What did I say, that resulted first in my suspension from Twitter itself and now the inquisition?

“Remember when Pride was a sin, and Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician?”

Was this a political opinion, too, a mere example of my “right to free speech,” my right to shoot my mouth off, however hedonistically and impulsively, as I see fit?

Or was it, instead, the exercising of my professional responsibility, in the face of an egregious and increasingly widespread medical crime?

Let’s consider the latter possibility. First, let us note that the United Nations itself recognizes “forced sterilization” not only as a crime, but as a veritable crime against humanity, the most serious imaginable crime.

That implies, at the very least, a responsibility among medical and adjacent professionals to speak up when they note such occurrences.

Second: it is also the case that I am duty-bound by the very standards imposed by the regulatory body in question to report all observed cases of the sexual abuse of minors.

Now, Ellen Page was no minor when her breasts were amputated, magically transforming her into a now mandatory-Elliot.

However, the rampant and self-serving publicity she engaged in, post-surgery, parading her new, mutilated chest for the world to see was certainly an enticement, given her undeniable celebrity, to legions of confused young women literally willing to risk physical dismemberment and sterilization to garner the attention they cannot otherwise seem to attract.

Thus, in my opinion, which I hypothetically have not only the right but the responsibility to express, the actress Ellen Page is enabling the butchers of the surgical profession to deprive minors who by definition are incapable of providing truly informed consent of their ability to reproduce (as well as their perfectly healthy sexual organs, primary and secondary, and their long-term health, both psychological and physical).

It might be objected — and indeed is being: the true danger to such children is not the enablers and butchers, but the bigots like me who are merely interfering with the expression of the true identities of these innocent and somehow for-the-first-time-in-history fully self-aware children.

My response? I have an explicit professional obligation to employ diagnostic techniques that do not and must not rely solely on self-report.

Ethical psychologists must specify their sometimes genuinely delusional clients’ identities using multiple measures: certainly, the direct and subjective testimony of those clients, but also objective measures of psychopathology and health, the reports of others, and whatever additional relevant historical and behavior data can be obtained.

None of this is optional: until yesterday, so to speak, it was both self-evident and mandatory.

Now the insistence on the omniscience of the subjective self is such that even though these requirements are still on the books, so-called therapists are required to ignore them, placing both themselves and their clients in peril.

Every clinical psychologist worth his or her salt knows this; indeed, has to demonstrate familiarity with such rules to obtain the very licence that is now in question in my case.

Every clinical psychologist who is holding his or her tongue in the face of the increasing tide of surgical butchery sweeping over the equally silent medical profession is therefore guilty of egregious malpractice by omission.

We will look back in the decades to come at the absolute catastrophe of the "gender affirming" movement with the same horror we view the days of lobotomies and eugenics.