Havard offers course on healthcare about LGBT "from Infants to adults"

[alhoon]

From Harvard itself: https://medcatalog.harvard.edu/cours...d=250&yid=2021

Fox (Yes, I know... but you can find it elsewhere too) https://www.foxnews.com/us/harvard-m...gbtqia-infants

The Gist: Harvard offers a class directed by a LGBT activist about serving gender and sexual minority people across the lifespan, from infants to older adults, in collaboration with various hospitals and community settings, including Boston Children’s Hospital.

Infants are not gay, straight, transexual etc. Infants are infants. Gender identity slowly develops over the first few years of a person's life and sexual orientation comes even later. I believe that such foolishness could hamper such development and needlessly confuse the child.
That said, I think it is yet again another over-reach by the overly progressive academia that tries to force down young doctors' throats their agenda. I also find it dangerous and disgusting that the progressive academics in Harvard try to push their bizarre ideas about gender and sexuality on people that work with infants and children.
I don't think the academics are doing this as part of a plan to give kids to pedophiles, I think the academics are doing this because they have a twisted view of what is right and proper + they want to get woke-points with their fellow progressives.

What do you think about the move to offer courses on proper care for LGBT infants? What do you think about the children's hospital going along with that?

Secondly, I would like to point a few things out of the description of the course:

"The elective includes partnerships and clinical experiences at Harvard Medical School hospitals and within community settings, including clinical experiences at Boston Children’s Hospital, [...], Boston Health Care for the Homeless, [...]. Students will work with multidisciplinary teams in a variety of clinical settings and specialties, including [...] and Plastic Surgery."

Soooo... Harvard doesn't mind too much that there's no free healthcare for the Homeless. What they care about is that if a homeless person ends up in the care of a Harvard doctor, that doctor would appropriately trained in case the homeless is gay or transexual. Because gender Identity is the main health issue that plagues the homeless, right?

And Plastic surgery... for LGBT kids. Right. Let's support attention-seeking mothers that decide their 5-years-old son is actually a girl and ask for plastic surgery so that "the outside would match the inside". I won't go googling for those mothers but there are there. There are some high profile cases where the attention seeking parents more or less had their kids cross-dress etc until the kids in question (after lots of money and photo-ops and "oh you're so brave!" to the parents) pushed back. Yeap, it's not just the conservative parents pushing their gay or transsexual kids to say they are straight/ happy with their gender, it's also conservative parents doing the same to straight kids.

But again: Harvard doesn't mind whether a destitute, homeless veteran struggling with alcoholism, malnutrition, mental illnesses and cancer would end up being cared for by a doctor trained at Harvard. Nope. What they DO mind is that IF such a person ends up in the care of such a doctor, the doctor would be able to give special consideration of that homeless veteran is also gay. Because that is the main thing.

[mishkin]

Doctors don't go around telling children what gender they belong to and transsexuality is not manipulation of children by their mothers. If you remove the transphobia from your post, it is ust this:

"This elective is a four-week multidisciplinary clinical-and-scholarly experience that trains students to provide high-quality, culturally responsive care for patients with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, and sex development. Many of these patients identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex or asexual (LGBTQIA+). Clinical exposure and education will focus on serving gender and sexual minority people across the lifespan, from infants to older adults"

[Muizer]

As Fox themselves report in the quoted article:

"In this context, care for infants refers specifically to physical variations in sex development that arise in utero and are present at birth. These include chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical variations, all of which are relevant to medical care and treatment to ensure healthy development."*

It seems to me whoever made the link between "infant" and "LGBT" was misrepresenting the course content. I wonder why ....

[Lord Thesaurian]

Infants are not gay, straight, transexual etc. Infants are infants. Gender identity slowly develops over the first few years of a person's life and sexual orientation comes even later. I believe that such foolishness could hamper such development and needlessly confuse the child.
That said, I think it is yet again another over-reach by the overly progressive academia that tries to force down young doctors' throats their agenda. I also find it dangerous and disgusting that the progressive academics in Harvard try to push their bizarre ideas about gender and sexuality on people that work with infants and children.

I don't think the academics are doing this as part of a plan to give kids to pedophiles, I think the academics are doing this because they have a twisted view of what is right and proper + they want to get woke-points with their fellow progressives.

What do you think about the move to offer courses on proper care for LGBT infants? What do you think about the children's hospital going along with that?

As Fox themselves report in the quoted article:

It seems to me whoever made the link between "infant" and "LGBT" was misrepresenting the course content. I wonder why ....

The allusion to intersex people is a common disclaimer when medical professionals are pressed to justify teaching kids about sexual intercourse and sexual fetishes like homosexuality or transgenderism, neither of which have anything to do with intersex people per se.

This misrepresentation comes from the course itself as proven by the subsequent disclaimer, because the existence of intersex people is the only hard evidence apologists can try to extrapolate from when justifying the need for this kind of “instruction” about sexual fetishes infants are supposedly born with. Even though less than 2% of people are born intersex, over 20% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQRSUVWXYZ, and nearly 10% of US adults claim to be transgender. So why, then, did the official response from Harvard regarding this course talk about intersex people as though they are representative of the population addressed by said course? If this Harvard course is a proxy for any of the broader agenda behind it, it’s that obviously environmental change.

It’s been a long road to get to this point though, which is probably worth mentioning as this doesn’t happen in a vacuum. So-called intellectuals have been pushing for children to receive “sex education” including pornography and exposure to bizarre sexual fetishes in the classroom from a young age for years (which I ironically am duty-bound to warn TWC users is obscene and graphic so beware before clicking the link to the children’s book). So I guess it was only a matter of time until the intelligentsia started to theorize about how to uniquely care for children whose minds they’ve destroyed and whose parents they’ve had arrested for resisting.

[Septentrionalis]

Even though less than 2% of people are born intersex, over 20% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQRSUVWXYZ, and nearly 10% of US adults claim to be transgender.

Those figures, if not completely made up, are through the roof. If there is any truth to that, it must mean there is a socially transmitted phenomenon at work. In other words, a cultural fad. I really hope that people aren't getting irreversible surgery or chemical interference at the emotionally unstable age of adolescence because of it.

It is a known fact that some women, for instance, have elevated levels of testosterone or are exposed to high levels of testosterone in utero. If that makes the girl or woman more manly in behavior and possibly homosexual, that is no grounds for a sex change. It is perfectly okay to be gay or a tomboy, but it is not perfectly okay to get your anatomy messed up by healthcare professionals who like to promote the transgender agenda.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Those figures, if not completely made up, are through the roof. If there is any truth to that, it must mean there is a socially transmitted phenomenon at work. In other words, a cultural fad. I really hope that people aren't getting irreversible surgery or chemical interference at the emotionally unstable age of adolescence because of it.

I was floored too when I first heard. But it’s real.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Gen Z transgender figure has nearly doubled in the last five years. Peak clown world.

[Muizer]

Those figures, if not completely made up, are through the roof. If there is any truth to that, it must mean there is a socially transmitted phenomenon at work. In other words, a cultural fad.

At the same time, lifelong indoctrination of older generations to think of themselves as cis-gendered heterosexuals (or face hell / being an outcast) has no doubt skewed the results for the older generations. So what are we actually witnessing? The rise of a fad, the disappearance of one, or both?

As LT's stats show, almost the entire 'surge' in non-heterosexuals can be ascribed to people identifying as bisexual, pansexual or asexual. In other words, people who in the past would indeed have been very likely to give in to social pressure to conform to prevailing social norms. So I hazard a lot has to do with the pressure to conform to tradition loosening, rather than people being 'persuaded' to identify as something other than heterosexual. And of course this all concerns sexual orientation. If it says something about gender, no trend is visible here. The same mechanism of lessening stigma applies though. As for the idea that there's some politically inspired cabal to exert pressure on or by parents to subject their pre-adolescent children to sex change surgery ...... cui bono?

[mishkin]

The fact that the older generations with the "cis-gender indoctrination" are much happier than angry youths shows that it wasn't an indoctrination as much as embracing reality instead of reacting angrily to your parents by the latest cultural fad.

I'm sure you have data that supports your claim that non-cis people in the past didn't suffer at all from having to hide their condition.

Are you suggesting that transsexuality* is not something real? Could you affirm or deny unequivocally if you believe that it is a real phenomenon or not?

* Merriam-Webster definition:of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity is opposite the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth

[Cyclops]

Does the + include physically intersex newborns? OP seems to imply newborns are asexual, isn't that the A?

This addresses a niche market specialisation. Why would critics of this hate the free market? I guess the communists like Tuckerov Carlsonovitch just hate AMERICA that much.

[alhoon]

Doctors don't go around telling children what gender they belong to

Sometimes they do.

transsexuality is not manipulation of children by their mothers.

Sometimes it is.

Clinical exposure and education will focus on serving gender and sexual minority people across the lifespan, from infants to older adults"

Exactly. Which is weird and borders on the perverse. Actually, doesn't border, it is weird and pe

Does the + include physically intersex newborns?

That... that is actually a good catch and the only saving grace of this farce.

OP seems to imply newborns are asexual, isn't that the A?

This addresses a niche market specialisation. Why would critics of this hate the free market? I guess the communists like Tuckerov Carlsonovitch just hate AMERICA that much.

Newborns are asexual but you don't need special training to handle asexuals, transexual or gay people.
We critics hate this because it is not a niche market specialization, this is targeted to brainwash doctors. A course addressing teens, not infants that may be struggling with their sexuality and how that can affect whether or not they will take their medication etc. would be different. This is more "let's try to out-woke Cornel! We will go for the infants now!" than addressing any specific medical needs of gay 2-year-olds.


And nobody has anything to say about the hilarious involvement of the center for the homeless in this? Is gender dysphoria the main problem of the homeless?

[Lord Thesaurian]

And nobody has anything to say about the hilarious involvement of the center for the homeless in this? Is gender dysphoria the main problem of the homeless?

This is a feature, not a bug. If the liberal establishment can frame the conversation in terms of allegedly marginalized sexual identities among the “community of unhoused persons,” the focus is no longer on why there are so many homeless to begin with, for example.

[Lord Thesaurian]

They're not my sources. They are what anyone who does a google search without prejudice will find. Your smugness is misplaced. You completely missed the point. It's about you choosing which numbers to cite from a report. If a report finds the absolute numbers are low, you choose to cite a rate of increase instead. Like when you mentioned a '13 fold increase' in certain surgical gender affirming procedures but conveniently failed to mention the sum total of cases over the length of the study was a measly 200.

They’re the sources you cited. Every time you’ve made these accusations, you’ve only prompted me to take a second look that produces figures higher than the ones you claim are implausibly high but also unsurprising and even good.

From the exact same report:

Thanks for proving the point about you insisting on citing the highest number you can get your hands on.

The report further splits off several subcategories from the umbrella term “transgender,” all of which are still higher than the figures you’ve previously argued are representative of all transgenders in the population. All the terms listed on the chart other than cisgender are gender identities that do not match the one assigned at birth, that is, transgender. The purpose of the division was to allow respondents to comment more precisely on how they see themselves, not to suggest their own charts contradict each other. That’s why these subcategories add up to 12% in the category I referenced. Like I said already, if this is your argument, you don’t have one. From the report:

• Transgender: identifying with a gender that does not correspond to the sex you were assigned at birth
• Bigender: or identifying equally as both genders
• Genderqueer: identifying outside of, or beyond, the binary of female and male
• Gender fluid: identifying as male, female, and/or outside the binary at different times

Thanks for confirming your position is so vulnerable to the most basic facts about it as to immediately perish on the hill of semantics.

I was referring to the 10%

The source I cited said the total is nearly 10%, yes, but you’ve since provided a source that claims much higher numbers than that. Even if we just take the 4% figure for Gen Z and apply your premise about previous generations being indoctrinated as heterosexual, that would come out to an even higher total than the original, which is still lower than your own source.

for the second time, in spite of that it does cite numbers for the us. And again the point of this exercise is not to produce top quality sources. It's to demonstrate what one would find if one went looking for facts in an impartial manner. I.e. a way to establish some sort of benchmark for widely shared data.

If you don’t find the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, a source you cited, or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or my original source credible, I’m not really interested in debating that with you. If your whole argument is that the numbers are both impossibly high and unsurprising, you’ve already done a great job disproving it yourself.

Only if you apply a definition that is extraneous to the source itself.

I applied the definition that is inside the source itself.

Lol, the only thing they're guilty of is underestimating the bad faith of journalists and their readers, intentionally seeking the interpretation that, albeit entirely illogical, is most likely to shock people.

“It’s not happening, and if it is, that’s good.”

In this context, care for infants refers specifically to physical variations in sex development that arise in utero and are present at birth. These include chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical variations, all of which are relevant to medical care and treatment to ensure healthy development."*

Ok, then 1: how does 2% or fewer intersex people connect to the 20% of people who are LGBTQ?
2: Why does the course description say the course is about caring for LGBT individuals “across the lifespan, from infants to older adults” if the context refers to intersex people?

If you can accurately answer those questions, you’ve already offered a more relevant response than the one concocted by Harvard professionals.

oooooh so it is 40% now. Ok .....

Yes, but I couldn’t have gotten there without your help. You said 20% was too high because I must have made it up or something even though it shouldn’t be a surprising figure anyways, so then I checked again and found another estimate that claimed it’s actually 40%, cited previously. Feel free to go with the lower bound of 20%.

[Coughdrop addict]

This is calling end of life care "death panels" all over again.

Perhaps we should attack something the right needs in the same way? From now on let's call erectile dysfunction meds "rape preparation drugs" and claim Naloxone "encourages opioid use" and call for them to be banned. We can even imply that anyone who says we are obviously misrepresenting things out of malice and lust for political power is secretly pro-rape and pro-opioid abuse.

I'm not seriously saying to do that of course. But it perfectly illustrates the lies and deceit that have become the norm on the right.

[antaeus]

No so surprising, when any generation that came of age pre-1980s faced an environment whereby declaring one's self as not heterosexual was not just going to end you up with no friends, but possibly in prison or an institution depending on where in the US one was located.

And social acceptance (and peer pressure) doesn't always align with policy. More recent generations now have more choice in how to define themselves, in an environment whereby choice is no longer stigmatised, many will roll the dice just because they can.

[Lord Thesaurian]

As LT's stats show, almost the entire 'surge' in non-heterosexuals can be ascribed to people identifying as bisexual, pansexual or asexual. In other words, people who in the past would indeed have been very likely to give in to social pressure to conform to prevailing social norms.

No so surprising, when any generation that came of age pre-1980s faced an environment whereby declaring one's self as not heterosexual was not just going to end you up with no friends, but possibly in prison or an institution depending on where in the US one was located.

Not sure what the doubling of transgenderism among young adults or libertine sexual fetishes more generally has to do with the observation that bisexual fetishes seem to be the most popular across generations. The increase in question was seen across all categories. Even if it weren’t, that wouldn’t constitute evidence that 20%+ of people have always had these hard-coded behaviors and 10%+ of people have always been transgender. Given your premise that societal norms were strong enough to convince the vast majority of these people to hide their innate and immutable sexual preferences for all of recorded history until very recently, you’ve already drawn the same conclusions as your interlocutor.

[antaeus]

Not sure what the doubling of transgenderism among young adults or libertine sexual fetishes more generally has to do with the observation that bisexual fetishes seem to be the most popular across generations. The increase in question was seen across all categories. Even if it weren’t, that wouldn’t constitute evidence that 20%+ of people have always had these hard-coded behaviors and 10%+ of people have always been transgender. Given your premise that societal norms were strong enough to convince the vast majority of these people to hide their innate and immutable sexual preferences for all of recorded history until very recently, you’ve already drawn the same conclusions as your interlocutor.

You miss the last phrase of my post. "Roll the dice" refers to the removal of the peer group + legal requirement to be sexually conformist leads to many possible scenarios. One may choose to be non-binary as a self description simply because society doesn't enforce conformity. They might still live their lives out in heterosexual relationships and simply dislike the conformist nature of identifying as that. Another may be heterosexual by love, but not really care whom gets them off sexually, and thus dislike identifying as heterosexual. Another might have repressed their desires in previous generations. Another might be a sexual anarchist and just not care. Others might object to the question so answer as non-binary out of principle while not even being that. Another might have had a couple of same-sex kisses on the dance floor in college and not be ashamed of it as they might have in previous generations... I can go on.

Once you start to break down possibilities and scenarios - especially relative to the possible scenarios previous generations may have had - it's really easy to build plausibility into initially odd-seeming numbers. Death by a thousand cuts, so to speak. I'm not agreeing with the numbers. Just illustrating how they might occur, if they were legit.

I mean, I'd probably answer non-binary or other in a survey simply because I think gender choice is a sliding scale and context dependent. I'm certain for a majority of people, the only thing preventing them from enjoying sex with someone of the same gender, or someone who has transitioned is their own hangups - that's something learned, that can be unlearned. It is certainly not anything hard-wired.

But we're not really discussing gender choice are we. We're really discussing whether society is better or worse for the majority when gender choice is enforced heterosexual, as opposed to a free for all. Harvard be damned.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

...

I mean, I'd probably answer non-binary or other in a survey simply because I think gender choice is a sliding scale and context dependent. I'm certain for a majority of people, the only thing preventing them from enjoying sex with someone of the same gender, or someone who has transitioned is their own hangups - that's something learned, that can be unlearned. It is certainly not anything hard-wired.

...

Sex is the easiest and most meaningless part. The real test for homo-, hetero- or bisexuality is, if you can build up stable emotional relationship to a person with a certain gender.

[antaeus]

Sex is the easiest and most meaningless part. The real test for homo-, hetero- or bisexuality is, if you can build up stable emotional relationship to a person with a certain gender.

Yes, but Lord Thesaurian's graph doesn't capture any level of emotional subtlety. Just what people self-identify as. Which is a pretty broad spectrum of experience, and not just love or emotional attachment.

[alhoon]

Sex is the easiest and most meaningless part. The real test for homo-, hetero- or bisexuality is, if you can build up stable emotional relationship to a person with a certain gender.

Hey! Are you calling all incels as asexuals?! They can't have a stable emotional relationship to a person of any gender.


No, I think it is to what gender you're attracted to.

[Muizer]

Not sure what the doubling of transgenderism among young adults or libertine sexual fetishes more generally has to do with the observation that bisexual fetishes seem to be the most popular across generations.

You're using selective quoting of selective data to paint a picture that is much more extreme than is logical to assume looking at the full picture:

Even though less than 2% of people are born intersex, over 20% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQRSUVWXYZ, and nearly 10% of US adults claim to be transgender.

This is, for instance, a false juxtaposition. You introduce the number "20% " applying to all LGBT+ and insert it in a sentence that logically should only relate 'intersex' to 'transgender'. I'm just pointing out that data you yourself introduce show that that 20% concerns almost exclusively sexual orientation, not gender identification.

When Sept picks up on it and expresses fears that large numbers may resort to surgery (only applicable to transgenders) you fail to correct the picture.

You also quote 10% as self identifying as transgender. I don't know where you got that from, but it is in fact quite easy to find studies that give a much lower number (2-3%)

When absolute numbers are unimpressive, you select growth rates like 'increase x fold' that convey a sense of alarm.


You're taking all of us here for fools. Perhaps some are and some approve of such methods.

Even if it weren’t, that wouldn’t constitute evidence that 20%+ of people have always had these hard-coded behaviors and 10%+ of people have always been transgender.

No, it doesn't but questionable numbers and conflating of sexual orientation and gender identification aside, it is quite reasonable to expect the removal of social stigma to lead to a rise in people being more open about their sexual and gender identity. It's far more plausible than to think there's some sort of campaign going by people with no conceivable motive to convince other people to identify as non-heterosexual or transgender, against their own interest.

Given your premise that societal norms were strong enough to convince the vast majority of these people to hide their innate and immutable sexual preferences for all of recorded history until very recently

If you think that statement has any bearing on the 'actual' nature of people in that regard you're taking us for fools, again. All it means is cis-gender heterosexuals have had the power to determine what's moral in that regard and more often than not they've been intolerant of others. What a surprise!

I’m sure you can work out how award-winning pornography presented as educational literature for middle schoolers on how two “gender fluid” youngsters can properly suck on each other’s penises might impact those who are “very likely to give in to social pressure to conform to prevailing social norms” presented to them.

Any evidence of schools teaching that as a new social norm to replace the heterosexual one or is that another example of insinuation by selective quoting?