|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Part 1 in 4-part series, ‘Mutilation or Healthcare?’
By Alison Despathy
With coupons for testosterone, minds molded by heavily monetized influencers, a false sense of belonging and support from online chatrooms dominated by questionable facilitators, impressionable, vulnerable youth sacrifice their minds and bodies for mutilation falsely labeled as healthcare.
One of the recent manias to arise in society, this phenomenon of ‘gender affirming care’ for youth is bringing parents to their knees and forcing families and medical providers to reevaluate what is healthcare versus mutilation. Youth experiencing intense, often uncomfortable development and a natural identity crisis, historically honored with ancient rites of passage, are desperately seeking extreme actions with profound consequences in a quest for resolution from their struggles and pain. Urgent societal questions emerge from this crisis that must be addressed.
What differentiates healthcare from mutilation?
What age is a child or young adult able to make informed health decisions for themselves?
What other factors influence these situations and why are we not discussing this?
Are we failing our children?
These questions are compounded by the fact that in this world today, and first in history ever, a generation of youth have been raised on devices and continually bombarded with manipulative marketing and advertising ruled by personalized programmed AI and chatbots, deceptively designed as ‘information’ sites and support groups. Constantly profiled, data mined for profit and run through algorithms, youth are directed down online paths that fuel their greatest fears and deepest desires. This all during a time naturally wrought with self esteem issues, insecurity, loneliness, and a quest for belonging and identity.
Our vulnerable children’s minds are the prey and in the case of ‘gender affirming care’ in youth this extends to their physical bodies. Behavior modification via online nudging is both an art and science funded by companies seeking high profits and the possibility of lifetime customers The world of advertising and public relations has moved far beyond catchy tunes, pretty packaging and a plea for your penny; full force mind control and brainwashing, perfected through marketing and the distillation of metadata are now the norm. Emotional and psychological manipulation are the order of the day and people of all ages succumb, often unknowingly.
To blindly move along with this experimental agenda without asking fundamental questions and seeking answers to a difficult and controversial issue is a disservice to our children, the future of humanity and the direction of society.
For endless reasons running the gambit of abuse, drugs, societal stress, poverty, teenage angst and mental health issues, many youth today–whether imaginary or not–feel disconnected from their families, real world peers and physical bodies. This ancient and genetically forged desire, really need, to belong rules self esteem, self-worth, even survival. Genetic memory prioritizing a sense of belonging and community is tribal and is no doubt to some degree the reason humanity has survived. Teamwork, camaraderie, purpose and identity have historically bound humans through time and life
Trans agenda critics utter the word cult while organizations focused on trans youth promise a supportive pathway and community. It could be argued, even identified, that the trans message for youth offers, and as many assert preys upon, this inherent need of humans to seek meaning and to live in a cooperative and supportive community with like minded allies.
Culturally speaking, the trans community is filling this void for some youth and young adults struggling in a polarized, distracted and in many degrees lost world. A reality that should direct the adults in the room to the immediate work needed to build and refocus energy on tight knit, on the ground communities and strong families, for the sake of our children and each other.
It is safe to say most Vermonters ardently support the gay community and a person’s right to choose who they love and who they want to walk this life journey with. To many this is personal and private. If a full grown adult chooses to be trans, why would anyone stop them? We live in a free society and we all hold rights to be who we are and live our lives. This is not the problem and should not be conflated with the issue of impressionable, vulnerable youth seeking controversial, experimental and dangerous medication and mutilation falsely labeled as healthcare.
The brains of our youth and young adults undergo continual development. Executive function, critical thinking skills and identity are an ongoing work in progress, as any adult understands. When it comes to our youth and the world we live in today, with minds easily manipulated, often struggling to find joy and belonging, we owe it to our children to protect and guide them through this confusing world, ruled by predators and profit who will stop at nothing and do NOT care about you or your children.
“A democratic society gives its citizens the right to act as free agents. At the same time, it imposes on them the responsibility for maintaining their freedom, mental as well as political. If through the use of modern medical, chemical and mechanical techniques of intrusion (i.e. drugs,screens), we reduce man’s capacity to act on his own initiative, we subvert our beliefs and weaken our democratic system. Just as there is deliberate political brainwashing, so can there be a suggestive intrusion masquerading under the name of justice or therapy. This may be less obtrusive than the deliberate totalitarian attack, but it is no less dangerous.” Joost Merloo (author, Medical Doctor, psychiatrist and WWII survivor under the Nazi occupation in the Netherlands).
The author is a clinical nutritionist and educator living in Danville.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Health Care, Mental Health
Alison: Consider my recent conversation with the GPT professor. I began with your question: ‘What age is a child or young adult able to make informed health decisions for themselves?’
Of course, the implied point to your question is, who decides at what age is a child or young adult able to make informed health decisions for themselves?
The conversation was a rather extensive series of interrogatories, demonstrating the tendency of the GPT-4o mini professor to advocate for, and emphasize, professional collaboration. It is what is known as the ‘appeal to authority’. But after a somewhat lengthy discourse, we came to the following conclusion.
HJE: Are parents ‘most’ often the most effective advocates for their own children?
.
GPT-4o mini
While parents are often highly effective advocates for their own children, it may not be accurate to say they are “most” often the most effective in every situation. The effectiveness of parental advocacy can depend on various factors, including:
Knowledge and Resources: Parents who are well-informed about their child’s needs, rights, and available resources may be more effective advocates. However, those who lack this knowledge may struggle to navigate systems effectively.
Support Systems: Parents with strong support networks, including family, friends, and community resources, may be more effective in advocating for their children compared to those who feel isolated.
Emotional Factors: While emotional investment can drive effective advocacy, it can also lead to challenges. For example, strong emotions may cloud judgment or make it difficult to communicate effectively with professionals.
Collaboration with Professionals: In some cases, collaboration with professionals (e.g., educators, healthcare providers) can enhance advocacy efforts. Parents who work alongside knowledgeable professionals may achieve better outcomes for their children.
Child’s Age and Maturity: As children grow older, they may become more capable of advocating for themselves. In these cases, a partnership between parents and children can be most effective.
Complex Situations: In complex situations, such as those involving special needs or legal issues, parents may benefit from the expertise of external advocates, such as social workers or legal representatives.
While parents are often the primary advocates for their children and can be very effective in that role, the effectiveness of advocacy can vary based on individual circumstances. A collaborative approach that includes both parental advocacy and professional support is often the most beneficial for a child’s well-being.
HJE – Perhaps you ‘misinterpreted’ my question. ‘Most often’ does not mean ‘in every situation’. ‘Most often’ means the majority of the time. Again, then, are parents ‘most’ often the most effective advocates for their own children?
.
GPT-4o mini
Yes, parents are most often considered the most effective advocates for their own children, particularly in day-to-day situations. They typically have the most intimate knowledge of their child’s needs, preferences, and behaviors, which positions them well to advocate effectively. Their emotional investment and continuous presence in their child’s life further enhance their ability to support and advocate for their child’s well-being.
While there may be exceptions where external advocates or professionals play a crucial role, in the majority of cases, parents are the primary and most effective advocates for their children’s needs and interests. Their unique understanding and commitment to their child’s welfare generally make them the most influential figures in advocating for their well-being.
HJE: Thank you. It’s been a pleasure chatting with you.
.
GPT-4o mini
Thank you! It’s been a pleasure chatting with you as well. If you have any more questions in the future or need assistance, feel free to reach out. Have a great day!
Welcome to VDC University.
Next up: ask AI who invented the family institution, and why.
Excellent point, Renee. The Google AI demonstrates a political bias toward Marx and Engles concept of socialism. The Duck AI is clearly more objective, with no mention of Marx or Engles, but rather the cultural nuclear family, religion, and then legal and social policies.
GROK, on the other hand, seems to provide the most objective viewpoint.
” The concept of the family as an institution predates recorded history, so it’s tough to pin it on any one person or group. It likely emerged organically across human societies as a way to organize survival, reproduction, and social bonds. Evolutionary biology suggests families formed to ensure cooperative child-rearing, resource sharing, and group protection—core needs for early humans facing harsh environments. Anthropological evidence, like studies of hunter-gatherer societies, shows family-like structures centered around kinship and mutual support, driven by practical necessities rather than a deliberate “invention.”
No single “why” exists, but the family unit probably stuck because it worked: it provided stability, divided labor (e.g., hunting vs. caregiving), and passed down knowledge. Different cultures shaped it differently—some matrilineal, some patriarchal—based on their environments and needs. For example, agricultural societies leaned on extended families for labor, while nomadic groups kept units smaller. It’s less about someone inventing it and more about humans adapting to what helped them thrive.”
This is a topic of the times. We need more VDC University discussions.
And to this I’ll throw in one more question to ponder – how many children might be better served with waiting until they are 25 to make decisions about any sexual identity involving medical procedures? Might some of this be an outgrowth of the push to normalize the LGBTA experience and changing sexual identities along side the norm of the uncertainties brought on by the onset of puberty? Are kids being persuaded that they should change their sexuality when they really should consider embracing or learn to embrace the sexuality of their genetic make up? Give them time. How many children might be better served by not allowing them to sexually mutilate their bodies and render themselves sterile in the throws of puberty? Might they be better prepared and more understanding of the pros and cons of their decision at 25? By then if those urges to restructure their bodies remains, by then let them consider their own course a new.
The genitalia changes don’t change the DNA throughout a person’s body that trigger changes in skeletal structures, muscular structure, even differences in the brain formation and the connectivity between the left and right side of the brain. There are 1000’s of differences within the body of a male and female that sex change procedures don’t begin to address and that the DNA differences between an XX and XY triggers – some can be altered with hormone treatments, but not all.