"Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and
its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that
transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex
change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual
reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental
disorder."
Wow, that's pretty harsh. One must wonder what kind of person would make those sorts of comments
5 comments:
I guess the kind of person who has authored "six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles" would make that kind of statement. I'd have to believe that given how vital the "peer review" process is to real live science, that anyone who has been "peer reviewed" over 125 times must carry a fair degree of credibility as a scientist.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/progressives-have-dilemma-when-it-comes-gender
Or in the case of Progressive christians...
1. God doesn't make mistakes when it comes to sexual desire.
2. God does make mistakes when someone gets a body that doesn't align with their personal perception of their gender.
I'll try not to make too much of the fact that when it comes to "gay" the left focuses on the sex of the two (or more) people involved, but when it comes to "trans" all of a sudden they focus on the much more nebulous (obfuscatory) concept of gender.
It's convenient to be able to flex like that.
McHugh is constantly derided, despite his credentials, due simply to his opposition to the LGBT narrative.
Credentials and peer reviews are important when the talking head is agreeing with you, but irrelevant when not. At least, for some. Whatever we do, let's not evaluate the truth of their claims. That would be too rational.
MA,
That's strange given the high regard for "peer review" and how vital it is to real Science. I was under the impression that the peer review process was about limiting the effects of bias in the process, now you tell me that there are folks who dismiss his totally due to their bias and without regard for his academic and scientific credentials and large number of "peer reviewed" papers. I just don't understand.
Stan,
The case has been made that "peer review" is so vital to the eradication of bias in Science that to not subject one's work to "peer review" is tantamount to not engaging in science. If that is the case then more "peer review" should equal better Science (or Scientist). In point of fact, this argument has been taken to the extreme of dismissing the a yet to be published study based on what someone thinks the authors might possibly do, not based on the Science or the methodology.
Seriously, I do agree that we should strive to look for the truth regardless of our biases. Which would be much to rational.
Post a Comment