GUEST POST: Transgenderism: a Pathogenic Meme by Paul McHugh, MD, Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School

from the public discourse.com:
"The idea that one’s sex is a feeling, not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake. Gender dysphoria should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery."

"For forty years as the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School—twenty-six of which were also spent as Psychiatrist in Chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital—I’ve been studying people who claim to be transgender. Over that time, I’ve watched the phenomenon change and expand in remarkable ways."
...
"In fact, gender dysphoria—the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder."

"Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy."

"The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges."

--Paul McHugh, MD, is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is the author of The Mind Has Mountains: Reflections on Society and Psychiatry.

Go to https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/?fbclid=IwAR3ficpx5MB6uMAi-FKYz5LHiksCieIiSEkfCBfq_QmyQmQ1OWR-nab7Gf8 to read the rest of this powerful view showing how transgenderism has no basis in fact but is an ideological illusion.

What Is Wrong with This Picture?

New Hamphsire Combined campaign/SuperPAC spending
$36M Bush
$18.5M Christie
$15.2M Rubio
$12.1M Kasich
$3.7M Trump
$1.8M Fiorina
$580K Cruz
from Stephen Hayes

New York Times
From “…Competitive in Fund-Raising”
By Nicholas Confessore and Eric Lichtblau

"Outside groups have stockpiled tens of millions of dollars on behalf of establishment candidates such as Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio, most of it destined to be spent on television advertising. But those groups cannot cover the candidates’ core expenses, such as staff salaries, plane tickets, polling and office rent."

"Mr. Cruz and Mr. Carson lead...with about $12 million for Mr. Cruz and $11 million for Mr. Carson...Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio each appeared to have about $10 million."

"The billionaire real estate mogul Donald J. Trump...raised about $4 million...Mr. Trump is no longer a self-funding candidate...with money from his supporters."

"On the Democratic side, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who secured commitments from many of the party’s biggest donors...barely outraised Senator Bernie Sanders...bringing in half as much money...Mrs. Clinton began October with more than $31 million...compared with about $27 million for Mr. Sanders [who] raised more than 3/4 from donors giving less than $200 each..."

"Mr. Carson has relied heavily on expensive direct mail and telemarketing consultants to raise money...Of the $14 million he spent during the third quarter alone, fund-raising costs totaled $11 million...But Mr. Rubio and Mr. Bush spent at an even higher rate..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/us/politics/outsider-presidential-candidates-prove-competitive-in-fund-raising.html

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Political advertising, fund-raising, staffing, meetings, rallies, travel, etc.--they all take money.

That's been true for many years, dating back at least to the early 1800's.

Election campaigns have spent and misspent billions over the years.

So what's the problem?

THAT is the problem. How commercial politics is, especially those of a presidential election! How so much wealth is squandered! In contrast, those billions could be used for real problems, for specific future goals.

I admit there is no easy answer to solving the bloated nature of election campaigns in the U.S.

But, maybe, several first steps would be to:

#1 Limit the time of the election campaign to 2 months.

#2 Require each candidate to offer a concrete 20-page proposal of his/her key plans for the U.S. future,
10 pages outlining domestic issues, 5 pages on foreign policy, and 5 to wrap up his/her overall outlook.

#3 Outlaw ALL ad hominem attacks, the constant emphasis on personalities, political "reality-show" interviews, one-liner debates, propagandistic ads, etc.

Of course in this real world, some of the current bloated political sludge would still seep into the clean pool.

But hopefully, multi-millions of that smog money would, instead, be spent on actual specific problems--acceptance of desperate refugees, ending cycles of poverty, education, police and fire-fighters, the environment and so much else.

NO MORE ANIMAL FARM!

No more war is peace.







In the Light of Goodness and the True,

Daniel Wilcox

The Problem of Nationalism

Don't miss reading this powerful analysis of the biased conflict between President Abbas versus Prime Minister Netanyahu at the United Nations.

Again, nationalism and ideology trump truth and peace. If only we humans could be delivered from our human nation-self-centeredness.

from the website http://www.musalaha.org/default.asp
Musalaha (which means reconciliation in Arabic) is a ministry of reconciliation in the Middle East, established by Salim J. Munayer.

"In conflict situations, these two merge more closely, and each side has a historical narrative made up of truth and myth in which “our side” is portrayed in a positive light, and 'we' are always the protagonist hero and victim in 'our historical narrative.'

We saw elements of the Israeli and Palestinian historical narratives in the recent UN speeches. Abbas opened his speech emphasizing the Palestinians’ openness to previous negotiations, their tireless attempts at presenting their position, and their sincerity during the process.

But these endeavors proved futile, primarily as a result of Israel’s refusal to “commit to terms of reference” and its continued engagement in settlement activities.

From the beginning, Abbas, in effect, presented the Palestinians as the protagonists who are committed to a two-state solution, arguing that the Palestinians are the reasonable party as the Palestinians came to the negotiating table sincerely and were willing to compromise; the Israelis then are the antagonists, unreasonable and unwilling to compromise.

Throughout his speech he discussed the effects of the occupation on Palestinians, and recounts the Nakba of 1948 in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were exiled from their homes. In effect, he established the Palestinians as the victims of the conflict.

While renouncing terrorism and violence and affirming peaceful resistance to Israel, he never recognized the detrimental and traumatizing effects of violent Palestinian actions against Israel.

He talked about the Holy Land being a land holy to Muslims and Christians, pointedly excluding the Jewish people from their historical and religious connection to the Holy Land. In spite of the Palestinian people he detailed throughout his speech, he emphasized that the Palestinian people extend their hand to Israel for peace.

When Netanyahu gave his speech responding to Abbas, he constantly emphasized that Israel also extends its hand to the Palestinian people in peace. He stressed Israel’s constant hope for peace and its willingness to make sacrifices for peace, not only with the Palestinians, but with the rest of the Middle Eastern world.

In effect, he presented Israel as the peace-seeking protagonist, summoning the Palestinian people back to negotiations. He rhetorically reasoned with his audience, asking if they would wish for danger so close to their cities and families, reminding his audience of the resultant barrage of rockets that followed Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.

He discussed the suffering of the Israeli people as a result of the rockets fired by Hezbollah in the north and Hamas from Gaza, presenting Israel as the victims of the conflict, never recognizing the detrimental and traumatizing effects of Israeli actions on Palestinians.

Consequently, he presented Israel as reasonable in its demand for military presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as he argued this is necessary for Israel’s security.

In effect, he showed that the Palestinians do not understand and are not reasonable in their requests. He argued that the primary issue is that the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Toward the end of his speech, he discussed the ancient and undying Jewish connection to the land of Israel, but he pointedly failed to mention (thereby excluding) any comparable connection the Palestinian people have to the land, giving only a brief nod to them in closing as they “dwell” on the land.

Is it not interesting to note that reading between the lines, they are mirrors of each other?

One side is reasonable, the other unreasonable. One side is the aggressor, the other the victim.

Both sides claim to extend their hands in peace, yet they make no room for one another in their narratives. Neither side is willing to publicly acknowledge its contribution to and perpetuation of the conflict.

Both sides reference their religious heritage to justify their historical narrative...it is internally focused, often contains half-truths, and when the other side is addressed, it is morally excluded and devalued.

In order for us, both Israelis and Palestinians, to make progress toward reconciliation, we need to learn to truly listen to each other’s needs and be willing to recognize our own shortcomings.

The basic needs for mutual legitimization can be found in the speeches of both Netanyahu and Abbas.

Words of peace can be found in both speeches, but words of good will quickly dissipate when they are not coupled with acts of good will.

Instead of recognizing each other and respecting each other, they belittled and excluded each other. Instead of employing self-criticism, they criticized each other.

...we are all called to repent of our sins and shortcomings and seek peace, but this does not preclude us from reading the Bible in light of our own historical narratives...We can also read the Bible as an ethnic group, taking certain passages and using them for various purposes.

We should apply Biblical passages to our own lives, but we have to be careful that we do not do this in isolation. We have to be careful not to read the Bible selectively, overlooking passages that may be uncomfortable to us.

Above all, we are called to peace, love, and fellowship. We work for this every day and we hope you will continue to walk alongside us as we pursue peace, encourage love of our neighbors, and journey toward reconciliation. Musalaha is a non-profit organization that seeks to promote reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians as demonstrated in the life and teaching of Jesus."

By Salim J. Munayer
Edited by A. Ben-Shmuel


[1] See “Stages of Reconciliation: Encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs” for more information http://musalaha.org/articleview.asp?offset=20&ID=9.


Let us live in peace, for peace, with peace
in the Light,

Daniel Wilcox