Transgenders Privately Admit, but Publicly Deny, Unresolved Issues
Paula Neira — who served in the US Navy as Paul Neira — has helped stand up Johns Hopkins’ Center for Transgender Health this Spring.
Most articles on the new Center have said little of substance, but one report quoted Neira making a potentially unintentional but fascinating admission:
Under [his] leadership, the Center for Transgender Health will serve transgender patients, teach health professionals and research health concerns facing the transgender community.
And this last point has some urgency. Neira notes that there is still a lot unknown for transgender patients related to gender-affirming care as well as to general health. “You know — what is the health effect of testosterone dosage? What is the most effective dose? There’s all kinds of pieces of information that we want to know…”
Neira, and by extension Johns Hopkins, is essentially admitting society is willfully — even gladly — giving women long-term unnatural hormones without knowing the health effects of that medical “treatment”. No doubt the same applies for a biological male taking female hormones in quantities his body does not naturally produce, as with Neira himself.
And, yet, activists have made the case that transgenders can serve in the US military with no negative impact to the military mission.
How can anyone say that with integrity if current medical knowledge can’t articulate the health effects of long term high dosage of cross-gender hormones? Isn’t that a fairly fundamental question to the issue?
Doesn’t quite sound logical, does it?
This “revelation” has shades of the repeal of DADT in it. Despite all the reassurances that repeal had no negative effect on the military, every now and then a story has slipped through about how units and the military mission have been negatively impacted by a homosexual “coming out.”
Which is most important? Advocacy of social causes, or defense of the nation? Troops’ religious beliefs, or their sexual activity?
Aren’t things much simpler when the State at least tacitly supports a moral order?