“In contrast to the relative lack of controversy about treating adolescents and adults, there is no expert clinical consensus regarding the treatment of prepubescent children who meet diagnostic criteria for what was referred to in both DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 as gender identity disorder in children and now in DSM-5 as gender dysphoria. One reason for the differing attitudes has to do with the pervasive nature of gender dysphoria in older adolescents and adults: it rarely desists, and so the treatment of choice is gender or sex reassignment. On the subject of treating children, however, as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health notes in their latest Standards of Care, gender dysphoria in childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood, and only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls treated in gender clinics showed persistence of their gender dysphoria into adulthood. Further, most of the boys’ gender dysphoria desisted, and in adulthood, they identified as gay rather than as transgender.”
— Drescher J, Pula J., “Ethical issues raised by the treatment of gender-variant prepubescent children”
Dictionary says: “denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.”
Wikipedia—the dictionary of the people—makes a slight (nonsurgical adjustment) and refers to “gender expression that differs from their assigned sex.”
Perhaps this is because, as in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, “birth” is now a dirty word?
I am not sure, by this new definition, who or what “assigns” sex at birth, but the implication is clear: there is a something or someone, independent of the biological organism, being “assigned” sex, as well as something or someone doing the assigning (perhaps “cisgender white-male doctors”?). And this second something or someone can get it wrong and makes things really difficult for the first something or someone.
Confused yet? Fasten your seatbelt, Dorothy.
As SOGI makes official, it is not just the word “birth” that is fast becoming the equivalent of obscenity, but “mother” and “father” too. In the UK, the British Medical Association has asked that pregnant women not be called “expectant mothers” since it might offend transgender people. (“Pregnant people” is the non-offensive alternative.)
“The advice comes in an internal document to staff outlining a raft of common phrases that should be avoided for fear of causing offence. ‘The elderly’ are to be referred to as ‘older people,’ ‘disabled lifts’ as ‘accessible lifts,’ and someone who is ‘biologically male or female’ is to be called ‘assigned male or female.’” (There’s that mysterious assignation again. Ref.)
Gender fluidity is also known as “genderqueer,” and as non-binary, a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine. “Genderqueer: denoting or relating to a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.” If that’s not as clear as a spit-polished test tube, try “identities which are outside the gender binary and ‘cisnormativity.’”
Cisnormal, as you are quite remiss if you aren’t aware, is the label assigned by advocates of gender fluidity for those of us sadly lagging behind the evolutionary curve and still suffering from relative congruity between our biological genitalia and our sense of who we are. Nothing but advocates of equal opportunity rights, the GI Joes and Janes don’t want straight folk to feel left out, and have assigned them, us, their, our, very own gender identification badge, whether they, we, like it or not.
So, it seems fair to ask, if and when cis-norms start being bullied for their assignation, will the SOGI bears huddle around and protect them, with new newspeak agendas? No, is the answer, because cis-bullying is not only acceptable, it’s part of a necessary survival strategy by trans-activists.
As it is at present, not only do the new gender-fluids have the right to tell everyone else how to identify them, they also have the imperative to decide how they get to identify everyone else. In old-world political language, this is known as totalitarianism. In today’s newspeak, it’s called tolerance. It is all just part of the ongoing attempt to level the playing field and cast off the oppressive influence of “normality” by suggesting that normality is 100% in the eye of the beholder.
If, in the process, biological functionality gets surgically removed from the equation and replaced, as in Huxley’s dystopia, with State-sponsored, technological interventions, not to worry, that’s just further proof that we are living in the most progressive society in history.
The only way for the new normal not to spell the end of the species, therefore, is for various artificial inception methods to compete with—and eventually replace?—natural reproduction. This is probably why GI advocates tend to unanimously worship at the altar of Science, and to pay regular tithes to its weaponized wings, Big Pharma and the Medical Industry.
To give an outstanding example, Trans-person Martine Rothblatt—the founder of Sirius XM and one-time highest-paid “female” CEO in the world—has made a robot clone of her wife.
It is called BINA48, which stands for Breakthrough Intelligence via Neural Architecture 48. BINA48 has variously been called a sentient robot, an android, gynoid, a social robot, a cybernetic companion, and “a robot with a face that moves, eyes that see, ears that hear and a digital mind that enables conversation.” (Ref)
BINA48 is owned by Martine Rothblatt’s Terasem Movement, Incorporated (TMI), and was designed to test the possibility of downloading a person’s consciousness into a non-biological or nanotech body, after combining detailed data about a person with future consciousness software. BINA48 was modeled after Rothblatt’s wife through more than one hundred hours in compiling her memories, feelings, and beliefs.
Rothblatt’s robot wife-clone has been interviewed by the NY Times, Whoopi Goldberg, Morgan Freeman (for National Geographic) Joe Rogan, and has participated in several TedTalks. (Refs) Rottblatt and BINA48 are united in proposing a future of 3D printing new body parts, leaving our bodies behind, and living forever by uploading our consciousness to the artificial intelligence “cloud.”
It should come as no great surprise, then, that the latest sets of rights under discussion are those of robots—or “electronic persons.”
 “Martine Rothblatt is responsible for launching several satellite communications companies, including the first nationwide vehicle location system (Geostar, 1983), the first private international spacecom project (PanAmSat, 1984), the first global satellite radio network (WorldSpace, 1990), and the first non-geostationary satellite-to-car broadcasting system (Sirius, 1990). As an attorney-entrepreneur she was also responsible for leading the efforts to obtain worldwide approval, via new international treaties, of satellite orbit/spectrum allocations for space-based navigation services (1987) and for direct-to-person satellite radio transmissions (1992). In the 1990s Dr. Rothblatt entered the life sciences field by leading the International Bar Association’s project to develop a draft Human Genome Treaty for the United Nations (submitted in 1999), and by founding a biotechnology company, United Therapeutics (1996). Dr. Rothblatt is the author of books on satellite communications technology (Radiodetermination Satellite Services and Standards, Artech, 1987), gender freedom (Apartheid of Sex, Crown, 1995), genomics (Unzipped Genes, Temple University Press, 1997) and xenotransplantation (Your Life or Mine, Ashgate House, 2003). She is also cyberscripted and produced one of the first cybermuseums, the World Against Racism Museum, www.endracism.org. (Ref.)
 “In an open letter, more than 150 experts in robotics, artificial intelligence, law, medical science and ethics, warned the [European] Commission against approving a proposal that envisions a special legal status of ‘electronic persons’ for the most sophisticated, autonomous robots. ‘Creating a legal status of electronic “person” would be ideological and nonsensical and non-pragmatic,’ the letter says. The group said the proposal, which was approved in a resolution by the European Parliament last year, is based on a perception of robots ‘distorted by science fiction and a few recent sensational press announcements.’” http://www.euronews.com/2018/04/13/robot-rights-violate-human-rights-experts-warn-eu