UK “Transgender Chicken Circuit” pre-teen Leo Waddell denied puberty blockers: Doc says long term effects unknown
September 10, 2013
12 year old Leo (formerly Lily) Waddell’s hopes were put on hold last week in her bid to become one of the rarest of breeds: a marketable female “transgender child”. Leo and her hairdresser mother Hayley have been making the rounds in the UK this year publicizing the child’s transgenderism and her participation in another rare breed: an experimental program of chemical castration for gender nonconforming children using “puberty blockers”.
Why, what’s so rare about that, the reader asks? Dutch clinics do this, Australian clinics. In the US there are such clinics in Boston and Los Angeles and Chicago and at least a dozen other places. In the US there are doctors like Dr. Michelle Forcier in Rhode Island who will even wave all psychological evaluation for these kids, and surgeons like Dr. Beverly Fischer who perform “sex-change” surgery on children as young as twelve. Administering chemical castration to gender nonconforming children is a gosh-darn bonafide medical trend, a tsunami, the reader exclaims!
Well, here’s the difference. It’s all in the word “experimental”. For something to be experimental, data has to be collected about the subject. Unlike all those other clinics who are administering drugs to stop the growth of children’s sex organs the one in the UK, -funded by the National Health Service- claims to be actually keeping records of the experiments they are doing on children. None of the other physicians administering these off-label unapproved drugs have bothered. Dr. Marvin Belzer who oversees the pediatric transgender clinic at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles says he was “too busy treating” the children and “never had the time to do the research”. None of the children who have been subjected to these treatments have been followed into adulthood, nor the results of such treatments tracked, even though they have been going on for nearly two decades. No follow-up data of any kind, physiological or psychological, has ever been collected.
The problem with medical data collection and oversight is that it tends to introduce accountability: the dreaded paper trail. Which is what inconvenienced our twelve-year-old friend Leo last week when her mother approached her family doctor to administer the experimental pre-pubertal chemical castration injections. Her physician performed due diligence and researched the medication. What she found is that the long-term effects of puberty blockers have never been studied. The manufacturers of the medication warn that the long-term effect on children is unknown. Side effects can be profound, disabling, and irreversible. Transgender activist and Philadelphia Trans Health 2012 keynote speaker Ryan Cassata reports becoming so violently ill on the medication that she was forced to abandon “treatment”. Leo’s doctor reached the reasonable clinical conclusion based on this information and protected the health of her patient by not administering the medication. Leo and her mother went to the news media. To the Mirror. To the Mail. To the daytime TV talk circuit.
From the Mirror:
Leo, who underwent extensive psychological and hormone tests before being prescribed the medication, would have been one of the youngest in the UK to receive the drug. But his family doctor refused to give him the injections because she did not know how they would affect Leo in later years.
Leo from Lowestoft, Suffolk, said: “I’m devastated. This was the one thing that would’ve made a massive difference to me and it’s been taken away.”
Mum Hayley, 48, also slammed the GP’s refusal. She said: “We asked why and she said because she didn’t know anything about the long-term effects.
“But that’s why they’re researching it. Leo has a disorder, and needs treatment. He’s been showing signs of puberty for a while now and it’s upsetting for him. He needs to have treatment.”
Hayley is now approaching other surgeries in the hope of finding one to give Leo the monthly injections.
The Sunday Mirror revealed earlier this year how Leo was to take part in the study by University College London Hospital and the specialist Tavistock and Portman clinic in West London.
In a statement, Leo’s GP Dr Jennie Morrison said: “I have had no previous experience of administering this specialist medication to young people and have already sought advice from my prescribing authority.
“Any clinical decision I make always gives consideration to every aspect of the patient’s wellbeing. My priority has always been, and continues to be, the welfare of the patient.”
The Tavistock and Portman clinic said: “We respect different views, which have at their heart a concern for the long-term welfare of young people.”
You may or may not have noticed that although females comprise the majority of children being administered off-use maturity-stopping puberty blockers, the females themselves hold little celebrity cache on what transsexual BenGirl blogger Elizabeth calls “the Transgender Chicken Circuit”. Marketable “transgender children” are almost solely male. Female (F2T) representation seems to dilute the popular narrative. Jazz, Coy Mathis, Nicole Maines, “My Princess Boy” : all male. Girls who want to wear pants and have adventures and avoid being raped are a dime a dozen and they are not a marketable commodity.
The “Transgender Chicken Circuit”, for the uninformed, is a patchwork of media appearances, news and feature articles, talk shows, documentaries, convention and seminar appearances that savvy parents can weave together into a modest cottage industry of transgender child celebrity. Think of it as a Munchausen-marinated transgender version of “Toddlers and Tiaras” whose fans are aging cross-dressing male autogynephiles in possession of both a wistful longing for an unexperienced girlhood, and a generous disposable income. These men are the funders of the agencies and lobbying groups promoting the medicalization of childhood gender nonconformity. The best known example is billionaire financeer and lifelong closeted crossdresser (and father of three) James “Jennifer Natalya” Pritzker whose Tawani Foundation single-handedly funds the experimental pediatric transgender drug clinic at Children’s Hospital of Chicago.
There is a disturbing element of pedophilia exhibited by many “fans” of the “Transgender Chicken Circuit,” as evidenced by plentiful transgender adult male YouTube channels featuring dozens of videos of these children, creepy-ass fetishized “fan sites”, and expensive glossy coffee table photography books of the sort that would get Calvin Klein into trouble. Add the transgender pornography sites which track the children’s “progress” and it’s pretty clear that sexualizing these children is a large part of their marketability.
Leo is due to star in an upcoming documentary funded by her mother Hayley under the “MyGenderation” imprimatur owned by transgender reality show “star” Raphael Fox . The pre-teen disturbingly brands herself as “Leo Sexy Waddell” on her Facebook page.
Beyond the overt pedophilia, and the marketing of a fetishized version of “girlhood” to adult male fantasists, the transgender movement “needs” to create transgender children (as activist Autumn Sandeen has explained) to “take the sex out” of the transgender equation whose most dominant practitioners are adult male sexual fetishists. But perhaps the most important reason to impose transgender labels onto children is to publicize a “born this way” narrative like the one the gay liberation movement used to pacify critics.
The transgender politic supports, celebrates and covets sex-based social stereotypes, a value undermined by their own sex being in opposition to the role they wish to occupy. The only solution to this dissonance is to frame sex-based social stereotypes as innate but reproductive sex itself as malleable. Transgender activists forward the pseudoscience of “brain sex” to posit sex stereotypes as inborn and have tried to co-opt the experiences of child victims of reproductive birth anomalies (“intersex”) to destabilize the concept of human reproductive dimorphism. Intersex activists invented terms like “assigned male at birth” to discuss the medical procedures performed on them as infants. The transgender movement colonized the experiences of intersex children and adopted these terms for themselves, insisting that having ones gonads surgically altered or mutilated in infancy is the identical experience that every healthy child goes through every time their reproductive sex is identified.
Intersex activists have for decades resisted attempts by the transgender movement to use the experiences of children born with disorders of sexual development as correlative evidence of an inborn defect causing certain men to experience sexual excitement by inhabiting a female sexual “object” or “form”. Harry Benjamin, the “father of transsexualism” claimed that transvestitism, transsexuality, and homosexuality all result from unidentified developmental disorders of the reproductive system (Of course, he also believed irradiating women’s sex organs would “rejuvinate” them, among other things.) Intersex advocates have been forced to withdraw from and disband their own organizations, even cease using the word “intersex” in order to prevent their programs from being colonized by the transgender movement’s bid for “born this way” legitimacy. They ultimately succeeded (mostly) in divorcing themselves from trans rhetoric due to the fact that their movement goals are increasingly in opposition to that of the trans politic. The intersex/DSD movement lobbies AGAINST nonessential medical treatment on children designed to cosmetically “normalize” their gender before the age of consent. Their philosophy OPPOSES the very concept of “congruity” between cosmetic biological sex morphology and social gender role that is the core value of the transgender movement. This year the DSD movement saw the United Nations declare that medicalization to promote gender “congruity” is a human rights crime against children. Last month a ruling in the US opened the door for cases involving the medical treatment of sex/gender incongruity in children to be tried on the basis that such treatments infringe the constitutional rights of a dependent population. Which is exactly opposite to the aims of the transgender politic.
With the failure of the transgender movement to destabilize reproductive dimorphism in the public sphere by relating their experiences to the experiences of children with DSD the trans lobby attached themselves to the very same population the gay movement had used to gain “born this way” legitimacy: lesbian and gay children. Sixty years of research shows that the largest demographic of transgenders- heterosexual men- are in no way gender-nonconforming as children. Gay kids are. You won’t see adorable pictures of these heterosexual transgender men as toddlers wearing tiaras and being fabulous. Their “gender identity” started at puberty with an erection while wearing mother’s panties. Such men have little interest in the concerns of girls like Leo but they will use them to promote the “Born This Way” meme when they can.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has never issued any resource documents, treatment guidelines, or position statements on transgenderism since they inserted transgenderism as a pathological diagnosis into their DSM following the de-pathologization of homosexuality over thirty years ago.
Although the diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder was created by the APA and the practice of medicalizing social sex roles is largely carried out on the authority of the APA’s professional membership, up until this point the psychiatric establishment has deferred to WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health).
WPATH guidelines for psychiatric/medical/surgical “treatment” of “gender” have never been based on any research or study into the treatments they advocate. Instead, the guidelines were created by those interested in making a living off the burgeoning gender treatment market. As the practice of genderiam explodes in popularity (some clinics showing a doubling of business ANNUALLY) tension between the APA and WPATH has grown.
In April 2011 the APA formed a Task Force to evaluate transgenderism and issue recommendations for the formation of the APA’s own treatment guidelines and resources, which would remove APA members from practicing under WPATH guidelines and introduce professional standards based on actual medical research. WPATH responded to APA concerns (and the impending breach in WPATH authority) by attempting for the first time to attach research citations to the most recent version of their treatment guidelines (version 7), issued in September 2011. [PDF here: http://www.wpath.org/documents/Standards%20of%20Care%20V7%20-%202011%20WPATH.pdf%5D
As expected, the updated WPATH standards of care guide offered no pretense of objectivity or professionalism and reads as more of a genderist political manifesto. Citations attached were cherry-picked to support the WPATH political platform, many attached haphazardly. Indeed, WPATH 7 even uses previous (scientifically unsupported) versions of it’s own guidelines as a citation supporting the new ones! Kind of a big no-no. WPATH’s badly implemented strategy to introduce citations was inadequate to halt the momentum of the APA Task Force’s move to break from WPATH’s authority.
The APA Task Force issued their findings Monday in the 28 page “Report of the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder” that you can access as either HTML or downloadable PDF here:
Here are a few random excerpts followed by the Task Force recommendations:
December 3, 2011
I got the following message from TYFA’s Director Kim Pearson yesterday. It was such an alarming comment that I thought I would respond to it in a post. Trans Youth Family Allies is an organization dedicated to promoting medicalized transsexualization before the age of informed consent on minor children who don’t conform to sex-roles, even though all research shows that 97% of children who present for professional intervention for gender dysphoria distress-if left alone- grow up to be happy, healthy non-gender dysphoric adults (often, but not always, gay or lesbian).
Ms. Pearson advocates injecting these pre-pubertal children with experimental drugs that suppress puberty, followed by synthetic hormone treatments designed to sterilize the children before sexual maturation. Absent all scientific evidence, she believes that children who reject their assigned sex roles have been born with a congenital birth defect of the brain. Since there is no scientific evidence of such a brain defect, and thus no “cure” for one, she promotes medical sterilization, lifetime disability and drug dependence, and radical plastic surgery treatments for these formerly-healthy children. The organization is funded by adult transsexuals. Here is her comment and my reply:
Thank you all so very much for spreading the word about our organization; for raising our profile on the internet and driving hits to our website. There are many many families out there who will read what you write and be frightened and others who see through you and find the compassion and support they need with TYFA. The attempted suicide rate among transgender folks is 41%; in the general population 1.6%; in families supported by TYFA…LESS THAN 1.5%. Entertain the possibility that we are providing unconditional love and compassionate support to an under-served and misunderstood community.
Hi Kim. I’m glad you approve of my posts about TYFA, particularly since they’ve been quite critical of your program. You offered no critique nor dispute of anything stated in the post you commented on, which I take to mean that you confirm the accuracy of my report. As for your assertion that the facts as reported will “frighten” the families of gender rebellious children, I have to disagree. I don’t think the families of these children are as “frightful” as you seem to think they are. At least here on my site, the families of gender-nonconforming children are intelligent, inquisitive, concerned, and perfectly capable of doing their own research and making up their own minds. Perhaps things are different on your site. The families that click on my “transgender children” tag and read the relevant posts, and follow the references and links to supportive data are doing their homework, researching the facts, and making their own informed decisions, not cowering fearfully. Knowledge is power. From the feedback I’ve gotten from families- the more information the better. I notice your site does not cite any supportive data or research, so perhaps folks are different over at your place.
The only “compassion and support” I see you offering is the “support” of reparative treatment designed to promote sex-role conformity: experimental medical regimes that cause lifetime irreversible sterility, drug dependence, and physical disability, as outlined in the intro to this post, for kids whose parents are struggling, adjusting and looking for ways to be supportive of their kids just the way they are. Radical drug and surgical “correction” seems a heck of a way to support kids to be themselves.
Speaking of frightening the parents of gender non-conforming children, what I find so astounding about your comment are your suicide statistics. I know you’ve refused to cite any data backing up the claims you make in your “educational” presentations to church groups, and you have declined to reveal any source for the extremely controversial assertions you make about child development (assertions that run in opposition to all published research). You claim your mystical contrarian data will be revealed only after scientific bodies will support it (even though you have not ever submitted such data to any scientific board).
I’m addressing your comment here because I’m sure it’s in the best interest of all concerned if we deal in facts when presenting data, and I’d like to provide you with an opportunity to correct the inaccuracy of the statistics you have used in your comment here and elsewhere. Unless your intent is to deliberately distort the facts I am sure you will correct this information the next time you “educate” the public about the suicide attempt rates of children in your program.
We know that there are around 390 million people living in the United States, and that there are around 38,000 completed suicides annually. About one in 10,260 people commit suicide annually (0.0097 of the US population).
There is no reliable data available on the prevalence of suicide attempts, but there are estimates. The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that for every suicide there are 11 attempted suicides. The CDC places that estimate at 25 attempts per completed suicide. So we can say that the estimated rate of attempted suicides relative to the 38,000 completed suicides is estimated to be 418,000 to 950,000 annually. This means that between one in 933 people, to one in 411 people are estimated to attempt suicide annually in the United States. (0.107 – 0.24 % of the US population are estimated to attempt suicide annually). These estimates are a far cry from the numbers you claimed as fact. The attempted suicide rate that you cited for the children in the TYFA program (1.5%) would be an incredibly high rate compared to the general population (0.107-0.24%).
I’m interested to know how you calculated your numbers of estimated suicide attempts for the general population and especially for the minor children you claim to be representing. Perhaps you were estimating the lifetime rate of suicide attempts, but since the CDC estimates the lifetime suicide attempt rate in the US to be 4.6% I don’t see how you arrived at your estimated figures which by any measure are in stark disagreement with any estimates that anyone else is proposing. If you are attempting to calculate lifetime attempt rates of a small group of children, then those lifetime rates should be far lower than the national lifetime average since the lifespan you are measuring is much shorter than the average US lifespan, which according to the CDC is now 77.9 years. In fact comparison of such a lifetime attempt rate between those who have lived 12 years and those who have lived 77.9 would be essentially meaningless, even if your control number for the average lifetime attempt rate wasn’t completely inaccurate. Which it unquestionably is. Any lifetime average for children should be far lower than lifetime averages for the general population.
I can’t find anyone, worldwide, presenting anything close to your 1.6% figure except one solitary source: The trans-activist group behind the “Injustice at Every Turn” report, which conducted internet polls and tried to pass them off as data. And they cited a source which contradicts that statistic completely. Incredibly sloppy and inaccurate false data that contradicts all known research to such a great degree that one questions whether it was simply a matter of incompetent, inept miscalculation. Child suicides are nothing to play fast and loose with. Dead children are not just “statistics” to be fudged.
I’m very interested to see where you find the calculations of the CDC and NIMH to be incorrect. I’m sure you wouldn’t just make things up out of thin air (?) -so if we could all see where these numbers come from it would be an excellent learning experience for us all. I look forward to your corrections. Thanks in advance.
Speaking of lifetime rates of suicide attempts, the 41% transgender rate you quoted comes from an anonymous internet poll conducted by the same group that fabricated the 1.6% figure: an activist group with the expressed intent of collecting evidence of high morbidity among online transgender respondents. Any time surveys are conducted online, particularly those with an expressed agenda, the results are essentially meaningless. Add in the fact that the publishers have been proven to fabricate data. Regardless, life-span rates (even fabricated ones) cannot be meaningfully compared with childen who have not even reached adulthood. As someone who heads an organization which purports to specialize in pediatrics you must be aware of that.
Have you even surveyed the children in your organization for their pre-TYFA suicide attempt rates? You should certainly have done that, particularly because you cite post-intervention suicide attempt rates as evidence of your program’s effectiveness. Comparison of pre-TYFA and post-TYFA suicide attempt rates is the only way to evaluate a change in attempted suicide rates. Seems like that would be common sense. So. What is that number? And is the 1.5% rate you claimed an annual rate or a lifetime one? Or an “after joining TYFA” rate with no set duration? (In which case it would be an incredibly high rate compared to that of the general public). How does that 1.5% compare with the “pre-TYFA” attempt rate- or did you neglect to poll for that? A comparison of pre and post TYFA rates might be illuminating. Look forward to hearing.
A skeptical person might think that inaccurate suicide statistics are being manufactured or misrepresented in attempt to “frighten” the families of gender non-conforming children into following and supporting your program, especially since you stated that you personally believe these families are prone to being steered by fear. Telling parents that their kids are going to DIE if they don’t follow your program is about as fear-mongering as it gets. Which is all the more reason why we’d like to see those suicide statistics. The real ones.
I think we would also like to know the TYFA participant rate of actual completed suicides. I know that your TYFA co-founder’s 16 year old daughter committed suicide two years after “transitioning” and being celebrated as one of the “success stories”of TYFA’s program.
How many other TYFA “successes” have committed suicide after following your program? What percentage of TYFA children have committed suicide after joining TYFA? That would also be a helpful statistic to know.
- For concerned parents that would like an alternate viewpoint to the TYFA program the following articles (several of which are written by concerned trans people) may be helpful. There’s much more info out there too. Follow links! It’s hard to be a parent when your kid refuses to conform. Hang in there! You are not alone!
The above selection is Andrea James’ new video, filmed and narrated by himself. It’s part of his new fundraising drive for TYFA (pronounced “typha”).
The seeds that TYFA- Trans Youth Family Allies- is mass dispersing are the seeds of Genderism: the belief that sex-roles or “Gender” is biologically based and hard-wired to one’s reproductive sex at birth. Their agenda? Putting children as young as 18 months old into a medical “treatment path” to sterilization, experimental and untested puberty-blocking drug regimes, lifetime synthetic hormone dependence and disabling and mutilating cosmetic surgery. They claim to help families of sex-role non-conforming children get “back to normal” (an exact quote from the organization’s president) by medically and surgically trying to force children into conformity with cultural gender norms. Their official motto is “T.A.C.T. – Trust. Accept. Confidence. Treatment. “
TYFA activist Andrea James’s interest in children first became apparent when he shocked the academic world by stealing photos of a sexologist Michael Bailey’s elementary school-aged children and posting them online with pornographic captions such as “cocksucker” written on their faces in a campaign designed to silence the author and researcher.
Here is Andrea James’s last video production: “Liking Big Dicks” (NSFW):
There are two other videos in the TYFA campaign, one featuring founder Kim Pearson, whose minor child medically transsexualized before maturity:
In the video Pearson sounds exactly like the old Christian Children’s Fund commercials. Including the promise of a handwritten thank you note from a sponsored child!
“At this point I think we really need to move or propel the organization to a different level. We’ve been operating on a very tight very minimal budget for quite a while. We don’t charge families for our services, schools really don’t have a lot of money at this point for our services, and so we have been dependent on individual donors, whether it be five dollars or twenty five dollars, a hundred dollars, five hundred dollars. We’ve been very grassroots, and I think it’s time to really professionalize the organization to take it to the next level, to have even larger and more visible national and international presence. We’re very, very certain that right now we’re only reaching the tip of the iceburg. And we need to be able to be more proactive. We need to be able to figure out how to work with kids who DON’T have family support. And there are far, far more children who do not have family support than those that do. And we know from research at the Family Acceptance Project [A survey of 245 white and Latino LGBT youth ages 21-25 “ who were open about their sexual orientation to at least one parent or primary caregiver during adolescence”. Family acceptance measures “included positive family comments, behaviors and interactions related to their children’s LGBT identity” Nothing to do with drugs and surgeries. PDF here]that the most important piece, for a healthy outcome all the way around, socially, monetarily, emotionally, for these children is to have family support. And we can help that happen if we have the financial backing that we need.
If the school’s not picking up that tab, and the parents aren’t able to pick up that tab- which we don’t require anyway- You know, who picks up that tab? We have to fund that somehow. If we have regular monthly donations coming in we know we can commit ourselves to a number of -a certain number of school trainings every year. And we know that if we have more than we need for that then we can take on bigger and better projects. There are conferences that we attend every year to reach greater numbers of families, and to reach greater numbers of providers. These are very costly. But we reach huge numbers of people in one setting in a few days. So when you give monthly we know that we can meet the demands of those schedules and we don’t have to say wow, we can’t go to that conference. We can’t fill the need. Because there aren’t enough dollars. YOU have an opportunity to make a difference. Just as our trainers make a difference, you can make a difference.
You can sponsor a family. You can sponsor a program. You can literally change a child’s life. You can literally save a child’s life [ gets choked up] by donating. Wow! [laughs]. This is something that you can do [tears up like Tammy Faye]. It’s something we do every day at TYFA but you can get involved. You can make a significant difference in the trajectory of one of these children’s lives, or many of these children’s lives. By the signing up for monthly donations [sic]. Making a difference. We’ll have the children write you the thank you note, instead of me. But you can do this. It is an amazing opportunity, and you can come, and you can see the work that we’re doing, and you can feel the same sense of satisfaction that I feel every day when I go to work and when my head hits the pillow at the night [sic]. At the end of the day I know that I’ve made a difference. I know that I have saved lives. And you can have that sort of satisfaction too. “
The third new TYFA fundraising video follows the exact same formula. Co-founder Shannon talks for five minutes about how she realized her son was transsexual at the age of 18 months, how much TYFA needs your money, gets choked up and tears up in the last 90 seconds to drive the fundraising pitch home.
James’s campaign seems designed to appeal to pedomorphic middle aged white male heterosexual crossdressers and “retirement transitioners”, many of whom are obsessed with the idea of pre-pubertal transgenders, and are also the market for lush, sexualized pedo-tinged “art photo” books that feature the puberty-blocked children as if in the latest underage Calvin Klein ad campaign.
Incidentally, when TYFA gave a presentation at last month’s WPATH convention where the new international transsexual “treatment guidelines” were unveiled, Kim Pearson and TYFA refused to provide any documentation or research to substantiate the claims they were making about childhood transsexualism, even though such claims go against all established research into childhood gender non-conformity. TYFA also refused to participate in international research studies on transgender children. Pearson claimed they had no right to know where TYFA drew the conclusions of their presentation from, and no cooperation with international data collection/research would be forthcoming, because the researcher’s work did not agree with their childhood transsexuality program and thus made their job harder.
Research shows that over 94% of children who are referred for professional treatment due to gender dysphoria experience spontaneous remission in adulthood if left alone. The other 6% continue to have some form of dysphoria or discomfort and may or may not request psychological or other treatment. The vast majority of the children , if left untreated grow up to be well adjusted Gay and Lesbian adults.
Not only does TYFA’s program run in opposition to credible scientific research and the Lesbian and Gay Liberation movement, it also goes against the research and experience of Intersex activists: “In adult life people chose gender expressions, sexuality and roles they never could have anticipated as children. We should not let parents or medicos limit life options for children by offering sterilization and medical dependency as part of package deal to “fix”gender/sex missmatch. The possibility that a child might grow up to be gay, genderqueer, or even a non-op transgender person is denied these children. “
October 8, 2011
Researchers use new strategy to bypass ethical and legal restrictions on female bodies.
This week the journal Nature [subscription only] published results of a cloning experiment conducted by the New York Stem Cell Foundation that succeeded in growing stem cells to the blastocyst phase inside an egg that still contained the donor’s existing nucleus. Another breakthrough for cloning and stem-cell research. But what is most groundbreaking of all, at least for females and those who care about us, is the fact that researchers bypassed medical ethics, the donor guidelines of the National Academy of Sciences, and the laws in some US States, and countries including Canada, Britain, France, Australia, Belgium, Italy and China to do so. And men are applauding.
Human stem cell and cloning researchers need eggs. Human eggs. Which only female humans produce, and which can only be accessed by subjecting women to invasive surgical “harvesting” procedures which are risky, and even deadly. Researchers have been successful in growing any number of things in human eggs. But they cannot create the eggs. In order to obtain human eggs, female donors must undergo a four to six week medical screening and drug and hormone injection treatment designed to hyperstimulate her ovaries into producing more than the one egg typically produced by normal ovulation.
COH is done using different protocols. The most common one is a long GnRH-Agonist (Lupron) protocol where the secretion of gonadotropin hormones is suppressed in order to prevent premature ovulation. Once optimal suppression is achieved, the next step is the recruitment of multiple follicles by daily injections of gonadotropins. Ultrasound imaging and hormone assessments are used to monitor follicular development. When the lead follicles have reached the appropriate size, the final maturation of eggs is done by HCG administration. Egg retrieval is scheduled 34-36 hours after HCG injection.)
At the end of this process an ultrasound guided needle is used to puncture the vagina, abdominal wall or bladder to gain access to each ovary, where the eggs are aspirated into the needle while the woman is under intravenous sedation or local anaesthetic. Prophylactic antibiotics are also given.
Since the ovaries are movable and not fixed in place and the tissues are very soft, a special extremely sharp needle is used, which increases the chance of damage to surrounding tissues, including bowel perforation, ureter perforation, blood vessel perforation with resulting abdominal bleeding (The incidence of serious hemoperitoneum (free blood in the pelvis or abdomen) in the two large reports of transvaginal ultrasound guided egg aspirations is 0.6% (about 1 in 200) with half of these treated with laparoscopy and the remainder requiring a laparotomy.)
Some of the risks and side effects of this procedure:
”The drugs used to hyperstimulate the ovaries also have negative effects, most notably a condition called Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS). Serious cases of this syndrome involve the development of cysts and enlargement of the ovaries, along with massive fluid build-up in the body. As noted in an article in Human Reproduction Update, “the reported prevalence of the severe form of OHSS is small, ranging from .05 to 5% [of women undergoing gonadotropin regimens]. Nevertheless, as this is an iatrogenic [medically induced] complication of a non-vital treatment with a potentially fatal outcome, the syndrome remains a serious problem for specialists dealing with infertility.” Also, as noted by Dr. Suzanne Parisian, a former Chief Medical Officer at the FDA, “OHSS carries an increased risk of clotting disorders, kidney damage, and ovarian twisting. Ovarian stimulation in general has been associated with serious life threatening pulmonary conditions in FDA trials including thromboembolic events, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary infarction, cerebral vascular accident (stroke) and arterial occlusion with loss of a limb and death.” One Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts cited the risks as including “high blood pressure; fluid accumulation in the limbs; formation of blood clots which potentially could be dislodged from the involved vein or artery causing damage to vital organs such as lungs, heart or brain; intestinal problems such as decreased appetite, constipation; nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, difficulty in swallowing; intestinal bleeding, intestinal ulcers and polyps; thyroid enlargement; breast tenderness; hot flashes; bone, muscle and joint pain; anxiety; depression; blurred vision; mood swings; nervousness; numbness; taste changes; memory problems; lightheadedness; blackouts; and headaches.”  “
““There’s no health-outcome data collected by anybody other than some voluntary reporting, and there’s no postmarket testing on how these drugs are being used,” said Susan Berke Fogel, co-founder of the Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research, a project of the Public Health Institute in Oakland, Calif.”
Due to the invasiveness and risk of human egg harvesting, laws have been passed in many forward-thinking countries and states to prevent a class of impoverished females being economically exploited by researchers who would subject them to medically invasive and sometimes deadly surgical procedures. The same reasoning behind laws which prevent humans from undergoing other invasive medical procedures for profit. Organ donation, for example is considered medically unethical and illegal when the donor is paid, because such payment is considered economically coercive and targets poor people for exploitation in a manner that is considered inhumane. But unlike organ donation, the only humans effected by egg harvesting are female humans. And Wednesday’s published research shows that not only were the worldwide prohibitions against high-risk medical donation bypassed but the precedent is being applauded by male scientists and researchers.
“Another notable thing about the research, which was published in the journal Nature: The team paid the women who provided the eggs used in the study, a practice that has been forbidden by ethical guidelines from scientific organizations around the world. Some ethicists have argued that paying women for their eggs might create an exploitative trade. But in this case, it may be the reason why the researchers were able to collect enough healthy eggs (they used 270 in all) to get their historic result.
Teams have “tried to recruit donors on altruistic grounds and failed,” said New York Stem Cell Foundation researcher and study co-leader Dieter Egli, during a news conference on Tuesday. “That’s why we knew it was not the way to go in New York.”
Dr. Robert Lanza, a stem cell researcher with Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass., told The Times that in his experience, it can take a year to get one donor, and perhaps five to 10 eggs, lined up.
“One year we put out an ad. The problem was, we got these patients, they’d say sure, and then they’d see the poster down the hall about getting paid [to donate eggs] for reproduction,” he said. “It’s hard to get volunteers. At best you’ll get a handful of eggs.”
To avoid exerting undue influence on the donors, the New York team paid them $8,000 for the time and burden of donation (which does pose risks), then allowed them to decide later if they wanted their eggs to be used for research or for reproduction. That way, the conversation about payment was already over before any talk about scientific research began.
In an article that accompanied the New York study in Nature, medical ethicist Jan Helge Solbakk of the University of Oslo praised the researchers for their approach. “The authors’ approach represents the first step towards acknowledging women as genuine participants — co-producers even — in the generation of new knowledge,” he wrote.
“Co-producers even- in the generation of new knowlege”. Riggght. When no women agree to “partnering” with researchers unless they are paid $8,000, that is not a “partnership”. It is economic exploitation and unethical medical experimentation targeting the most vulnerable humans: impoverished females.
If this precedent is not challenged, open-season on economically deprived females by unethical medical researchers will become every day, including females who are killed by researchers collecting eggs. Researchers claim that at least 100 human eggs are required for each single stem cell line. That means that for every potential person treated with stem cells, TEN women must undergo this egg harvesting procedure. According to a press release jointly issued by The Center For Genetics and Society, The Pro-Choice Alliance for Responsible Research, Our Bodies Ourselves, and The Alliance for Humane Biotechnology, the legal limits on the number of eggs were also ignored:
“The authors of the Nature report note that one of the women from whom they obtained eggs for their work produced 26 eggs. Some fertility doctors warn that no more than 10–15 eggs should be extracted from a woman’s ovaries in a single cycle, because “when the egg number exceeds 20, the risk of OHSS [ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome] becomes high.”[i] The authors claimed to have followed the guidelines of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), but they did not. For example, they offered a sum of money significantly higher than the ASRM guidelines allow. Nor did they follow the recommendations of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) that “the treating physician or infertility clinician should not also be the investigator who is proposing to perform research on the donated materials.”
Not only that, but the joint press release states that the women were put at risk and subjected to dangerous invasive surgical procedures for research that was totally hypothetical and had no supportive data – it was just a crap shoot:
“The authors speculate that with enough eggs, they might be able to produce genome-specific stem cells. However, they offer no discussion of any exploratory research in animal models. For example, what have been the findings, if any, of animal research seeking to identify the oocyte nuclear factor that they hypothesize?
“This new form of research cloning, like the old one, still represents a highly speculative approach to stem cell research. We should not put the health of young women at risk, especially to get raw materials for such exploratory investigations.”
It’s the Wild Wild West in cloning research. And female bodies are the great frontier.
Women’s lives and health are just a necessary cost.
$8,000 each, to be precise.
Last night ABC aired a show about “Transgender Children” that was, surprise surprise, 100% male. That’s right, not a single female trans-itioner (F2T) was featured or interviewed- or even mentioned. It was all male, all the time. And not a single trans or LGBT blog has mentioned this fact in their follow-up. Why? Same reason the plight of females are ignored and erased in every “mainstream” transgender discussion. The fact that females actually exist, and the fact that gender is entirely based on sex-roles designed to oppress women and maintain male supremacy and power, must be suppressed in order to uphold the Genderist Belief System which informs transgenderism. Transgender is an entirely male-supremacist philosophy that leaves no room for female reality.
That ABC News could manage to fill an entire hour of a show dealing with sex-roles, without mentioning a single female human being, is truly mind boggling. Especially considering the enormous female adolescent trans-trending epidemic of young women desperately seeking to become- not “males”, but to pass as “not-female” to escape the horrendous sex-roles inflicted on young girls.
None of which is worth even a mention by ABC Nightline or any trans or LGBT media source. No, ABC is reporting on news here, and that means stuff that concerns males. Gender? An entire hour on males. Just males. None of the transgender blogs writing follow-ups even noticed that females were entirely absent:
“Nightline aired an extensive, five-part examination of the issues facing transgender people.”
“From 10 year Jack (upper left) to pop star transsexual “Kim Petras” the show presented an intelligent look at the trials facing our culture.”
“Despite the politically correct presentation, there was at least a modicum of balance.”
Advocate.com: “shouldn’t be missed” “in-depth report”
The program consisted of five segments. The first featured the boy that likes glam from “My Princess Boy”, and his Mom who’s cashing in on him big time, trotting him out to transgender conferences and autographing tons of books.
The second featured a ten year old boy who kept getting beaten up for being a “fag” and whose mother began researching transgenderism when he was AGED TWO and already showing signs of faggotry. At least she didn’t beat him to death for his lack of masculinity, she sought a medical cure for his “wrongness” instead. And now the kid is on puberty blockers in anticipation of chemical/surgical sterilization, and goes to school wearing a full face of make-up and fake boobs (yes- at age ten!).
Third was a 19 year-old young man who started popping black market hormones ages ago and works as a prostitute specializing in the “tranny-chaser” market- closeted gays who want dick, but only on a person who acts out femininity for them. This guy funnels all his cash into Mexican plastic surgery procedures that he thinks will make him beautiful ie. happy. He’s already had six procedures and is planning a bunch more, but not a sex change op because that would ruin his niche prostitution income, plus he likes his dick.
Next was a segment on Charles Kane, the British dude who got a sex change then changed his mind after 7 years and had it reversed. Or at least near as the surgeons could, of course he’s on synthetic hormone injections for life now.
Last was Kim Petras the youngest boy to ever get a surgical sex change (at the age of 16 in Germany). He is marketing himself as a novelty act based on being a transsexual pop singer.
So there you have it, all the boys and their sex-role medical treatments.
You can watch the segments HERE.
Oh, and Johanna Olsen, MD got a lot of face time. She’s the rainmaker at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles who runs her own damn clinic doing nothing but setting these kids up for a lifetime of drugs and medical dependence.
Lots of people require lifetime drugs and medical dependence, but the problem is those people have some sort of disease process. Like diabetes, or a congenital heart condition. And diseases end up costing money, which eats into profits. The beauty of Dr Olsen’s clinic is that all the patients are perfectly healthy at the start! And they’re children, so very resilient and very teachable. So the medical lifetime dependence that Dr Olsen installs into these healthy children is pure profit! It’s a form of “therapeutic disability” performed on healthy children with a 100% profit margin for the medical industry. It’s a form of Cosmetic Medical Disability, and Dr Olsen is one of the pioneers. Plus she’s locking them into lifetime medical treatments before they are old enough to change their mind- and who signs the consents for it all? The parents of course! It’s a marketing marvel. Pure genius. Pure Gold. And Olsen recruits children nationally. She sits on the board of TransYouthFamilyAllies, which markets the medicalization and sterilization of sex-role non-compliant children to parents nationally. Their motto is “Trust. Accept. Confidence. Treatment.” And Dr Olsen provides that “treatment”.
Dr Olsen shares TYFA board space with Andrea James, the male transgender who famously posted purloined photos of sexologist Michael Bailey’s elementary school aged daughter with captions over the child’s face saying “cocksucker”, among other things. Andrea James doesn’t just represent children (!) but also makes videos. Here is Andrea’s latest work:
(Come to think of it – No females in that video either)
If you are the parent of a gender non-compliant child- RUN RUN RUN from these people. Give your child the skills they will need to be themselves, just as they are, in a world that is hostile, crushingly hostile to females and gender non-compliant males.
Together we can build a better world!
July 7, 2011
Just a quick plug for an interesting article that ran last week in Seattle’s The Stranger by noted Bioethicist (and non-feminist) Alice Dreger. Even though Dreger remains somewhat uncritical about the causes of objectively observed statistical differences in male and female behaviors, the article is quite interesting and well worth a read for anyone with an interest in the medical/surgical “reparative treatment” of gender non-conforming (mainly gay) children and the promotion of such by the Transgender Lobby.
Unlike many writers Dreger is well aware of the research and statistics around gender non-conforming children and presents the data objectively.
“Sex-changing interventions are nontrivial. They involve substantial physical risk, including major risk to sexual sensation, and a lifelong commitment to trying to manage hormone replacement. Most people seem to get how serious sex-changing interventions are when we’re not talking about transgender. A couple of weeks ago, a man writing into Savage Love mentioned that he had voluntarily been castrated—a fetish, don’t you know—and the commentators went, well, nuts. And most people get that it was wrong for doctors in the past to take baby boys born with small penises and sex-change them with genital surgeries and hormonal interventions.
But somehow if we wrap these major interventions around gender identity, we’re supposed to believe they are not that big a deal in terms of planning for a child’s future? And the clinician who tries to get a gender dysphoric kid to learn to like her or his innate body really is a Nazi? Not buying it.”
Read the whole article (and see why I posted a pic of Tommy the Train ) at:
June 3, 2011
Transgenders celebrated a major victory this week in a landmark case representing one of their own: Massachusetts child rapist Sandy-Jo Battista.
McDermott Will & Emory, one of the largest law firms in the world, representing over 50% of the Fortune 500 companies globally issued a press release this week announcing their latest landmark victory. After six years of free pro bono representation a team of McDermott Will & Emory litigators has won “the right” for the rapist of a ten year girl to receive tax payer funded sex change treatment while he remains incarcerated. The law firm, established in 1934 by Chicago lawyers Edward H. McDermott and William M. Emory called the ruling a “Major Win in Landmark Transgender Rights Case”.
Transactivists and McDermott Will & Emory believe that child rapists have a right to receive tax payer funded “sex changes” if they claim to begin suffering from symptoms of a disordered “gender identity” during incarceration for their violent pedophilic sex crimes. The law firm provided six years and unknown thousands of dollars in free legal representation to secure this “right” for Sandy-Jo Battista, formerly David E. Megarry Jr., who was convicted of robbery, kidnapping and the rape of a child. He- or as transgenders claim- “She” is currently detained via civil commitment in the all male Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons facility without limit of sentence due to his legal status as a “Sexually Dangerous Person”.
Battista was apprehended in 1982 for hiding in the woods and abducting a ten year old girl, forcing her into his car, abducting and driving her into the woods known as Lombardi’s Grove in Milford, Mass. where he tied her up, gagged her, raped her, and left her there. He was also charged with robbery for taking the money she had earned selling fudge door-to-door to raise money for her skating club (which is what she was doing when he abducted her).
From the Dedham, Mass. Daily News Transcript: “When he was 14, Batista assaulted a 6-year-old girl. A year later, prosecutors say Batista took another young girl into the woods, but stopped short of assaulting her.
He spent three years in a Department of Youth Services program at Medfield State Hospital for the juvenile incidents. Behind bars for child rape, Batista got slapped with 64 entries on his disciplinary record.
In a 1986 case, Batista got caught making obscene phone calls to young girls he picked out of local newspapers. About a decade later, Batista was penalized for keeping pictures of young girls in his jail cell, said Assistant District Attorney Peter Pratt.
Transgenders say that the ten year old girl may have been “asking for it”. From the trans website “A Gender Variance Who’s Who” site administrator Zagria in a post defending Megarry and concerned about the rapists’s welfare in a post titled: “What will happen to Sandy-Jo?” speculates about the ten year old rape victim: “Was it real forcible rape? Was it statutory but consensual? Was it mainly a misunderstanding? The various mentions online say nothing between these options.”
The Department of Justice, which unlike transactivist Zagria doesn’t consider child rape and kidnapping as an “option” took a different view than transgenders and sentenced the baby-raper to 18 years in prison. Transactivists may be surprised to learn that no legal entity in the country considers rape between a grown man and a ten year old child consensual. Go figure! As for Megarry/Battista, he remains civilly committed by the state of Mass. Due to his – “her” – frequent infractions behaviors and incidents during his – “her”- incarceration which deems him an ongoing threat to girl children.
Transactivists claim that men like Megarry/Battista should be given taxpayer funded “sex changes” and transferred to women’s prisons. Supporter Zagria cites the Canadian case of “Synthia Kavanagh” a male murderer who was given a state-funded “sex change” and then transferred to a women’s prison.
In countries with Gender Identity Protections, (which override sex-based protections of women in favor of the “internal gender identity” of males) state funded “sex changes” of male rapists and murderers of women and subsequent transfer of the perps to women’s prisons is commonplace. In some cases, like John Pilley’s, the perp decides women’s prison isn’t as fun as they thought, wants to change back, and demands “sex change reversal” treatment, also paid for by the state.
From the victorious McDermott Will & Emory press release:
“The injunction obtained by McDermott on behalf of the Firm’s pro bono client, Sandy Battista, requires the State of Massachusetts to provide necessary medical care for Ms. Battista’s gender identity disorder (GID). The opinion reinforces the fact that GID is a recognized disorder that, if left untreated, creates a “substantial risk of serious harm,” and “can be extremely dangerous.” The First Circuit found that an unjustified failure to treat GID gives rise to a constitutional violation. Judge Michael Boudin wrote the First Circuit opinion, joined by Judge Norman Stahl and retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who sat on the panel by designation.”
“This case is about one’s right to medical care while incarcerated,” said [Former actor] Neal Minahan, an associate in McDermott’s Boston office who argued the case before the First Circuit. “Incarcerated, transgender individuals have as much right to medically necessary care as any other person in the State’s custody. The First Circuit recognized that waiting nearly a decade to fill a medical prescription is inexcusable. In this case, it violated our client’s constitutional rights.”
“Ms. Battista, a transgender resident of the Massachusetts Treatment Center, was first diagnosed with GID in 1997 and has struggled to receive treatment for the disorder for over a decade. In June 2005, Ms. Battista filed this case as a pro se litigant in the United States District Court of Massachusetts in response to the DOC’s decision to block her prescription for GID treatment. That treatment, which included hormone medication, had been unanimously approved by the DOC’s own contracted medical providers. In November 2007, District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock appointed McDermott as pro bono counsel. Years of intensely fought litigation culminated in a bench trial before the U.S. District Court in June 2010. The McDermott trial team was lead by Minahan and Dana McSherry, a partner in the Firm’s Boston office.”
“The District Court found that Ms. Battista “may not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment which consists of the neglect of her serious medical needs, nor may her serious needs become a pretext for the infliction of additional punishments. And that is what has happened here.” After trial, the court issued an injunction requiring the DOC to provide GID treatment to Ms. Battista, including access to hormone medication. That injunction was stayed pending the DOC’s appeal to the First Circuit panel, which issued its unanimous opinion on Friday, May 20, 2011.” [Italics/bolding mine-GM]
“The McDermott team working on this case also included partner Mike Kendall, associate Benjamin Franklin, legal assistant Christine Slyman, and former McDermott partners Christopher Man and Emily Smith-Lee.”
Another inmate, convicted strangulation killer Robert Kosilek, now “Michelle Lynn Kosilek” since developing transsexuality during his life sentence for murder- filed papers yesterday in response to the ruling, demanding state funded electrolysis and plastic surgery to construct a superficial approximation of female genitals. He has already been receiving tax funded hormones.
It is currently unknown whether the murderer and child-rapist will be transferred to women’s facilities upon completion of their cosmetic transformation. Also unknown is if state funded FFS (facial feminization surgery) will be mandated, although according to medically accepted WPATH standards-of-care facial surgery along with breast augmentation IS considered medically necessary care.
Some transactivists feel tax payer funded breast implants, electrolysis and “sex change” surgeries are not enough to “affirm” the “gender identity” of rapists pedophiles and murderers. Transjactivist Monica Roberts complains today about transgendered murder suspect Nina Kanagasingham, who is accused of throwing another male transgender under the wheels of a subway car, “My British trans cousins have been more than a little pissed about the sensationalist and transphobic coverage being generated in the British media concerning this case. They are also not happy about how Kanagasingham has been treated by the British legal system either. In addition to being housed in a men’s prison, she was hauled into Old Bailey unshaven, a point in which the British press took great glee in pointing out in their stories.”
It’s unknown if trans advocates will win the right for police to hand suspected murderers claiming GID a razor prior to arresting them so that their “right” to look clean shaven is “protected” but after these recent transgender victories for male murderers and child rapists, who knows? With the advocacy and unlimited resources of the law firm of McDermott Will & Emory, anything is possible.
To the woman, almost 40 now, who was abducted, tied up, gagged and raped 30 years ago at the age of ten by this serial pedophillic predator and monster: My thoughts and prayers go out to you tonight as you struggle to deal with the “victory” of this man through the work of McDermott Will & Emory and trans activists worldwide. YOU ARE NOT FORGOTTEN.
Lotta news and op/ed this week about a self-described “gender diversity training” program funded by a grant from the California Teachers Association and administered to elementary school students in Oakland. The teachers and administrators thought they were funding/supporting a program that teaches kids to be “Free To Be You and Me”, the idea that sex roles are culturally created fiction and that kids should be free to act and dress however they want without being teased or having sex-based stereotypes forced upon them. “All state schools are required to have a specific plan to address safety and other issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity.”
But that’s not what they got:
The following are the proposed revisions to the diagnostic criteria for children exhibiting sex-role incongruence. If approved, they will be used to diagnose sex-role noncompliant children to be treated with medical “puberty suppression”, sterilization and extensive plastic surgery to change the child’s body to a newly dysfunctional but superficially rough visual approximation of the other sex. The APA’s position is that social sex-roles are biologically created, possibly by brain neurology which although incredibly plastic in every other instance, for some reason in terms of sex roles is unchangeable. They advocate sterilization and lifetime cross-sex hormone treatments for children that are unable or unwilling to adhere to sex-based gender stereotypes and traditions.
P 00 Gender Dysphoria in Children
Updated May 4, 2011
Gender Dysphoria (in Children)** 
A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months duration, as manifested by at least 6* of the following indicators (including A1): [2, 3, 4]
1. a strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that he or she is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender) 
2. in boys, a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; in girls, a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing 
3. a strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe or fantasy play 
4. a strong preference for the toys, games, or activities typical of the other gender 
5. a strong preference for playmates of the other gender 
6. in boys, a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; in girls, a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities 
7. a strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy 
8. a strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender 
B. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning, or with a significantly increased risk of suffering, such as distress or disability.**
The proposed revisions rename the childhood diagnosis from the DSM4’s previous “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) to the revised name “Gender Dysphoria”(GD).
Gender = Sex Role. Dysphoria = Distress.
The previous APA revisions proposed to re-name the diagnosis “Gender Incongruence” (GI) :
“In response to criticisms that the term was stigmatizing, we originally proposed to replace the term “Gender Identity Disorder” with Gender Incongruence. This was accompanied by a re-definition of the condition, revised criteria, eliminating the previous subtype pertaining to sexual attraction, and introducing a new subtype categorization that does not exclude individuals with a somatic disorder of sex development (DSD). We chose the new term, Gender Incongruence, as descriptive and to avoid a presupposition of the presence of a clinically significant acute distress in all cases as a requirement for the diagnosis. In part, this was based on more general discussions in the DSM-5 Task Force on separating out the distress/impairment criterion and evaluating these parameters as a separate dimensions.
We also debated and discussed the merit of placing this condition in a special category apart from (formerly Axis-I) psychiatric diagnoses to reflect its unusual status as a mental condition treated with cross-sex hormones, gender reassignment surgery, and social and legal transition to the desired gender (particularly with regard to adolescents and adults). We chose not to make any decision between its categorization as a psychiatric or a medical condition and wished to avoid jeopardizing either insurance coverage or treatment access”
Also reinstated at the behest of transgenderists is the severity scale, which trans-activists feel assists with the authorization of sterilization and medicalization of children who experience distress conforming to sex-roles.
“This revised proposal also re-introduces a clinical significance criterion, B, which clarifies that diagnosis requires distress or impairment that meets a clinical threshold. This criterion is present in the DSM-IV but was removed from the first DSM-5 proposal. Parents of affirmed/transitioned youth and care providers have raised concerns that removal of the clinical significance criterion would further obscure the medical necessity of puberty delaying medications as well as hormonal and surgical transition care.”
Here is the APA’s clinical significance survey. Each question must be answered as shown:
- Very Strong
“Dimensional Assessment for Gender Dysphoria in Children
Questions A1-A8 are the dimensional metrics for the corresponding categorical criteria.
Instructions: Please circle the letter next to the statement that applies to your child the best.
For Male Children (Parent-Report)
A1. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your son’s desire to be a girl or insistence he is a girl?
A2. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your son’s preference to wear girls’ or women’s clothing during dress-up play or activities (e.g., during dress-up play or at other times)?
A3. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your son’s preference for female roles in fantasy or pretend play?
A4. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your son’s preference for the toys, games, and activities typical of girls?
A5. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your son’s preference for girl playmates?
A6a. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your son’s rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities?
A6b. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your son’s avoidance of rough-and-tumble play?
A7. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your son’s dislike of his sexual anatomy (e.g., that he dislikes or hates his penis or testes)?
A8. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your son’s desire for the sexual anatomy of a girl (e.g., sits to urinate, pretends to have breasts, would like to have a vagina)?
For Female Children (Parent-Report)
A1. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your daughter’s desire to be a boy or insistence she is a boy?
A2a. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your daughter’s preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing?
A2b. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your daughter’s resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing?
A3. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your daughter’s preference for male roles in fantasy or pretend play?
A4. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your daughter’s preference for the toys, games, and activities typical of boys?
A5. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your daughter’s preference for boy playmates?
A6. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your daughter’s rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities?
A7. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your daughter’s dislike of her sexual anatomy (e.g., dislikes the prospects of breast development or that she has a vagina)?
A8. Over the past 6 months, how intense was your daughter’s desire for the sexual anatomy of a boy (e.g., that she would like to have a penis or to grow one; stands to urinate)?
Should religious or other parents be permitted to subject their children to “treatments” which prevent them from going through puberty and subsequent surgical sterilization because they exhibit distress about complying with sex-roles? Because they do not want to treated in the way boys and girls are treated – very differently according to sex- and reject the roles expected of them, and enforced on them, even by violence, or medical violence in the case of the sterilization advocated by transgenderists and the APA? Should children distressed by sex-roles be diagnosed with a mental illness or “medical” condition even though they are perfectly healthy in every way prior to “treatment”, but not after, because the “treatment” is permanently disabling? Is it child abuse? Is it a human rights crime? We KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT that the vast majority of these kids will acquire the ability to cope with their sex-role distress after going though natural puberty, without further need for psychiatric support, whether by finding social support among other sex-role rejecting people, or by fighting the nature of sex-roles and rejecting the roles entirely. We KNOW that MOST of these kids, left alone, grow up to be GAY, and well-adjusted in their communities. Should psychiatrists be “correcting” gender-nonconforming children? Should they be slating these kids for irreversible sterilization and profound surgical genital mutilation? Should boys that want to have long hair and play with girls and hate sports and like dolls be pathologized? Should girls that don’t want to be treated as girls be “treated” with lifetime cross-hormones so they can look like boys? Or should the APA develop “treatments” that are non-invasive and that support children who reject the gender roles imposed on them? Should the APA fight sex-role conformity rather than promote it by pathologizing children?
The American Psychiatric Association requests public feedback on these proposed revisions. Deadline is June 12, 2011.