May 5, 2013
Motherboard: When does a paraphilia become a disorder?
Blanchard: There are two ways by which a paraphilia could be converted into a paraphilic disorder: the individual is distressed by their desires, or they are acting in a way that is noxious to people. So a pedophile could have a pedophilic disorder if the guy is tortured by the fact that he is a pedophile, or he is perfectly happy with the fact that he is attracted to children, and he is molesting a lot of them.
So if someone cross dresses and they are cool with it, then they don’t have a disorder, correct?
Yes, under my proposal you can now be a happy transvestite, or you can have a transvestic disorder.
You coined the term autogynephilia, which refers to a man who is aroused by the thought of himself as a woman. This term is kind of your baby. Is it going to make it into the DSM-5?
That comes under the heading of what I can’t tell you, because of the confidentiality agreement I signed with the APA.
Do you think autoandrophelia, where a woman is aroused by the thought of herself as a man, is a real paraphelia?
No, I proposed it simply in order not to be accused of sexism, because there are all these women who want to say, “women can rape too, women can be pedophiles too, women can be exhibitionists too.” It’s a perverse expression of feminism, and so, I thought, let me jump the gun on this. I don’t think the phenomenon even exists.
Some trans activists object to the inclusion of transvestic disorder in the DSM because they feel it pathologizes gender non-conformity. How do you respond to these criticisms?
To say that transvestic disorder pathologizes all trans people is rhetoric with no logic behind it whatsoever. If you actually open the DSM-4, it’s very explicit that it applies to people who get sexually excited by dressing in women’s clothes. They really object to the fact, (which is a fact established beyond any conceivable doubt), that in a lot of men there is some connection between cross dressing and sexual excitement.
Is the objection based on the idea that it fetishizes gender non-conformity?
Some activists are trying to sell the public on the idea, “We really are women where it matters–in our brains–and women don’t get sexually excited when they put on their bras and panties, so we don’t either.” And for a lot of them that’s just a lie.
So you don’t see a male-to-female transsexual as being female?
I think that a transsexual should be considered as whatever their biological sex is plus the fact that they are transsexuals. That’s how you would do research on them. There’s no other way to do it. If you’re interested in whether the brains of transsexuals are different in some way, you’re interested in seeing if they differ from other individuals with the same biological sex.
So in a way psychiatric research is inherently gender normative?
I would say medical research is inherently gender normative.
Some members of the trans community object to the stigma they feel accompany DSM diagnoses, but because of the impact of the DSM on insurance payments, it’s necessary they be labeled mentally ill. To what extent is a diagnosis from the DSM necessary to receive reimbursement for gender reassignment therapy?
In the US I would say most insurance companies probably require a DSM diagnosis. The point that sticks in the craw of a lot of activists is that in order to get sex reassignment surgery paid for by a third party, it has to be deemed a disorder. The transgender community has tried to get around this in a way that they seem to think is very creative.
Their argument is, “Well, public health insurance plans pay for the cost of child delivery in a hospital, and childbirth is not a disorder. Therefore transsexualism could be covered under public third party health insurance payers without it being a disorder.” That’s how they’ve tried to square the circle.
And have they been successful?
No. How many people do you know regard sex reassignment surgery as part of the life cycle like having a baby?
Do you think that classifying transgender people as having a disorder does contribute to stigma against the trans community?
No. I mean how many people who make a joke about trannies consult the DSM first?
Do you think that transgender identity might get to the point where homosexuality is now, where it is considered offensive and inaccurate to call it a disorder?
I think there are some glaring differences between acceptance of transsexualism and acceptance of homosexuality. Let’s say that a friend comes to you and says she’s a lesbian, you aren’t seeing your friend performing cunnilingus on her girlfriend. All this requires is acceptance of what you don’t have to see.
With transsexualism, if a friend comes to you and says I feel like I’m actually a woman, and starting tomorrow I’m going to be showing up wearing dresses, this is not happening offstage, you are now part of their movie.
[Images added to this post by me- GM]
February 27, 2013
Heart-wrenching post by a man coming to terms with the fact that he drank the gender Kool-aid, got swept up into the “Transsexual Empire” of the psychiatric and medical sex-change industry, and now needs to come to terms with it all.
At the start of the piece Carolynn asks why there are not more voices in the transgender community expressing doubt before undergoing profoundly reconstructive cosmetic surgery on their genitalia? And why are there not more voices expressing the regret and despair that follows?
The answer, he shows us, is clear. Once you have gone that far into the process there is “no going back”. His only choice is to make the best of his life now that what’s been done, cannot be undone. There is no benefit to wallowing in despair. Rates of suicide for post-operative transgenders are high. The only sane choice is to accept what has been done and make the best of it.
From the piece, titled “Did I Make a Mistake?”:
“DID I MAKE a mistake? Am I doing the right thing? Is this the path for me? These are questions we usually ask and, if not, should be asking ourselves. Gender transition is not for the faint of heart. Early in my transition from male to female, I gave little thought to those questions. I was very busy buying new clothes, coming out to family and friends, and getting ready to return to work after a lengthy absence.
I was working on name changes, birth records. I was preoccupied early in my transition. There was a lot of ground to cover if I was to come out and be my true self. Endless doctors’ appointments. Sometimes I felt as though I should have had a tube from my arm connected directly to the blood lab. I had more blood drawn from me in my first year of transition than I had in my entire life, and I was under the microscope of psychiatrists, every move scrutinized. Should I sit in the blue chair in the doctor’s office? Should I sit in the pink chair? I felt like I was under constant surveillance, and worried my male side would pop out. It didn’t. I did a very good job at covering the male side of who I was. After a few years of this—the real life test—I received a letter saying that I was eligible for and had met all the criteria to move forward and have gender reassignment surgery. To say I was happy would have been a gross understatement. There it was in my hot little hands, the brass ring! The letter I had been working toward for the last four years.
For a brief moment, I hesitated to pick up the phone to book my surgery date. I read and re-read the letter countless times. Then it went into my file, and I didn’t look at it again for at least three months. Those three or so months were when the questioning began. I tried approaching people in my support system. Each of their answers was almost scripted: “Well, if you have any doubts then you’re not really trans!” I thought to myself that “You’re not really trans” was an odd thing to say. My question was still not being addressed. I had a new brass ring to reach for. “Is there anyone who has any doubts or second thoughts?”
One would think this would be a very easy question to have answered. It was my experience that it was the hardest question that I ever asked to find an answer for. It would appear that by the time I reached that stage in my transition, the medical community felt I was ready to move onto the next stage—surgery. I was supposed to be ready to take the final plunge into the mystery of becoming a woman. Hard as I looked for one person to say, “Yes, I had doubts; yes, I was terrified; and yes, I questioned if I made a mistake,” I never found them. That one person never appeared.
I knew they were out there. They didn’t speak. Now I had a new question. Why weren’t they coming forth with their experience? Shortly after I pulled the letter from my file again, I made the call to the surgeon and booked my flight. I was very excited to be on my way to have this correction taken care of, but that one question still haunted me. What haunted me even more was where were the ones that had gone before me, that were supposed to help guide me through this rocky period. It wasn’t long after I had returned home from the surgery that I found the answers I was looking for. I found where most brothers and sisters had gone; I found the answers to those nagging questions. The real work began upon my return home. The rigid schedule of dilating, the inability to get to the bathroom without assistance, the blood, the pain. I’ll never forget the pain. My hips and halfway up my stomach were yellow and black from the bruising. The simplest act of trying to watch television became agony. The deed had been done; there really was no turning back. I couldn’t go home now .
I was now in this surgically created wonderland that I called my female body, laying awake at night still asking, “Did I make the right choice?” Right choice or not, this was where I was! Life carried on seemingly uneventfully, get-well cards came, flowers arrived, people phoned. It was almost like I had celebrity status, but that was short-lived. Then again I was alone with my thoughts. That one nagging question rang through my head. Did I make a mistake? I felt a bit depressed so I made a couple of phone calls trying to find a counsellor to speak with. Oddly no-one would accept me. I called my old shrink and he said, “Our work was finished. I was only there to help you until you had surgery. You’ll need to find another doctor.” The hunt began for another psychiatrist. I thought it would be easy, but it was not. Depression by this time had taken deep root; eventually I was diagnosed with chronic depression. What followed was not at all what I had expected. I stopped going outside, I quit playing softball, I closed my kickboxing gym. I became a recluse, subjugated in my own home by no one other than myself. My depression deepened. My rigid schedule of postsurgical care went out the window. Then another nail struck into my coffin of depression! My surgical area had grown shut!
I had less than two inches of depth. I was horrified. What had become of that soulful, full-of-life woman that I had known at the beginning of my transition? Where did she go? How could I get her back? The question of whether or not I had made a mistake was secondary at this stage; my priority now was to find the real Carolynn again. This was a daunting task to say the least. I was lucky enough to have been referred to a doctor by a dear friend of mine. He saw me, and I would love to say that we got off to a great start. We didn’t. He called me obese and said I needed to exercise. I didn’t see him again for at least a year. When I finally did return to see him, I was a complete train wreck. I had put on 40 to 50 pounds, and I was depressed. I still had the problem of the surgical area having grown closed. After some time with this doctor, things started to look a little better. Over the next few years things began to change. I felt my old self returning, I re-opened my kickboxing school, and started to socialize again. Then my doctor threw this at me one day in a session. He said, “Carolynn, you know you can go for a surgery revision and get that fixed.” My jaw hit the floor. I was in shock. I thought it was a one-time shot, and if, like me, you screwed it up—well, you were screwed forever after.
I felt this little fire of hope begin to burn in me again. I had purpose in my life again. This time, I wasn’t going to screw it up! I jumped through all the hoops, made all the phone calls, and reattached the tube from my arm to the blood lab. Honestly, I felt happiness shine again in my life. Finally, the day came for me to head off and have my surgery revision. I remember arriving at the recovery house and seeing another group of me’s from six or seven years ago. They were all driven. They were all happy and they all had no clue what was going to happen after.
Not from a place of ego, but rather a place of a caring sister, I took it upon myself to inform the other guests that this was not my first time. I had to go around and return their jaws to the closed position. I became very close with two of the girls there. One very young woman was maybe 17 and there with her mother, and another was my own age and all the way from the U.K. They listened intently as I told them my story and the pitfalls to be aware of. My young friend even went so far as to take notes. Our surgery days came and went. We all returned to the places we respectfully called home. A few days later, I got a phone call from my friend in the U.K. She was in tears and panicking, saying, “I don’t know what I have done.” We talked for what seemed like hours until she said she was feeling better. It’s been some time since I have heard from her. As for my young teenage friend, I got a call from her mother on several different occasions telling me what her daughter was not doing, and how she was feeling depressed. Considering myself somewhat of a hip person, I started to text my young friend. We worked out some things via texting and email. My life continued fairly normally. I was again into my routine of dilating and postsurgical care. Only this time I had a new-found appreciation for what I had been given, and the question had finally been answered.
Did I make a mistake? The answer is No! I did not make a mistake. Do I have regrets? Yes, of course, I have regrets. I do not feel I would be classified as human if I didn’t. Do I miss my old self? Sometimes. The question of whether or not I made a mistake at this stage is irrelevant. The more pressing and more important question is, am I able to be happy living as I am? At time of writing, I have an afternoon appointment coming up with a personal trainer at the gym. Later this evening, I’m going out for dinner with some friends and there is this very handsome man I met who asked me on a date.
The answer is, yes, I am happy and can live this way. The question I had chased and tried to have answered was the wrong question. After a few years of wrestling with it, the question “Did I make a mistake?” became irrelevant. The question I should have been asking myself all along is, “Can I be happy after I have made these final choices?” People have surgery everyday. Most don’t ask themselves, “Did I make a mistake?” If my own personal experience is of any use to anyone, then ask yourself the right questions first. Don’t ask “Did I make a mistake?” or “Am I doing the right thing?” Ask yourself, “Can I live happily once these decisions have been made?” That question is far easier to answer than the others.
November 21, 2012
Bailey, J. Michael.
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Volume 50, Number 4, Autumn
2007, pp. 521-534 (Article)
A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF male-to-female transsexualism is that all
MtF transsexuals are, essentially, women trapped in men’s bodies.The standard
narrative of men who become women goes something like this: “I have
always felt that I was born in the wrong body. I have always been feminine in
my interests and feelings. My desire to change sex is about my gender identity
and not my sexuality.”This narrative, which Dreger (2007) has termed “the feminine
essence narrative,” represents both what most laypeople believe to be true as well as
what transsexuals are likely to say publicly.The narrative has been extended to an
etiological theory, which Lawrence (2007b) has called “the brainsex
theory of transsexualism.” The transsexual advocacy website, transsexual.org,
puts this theory succinctly: “A transsexual is a person in which the sex-related
structures of the brain that define gender identity are exactly opposite the physical
sex organs of the body.”
The standard, feminine essence narrative, and the associated brain-sex theory,
are incorrect, in the sense that they do not represent reality, even if they do correspond
with many transsexual individuals’ beliefs and identities. The best scientific
evidence (discussed below) indicates that there are two distinct subtypes of
MtF transsexuals, and that the feminine essence narrative at best approximates
the life history of only one subtype. Paradoxically, this explanation of MtF
transsexualism persists because it is the explanation preferred by the other subtype, to
which it does not apply at all. The popularity of the feminine essence narrative
reflects factors other than the strength of scientific support. Its persistence has
likely had negative consequences for both science and transsexuals themselves.
November 13, 2012
From today’s NPR article “Inmate Sex Change: Should We Pay And Does The Surgery Actually Work?” by award-winning journalist and syndicated health columnist Judy Foreman:
“As the controversy continues to swirl over sex change surgery for convicted murderer Michelle Lynn (formerly Robert) Kosilek (there’s a hearing this month on whether taxpayers should pay for her electrolysis), I got to wondering about some of the questions this case raises.
Certainly, prisoners are entitled to basic health care. But do we really owe her a sex change operation?
Especially if — as some of the evidence I uncovered suggests — it wouldn’t leave her in substantially better mental health than she is in today?
I confess: I’m not sure I would even ask this question if I were sympathetic to her in the slightest. But I’m not. She is a convicted murderer. She is in prison for a reason, and a very good one.
But, that aside, back to my quest for facts: How well does sex reassignment surgery (SRS) work in the first place?
Here’s some data: There was a major study in 2011 by the Karolinksa Institute.
Using data from Swedish registers, they studied 324 people — 191 male-to-females and 133 female-to-males — who had SRS between 1973 and 2003. For each SRS patient, the researchers randomly selected 10 people from the general population who had not had SRS. From this group, two control subjects were matched to each SRS patient — one with the same sex and age as the patient at birth and the other, with the same age and sex as the patient after SRS.
All-cause mortality was three times higher for people who had SRS and deaths by suicide were also higher. People who had the SRS were also at higher risk for hospitalizations for non-gender related psychiatric problems. It’s not totally clear why people who get the surgery get worse. But the authors conclude,
“Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behavior and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism…”
So, in other words, the surgery does get rid of “gender dysphoria,” meaning deep unhappiness with one’s biological sex. But it doesn’t seem to help much with other mental health issues, including suicidality.
If that’s true for Kosilek, I wondered, why should taxpayers foot the bill?
The Karolinksa researchers did caution that for SRS patients their findings didn’t necessarily mean the surgery didn’t help at all: “Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment.”
I wouldn’t be so swayed by this pessimistic study except that it’s methodologically much better than previous research, including an oft-cited 2010 Mayo Clinic study.
Researchers performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 studies of hormone therapy and sex reassignment involving 1093 male-to-females and 801 female-to-males.
The studies were observational and most lacked controls. Overall, in the Mayo review, 80 percent of people who had the sex reassignment reported significant improvement in gender dysphoria, as well as significant improvement in psychological symptoms and quality of life.
But, as the Mayo researchers themselves note, all of these conclusions were based on “very low quality evidence due to the serious methodological limitations of included studies.”
In data-speak: garbage in, garbage out.
Ben Klein, senior attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, doesn’t see it that way. “All studies have limitations,” he told me, “but if you look at the overwhelming trend of a significant number of studies, all point to the same conclusion – that sex reassignment surgery is the only effective treatment for gender identity disorder.”
But I’m not buying that — pooling a bunch of bad studies doesn’t yield good data.
It makes more sense to wonder why the surgery doesn’t have better long-term results. One reason, suggests Renee Sorrentino, a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist who runs the Institute for Sexual Wellness in Quincy, is that by the time a person seeks sex change surgery, gender dysphoria has usually been a problem for a long time and is often accompanied by significant traumatic experiences, including bullying. Those deep psychological wounds may not be so easily healed.
That said, I know a transsexual woman, Sara Herwig, who has been helped by the surgery and now feels like a “congruent person.” So I called her.
“The thing to remember about SRS or general reconstructive surgery is that it is not a silver bullet,” she said. “You still have to deal with everything in life that everybody has to deal with. It’s not going to have a big impact on clinical depression or other kinds of mental illnesses.”
Fair enough, but did she believe taxpayers should be on the hook for Kosilek’s surgery?
Herwig has mixed feelings, “My initial reaction is that nobody paid for mine. Health insurance doesn’t cover it. I understand her desire to have the surgery, but … vast numbers of other people I know have had to pay for their own. I do think there need to be reforms in health insurance so such surgeries are covered. But I don’t think the taxpayers should pay for someone to have that kind of surgery.”
In the end, I concluded, neither do I.
And as for this month’s hearing regarding hair removal?
Give me a break. I have a couple of eyebrows I’d like taxpayers to have waxed for me.”
July 6, 2012
Excerpts From the APA Task Force on GID report issued this week:
Edgardo J. Menvielle, M.D., M.S.H.S. and Richard R. Pleak, M.D.
The optimal approach to treating pre-pubertal children with GV, including DSM-defined GID, is much more controversial than treating these phenomena in adolescents and adults for several reasons. Intervention, or the lack thereof, in childhood as opposed to later may have a greater impact on long range outcome (Crouch, Liao, Woodhouse, Conway, & Creighton, 2008); however, consensus is lacking regarding the definition of desirable outcomes. Further, children have limited capacity to participate in decision making regarding their own treatment and must rely on caregivers to make treatment decisions on their behalf. An additional obstacle to consensus is the lack of randomized controlled treatment outcome studies of children with GID or with any degree of GV (Zucker, 2008b). In the absence of such studies, the highest level of evidence currently available for treatment recommendations for these children can best be characterized as expert opinion. Such opinions do not occur in a complete vacuum of relevant data, but are enlightened by a body of literature (mostly APA level C and lower), including systematic experimental single-case trials as well as both uncontrolled and inadequately controlled treatment studies, longitudinal studies without intervention, and clinical case reports.
Opinions vary widely among experts depending on a host of factors, including their theoretical orientation as well as their assumptions and beliefs (including religious) relating to the origins, meanings, and fixity/malleability of gender identity. For example, do gender variations represent natural variations, not assimilated into the social matrix, or pathological mental processes? Even among secular practitioners there is a lack of consensus regarding some of the most fundamental issues: What are indications for treatment? What outcomes with respect to gender identity, gender role behaviors, and sexual orientation are desirable? Is the likelihood of a particular outcome altered by intervention? What constitutes ethical treatment aimed at bringing about the desired changes/outcomes? Adding to this complexity, service seekers as well as providers differ in their religious and cultural beliefs as well as in their world-views regarding gender identity, appropriate gender role behaviors, and sexual orientation. Primary caregivers may, therefore, seek out providers for their children who mirror their own world views, believing that goals consistent with their views are in the best interest of their children.
We begin by examining the natural history of GID as defined by outcome without treatment. We then discuss the goals of interventions in treating these children and the factors that influence clinicians in goal selection. Next, we describe various interventions that have been proposed. The empirical data available to inform the selection of goals and interventions are then reviewed and an opinion is offered regarding the status of current credible evidence upon which treatment recommendations could be based.
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:
February 1, 2012
Someone dropped me a line about a show they saw on the National Geographic Channel this week called “Taboo: Secret Lives”. I’ve never seen the show, but apparently they featured a woman who “had a secret”, and the secret was that she was a fake paraplegic. That’s right! The woman went around in a wheelchair pretending to have a spinal injury- fooling everyone. The woman who contacted me just couldn’t believe that a female would do such a thing. She was certain that the woman (although they never mentioned it on the show) must be a male transgender. And she was right. Read the rest of this entry »
Interesting article in the Telegraph about the controversial experimental sterilization treatments being conducted on Lesbian and Gay children by the UK’s National Health Service, and how ongoing transgender campaigns of harassment against researchers are preventing scientists from addressing difficult questions about the efficacy –and the ethics- of such treatments.
From the article:
“The operations are being paid for by the taxpayers, although I don’t think that’s the issue. If the state can pay several thousands to save a person from a life of misery and eventual suicide then I for one think that is money well-spent. And yet the strange thing is that, taking aside the fact that “blockers” may affect cognitive ability and bone density, there’s actually no accepted medical proof or consensusthat sex change operations actually help someone’s mental health; we may one day find that it does, but we simply don’t know enough at the moment.
Yet that hasn’t stopped the growth of a political orthodoxy that boys and girls are sometimes born into the wrong bodies – their gender does not match their physical sex – and that this is best fixed by hormone treatment and/or surgery later in life; and that anyone who finds this uncomfortable suffers themselves from a psychological condition, apparently, called transphobia.
This is the only explanation acceptable to the media and, indeed, the state, which spends a fair deal of money (which we don’t have) combating transphobia. Yet at the moment science is still quite confused about Gender Identity Disorder, and what is acceptable to say about it is constrained by taboo and threats, and academics who argue against the standard political narrative tend to get persecuted.”
Of course there are over a hundred comments on the article by the usual suspects: straight middle-aged men who adopted a transgender lifestyle (at least online) after decades of male privilege, heterosexual marriage, and careers. They echo the thoughts of career-military man turned trans-activist Autumn Sandeen when he states that the future of the entire transgender movement should be based on the meme of “transgender children”, because it “take[s] the sex right out of the trans experience”.
Sandeen: “ I’ve always said there are two groups that are going to make change in transgender legislation and the “gender identity and expression” related language in legislation. It’s going to be trans youth because they take, you know, they demystify it and take the sex right out of the trans experience.”
Trans Youth Famly Allies director Kim Pearson: “They do. They do.”
Sandeen: “And then, transgender veterans – or people doing service like police. But it’s going to be military, veterans, police, fire, those kind of folks who are serving to send a message- especially veterans. It’s hard to tell a veteran, you know, “we don’t appreciate your service because you’re transgender”.
Pearson: “Right. And it’s hard to say no to kids, and the needs of kids and “keeping kids safe”. And you know, “being respected in schools” and things like that. It’s really hard for people to say no to that.”
Adult transgenders use children because they have decided that using children obscures sexism and the sexualized/fetish aspect of the majority of the trans movement. And what creates more sympathy than a suffering child?
Pay no attention to the 50 year old retired military police officer with anger management problems who wants to share a dorm room with your seventeen year old daughter because he demands his “right” to a pretend-girlhood he’s always masturbated about.
Pay no attention to the convicted serial child predator who demands his “right” to sit in a hottub full of children in a women’s locker room because of his “gender identity”.
Pay no attention to the ingrained culture of pedomorphisis practiced by the very adults who promote these treatments on children and shout down academic medical and scientific study.
Pay no attention to the children who are committing suicide after graduating from “transgender youth” programs.
Pay no attention to decades of intersex activism from people with first-hand knowledge of the damage done from performing medical “corrections” and experimentation on minor children.
Pay no attention that this treatment causes unstudied changes in brain growth, insulin resistance, bone density as well as lifetime sterilization, “elective disablility” and drug dependence of gender-noncompliant children.
Pay no attention to the fact that there has never been a SINGLE follow-up study on the youth who have been medically experimented upon in the name of “gender” AND that activist groups funded by adult transgenders to actively lobby for such experiments on children REFUSE to participate in any of the proposed international research BECAUSE WHAT LITTLE RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE on gender-noncompliant children into adulthood CONTRADICTS THESE TREATMENTS.
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:
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.