We should expect activists, politicians and journalists to engage in rampant deceit in their use of language to confuse and mislead the public. The abortion debate, a complex and ethically crucial societal controversy that requires clarity and honesty, has been just about permanently distorted by the routine use of deliberately deceptive cover-terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” One should we able to rely on educational and research institutions to be careful to avoid this malady, but as polls prove repeatedly, we can’t.
Grinnell College’s polling professionals have reported results of its research on several issues related to public education, race and genders issues. The graph below represents the results of their polling on children receiving sex-change interventions before they reach the age of consent, or even before they have hit puberty. The results, however, are tainted because the pollsters couldn’t bring themselves to be clear about what they were asking, and instead adopted the deliberately misleading, unicorns -and-rainbows euphemisms of the pro-trans activists.
“With many states in the process of or recently enacting legislation to ban gender-affirming care for transgender individuals under the age of 18, respondents were asked if they favored or opposed legislation that would ban transgender children from receiving such care with the approval of their parents or guardians and their doctors,” is how the college pollsters introduce their results.
First of all, calling the children at issue “transgender individuals” assumes facts not in evidence: the whole issue is whether children can know whether they are the “wrong sex” or not, and the degree to which such feelings are created by the malign influence of adults, peers and popular culture. More importantly. ” gender-affirming medical care” is a doubly manipulative and misleading term, engineered precisely to make massive interference with child’s biochemistry, sex organs and emotional health sound as benign as a spoonful of cough syrup and a hug.
U.S. Civil Rights Commission member Gale Herriot writes, “Ha! If you asked them whether ‘doctors should be able to chop boys’ penises off and then shoot them up with female hormones,’ I daresay you’d get a different answer.”
Neatly put!
The remaining question is whether framing the question this way is deliberately intended to rig the results, or merely incompetence. Either way, it’s unethical. Now watch these “research results” be cited by progressive pundits, columnists and politicians.
Science!
Ethics Alarms 
Gender-affirming care terminology was created to make the process seem benign. This was deliberate obfuscation.
Since when are polls “science”? Or even evidence of anything, (other than what some people think about something they know nothing about).
It’s supposed to be a science. You know, like psychiatry and public health….
And Economics. Hypothesis…Experiment. What experiment?
Political science! Right.
Social science and hard science are not the same. Hard science deals with concrete systems with measurable results where variables can be clearly isolated. Social science deals with complex fuzzy systems with little to no ability to isolate or reduce the impact of confounding variables. One of the biggest challenges in the social sciences is the impact of analysis itself on human behavior. How do you know if you observed a normal behavior or caused a behavior through the analytical process? Serious social scientists attempt to actually analyze this question, identify the potential contamination risks of social science studies, and report the problems with their methodology. Fraudsters attempt to exploit the problems with their methodology. Modern pollsters are not trying to observe behavior, they are trying to influence it. The studies they conduct therefore have zero validity as science, and should be condemned as pseudoscience.
“Modern pollsters are not trying to observe behavior, they are trying to influence it.”
Bravo Indigo November Golf Oscar!
That’s a great trick; find a term that’s vague and imprecise, yet worded to push a positive response, and use that in your poll. It’s sad that you can’t automatically assume it’s intentional these days. A sort of Poe’s Law correlary?
I think “abortion rights” is the most egregious example. Yikes! I bet Hitler and his crew thought they were exercising all sorts of rights.
Technically, “Gender Affirmation” would require an analysis of the subject’s chromosomal makeup prior to any type of affirmation. The correct language should be gender dysphoria affirmation.
Instead of allowing definitions to be determined by those with an agenda to obfuscate through linguistic misapplication, all attempts to do so should be ridiculed immediately and not allowed to become part of the debate.
Cambridge Dictionary
gender
noun [ C/U ]
US /ˈdʒen·dər/
gender noun [C/U] (SEX)
the male or female sex, or the state of being either male or female:
[ U ] Discrimination on the basis of gender is not allowed.
gender noun [C/U] (GRAMMAR)
GRAMMAR
the divisions, usually masculine, feminine, and neuter, into which nouns are separated in some languages:
[ C ] French has two genders and German has three.
(Definition of gender from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)
gender | BUSINESS ENGLISH
gender
noun [ U ]
UK /ˈdʒendər/ US
the condition of being either male or female:
Affirmation: A statement or act that something is true.
It is impossible for a third party to affirm that a person is a particular gender without evidence. If the child says he or she is a pony does not make it so.
We can say that a boy exhibits what may be socially construed as feminine behavior or has interests in things that are typically reserved for girls,but we cannot say he is female. We can say a girl expresses interest in things that boys find of great interest, or that she exhibits the socially construed behaviors of boys, but we cannot say she is a male.
Therefore, “Gender Affirming Care” should mean that we help the child understand that exhibiting behaviors of the opposite sex does not make them one and that the child should accept themselves as they are and to be proud of that.
Finally, lumping all forms of sexual orientations or preferences into the concept of gender is just wrong. If we did, we would include heterosexuality in the alphabet soup or gender identities. It is not included as a gender because it is not one and would not advance the LGBTQIA+ agenda.
Even using the notion that gender roles are socially constructed, they still rely on binary perceptions of gender with respect to male and female roles, behaviors, or ways of thinking. We do not have any socially constructed roles, behaviors, or ways of thinking for any others.
Isn’t forced sterilisation of transgender individuals something the Nazis did?
And this poll is advocating it be done to children??