The Use of Surveys as a Tool of Transgenderist Indoctrination in Schools--Part 4 of “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”

You don’t want to be a bigot, do you? You want to accord everyone dignity and respect, right? Only bigots would object to asking 11-year-old children questions like:

“What is your gender?” where the possible responses were “female, male, or transgender.”

In this, the fourth installment 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,” we discuss Chapter 3 Population Estimates of the standards.

This chapter attempts to justify, via a lot of academese, allotting large amounts of money to catering to those who believe they are in the “wrong” bodies and to devising ways to “identify” “transgender” children. The standards as a whole can be read here.

The activists presenting themselves as scholars who devise, administer, review, publish and then cite survey data about the supposedly substantial numbers of “transgender” people want to persuade us that there are more than two sexes and that a woman can “be” a man because she feels herself to be one and the reverse. The transgenderist movement loves the term “assigned at birth,” as if basic biological fact can be dispensed with the moment a person decides he or she does not like being a member of the sex he or she has been “assigned” to. This is the sort of question and the results derived from such questions that are used to justify things like lopping the healthy breasts off of healthy women and forcing health care workers to go along with that:

“Could you indicate to which degree you psychologically experience yourself as a man?” and “Could you indicate to which degree you psychologically experience yourself as a woman?” The respondents were considered “gender ambivalent” if they gave the same score to both statements and “gender incongruent” when they reported a lower score for their sex assigned at birth than for their gender identity.

Another example of the eagerness of these radical gender ideology-driven “researchers” to obliterate male and female as the fundamental division of humankind can be seen in this line of questioning:

Gender identity of participants was assessed based on the following three questions 1) “Which of the following options best describes how you currently feel?” (Options: I feel I am a man, I feel I am a woman, and I feel I am neither a man nor a woman); 2) “What is the sex on your birth certificate?” (Options: male, female, and undetermined); and 3) “Which of these situations do you most closely relate to?” (Options: I was born male, but I have felt female since childhood; I was born female, but I have felt male since childhood; I was born male, and I feel comfortable with my body; I was born female, and I feel comfortable with my body).

There does not seem to be an option for the simple answer, “I am a man” or “I am a woman.” It is all about feeling that one is a man or a woman and that though one may have been born female and is a female, say, that is true only as long as the woman “feels comfortable” with her body. If at some point she does not, then the sex on her birth certificate is instantly deemed a tool of oppression and must be altered to reflect her preferred “gender identity.” This is the “fluid” world that transgenderism wants to impose on medical providers and society at large. The troubled and the dysfunctional are to control public documents and history itself.

Obviously, it is not good for people (who among us is a perfect physical specimen?) to be told that feeling uncomfortable with one’s body means that one is in the wrong one entirely—and that one, therefore, can demand that health care providers treat one as being of the opposite sex—or “non-binary” or whatever.

Basically, transgenderist propaganda is being peddled under the guise of “research studies” and “surveys.” For example, we read in the standards:

The literature on the population proportions of TGD youth (persons under 19 years of age) includes several survey studies conducted in schools.

(Just a reminder that “TGD” stands for, “transgender and gender diverse.”)

One has to wonder if parents are informed that their children are being exposed to such surveys—or provided with any rationale as to why strangers are quizzing their children about deeply personal, sexually-charged matters. Are parents asked ahead of time if they wish their children to participate? Are the parents provided with copies of the survey questions first? Who has authorized the survey? Who is funding it?

Even one word can tip off a reader of such surveys to the bias of the researchers—note that the word “need” is used here, rather than “desire”:

The need for either hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgery was reported

Remember: in the bizarre world of transgenderism “gender-affirming surgery” means removing healthy body parts and often replacing them with artificial ones (like a fake penis or fake vagina) to “affirm” that you are no longer what you were born as. No one “needs” such procedures.

This is truly alarming and parents should be aware that this happening throughout the country:

…the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), which is conducted biennially among local, state, and nationally representative samples of US high school students in grades 9–12 (approximate age range 13–19 years). The 2017 YRBS cycle was carried out in 10 states and 9 large urban areas and included the following sequence: “Some people describe themselves as transgender when their sex at birth does not match the way they think or feel about their gender. Are you transgender?”

When did it become acceptable for public schools to assume that asking children about “gender identity” is no big deal? That is not research—that is indoctrination.

We read of a:

recently published school-based study in the US presented results of a 2015 survey conducted in Florida and California with the aim of identifying gender diverse children

What is the purpose of “identifying” such children—the better to alienate them from their parents and not inform the parents that the school is “affirming” the child without the parents’ knowledge?

We read that:

one study examined the proportion of self-identified TGD children in a younger age group. Shields et al. analyzed the data from a 2011 survey of 2,700 students in grades 6–8 (age range 11–13 years) across 22 San Francisco public middle schools (Shields et al., 2013). Thirty-three children self-identified as TGD based on the question “What is your gender?” where the possible responses were “female, male, or transgender.”

The transgenderist movement is sexualizing children in the name of “research”—which is then used to justify ever more radicalization of public school classrooms. Simply equating male and female with “transgender” is an intrusion into the familial realm and it is hardly a surprise that there has been a nationwide backlash from concerned parents against such indoctrination.

Interestingly, the authors of the standards worry that the term “transgender” does not go far enough—they want to undermine traditional mores and human biology even more:

this definition would exclude TGD persons self-identifying as nonbinary and those who do not explicitly identify as transgender

The chances for normal childhoods for little girls and little boys spiral ever downward. The authors of the standards claim triumphantly:

another noteworthy observation is the continuous increase in both the size and the composition of the TGD population with upward trends in the proportion of TGD people observed in health care systems, through population-based surveys, as well as in the data on legal gender recognition

This is important: they are going into schools and asking vulnerable children (like girls, who are often already insecure and aware of various forms of sexism and misogyny) if they are “transgender”—and using such data to argue for greater empowerment and legal recognition of a group that they hope to enlarge via recruitment in the schools. They make this clear enough:

The trend towards a greater proportion of TGD people in younger age groups and the age-related differences in the AMAB to AFAB ratio likely represent the “cohort effect,” which reflects sociopolitical advances, changes in referral patterns, increased access to health care and to medical information, less pronounced cultural stigma, and other changes that have a differential impact across generations

Just a reminder of the pseudo-scientific jargon of the transgenderist movement: assigned male at birth (AMAB); assigned female at birth (AFAB).

Note that the authors of the standards deem it a sociopolitical advance for a little girl to be made to feel that it would be in her interest to “identify” as a boy and that it would be a good thing if her pediatrician referred her and her parents to a specialist so that she might be put on track to having her ovaries and womb removed at some point. Apparently, the rise of the transgenderist movement has led to an increase in the number of little girls worrying that being female is detrimental to personal happiness. The mostly-male but masquerading as female leadership of the transgenderist movement seems unperturbed by this tragedy for girls.

And not just girls. The transgenderist movement wants to remove “cultural stigmas” against boys being rendered eunuchs. There is even a chapter on eunuchs in the standards. We will discuss that chapter in a later installment of this series.

The whole point of collecting data seems designed to increase the visibility of the transgenderist movement and enhance its already disproportionate political power. Worse, it uses social science to advance its agenda—and has been remarkably successful in insinuating into the literature its own terminology (the aforementioned term “assigned at birth” being a notable example).

Even as transgenderists deny that there is a social contagion element to the explosion in numbers, the authors of the standards glory in that increase:

the available highest-quality data clearly indicate TGD people represent a sizable and growing proportion of the general population. Based on the credible evidence available to date, this proportion may range from a fraction of a percent to several percentage points depending on the inclusion criteria, age group, and geographic location. Accurate estimates of the proportion, distribution, and composition of the TGD population as well as a projection of resources required to adequately support the health needs of TGD people should rely on systematically collected high-quality data, which are now increasingly available. Continuous and routine collection of these data is needed to decrease variability and minimize over- and under-estimation of the reported results. For example, far more accurate and precise estimates should become available when population censuses begin systematically collecting and reporting data on sex assigned at birth and gender identity, including asexual and nonbinary categories

The takeaway of Chapter 3 Population Estimates of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8 is that the methodology for the collection of “data” by transgenderists can itself cause harm to children.

There is also the politically motivated use to which data are put and the fact that the generation and possession of data favors the “expert” class that transgenderism is creating. Researchers get grants from left-leaning funders and left-wing governments (like in Sweden and Canada) and with that funding produce studies that are published in journals that only universities or the wealthy can afford access to, leaving those who oppose the horrors of transgenderism with only innocuous sounding abstracts to read online rather than being able to read the actual articles being cited in the data storms that the groups like WPATH generate to justify practices like removing the healthy testicles of healthy young boys. Just try being able to acquire copies of many of the studies cited in the chapter of the standards that we have examined here. That would cost thousands of dollars.

And the more scholars publish, the more likely they are to get academic positions and then tenure and the wherewithal to hire assistants to, you guessed it, help design surveys. And if you object to barbaric surgeries or puberty blockers (even the name is sinister-sounding) for healthy children, you are dismissed as lacking in expertise or credentials.

What we are learning in this close reading of the standards is that evil is being advocated by a powerful advocacy group that presents itself as a medical one and that data can be easily manipulated to the detriment of children and parents. And this was in just one chapter. There are 18 in all. More to come in our series.

Subscribe to Crazy Radicals

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.
jamie@example.com
Subscribe