mouthporn.net
#medicalization – @religion-is-a-mental-illness on Tumblr

Religion is a Mental Illness

@religion-is-a-mental-illness / religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com

Tribeless. Problematic. Triggering. Faith is a cognitive sickness.
Avatar

By: Abigail Shrier

Published: Dec 22, 2023

At age nine, Chloe Cole started early puberty. By age twelve, she was uncomfortable in her body; online influencers convinced her that she was in some sense really a boy. She came out to her parents as “transgender” and, not knowing what else to do, they took her to a therapist.
“They didn’t expect that by seeing a psychologist, I would just be funneled further and further into this pipeline,” Cole told a rapt audience at AmericaFest this week.
For Chloe, that pipeline meant puberty blockers at age 12 followed by cross-sex hormones. A medically unnecessary double mastectomy at age 15. By 16, she was filled with regret.
It’s easy to see this as one more ghastly entry in the macabre chronicles of gender medicine: incompetent therapists and unethical doctors deconstructing young girls’ bodies for reasons that seem alternately depraved, mendacious and confused.
But if you take a step back from the case of the detransitioners—young women shepherded into medical transitions they later came to regret—another image emerges. Not merely of therapists’ “affirming” teens’ transgender identity, specifically. But one more instance in which the Bad Feelings experts made adolescents’ bad feelings worse.

“[My parents] didn’t expect that by seeing a psychologist, I would just be funneled further and further into this pipeline,” Cole said.

Like a lot of teen girls who suddenly adopt a transgender identity, Cole’s mental health treatment preceded her gender confusion. She had been medicated for ADHD starting at age nine or ten—given escalating levels of stimulants that made her feel lousy and disconnected from her body and didn’t seem to help. She now believes ADHD was a misdiagnosis.
“In general, this model of making everything a condition—if a child is different in any way, if they’re not focusing in school, if they’re a little bouncy in class and they won’t sit in their seat—it takes the responsibility off of the adults to say, ‘Okay, let’s just medicate them. That’ll fix the problem,’” Cole told me.
Writing my last book, Irreversible Damage, involved extensive interviews with many detransitioners and American families in general.  In the course of my research, I became aware of three things: First, that unprecedented numbers of American kids were undergoing therapy or on psychiatric medication. Second, that therapists’ diagnoses were often altering adolescents’ self-understanding. And, third, that large numbers of parents had become profoundly dependent on therapists to guide their parenting and “fix” their kids.
It wasn’t only ideologically-motivated “gender therapists” who were making mischief, reifying the idea in adolescents’ minds that they were really, truly transgender. Ordinary, well-meaning therapists were doing the same, not primarily for ideological reasons. Sometimes the therapists were simply following the guidance of their accrediting organizations. But just as often, affirming the adolescent – in place of treating her – was simply par for the course. That was simply what the therapeutic relationship with the teen patient had become.
Sure, I’ll call you ‘Sebastian.’ I can see why you feel Mom’s taking away your smartphone was emotionally abusive. Losing a beloved cat can be devastating; let’s talk about coping with your grief for the next few sessions. It sounds like having to move after seventh grade was traumatic.

This model of making everything a condition—if a child is different in any way, if they’re not focusing in school … it takes the responsibility off of the adults to say, ‘Okay, let’s just medicate them, ’ Cole said.

When faced with a surly teen who isn’t yours, one you must somehow keep engaged for a potentially interminable 50-minute hour, and for whose mistakes you bear no direct emotional consequences—it’s just so easy to validate their perspective. Her mother’s decision to take away the smartphone, her pet’s death, her parents’ move—how did they make you feel? Let’s talk about your pain, every week, for years.
The rising generation is swimming in therapy. Forty two percent of Gen Z—those born between 1995 and 2012—has been in therapy (more than any other generation). Forty two percent has a mental health diagnosis. One recent survey indicates the extent of diagnosis may even be more dramatic: 60 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 26 may have been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder.
Perhaps most alarming, by 2016—long before the Covid lockdowns and well before American kids aged 2 to 8 were even on social media—almost 20% of these little ones had a diagnosed mental, behavioral, or developmental disorder.
They are receiving unprecedented levels of mental health treatment. Curiously, they also seem to be getting worse.
For well over a decade, teachers and school counselors have assumed the mandate (and curricula, and use of instructional time) to play shrink indiscriminately with kids, often styled as “Social Emotional Learning.” Parents stopped trusting their own judgment and family traditions regarding childrearing, instead relying on shrinks to guide their parenting. And we all allowed our kids’ (largely normal) bad feelings to be pathologized by the those in the bad-feelings business.

Gen Z is receiving unprecedented levels of mental health treatment. They seem only to be getting worse.

Harrison Ford made this point nicely in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, in February of last year. A reporter had said to Ford, “Your fans online have done some armchair diagnosis, looking at things you’ve said about being shy in social situations and some of your talk show appearances. Some assume you’ve wrestled with social anxiety disorder. Are they onto something?”
“Shit,” he said. “That sounds like something a psychiatrist would say, not a casual observer.”
For the rising generation, the language of psychopathology provides the lens with which they understand themselves and each other. Where my generation would “self-diagnose” with laziness or procrastination, the rising generation might see complex post-traumatic stress disorder or ADHD.
But while laziness can be obliterated by a change of attitude and habits, a mental health diagnosis demands treatment or accommodation. Trying to lift yourself out seems futile. And so, unsurprisingly, the generation lavishly labeled with mental health diagnoses also has the least faith in its ability to meet even routine challenges or turn their lives around.
“No. I don’t have a social anxiety disorder,” Harrison Ford told the reporter. “I have an abhorrence of boring situations. I was shy when I first went onstage—I wasn’t shy, I was fucking terrified. My knees would shake so badly, you could see it from the back of the theater. But that’s not social anxiety. That’s being unfamiliar with the territory. I was able to talk myself through that and then enjoy the experience of being onstage and telling a story with collaborators.”

“No. I don’t have a social anxiety disorder,” Harrison Ford told the reporter. “I have an abhorrence of boring situations. I was shy when I first went onstage. But that’s not social anxiety.”

A case of the fantods. To overcome those, Harrison Ford didn’t require an expert or a prescription. He needed only to summon the guts.
Imagine if he’d been born in 2012 instead of 1942.  

==

You don't have a "gender," you have a personality.

You don't have a disorder, you've just never been told, "no."

This issue isn't exclusive to professional therapists. Tumblr and Twitter are filled with assholes who defend their assholery with self-diagnosed autism or "trauma." They're under the misconception that if they claim it's some kind of disorder, rather than them just being a colossal asshole, you can't complain, and they can do what they want. This also explains the multitude of "genders."

Source: twitter.com
Avatar
Abstract
The evidence base for psychological benefits of GnRHA for adolescents with gender dysphoria (GD) was deemed “low quality” by the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Limitations identified include inattention to clinical importance of findings. This secondary analysis of UK clinical study data uses Reliable and Clinically Significant Change approaches to address this gap. The original uncontrolled study collected data within a specialist GD service. Participants were 44 12–15-year-olds with GD. Puberty was suppressed using “triptorelin”; participants were followed-up for 36 months. Secondary analysis used data from parent-report Child Behavior Checklists and Youth Self-Report forms. Reliable change results: 15–34% of participants reliably deteriorated depending on the subscale, time point and parent versus child report. Clinically significant change results: 27–58% were in the borderline (subclinical) or clinical range at baseline (depending on subscale and parent or child report). Rates of clinically significant change ranged from 0 to 35%, decreasing over time toward zero on both self-report and parent-report. The approach offers an established complementary method to analyze individual level change and to examine who might benefit or otherwise from treatment in a field where research designs have been challenged by lack of control groups and low sample sizes.

==

Indeed.

Source: twitter.com
Avatar

By: Colin Wright and Samuel Stagg

Published: May 22, 2023

Gender ideology rests upon two main pillars. The first proposes that the two sexes are not distinct and immutable categories, but rather correspond to a collection of many traits that one can plot along a spectrum. Male and female, in this view, exist only in a statistical sense. The second asserts that every human brain contains an unchangeable “gender identity” that is knowable from a very young age, physically detectable, and may conflict with one’s biological sex. The practical aspirations of gender ideologues depend on the truth of both claims: if male and female are not arbitrary or mutable, then there would be no basis for allowing males in female sports, prisons, or female-only spaces; if sex is binary, and no innate and fixed gender identity exists, then one cannot be “mismatched” from one’s sex—and “gender affirming” treatment is unjustified. Put another way, the belief in the sex spectrum provides the assurance of the ability to materially change one’s sex, while the belief in an innate and fixed gender identity that can be “mismatched” from one’s sex (i.e., a person can be “born in the wrong body”) provides the ethical justification or even obligation for hormonal or surgical intervention.

These gender-ideology pillars lack empirical support and are buttressed entirely by politically motivated wishful thinking. Consider a recent Washington Post article by English professor Jennifer Finney Boylan, which tried to establish the validity of both. Boylan does not seem to understand the well-established universal property that defines all males and females in nature, displays confusion about the difference between how sex is defined versus how it is determined, and demonstrates a tenuous grasp of the research of so-called “brain sex” that purports to ground “gender identity.”

We agree with Boylan that policy must ultimately be rooted in material reality. A scientist’s job is to describe the natural world as clearly and accurately as possible; society can collectively decide what, if anything, to do with those facts. But scientists also have a duty to combat falsehoods on topics they know well, especially when such falsehoods have real-world consequences. Misleading and incorrect claims about gender identity are being used to justify invasive, permanent medical procedures on minors and adults and to eliminate sex-based distinctions in law. Boylan’s claims, representative of progressive defenses of gender ideology, deserve serious scrutiny.

Boylan begins by outlining some general questions about biology. “So what, then, is a biological male, or female? What determines this supposedly simple truth? It’s about chromosomes, right?” Boylan then purports to debunk the chromosomal notion of sex by highlighting exceptions to the general rule that males have XY chromosomes and females are XX, noting that “not every person with a Y chromosome is male, and not every person with a double X is female,” and that “the world is full of people with other combinations: XXY (or Klinefelter Syndrome), XXX (or Trisomy X), XXXY and so on.”

The notion that males and females are defined by their chromosomes, with males always being XY and females always XX, is a frustratingly common misconception that occurs on both sides of the political divide. Gender activists use this misconception to provide exceptions that they believe refute the notion that there are only two sexes. Conversely, some opponents of the erasure of biological sex tout the XY and XX concept of males and females as proof that sex is binary and etched into our DNA.

Neither depiction is accurate. The central error, not obvious to those unfamiliar with biology, is made explicit in Boylan’s second question: What “determines” whether an individual is male or female? For what determines an individual’s sex is different from what defines it. “Sex determination” refers to the processes that set an embryo on the developmental pathway of becoming male or female. But the mechanisms responsible for triggering male and female development do not define the male and female sexes themselves. Humans and other mammals use genes located on chromosomes to trigger sex development; some animals, like many reptiles, use temperature. Just as chromosomes do not define an individual mammal’s sex, temperature does not define an individual alligator’s sex. Rather, one’s sex is defined by his or her primary reproductive anatomy, indicating the type of gamete (sperm or ova) he or she can or would produce.

The different chromosomal combinations Boylan highlights, such as XXY, XXX, and XXXY, are not examples of new sexes beyond male or female. Instead, they represent chromosomal variation within the two sexes. Assuming a properly functioning SRY gene (the gene that triggers male development) on the Y chromosomes, the hypothetical XXY and XXXY individuals would be unambiguously male, and the XXX individual unambiguously female.

Moving on, Boylan mentions complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), describing it as “a condition that keeps the brains of people with a Y [chromosome] from absorbing the information in that chromosome.” This description is not even remotely correct. CAIS is a condition in which a person’s cells are completely unresponsive to androgens, such as testosterone. This prevents the genitals in a developing male fetus from masculinizing, and further prevents the development of male secondary sexual characteristics during puberty, despite the presence of functioning internal testes.

Boylan then displays confusion regarding the distinction between primary sex organs (gonads) and secondary sex characteristics (traits that differentiate between males and females during puberty). Boylan questions whether women who have had mastectomies or men with “enlarged breasts” are still female and male, respectively. Breasts are called “secondary sex characteristics” for a reason: they are related to sex, but do not define it. Just as painting stripes on a lion does not turn it into a tiger, augmenting a man’s breasts does not make him a woman.

After concluding that the basis for being male or female cannot be reduced to anatomy or genetics, Boylan turns to the brain, writing: “It might be that what’s in your pants is less important than what’s between your ears.” The concept of “brain sex” has been of special interest to gender activists and medical professionals who seek to root “gender identity” in something immutable and innate. That would allow them to draw upon existing legal precedents and civil rights laws, as Leor Sapir, an expert in this domain, observes:

Another reason for the medical professionals’ insistence is that “brain sex” resonates with a legal culture shaped by the civil rights movement. The Supreme Court has long recognized that a trait’s immutability is relevant to its eligibility for constitutional protection. In the final stages of the Gloucester litigation, the Fourth Circuit based its equal protection analysis on the claim that gender identity is, like race, an “immutable characteristic.”

Boylan does not claim that the brains of transgender “women” (in other words, natal males) resemble those of natal females. Instead, Boylan claims that they are “something distinct,” citing a recent study. The study in question recruited 72 participants (24 males, 24 females, and 24 transgender women) who all underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The images were then subjected to a multivariate machine-learning algorithm designed to predict sex, which it did reasonably accurately. From the machine-learning data, a “brain sex index” (BSI) was created, with a BSI of zero being standardized to represent a totally female brain and a BSI of one representing a totally male brain. When applied to the transgender women, the BSI indicated a shift of 25 percent toward the female end (though still remaining much closer to typical male brains).

A closer examination casts doubt on the utility of the study for Boylan’s claim. Six out of the 24 transgender participants were attracted to members of the same sex. Why would this be important? As it turns out, several lines of evidence suggest that homosexual individuals have less sexually dimorphic brains than heterosexuals (or even a tendency for a reversed sex pattern, on average). Whether these differences are causal to homosexuality or not is irrelevant. What is important is that sex-atypicality within the brain is associated with sexual orientation.

In an effort to show exactly how sexual orientation can affect research on gender dysphoria, one study scanned the brains of 24 heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals (i.e., males, identifying as women, who are attracted to females; also known as “gynephilic”) and compared them with male and female heterosexuals. When it came to the former group, the authors found no signs of brain “feminization,” but instead found (in relation to both males and females) larger gray matter volume in the temporo-parietal junction, an area involved in body perception and recognition and out-of-body experiences.

In fact, studies claiming that the brains of transgender-identifying individuals are shifted toward the opposite sex routinely do not control for homosexuality. And when they do, they fail to demonstrate any such shift. Consider two studies that assess regional gray matter differences between transsexuals and controls. The first, by Simon and colleagues, concluded that transsexuals have brains resembling that of the opposite sex. However, the second, by Luders et al., found no difference between male-to-female transsexuals and control males.

What caused these dramatically different findings? The transsexual participants in Simon et al. were all homosexual, whereas only one-quarter of the transsexual participants from the Luders study were homosexual. Across all studies, the percentage of homosexuality in the transgender cohort appears to correlate with the degree of sex-atypicality within the brain. The study Boylan cites is consistent with this trend, as the BSI cross-sex shift and the percentage of homosexuality match perfectly (25 percent).

Next, Boylan references a Scientific American blog post to explain a 2014 functional MRI (fMRI) study on the effects of smelling androstenedione (AND)—a precursor in the biosynthesis of testosterone and estrogen that increases throughout puberty and acts as a pheromone in human sweat—in a group of prepubescent children and adolescents with and without gender dysphoria. In both pre-pubertal and adolescent controls, males showed a desensitizing effect to smelling AND (in technical terms, their hypothalamic activational response decreased significantly over time), while females demonstrated increased hypothalamic activation over time. In contrast, adolescent girls and boys with gender dysphoria exhibited responses to AND that more resembled those of the opposite sex. No sex-atypical response was found in the pre-pubertal children.

Once again, it might appear on its face that dysphoric adolescents show atypical responses in the brain, which could explain a feeling of being “trapped in the wrong body.” However, as with the BSI study, the vast majority of the adolescent cohort—the only cohort to find an atypical result—were homosexual. (When asked “Have you ever been in love?” and, if so, “Was this person a boy or a girl?” all girls with gender dysphoria and 70 percent of boys with gender dysphoria answered with a person of the same natal sex.) Why would sexuality be important? An atypical response to smelling AND has been reported in both homosexual men and lesbian women within the hypothalamus. Since the sexual orientation of the prepubescent children was considerably more varied (and perhaps why the results were, according to Boylan, less clear), it seems far more likely that this atypical reaction was not a result of gender dysphoria but rather the participants’ sexuality.

Finally, Boylan briefly discusses a study on click-evoked otoacoustic emissions (CEOAEs)—echo-like sound waves produced by the inner ear in response to transient clicking stimuli. The study focused on children and young adolescents who all met the DSM-IV criteria for gender identity disorder (GID) and were of the “early onset” typology (typically homosexual). CEOAEs, a byproduct of the cochlear amplification mechanism, exhibit sexual dimorphism—females tend to show a higher amplitude compared with males from birth, suggesting a role for the pre-natal hormonal environment. In GID subjects, boys showed an atypical response (i.e., increased mean amplitude CEOAE) in the right ear, whereas GID girls did not. The authors suggest their findings support the “hypo-masculinization” of GID boys through decreased exposure to androgens during early development, but do not support the hypothesis of an increased exposure to androgens in girls with GID. However, research has shown that bisexual and homosexual females exhibit a partial “masculinization” of their CEOAE amplitude, implicating pre-natal androgens in modulating female-atypical responses. Thus, the atypical CEOAEs may indeed relate to the pre-natal environment, however, this is intertwined with the subjects sexual orientation (early on-set type). Further, the adolescent GID participants in the study had a wide age range, which could have affected the results since many were at different pubertal stages and thus differentially affected by circulating pubertal hormones. Indeed, trans-identifying adolescent females who received puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatment showed significantly weaker mean CEOAE amplitudes in the right ear compared to control girls. This could partly explain the differences observed in the GID adolescent cohort.

Boylan misinterprets science throughout the piece, which culminates to the following statement:

What does it mean, to respond to the world in this way? For me, it has meant having a sense of myself as a woman, a sense that no matter how comfortable I was with the fact of being feminine, I was never at ease with not being female. When I was young, I tried to talk myself out of it, telling myself, in short, to “get over it.”

Boylan had previously claimed that transgender brains are neither male- nor female-typical, but rather “something distinct,” and provided several lines of evidence for sex-atypical responses in transgender individuals. Nonetheless, Boylan makes the common mistake of assuming that having a brain resembling that of the opposite sex is a causal mechanism of gender-dysphoric feelings, without considering confounding variables such as sexual orientation.

“All the science tells us,” Boylan writes, “is that a biological male—or female—is not any one thing, but a collection of possibilities.” No: an individual’s sex is based on the type of gamete (sperm or ova) his or her primary sex organs are organized around, through development, to produce. Males have primary sex organs organized around the production of sperm, and females, ova. Brains do not define an individual’s sex. Brains, like any other part of one’s body, exhibit average differences between males and females. A brain, like any other organ, does not have its own sex, separate from the body. The terms “male brain” and “female brain” simply refer to the brains residing in the bodies of males and females, respectively. It is not possible to be “born in the wrong body.”

If Boylan’s essay demonstrates anything, it’s how it is far easier to make a mess of the truth than to clarify it.

==

Boylan is an English professor pretending to set us right on "science" and "biology."

I miss the creationists.

Avatar
Leaving an ideology that you’ve centred your life and body around is tremendously difficult, and there are many reasons for returning, like alcoholics, gamblers and addicts, the devil you know, is sometimes an easier choice.

By: Richie Herron (aka TulipR)

Published: Nov 13, 2022

For this piece, I’ll be exploring the narratives around retransition, a theme that is brought up around the topic of detransition. In this essay, I’ll be addressing these narratives, and the beliefs behind them.
Detransition
As with everything there are competing narratives around the reasons for detransition, one of which arrives from the trans sphere and another from those critical of gender affirmation.
In a previous entry, I wrote how detransition is marketed as external pressure from the trans sphere, pinning the motivations firmly around external factors. The basis of this narrative is that detransitioners are victimised trans people who have been pressured into detransition by external factors, releasing the burden from the individual and placing the onus solely on their environment and culture.
This in essence is a continuation of propelling the notion that trans people themselves have diminished responsibility and are powerless against their surroundings, a key aspect of the victim narrative that keeps them anchored in their trans identity.
Trans-positive surveys like the USTC are renowned for filtering out detransitioners, and anyone who does not presently identify as trans has their answers discounted, a double bind within itself. Consequently, a table from the 2015 USTS Report frequently finds itself floating around social media, reinforcing the aforementioned narrative, that detransition is merely a result of environmental factors, rather than individual choice, and they do this in the USTS report by framing detransition as ‘boymoding’ for family events or missing a dose of hormones.
Whilst some may detransition because of social pressure, recent studies (Elie Vandenbussche, 2021) and the /r/detrans demographic survey paint a drastically different picture, that the basis of detransition is a result of a disengaging from identity politics, ergo their trans identity, as opposed to external factors.
Detransition Amongst Transgender Diverse People (Michael Irwig, 2022) cites the same findings as Vandenbussche, with 70% of participants highlighting that their motivation to detransition was upon the realisation that gender dysphoria was related to other issues, health concerns and that transition did not help with dysphoria.
In my experience of detrans groups, many detransitioners had no difficulty in blending in as their stated sex, and realise the false reality of transition upon catching the dragon. Another key factor in awakening individuals is being met with the consequences of surgery, as well as the health implications of cross-sex hormones, usually appearing after 5-8 years of medical transition. Because of the length of time it takes for an individual to detransition, their experiences are filtered out in surveys like the USTC, which has an overwhelming volume of participants who have only been on hormones for several months or are fresh out of surgery, leading to an obscure set of figures.
Vitriol
In a few short weeks, it’ll be one year since I entered the detrans sphere. I’m reluctant to call it a community, though it certainly behaves like one in a way the trans community didn’t quite. They pull together, help each other and politely disagree without descending into chaos.
There are other private groups within this sphere, largely on Discord, one of which is the detrans male group, which has recently suffered an inexcusable intrusion, with individuals posing as detransitioners to gain access to the highly personal stories of others. In doing so they have shared private conversations, largely about myself and others, naturally, this has caused some members to back off, and return into hiding, understandably so too.
Picture this, you’re a freshly detransitioned woman, you have the loving embrace of a multitude of women’s groups to pick you up and dust you off, to defend you against the vitriol of Trans Rights Activists. Behind her, is a detrans man who anticipating a similar reaction, however, is greeted with hostility he wasn’t prepared for, he’s just left the cult and still doesn’t understand the dynamics at play, and is instantly placed in the firing lines of traumatic anger, irrational accusations about imagined crimes, and is carelessly accused of the worst things imaginable. Not only this but after leaving what was most certainly a cult, he’s expected to understand all the dynamics that brought him there, something detrans women don’t face.
What does he do? He back’s off, dips his toe back out of the water and retreats to those who at least, will be on his side.
If it were not for the Parent Groups specifically, I wouldn’t have made it past June on Twitter. I owe them a lot, for my sanity, and the support, and they alone are perhaps the only reason detrans males stick around at all. And even if the parent groups do manage to support that new detransitioner, he still has to get past the equally intense hatred from his former side, as well as extremists from the side he’s deflecting to.
The vitriol directed at all detransitioners or anyone who speaks out against gender affirmation is blindly apparent, you need not look any further than the quote tweets on KC Millers’ viral video to see how the trans-positive movement reacts to those with negative experiences of gender affirmation.
And it’s not just the flurry of anime and furry avatars that scare off male detransitioners, its the vitriol from these small fringe groups aforementioned, whose holier-than-thou approach is similar in tone to radical trans rights activists, and one we cannot be bothered with.
Detrans men are expected to put up with a high intensity of abuse, and an inquisition into their motivations for transition, all the while expected to endure a high-velocity cross-examination by multiple factions, and are expected to remain calm and exposed whilst doing so. Not everyone can, some lose their form and leave snarky responses and are instantly taken as evidence of extreme aggression and misogyny. Like a pack of wolves, cornering the target, until they dare bite back in defence. The double standards are baffling, and some yield to these insane demands, even I tried to at first.
Detrans males are judged for the crimes of others, imagined or otherwise. We want nothing to do with any more theories and have no intention to trade Serano for Dworkin and prescribe to another ideology.
But we are men, not women, feminism is not for us. We can respect women, stand by them if they do call on us, learn to respect boundaries and try not fuck up in the process, but do not judge us for not thinking like women, or adhering to feminist theory.
Token Retransitioner
Meanwhile, Trans Rights Activists evangelize retransition and specifically one individual who specialises in ticking all the check marks for the trans-narrative. That person is Ky Schevers, who regularly pops up in hit pieces on detransition, supposedly debunking the current detransition movement (LGBT Nation 2022, Slate 2021).
What Ky regularly leaves out, is that her routes started in the same radical fringe groups that harass detransitioners today, originating on Tumblr and completely separate from the presently established Reddit /r/detrans group, of which Ky has never been involved at any stage. Indeed, all of Ky’s story takes place before the creation of /r/detrans, yet she is regularly referred to as an ‘insider’.
I wrote previously, about how some detransitioners find themselves going from one extreme to another, engaging in the same processes of radicalisation that led them to their trans identity. New theorists and ideologies take over the original trans ideology and much of the same behaviour is repeated. Those individuals may not retransition, but they never do loosen their grip on the reliance on ideological beliefs, which in itself misses the point of not being reliant on social science-based ideologies, regardless of the righteousness of said belief.
I empathise with Ky, but her experience is that of radicalisation, not detransition. We all are trying to find ways to get on with our lives, yet some are at risk from an inverse of the radicalisation they were seeking to flee, such as Ky, especially when there is no one there to deradicalize them.
The camp that rolls out Ky at a drop of a hat, also claims that “62% of people who detransition, retransition” which is entirely false and taken from surveys of trans people, not detransitioners, where they categorise detransition as going ‘boymode’ for a family event or missing their drug hit of hormones for a few weeks.
Detransition cannot be marked in medicalisation, nor should it, yet we are told that detransition means reversal surgeries or taking different hormones, and all this does is underpin the narrative that you can change sex with medical interventions.
You cannot.
Take your Pills, Alice
The concept of being ‘pink pilled’, is something that arouse from TransMax spaces, ran by self-declared incels who believe their lives to be better if they were read as women, and would easily attract a male partner who was interested in (again, normally young) oestrogenised males.
These terms spilt over into 4chans tttt (LGBT board), which used it as a common term to convince others that transition was their way out of loneliness.
Therefore, to be pink-pilled is for a male to be convinced that they are better off taking hormones and living as trans. Male detransitioners use this term in jest, but it underpins the feeling of wishing to reclaim one’s trans identity or being affirmed as your trans identity.
Some of us who have been on hormones for as long as myself have certain residual androgyny to our appearance. Although I’m usually read as male, there are instances where people see me as a transitioner. Having longer hair, piercings, no beard shadow and a notable chest sometimes causes strangers to question my sex, and for a few seconds after, I’m left wondering if I’m better off as trans, this in itself is a ‘pink pill’.
During these moments, we quickly find ourselves transported back to those times in our trans identifying stage, where our identity was being affirmed, and the ongoing search for positive reinforcement that was learned through the trans community, celebrating every ‘passing’ moment to the point where the notion becomes hardwired.
This is a learnt reaction, like Pavlov’s dogs salivating at the ring of a bell, and we are taught to celebrate, mark and notice interactions where we are read as women, and dread the moments when we aren’t. Even now, my instinctual reaction to being mistaken as a woman is one of reassurance. Counter to that, especially in early detransition, I found myself battling the learnt reaction of disgust when being recognised as male (i.e. being ‘misgendered’).
All of these behaviours are cult-like dynamics of learnt helplessness, one that is designed to train the individual to react to specific scenarios to seek empathetic rescue from fellow cult members. I suppose, this is one of the reasons Trans Identified Males tend to explode when being sexed as male in public, especially when they are taught that is the height of oppression and violence.
Friend Groups
Detransition means losing most, if not all of your trans friends, and the support networks that come with it. I was kicked out of support networks for simply detransitioning.
Like Jehovah’s Witnesses, the trans community for many tends to be their only social circle online and in person. As long as you keep your opinions to yourself and sing the trans communities praises, and play the affirmation game with them, you’ll be fine, but if you dare critique or question anything, you’ll quickly find yourself cast out.
As good as it is, the detrans sphere is mostly populated by detrans women, and whilst the two melds quite well, there is an obvious need for single-sex spaces, especially in the context of what issues we need support with.
Reality & Responsibility
In my last essay; The Lies That Live Within the Language, I wrote about how those who transitioned young, in childhood or early adulthood feel as if the physical changes are so severe that living as their sex is simply not practical.
My criticism of this belief is that, like trans, the belief relies solely on confirmation bias in real-world experiences, to prove to the individual, that they are ‘too trans’ to detransition. This in itself is another form of true trans rhetoric, and my intuition is that it masks the more serious underlying issues, trauma, attachment and the notion of responsibility.
Whether we like it or not, we model ourselves on our primary caregivers and any trauma, no matter how small or big shapes us as individuals. My father is a traditional man, he could rebuild a motorbike, fit his windows and was all in all a very practical, confident man. Yet, he viewed emotion as a major weakness, and I’ll never forget one argument he had with my mother, as I and him were leaving the house, in the car he frustratingly and angrily said “Women are emotional and neurotic”. I remember thinking, “I’m those things, oh shit”.
My mother never swears, is polite, kind and loving. She’s never said anything mean-spirited and was always striving for harmony. I felt more like her, I didn’t like the rough play my Dad and Brother would regularly engage in, I didn’t like sports and for the most part, didn’t feel any kinship with my father or brother, I felt so different from them both, and as the youngest too, I was always with my mother.
All the messages I had growing up, as someone who was same-sex attracted and felt completely alien in the hyper-masculine culture of the North East of England, all lead me to fear becoming a man, and the inherit learnt responsibility that was to come with it. I yearned to be like the men in my family, but I knew no matter how much I attempted to emulate them, I just wasn’t like them at all.
With that, comes an inherent fear of responsibility and whilst not everyone will have my pipeline, I do come across males who experienced a similar dynamic. With females, there’s a desire to want to be the protector, to mask their trauma with their parents (domestic violence) or within themselves (abuse). Because of this male transitioners particularly, have an underlying desire to escape adulthood as the sex they are, and hold an idealistic view of what life will be like as the other sex, an escape from those expectations.
Transition is painted as a new beginning, or becoming one’s true self. In doing so, all guilt, misdeeds, regrets, pain and otherwise are shredded, like a born-again Christian they are free to lead a new life. This is perhaps why so many middle-aged men who transition end up abandoning their wives and children or forcing them to be complicit in their transition, without exception.
Teenage detransitioners face even more difficulties returning to their sex, especially when they have been robbed of any natural emergence into adulthood. Instead, they were sold a package deal in which the reality of detransition was not included, but instead false promises of unending gender euphoria as their true selves takes hold. That’s not what they find though, instead detrans women who transitioned as teenagers have fully dropped voices, facial hair and missing breasts.
Males who transition as teenagers have stunted growth, and have retained an almost child-like appearance, even with testosterone they are emasculated by the sheer size differences between them and other men. Despite this, they are expected to learn all the lessons they missed out on, whilst simultaneously coping with the grief of lost years and a life robbed from them.
If they decide to go public, they’re unironically told to take responsibility for their decisions, which typically means “be quiet and don’t speak ill of gender-affirming care.” Teenagers and young adults simply cannot grasp these implications until reality stares back at them.
Furthermore, I’m judged constantly for my choice of hormones. I’ve opted for health, so that means taking a low dose of Estrogen with Testosterone, resulting in no major physical changes.
I’ve had surgery and some other detransitioners in my position do not want to partake in the social experiment any longer, let alone by attempting to undo what’s been irreversibly done. Being a hairy man without genitals would put me in transman territory, and that isn’t something I or others want to undertake.
Nor should we be expected to, yet the criticism of my hormone choices underpins the belief that Estrogen is the essence of womanhood and Testosterone is the essence of manhood.
One of The Good One’s Fallacy
Perhaps it’s because I’ve spent the vast majority of my time with other detrans males that I’ve come across some instances of retransition, where the individual will state that they’re happy using the male toilets, being seen as male, but live their life as a trans woman. I have my doubts, not because I mistrust them, but because of the practicalities of a passing transitioner using spaces that match their sex, more so if they’ve had surgery.
In this argument, I see trans people who agree with detransitioners, but again the attitude from these individuals is often, but not always, that they are one of the good ones and I find myself constantly being told by them how transition worked for them, and that’s great, but to me, it’s like a drunk person telling a sober person why drinking worked out for them in the end. In my view, this is another form of true trans rhetoric masking itself as gender critical, claiming that transition works for some, and they just so happen to be that lucky minority.
They lean on detransitioners and the rhetoric around it as a means to reaffirm their trans identity. In detrans spaces, I’ve seen trans people who pose themselves as being exactly that, yet display all the incongruences and issues we all did, the only difference is they have intellectualised themselves into being the rescuer, and we are all the helpless victims.
This fallacy itself keeps some trans people from detransitioning and influences some detransitioners to retransition because they believe they can have their cake and eat it too. That’s not to say I’m against the existence of trans people, I’m against being used as a tool to reaffirm someone’s identity.
In Summary
Years of medical treatments, stunted social development and being in a cult can make it difficult for an individual to return to normality. They will be forever changed, and for some, they realise a consequence of this is that navigating the world is far simpler in their trans identity, given their circumstances, but that is not retransition.
Like Cypher in the Matrix asking to be plugged back in, knowing what he knows could only be achieved by wiping his memory. Once you know, you really can’t plug back in, and the narrative around those who retransition is centred on people who never really disengaged with the mindset, to begin with.
For males especially, there are still many reasons not to give up their trans identity and stay plugged in. Even those who do wake up, face realities that make returning to their trans identity far more appealing than coming out of it.
Meanwhile, trans activists will celebrate those who retransition to no end, as it validates their rhetoric that the true outcome for a trans person is to transition and the true outcome for a detransitioner is to retransition. It paints detransition as solely due to factors outside of the individual’s control, ergo forfeiting any responsibility for their actions.
On the other hand, you have those who have been in the fray for much longer, who understand the dynamics at play, yet become easily frustrated when someone who has just left the cult displays behaviours and attitudes they’ve been critiquing from the comfort of their armchair and keyboard. But let me tell you this, there is no substitute for lived experience, there is a reason our voices get more traction than theirs, and it frustrates them to no end.
Detransitioners voices are powerful, and the pull of retransition doesn’t come just from those on the trans side, but from those whose ideals rely on unchecked fallacies riddled with confirmation bias, that doesn’t meet real-world testing.
Leaving an ideology that you’ve centred your life and body around is tremendously difficult, and there are many reasons for returning, like alcoholics, gamblers and addicts, the devil you know, is sometimes an easier choice.
Given the playing field, who can judge them?

==

It’s hard not to notice the overt pseudo-religious overtones in what detransitioners experience. And it’s unsettlingly similar to what ex-Muslims go through.

They’re apostates and blasphemers.

The “token retransitioner” has all the hallmarks of the Xian unicorn: the “atheist” who became a Xian. Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ,” where he pretends he was a non-believer who realized the “truth” of Xianity, is basically Xian conversion pornography.

Like a Xian, gender activists somehow manage to think they can play things two completely contradictory ways. The massive uptick in kids self-diagnosing as “trans” is only the natural result of greater societal acceptance and has nothing to do with language games, social contagion, and/or exploitative adults. But also, they only detransition because of intolerance, the same intolerance which puts every kid at risk of suicide. God is both good and beyond human understanding.

Avatar

By: Lisa Marchiano

Published: Dec 7, 2022

A scant 30 years ago, therapists with (mostly) the best of intentions managed to ruin many people’s lives. Using recovered memory therapy, clinicians unwittingly participated in creating false memories of horrific abuse that in some cases permanently sundered relationships between parents and adult children and sent innocent people to jail for decades. Most importantly, this treatment also harmed the patients it was meant to help.

In the late 1990s there were numerous lawsuits in which therapists or psychiatrists were successfully sued or settled on charges of having propagated false memories of childhood sexual abuse, incest, and satanic ritual abuse. Fran and Dan Keller served 21 years in prison after young children who attended their daycare began making wild allegations after having been coaxed by a therapist. According to one child witness, the Kellers “had everyone take off their clothes and had a parrot that pecked them in the pee-pee,” and “came to her house with a chainsaw and cut her dog Buffy in the vagina until it bled.” The therapist construed these childish imaginings as literally true, and concluded her small patient was a victim of ritual abuse. The Kellers were finally freed in November of 2014 after the only witness who provided any physical evidence of abuse—a doctor—recanted.

The false memory and ritual abuse scares of the ‘80s and ‘90s now seem bizarre almost beyond imagining. Therapists, psychiatrists, government agencies, congressional committees, and the media bought into the belief that worldwide satanic cults had infiltrated society and were ritually abusing children on a significant scale.

Tragically, history is in the process of repeating itself. Something strikingly similar is now happening. The current trend to diagnose children as transgender bears an eerie similarity to this previous social panic. This matters because, as with the previous panic of the ‘80s and ‘90s, the current trend is harming those it is supposed to help, and forcing them to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

Below, I outline the similarities—and differences.

1. Vulnerable people are being offered a new way of understanding themselves that in many cases is not adaptive.

During the recovered memory scandal, many people went into therapy with relatively normal concerns but had a therapist suggest that the true cause of their problem was childhood abuse that they had no memory of. “Laura” was one of the first retractors to successfully sue her former therapist. She was a single mom of a young child who was struggling with bulimia.

I went into counseling because I had an eating disorder. I’d been bulimic since I was ten….I was desperate and I’d read about Steve in a book, how this girl supposedly got healed by him in a four month period.…At my first counseling session, in 1985, Steve asked if I had ever been sexually abused.…He told me I needed to find buried stuff with deeper roots. He told me that since I had an eating disorder, it automatically meant I had been seriously abused. So we went to work trying to find buried memories….
(Victims of Memory, by Mark Pendergrast, 1996)

Four years later, her symptoms were worse than ever. She had gained almost a hundred pounds, was about to lose her house, and had a terribly strained relationship with her parents, who were her main source of support as she raised her daughter. The story Steve offered to Laura about her eating disorder gave her a new way to understand her problems, but it made things worse, not better.

A parallel and related trend in the ‘80s and ‘90s saw many patients being coached by therapists to believe that they had multiple personality disorder, or MPD. Therapists, the media, and peer and social influence spread this “illness,” and vulnerable patients manifested the symptoms in a kind of unconscious negotiation between sufferer and therapist, or sufferer and culture. Again, this new clinical lens was harmful, not curative. Those diagnosed as MPD were more likely to commit suicide than those who manifested similar symptoms but were not given that diagnosis.

Today, medical or mental health professionals may be responsible for suggesting to a vulnerable young patient that he or she is trans, just as some therapists suggested to their patients that they had buried memories of abuse. The authority of the doctor or therapist can be quite influential in offering a patient a new way of understanding herself, whether as the victim of satanic abuse or having been born in the wrong body.

Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy is the Medical Director at The Center for Transyouth Health and Development. At a 2017 conference spon.sored by the US Professional Association for Transgender Health, Olson-Kennedy told the following story of how she offered a young girl an understanding of herself as trans using a Pop-Tart analogy. (You can listen to a recording of this excerpt here.)

So at one point, I said to the kid, “so do you think that you’re a girl or a boy? And this kid was like…I could just see, there was, like, this confusion on the kid’s face. Like, “actually I never really thought about that.” And so this kid said, “well, I’m a girl, ’cause I have this body.”
Right? This is how this kid had learned to talk about their gender…that it’s based on their body.
And I said, “oh, so …and I completely made this up on the spot, by the way, but …I said, “Do you ever eat pop tarts?” And the kid was like, oh, of course. And I said, “well you know how they come in that foil packet?” Yes. “Well, what if there was a strawberry pop tart in a foil packet, in a box that said ‘Cinnamon Pop Tarts.’? Is it a strawberry pop tart, or a cinnamon pop tart?”
The kid’s like, “Duh! A strawberry pop tart.” And I was like, “so…”
And the kid turned to the mom and said, “I think I’m a boy and the girl’s covering me up.”

This young patient had never conceptualized herself as trans before the doctor suggested this as a new way to understand herself. We don’t know if this new story made things better or worse for this child, but we do know it is possible that she was put on a pathway that led to medicalization that could have plausibly been avoided.

With regard to both transgenderism and repressed memory, the indicators used to self-diagnose are similarly vague and unfalsifiable. In the 1988 book The Courage to Heal, readers are presented with a checklist of symptoms that could indicate they were the victims of abuse that they don’t remember. Do you ever feel bad, dirty, or ashamed? Do you ever feel helpless, like a victim? Do you have trouble feeling motivated? Virtually anyone could see themselves in this list. Likewise, Planned Parenthood’s website suggests that, to learn whether you might be trans, you should imagine what it might feel like to wear different clothes or use different pronouns. “Do parts of your body, words, or ways people treat you feel good or bad?”

These non-specific, subjective explorations invite one to adopt a radical new way of thinking about oneself.

2. Victims of recovered memory syndrome and many trans-identifying kids orient their identity and relationships around a new way of understanding themselves.

Wikipedia defines false memory syndrome as “a condition in which a person’s identity and relationships are affected by memories that are factually incorrect but that they strongly believe.” Research has confirmed the suggestibility of the memory making process, making it clear that false memories can be created through cultural transmission, peer influence, and the techniques described as recovered memory therapy.

The Wikipedia article goes on to state that false memories per se are not the problem. “Note that the syndrome is not characterized by false memories as such. We all have inaccurate memories. Rather, the syndrome is diagnosed when the memory is so deeply ingrained that it orients the individual’s entire personality and lifestyle—disrupting other adaptive behavior.” (Emphasis mine.) The false memory therefore only graduates into a mental diagnosis when it becomes a central point of the person’s identity and adversely influences his or her interpersonal relationships.

The false memory may be bizarre and become an obsessive preoccupation. The McMartin pre-school trial was the longest and most expensive trial in American history. Those who testified claimed they saw witches flying in the air. They recollected traveling in hot air balloons, and being taken into an elaborate system of tunnels underneath the daycare.

The creation of these fantastical “memories” didn’t only occur in young children. Adults who went into therapy for ordinary concerns sometimes found themselves in an intense relationship with the therapist, where suggestion and influence played a central role in constructing an alternative past.

One patient recounts the bizarre things that she eventually came to believe:

I had these horrible flashbacks of being given cold enemas and various objects being inserted into my vagina. Another time, I remembered my brother and his friends hung me by my feet. It was only recently that I realized where those particular images came from. The enemas and insertion came from the book Sybil, and the upside down hanging came from a movie called Deranged, which I saw when I was 17. And I had incorporated some of a story I once wrote about identifying a prostitute’s body in the morgue. So different pieces of my life that had nothing to do with me being abused became part of the flashbacks. It’s amazing to me that my subconscious mind had served them up without my knowing where they came from.
(Victims of Memory, by Mark Pendergrast, 1996)

These bizarre beliefs can become a person’s central point of reference, eclipsing critical thought, leading them to surrender his or her rational faculties in their service.

I eventually came up with scenes of group sexual abuse and being raped by animals. After I had a vision of a dead man hanging from a rope, my grandfather, the murderer, got added to the abuser list. But it was mainly my mother who was the target of my anger. Steve [the therapist] convinced me that she had been trying to kill me for years. I interpreted everything she did that way, so when she brought me cookies, it was to encourage my binges. Everybody in the group was encouraged to divorce their families and make the group their new family. If anybody expressed any doubts, Steve… would goad them. “You’re in denial.”
(Victims of Memory, by Mark Pendergrast, 1996)

Through buying into the false belief, the person’s historical biography is re-written. Old events are re-imagined in light of the new “information,” radically altering the person’s sense of identity and sundering connections to family and friends.

I sat down at my computer and typed out a four-page confrontation/accusation letter to my parents in which I told them my pain was “beyond horrendous.” I wrote, “You thought you got away with it. The ‘good’ daughter had repressed forever. Not a chance, Dad.” I accused my father of repeated rapes, but I also blamed my mother, who must have known what was going on. “Why didn’t you save me? I am your child. Was your fear of dad so great it came before my safety?”…
I entered therapy in 1988 because of a job-related harassment issue, and I left in 1993 a suicidal wreck. It stole five years of my life. I became completely irresponsible and self-involved, but I blame Karen Meynert [the therapist] for what happened.”
(Victims of Memory, by Mark Pendergrast, 1996)

Transgender children fall prey to the bizarre belief that they are the opposite sex or neither sex. Taken away from the clamor and din of politics, the assertion that one is biologically one sex but of a different “gender” in some mysterious way makes no sense and is every bit as strange as asserting that daycare workers sacrificed babies and fed them to children. Those who define their inner sense of being misaligned with their anatomy often cannot describe this experience without reference to sex role stereotypes, or by appealing to notions that seem much more metaphysical or subjective rather than empirical.

As is the case with recovered memories, the “discovery” on the part of a young person that they are trans brings about a reevaluation of their prior life that validates their diagnosis, altering their sense of identity and personal biography.

The following is an excerpt from this article. Note that the female author reports on fairly common childhood experiences of gender nonconforming behavior that now take on momentous significance as evidence of being a boy.

After that haircut—and that fateful Google Search—a lot of things suddenly made sense to me: Why I was equally enthusiastic about mud pies and the color pink in preschool. Why I didn’t want any of the fake makeup, costume jewelry, and dress-up clothes people gave me on my sixth birthday. Why I spent years rejecting anything feminine, embracing the “tomboy” label, wishing at times I would get breast cancer so I could have a flat chest again, then taking back that wish, then wanting to be a Boy Scout, before ultimately just wanting to be a boy.

The author has rewritten her childhood to bring it into consonance with her new understanding of herself as a boy. Not being comfortable in “girly” stuff as a child can now, with hindsight, be seen as early evidence and “proof” that she is trans. Of course, gender nonconforming girls and tomboys rarely gravitate to “girly” things in childhood and may prefer “boy” toys, just as some boys prefer “girl” toys. Our refusal to accept narrow sex role stereotypes should not be taken as evidence that we ought to reject our bodies—it ought to be evidence that we should reject sex role stereotypes.

And as with the false beliefs present in many cases of false memory therapy, the belief of gender nonconforming youth that they are actually the opposite sex disrupts other adaptive behavior, severs important relationships, and can become obsessional. Consider this story about a 16-year-old natal female who came out as transgender at age 14 or 15. The child, referred to only as PD, was adopted at age 6. The parents understandably had a hard time coming to terms with their child’s assertion of being a different sex, and they refused to call their child by the new name. This caused the child “very great annoyance and distress,” according to the courts. As a result of feeling misunderstood because the parents refused to use the new name, PD cut off all contact with them.

While the transgender teen story is usually portrayed in the media in celebratory terms, my contact with parents living through this indicates that, at least some of the time, the tale is a darker one. Even supportive parents report that their teens sometimes become increasingly isolated and distressed after coming out. They withdraw from friends who aren’t trans. They might cease their involvement in extracurricular activities. Their academics can suffer. Sometimes, they stop talking to their parents. They become obsessed with their appearance and with “passing.” They might suffer outsized distress over the indignity of being “misgendered.” Their ambit of concern can shrink to encompass only the paranoid echo chamber of illusory oppression.

3. Recovered memory syndrome and the transgender child trend involve highly sensational subjects that involve children and sexuality.

Children and sex are perennially two of the chief lightning rods around which mass hysterias often take form. The false memory and satanic ritual abuse panics of the ‘80s and ‘90s occurred in conjunction with a significant cultural shift, as women left home to go to work in huge numbers, leaving their children in daycare. The allegations of ritual abuse that swirled around daycares in the panic may have served as an expression of anxiety and ambivalence about this rapid societal transformation.

Now, the popular imagination has been captured by transgender children. We celebrate the “courage” of these children and their families and rush to endorse hormonal treatment to forestall the “trauma” of puberty. What cultural current might this be in reaction to?

4. In both recovered memory and the transgender child trend, the media played a key role.

Both trends have been presented uncritically by the media. In the case of false memory syndrome, high profile media attention presented without critical dialogue fanned the flames of hysteria.

In 1983, Geraldo Rivera aired “Satanic Cults and Children.” In 1988, he did another episode entitled “Devil Worship: Exploring Satan’s Underground.” In 1995, Rivera apologized for his role in spreading the hysteria with the following words:

I want to announce publicly that as a firm believer of the “Believe The Children” movement of the 1980’s, that started with the McMartin trials in CA, but NOW I am convinced that I was terribly wrong… and many innocent people were convicted and went to prison as a result….AND I am equally positive [that the] “Repressed Memory Therapy Movement” is also a bunch of CRAP…

In 1989, Oprah Winfrey hosted a show on “Child Sacrifice,” and Sally Jesse Raphael did a segment called “Baby Breeders.” In 1991, Raphael covered the story again with a show called “Devil Babies.”

Both 20/20 and HBO did special stories on the subject. HBO’s special was entitled “The Search for Deadly Memories.” This documentary shows techniques for recovering “repressed” memories, and featured many doctors and other “experts,” lending the perception of credibility to the claims. Eventually, 20/20, 60 Minutes, and HBO would all produce shows skeptical of the panic.

I doubt you’ll need much convincing with respect to the media contribution to the current transgender child trend. There has been a great deal of coverage in the media about trans children. Nearly all of the coverage has been uncritical, if not celebratory.

5. Both movements created high profile “stars.”

In 1980, the book Michelle Remembers by Lawrence Padzer and Michelle Smith was published. It was the first book on ritual abuse and is largely responsible for setting the panic in motion. Though it has since been entirely discredited, it was reported on and taken as fact by journalists and talk show hosts including Oprah, who interviewed Smith on her television show. The book was a bestseller, and Padzer and Smith earned an estimated $350,000 from its publication.

Jazz Jennings is a 22-year-old transgender woman noted for being one of the youngest publicly documented people to be identified as gender dysphoric. She received national attention at the age of six when Barbara Walters interviewed her on 20/20. Other high-profile interviews followed. Jazz has her own company (Purple Rainbow Tails, founded when she was 13), her own YouTube channel, a children’s book, and her own reality TV show on TLC. In 2014, she was named one of “The Most Influential Teens” of the year by Time. She has modeled and appeared in television commercials for acne treatments.

6. Both movements have been fueled by hysteria over immediate peril of children.

In both cases, the narrative is driven by powerful fears over the welfare of children. In the case of satanic ritual abuse and false memories, anyone who expressed doubt over the veracity of a purported victim’s claims was subject to intense vitriol and accusations that they were harming children by not believing them without question. An advocacy organization was formed by the parents of the children involved in the McMartin preschool trial called “Believe the Children.” It became a clearinghouse for information on satanic ritual abuse.

Regarding the transgender child trend, those who express doubt about a child’s claim that he or she is “born in the wrong body” are often accused of harming or even “killing” transgender children. The fact that there are very high rates of suicide attempts among those who identify as transgender is repeatedly cited as a reason why trans-identifying children must be immediately affirmed and transitioned. (This is an uncritical use of the statistic. A study found that 41 percent of those who are transgender had attempted suicide. However, the study did not differentiate between whether the attempt came before or after transition. A study from Sweden indicates that suicidality among those who have medically transitioned is significantly higher than in the general population. Those who suffer from gender dysphoria do indeed have a high rate of suicidality. However, there is no robust evidence that transition reduces suicidality.)

7. Therapists played a significant role in the promulgation of both movements.

Protecting the innocent, advocating for those who are at risk and vulnerable—these are appealing roles for therapists to take on. Therapists in both movements have appeared to have the moral high ground. Many have been quick to jump on board out of a desire to be on the right side of history.

Therapists used a variety of techniques that have come to be called “recovered memory therapy” to search for “forgotten” or “repressed” memories of trauma. These practices spread quickly and were fueled by materials developed by those without clinical expertise such as the book The Courage to Heal, which was written by a poet and creative writing teacher and one of her students.

Of course, a darker side to the well-meaning impulse to help those who had been victimized is that the movement to recover repressed memories created lucrative earning opportunities for some therapists.

In recent years, there has been a growth in the number of therapists who identify as “gender therapists.” This is not a protected title in any jurisdiction; anyone can call themselves a gender therapist. At most, a gender therapist may have received training from a transgender advocacy organization. Most transgender advocacy organizations have few members with any clinical or mental health background. Online research indicates that a gender therapist is “someone who helps a transgender person with their transition.” This gender therapist, for example, has a video blog where she answers questions. To the question “how do I know if I am transgender?” she answers that “if you are asking that question, you probably are not cisgender.”

Gender therapy is a lucrative and in-demand specialty. The gender therapist noted above, for example, has recently released a book about discovering one’s gender identity.

8. Governmental and professional organizations have bought into the movement’s narrative.

No less an organization than the US Congress held hearings on daycare abuse. Former US Attorney General Janet Reno served as prosecutor in one of the cases. Policies put forward by the local and Federal governments, as well as guidelines issued by professional organizations, show that many of our most important institutions have bought into the gender identity narrative.

9. The concept has penetrated deeply into popular culture, including children’s picture books.

[ Cover of the 1990 children’s book entitled Don’t Make Me Go Back Mommy (Hurts of Childhood Series). ]

The description of a 1990 children’s book entitled Don’t Make Me Go Back Mommy (Hurts of Childhood Series) on Amazon reads as if it is a humor piece.

Five-year-old Allison’s behavior indicates to her concerned parents that something is wrong at her day care center. In unseen action, they discover that the center practices sexual, physical, and psychological abuse in the guise of religious ritual. Through dialogue, Allison and her parents reveal their feelings and the beginnings of the healing process to counselors and legal personnel. Some details of abuse are familiar from the lengthy McMartin trial, such as the “movie star room” in which naked children are photographed. The appendix lists 10 guidelines for parents on how to handle their own feelings during this family crisis.

There are now many books for children about being transgender. I Am Jazz is just one example. It is recommended for children ages four to eight.

Following is its Amazon description:

From the time she was two years old, Jazz knew that she had a girl’s brain in a boy’s body. She loved pink and dressing up as a mermaid and didn’t feel like herself in boys’ clothing. This confused her family, until they took her to a doctor who said that Jazz was transgender and that she was born that way.

10. Because both movements rely on self-diagnosis, they are impervious to contradictory evidence.

In both the recovered memory and transgender child trend, someone’s subjective experience of him or herself trumps other claims, even without evidence. According to this paradigm, anyone who is not in the special class (abuse victim or transgender person) cannot speak about that phenomenon with any authority, leaving the narrative incapable of ever being questioned much less falsified.

11. Both movements spread by social and peer influence which relies on the very human trait of suggestibility.

The recovered memory episode gave rise to a great deal of research about human suggestability and how easy it is for well-meaning therapists to suggest things that didn’t really happen and create false “memories.”

Many teens suddenly coming out as transgender without a history of prior gender dysphoria or even gender nonconforming behavior say they “knew” they were transgender after they read something online. The language they use to describe their experience is quite consistent, likely an indication that they picked up the ideas from similar sources online. For example, many parents report that their child said some version of, “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a live son?” Many teens also talk about the “button” thought experiment—if you had a button that would make you into the opposite sex, would you push it?

Peer influence also played a role in promulgating both hysterias. Many teens coming out as transgender are doing so in the context of peer groups who are also trans identified, as discussed in Lisa Littman’s 2018 paper. During the recovered memory era, there were documented cases where some people “found” repressed memories after spending time in a peer group for survivors.

12. In both movements feminists were the some of the first and most outspoken skeptics.

The panic over recovered memories was problematic not just because it ripped families apart, but also because it diverted attention and resources from real child abuse issues. Some feminists voiced concerns about this. Today, feminists such as Kathleen Stock are drawing attention to the inconsistencies in the transgender narrative and expressing concern about how this trend is distracting attention from issues of sexism and gay and lesbian issues. Of particular concern to feminists is the fact that many young lesbians are identifying as trans and going on to take hormones and undergo surgery. In this sense, transition acts like medical gay conversion therapy, changing lesbian girls into straight boys. Some suggest that many young lesbians are identifying as trans due to internalized misogyny and homophobia.

*  *  *

I have just covered some of the ways in which I see the transgender child trend is like the made-up phenomenon of recovered memory and satanic ritual abuse. But how are they different?

1. The internet.

Information and ideas travel faster and further now, making it easier to spread narratives.

2. In the case of recovered memories, most of the victims were adults. Now the victims are children.

If there is even a small chance that significant numbers of young people are permanently altering their bodies on the basis of beliefs about themselves that may change, shouldn’t we all be trying to slow this train down?

The Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung noted that narratives can be healing or harming. “Whether the fiction forms itself in me spontaneously or reaches me outside via human speech, it can make me ill or cure me.” Because stories are powerful, we must pay attention to whether the stories we offer patients are harmful or curative. Too often in the history of mental health, the former has been the case.

If we do not wish to repeat the mistakes of history, we are well advised to study and learn from them.

==

June bug epidemic, repressed/false memories, Tourette’s syndrome... what’s next, and how could it get worse?

Avatar

By: Colin Wright

Published; Nov 13, 2022

On May 26, 2022, I attended a private online workshop titled “Supporting Your Trans/Non-Binary Youth: A Starter Guide for Parents and Caregivers” which, as the title indicates, is geared toward parents are caregivers of children who have adopted trans and/or nonbinary identities. The workshop was a led by Kyle Weitz (he/they), a trans-identified female who works at the University of Guelph as a “trans/non-binary queer educator and advocate” and with Egale Canada as a “Two Spirit and LGBTQ+ Advocate/Community Worker,” and Jessie Myhill (they/them), who describes herself as a “non-binary queer therapist.”

This workshop proved to be particularly illuminating, as there were several long pauses between sections where the presenters took questions from the audience. This allowed me to ask very specific questions—with follow-ups—regarding gender ideology’s reliance on sex-related stereotypes and how they define “boys” and “girls,” forcing them to struggle in real time to make sense of their ideology’s most absurd and regressive aspects.

As you will see, the presenters conflate sex and “gender identity” throughout the workshop, misrepresent the evidence on puberty blockers, suicide, and transition regret, and claim to be experts on “gender” while openly admitting to being unable to define core concepts like “man” and “woman” or adequately address criticisms without deferring to the central importance of personal experience to avoid resolving issues of philosophical sloppiness. Because these “experts” believe they are speaking to a sympathetic audience, exposing this private workshops provides a rare and useful glimpse into how gender ideology is discussed behind the scenes to likeminded “allies.”

Below is an overview of the workshop’s most troubling aspects. The full 2-hour workshop can be viewed at the end of this article.

*  *  *

The workshop starts off with a land acknowledgement before beginning their “Intro to Gender Diversity,” which provides an overview of common terms and breaks down “four parts of human identity that are pretty relevant within the 2SLGBTQ+ world, and within human identity [and] everybody’s lives.”

Kyle explains that a person’s “gender identity” refers to their “internal sense of self,” or “how you know in your head, in your heart, who you are.” Kyle then immediately conflates sex and gender identity by portraying a doctor saying “It’s a girl!” when someone is born as “assigning” a “sense of self” that may not match with how someone grows up to identify, as opposed to the doctor simply observing and recording an infant’s biological sex.

We then learn that a person’s “gender expression” is “how you show the world who you are,” which is communicated through things like hair, clothing, body language, how you walk or talk, and even how you “take up space.” According to Kyle, this can be thought of in terms of “masculine, feminine, or androgynous.”

A person’s “sex assigned at birth” is explained in terms of “the body parts you have when you’re born” as well as traits like hormonal makeup, chromosomes, and both internal and external reproductive organs. Kyle says that we’ve all “been taught from a pretty young age that sex is very binary,” but that isn’t the case because all these traits have “a lot of fluidity.” Kyle then incorrectly lumps “trans folks” in with intersex people as examples of people who have a “combination of primary and secondary sex characteristics.”

Myhill then chimes in to discuss the acronyms AMAB and AFAB (assigned male/female at birth) and how they are commonly now used to describe that “the gender you were assigned at birth.” Notice that she uses the term “gender assigned at birth” instead of “sex assigned at birth” to describe people who were recorded at birth as “male” or “female,” which are sexes instead of “genders.” This is a constant conflation that is never clarified, seemingly on purpose, in order to blur the distinction between sex and gender identity. If a person’s “gender” refers to their “inner sense of self,” then it’s ludicrous to think that doctors are “assigning genders” at birth. And, if your sex refers to your body parts, then what could it possibly mean for a person to grow up to not “identify” with having certain body parts?

To show the relationships between all these variables, the presenters show an image of the “Gender Galaxy,” which they prefer to other educational tools like the Gender Unicorn because of how it depicts reality as a “blurry blob of existence” instead of “linearly.”

Kyle then pulls up a slide to help visualize the other “nonbinary” gender identities, and then allows Jessie to take it from there. This slide (below) uses the image of an umbrella labelled “nonbinary,” which is defined on the slide as “an umbrella term for a person who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that is neither entirely male or female.” Jessie further explains that “nonbinary” people are “folks who don’t identify as exclusively male or exclusively female,” which can mean they’re “a little bit of both,” neither male nor female, or “a little bit more one than the other.” Notice again the overt conflation of sex (male and female) with “gender identity.”

Beneath the nonbinary umbrella are all the identities subsumed under its label. These identities are listed as “androgynous,” “gender fluid,” “agender,” “genderqueer,” and even “gender non-conforming.” Yes, if you are simply gender non-conforming—such as a tomboy or effeminate boy—you are considered “nonbinary” and thus transgender.

Staying true to the above figure, Kyle then uses the terms “transgender” and “gender non-conforming” as apparent synonyms when he proceeds to the next slide about transitioning: “When we talk about, you know, gender non-conforming folks, we talk about trans people, a lot of times that then comes to this concept of transition and transitioning.”

Jessie then interjects by saying she first wants to address some “misinformation” about transitioning (my emphasis):

When we talk about children, so I’m thinking you know like 10 and under, kind of before the tweens, we’re only ever talking about socially transitioning, right? Little kids are never kind of put on hormones or puberty blockers, or undergoing any kind of medical transition or surgery. And that, I think again, a lot of misinformation out there, and what it looks like for children of 10 is, you know, changing their appearance, maybe changing pronouns, maybe changing name. So when we’re talking about children, we’re talking about social transitioning, and sometimes legal, but we’re not talking about medical transitioning. It’s when people slowly approach puberty that then we’re starting, for some people, where they’re you know, really distressed or need to have other options, then we sometimes start talking about puberty blockers, right? And that’s really when people have just kind of started puberty.

According to Jessie, the term “children” only refers to people “10 and under.” She then uses this preferred definition to falsely claim that medical transition does not ever happen in children.

Kyle then goes on to talk about the differences between “gender dysphoria” and “gender euphoria.”

“Gender dysphoria,” according to Kyle, is “a feeling of disconnection around your body experience,” which encompasses both how you feel about your body and gender expression, as well as “how people read you.” “Gender euphoria,” on the other hand, is “when you’re feeling this connection, comfort, and joy with your body. You’re feeling like ‘Yes!' This is it!’” Kyle says that you can feel dysphoria over one body part and dysphoria over another, and so “access to transition-related supports, whether that’s your name change or that’s medical changes and supports, can really really help with those feelings of dysphoria. It can help you to start feeling like ‘Okay, what I see on the inside when I visualize how I look is now starting to match what I see in the mirror, or how people see me.”

But what person, and especially a child around puberty, isn’t self-conscious about one or more aspects of their body? What Kyle is advocating for is essentially on-demand plastic surgery for any child who is not comfortable with every aspect of their body. Why, for instance, would a girl self-conscious about her flat-chest (a very common feeling) not qualify for breast implants?

The presenters then discuss the importance of pronouns and neopronouns for trans and nonbinary youth.

Jessie says that using correct pronouns is “one of the top things that you can do that makes such a huge difference to trans and nonbinary youth” to communicate respect, love, and understanding. She even says that using a child’s preferred pronouns “is a form of suicide prevention,” despite the link between gender dysphoria and suicide being tenuous at best.

This is the first of two breaks for Q&A.

The first question comes from a mother asking where she can get facts about puberty blockers from a “gender affirming” professional because her child “is very eager to start the process.”

Jessie recommends visiting the Rainbow Health Ontario website, but then decides to offer her own advice on puberty blockers, falsely claiming that “there is no long term health impacts of around taking puberty blockers, because essentially what it does, right, is it pauses puberty, which gives the family and the youth or tween…more time to kind of decide what the right pathway is.” There are, however, no long term studies on the impacts of puberty blockers for treating gender dysphoria. From the limited data we do have, we know that around 98 percent of children placed on puberty blockers continue on to cross-sex hormones, and some of them surgeries, while around 85 percent of children who do not receive puberty blockers eventually desist and accept their natal sex. Far from being a “pause button” for confused children, puberty blockers appear to instead cement for life what would have otherwise been a passing phase.

The mother then asks about whether she can go to their family doctor with questions about this. Jessie says that many family doctors should be able to prescribe puberty blockers, but warns that “many family doctors are not comfortable because of their own biases, transphobia, etc., etc.” According to this framing, the only reason a doctor might not assist in a child’s transition is due to their bigotry toward trans people.

Finally, it was my turn to ask questions.

Question: What is the binary that nonbinary people might be rejecting? Is it the sex binary (male and female), or the binary socially constructed roles associated with males and females?

Here is Kyle’s answer:

So the idea of being nonbinary, it means that you not necessarily are rejecting, I mean for some folks sure, but it’s like that idea of like, okay, like I don’t feel like a man, I don’t feel like a woman—that’s a binary—those are two genders, and you’re like, well, if these don’t fit for me then I suppose I’m nonbinary. And so for some folks that might mean that they fall in between these two genders, or maybe they’re like ‘I feel like I’m a combination,’ or maybe they’re like ‘Nope, I’m neither, I’m none.’ And so it is, yes, this binary of man and woman, that is the gender binary that you are stepping outside of.

I immediately post a follow-up question in the chat about the difference between being nonbinary and simply being gender non-conforming.

Kyle’s response:

And so the difference between being nonbinary and gender non-conforming is like so nuanced [both Kyle and Jessie smile and laugh]. I think I could probably Google it and like you would, um, see it and be like ‘Okay, those sound very similar, I don’t really… uh, I, but I, you know, it’s just these like, little differences. Gender non-conforming, meaning you’re not conforming to gender, but lots of people kind of use it almost like synonymously, but then for some folks it just feels right to use nonbinary instead. What do you think, Jessie?

Jessie then chimes in:

I think it’s, you know, ‘cause some of these definitions they’re so, especially under the nonbinary umbrella, they’re so kind of, um, yeah close together almost, right? So, we want to just really invite conversation around what it means to the person, right? Because sometimes they just really resonate with uh, with like the term nonbinary, or with agender. Like there’s very little difference between those two things. Like agender really is part of the nonbinary umbrella, but maybe they just more closely associate with, say, agender or something. Um, so, I think it’s really about kind of just having the conversation, and getting them to like explain what it means to them, and what is it about that term that kind of resonates for them. You can kind of get a lot more information.
One thing I’ve noticed just in my practice where I work with youth, right, and this is around sexuality too, there’s so much fluidity now with this new, what’s the new generation? There’s Alpha and Gen Z, right? There’s so much just fluidity that a lot of times, you know, I’ve heard nonbinary folks they’re like even rejecting nonbinary and they’re just like ‘I’m just me and this is what I want to look like, and this is how I feel inside.’ Um, and so to just really open up that conversation, because there is a lot of nuance and I think it’s different for everybody.

Got it? All we can take from this word salad of an answer is that we need to have conversations about how people feel, even if those feelings cannot ever be articulated in a way that makes sense. Subjective experience reigns supreme.

Question: Is “man” and “woman” defined by social roles and stereotypes?

Kyle responds:

I think yes and also your internal sense of self, like you know, I think this is getting like quite philosophical I suppose but it’s true that the concept of what is man and what is woman is a social construct as well. Like what makes us a man, what makes us a woman? So often it’s based on your sex, but we’re saying no, like your sex doesn’t define your gender identity, so I think, you know, if the binary is man and woman, um, and that is defined by like social constructs, social roles and stereotypes, but also internal sense of self, like how you feel when and how you identify when you think of who you are and what your gender is. So like, yes, and, um, for that which is very hard to put into words.”

So yes, “man” and “woman” are defined by social roles and stereotypes, and you are a man or a woman if your “internal sense of self” reflects those stereotypes.

Jessie and Kyle then move on to how to offer support to trans youth as well as their family members.

One way for parents to cope with a child who comes out as trans is to learn to “reframe” any fears they might have over their child’s transition. If a parent worries that transitioning will make life much more difficult for their child, we are told that life is even “harder when you’re hiding your authentic self.” If a parent worries that their child is too young to know who they are, we are assured that “most people have a sense of their gender identity as young as 2 years old.” And to quell any fears a parent may have that their child may regret their decision, the presenters suggest that because less than 2 percent of children places on puberty blockers do not continue with medical transition, this means that there is little to worry about.

The possibility that puberty blockers may be solidifying dysphoria isn’t even considered. Instead, they insist that any transition regret is most likely due to “society’s treatment of trans folks.” Kyle says that because we don’t question whether a child is too young to know they’re not trans, we shouldn’t worry about a child being too young to know they are trans!

Next we are instructed to follow the “Listen. Validate. Affirm.” approach to supporting your trans child, which involves questioning absolutely nothing, suppressing your natural parental instincts and fears, and allowing your child to fully dictate the terms of their transition.

Jessie says that children need to know that “it’s okay to be uncertain or scared” or even “terrified” about puberty blockers and hormones, but asserts “that doesn’t mean that you’re not trans.” She says that parents need “to get on board as soon as we can” with their child’s transition, even though “it’s hard, and sometimes it’s confusing, and sometimes it feels like it comes out of nowhere.” Parents are instructed to “accept the new reality of who your child is” and to “let go of you imagined future for them.” And in order to not cause distress to their trans child, parents are told to refrain from sharing their “emotional process” with their child.

The message to parents is clear: suppress all your instincts, emotions, and doubts about transitioning your child.

This is the final Q&A period. Few others had questions, which gave me the opportunity to ask a handful of very specific questions with follow-ups to Jessie and Kyle.

Question: Are certain bits of anatomy really not “matched” with certain gender identities? So why don’t we teach people with any anatomy that they can behave as they wish and that they’re not out of alignment with themselves? I feel like doing otherwise just reinforces stereotypes. Why don’t we teach that men can be feminine, women can be masculine, or whatever is most comfortable for them? What’s wrong with that approach?

Kyle’s response:

That’s the dream. That sounds amazing. That is our goal. When that happens Jessie and I don’t have a job anymore, and we will be happy to retire. I think that that is, you know, why do we teach such strict binaries? And it’s just, like it’s just the way it has been in Western society with colonialism, with this rigid belief of like there is man and woman, and there is a certain way that we live and a way that we will grow up. And to break free of that is really important, and I think that it is more than even just though, like, teaching your kid that at home because you know then they watch TV and they see it reinforced. Then they go to school and it’s reinforced. And then they go into their lives and they’re being told like ‘You gotta man up!’ or you’ve gotta, whatever, all these things, ‘be a good girl’ and that stuff, and so it is like an ongoing unlearning and unbreaking of those binaries.
And I would love if it were taught in school that like, you know, anatomy doesn’t necessarily match with a gender identity. I think that might be the way it’ll go one day, but I think like, what we all learn in school about people who are intersex, or at least I didn’t, and like that is very very valid. People are born intersex, meaning that, as I said, you have a combination of masculine and feminine primary or secondary sex characteristics at the same rate as people who are born with red hair or green eyes, or twins are born. So it’s definitely not uncommon, and yet it’s like something that I have to define when I talk about it because a lot of folks don’t necessarily aren’t familiar with it, and it feels like something and up to a certain point it was something that was ‘dealt with’ through medical intervention.

If the “dream” is indeed to allow people to behave as they please and detach this behavior and expression from sexual anatomy, and allow men to be feminine and women to be masculine, it seems that the best way to ensure this goal is never achieved is to literally define “man” and “woman” according to social roles and stereotypes, and then teach gender non-conforming children that the mismatch between their expression and behavior can be “fixed” and brought into alignment with hormones and surgeries.

Kyle then brings up intersex conditions, which is totally irrelevant to the question, and perpetuates several common myths about about them, such as that they’re as common as red hair, green eyes, or twinning in humans.

Question: Do you need to have gender dysphoria to be trans?

Kyle responds, “Absolutely not, no. Not every person is going to experience dysphoria, or sometimes it might develop, or it might come and go like a little annoying house guest.” Kyle then says “You don’t need to have anything to be trans besides the knowledge or the feeling that you’re trans.”

Question: How are the terms “man” and “woman” and “boy” and “girl” defined?

Kyle: “Oh wow, this question is going to be difficult to answer ‘cause it’s a bit philosophical.”

Jessie then answers:

Well that’s a great question. So I did an undergrad and a masters in Gender Studies, and like, I don‘t know if I could even tell you that, right? Like, because part of it, it’s, you cannot get away from social constructionism and language. So we define these terms based on many different things, but they’re always defined by the current context in which we live, like culture, time, all of these pieces, right? I think, and in that, we also define it by things like hormones, and things like anatomy, right? It’s like, how do we decide, um, you know, when we assign somebody male or female at birth, what is that based on? That’s based on anatomy, right? But there’s actually so many things, um, that are, that we’re not kind of looking at, right? That we also have to take into account. So, I mean, I honestly can’t answer those questions.
Um, you know, it’s, when we talk about gender identity, right, people, uh, say like ‘How do you know you’re trans?’ kind of almost like ‘How do you know you’re gay?’ It’s like, how do you know you’re straight? Right? It’s just kind of like, it’s often times like an internal feeling, but we define these things in terms of like biological factors, social factors, psychological factors, um, and they change from, like, different eras, different centuries, and mean different things at different times. I don’t know, that’s a hard one.

You read that correctly: Jessie did both an undergrad degree and completed a masters degree in Gender Studies, yet cannot even provide definitions for the two “genders” that children are identifying with and away from that serve as the basis for removing and modifying their body parts.

Kyle then adds:

We spoke a bit earlier about this idea of like labels and alphabet soup, and sometimes I think like yeah, these ideas of what is man and what is woman, what is boy what is girl? They’re just like arbitrary words to describe, you know, experiences and labels to put on people. And like who really knows what it means to be man, to be woman, to be masculine, to be feminine? I think it is what you say it is.

If “man” and “woman” and “boy” and “girl” are indeed only “arbitrary words to describe experiences,” then how can we possibly justify any medical interventions for children describing themselves in these terms? This concern leads to my next question.

Question: If we can’t understand these concepts, why do we think children can grasp them?

Kyle responds that’s because the real experts are the children themselves!

I think that we need to give way more credit like, when I’m, as I said when I’ve run these workshops it’s like students who are the ones being like “We don’t care that you’re trans and telling your story because, like, that’s fine, you be you.” I get asked so many times “Why were people ever mean to you for being trans? Like, it’s just you.” And it’s like, yeah, they get it way more, like I think it’s the unraveling that we are doing presently, the peeling of the onion, has already happened for them. They’re there with this fresh onion already, like crying away and being like “Cool,” like this radical acceptance of like this is how things are, and it is like an unlearning that has already been happening, um, and so we’re catching up, I think.

Jessie echoes Kyle’s sentiment about how children are the true experts because they’ve yet to be corrupted by socialization, whereas adults are perpetually engaged in a “process of unlearning” their biases, phobias, and preconceptions about what it means to be a man or woman.

These are challenging ideas, and we can get into philosophy and all these things, but you have to remember the way that we were all socially kind of, like, you know, taught about these concepts, and so we’re very much in a process of unlearning, where you know, there’s almost like a simplicity to kids, right? Like around, um, just being who they are, and being accepting, and loving of themselves and other people, and then, you know, and then bias kind of comes into play, and a lot of hat is taught, actually.

A mother from the audience then interjects—“My child is the one who’s constantly educating me and their classmates!”

*  *  *

This workshop represents the standard introduction into transgender issues. It is not an outlier in terms of content and ideology. The only thing that makes this workshop somewhat unique is the fact that I was there asking the questions that your standard believer never does in order to force the presenters to grapple with fundamental issues with gender ideology.

Are gender identities based on stereotypes? How are “man” and “woman” defined? How can we expect children to understand concepts that people with masters degrees claim is beyond their capacity to understand? These questions should not be viewed as aggressive or out of bounds. These are fundamental questions that any gender “expert” should be able to easily answer, but they can’t. Yet they somehow remain so sure of the truth of what they believe that they’re willing to shuttle children down the path to irreversible hormone and surgical treatments to conform to identities they readily admit are “arbitrary words to describe experiences.”

Children are not the paragons of wisdom and self-knowing that gender “experts” claim they are. Children lack the life experience and perspective to make radical permanent decisions about extreme body modification. It is the duty of parents to apply their real life experience and perspective in order to ensure their children make it through childhood with healthy bodies and minds.

Gender ideology indoctrination does the exact opposite.

==

“You don’t need to have anything to be trans besides the knowledge or the feeling that you’re trans.”

“The bible is true because the bible says the bible is true.”

“You don’t need to have anything to be a bicycle besides the knowledge or the feeling that you’re a bicycle.”

If trans doesn’t require dysphoria, then what does trans “feel” like? Without gender identity disorder, what is the distinguishing feature of trans vs not-trans?

These are the same people who will argue that there is no single feature of “female” that determines whether someone is female; they’ll argue infertility, menopause, chromosomal abnormalities, intersex conditions, etc, etc, to “prove” that “female” is just a guess (”assigned at birth”). Yet their... “definition”... of “trans” is just someone who says/feels so, without explaining what that even means. (Hint: it means stereotype non-conformant.)

This circular, contradictory, incoherent lunacy is then used as the basis for scolding society that it’s a moral imperative to mutilate, medicalize and sterilize healthy children without dysphoria, who have simply self-IDed as trans and are not to be challenged at the threat of suicide. (”Do you want a trans X or a dead Y?”)

Some people may be surprised by this, but dysphoria and gender identity disorder - existing, known conditions (see: Buck Angel, Blaire White) - have been absent from the definition of “trans” on every major organization’s website for a long time. They will still use it as a cudgel if you question their activism, though.

Avatar

At least old-school gay conversion therapy didn’t involve cutting off body parts.

American Psychological Association: https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender

Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.
Transgender is umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Source: twitter.com
Avatar

By: Lisa Selin Davis

Published: Oct 31, 2022

Last week, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) delivered long-awaited suggestions for the kind of treatment children with gender dysphoria should receive. They’ve moved from a model in which children’s transgender identities are automatically affirmed to a cautious, multidisciplinary, evaluation-heavy approach to assisting kids navigating gender issues—a model similar to those of countries like Sweden and Finland.
The shift comes after pediatrician Hilary Cass released an Interim Report earlier this year on the UK’s only state-funded pediatric gender clinic, the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) for children and adolescents at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in London. It had a waitlist 5,000 kids deep and a pile of whistleblowing complaints against it. The report noted multiple problems, from children’s complicated mental health issues being overlooked in the wake of gender issues—known as diagnostic overshadowing—to clinicians feeling pressured to affirm and send the child down a medical path, rather than investigate the source of gender dysphoria. The report specifically called out the "affirmative model” of gender healthcare “that originated in the USA.”
Like several other countries, including the U.S. and Canada, the U.K. has seen a sharp spike in teen girls with no history of gender issues suddenly seeking medical interventions—a cohort never studied, to whom past research doesn’t apply. They’ve also seen the emergence of detransitioners—individuals who went through medical gender transitions but now regret doing so, and returned to living as their natal sex. Meanwhile, Cass chaired a group that commissioned systematic evidence reviews of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, which found the evidence of their safety and efficacy to be of very low quality.
After the Cass report, the National Health Service announced that GIDS would be shut down and replaced with a new model of care: regional centers “with strong links to mental health services.” Proponents of the gender-affirming model in America insisted this was not a condemnation of their approach but an expansion of it, to address the long waitlist, but this week’s revelation put that false assertion to rest.  
Now, children will be seen not just by experts in gender dysphoria, but also “experts in pediatric medicine, autism, neurodisability and mental health” because “there is a higher prevalence of other complex presentations in children and young people who have gender dysphoria.” That is, the NHS will be directly addressing the diagnostic overshadowing issue. There will be “a more structured approach for collaboration with local services”—meaning, kids will be properly evaluated before being referred to this new service, which should reduce the waitlist.
Instead of referrals made by schools, colleges, and “voluntary organizations,” the new service “proposes that referrals may be made by GPs and NHS professionals.” In other words, schools, as well as nonprofits like Mermaids, a charity that supports trans kids and has garnered outsized political and educational influence—and is now under investigation for supplying breast binders to girls—can no longer be so directly involved.
Many such schools and nonprofits support social transition, in which a child is facilitated to identify as the opposite sex (or nonbinary) and assume the stereotypes associated with that sex, in names, haircuts, or clothing. But the NHS now acknowledges that “social transition in prepubertal children is a controversial issue, that divergent views are held by health professionals, and that the current evidence base is insufficient to predict the long term outcomes of complete gender-role transition during early childhood.” Rather than being an anodyne or psychologically necessary intervention, as it's often thought of here in the States, social transition “should not be viewed as a neutral act” but rather “an active intervention,” NHS notes. Recent research shows social transition seems to increase the likelihood of medicalization later, but, as the NHS now asserts, “in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence.” Thus, “social transition should only be considered where the approach is necessary for the alleviation of, or prevention of, clinically significant distress or significant impairment in social functioning and the young person is able to fully comprehend the implications of affirming a social transition.”
As for medical interventions, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones will only be administered “in the context of a formal research protocol,” and families are discouraged from seeking these drugs “from unregulated sources or from on-line providers that are not regulated by UK regulatory bodies.”
These changes are quite different from the blunt force instrument of bans, or defunding the entire medical practice, as red states have aimed for in the United States. Nor are they as radical as the gender medicine sanctuary state laws of New York and California, which remove roadblocks to medical transition. Both methods of addressing this ballooning population are extreme and punitive, even if employing opposite tacks.
The NHS suggestions, on the other hand, note that clinical leads will be doctors, overseeing “a broader range of medical conditions in addition to gender dysphoria” because “the service may provide medical interventions to some children and young people.” Instead of legislatures imposing their will onto doctors and patients, in the UK, both psychological and medical treatment is carefully controlled by the medical and mental health establishments, with multi-tiered treatment options and multidisciplinary teams to evaluate children, and medical interventions only in the context of studies, which will lead to long-term follow up.
What will it take for the U.S. to follow the U.K.’s lead? Our healthcare system is so different that it’s a difficult question to answer. Countries with socialized medicine have no financial incentive to continue this kind of care, while in the U.S., the gender surgery market is “expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.23% from 2022 to 2030,” per one market research company. More than twenty-five American medical associations (which are not nonpartisan) have endorsed the affirmative approach the U.K. has now rejected. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which creates standards of care for “gender diverse” people, have refused to do the kinds of systematic evidence reviews that the U.K., Sweden, Finland and the state of Florida have all done, which led to policy changes. Each came to the same conclusion: the quality of evidence was so low that these medical interventions couldn’t be deemed medically necessary. Here, we tout the same evidence as showing life-saving benefits, not uncertainty.
The U.K.’s new guidelines aren’t set in stone. They’re open to public comment until December 4th. But it’s clear that they’ve weighed the evidence and listened to the whistleblowers. In America, we’re still waiting for that to happen.

==

The whistleblowers have come forward, but been ignored, or worse, vilified.

In the US, nothing less than punitive lawsuits will make a dent in the alliance between postmodern revolutionaries and the medical industry. Appealing to conscience won’t work when the former self-declares itself to be “on the right side of history,” and the latter doesn’t have the financial incentive to discourage lifelong, dependent paying customers.

Avatar

By: Leor Sapir

Published: Oct 8, 2022

For those not following the debate over pediatric gender medicine, Dr. Jack Turban is one of the leading proponents of the controversial protocol known as “gender affirming care” and has been outspoken in the American media promoting puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to manage gender-related distress in youth. He is quoted widely and frequently by mainstream, left-of-center outlets including the Washington Post and the New York Times. This, despite the fact that he is fresh out of his residency and has far less clinical experience than many of the experts with whose more cautious approach to managing gender dysphoria in youth he disagrees.
One of Turban’s most widely cited articles is the one published by Psychology Today back in January of this year. The article, it should be noted, was published after health authorities in Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. had conducted systematic reviews of evidence for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and concluded, unanimously, that the risks and uncertainties outweigh any known benefits. Sweden and Finland have already severely limited the practice, and the U.K. seems to be moving in the same direction following the damning Cass Report. Medical authorities in France and New Zealand have also sounded the alarm, with France’s National Academy of Medicine now urging “the greatest caution” when using hormones to treat gender-related distress in minors.
Turban has thus far chosen to ignore these developments. In the case of the U.K., he has misleadingly suggested that the decision to shut down the country’s gender clinic (which was also the largest gender clinic in the world at the time) was prompted only by concern over long wait times and that the NHS was still on board with the “affirmative” model of care. Even a cursory reading of the Cass Report shows that this is demonstrably false. Cass explicitly cites the “affirmative model,” which “originated in the USA” and pressures clinicians not to question a minor’s gender self-identification and desire for transition, as a probable reason behind the lack of child “safeguarding” and the rushing of minors to medicalization.
This fits a broader pattern of Turban spreading misinformation and, at times, demonstrating ignorance about the basic facts of studies he cites. For example, as an expert witness on behalf of the ACLU in Brandt et al v. Rutledge et al, which challenged Arkansas’ ban on the use of hormones and surgeries for minors, Turban testified that there are two Dutch studies, consisting of two distinct, if overlapping, cohorts. He says something similar in his Psychology Today article. In fact, however, there was only one cohort of Dutch patients from which two studies were produced. Not just “some” (as Turban says in Brandt) or “many” (as he says in Psychology Today), but all participants in the second study participated in the first study—a fact the significance of which will be discussed shortly.
Why the misleading statement? Perhaps Turban thinks that the higher the number of studies, the more likely a judge is to rule against state efforts to regulate gender medicine, and the more likely readers of Psychology Today are to agree with his conclusions. Regardless, either Turban is unaware of the Dutch study’s details, or he has deliberately misled a federal judge.
According to Turban’s Psychology Today article, “sixteen studies to date have examined the impact of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth” and the evidence from these studies “suggests that gender-affirming medical care results in favorable mental health outcomes.” The language of “results in” can easily lead the reader to believe that hormonal interventions cause improved mental health. As I go through these studies one by one, I’ll show not only that such claims of causality are not supported by the evidence (as made clear, at times, by the authors themselves), but also that some of the studies Turban cites actually show no or even negative association between hormones and mental health.
*  *  *

I won’t quote them here, but read the study by study rebuttals of all sixteen: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-distortions-in-jack-turbans-psychology

It’s fascinating reading of Turban’s either politically motivated misrepresentation or scientific illiteracy in citing studies that don’t say what he pretends/thinks they say.

*  *  *
From his assessment of the sixteen studies, Turban concludes that “these interventions result in favorable mental health outcomes.” Here is what Turban should have said, had he written as a scientist rather than an activist:
To date, some studies have shown positive correlations between receiving hormones and improved mental health, but the improvements tend to be modest and regardless, there is no ability to know whether they are because of the hormones or some other factor (such as psychotherapy of familial support). Other studies have shown no or even a negative association between hormones and mental health. Given the gravity of these interventions and their known and believed side-effects, there is an urgent need to know more about the risks and benefits of hormonal interventions for adolescents who experience gender-related distress. It is time for the United States to follow its European counterparts and conduct a systematic review of the evidence, meantime putting all hormonal interventions on hold.
Turban's public statements on pediatric gender medicine policy in the United States have been less than honest. In the main, he has ignored developments in Scandinavia while assuring his readers that those who disagree with “gender affirming care” (as he defines it) wish to adopt blanket bans on all hormonal and surgical interventions for minors. While Turban is correct that this is the approach favored by some Republican states, his statement is hardly an accurate characterization of the wider debate over pediatric gender medicine in the United States. I suspect that Turban knows this but finds engagement with critics who favor a more incremental retrenchment inconvenient. Turban also likes to say that “all experts agree” with the “gender affirming” model—a statement that is only true if you define “expert,” in No True Scotsman-like fashion, as only someone who agrees with Turban.
Flawed articles like the one by Turban in Psychology Today should be the basis of debate, not a reason for shutting it down. Unfortunately, activists use these articles to argue that when it comes to the health care needs of transgender-identified youth, there is no room for debate. Current efforts underway to use the federal government to crack down on “disinformation” surrounding pediatric gender medicine are dangerous. They undermine the basic conditions for scientific inquiry and put evidence-based medicine beyond reach.

==

Jack Turban is a Ray Comfort-grade quack and crackpot, and as much of a pseudoscience crank as the people pushing Ivermectin.

Avatar

By: Heather Heying

Published: Oct 5, 2022

There is an eight-year-old girl who likes to play in streams and look under rocks for squirmy critters. She not only knows how to throw a ball but enjoys doing it. She loves math and logic, and has no interest in dolls or dresses. She will grow up to be a woman. Because that’s what girls do.

There is another eight-year-old girl who likes to give tea parties for her stuffed animals. She likes to dance all the dances, often with other girls who like to do the same thing. She loves to read, and has no interest in trucks or trails. She will also grow up to be a woman. Because, again, that’s what girls do.

One of these girls may want to be an astronaut. The other, a chef. Or a mother. Or a lawyer. An actress. A racecar driver. Are all of these desires equally likely among girls? They are not. Girls are likely to want some things more than others. But guess what: the girls who aren’t girly are still girls. You can tell, in part, by the fact that they grow up to be women. Because that’s what girls do.

Sex isn’t assigned at birth. Sex is observed at birth.

Sometimes, in fact, sex is observed before birth. Most commonly, this happens via ultrasound imaging of the fetus. Less commonly, it is possible to look at the karyotype—a visual representation of fetal chromosomes, organized roughly by size—which has been obtained through the usefully diagnostic but somewhat risky mid-pregnancy procedure known as amniocentesis.

All mammals have “Genetic Sex Determination,” which means that we have chromosomes dedicated to starting us down the path of maleness or femaleness. They are called sex chromosomes, in contrast to the autosomes which comprise most of our genetic makeup, and which do not vary predictably by sex. A tiny number of mammals—the echidnas, and the duck-billed platypus—have several pairs of sex chromosomes. The remaining several thousand of us mammals, however—everything from bats to koalas, kangaroos to whales—all the many thousands of other species of mammals have just one pair of sex chromosomes in each of our cells. Humans are mammals, so we have Genetic Sex Determination. Humans are neither echidnas nor duck-billed platypi, so we have just the one pair of sex chromosomes.

The number of chromosomes in each of our cells varies between species. Ocelots and margays have 18 pairs of chromosomes, for instance, while most other cats have 19 pairs[1]. Most of the great apes, including chimps, have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have only 23. That is: humans have 22 pairs of autosomes, and at that 23rd position: one pair of sex chromosomes.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes in almost all of our cells. Gametes—sex cells—are a notable exception to this[2], however, having only 23 chromosomes each, instead of 23 pairs. If you’re female, your gametes are called eggs; if you’re male, they’re called sperm. If successful (as the vast majority are not), an egg or a sperm will combine with a gamete of the other type and make a new life. As such, so as not to create a new life with double the chromosomes of their parents, gametes have half the chromosomal complement of somatic (body) cells: one copy of chromosome 1, one copy of chromosome 2, etc., all the way down to chromosome 23.

At chromosome 23, females have two nearly identical looking chromosomes, which we call XX. Males, in contrast, have two chromosomes at that 23rd position which are wildly different in size; this we call XY, the diminutive chromosome being the Y.

The gametes of female mammals, therefore—the eggs—all have Xs at that 23rd position. No matter what, a female mammal contributes one of her Xs to her offspring’s genetic make-up.

By comparison, the gametes of male mammals—the sperm—are variable at that 23rd position. For any given male, roughly half of his sperm will contain an X, which, if combined with an egg, will produce a daughter (XX). The other half of his sperm will contain a Y which, if combined with an egg, will produce a son (XY)[3].

The determination of what sex a baby is is usually based on an easy observation at birth, but this isn’t always the case. Intersex people exist, as do people with yet more subtle ambiguities in their phenotypes. The conclusion being imposed on us, far less by trans people than by Trans Rights Activists (TRAs), is that any exceptions to normal function, any fuzziness at categorical borders, proves that we’ve got it all wrong, and that reality is a social construct. It’s not, though. While laws are indeed social constructs, and lawmakers can clearly be captured by ideology, ideological capture does not change the underlying reality. Sex is observed at birth, by looking at primary sex characteristics, or sex can be observed before birth, by looking at primary sex characteristics in utero, or by looking at a karyotype.

All of that is less fundamental than this, however:

Females are individuals who do or did or will or would, but for developmental or genetic anomalies, produce eggs. Eggs are large, sessile gametes. Gametes are sex cells. In plants and animals, and most other sexually reproducing organisms, there are two sexes: female and male. Like “adult,” the term female applies across many species. Female is used to distinguish such people from males, who produce small, mobile gametes (e.g. sperm, pollen)[4].

A woman is an adult human female. Girls become women. Girls do not become boys or men any more than they become fairy princesses or dinosaurs. Fantasize all you want—that is the stuff of childhood, and childhood is the stuff of humanity. But do not confuse fantasy with reality, else you may make decisions based on fantasy that will haunt you for the rest of your life. And do not expect the adults who are paying attention to pretend that your fantasy is real life.

Many adults have either abdicated their responsibility, or are actively in on the game, the game being: hurt the children. Those of us who can see this for what it is, though, who know that providing puberty blockers and sex hormones to children and teenagers is dangerous and immoral, and cutting off their healthy tissue is even farther beyond the pale—we need to speak. We need to put aside what differences we may have.

In some circles, we are all painted with a MAGA brush. It’s a quick route to discrediting a person or position, at least among those who are unthinkingly on the trans train. And yet there are many among us, myself included, who are lifelong liberals[5]. Not only aren’t all of us who recognize that biology is real “MAGA Republicans,” we’re not even all Republicans. Imagine that. Some of us are, and some of us aren’t. And yet we’re all human.

We may not agree on reproductive rights, or climate change, or the second amendment—although I often find that the divide between us isn’t as vast as we’ve been led to believe. But disagreement is fine. It’s good, even. We don’t want to be a clone army, all in lockstep, all believing exactly the same things, living exactly the same lives. We see reality—girls become women, and boys become men—and we are adamant that reality not be hidden from view. And when we find that we actually share core values—values like protect the children from harm—we stand together.

--

1 Hsu et al 1963. Karyological studies of nine species of Felidae. The American Naturalist, 97(895): 225-234.

2 Red blood cells are another exception. Humans, like all mammals, have red blood cells which at maturity do not contain nuclei. Red blood cells thus contain no chromosomes (except for what is in the mitochondria. Yes, this is biology, and there is complexity at every turn.)

3 Birds, by the way, do this the other way around. Birds, like mammals, have Genetic Sex Determination (GSD), but unlike mammals, female birds are the heterogametic sex, male birds the homogametic sex. To keep things clear to biologists (but no doubt creating greater confusion among non-biologists), scientists have named the sex chromosomes in birds “W” and “Z” rather than “X” and “Y.” Female mammals are XX, and so are homogametic (homo = same, gametic = marriage (from the Greek)); male mammals are XY, and so are heterogametic (hetero = different). Male birds are ZZ (therefore, homogametic), whereas female birds are WZ (therefore, heterogametic). Thus, it’s mama birds, like papa mammals, whose gametes determine the sex of their offspring.

4 From “I Am a Woman,” which I posted here on March 29, 2022.

5 Not woke. Not reality-denying. But liberal.

Avatar

Published: Sep 21, 2022

Children who are medically transitioned become attached to a medical leash.
Nearly all of us are born with healthy and functioning endocrine systems. The cells in our bodies depend on both testosterone and estrogen to some degree. Of course, men's bodies depend more on the former and women's on the latter.
When a child is put on to puberty blockers, also called gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH), the child's natural endocrine system is supplanted. It is stopped. For a child about to enter puberty, this causes an indefinite delay.
According to WPATH SOC8, gender clinicians may exercise the judgment to start hormone blockers in children at Tanner Stage 2 in their development. For girls, this may be age 9. For boys, age 11.
Most children who start puberty blockers then go on to be prescribed cross-sex hormones, also called gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). This whole protocol works in contradiction to the child's natural endocrine system. At this point, irreversible changes have happened.
If hormone replacement continues, permanent changes occur. Girls masculinize. Her body will grow more hair, her voice will deepen, and she will accumulate more muscle. Boys will have their skin soften and they will begin to grow breasts.
Even with hormone replacement, a body that is meant to follow a female sexual developmental pattern will not become male. And males will not become female. At this point, the body's natural endocrine system is suppressed and smothered by prescription drugs.
Let's talk about the drugs. The most common GnRH (puberty blocker) is Lupron. Lupron is not designed for children who identify as transgender—it's more commonly used to treat cancer. It costs at least hundreds of dollars a month, but I've normally heard it costing thousands.
Lupon can have devastating side effects, and even the gender clinicians are aware of this, and some have talked about rushing children off puberty blockers and on to cross-sex hormones as quickly as possible.
Girls who are put on this path inject testosterone. Testosterone can act as a mild anti-depressant. Girls taking testosterone report having more energy. Testosterone is also expensive.
Boys on this path take estrogen. Estrogen is sometimes used to treat sex offenders to reduce their sex drive. From my own experience, I was not ready to handle male puberty, and estrogen acted like a governor on my sex drive. It helped me avoid learning about my body.
Boys are expected to follow a path that includes castration and the construction of a vagina-like orifice using the penis as material. At this point, the boy will become dependent on external hormones for the rest of his life.
Girls on this path will experience vaginal atrophy from testosterone, and eventually her other sex organs will be destroyed by the testosterone. After hysterectomy, the girl will become dependent on external hormones for the rest of her life.
For boys and girls in this situation, and for people like me, our health is wholly dependent on the medical system. We must have regular blood tests (at least once a year), and we must report in to our providers to get renewals for our external hormones. We have no gonads.
These hormone treatments are not optional. Without them, our bones will become frail, and we will experience other physical symptoms, including mental health problems—hormones regulate our entire bodies.
I am leashed to a medical provider. The best I can do is pick who holds the leash. The children who are being transitioned are being put on to a leash. They are typically starting the process with healthy bodies. But then our bodies are deliberately damaged. Why? For aesthetics.
I'm unusual in that I'm vocal about my criticism of the system. I have heard from SO MANY "TRANS" PEOPLE that they would like to say something, but they are terrified that the people who hold their leashes will jerk on the reins.
Planned Parenthood is one of the most generous of the leash-holders. They will essentially let anyone sign up to get a leash, and they don't ask for very much from their pets. How does this sound? Maybe not so bad?
What is the medical discipline that understands the endocrine system? It's endocrinology! And yet, nobody writing prescriptions at Planned Parenthood is an endocrinologist. My local gender clinic, which sees perhaps 1000 patients, has no endocrinologist on staff.
Not only are we on medical leashes, but the people who hold the leashes aren't even experts in the field. They are learning about best practices and then experimenting on us.
However, as someone once pointed out to me, it's not an experiment. In an experiment, someone is collecting data.
It should never be considered normal or preferable to treat problems like autism spectrum disorder, anxiety, traumas, depression, or other social disorders by placing children on puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. It is not a treatment path. It is a collar and a chain.

==

Gay Conversion Therapy 2.0.

Avatar

By: Chloe Cole

Published: Sep 24, 2022

My Speech at the US Capitol
Over the past decade there has been as high as a 4000% increase in children being referred to so-called “gender clinics” across the United States. I was one of these children. My name is Chloe Cole and I am an 18-year-old former “trans kid.” I transitioned from the age of 12 up until 16, when I came to realize it was all a lie. My story is a cautionary tale.
Children and parents across the country have been caught off guard by gender ideology. Discussions about transgenderism and “gender identity” went from being a relatively benign and isolated social oddity to a doctrine that has invaded nearly every academic, medical, and educational institution, seemingly overnight. How did we get to this point? How did we get to the point where nearly every pediatric institution in the country considers it best practice to remove children’s healthy breast tissue while administering drugs typically used to chemically castrate high risk sex offenders?
Raising these important questions is not bigoted, and the refusal of activists to give straightforward answers should be seen as a major red flag. People across the entire political spectrum who believe that this practice is morally wrong have been told they are fascists and bigots for even questioning this atrocity. Parents are being convinced by self-proclaimed “gender specialists” that this is the only treatment that will not end in your child committing suicide. I believe Americans deserve to know the truth about this radical and perverse ideology that is being marketed as necessary and “life-saving” healthcare.
I was only 12 years old when I told my parents I was a boy. Like many parents in that situation, they didn’t have a clue what to do; they were scared and desperate for answers. They wanted what every parent wants for their child— for me to be okay and to thrive. At 13 years old, on advice of so-called “medical professionals,” I was put on puberty blocking medication, and one month later I was given my first testosterone injection. The gender clinic presented my parents with the classic false dichotomy regarding children with gender dysphoria: “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a live son?” Given these options, what loving parent wouldn’t choose to transition their child? Scared for my life, my parents were prepared to sign and consent to anything the doctors would have asked. This was not informed consent, it was a decision forced under extreme duress.
At 15 I went under the knife for a radical double mastectomy, the kind that breast cancer patients get. This was after I was sexually assaulted at school, by a male student. I told myself to “man up,” but I lived my life in constant hatred of my breasts. I started binding, which deformed my breasts as well as my ribcage. I was afraid, and couldn’t wait to finally protect my body from the threat of further molestation. At 16, I understood what had happened to me, and that I had made a huge mistake. I realized that the beauty of motherhood was stolen from me by medical professionals who my family entrusted me to.  I realized, after maturing a bit more, that a child does not in fact “know who they are” at 12 years old. I realized that I wanted to be what I always was and forever will be—a woman.
With these realizations came a series of challenges that were far worse than the transition. Somehow, I had to get myself off these drugs, and tell everyone in my entire life that I was not who I said I was. My parents were shocked and felt like they had failed me on every level imaginable. My friends all turned against me because I was evidence that their beliefs were also a lie. I was a joke. I was a fraud. I was many years behind in bodily development, and incapable of feeding my future children. But worst of all, I was completely alone. Even the medical professionals who got me into this mess have no idea what to do with me and refuse to help. It almost killed me, as it has killed many who regret transition.
A big question still remains: How was a 12-year-old introduced to the idea that they could do something as ridiculous as change their sex?
I was and still am the type of kid who never really fit into social norms. I was a tomboy, I was shy, and I didn’t socialize easily. At 11 I made my first Instagram account. I had unmonitored internet access, and it wasn’t long until I became exposed to a ton of LGBTQ content online. I’d never seen anything like it. You mean that all I have to do is subscribe to this ideology and then I’ll be an accepted, celebrated, and valued member of the most talked about community on earth? And “trans” was (and is) the most celebrated subset of this community. I saw the unbelievable amount of praise and attention trans people got online, and I subconsciously yearned to have a piece of it.
With every additional milestone in my medical transition came more and more attention and celebration. It was the ultimate high. Even in person, I got more attention. Having girls crush on me, and having people come up to me in the hallways asking to make friends was unprecedented for me. I felt like a celebrity. But being a kid, I didn’t know just how superficial these relationships were until they all suddenly abandoned me, just for struggling to become who I am.
Much of this gender confusion is based on old regressive stereotypes of men and women, which are now being reinforced with hormones and surgeries.  But women can have short hair and be interested in playing sport, and men can grow their hair out and wear make up. It does not change their biology.
The truth is, this practice is harming more and more children every day. What will we do to protect this most vulnerable group? Up until now, the media has been parroting the same ideologically-driven talking point—affirm, affirm, affirm! The closest I’ve touched to mainstream media was a Forbes journalist who wrote a hit piece on me, calling basic human biology “transphobic.” There are many detransitioners speaking out, but they are ignored by the institutions that are supposed to be engaged in the search for truth.
Up until today, most politicians on the Left and Right have done nothing but get into Twitter spats on this issue. It was too late for me, and time is running out for many other children. There is no second chance at childhood, so we must do our best as adults to guide our children to pathways that lead to healthy bodies and minds instead of depression and disfigurement. No child deserves to suffer under the knife of a gender affirming surgeon. America’s children—all children—deserve better.
Avatar

By: Colin Wright

Published: Sep 22, 2022

The number of young Americans who describe themselves as “transgender” has exploded over the past decade, increasing by a factor of 20 to 40, according to gender clinic referral data and a recent Williams Institute report based on surveys by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Why? Jody Herman, author of the report, calls that a “bewildering question.” Clinical psychologist Erica Anderson tweeted that the surge “defies explanation. . . . Something is going on that we don’t yet understand.”
The two leading explanations are greater social acceptance and social contagion. Both are likely contributing factors, but I think the main reason is simpler. It comes down to a change in terminology.
Until recently, the term “transsexual” referred to people with a cross-sex identity, a desire to be the opposite sex or even a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. “Transgender,” the favored term now, is far broader. It encompasses mere nonconformity with rigid traditional sex roles. If you’re a tomboy or a feminine boy—if your expression or behavior is different from what is “typically associated” with your sex based on “traditional expectations”—you’re transgender. No wonder so many young people think they need medical help to “correct” their sex.
This idea is propagated by important scientific and medical organizations:
• Planned Parenthood provides services to transgender patients at all its locations, and in 2020 described itself as America’s “second largest provider of gender affirming hormone care.” Its website defines “gender” as “a social and legal status, and set of expectations from society, about behaviors, characteristics, and thoughts” and asserts that “it’s more about how you’re expected to act, because of your sex.” The “gender binary” is defined as “the idea that gender is strictly an either/or option of male/men/masculine or female/woman/feminine based on sex assigned at birth,” and “nonbinary” as a “rejection of the gender binary’s assumption that gender is strictly an either/or option of male/man/masculine or female/woman/feminine based on sex assigned at birth.”
• The American Psychological Association, which establishes the norms for clinical practice in the U.S., defines “transgender” as “an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.” The Endocrine Society, the world’s oldest and largest organization dedicated to practice and research in hormonal medicine, uses almost identical language. So does the American Psychiatric Association, whose definition of “gender expression” is “the outward manifestation of a person’s gender, which may or may not reflect their inner gender identity based on traditional expectations.”
• The CDC, which purports to be “the nation’s leading science-based, data-driven, service organization that protects the public’s health,” defines “transgender” as “an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity or expression (masculine, feminine, other) is different from their sex (male, female) at birth.”
Hospitals don’t even hide that they are medicalizing nonconformity. The Gender Affirming Health Program at the University of California San Francisco describes the “hormonal and surgical transition” considerations for “people who do not live within the binary gender narrative,” which they say includes people who identify as “genderqueer, gender non-conforming, and gender nonbinary.” The Children’s Hospital of Chicago says its patients include “gender expansive or gender non-conforming children,” which it defines as “children and adolescents who exhibit behavior that is not typical of their assigned birth sex.”
The equating of sex nonconformity with transgenderism arose incrementally, through a complicated regulatory process involving court decisions and bureaucratic guidelines that were presided over by transgender interest groups. Borrowed from the women’s legal movement, the nonconformity framing was designed in the early 2000s and solidified during the Obama era to empower judges and bureaucrats at the federal Office for Civil Rights to bypass rulemaking procedures and force schools, on penalty of violating Title IX, to defer to their students’ gender self-identification.
We should treat children who are different with compassion and acceptance. Transgender ideology does the opposite. When children say they’re transgender, that frequently prompts a visit to a gender clinic where a “gender-affirming” therapist may prescribe puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and even surgery to “fix” this perceived misalignment between “gender identity” (i.e., social roles and stereotypes) and the child’s biological sex.
As an ideological matter alone, this is regressive in the extreme. It repudiates decades of work by women’s-rights activists who rightfully gauged such notions as sexist and oppressive and fought to free nonconformists from social stigma. Subjecting children to body-altering surgery and drugs is a medical scandal of horrifying proportions.

==

Religionists don’t like it when you quote their own scripture back at them.

Source: archive.ph
Avatar

By: Colin Wright

Earlier this year, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) updated their Standards of Care to the 8th edition, which caused considerable backlash when people discovered that it had lowered the minimum age recommendations across the board for puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries. The new section read:
For cross-sex hormones, this represents a lowering of the minimum age from 16 to 14. The minimum age for double mastectomies has been lowered to 15, and for male minors seeking breast augmentation, WPATH now recommended 16 years old as the lower age limit, which is also the new age suggestion for facial surgeries and tracheal shaves. Genital surgeries, such as hysterectomy and vaginoplasty, has been lowered to 17—a year earlier than previous guidance.
This came as a shock to many who already viewed “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors as beyond inappropriate, especially given the pseudoscience being used to support the interventions.
However, last week, WPATH issued a “correction” to their recently-updated guidelines that completely eliminated minimum age recommendations from their guidelines, empowering individual practitioners to do as they please. Last week also coincided with WPATH’s annual conference, where Amy Tishelman, who was the lead author of the “Child” chapter of the new guidelines, revealed that these minimum age suggestions were eliminated so that practitioners could not “be sued because they weren’t following exactly what we said.” Tishelman also said that the goal was to maximize the likelihood of insurance covering the procedures while minimizing the likelihood of malpractice lawsuits.
This is an astonishing revelation, as it completely inverts the “do no harm” principle involved in the doctor-patient relationship. Instead of “do no harm” referring to minimizing the harm done by doctors to their patients, it now appears that harm is being reduced for doctors and surgeons while being elevated for their patients. Patients who are harmed by “gender affirming” treatments and surgeries will now find it even more difficult than it already is to seek damages.
With this change, WPATH’s “guidelines” are no longer guidelines—they’re a free-for-all. What is the point of a professional organization tasked with drafting guidance that refuses to give it?

==

It's almost like they fully expect there to be as massive an uptick in lawsuits as there has been an uptick in clinic referrals.

This isn't medicine, it's a cult.

Avatar

By: Colin Wright

Published: Aug 31, 2022

Last June the New York Times published an article summarizing a report on new CDC survey data demonstrating a “sharp rise in transgender young people in the U.S.” Indeed, data indicate between a 20- to 40-fold rise in the last decade. As to its cause, the report’s lead author Dr. Jody Herman calls it a “bewildering question.” Commenting on the report, leading clinical psychologist and gender specialist Dr. Erica Anderson tweeted that this surge “defies explanation,” adding that “something is going on that we don’t yet understand.”
Even more puzzling is that over this time the sex ratio of these children has flipped from being mostly males to mostly females. The figure below illustrates both of these “bewildering” phenomena.
This sudden spike and sex ratio flip is viewed as the riddle of our time that many are desperate to solve. And, like most things these days, those purporting to have solved this riddle generally fall into two camps—those who believe it is due to greater social acceptance, and those who believe it is a result of peer social contagion.
The social acceptance hypothesis is favored by those on the political Left. New York Times reporter Azeen Ghorayshi refers to this hypothesis in her above article by saying that the Williams Institute data highlights an “emerging societal embrace of a diversity of gender identities.” This attitude shift, fueled in part by positive media portrayals of transgender people, has supposedly allowed for the formerly silent majority of trans kids to safely come out of hiding and express their true inner selves. Proponents of the social acceptance hypothesis, however, remain largely silent on the cause of the sex ratio flip.
On the other hand, the social contagion hypothesis is generally favored among political centrists and conservatives and holds that transgender identities have become trendy in a culture where intersectionality oppression scores act as a form of social currency. Even more, the rise of social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok has made it much easier for these social trends to proliferate. The sex ratio flip is thought to be explained by girls’ plummeting mental health relative to boys combined with girls’ increased susceptibility to social contagion related to body image and self-harm.
But as the culture war rages on about whether these trends are best explained by greater societal acceptance of transgender people or are driven primarily by social contagion, I contend that while these may certainly be contributing factors, neither of these hypotheses can sufficiently explain the magnitude of the problem. Rather, I believe that these trends can be mostly explained by one simple fact:
The definition of “transgender” currently used and embraced by our largest and most prestigious scientific, medical, and human rights organizations is literally synonymous with common gender nonconformity.
We can call this the definitional expansion hypothesis or the widening umbrella hypothesis.
I will now demonstrate this fact to you.
*  *  *
Planned Parenthood is a US-based nonprofit that provides services to transgender patients at all their locations, and in 2020 were “second largest provider of gender affirming hormone care” nationally. On their website, “gender” is defined as “a social and legal status, and set of expectations from society, about behaviors, characteristics, and thoughts,” and that “it’s more about how you’re expected to act, because of your sex.” The “gender binary” is defined as “the idea that gender is strictly an either/or option of male/men/masculine or female/woman/feminine based on sex assigned at birth,” and they define “nonbinary,” which is a type of transgender identity, as referring to a “rejection of the gender binary’s assumption that gender is strictly an either/or option of male/man/masculine or female/ woman/feminine based on sex assigned at birth.”
The literal and straightforward reading of this is that people who are gender nonconforming—i.e. people who do not behave according to traditional notions of masculinity or femininity that society expects of them because of their sex—are transgender.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), in their Glossary of Terms, defines “transgender” as “an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or expression is different from cultural expectations based on the sex they were assigned at birth.” The “gender binary” is the system in which one’s “gender identity is expected to align with the sex assigned at birth and gender expressions and roles fit traditional expectations.
Again, the most straightforward reading of this is that a transgender person is someone who simply does not conform to traditional stereotypes of masculinity or femininity associated with being male or female.
But what about scientific institutions?
The American Psychological Association (APA), which is in charge of establishing the norms for clinical practice in the United States, defines “transgender” as “an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.
The Endocrine Society, which is the world’s oldest and largest organization dedicated to research on hormones and the practice of endocrinology, defines “transgender” in their Clinical Practice Guideline as “an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with their sex designated at birth.” This is also the same definition used by the Pediatric Endocrine Society.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA), which is the main professional psychiatric in the United States and the largest psychiatric organization in the world, defines “transgender” as “an umbrella term describing individuals whose gender identity (inner sense of gender) or gender expression (outward performance of gender) differs from the sex or gender to which they were assigned at birth.” And their definition of “gender expression” is “the outward manifestation of a person’s gender, which may or may not reflect their inner gender identity based on traditional expectations.
Lastly, the United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which purports to be “the nation’s leading science-based, data-driven, service organization that protects the public’s health,” defines “transgender” on the LGBT health section of their website as “an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity or expression (masculine, feminine, other) is different from their sex (male, female) at birth.
All these institutions are saying the same thing: if your expression or behavior is different from what is “typically associated” with your sex based on “traditional expectations,” you are transgender. This is literally equating common gender nonconformity (i.e. masculine females, feminine males, and androgynous people of either sex) with transgenderism.
I could go on endlessly citing more examples, but for the sake of brevity I will leave it there for now.
*  *  *
The above section demonstrates that our scientific, medical, and human rights institutions have been captured by a radical ideology that has completely decoupled the terms man, woman, boy, and girl from one’s biological sex. Instead, men/boys and women/girls are now viewed as individuals who embrace the expected roles and stereotypes typically associated with males (i.e. masculinity) and females (i.e. femininity), respectively. These two expected roles based on the two sexes is the so-called “gender binary,” and our institutions literally believe that doctors are “assigning” these roles to babies at birth based on their sex.
Our institutions also believe that transgender people are either “binary” or “nonbinary.” For instance, a male who feels most comfortable taking on the roles and behaviors typically associated with females is viewed as a binary transgender person because they still conform to one of the two social roles within the gender binary (i.e. masculinity or femininity). Males and females who do not feel an affinity to either of the social roles and expectations associated with being male or female are therefore considered nonbinary transgender people.
It is urgent that we all fully understand that the definition of transgenderism used by our most highly regarded scientific, medical, and human rights institutions now literally encompasses common gender nonconformity, and this is the main reason so many children are now claiming to be transgender.
This medicalization of gender nonconformity can be gleaned from reading the definitions produced by these institutions at face value. This interpretation is not a product of my bias or spin—this is what they’re saying in plain English.
But what about the second major question—the sex ratio flip? Does equating gender nonconformity with transgenderism explain why the sex ratio of children referred to gender clinics has flipped from being mostly males to mostly females?
Yes, it does, and the reasons can be derived from my figure below.
This figure highlights three important truths.
The first truth contained in this figure is that the female and male sexes differ—on average—in their adherence to social norms and expectations in behaviors and preferences that informs our crude perceptions of masculine and feminine stereotypes or so-called “gender roles.” For simplicity, we will talk about this in terms of the degree to which someone exhibits feminine and/or masculine traits.
The second truth is that, despite these average differences in feminine and masculine traits exhibited between females and males, respectively, there is still considerable overlap in these traits, as there are with any other personality trait, so that some females exhibit extreme masculinity, and some males extreme femininity.
The third truth is that, at least for children and adolescents, females exhibit highergender variance” than males (represented by the pink and blue shaded regions in the above figure), which sex researcher Kenneth Zucker has summarized by saying:

“[I]t has been long observed that the sexes differ in the extent to which they display sex-typical behaviors; when there is significant between-sex variation, it is almost always the case that girls are more likely to engage in masculine behaviors than boys are likely to engage in feminine behaviors.”

This is an odd fact given that for most traits males tend to exhibit higher variation than females, a phenomenon known as the “greater male variability hypothesis.” Nevertheless, numerous studies going as far back as the 1950s have demonstrated that gender nonconformity, or “gender-variant” behavior, is higher in girls than in boys.
For instance, in a 2008 study by Richard A. Lippa, childhood gender nonconformity was over 40 percent higher for girls than boys who grew up to be heterosexual, and approximately 25 percent higher for girls than boys who grew up to be homosexual.
In 2012, a randomly sampled prospective study by Thomas Steensma and colleagues found that girls were more than twice as likely to exhibit gender variance than boys, and girls’ gender variance was rated as considerably more intense. Girls were also nearly twice as likely to be described by their parents as behaving “like the opposite sex,” and in this study only girls were reported as having expressed a wish “to be of opposite sex.”
Data from the 80s and 90s also corroborate these findings. In one large data set from a 1981 Child Behavior Checklist using a 0- to 2-point scale (0 = never true; 1 = somewhat or sometimes true; 2 = very true or often true), mothers reported their daughters as being more than twice as likely to exhibit cross-sex behavior than their sons (Table I below). And, similar to the Steensma study, girls were more likely than boys to express a desire “to be of opposite sex.” These results replicated a decade later in 1991 using a similar ACQ Behavior Checklist that’s based on a 0- to 3-point scale (Table II below).
In one of the first studies to ever quantify gender variance in children, a 1956 study titled “Sex-Role Preference in Young Children,” psychologist Daniel G. Brown concluded that “one of the most striking findings in the present study is the comparatively greater preference that boys show for the masculine role than girls show for the feminine role, a difference that is large and significant.”
The causes underlying this phenomenon are not entirely clear and may result from innate differences, socialization, or a combination of both. But evidence suggests is that girls are generally given more social leeway by both parents and peers to cross gendered boundaries than males, which results in more perceived “gender variance” in girls than boys.
Gender variance in children is also predictive of adult sexual orientation, with reports of adulthood homosexuality being 8 to 15 times higher for individuals with a history of gender variance (10.2% to 12.2%), compared to those without a history of gender variance (1.2% to 1.7%). Other studies found similar results. Another interesting fact is that people with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are “7.59 times more likely to express gender variance.” Other studies have demonstrated links between ASD and gender variance as well. This likely explains the overrepresentation of ASD and same-sex attracted girls being referred to gender clinics.
Because girls are more likely to exhibit gender nonconformity than boys (i.e. girls are more likely to exhibit stereotypically masculine traits than boys are to exhibit feminine traits), and because the definition of transgenderism is now synonymous with common gender nonconformity, it should come as absolutely no surprise that the rates of children claiming to be transgender is exploding, and that the majority of these children are girls.
*  *  *
Hospitals aren’t even hiding the fact that they are medicalizing gender nonconformity and gender variance. The Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University explicitly states on their Pediatric Transgender Clinic website that their Division of Endocrinology “provides care to gender variant and transgender children and adolescents,” and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia similarly states that they offer “medical support for gender variant, gender expansive, and transgender children and youth…” The Gender Affirming Health Program at UCSF describes the “hormonal and surgical transition” considerations for “people do not live within the binary gender narrative,” which they say includes people who identify as “genderqueer, gender non-conforming, and gender nonbinary.” And the Children’s Hospital of Chicago’s “Gender Development Program” says their patients include “gender expansive or gender non-conforming children,” which they define as “children and adolescents who exhibit behavior that is not typical of their assigned birth sex.
This is insane.
If being transgender were merely a statement about one’s gender nonconformity, none of this would be particularly worrying. But that is far from the case. In reality, when a child becomes convinced they’re transgender, this usually prompts a visit to a gender clinic where they will see a “gender-affirming” therapist who will not question their cross-sex identity. Depending on the child’s age, the therapist may then prescribe puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries to “fix” this perceived misalignment between the child’s “gender identity” (i.e. the social roles and stereotypes they identify with) and their sex-related physical features.
From a purely ideological perspective, this redefinition of the terms boy, girl, man, and woman according to sex-related stereotypes and social roles by our institutions is regressive in the extreme, as it repudiates decades of work by women’s rights activists who fought assiduously to decouple notions of womanhood and manhood from rigid stereotypes and social roles.
But from the perspective of material impact, this overt medicalization of gender nonconformity is nothing short of a medical scandal of truly epic proportions.

==

It’s not “inclusive” to tell a girl she’s not feminine enough to be a woman. It’s not “accepting” to tell a boy he’s not masculine enough to be a man. It’s not “diversity” to sterilize and mutilate them in order to conform them to cliches. Turning “woman” and “man” into mere aesthetics is not “progressive.”

When you redefine “dog” to mean “mammal with four legs,” then it shouldn’t be surprising when you suddenly get a massive explosion in the birthrate and population of “dogs.”

It’s long been disturbing that this ideology wants to medicalize homosexuals, who are the most - but not exclusively - likely to have sex-atypical preferences, qualities or behaviors.

But it’s even more disturbing when you realize they want to medicalize individuality. That regardless of your sexual orientation, if you’re your own, unique person with your own distinct mixture of preferences, qualities and behaviors, then you’re not what you think you are. Rather than becoming comfortable with yourself as what you are, medical intervention is required to “fix” you.

P.S. It needs to be said once again that nothing is “assigned” at birth, other than a name. Sex is observed and recorded. Saying “sex assigned at birth” is both a deliberate misrepresentation and implies it can be changed, which it cannot. This is delusional, magical thinking and people need to stop going along with this.

Avatar

By: Ben Appel

Published: Apr 21, 2022

There is a frightening new version of homophobia pervading the U.S., disguised as, of all things, "LGBTQ" activism. For adult gay people like me, it's clear that this activism does not advance our equality, but in fact compromises our ability to live peacefully in society. In fact, it is threatening our very existence.
I first became aware of this new homophobia in the summer of 2017, when I interned at a major LGBTQ-rights organization. That January, I had enrolled at Columbia University to complete my undergraduate degree, a goal I had been postponing for over a decade. After volunteering for Maryland's marriage equality campaign and a subsequent transgender rights legislation campaign, my aspiration was to become a social justice writer and activist.
My excitement about the internship quickly gave way to a nauseating mixture of fear and shame. I was, I quickly learned, not the right kind of "queer." I was just another "cis" (short for "cisgender," a word I had never even heard until it was assigned to me, typically as a slur) gay male—in other words, a privileged and unevolved relic of the past. After all, I had my rights—the right to marry, the right to serve openly in the military, the right to assimilate into this oppressive, "cisheteronormative," patriarchal society. It was time to make way for a new generation of "queer," one that had very little to do with sex-based rights and more to do with abolishing the concepts of sex and sexuality altogether.
At the time, I was exhausting so much mental energy memorizing my coworkers' pronouns and all of the new progressive dogmas out of fear that I would be fiercely condemned if I slipped up, I had none left to think critically or to question where any of these dogmas had even come from. Thankfully, and somewhat serendipitously, the following semester I enrolled in a class called U.S. Lesbian and Gay History, led by the prominent gay historian George Chauncey. It was there that the culture I had encountered at my internship—and, of course, on Columbia's uber-progressive and exceedingly "queer" campus—began to make sense.
In that class, I learned about queer theory, an obscure academic discipline based largely on the writing of the late French intellectual Michel Foucault, who believed that society categorizes people—male or female, heterosexual or homosexual—in order to oppress them. The solution is to intentionally blur—or "queer"—the boundaries of these categories. Soon this "queering" became the predominant method of discussing and analyzing gender and sexuality in universities.
With the proliferation of social media, which disseminates ideological dogma faster than any religious institution in history, academics-cum-activists can reduce these theories into palatable, easy-to-digest-and-regurgitate maxims, especially on platforms like Twitter, Tumblr and now TikTok. Which is how, suddenly, we have a massive uptick in trans- and "non-binary"-identifying youth. Queer theorists insist that subverting the categorizations which have been imposed upon young people—for example, the sex they were "assigned" at birth—is the ultimate expression of autonomy, and further, the key to liberating society from a system devised largely, so they claim, by cisgender white men. (Never mind the scientific and cultural achievements of women and racial minorities.)
This might not be a concern if, by adopting these new identities, young people were merely playing with the boundaries of normative gender expression—something that gays, lesbians, feminists, most liberals and even many conservatives would welcome two decades into the 21st century. But many young boys do not stop at simply painting their fingernails and wearing dresses, and young girls do more than cut their hair short and play football. With increasing frequency, these children are given drugs to block their puberty, cross-sex hormones and irreversible surgeries, all the while cheered on first by online communities, then the mainstream media and now the current presidential administration.
In rare instances, medicalization is the proper path for gender-nonconforming youth, in particular those whose gender dysphoria—a "marked incongruence between one's experienced/expressed gender and their assigned gender, lasting at least 6 months," as the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5 defines it—originated very early in life, causes acute mental distress and shows no signs of ceasing without medical intervention. But according to the 10 major follow-up studies on youth gender dysphoria to date, the vast majority (as much as 85 percent) end up desisting during or after puberty—that is, they become comfortable with their biological sex and no longer wish to identify as the opposite sex.
And what else did these studies find? That the vast majority identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual in adulthood.
Even without these studies, most gays and lesbians could have told you as much. Gender-nonconformity, after all, is a very common experience for most of us during childhood. I, for one, was relentlessly bullied in grade school for my femininity. "Are you a boy or a girl?" the kids would taunt, when they hadn't already flung that oh-so-effective six-letter F-word at me. As a child, spinning around in my older sisters' flowery skirts, I often imagined myself as a girl, too. Even in adulthood, I occasionally, though not often, think of myself as the opposite sex, an experience I speculate is common for gay men. After all, our inherent disposition gives us the benefit of perceiving life through a dual-gendered lens. But I have grown up to be a well-adjusted, successful, even masculine man, comfortable in his sex and, at long last—and despite the long-term effects of bullying and of a childhood spent in anti-gay religious fundamentalism—with my homosexuality.
Sure, the religious far right remains something of a threat, and I, like any other gay person, can still be stung by anti-gay slurs and can fear the threat of violence in less-accepting spaces. But today I am equally fearful of the radical activists I once longed to emulate, activists who push a regressive, anti-liberal agenda that reifies gender stereotypes, downplays the seriousness of long-term medicalization and ultimately seeks to abolish my identity—for without biological sex, there is no homosexuality. Today, the least-accepting spaces for people like me are, of all places, the halls of LGBT rights organizations, where the threat might not be violence but is nevertheless terrible stigmatization and shame.
Speaking recently about these issues with a LGBT mental health specialist—one among many who have serious concerns about the hastiness of medical transition for youth in the U.S.—it struck me that, if radical activists can convince enough people that biological sex is a farce, that "trans women are women" and "trans men are men," then the path to the full erasure of gender-role-nonconforming gay people will be fully paved.
You may have heard stories of distressed parents whose children have suddenly announced trans identification. Perhaps you are one of them. Activists who favor medical intervention often ask these parents a morbid question: "Would you rather have a trans daughter or a dead son?" But the real question should be, "Would you rather have a trans daughter or an effeminate gay son?" I fear that for many, if they were honest, the answer would be the former.
It's time that LGBT rights organizations answer to the growing number of gays, lesbians and trans people sounding the alarm on the medicalization of homosexuality by radical queer activists. And it's time Americans ask themselves, despite all the progress gays and lesbians have made in this country in recent years, how comfortable they really are with the idea of raising effeminate gay sons and masculine lesbian daughters. Our very existence depends on it.
Ben Appel is a writer based in New York. His memoir, Cis White Gay, for Post Hill Press, is forthcoming.
Source: Newsweek
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net