September 25, 2016
Slides are from : ‘A Developmental Perspective Of Transgender & Gender-Nonconforming Youth And A Collaborative Model Of Care’ presented by Diane Ehrensaft, Ph.D. at the 2016 Nadherny/Calciano Memorial Youth Symposium: ‘Clinical Essentials for Increased Understanding of the Transgender Community’.
PDF here: http://news.casaofsantacruz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Calciano-Developmental-Pespective.pdf
Video here. Ehrensaft presentation begins at 1 hour:
September 14, 2016
For the last six years London’s Science Museum has been indoctrinating children into the false pseudoscience of “Brain Sex” via an exhibit designed by transgender activists called “Boy or Girl?” The exhibit was dually funded by the UK government and drug company GlaxoSmithKlein.
According to the website of transgender lobbying youth group Gendered Intelligence the creation of the exhibit was overseen by Dr. Jay Stewart, whose doctorate was awarded in art by Goldsmiths College. Stewart is a testosterone-injecting woman who identifies as transgender.
From the Gendered Intelligence website:
“Dr. Jay Stewart
Jay is co-founder of Gendered Intelligence and chairs the Board of Directors. Jay carries out and oversees the main activities that take place across the organisation. Recently Jay has lead on the projects: ‘What makes your gender? Hacking into the Science Museum’ – a £10,000 project funded by Heritage Lottery Fund with the Science Museum, London – and ‘GI’s Anatomy: a life drawing project for trans and intersex people’ – a £30,000 project funded by the Welcome Trust carried out in collaboration with Central School of Speech & Drama, London Drawing and the Gender Identity Development Service, Tavistock Clinic, NHS Trust. Jay also delivers much of the youth group sessions and is a mentor.”
The ‘Boy or Girl?’ exhibit at the Science Museum taught visitors falsehoods about the science behind sex-stereotypes, claiming traditions of ‘gender’ which privilege males and subordinate females through social rituals of male domination and female submission are ‘hard wired’ in the brain. The museum also presented displays of pharmacology and sex-based prosthetics (breast implants, silicone penises) to children as examples of medical interventions to help them conform to stereotypes of gender.
Included in the exhibit is a ghastly ‘test’ that children can take to determine if they have ‘Pink’ female brains or ‘Blue’ male brains. You can take the test here:
Feminists have criticized the display for years but recent complaints from the feminist parent’s groups FourthWaveNow and TransgenderTrend have succeeded in raising public awareness widely on the issue.
Today the ScienceMuseum announced it would finally take steps to modify the anti-scientific and offensive exhibit.
Excerpted from the ScienceMuseum blog post “A question of sex, gender and how to keep museums up to date” By Alex Tyrrell | 14 September 2016:
“In the past week many of these questions and challenges have been playing on my mind, following a lively discussion on social media about an exhibit on the science of sex and gender in our Who Am I? gallery, which explores the wealth of scientific ideas that inform our understanding of human identity.
I worked on Who Am I? when it was last refreshed back in 2010 and the aim at the time was to present the cutting-edge scientific knowledge of the day on what makes us us, me me and you you. I headed up a team of researchers (we call them Content Developers) who spent many months scouring scientific journals and interviewing countless inspiring researchers from around the world. We also worked with a vast network of eminent geneticists, neuroscientists, psychologists and other experts to create the gallery.
Scientific accuracy is vital to the Museum – our reputation depends on it – and we put in place rigorous processes to ensure we get things right, from expert advisory boards who look at the broad messages in an exhibition, to subject specialists who are invited to scrutinise every word we write.
It is now six years since Who am I? was updated – and much of the research featured in the gallery is a decade older. The exhibit in the gallery that has recently received attention on Twitter is titled Boy or Girl? It features stories, objects and research including studies into sexual preference and behaviour, tests to see the sex of an unborn baby, and a section looking at gender identity and the evidence for biological differences between the sexes.
The thinking behind Who am I? – and the sex and gender display in particular – was to communicate the latest research clearly and accurately, but we also believe that featuring contributions from other viewpoints and disciplines is essential when examining a question as complex and profoundly personal as ‘who am I?’.
With this in mind, we chose to include work from numerous artists (including, most famously, Antony Gormley’s Iron Baby) and stories from a range of people who are personally involved in the issues covered. In the sections of Who am I? that examine gender and sex, for instance, we collaborated with a transgender person – ‘Alex’ – whose experiences feature in one of the gallery exhibits.
Some of the comments we have received question the accuracy of the science in the exhibition – and the words and images we chose to explain it. Words such as ‘hardwired’, for instance, which feature on several labels, are today especially and understandably controversial when used in combination with ideas like gender.
Other concerns have been raised about an interactive game in the gallery that explores the male and female brain. Specifically, the game presents studies scientists have carried out to investigate if there are small differences on average in the way that men and women complete certain tasks, largely based around the recognition of abstract shapes and patterns. This game – which dates back 16 years to the gallery’s inception – was designed to be tongue in cheek and provocative (think silly voices akin to a Pathé news reel) and visitors are invited to take some of the real tests that scientists used, scoring male or female ‘brain points’ on a ‘sex-o-meter’ that is coloured pink and blue.
As a Museum we always attempt to present ideas in different ways – labels and objects but also games, animations and ‘interactives’ – and in this case the artistic licence taken in the year 2000 to create a provocative exhibit appears outdated. Certainly from preliminary work looking at the latest scientific evidence, the ideas presented are now in question.
Social attitudes also change. We have received responses from visitors who are concerned about how we feature transgender issues, which are now very much more in the public consciousness than they were back in 2010, let alone the year 2000.
The idea of Who am I? was always to raise questions. We present issues in ways that provoke debate, however we would never want to compromise the accuracy of the content on display.
Of course we would like to keep all of our galleries and exhibitions up-to-date, but with many thousands of objects on show and finite resources and time this is not always possible.
However, with an issue of such scientific and cultural importance as this we have decided it is essential that we look again at the exhibit. We are now talking to leading experts in neuroscience and clinical psychology to consider whether the latest scientific evidence warrants making changes to our exhibit.
Science moves fast, and while it isn’t always possible for us to keep up, on some issues it is essential that we quicken our pace to make sure we haven’t been left behind.
Watch this space for further details.”
Read the full post here:
[Actual screencap of Science Museum test administered to youth]
Researcher: Transgender children allow non-traditional parents to perform stereotypical parenting roles
September 8, 2016
“Universal Mother” [artist unknown]
The American Sociological Association invited University of California at Davis Sociology student Kristi Hilton Ryan to present the results of an unpublished paper concerning 36 subjects at their 2016 annual meeting.
Why such a high honor for a student study of a tiny number of subjects? Popularity of the topic: family dynamics of children being diagnosed as ‘transgender’.
Hilton Ryan is a heterosexual female whose only connection with members of the LGBT is one of academic curiosity. However, rather than being an objective observer, Hilton Ryan, who has never engaged with the century plus published female-authored analysis of gender (see: feminism; women’s liberation) has stated for the record that she believes “gender”- the ritualized socially mandated roles of male domination and female subordination- should be “celebrated”.
Single parents were excluded from Hilton Ryan’s study. The co-parents of the 36 subjects were “predominantly white, middle class, geographically diverse.” Most were parents of children between the ages of 5-9 who identify their children as transgender and whose children have already “socially transitioned”, meaning they have adopted opposite sex stereotypes (name changes, clothing) and either demand a right to compel bystanders to pretend that their children are the opposite sex and/or take steps to support their child in keeping their true sex a secret (changing schools, secrecy, etc.)
Although the study is unpublished, a press release and interviews outline some of Hilton Ryan’s findings:
The parents in her study were predominantly white, middle class, and residents of the United States.
The majority of parents self identify as liberals or progressives.
Parents of transgender children were more likely than the general population to be gay, lesbian or bisexual (19%).
Prior to diagnosis as transgender “Nearly all” parents believed their children were exhibiting pre-homosexual behaviors and would develop into gay adults.
Parents tried to force their children to stop gender nonconforming behaviors such as choosing non-stereotypical toys or clothes prior to diagnosing them as transgender.
Parents of transgender children diagnosed their male children earlier: between the ages of 3-5 for males and females between 9-14.
“All” male children in the study were diagnosed as transgender by their parents before the age of five and “most” before the age of three.
“Most” female children were identified by their parents as transgender after the onset of puberty.
Parents of female children were more immediate “instant adopters” of a transgender diagnosis.
No parents in the study used the descriptors “genderqueer” or “nonbinary” or “gender fluid” to describe their child.
Mothers “overwhelmingly” take the lead in diagnosing their children as transgender.
Mothers of transgender children take on the majority of parenting responsibilities.
The majority of heterosexual mothers of transgender children are more professionally qualified than their husbands.
51% of heterosexual mothers of transgender children have advanced education that vastly exceeds their husbands.
From Diana Tourjee’s Vice.com piece titled: “How the Mother’s of Transgender Children Are Changing The World” –
“According to Ryan’s study, mothers usually take on the majority of parenting responsibilities despite being more professionally qualified than their husbands. Fifty-one percent of heterosexual mothers in Ryan’s study have “a higher level of education than their partners, with discrepancies as wide as mothers holding professional or doctoral degrees while their husband’s hold associates degrees or less,” the study reads. Nonetheless, it was the mothers in Ryan’s study that gave up their jobs in order to raise the kids and “bear the brunt of the childcare labor, and by extension the brunt of the care related to their child’s gender diversity.” One working mother told Ryan she handled more than 90 percent of her trans child’s needs, even though the kid’s father is retired.”
Transgender mother blogger “Raising Jeremy” reflected on the exalted status of traditional motherhood that she experiences in her role as parent of a transgender child in her latest post addressing a new phenomenon: women falsely identifying themselves as parents of transgender children in order to join and participate in their private groups.
“I’ve been pondering what would motivate someone to pose as a parent of a transgender child”, she writes in “Do You Want To Be Me?”:
“From the outside looking in, for the person who is not going through what we are going through, I guess we look inspirational. I’ve realised it’s because we are.”
“You accepted your child, and there are days that are hard and shitty and yet you still turn up. You turn up because one of the miracles in your family needs you. You turn up because your child’s smile is precious and seeing it is its own reward. You turn up because their happiness is your breath. You are the tireless voice even when you are so very tired. You are a million conversations with strangers to demystify being transgender / gender diverse. You are signatures on petitions to have discriminatory laws overturned from bathroom bills to access to cross hormone treatment. You are strong voices howling into the maelstrom of life that our children are valid, wonderful and miraculous, look them in the eye and keep trying to deny our truth.”
“We are thousands of stories of ordinary people on an extraordinary parenting journey. What binds us is that we are testament to the power of love.”
Hilton Ryan’s finding that mothers of transgender children are using their children to express and perform exalted female gender stereotypes of caregiving and motherhood is not unique. “Transgender” has always been used as a foil for bystanders and an opportunity to anxiously perform overt ritualized behaviors of male domination and female subordination under the guise of being “progressive”.
Witness mainstream gay male culture’s sexism, embrace of masculinity, rejection of gender nonconforming males and financing of the transgender child movement. Witness the lesbian embrasure of a soccer mom “baby boom” and rejection of feminism and gender noncompliant women. Witness liberal men passionately “white knighting” to protect the safety and dignity of the “ladies” who are male- in stark contrast to any such engagement ever offered in defense of the precarious actual rights of actual females. Witness liberal women abdicating legal protections for women in favor of protecting the feelings of men.
Transgender is an opportunity for everyone to nostalgically embrace, perform, and enforce sex-based archetypes, shrilly, on the eve of their -hopefully inevitable- collapse.
I got into a twitter discussion with the “transgender children” charity and political lobby Mermaids UK the other day after an individual presenting themselves as a representative posted a video where she stated that (although most children who are diagnosed with “Gender Dysphoria” turn out to be well-adjusted, non-transgender, adult Lesbians and Gays if allowed to mature without medical intervention) one should never mention it because homosexuality is “a deviant kind of thing”. You can view that video here and judge for yourself.
Mermaids UK responded to my request for clarification and to related questions by other tweeters with some very disturbing homophobia.
The parents at Transgender Trend did a nice write-up on the incident.
If you want insight into the views of the Mermaids CEO Susan Green- a mother who flew her gay son to the US at age 12 to medically retard his reproductive system, then to Thailand at the age of 16 to have him surgically castrated- you can read it here:
It may be the only chance you’ll have, because the post appears to have been censored by Google and selectively removed from searches:
“Gender identity refers to a person’s sense of fitting into social categories”: Wisdom for the Youth of Today from GIRES (Gender Identity Research and Education Society)
April 18, 2016
The following gems are excerpted from GIRES’ submission to the proposed new NHS Service Specification (“treatment guidelines” to you and me) for the UK Gender Identity Development Service for Children and Adolescents (GIDS). The ‘fitting-youth-into-social-sex-categories-development-service’ in question operates out of the Tavistock and Portman facility and is run by Dr. Polly Carmichael.
The clinic, which attempts to treat children who are disturbed by sex-based social roles with pharmaceuticals, has quietly posted two items on their website for public feedback without notifying the press or public. The deadline for replies is April 20.
The first item is a ‘Policy Proposal’ which quite sensibly rejects lowering the age for cross-sex hormones below the age of sixteen in the UK. This is a response to transgender industry and activist lobbying to allow permanent irreversible changes to be performed on children below the age of legal consent. You can read that policy proposal, and rationale, in full here: https://www.engage.england.nhs.uk/consultation/clinical-commissioning-wave8/user_uploads/e03x16-policy-prop.pdf
The second item is a 62-page proposed service specification (treatment pathway) for the kids and teens referred to the clinic. No huge surprises. The usual circular definitions, which avoid outlining specifically what is actually being “treated” (“Gender Identity is an individual’s personal experience of their own gender”, LOL). The usual confusion and conflation of sex with gender (“biological natal gender” OH MY).
It is truly amazing that 50 years of existing work on gender: Analysis of what gender is, how it functions, its specific characteristics, modes of violent enforcement, harms, and lived experiences of such, is completely ignored because the authors of those five decades of work are Women. Lesbians. Feminists.
The proposed new GIDS service policy does mention obliquely in the most understated way imaginable that massive numbers of adolescent lesbians are seeking escape from sexual objectification and pornification and second-class humanity by adopting “anything but female” identities en masse. (“Gender identification is diversifying!”). (“The number of adolescents referred to specialized gender identity clinics for GD appears to be increasing. There also appears to be a corresponding shift in the sex ratio, from predominantly favouring natal males to one favouring natal females.”) (“Social and sociocultural explanations are offered to account for this recent inversion in the sex ratio of adolescents with GD.” ) COUGH.
And that trans-trending is now a subcultural teen fashion statement for entitled tumblrite millenials weaned on non-essential daily prescription pharmaceuticals that form their consumer identity every bit as much as the brands of clothing or carbonated beverage or types of piercing they express their core selves by sporting (“Yet it is also true that many youngsters who present to gender services are not acutely distressed”) LOL.
They also manage to note the absurdly high concurrence of social category dysphoria (gender identity malfeasance) among individuals who are less likely to observe social norms, ie. those on the autism spectrum. And that most “transgender” children will desist in adulthood. And that “social transition” in childhood results in distress, fear of teasing, and shame for those who wish to revert. And that a potential outcome of treatment for 2% (one youth out of 55 study participants in the only existing outcome study) is death due to complications from surgical castration and genital reshaping.
You can read the proposed service specification in full here: https://www.engage.england.nhs.uk/consultation/clinical-commissioning-wave8/user_uploads/gids-serv-spec-upd.pdf
And leave your comments, corrections or concerns, here:
The largest transgender industry lobbying group in the country, GIRES (Gender Identity Research and Education Society) has already posted their response. GIRES is run by a straight non-transgender couple, Bernard and Terry Reed. Bernard has an MBA from Oxford and serves as treasurer. Terry has a degree in Physiotherapy (occupational therapy) and serves as secretary. They started the group after their son, Niki Reed, suffered harassment when he transitioned on the job as a carnival ride operator and went on to win a groundbreaking 1997 employment tribunal that created precedent for transsexual individuals to sue on the basis of sex discrimination. (Chessington World of Adventures ltd v Reed, 1997)
Niki is heterosexual and went on to marry his female partner as a legal male. He does not publicly support the group his parents started and seems to have dropped out of sight. In all their public appearances his parents never speak of him.
What’s interesting is that GIRES is basically part of the UK government. They are “partners” with the Surrey and Borders NHS Partnership Foundation Trust which is their largest funder, and they co-produce educational materials on gender for providers together [PDF].
In addition, GIRES claims at least 79 “corporate members” of their group, including the Office for Nuclear Regulation, Imperial College London, South East Coast Ambulance Service, Learning and skills improvement service, Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of General Practitioners, among others. They were awarded the Orders of the British Empire in 2010. They donated over fifty thousand dollars to WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health) ostensibly to fund foreign language translations of the lobbying group’s standards of care. They are the establishment. A revolutionary besieged minority group fighting the power they are not. They are the power of the state. They are the state.
Here are a few nuggets of gender wisdom from Bernard and Terry Reed at GIRES to the youth of today, excerpted from their submission to the Gender Identity Development Service. You can read their full submission here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7n9HajupVrLSzdzVEhvaEVhZmRBNzVXMkMxdlZlZlV4SGFv/view?pref=2&pli=1 or here: http://archive.is/6rm1m
[Page 2 Gender Identity refers to conformity to sexist social categories]
Gender identity refers to a person’s sense of fitting into social categories of boys/men; women/girls. These are binary identities, but identities may also be non-binary, that is somewhere on a spectrum between the two, or outside that spectrum, known as non-gender. More of these widely diverse identities are now emerging, and many will be needing the support of medical services.
Gender dysphoria describes the unease experienced when the gender identity is not aligned with the sex assigned at birth: the gender role and expression typically associated with that sex are also sources of unease.
[Page 3 Absent all data, “associations” and “suggestions” “support” biologically based sexist social categories]
“Although no studies to date demonstrate the mechanism, multiple studies have reported associations with gender identity that support it being a biologic phenomenon.[…] Current data suggest a biologic etiology for transgender identity” (Saraswat et al 2015) [sic]
[Page 4 Skip the blockers]
Cross-sex hormones are acknowledged to be effective in treating gender dysphoria (which hormone blockers are not).
[Page 4 Hormones are harmless]
N.b. Cross-sex hormones are partially reversible.
[Page 4 Failure to attempt correction of sex role nonconformity is like waterboarding]
Delaying treatment causes “Psychological torture”.
[Page 5 Give kids who are still in the closet at puberty hormones]
It is not always possible to know whether gender non-conforming behaviors in a child are actually a reflection of gender dysphoria, or whether they are related to some other possible outcome, such as being gay, lesbian or bisexual. Usually, at the onset of puberty, the outcome becomes clearer to the child, and therefore to the relevant adults, including clinicians if they are already involved.
[Page 5 When in doubt: prescribe hormones]
The argument that the possibility of ‘desistance’ exists, is neither relevant nor a rational excuse for withholding cross-sex hormones. ‘Desistance’ should be completely detached from decisions about cross-sex hormones.
[Page 7 Hormones cure autism]
Anecdotally, young people who have been successfully treated, are often described as having no residual ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorder]. The symptoms have disappeared once the dysphoria has been treated.
[Page 9 Actual death is a scare tactic compared to threat of potential self harm due to waiting for hormones]
The tragic death of a young person is not really a useful anecdote in this context. All surgeries carry risk, but unless you give the figures to show how many have had surgery, sometimes several surgeries and survived, mentioning one death is not meaningful. It seems like a deliberate scare tactic.
[Page 9 Hormones are the grail, the truth, the light. Nonconformity is death]
Preventing premature death would be overcome by providing cross-sex hormones to overcome the misery of gender dysphoria [sic]
[Page 9 Social sex role nonconformists provoke abuse upon themselves.]
Refusing timely interventions for adolescents might prolong gender dysphoria and contribute to an appearance that could provoke abuse and stigmatization
[Page 9 Social sex category nonconformity is ghastly, bleak, mentally ill, fatal.]
Psychological support is important but if the current reluctance to provide timely cross-sex hormones, young people will not recover from dips in their mental health but will continue to deteriorate.
[Page 14 The vast majority of people that quit hormones after a few months or years don’t exist]
Therefore it is extremely rare for CSH [cross-sex hormones] to be started and then have the young person decide they want to stop.