The AMA Throws Its Weight Behind Transgender Ideology

Of course speaking out against this makes you (i.e. me) a kook and a bigot...but, look, absolutely everyone should be alarmed as hell about this.

  This is the AMA--which should have nothing to do with this issue--throwing its weight behind a radically confused and false theory that has been foisted onto the culture by political extremists. One very specific, outre theory of transgenderism has been declared true. Its truth is simply presupposed by the "mainstream media," and any dissent from the theory has been, in effect, declared bigotry. The theory entails significant social changes (e.g. the elimination of sex-segregated public restrooms, locker rooms and sports). Such changes should never be implemented without careful consideration--but the suppression of dissent prevents this from happening. A radical political position based on outlandishly bizarre philosophical theories is being represented as an obvious, irrefutable, even scientific truth. Though: it's somehow both scientific and moral, in that dissent from it is morally impermissible.

   But that's all old news.

   What's so chilling about this is that the AMA is falling in line with crazy politics, throwing its quasi-scientific weight behind a radical political theory, thus adding its weight to the "narrative"* that the theory is scientific and scientifically respectable. 

   (IMO we should already be concerned about medical creep and the inclination to medicalize everything--firearm ownership being an obvious example.)

   So, what are the odds that the AMA would act similarly if, oh, I don't know, we found evidence that expressing skepticism about the existence of God causes medical problems among theists? Would they throw their weight behind efforts to legally enforce humoring them? Is there any chance that they would do so? What if we found out that the Little Sisters of the Poor and similar groups were devastated by anxiety and depression when forced to participate in a system that supports abortion? Well...you know as well as I do what would happen.

   The thing that's alarming about this is that there is just no way in hell that this is a purely medical decision. The probability that this is not motivated by politics is exactly 0. 

   Because everything is stupid now and we all have to prove that we're right-thinking liberals in order to be taken seriously, I'll grudgingly repeat that I think people should be able to live (including: dress) as they want, and that I'm in no way sure that sex-segregation of public restrooms, locker rooms and sports is a defensible policy. I have nothing against men who dress and otherwise represent themselves as women (so long as they're honest about it when it matters, e.g. when they're on a trajectory toward having sex with someone), nor against women who represent themselves as men. My devotion to autonomy with respect to such issues far outstrips that of the vast majority of liberals, I assure you. 

   My objections are that (a) a theory has been forced onto us, collectively, (b) the theory is unlikely to be true, (c) a moratorium on rational criticism of the theory has been imposed, (d) it is enforced by falsely accusing anyone who dissents, no matter how rationally and politely, of bigotry, and (e) massive, consequential social changes are being imposed as a consequence of this almost-certainly-false, not-to-be-discussed theory.

   But look, almost no one else seems to even be batting an eye about all this. People I normally agree with seem to just be smiling and nodding about it all. So who's the crazy, me or everybody else? I suppose I'm not exactly in the best position to say...

* I really hate this trendy use of that dopey lit-crit term.