their desire to be something other than a man or a woman. And how dehumanizing it would be for patients to be cataloged as not by their name or sex but by body part. Moreover, this is just asking for electronic medical record systems to become error-ridden, incomprehensible disaster zones.
What a burden transgenderism is economically and technologically. What a disaster for those whom the transgenderists try to force to use the language the radical gender ideologues prefer. What an injustice for those whom the transgenderists force to adopt the tribalistic practices of the transgenderist movement. Note the Orwellian contortion of the word “inviting” here:
HCPs and health care settings can implement standardized procedures to facilitate these conversations such as: using intake forms that include chosen pronouns and name, inviting all staff (regardless of gender, i.e., cisgender, TGD) to use pronouns in introductions, having pronouns accompany names on a document for all patients, and not using gendered honorifics (e.g., Ms., Mr.)
So, we are not to treat people with dignity by referring them to them as Mr. or Ms. Apparently, “Hey, you!” or the automatic use of the first names will do. So much for the dignity and respect that the chapter demands be shown its favored group.
What we have here is a transgenderist advocacy group pressuring people to act against their consciences and in defiance of reality and for health care employers to adopt policies that are basically a form of compelled speech.
And that is just Chapter 1. There are 18 chapters and five appendices. We have a lot more to go. But this is important. This organization has enormous clout and what it says matters given how often its standards are cited by experts and never questioned by gullible or pro-transgenderist journalists and policymakers. We need to look closely at what WPATH saying and break it, down piece by piece. It’s scary.