I appreciate the study, but I think it’s fairly predictable that many young people will deeply regret having mutilated bodies, being sterile, being lifetime medical patients, and giving up sexual intimacy for life. Most people I know, including myself, didn’t truly grow to be comfortable in our skin until our mid-thirties with some life experience, a family, personal accomplishments, personal agency, and a sense of community of our own building. As both social and sexual creatures, it doesn’t take a super-genius to see many will regret losing out on the opportunity to build those things, or at least have the option, for themselves.
I’ve also never met a child or teenager or adult for that matter that truly confirms to rigid stereotypical gender norms, nor is it common to meet humans genuinely comfortable in their own skin before adulthood. This isn’t a medical condition that needs hormones and surgery and pronouncements of made up academic intersectionality identity groups. Discomfort is a natural part of the human experience of growing up. And making it to adulthood with people to love is the reward, and one hell of an amazing reward it is.
Exactly. I am so sick of "studies." The scientific community and their peer-reviewed journals are corrupt. Studies can be designed to show almost anything. This is a matter of common sense. Children cannot give informed consent for irreversible procedures based on their feelings. There is not a single diagnostic tool in the world that can prove a "gender identity" and no crystal ball that can tell which child will "benefit" from being genital mutilation. Stop with the "studies" and calls for "evidence-based medicine." This experiment on children needs to stop ASAP.
Yes, I think that is true for many. It took me till my 30s to progress past a fairly prolonged adolescence. I was caught in depression for much of late teens but that was without social media, the internet and with a fairly stable culture, zeitgeist so I managed to pass through relatively unscathed.
I say shut the whole "trans" circus down immediately. This abomination never should have gotten off the ground to begin with. The sooner we end this appalling program of poison, slice and dice, the better.
FYI, some far-left feminists, including myself, have been calling out this sexist, patriarchal delusion and its medical barbarism since the 1970s. I have, since a withering middle-age professional male tennis player who suddenly claimed he was female was allowed to switch over to the pro women's tennis circuit in the 1970s.
It's conservatives and middle-of-the-roaders who are late to the party in calling out this delusion or scam. I'm glad they are here now, though.
Just saying, because I don't feel at all culpable, given my early recognition and calling out of these lies.
I feel culpable. I was indoctrinated in undergrad and grad school and it took me until around 2017/18 to see the light. I am incredibly ashamed I ever thought pretending men could be women was “kind.” I have a daughter and I am devastated I ever bought into the lies. I have spent the last 5 years owning my past gullibility on this and screaming as loud as I can how misogynistic and overtly cruel trans ideology is towards children and women. Thank you for seeing it sooner. Thank you for staying sane. Thank you for always knowing how to define woman - adult human female (established at conception and simply observed at birth or before).
"indoctrinated in undergrad and grad school" -- how so? In which classes? Women Studies?
I've yet to read the book "Professing Feminism" by Daphne Patai & Noretta Koertge, but some reviewers of it at Feminist Critics paint a pretty damning portrait of such programs:
FC: "The authors [Patai, & Koertge] wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the [Women Studies] programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students."
Feminists and women in general seem to have more than a few justified grievances. But some reason to argue that there's a great deal of rot in much of feminism, a case in point being that book of Patai's & Koertge's. As are the posts by Kathleen Stock and Helen Dale I quoted from in my previous comment:
In addition to which, "feminism" was an "early adopter" and champion of the whole concept of gender -- with some justification, particularly in equating it to "masculine & feminine personalities":
But there's also quite a lot of anti-scientific claptrap wrapped up in the concept and in feminism's elaborations on it. Some reason to argue that, with the "transmogrification" of the idea by transactivists, feminists have been "hoist by their own petard".
As for your "knowing how to define woman", I think that the standard definition -- "adult human female" -- is something of a poisoned chalice that "women" might be wise not to drink too deeply from. The weight that one can put on it depends very much on the definition for "female" that one subscribes to, and that isn't quite the slam dunk that many think is the case.
Maybe I was painting with too-broad a brush with "condemn us all", though I've often argued that a pervasive and general scientific illiteracy -- on all sides of the political spectrum -- has contributed mightily to the whole transgender clusterfuck. As Carl Sagan once put it:
Sagan: "I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; ... when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
Arguably, the whole thing of transwomen "passing as women" is a case in point of putting "what feels good" ahead of "what is true".
But I assume you mean Renée Richards? Chaps my hide that Wikipedia talks about "her" "male-to-female sex reassignment surgery" -- a more odious euphemism bordering on another Big Lie is scarcely imaginable:
But, in related news & ICYMI, see my "tale of woe" about getting defenestrated as an Editor at Wikipedia for objecting to their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard which claimed that "she" had "transitioned to female":
In any case, you're probably right about conservatives being late to the party -- probably very few feminists in that half of the political spectrum. Though some reason to argue -- as more than a few women have done -- that feminists in general have also contributed mightily to that clusterfuck.
For examples, see Kathleen Stock who has argued that feminism is in serious need of a "reboot" because the whole transgender issue has reduced much of it to "risible absurdities":
Though she did have a few nice things to say about that particular "sect".
But see also Helen Dale's review of Louise Perry's "Sexual Revolution":
Dale: "Louise Perry’s The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century is a counterblast to the braindead feminism I encountered at university. Pseudoscientific feminism never took me in, but Perry, a townie, was persuaded. Her book, as much as anything, is about the process of disenchantment, of discovering everything she once believed was nonsense. ....
Already uneasy with bits of left theory, the experience of practical compassion and a desire to stop rape rather than blethering on about stopping rape led [Perry] to do what no feminist theorist has done before: take biology seriously."
But you might still reasonably feel somewhat "vindicated" by events -- better late than never. Hard to believe that "self-identification" ever made it out of committee, much less into the law books; a more cretinous and poisonous "idea" is scarcely imaginable. Nice to see people driving a stake through the heart of it.
Steersman, I apologize for being awfully sensitive about the term "culpable." I hit "reply" knowing fully well that my reply could have been thought out and stated better, but hadn't been. My excuse is that I have been feeling needled lately with all the YouTube commenters and Matt Walsh, etc., asking, "Where are the feminists on this issue?" (while swiping our insights without attribution), and claiming only conservatives are being the logical ones (which, at least in terms of legislation on the gender identity issue, is mostly true.) I normally don't even bring up left-right on this, because if ever there were an issue that should be non-partisan, it's this one.
Thank you for all the links, which will keep me reading for awhile, and for sacrificing your editor role in Wikipedia for working to de-Laurel the former Gavin Hubbard.
What a great quote from Carl Sagan. Thank you. He nailed it in predicting just this sort of problem, given our now service and information economy, and our being mostly in our heads and on our devices, detached from much of material reality, and yes, focusing on what feels good rather than what is true. It feels like we're in an ivory tower parlor game ("Which of the 96 genders are you today?")
"thank you for ... working to 'de-Laurel' the former Gavin Hubbard" ... 👍🙂
De nada; it was an "interesting" and "illuminating" experience in many ways. "I only regret that I have but one [user-name] to lose for [the cause]." 🙂
But no problemo on the "awfully sensitive" -- your comments were much milder than many I've received from other feminists for being critical of feminism. As I've often argued, feminists and women in general have no shortage of justified grievances so I kind of hate to see many wasting their efforts in internecine warfare and defending untenable premises.
Somewhat apropos of which, you might have some interest in an essay by Marco Del Giudice on the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender" that Colin had tweeted a link to several years ago:
Bit of a meaty topic and essay, and one that I should re-read when I find the time. But I've found this quote of his to be particularly relevant to the battle over the competing definitions for the sexes:
Del Giudice: "On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce [present tense] small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce [present tense] large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
Kind of a fundamental and profoundly important dichotomy that many refuse to consider. You might have some interest in a post of mine on that difference:
En passant, you might also have some interest in checking out the Substack of Lisa Selin Davis, and, in particular, my recent comment there where I attempt to defend the concept of gender:
This is the dilemma so many of us face - Democrats have taken an untenable position on Gender Ideology, but Republicans are Fascist. The obvious answer is to wake the Democrats up to the horror of what they are supporting, but they dismiss any dissenting voice as "Nazis." I never thought I would see such extremism and authoritarianism from Democrats. Remember when they used to believe in Science? They called themselves the Reality-Based Community? They were so proud they understood "nuance?" Now they won't even talk to a Gender Critical voter. They won't accept that Radical Feminists are as Left as it gets so they really ought to listen to us when we tell them that Gender Ideology is misogynist and homophobic and they are trading away Women's Rights to safety, privacy, freedom of association, freedom of movement in society, esp. for women of faith, and basic fairness in sports. They expect women to quietly accept the presence of nude male bodies which would constitute sex crimes in other circumstances. I meet people every day who call themselves "politically homeless" because they can't support Republicans but won't vote for Democrats who are harming children, women, lesbians, gays and bisexuals. This is costing Democrats votes at a time when every vote counts.
"The obvious answer is to wake the Democrats up to the horror of what they are supporting,..."
The problem with that suggestion is "it ain't never gonna work." And that's because the Democrat elite have all been brainwashed with woke nonsense and stubbornly refuse to see the "horror" as anything but a "gender" paradise.
Why do suppose the Allies (the real Allies) during WWII included Stalin's Soviet Union? It wasn't because the West suddenly supported Marx, Lenin, and Communism. No, it was because the Americans, British and French knew that in order to defeat Hitler's Nazis (the real Nazis) they needed the big guns, most powerful coalition they could assemble. Then right after the Allies won the war, the coalition crumbled, and the US and the Soviets started aimed nukes at each other.
It's called strategy. And that's the game we need to play, or we're all wasting our time fighting for a lost cause.
I understand strategy, but what do you propose we do? I think the Dems are blinded by ideology & money, but they're pretty much on the right side of every other issue. The Republicans are working toward a Fascist Theocracy with Trump, or his clone, as dictator. I believe that if the Gender Critical community could organize and find at least one or two elected Democrats who would stand up to the party, we might get some traction. The bottom line for any political party is they want to get elected. If they figure out this is a losing policy, they'll at least moderate their stance.
A couple of months ago Robert F Kennedy, Jr. stated he was against "people who are biologically male playing in women's sports." That's a start, but who knows how far he would go in excising the "trans" cancer that has metastasized throughout our society and much of the rest of the world.
If Kennedy got the nomination (and 20% of Democrats now say they support him), quite a few moderate Democrats and Independents would cast their votes for him. But I don't think any other Democratic politician has the guts or independence to stand up to the "trans" mob. They've all been bought out and brainwashed by the "trans" crowd that controls BlackRock and Vanguard.
RFK Jr has gone off the deep end, I'm afraid, or at least that's how he is perceived. He's being supported by the Right to act as a spoiler for Biden. I would like to see him challenge the Party on this issue, though, to open up a dialogue and give Gender Critical Libs the space to speak up and let the Dems know we exist. At least then they couldn't dismiss every dissenter as a "Rightwinger' or "Nazi." We have to find some way to get them to Stop being Woke and Wake Up.
I dunno know. At this point I think voting for Democrats is a pretty evident vote for child sexualization, child genital mutilation, erasing women, and promoting of race hate. If that changes down the road, I’ll change who I vote for, but I have young kids and I don’t think I could justify to them in 15 years voting for Democrats today.
You should probably read people like Michael Shellenberger. The reality is there is no climate cliff, we are not in an extinction period, cumulative ocean level rise for the last 125 years is less than 8 inches - on par with relatively calm periods of time. Nuclear is clean and efficient and it’s Democrats that oppose it. Toyota can build 90 hybrid batteries with the same minerals as 1 fully electric car - which is a misnomer - many EVs are factually coal powered cars.
The environment has long been a passion of mine. I lived in the woods over a year of my life and worked as an outdoor adventure guide in undergrad. I understand how you could be so misinformed on these issues, many well meaning people are, but you will find you would be more persuasive if you actually knew what you were talking about. I hope you take the opportunity to learn. Renewables are anything but eco-friendly a majority of the time and nothing is worse for the natural environment than poverty - which is what pro-scarcity policies of Democrats push.
OK - well you choose to live on the Earth voluntarily, and remain ignorant. That’s ok.
To others please read actual experts on this. Or simply go back and watch and inconvenient truth and compare predictions to actual observations.
The ocean rise has been fairly steady over the last 125 years. About 3.5 of the 8 inches in in the past 30 years. There is no mass extinction. Polar bear numbers are high. The Great Barrier Reef is thriving at the highest level of life on record. There has been no sustained warming in the last 15 years.
Compare that to 12,000 years ago during Younger Dryas when ocean levels rose 400 ft in very short time and 25% of life on Earth was wiped out. CO2 levels were double during the dinosaurs and there was far more oxygen and biodiversity. The Earth’s climate is always changing. We are certainly polluting and causing harm, but poverty causes the most harm (and mining for EV materials is one of the dirtiest ways to mine and destroy ecosystems - nearly 1/4th of the Congo is now toxic from Cobalt mines). Most of the ecological damage is done by illegal mining in impoverished areas, terrible farming practices in impoverished areas, and “plastic recycling” which mostly ends up in the ocean.
To the nihilist like Chris - you first. You think there are too many people and “we” need to change how we live and become impoverished. You first. I’ve lived in the woods a year. It was fun. Rather than talking about “we” all the time, how about YOU stop being a hypocrite and do yourself whatever it is you think everyone else should do. Take some personal responsibility for your decisions. Go live like you think everyone should or shut the hell up with your uninformed 💩 shit which shows you are completely uneducated about the Earth and ecology.
I so agree with you, Chris--things i used to worry about pale in comparison. it sucks there are people like NCmom who are part of the effort to stop the needed climate progress...hard not to despair!
With so few well-conducted studies of treatment outcomes associated with gender affirmative care, it is good to see one that addresses regrets about transitioning. We need a lot more information about all aspects of gender dysphoria, patients requesting gender treatment, and optimal treatments for subgroups with differing needs.
I sometimes think, however, that the focus on whether patients regret transitioning gets disproportionate attention by both the gender treatment professionals and by critics of the use of invasive medical strategies in treating adolescents claiming trans gendered status. Questions that are neglected pertain to whether gender affirmative care is medically necessary for any adolescent. If so, what conditions are being treated? Advocates of gender affirmative care have said that they are treating suicidality. On other occasions they say that attributing mental illness to patients claiming a trans identity is "hate speech." So are they being treated for a major psychiatric disorder or aren't they? If they have no mental disorder then what is the motivation for taking opposite sex hormones and cutting off body parts. Is this really just cosmetic surgery on demand. It certainly appears to be. If male patients can request the addition of a vagina to their existing male genitals, and the surgeon agrees to construct one, that is certainly cosmetic surgery on demand. I assume that one of the primary interests of cosmetic surgeons is for patients to be happy with how they look post-surgery, so patients' satisfaction or regrets with the surgery is the top priority. If, on the other hand, medical treatments are claimed to be medically necessary, it means that the patient will not be okay without the surgery, and in fact, the gender treatment community has claimed that patients will die if they don't receive the medical interventions. Gender activists have also claimed that refusing to provide them with medical transitioning is equivalent to genocide, meaning that if they don't transition they will be murdered. This claim obviously reflects the presence of a mental disorder or a behavioral problem.
The most common motive for suicide is depression. If the gender clinics' patients are presenting severe depression, are they being treated according to standards of care for that condition? The standards do not include hormones or surgery, although testosterone has antidepressant properties.
Based on the minimal level of knowledge we now have about the mental disorders experienced by trans-identified people, they probably do have a higher suicide rate than normal for matching members of the general population (e.g., middle aged males or adolescent girls). This indicates that psychiatric treatment is medically necessary. It is quite possible that many trans-identified people are unable to use psychotherapy or antidepressants to decrease their suicidality, but it is difficult to imagine that getting cosmetic surgery will be more helpful. A patient who has transitioned but continues to experience severe depression would not necessarily regret medically transitioning. Asking this person if sh/he regrets having undertaken body modification does not get to the heart of the matter, which is, "Was the treatment appropriate for the problem, and did it succeed in resolving it?"
The bottom line is that immature human brains do not have the capacity to comprehend an abstract concept like gender, to understand what sterility and loss of ability to achieve orgasm could mean and they lack the foresight to picture a life of experimental drugs and surgery, side effects and a shortened life span.
These higher brain functions don't even become possible until age 16 at the earliest, and some people never develop them at all. It is impossible for a child to form consent.
Clinical practice in treatment of gender issues has never been based on settled science. When woke activists get involved in any project, they shut down scientific inquiry and methods and replace them with announcements that all the issues are settled and no further input will be sought or accepted. That is why they keep referring to their drugs being FDA approved, and their treatment being according to the standard of care and endorsed by the AMA. In reality all of gender affirmative care is still experimental because we will have to observe the patients for the rest of their lives before we know how the hormones have affected them, and whether any of the treatments lowered their suicide rate or their other psych symptoms. Unfortunately, the AMA and all of our other professional associations, professional journals, and doctoral level professional schools are captured and corrupted, so there is complete official approval for the gender affirmative model of care in the U.S.
I find it interesting that when we look for evidence of harm, the fact that the patients had healthy body parts surgically removed for no reason gets ignored. When surgeons do this by mistake, they are sued. When cancerous breasts and testicles have to be removed to save a person's life, patients are encouraged to take time to weigh all their options, and if they choose no treatment their decision is respected. When a person doesn't feel grief over the loss of parts of themselves, there is something seriously wrong.
The breast cancer histories you reference are generally due to mutations on the BRCA gene. I met a young woman who had lost four sisters and her mother to breast cancer, and all died prior to age 35. She had to go through exactly what you describe to get a bilateral mastectomy. My understanding is that, now that the gene has been discovered, the medical system does respond with aggressive interventions.
Much of biology is being turned into a clown show by motivated reasoning, by a general inability or unwillingness to define the relevant terms -- mostly "sex" and "gender" -- with any degree of coherence, consistency, and principled justification.
Pretty much every last man, woman, and otherkin is attached to their own rather idiosyncratic, and quite unscientific definitions for both, and damned they'll be if they so much as countenance any alternatives or even the possibility that their definitions are more a part of the problem than of the solution.
🙄 Hardly "peculiar or individual" or "unscientific" when the definitions I'm promoting are those published in reputable peer-reviewed biological journals co-authored by a biologist with an FRS to his name, and endorsed by reputable philosophers of biology, all underwritten by solid logical, linguistic, and epistemological principles.
In notable contradistinction to the folk-biology peddled by Hilton, Heying and Wright in the letter section of the UK Times:
But Colin at least genuflects to the view that there may be some utility in DEFINING "gender" as more or less synonymous with personalities and personality types:
Groups like SEGM (Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine - "gender medicine"? - what the hell is that?) that make statements like "no one is tracking how many people regret transition" imply that some children actually benefit from these mutilating surgeries. Even if that were true, no study in the world could predict prospectively whic ones would. No child's body should be irreversibly altered -- surgically or hormonally -- based on their feelings and self-identifiation. Full stop.
Did we really need a "study" to prove lobotomies were unhelpful and regretful? Of course not. Anyone with common sense knows that an irreversible medical intervention based solely on the feelings of a CHILD is insanity.
Who is behind "The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine" and what is "Gender Medicine"? Medical treatment based on stereotypical feelings? What kind of evidence could ever justify surgical and hormonal interventions on physically healthy children. We don't need any more evidence or studies to conclude that there needs to be an immediate mortorium on the transgender pediatric industry. These clinics should be shut down without delay.
Thanks, Lisa. "Furthermore, adolescents and young adults might not be mature enough to appreciate the long-term consequences of their decisions about the irreversible medical interventions used to achieve “embodiment goals,” and/or their capacity to give informed consent may be limited by comorbid mental health problems or neurodevelopmental challenges." I have a problem with "better informed consent" from young adolescents, who by their very immaturity and abundant evidence of tendencies to make bad decisions are really INCAPABLE of making informed consent, especially in systems that are replete with "coaches" and therapists committed to one-way decision-making. That is why we need a professional and legislative mandate to eschew both pharmacologic and surgical "therapies" before age 18 years.
As a woman who endured many years of tangential association with my cross-sex ideating ex-husband, including 2 years during the marriage, when he fluctuated back and forth, neglected our young sons' emotional needs as well as their physical safety, I can speak to the psychiatric illness not cured by hormones and surgeries. The path to mental and emotional wellness, taking the individual to a place where they have the capacity to care for others and grow away from extreme narcissistic behavior involves at least these 5 actions: 1. Close down all internet and social media activity for several months and then back on only on a restricted schedule. 2. Quality psychotherapy with homework involving focus on those surrounding the patient, to unlearn the narcissism. Deal with the childhood trauma/sexual abuse/physical abuse/bullying experiences with productive analysis and acquisition of relaxation strategies for panic attacks and vagus nerve overstimulation. 3. Focused mind/body work in a form such as Feldenkrais physical therapy or acupressure chiropractic. The Veterans Administration youtube channel has the latter demonstrated. 4. Personal research on desisters and detransitioners who describe the flaws in the "affirmative care" they participated in. The knowledge that most of these practitioners make it up as they go along is important. 5. Engagement in nature through gardening, hiking, birdwatching, &etc. For an idea of mind/body connection through movement for calming the vagus nerve:
Like many I follow some detransitioners on social media. Ones heart breaks just listening.
I don't understand how we've got to this state of 'treatment' but just wish we had a world where genitals don't define s person and trans people can live in their natural bodies. This should surely be the norm - and adult choice to have surgery be a last resort after expert advice?
And haven't we been told that 95% of men who ID as female still have intact male genitalia?
This makes the unnecessary physical 'medical' damage already done to a number of people even more appalling.
It's all a mess. Does extreme trans activism really express what trans people feel? Where are the measured trans opinions - obviously absent from the government debate on the Equality Act last Monday?
Is it possible to isolate the few men who, frankly, are playing with this ideology for sinister and dangerous abusive activities against women?
How can we ever get to accurate mental diagnosis with everyone shouting at each other?
I think the many disparate strands of the debate need carefully teasing apart, and separating , and the detransitioner voices amplified to top volume until everyone knows what is happening - and are as appalled as we all commenting here are.
But pretending most trans people are predators is cruel and not true.
And then there are lots of the public, often younger people, who deny there is a problem at all.
Trans now seems to include transvestism, which probably accounts for many of the 95+% of males who remain intact. Retention of their genitalia is essential to their fetish.
Glad that we detransitioners/desistors are starting to get attention, even if it is coming in at a trickle. Still, it's a move in the right direction.
I hope society embraces the fact that there is no "wrong" or "right" way to be a man/woman. You're only born as one and get to decide how you want to live and express yourself from there. There shouldn't be these rigid expectations for being a man or woman, but unfortunately, these stereotypes are parroted by both conservatives and "liberals." They want to put us in boxes.
I hope that one day, no kid has to through what me and tons of other detransitioners/desistors went through, and are still going through. Glad this article came along during "Pride Month," a month I personally loathe.
I read studies such as this one, and I am reminded of one of my favorite medical books: "The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer" (Mukherjee, 2010). As I read the accounts of some of many of the surgical attempts to get rid of a person's cancer, I couldn't help but ask myself, "what were they thinking?" I suspect that in the future, people will be asking that same question about what is happening today.
I used to be on board with the idea that transition, for those those adults with diagnosed gender dysphoria, would be a beneficial therapeutic process aiming to reduce the affects of the dysphoria. I was never comfortable with the "born in the wrong body" concept since that seems to indicate some kind of mystical knowledge about one's gendered soul existing in a body that's not the right match for them. I was never comfortable with the idea that "a trans woman IS a woman", since that's factually not true. I've now arrived at a point where I'm of the opinion that transition, as a practice, should be stopped period. I think the core issue for me comes down to treating what is ostensibly a mental condition by bringing the physical into alignment with the mental. I cannot think of any other situation where someone with a mental illness is affirmed in their mental illness. So then why gender of all things? My only conclusion is that the philosophies of feminism and queer theory have enabled people to consider sex and gender as a mutable category that one can become a man or become a woman, or that they are not one if they don't fit strict definitions. Of course those that hold that transition is a therapeutic for those people with gender dysphoria have, in many institutions, lost that battle. Colin Wright has shown that many organizations essentially have open up the definition of trans to include all manner of other things. This then makes me oppose it even more, since I cannot support such a drastic set of measures as transition for those that are doing it merely on aesthetic or identity grounds.
In the end transition doesn't seem, to me, to be a beneficial therapeutic. Since it's moved beyond that it's really become an aesthetic masquerading as a therapeutic in order to garner a positive public opinion. Frankly, if you're an adult and want to do this, go ahead, but the rest of society shouldn't applaud it or be forced to go along with it.
The term "neurodiversity" was coined by activists advocating for people with Autism Spectrum Disorders. They were obviously trying to find a term that implied "different but not impaired." The term has become pretty popular among people with ASD and their families.
In recent years, people diagnosed by professionals or by themselves with Narcissistic Personality Disorder are also referring to themselves as "neurodiverse." I don't know why they think they are abnormal neurologically. They do lack capacities like empathy and ethical concern that are much stronger in the normal population, and maybe those are the impairments that they are seeking to relabel. Narcissists are getting called out a lot more in recent years because of the grassroots support movement for people who have been hurt by them. Being "neurodiverse" could help to absolve them of any ethical responsibilities as well as getting their victims to feel sorry for them via DARVO.
I appreciate the study, but I think it’s fairly predictable that many young people will deeply regret having mutilated bodies, being sterile, being lifetime medical patients, and giving up sexual intimacy for life. Most people I know, including myself, didn’t truly grow to be comfortable in our skin until our mid-thirties with some life experience, a family, personal accomplishments, personal agency, and a sense of community of our own building. As both social and sexual creatures, it doesn’t take a super-genius to see many will regret losing out on the opportunity to build those things, or at least have the option, for themselves.
I’ve also never met a child or teenager or adult for that matter that truly confirms to rigid stereotypical gender norms, nor is it common to meet humans genuinely comfortable in their own skin before adulthood. This isn’t a medical condition that needs hormones and surgery and pronouncements of made up academic intersectionality identity groups. Discomfort is a natural part of the human experience of growing up. And making it to adulthood with people to love is the reward, and one hell of an amazing reward it is.
Exactly. I am so sick of "studies." The scientific community and their peer-reviewed journals are corrupt. Studies can be designed to show almost anything. This is a matter of common sense. Children cannot give informed consent for irreversible procedures based on their feelings. There is not a single diagnostic tool in the world that can prove a "gender identity" and no crystal ball that can tell which child will "benefit" from being genital mutilation. Stop with the "studies" and calls for "evidence-based medicine." This experiment on children needs to stop ASAP.
Yes, I think that is true for many. It took me till my 30s to progress past a fairly prolonged adolescence. I was caught in depression for much of late teens but that was without social media, the internet and with a fairly stable culture, zeitgeist so I managed to pass through relatively unscathed.
Yes. It's obvious.
I say shut the whole "trans" circus down immediately. This abomination never should have gotten off the ground to begin with. The sooner we end this appalling program of poison, slice and dice, the better.
The roots of that go rather deep and more or less condemn us all for culpability in that "crime".
FYI, some far-left feminists, including myself, have been calling out this sexist, patriarchal delusion and its medical barbarism since the 1970s. I have, since a withering middle-age professional male tennis player who suddenly claimed he was female was allowed to switch over to the pro women's tennis circuit in the 1970s.
It's conservatives and middle-of-the-roaders who are late to the party in calling out this delusion or scam. I'm glad they are here now, though.
Just saying, because I don't feel at all culpable, given my early recognition and calling out of these lies.
I feel culpable. I was indoctrinated in undergrad and grad school and it took me until around 2017/18 to see the light. I am incredibly ashamed I ever thought pretending men could be women was “kind.” I have a daughter and I am devastated I ever bought into the lies. I have spent the last 5 years owning my past gullibility on this and screaming as loud as I can how misogynistic and overtly cruel trans ideology is towards children and women. Thank you for seeing it sooner. Thank you for staying sane. Thank you for always knowing how to define woman - adult human female (established at conception and simply observed at birth or before).
"indoctrinated in undergrad and grad school" -- how so? In which classes? Women Studies?
I've yet to read the book "Professing Feminism" by Daphne Patai & Noretta Koertge, but some reviewers of it at Feminist Critics paint a pretty damning portrait of such programs:
FC: "The authors [Patai, & Koertge] wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the [Women Studies] programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students."
https://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/07/27/professing-feminism-noh/
Feminists and women in general seem to have more than a few justified grievances. But some reason to argue that there's a great deal of rot in much of feminism, a case in point being that book of Patai's & Koertge's. As are the posts by Kathleen Stock and Helen Dale I quoted from in my previous comment:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/a-new-paper-sheds-light-on-transition/comment/17201437
In addition to which, "feminism" was an "early adopter" and champion of the whole concept of gender -- with some justification, particularly in equating it to "masculine & feminine personalities":
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/feminism-gender/#GenFemMasPer
But there's also quite a lot of anti-scientific claptrap wrapped up in the concept and in feminism's elaborations on it. Some reason to argue that, with the "transmogrification" of the idea by transactivists, feminists have been "hoist by their own petard".
As for your "knowing how to define woman", I think that the standard definition -- "adult human female" -- is something of a poisoned chalice that "women" might be wise not to drink too deeply from. The weight that one can put on it depends very much on the definition for "female" that one subscribes to, and that isn't quite the slam dunk that many think is the case.
Maybe I was painting with too-broad a brush with "condemn us all", though I've often argued that a pervasive and general scientific illiteracy -- on all sides of the political spectrum -- has contributed mightily to the whole transgender clusterfuck. As Carl Sagan once put it:
Sagan: "I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; ... when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#The_Demon-Haunted_World_:_Science_as_a_Candle_in_the_Dark_(1995)
Arguably, the whole thing of transwomen "passing as women" is a case in point of putting "what feels good" ahead of "what is true".
But I assume you mean Renée Richards? Chaps my hide that Wikipedia talks about "her" "male-to-female sex reassignment surgery" -- a more odious euphemism bordering on another Big Lie is scarcely imaginable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards
But, in related news & ICYMI, see my "tale of woe" about getting defenestrated as an Editor at Wikipedia for objecting to their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard which claimed that "she" had "transitioned to female":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
In any case, you're probably right about conservatives being late to the party -- probably very few feminists in that half of the political spectrum. Though some reason to argue -- as more than a few women have done -- that feminists in general have also contributed mightily to that clusterfuck.
For examples, see Kathleen Stock who has argued that feminism is in serious need of a "reboot" because the whole transgender issue has reduced much of it to "risible absurdities":
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/feminist-reboot-camp
And she had a few choice words about "radfems" being "barking (mad)" for wanting to "abolish gender":
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/lets-abolish-the-dream-of-gender
Though she did have a few nice things to say about that particular "sect".
But see also Helen Dale's review of Louise Perry's "Sexual Revolution":
Dale: "Louise Perry’s The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century is a counterblast to the braindead feminism I encountered at university. Pseudoscientific feminism never took me in, but Perry, a townie, was persuaded. Her book, as much as anything, is about the process of disenchantment, of discovering everything she once believed was nonsense. ....
Already uneasy with bits of left theory, the experience of practical compassion and a desire to stop rape rather than blethering on about stopping rape led [Perry] to do what no feminist theorist has done before: take biology seriously."
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/feminising-feminism/
But you might still reasonably feel somewhat "vindicated" by events -- better late than never. Hard to believe that "self-identification" ever made it out of committee, much less into the law books; a more cretinous and poisonous "idea" is scarcely imaginable. Nice to see people driving a stake through the heart of it.
Steersman, I apologize for being awfully sensitive about the term "culpable." I hit "reply" knowing fully well that my reply could have been thought out and stated better, but hadn't been. My excuse is that I have been feeling needled lately with all the YouTube commenters and Matt Walsh, etc., asking, "Where are the feminists on this issue?" (while swiping our insights without attribution), and claiming only conservatives are being the logical ones (which, at least in terms of legislation on the gender identity issue, is mostly true.) I normally don't even bring up left-right on this, because if ever there were an issue that should be non-partisan, it's this one.
Thank you for all the links, which will keep me reading for awhile, and for sacrificing your editor role in Wikipedia for working to de-Laurel the former Gavin Hubbard.
What a great quote from Carl Sagan. Thank you. He nailed it in predicting just this sort of problem, given our now service and information economy, and our being mostly in our heads and on our devices, detached from much of material reality, and yes, focusing on what feels good rather than what is true. It feels like we're in an ivory tower parlor game ("Which of the 96 genders are you today?")
Thanks again.
"thank you for ... working to 'de-Laurel' the former Gavin Hubbard" ... 👍🙂
De nada; it was an "interesting" and "illuminating" experience in many ways. "I only regret that I have but one [user-name] to lose for [the cause]." 🙂
But no problemo on the "awfully sensitive" -- your comments were much milder than many I've received from other feminists for being critical of feminism. As I've often argued, feminists and women in general have no shortage of justified grievances so I kind of hate to see many wasting their efforts in internecine warfare and defending untenable premises.
Somewhat apropos of which, you might have some interest in an essay by Marco Del Giudice on the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender" that Colin had tweeted a link to several years ago:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
Bit of a meaty topic and essay, and one that I should re-read when I find the time. But I've found this quote of his to be particularly relevant to the battle over the competing definitions for the sexes:
Del Giudice: "On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce [present tense] small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce [present tense] large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
Kind of a fundamental and profoundly important dichotomy that many refuse to consider. You might have some interest in a post of mine on that difference:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
En passant, you might also have some interest in checking out the Substack of Lisa Selin Davis, and, in particular, my recent comment there where I attempt to defend the concept of gender:
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/florida/comment/17050351
Seems that too many are far too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This is the dilemma so many of us face - Democrats have taken an untenable position on Gender Ideology, but Republicans are Fascist. The obvious answer is to wake the Democrats up to the horror of what they are supporting, but they dismiss any dissenting voice as "Nazis." I never thought I would see such extremism and authoritarianism from Democrats. Remember when they used to believe in Science? They called themselves the Reality-Based Community? They were so proud they understood "nuance?" Now they won't even talk to a Gender Critical voter. They won't accept that Radical Feminists are as Left as it gets so they really ought to listen to us when we tell them that Gender Ideology is misogynist and homophobic and they are trading away Women's Rights to safety, privacy, freedom of association, freedom of movement in society, esp. for women of faith, and basic fairness in sports. They expect women to quietly accept the presence of nude male bodies which would constitute sex crimes in other circumstances. I meet people every day who call themselves "politically homeless" because they can't support Republicans but won't vote for Democrats who are harming children, women, lesbians, gays and bisexuals. This is costing Democrats votes at a time when every vote counts.
"The obvious answer is to wake the Democrats up to the horror of what they are supporting,..."
The problem with that suggestion is "it ain't never gonna work." And that's because the Democrat elite have all been brainwashed with woke nonsense and stubbornly refuse to see the "horror" as anything but a "gender" paradise.
Why do suppose the Allies (the real Allies) during WWII included Stalin's Soviet Union? It wasn't because the West suddenly supported Marx, Lenin, and Communism. No, it was because the Americans, British and French knew that in order to defeat Hitler's Nazis (the real Nazis) they needed the big guns, most powerful coalition they could assemble. Then right after the Allies won the war, the coalition crumbled, and the US and the Soviets started aimed nukes at each other.
It's called strategy. And that's the game we need to play, or we're all wasting our time fighting for a lost cause.
I understand strategy, but what do you propose we do? I think the Dems are blinded by ideology & money, but they're pretty much on the right side of every other issue. The Republicans are working toward a Fascist Theocracy with Trump, or his clone, as dictator. I believe that if the Gender Critical community could organize and find at least one or two elected Democrats who would stand up to the party, we might get some traction. The bottom line for any political party is they want to get elected. If they figure out this is a losing policy, they'll at least moderate their stance.
A couple of months ago Robert F Kennedy, Jr. stated he was against "people who are biologically male playing in women's sports." That's a start, but who knows how far he would go in excising the "trans" cancer that has metastasized throughout our society and much of the rest of the world.
If Kennedy got the nomination (and 20% of Democrats now say they support him), quite a few moderate Democrats and Independents would cast their votes for him. But I don't think any other Democratic politician has the guts or independence to stand up to the "trans" mob. They've all been bought out and brainwashed by the "trans" crowd that controls BlackRock and Vanguard.
https://nypost.com/2023/04/29/robert-kennedy-jr-does-not-support-trans-women-in-female-sports/
RFK Jr has gone off the deep end, I'm afraid, or at least that's how he is perceived. He's being supported by the Right to act as a spoiler for Biden. I would like to see him challenge the Party on this issue, though, to open up a dialogue and give Gender Critical Libs the space to speak up and let the Dems know we exist. At least then they couldn't dismiss every dissenter as a "Rightwinger' or "Nazi." We have to find some way to get them to Stop being Woke and Wake Up.
I dunno know. At this point I think voting for Democrats is a pretty evident vote for child sexualization, child genital mutilation, erasing women, and promoting of race hate. If that changes down the road, I’ll change who I vote for, but I have young kids and I don’t think I could justify to them in 15 years voting for Democrats today.
You should probably read people like Michael Shellenberger. The reality is there is no climate cliff, we are not in an extinction period, cumulative ocean level rise for the last 125 years is less than 8 inches - on par with relatively calm periods of time. Nuclear is clean and efficient and it’s Democrats that oppose it. Toyota can build 90 hybrid batteries with the same minerals as 1 fully electric car - which is a misnomer - many EVs are factually coal powered cars.
The environment has long been a passion of mine. I lived in the woods over a year of my life and worked as an outdoor adventure guide in undergrad. I understand how you could be so misinformed on these issues, many well meaning people are, but you will find you would be more persuasive if you actually knew what you were talking about. I hope you take the opportunity to learn. Renewables are anything but eco-friendly a majority of the time and nothing is worse for the natural environment than poverty - which is what pro-scarcity policies of Democrats push.
OK - well you choose to live on the Earth voluntarily, and remain ignorant. That’s ok.
To others please read actual experts on this. Or simply go back and watch and inconvenient truth and compare predictions to actual observations.
The ocean rise has been fairly steady over the last 125 years. About 3.5 of the 8 inches in in the past 30 years. There is no mass extinction. Polar bear numbers are high. The Great Barrier Reef is thriving at the highest level of life on record. There has been no sustained warming in the last 15 years.
Compare that to 12,000 years ago during Younger Dryas when ocean levels rose 400 ft in very short time and 25% of life on Earth was wiped out. CO2 levels were double during the dinosaurs and there was far more oxygen and biodiversity. The Earth’s climate is always changing. We are certainly polluting and causing harm, but poverty causes the most harm (and mining for EV materials is one of the dirtiest ways to mine and destroy ecosystems - nearly 1/4th of the Congo is now toxic from Cobalt mines). Most of the ecological damage is done by illegal mining in impoverished areas, terrible farming practices in impoverished areas, and “plastic recycling” which mostly ends up in the ocean.
To the nihilist like Chris - you first. You think there are too many people and “we” need to change how we live and become impoverished. You first. I’ve lived in the woods a year. It was fun. Rather than talking about “we” all the time, how about YOU stop being a hypocrite and do yourself whatever it is you think everyone else should do. Take some personal responsibility for your decisions. Go live like you think everyone should or shut the hell up with your uninformed 💩 shit which shows you are completely uneducated about the Earth and ecology.
I so agree with you, Chris--things i used to worry about pale in comparison. it sucks there are people like NCmom who are part of the effort to stop the needed climate progress...hard not to despair!
With so few well-conducted studies of treatment outcomes associated with gender affirmative care, it is good to see one that addresses regrets about transitioning. We need a lot more information about all aspects of gender dysphoria, patients requesting gender treatment, and optimal treatments for subgroups with differing needs.
I sometimes think, however, that the focus on whether patients regret transitioning gets disproportionate attention by both the gender treatment professionals and by critics of the use of invasive medical strategies in treating adolescents claiming trans gendered status. Questions that are neglected pertain to whether gender affirmative care is medically necessary for any adolescent. If so, what conditions are being treated? Advocates of gender affirmative care have said that they are treating suicidality. On other occasions they say that attributing mental illness to patients claiming a trans identity is "hate speech." So are they being treated for a major psychiatric disorder or aren't they? If they have no mental disorder then what is the motivation for taking opposite sex hormones and cutting off body parts. Is this really just cosmetic surgery on demand. It certainly appears to be. If male patients can request the addition of a vagina to their existing male genitals, and the surgeon agrees to construct one, that is certainly cosmetic surgery on demand. I assume that one of the primary interests of cosmetic surgeons is for patients to be happy with how they look post-surgery, so patients' satisfaction or regrets with the surgery is the top priority. If, on the other hand, medical treatments are claimed to be medically necessary, it means that the patient will not be okay without the surgery, and in fact, the gender treatment community has claimed that patients will die if they don't receive the medical interventions. Gender activists have also claimed that refusing to provide them with medical transitioning is equivalent to genocide, meaning that if they don't transition they will be murdered. This claim obviously reflects the presence of a mental disorder or a behavioral problem.
The most common motive for suicide is depression. If the gender clinics' patients are presenting severe depression, are they being treated according to standards of care for that condition? The standards do not include hormones or surgery, although testosterone has antidepressant properties.
Based on the minimal level of knowledge we now have about the mental disorders experienced by trans-identified people, they probably do have a higher suicide rate than normal for matching members of the general population (e.g., middle aged males or adolescent girls). This indicates that psychiatric treatment is medically necessary. It is quite possible that many trans-identified people are unable to use psychotherapy or antidepressants to decrease their suicidality, but it is difficult to imagine that getting cosmetic surgery will be more helpful. A patient who has transitioned but continues to experience severe depression would not necessarily regret medically transitioning. Asking this person if sh/he regrets having undertaken body modification does not get to the heart of the matter, which is, "Was the treatment appropriate for the problem, and did it succeed in resolving it?"
The bottom line is that immature human brains do not have the capacity to comprehend an abstract concept like gender, to understand what sterility and loss of ability to achieve orgasm could mean and they lack the foresight to picture a life of experimental drugs and surgery, side effects and a shortened life span.
These higher brain functions don't even become possible until age 16 at the earliest, and some people never develop them at all. It is impossible for a child to form consent.
The science is coming quite unsettled
Clinical practice in treatment of gender issues has never been based on settled science. When woke activists get involved in any project, they shut down scientific inquiry and methods and replace them with announcements that all the issues are settled and no further input will be sought or accepted. That is why they keep referring to their drugs being FDA approved, and their treatment being according to the standard of care and endorsed by the AMA. In reality all of gender affirmative care is still experimental because we will have to observe the patients for the rest of their lives before we know how the hormones have affected them, and whether any of the treatments lowered their suicide rate or their other psych symptoms. Unfortunately, the AMA and all of our other professional associations, professional journals, and doctoral level professional schools are captured and corrupted, so there is complete official approval for the gender affirmative model of care in the U.S.
I find it interesting that when we look for evidence of harm, the fact that the patients had healthy body parts surgically removed for no reason gets ignored. When surgeons do this by mistake, they are sued. When cancerous breasts and testicles have to be removed to save a person's life, patients are encouraged to take time to weigh all their options, and if they choose no treatment their decision is respected. When a person doesn't feel grief over the loss of parts of themselves, there is something seriously wrong.
That's right, Chris!
The breast cancer histories you reference are generally due to mutations on the BRCA gene. I met a young woman who had lost four sisters and her mother to breast cancer, and all died prior to age 35. She had to go through exactly what you describe to get a bilateral mastectomy. My understanding is that, now that the gene has been discovered, the medical system does respond with aggressive interventions.
Much of biology is being turned into a clown show by motivated reasoning, by a general inability or unwillingness to define the relevant terms -- mostly "sex" and "gender" -- with any degree of coherence, consistency, and principled justification.
Pretty much every last man, woman, and otherkin is attached to their own rather idiosyncratic, and quite unscientific definitions for both, and damned they'll be if they so much as countenance any alternatives or even the possibility that their definitions are more a part of the problem than of the solution.
🙄 Hardly "peculiar or individual" or "unscientific" when the definitions I'm promoting are those published in reputable peer-reviewed biological journals co-authored by a biologist with an FRS to his name, and endorsed by reputable philosophers of biology, all underwritten by solid logical, linguistic, and epistemological principles.
In notable contradistinction to the folk-biology peddled by Hilton, Heying and Wright in the letter section of the UK Times:
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
"Useful", though rather damning.
But Colin at least genuflects to the view that there may be some utility in DEFINING "gender" as more or less synonymous with personalities and personality types:
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1234040036091236352
Something that both you and Matt might want to give some thought to ...
Groups like SEGM (Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine - "gender medicine"? - what the hell is that?) that make statements like "no one is tracking how many people regret transition" imply that some children actually benefit from these mutilating surgeries. Even if that were true, no study in the world could predict prospectively whic ones would. No child's body should be irreversibly altered -- surgically or hormonally -- based on their feelings and self-identifiation. Full stop.
Did we really need a "study" to prove lobotomies were unhelpful and regretful? Of course not. Anyone with common sense knows that an irreversible medical intervention based solely on the feelings of a CHILD is insanity.
Who is behind "The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine" and what is "Gender Medicine"? Medical treatment based on stereotypical feelings? What kind of evidence could ever justify surgical and hormonal interventions on physically healthy children. We don't need any more evidence or studies to conclude that there needs to be an immediate mortorium on the transgender pediatric industry. These clinics should be shut down without delay.
Thanks, Lisa. "Furthermore, adolescents and young adults might not be mature enough to appreciate the long-term consequences of their decisions about the irreversible medical interventions used to achieve “embodiment goals,” and/or their capacity to give informed consent may be limited by comorbid mental health problems or neurodevelopmental challenges." I have a problem with "better informed consent" from young adolescents, who by their very immaturity and abundant evidence of tendencies to make bad decisions are really INCAPABLE of making informed consent, especially in systems that are replete with "coaches" and therapists committed to one-way decision-making. That is why we need a professional and legislative mandate to eschew both pharmacologic and surgical "therapies" before age 18 years.
As a woman who endured many years of tangential association with my cross-sex ideating ex-husband, including 2 years during the marriage, when he fluctuated back and forth, neglected our young sons' emotional needs as well as their physical safety, I can speak to the psychiatric illness not cured by hormones and surgeries. The path to mental and emotional wellness, taking the individual to a place where they have the capacity to care for others and grow away from extreme narcissistic behavior involves at least these 5 actions: 1. Close down all internet and social media activity for several months and then back on only on a restricted schedule. 2. Quality psychotherapy with homework involving focus on those surrounding the patient, to unlearn the narcissism. Deal with the childhood trauma/sexual abuse/physical abuse/bullying experiences with productive analysis and acquisition of relaxation strategies for panic attacks and vagus nerve overstimulation. 3. Focused mind/body work in a form such as Feldenkrais physical therapy or acupressure chiropractic. The Veterans Administration youtube channel has the latter demonstrated. 4. Personal research on desisters and detransitioners who describe the flaws in the "affirmative care" they participated in. The knowledge that most of these practitioners make it up as they go along is important. 5. Engagement in nature through gardening, hiking, birdwatching, &etc. For an idea of mind/body connection through movement for calming the vagus nerve:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt-KmNui9LA&t=9s
Like many I follow some detransitioners on social media. Ones heart breaks just listening.
I don't understand how we've got to this state of 'treatment' but just wish we had a world where genitals don't define s person and trans people can live in their natural bodies. This should surely be the norm - and adult choice to have surgery be a last resort after expert advice?
And haven't we been told that 95% of men who ID as female still have intact male genitalia?
This makes the unnecessary physical 'medical' damage already done to a number of people even more appalling.
It's all a mess. Does extreme trans activism really express what trans people feel? Where are the measured trans opinions - obviously absent from the government debate on the Equality Act last Monday?
Is it possible to isolate the few men who, frankly, are playing with this ideology for sinister and dangerous abusive activities against women?
How can we ever get to accurate mental diagnosis with everyone shouting at each other?
I think the many disparate strands of the debate need carefully teasing apart, and separating , and the detransitioner voices amplified to top volume until everyone knows what is happening - and are as appalled as we all commenting here are.
But pretending most trans people are predators is cruel and not true.
And then there are lots of the public, often younger people, who deny there is a problem at all.
Trans now seems to include transvestism, which probably accounts for many of the 95+% of males who remain intact. Retention of their genitalia is essential to their fetish.
Glad that we detransitioners/desistors are starting to get attention, even if it is coming in at a trickle. Still, it's a move in the right direction.
I hope society embraces the fact that there is no "wrong" or "right" way to be a man/woman. You're only born as one and get to decide how you want to live and express yourself from there. There shouldn't be these rigid expectations for being a man or woman, but unfortunately, these stereotypes are parroted by both conservatives and "liberals." They want to put us in boxes.
I hope that one day, no kid has to through what me and tons of other detransitioners/desistors went through, and are still going through. Glad this article came along during "Pride Month," a month I personally loathe.
I read studies such as this one, and I am reminded of one of my favorite medical books: "The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer" (Mukherjee, 2010). As I read the accounts of some of many of the surgical attempts to get rid of a person's cancer, I couldn't help but ask myself, "what were they thinking?" I suspect that in the future, people will be asking that same question about what is happening today.
I used to be on board with the idea that transition, for those those adults with diagnosed gender dysphoria, would be a beneficial therapeutic process aiming to reduce the affects of the dysphoria. I was never comfortable with the "born in the wrong body" concept since that seems to indicate some kind of mystical knowledge about one's gendered soul existing in a body that's not the right match for them. I was never comfortable with the idea that "a trans woman IS a woman", since that's factually not true. I've now arrived at a point where I'm of the opinion that transition, as a practice, should be stopped period. I think the core issue for me comes down to treating what is ostensibly a mental condition by bringing the physical into alignment with the mental. I cannot think of any other situation where someone with a mental illness is affirmed in their mental illness. So then why gender of all things? My only conclusion is that the philosophies of feminism and queer theory have enabled people to consider sex and gender as a mutable category that one can become a man or become a woman, or that they are not one if they don't fit strict definitions. Of course those that hold that transition is a therapeutic for those people with gender dysphoria have, in many institutions, lost that battle. Colin Wright has shown that many organizations essentially have open up the definition of trans to include all manner of other things. This then makes me oppose it even more, since I cannot support such a drastic set of measures as transition for those that are doing it merely on aesthetic or identity grounds.
In the end transition doesn't seem, to me, to be a beneficial therapeutic. Since it's moved beyond that it's really become an aesthetic masquerading as a therapeutic in order to garner a positive public opinion. Frankly, if you're an adult and want to do this, go ahead, but the rest of society shouldn't applaud it or be forced to go along with it.
The term "neurodiversity" was coined by activists advocating for people with Autism Spectrum Disorders. They were obviously trying to find a term that implied "different but not impaired." The term has become pretty popular among people with ASD and their families.
In recent years, people diagnosed by professionals or by themselves with Narcissistic Personality Disorder are also referring to themselves as "neurodiverse." I don't know why they think they are abnormal neurologically. They do lack capacities like empathy and ethical concern that are much stronger in the normal population, and maybe those are the impairments that they are seeking to relabel. Narcissists are getting called out a lot more in recent years because of the grassroots support movement for people who have been hurt by them. Being "neurodiverse" could help to absolve them of any ethical responsibilities as well as getting their victims to feel sorry for them via DARVO.