The LGBTQ lobby bites like rust wherever it finds a niche, citing scientific facts and making claims that are far from scientific, but not even factual. And not only in the West, as Feri, Peti and the other members of the Squirrel Guard sing.
The "professional position statement" published a few days ago by the two MPTs (Hungarian Psychological Society and Hungarian Psychiatric Society) , which was also supported by the Hungarian Sexual Medicine Society, caused a great response I have never heard of the latter, so the dear reader should not feel ignorant if the name also sounds unfamiliar to him.
Above all, however, it is worth noting: the Hungarian Psychological Society is a civil organization that hardly represents the profession; it has a membership of only 1,000 people , while there are 40,000 psychologists practicing in the country, moreover, membership is optional, so if you are not a member, no ethical proceedings can be initiated against them. And someone can only become a member if that person comes with the recommendation of two psychologists who already have membership.
But let's return to the "professional position", which is remarkable in several ways: firstly for its content, secondly for the way it was published, and thirdly for its timing. Let's jump straight to the timing, regarding which the question is legitimate: why now, why was the resolution against the government's child protection law made on the eve of the elections, if the law itself entered into force on July 8 last year? (Act LXXIX of 2021 on stricter action against pedophile offenders and on the amendment of certain laws for the protection of children.)
It is not at all a coincidence that the two companies issued the announcement just before the elections, as their prominent, left-wing management members wanted to contribute to the desired success of the opposition. On the other hand, many consider it worrisome that the two MPTs voted so openly to the left. There is therefore far from a consensus within the organizations, in the case of psychiatrists, for example, while the board accepted the matter, the wider management did not even know about it, and the procedure of the Hungarian Psychological Society went against established protocol: even the section heads did not see the announcement criticizing the child protection law, especially it was not run on professional mailing lists and in the newsletter.
Chief physician Ida Kosza , member of the Hungarian Branch of the World Psychosocial Rehabilitation Association, former vice-president of the world association, who is also a board member of the Hungarian Psychiatric Association, was not only surprised that the "professional position" was published without prior consultation, but also that it was not the child psychiatry society (Magyar Gyermek- és Ifjúságszichiatriai és Társszalmák Társasága, MAGYIPETT) spoke in the case, as they would have been the most competent.
Noémi Császár-Nagy, head of the Clinical Psychology Section of the Hungarian Psychological Society, responded to the resolution in a public letter , in which she explains that the MPT's above-mentioned revelation is bleeding from several wounds even before the content questions.
"However, the Joint Resolution was not discussed, not only by the membership, but also by the Management, which is entitled to proceed in the case based on its right of representation, and approved it before its publication. And this is by no means the guarantee of democratic social life. The publication of the Joint Position, however, not only violated the principle of democratic self-management, which is the essence of civil organizations, which was also enshrined in the Company's own statutes, but also with the Communication Position Statement issued by the Company exactly one year before the publication of the Joint Position and the provisions of the Code of Professional Ethics for Psychologists referred to in it, all it goes against the grain."
From a formal point of view, this is the situation, the text disguised as professional and suggesting complete consensus goes against not only democratic principles, but also the Company's own ethical provisions. And when ideology takes possession of science, nothing good usually comes out of it, even if we can believe empiricism, i.e. our historical experiences. I think we should believe it.
And so we arrive at the content, which in short and concisely states no less than
orientations other than heterosexual are biologically rooted, and no one can be changed by education. According to one of the first statements of the resolution, the definition of 'biological sex' is "not clear in many cases".
On the contrary, it can be said that
in the vast majority of cases, the 'biological sex' can be determined with great accuracy even on the basis of external signs. Exceptions to this are intersex persons, whose proportion in the population is approx. 0.018%.
The 'biological sex' is determined not by the chromosomes, nor by the genitals or hormones, but by the type of gametes that can be produced by the individual concerned, and this can be of only two types: there is no transitional type of gamete between sperm and egg, the 'biological sex ' is therefore binary rather than a spectrum.
But there are other goodies in the text, which are refuted one by one by, among others, the Working Group of Value-Centered Psychologists , quoting the position of the American Psychological Association (APA) in several places. Therefore, gender identity is not "innate", nor is it merely a social construction, but the result of biological-cognitive-social development.
“There is no single explanation for why some people are transgender. The diversity of transgender experiences resists any simple or unified explanation. Many experts believe that biological factors such as genetic influences and prenatal (before birth) hormone levels, as well as early experiences and later experiences during adolescence or adulthood can all contribute to the development of transgender identity(s).”
Let's state it once again: the resolution issued by the MPT firmly states that education, culture, and society have no influence on the development of gender identity and sexual orientation, which is why gender-based sensitization or putting sexual education on a new foundation will not affect the for children's development. However, this statement does not hold up and does not provide an explanation for a number of questions, one of the most important of which is how to explain the large increase in transgender and non-heterosexual orientation among young people, if it is basically determined by biological factors - as cited It is stated in the MPT resolution - and there is no significant impact on the environment? While the total adult US population is approx. 5% identify themselves as non-heterosexual, nearly 16% of those born in 1997-2002 consider themselves queer, according to the GALLUP survey. We could list the terrifying statistics for a long time.
And then we recall the statement of Professor Emőke Emőke Emeritus, one of the founders of Hungarian psychology , for which the MTP initiated an ethical procedure against him, before he left the Society, so they were forced to terminate the procedure:
"According to the time window, between the ages of 3 and 5, i.e., during kindergarten, the child receives the key stimuli that help him to accept where he belongs, i.e. to which gender, in the same social gender as his biological sex. Sensitive psychological periods go hand in hand with genetic time zones. It is during these periods that lifelong deep imprints are formed, which is why every stimulus has a special value and significance at this time. Gender begins where social influences affect the unborn child, fairy tales are extremely important, because through them messages can be delivered that the child accepts without criticism, since he does not yet have a critical sense or a basis of comparison.
In other words, if you hear a story about two princes falling in love, the child will remember this, and it will be evidence for him that boys can fall in love with each other, so the task of every parent and teacher is to provide clarity and not deviations, i.e. socialize towards deviance.
And finally, we have only one question to ask, admittedly, this is the most important and most painful question:
are the LGBTQ lobby and the professionals under its influence wrong and are forcing indoctrination of children disguised as sensitization out of well-intentioned ignorance, or are they very conscious and aware of the consequences of their actions, the consequences that are clearly supported by statistical data?
Because if it's the former, then we'll accept an apology from the deeply respected professionals and lobbyists, after of course they end their activities targeting children once and for all, but if it's the latter, then it's time to call the child by its name and clearly state that what they're doing is a crime against humanity.
Our featured image is an illustration / Source: vasarnap.hu
