Pediatrician: Here’s What Really Happens When Children ‘Transition’

It’s one thing when adults experiencing gender dysphoria decide to “transition” to live as the other gender through hormone treatments, operations and makeovers. But what happens when kids say they’re transgender and think they’re ready for hormones that will disrupt their normal growth?

Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, spent 17 years as a general pediatrician with a focus on child behavioral health. She talked about gender dysphoria on today’s show to explain what being dosed with hormones does to kids who aren’t old enough to know their own minds yet.

Schools are starting to teach students from a young age that they can easily switch from one gender to the other.

“It is outrageous; it is terrifying for these young children; it’s a lie,” Cretella said.

Here are more facets of the debate covered in this clip:

  • Why denying the existence of gender is truly anti-science
  • What hormone treatments do to kids’ bodies
  • Why allowing kids to go through normal, healthy puberty is the best option
  • How we can actually help children experiencing gender dysphoria

Listen to the full interview to hear all the details.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: The Heritage Foundation had a talk that they had a pediatrician there. In fact, the president of the American College of Pediatricians, who has received a lot of heat because she said this about transgenderism.

VOICE: As to the studies, there are two that I'm aware of which claim that affirming your child's gender confusion is good for them, number one, it assumes that coaching a child into a fixed false belief is mentally healthy. Science doesn't allow to you assume your conclusion.

Number two, those studies are extremely small. Number three, those studies are very short-term. And number four, the control group of mentally healthy children are the siblings. Most of them are siblings of the trans-identifying child. And there's a number five: The parents were the ones evaluating the mental health of the children.

This is not science. I don't think you need to have an M.D. or a Ph.D. to know, that's not science. That's ideology masquerading as science. Chemical castration, which is what you are doing when you put any biologically normal child on puberty blockers.

GLENN: She went on and had a lot to say. And she joins us now, Dr. Michelle Cretella.

Doctor, how are you?

MICHELLE: Fine. Thank you. I'm happy to be here.

GLENN: So you had to have quite a weekend.

(laughter)

MICHELLE: I -- I'd rather -- I've been at this fighting for the truth on behalf of all children, not only the gender confused children, who are being put on toxic medications, but also for all of our children in the -- in public and private schools, who are now being taught that from preschool forward, they are being taught that you could be trapped in the wrong body.

This is outrageous. It is outrageous. It is terrifying for these young children. It's a lie.

GLENN: So -- so tell me -- tell me what your thought is on those people who feel that they are trapped in -- in the wrong body.

MICHELLE: Well, there's a degree of injustice to them. Let's even back up.

Look, when we're talking about mental health, we should all agree that, A, there is an objective physical reality that we live in. Okay. That's what science is all about. Science about the physical reality we live in.

And to be mentally healthy, at a bare minimum, your thinking and perceptions should be in line with that physical reality.

And here -- transgenderism alone, that psychology and medicine say, you can have a -- a fixed false belief. You can believe something that's contrary to genetics, physiology. You can believe something that's contrary to hard science. And still be mentally well.

That's insanity. If I go to my doctor and say, "Hi, I'm Margaret Thatcher," and you hold a gun to my head, and I still insist that I am Margaret Thatcher, well, I'm crazy. I'm delusional. And my doctor will recognize that and put me on antipsychotics. But if I go in and say, "I'm a man and I insist it, persistently, insistently, versus consistently.

Okay. Yeah. Congratulations. You're transgender. This is who you are.

This is -- it's cooperating. And my colleague and friend Dr. Paul McHugh said it best. He said, it's cooperating with mental illness. And in the case of children, I refer to it as coaching them into a mental illness. As far as I'm concerned, when children say, I'm not my biological sex, or a little boy says, I want to cut off my penis, a young woman says, I'm binding my breasts. I want a mastectomy. That's a cry for help, not a cry for hormones.

They're confused. This is a symptom. They're -- they are emotionally troubled. And it's a cry for help. Not a cry for hormones.

GLENN: Michelle, I -- I -- you know, I am of the mindset that, you know, jeez, what you want to do with your body, I don't -- I don't -- I mean, people, you know, do horrible things to their body. And I -- I think that it's a cry for help, you know, just when I see people who have put, you know, rings through their face over and over and over again. And it's their choice.

There's -- there's a difference, however, when it comes to children. And what we are -- what we are now advocating -- what our doctors are now advocating is sterilization and to -- to actually take really detrimental hormones and -- and change you forever. And you made a great point over the weekend. The American Society of Pediatrics said, you know, we shouldn't -- doctors should discourage kids from having a tattoo because it's permanent and it's scarring.

And yet they'll give a child without parental permission a double mastectomy.

MICHELLE: Right. So you raise several excellent points. Number one, yes, adults -- adults have a maturity, both experiential maturity and cognitive maturity that children and teenagers do not have. This isn't just known through common sense and -- I mean, any -- any mother, school teacher, father, grandparent, knows this. Shakespeare knew it. Okay?

Children are not little adults. And teenagers and adolescents do crazy things. Neuroscience has now proven it. We know this through functional brain imaging, that the risk center and the control -- the frontal lobes are the portions of the brain that control judgment rebuke risk assessment, and self-control. Those don't mature until the early 20s.

So as you said, if we're talking about an adult who is convinced that they are thoroughly unhappy. They believe they're the opposite sex. I still consider that a tragedy.

But if they go forth and they're going to pay out of their own pocket for these surgeries and these hormones because they and the physicians they've consulted think this is all that's left for them, as a society, okay. Okay. I can see that.

But what the College of Pediatricians and I are arguing is specifically what you said. These are children. These are children who need protection and guidance and authentic mental health.

And what's even more important, we know already that the vast majority of young children, up to 95 percent, who are supported through natural puberty, up to 95 percent, certainly well over 75 percent, will accept their biological sex by young adulthood.

So, you know, as you said, to put them on puberty blockers, plus the cross-sex hormones together, if you've never allowed them to mature enough through puberty, you are permanently sterilizing them. A child at age 11, even a child, a teenager cannot possibly comprehend what it means to be permanently sterile.

The same thing with getting a double mastectomy. The same thing -- when you go on these hormones, your risk -- it elevates risk for heart disease. Hypertension or high blood pressure. Strokes. Cancers.

This is crazy. It is absolutely crazy to put children at risk on these high-risk medications, when the vast majority would simply outgrow it with support through natural puberty.

GLENN: I want to come back. We have to take a break. But I want to come back and talk to you.

Because there's a real crisis of suicide -- and I believe it's a loss of meaning in our culture. And what is being pushed in the schools, I think is extraordinarily dangerous. And I want to further that conversation with you, when we continue.

STU: Back with more with Dr. Michelle Cretella here in just a moment. She's president of the American College of Pediatricians. You can follow them on Twitter. @ACPeds.

STU: Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians. Joins us.

GLENN: She was speaking at the Heritage Foundation. She gave quite a stirring talk and caused a lot of controversy online. I can't imagine the -- the hell that your life is, quite honestly. Can you -- can you tell us, first, Michelle, the difference between sex and gender. What's the difference between sex and gender?

MICHELLE: Sure. Sex, quite simply, is biologically determined at fertilization by genetics. Any -- any unborn child who has a functioning Y chromosome is going to develop into a male. And if that unborn child is missing a functional Y chromosome, the child develops into a female. There's nothing -- now, there's nothing in between.

The body declares our sex.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: It's there in our body.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: Now, gender has essentially become a political -- just a political term.

GLENN: Right. When I was growing up, there was -- gender and sex were the same.

MICHELLE: Were the same, yes, exactly.

GLENN: So I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed anything along the way, that somebody was taking terms and changing them. Okay.

MICHELLE: Well, this is what happened. Prior to the 1950s, gender was not anywhere to be found in the medical literature. But in the 1950s, that's when sexologists, like John Money and Harry Benjamin were wanting to justify sex reassignment surgery, so-called.

And they needed -- they knew they couldn't -- that you can't change sex. Surgery and chemicals cannot change sex. They knew this.

So they had to invent a term to justify their profiting from this surgery. And so they grabbed on to gender and said, "Oh, gender for us means the social expression of an internal sex identity." And that is what is being put forth now, without any -- it's -- it's made up. There's no such thing as an innate sex identity.

GLENN: Okay. So -- so -- here's the real problem. At seven years old, you know, in my faith, you choose to be a member of our faith at what we call the age of accountability at eight years old. However, there's a lot of people that make a choice early on that, I'm a Baptist. I'm a Catholic. I'm an atheist. I'm whatever.

MICHELLE: Right.

GLENN: And they change.

MICHELLE: Right.

GLENN: No decision that is permanent should be made by a 7-year-old, under any circumstance, or, quite honestly, there would be a lot of us that would be walking around that wanted at seven to be a kitty cat or Batman.

MICHELLE: Right. Right. Exactly.

And that's what I tried to make -- you know, in this debate, we're debating physical reality, the physical reality of sex, versus identity. And identity refers to thinking and perceiving which is in the mind, and that is changeable, okay?

As far as gender identity, meaning recognizing your own sex, the -- the gender experts, so-called, are correct, that most children correctly identify themselves as boys or girls by age three. But what the experts are not saying, is that many children, ages seven and below, do not understand that sex is constant and permanent and stable.

In other words, some seven-year-olds actually believe -- if they watch a man put on a dress and makeup, will actually think, oh, he just became a woman.

So cognitively speaking, it is a process of development. And because of -- that's why it's so damaging, to have three-year-olds being read to by drag queens, particularly when the drag queens are reading these ridiculous gender-bending picture books to them. It is confusing and will derail the normal psychological and cognitive development of those preschool children.

STU: Lifelong decisions should not be made while viewing Peppa Pig is what you're saying?

MICHELLE: Lifelong decisions should not be made by children.

STU: Right.

MICHELLE: Even teenagers. I mean, adolescence is full of changeability.

GLENN: Okay. Hold on for just a second. I want to continue our conversation in just a second. With Dr. Michelle Cretella. She's the president of the American College of Pedestrians. We're going to talk a little bit about what your kids are being taught in school, and how to talk to them about it, coming up.

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.