Male blood donor who refused to say if he was pregnant turned away
Leslie Sinclair, 66, who is a retired driver for an engineering company, is a committed donor who has given 125 pints of blood in the last five decades.
However, on his most recent trip to the Albert Halls clinic in Stirling, Scotland, he was barred from donating after he said it was unnecessary for him to answer a question on a form asking if he was pregnant as he is a man in his 60s, MailOnline report.
Staff at the clinic said they could not accept his blood unless he provided a response, arguing that it is not always clear if someone is pregnant and the policy is in place to "promote inclusiveness".
Pregnant women or those with a baby which is not yet six months old are not allowed to give blood.
The father of two said he had been giving blood since he was 18 and had never had any issues before.
He told MailOnline: "There is always a form to fill in and that's fine – they tend to ask about medical conditions or diseases – and clearly that's because the blood needs to be safe. This time around, there was a question I hadn't seen before: 'Are you pregnant, or have you been in the last six months?' which required a yes or no answer.
"It is nonsensical and it makes me angry because there are vulnerable people waiting for blood, including children, and in desperate need of help. But they've been denied my blood because of the obligation to answer a question that can't possibly be answered."
Professor Marc Turner, director of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, said: "We appreciate the support of each and every one of our donor community and thank Mr Sinclair for his commitment over a long number of years.
"Whilst pregnancy is only a relevant question to those whose biological sex or sex assigned at birth is female, sex assigned at birth is not always visually clear to staff.
"As a public body we take cognisance of changes in society around how such questions may be asked without discrimination and have a duty to promote inclusiveness – therefore all donors are now asked the same questions."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/18/male-blood-donor-refused-say-pregnant-turned-away/
******************************************Why detransitioned teens regret changing genders
When Chloe was 12 years old, she decided she was transgender. At 13, she came out to her parents. That same year, she was put on puberty blockers and prescribed testosterone. At 15, she underwent a double mastectomy. Less than a year later, she realized she’d made a mistake — all by the time she was 16 years old.
Now 17, Chloe is one of a growing cohort called “detransitioners” — those who seek to reverse a gender transition, often after realizing they actually do identify with their biological sex. Tragically, many will struggle for the rest of their lives with the irreversible medical consequences of a decision they made as minors.
“I can’t stay quiet,” said Chloe. “I need to do something about this and to share my own cautionary tale.”
• • •
In recent years, the number of children experiencing gender dysphoria in the West has skyrocketed. Exact figures are difficult to come by, but, between 2009 and 2019, children being referred for transitioning treatment in the United Kingdom increased 1,000% among biological males and 4,400% among biological females. Meanwhile, the number of young people identifying as transgender in the US has almost doubled since 2017, according to a new Centers for Disease Control & Prevention report.
Historically, transitioning from male to female was vastly more common, with this cohort typically experiencing persistent gender dysphoria from a very young age. Recently, however, the status quo has reversed, and female-to-male transitions have become the overwhelming majority.
Dr. Lisa Littman, a former professor of Behavioral and Social Sciences at Brown University, coined the term “rapid onset gender dysphoria” to describe this subset of transgender youth, typically biological females who become suddenly dysphoric during or shortly after puberty. Littman believes this may be due to adolescent girls’ susceptibility to peer influence on social media.
Helena Kerschner, a 23-year-old detransitioner from Cincinnati, Ohio, who was born a biological female, first felt gender dysphoric at age 14. She says Tumblr sites filled with transgender activist content spurred her transition.
“I was going through a period where I was just really isolated at school, so I turned to the Internet,” she recalled. In her real life, Kerschner had a falling out with friends at school; online however, she found a community that welcomed her. “My dysphoria was definitely triggered by this online community. I never thought about my gender or had a problem with being a girl before going on Tumblr.”
She said she felt political pressure to transition, too. “The community was very social justice-y. There was a lot of negativity around being a cis, heterosexual, white girl, and I took those messages really, really personally.”
Chloe Cole, a 17-year-old student in California, had a similar experience when she joined Instagram at 11. “I started being exposed to a lot of LGBT content and activism,” she said. “I saw how trans people online got an overwhelming amount of support, and the amount of praise they were getting really spoke to me because, at the time, I didn’t really have a lot of friends of my own.”
Experts worry that many young people seeking to transition are doing so without a proper mental-health evaluation. Among them is Dr. Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist specializing in gender, sexuality and identity. A transgender woman herself, Anderson has helped hundreds of young people navigate the transition journey over the past 30 years. Anderson supports the methodical, milestone-filled process lasting anywhere from a few months to several years to undergo transition. Today, however, she’s worried that some young people are being medicalized without the proper restraint or oversight.
“I’m concerned that the rise of detransitioners is reflective of some young people who have progressed through their gender journey very, very quickly,” she said. She worries that some doctors may be defaulting to medicalization as a remedy for other personal or mental-health factors. “When other issues important to a child are not fully addressed [before transition], then medical professionals are failing children.”
Dr. Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist specializing in gender, sexuality and identity, who is herself transgender.
According to an online survey of detransitioners conducted by Dr. Lisa Littman last year, 40% said their gender dysphoria was caused by a mental-health condition and 62% felt medical professionals did not investigate whether trauma was a factor in their transition decisions.
“My dysphoria collided with my general depression issues and body image issues,” Helena recalled. “I just came to the conclusion that I was born in the wrong body and that all my problems in life would be solved if I transitioned.”
Chloe had a similar experience. “Because my body didn’t match beauty ideals, I started to wonder if there was something wrong with me. I thought I wasn’t pretty enough to be a girl, so I’d be better off as a boy. Deep inside, I wanted to be pretty all along, but that’s something I kept suppressed.”
She agrees with Dr. Anderson that more psychological evaluation is needed to determine whether underlying mental health issues might be influencing the desire to transition.
“More attention needs to be paid to psychotherapy,” Chloe said. “We’re immediately jumping into irreversible medical treatments when we could be focusing on empowering these children to not hate their bodies.”
https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/
*********************************************What is manifesting?
Current pop psychology
On hearing the term manifest, many of you may be struck with images of 'woo woo' practices that are grounded in spirituality and faith, rather than science. And while the way we can approach this practice certainly does vary, there is actually some scientific evidence that shows parts of manifestation are effective for a shifted mindset.
In general, manifestation is the process of visualising a desired reality and believing it into fruition.
Writing for Berkley's Wellbeing Institute, Tchiki Davis, MA, PhD defines manifestation "as the conscious creation of the circumstances and outcomes that make for a fulfilling life".
In more spiritual settings, manifesting can be achieved through prayer or faith in the universe bringing you what you ask for. Whereas those with a more scientific view can benefit from manifesting in the form of adopting a growth mindset and believing in your ability to achieve your goals, Dr Davis explains.
Taking this more scientific approach can be compared to visualisation practices, which are used in sports training a fair bit. Essentially, the belief is that if you imagine yourself in your desired position, you're more likely to land there.
So, whichever way you look at manifesting, you have a shot at gaining something pretty great from giving it a try (granted you also actually put physical time and effort into achieving your goals).
Success is not such a straight-forward concept to grasp. For some, it's about earning a good salary. For others, it's about starting a family; for somebody else, it might be about learning how to play an instrument really well, among many other options. Whatever success means to you, there are some traits that you might not instantly associate with someone who's on the path to becoming successful. Maybe your stubbornness, and even your anxiety, might not be that bad after all...
The 369 manifesting method
Easily one of the most popular manifesting techniques on TikTok at the moment, the 369 method is based around writing your desired goal out a specific number of times.
**************************************************
Baby formula: A case study in government meddling
You may not have been following the baby formula story in the US. But bear with me – it’s a classic case-study in the failure of government meddling, even if the intentions are worthy.
Concerned that some mothers might be unable to breastfeed (am I allowed to say that?) their children but also unable to afford to buy baby formula, the Women, Infants and Children program came into effect in 1975, the result of a federal government initiative.
For low-income families – the cut-off point is around $50,000 per year – with babies, the program provides formula at no cost. The program is administered through the states and each state negotiates separately with the formula producers to secure sizeable discounts in exchange for exclusivity.
The effect is that, by and large, there is no choice of formula under WIC for families, although there are some exceptions for special requirements – for allergic babies, for example. It is estimated that WIC accounts for half of all baby formula sold in the US.
From the point of view of the producers, this hasn’t been a bad deal because foreign producers were effectively banned from the US market because of the absence of accreditation by the Food and Drug Administration and high tariffs. The effect was to carve up the market – worth around $4 billion per year – between four dominant players accounting for 90 per cent of the market. Abbott is the largest producer, accounting for half of the market.
It should come as no surprise, given this government scheme, that the incidence of breastfeeding in the US is relatively low by international standards. While nearly three-quarters of new mothers in the US start off breastfeeding their babies, only around 43 per cent are breastfeeding at 6 months. But here’s the real rub: among African-American mothers, 58 per cent start out breastfeeding, with less than one-third breastfeeding at six months.
To be sure, there are a number of factors that affect the incidence of breastfeeding, including cultural factors. The absence of mandated parental leave in the US means that many mothers have to return to work relatively soon after the birth of a child. But it is common sense to assume that handing out baby formula free of charge will increase its use. (My guess is that there is also a black market in baby formula just as there is with food stamps.)
The reason why baby formula has been in the news lately is that there has been a shortage of formula right across the US, with parents being limited to a small number of cans to allow the available supplies to be spread as widely as possible. With the large Abbott factory in Michigan closed for some time, the gap between supply and demand narrowed to the point of unmet demand. (This one factory had accounted for around one-fifth of the supply.)
Through hurried processes undertaken by the lumbering FDA, interim certification was given to a number of overseas suppliers, including an Australian one, Bubs Australia. To facilitate this outcome, the lobbying expertise of Joe Hockey, former treasurer and Australian ambassador to the US, was called on. Through his contacts, the company was able to obtain access to the US market which is, needless to say, a boon to that company. A2 Milk, another Australian company, is seeking a similar deal.
The end result has seen crates of baby formula being air-freighted to the US from Australia and Europe. The high tariffs that normally apply to imported formula have been temporarily waived.
It turned out that the FDA was told last year about the problems at the Abbott Michigan plant, which included bacterial contamination of the formula. Evidently, four babies had become very sick and two had died. But the powers that be sat on their hands and no investigations were undertaken until well into 2022. Eventually, the FDA insisted that the entire factory be shut down until remediation work had been undertaken, which took several months. (The general view is that the drug side of the FDA is dominant both in terms of resources and speed of decision-making. One current proposal is that food certification is hived off, with a separate agency created.) The Michigan factory has now come back on line and the shortage of formula that was a concern to many parents, including those not eligible under the WIC program, is beginning to subside.
But there are some broader lessons that should be learnt from these recent events. First, notwithstanding the worthy aim of the WIC program ensuring that infants are well fed, a targeted scheme such as this has downsides – the dreaded unintended consequences.
The alternative is to provide additional income support for new parents with low incomes – we do this through our system of Family Tax Benefits. In this way, parents can choose how best to spend the additional money; it is neutral between breastfeeding and formula-feeding.
The second lesson relates to the mixing up of social policy with industry protection – an undesirable and unnecessary combination. The decision to subsidise baby formula could just as easily have taken place in the context of a free and open market for the product, including imported formula.
But the local producers took the opportunity to make the case for industry protection on the basis that the scheme benefitted from the discounts offered for bulk orders. Sadly, the legislators were too willing to oblige, no doubt patting themselves on the back for killing two birds with the one stone.
Arguably, one longer-term benefit of this fiasco is that overseas producers have now been allowed into the huge US market, which may ultimately drive down the price of formula, including for the half of purchasers who do not quality under the WIC program.
Thirdly, questions need to be answered in relation to the effectiveness of the FDA, both in terms of acting on a potential problem with one of the major accredited producers as well as the thicket of regulatory procedures that has prevented overseas suppliers from breaking into the market. Of course, regulatory incompetence is a perennial issue both in the US and elsewhere.
But without the determination of governments – in this case the US federal government – to ensure that regulations are efficiently and openly administered, many market and social outcomes will continue to be distorted because of regulatory incompetence.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment