A confusingly written Harvard study and press release led to false reports that gynecomastia surgeries for boys are much more common than ‘gender-affirming’ surgeries for gender dysphoric children.
I have seen activists claim that gender affirming care is accepted for "cis" kids, but not for trans kids, implying that it's inconsistent, hypocritical, and just transphobic. But calling gynecomastia removal "gender affirming care" is an abuse of language and a classic definist fallacy. "Gender affirming care" was recently coined for treatment of supposed misalignment of biological sex and gender identity, not removal of abnormal tissue.
Treatment of gynecomastia and of trans kids are fundamentally different. The former is the treatment of a medical condition, a physiological abnormality, albeit largely cosmetic, much like gender-neutral abnormalities, such as skin tags or benign tumors. GAC in trans kids is for a ***psychological*** condition in kids with normal physiology. And only the latter comes with a host of serious side affects and life long medicalization.
I agree that the expression is propagandistic and odious. But I also want to say that gynecomastia removal doesn't qualify as gender affirming care on the most sensible reading of "gender affirming care." Calling it "gender affirming care" is fallacious.
All of the studies using terms like "cisgender" and "transgender" present deceptive, disingenuous language. Recently a new term for the psychiatric illness characterized by cross-sex ideation has surfaced, originated by Dr. Elliot Kaminetsky, a child psychologist. He accurately names this malady as a sub-category in obsessive-compulsive disorder: Identity-Based Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. We know from detransitioners that hormones and surgeries do not heal a mental illness. Rather, working on cognitive/emotional strategies to put obsessive thoughts out and replace them with functional thought streams is key to recovery. For my observations as the ex-wife of a man who did not discover happiness "as a trans woman" link:
So many of the arguments gender jihadists use are just sophistry; I can't tell you how many times I have heard, "If sex is about gametes what about post-menopausal women?"
I wish these folks would just state their beliefs and then defend *those* beliefs, instead of engaging in false analogies and conversational derailments. If they think that hormones, blockers and surgery should be available at the request of the patient, regardless of age, then just say so. Just defend *that* position, so we all know what we're talking about. Instead, they throw out a bunch of irrelevancies-- Clownfish! Intersex people!--until you just get tired of it all and quit the field. No doubt, just as they intend.
“rooted in bias and stigma against TGD identities and seeks to address a perceived problem that does not actually exist.” sounds very immature. the hyperbolic second clause after the "and" is attributing a motive which could be left out. It would make a stronger argument to allow data to speak for itself. The perceived threat of "denying the existence" of something seems truly ironic. Why all of this preoccupation with what others think? I feel sad for these social media kids. Also, what's happened to English instruction?
I was sidetracked by TGD - WTF - when writing for a lay audience I insist my teams avoid acronyms. I’m with you on this one. Saturated with jargon, and I’m still fascinated by the concept of so many male kids having gynecomastia. It’s not unusual as testosterone ramps up and gets aromatized into Estrogen, and it’s easy to find anecdotal reports of boys developing breast tissue upon exposure to estrogen mimics. I’ve been reading them for years - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lavender-tea-tree-oils-may-cause-breast-growth-boys - it has a very serious effect on final height because estrogens cause epiphyseal (growth) plate closure in children.
Referring to boys as cisgender is an affront, and anyone can effortlessly see treatment for an abnormal condition is not the same as causing an abnormal condition through iatrogenic damage. There is no such thing as gender affirmation. There is pubertal affirmation through avoidance of anything which damages a natural cycle. That’s all that’s needed.
Was very bemused at this writing. Totally with you.
I read this article several times and I’m still unsure what the thesis is. Bad statistical analysis? Not really. Misleading something? Misleading what? The use of the word “respectively” to partition a sequential list of numbers? Really? If you partition data one way you get 97% and another you get 67%? What are you partitioning? There are streams of bare numbers referred to from paragraphs 3, 4 prior without context.
My main surprise was that boys are having gynecomastia surgeries at a high rate - why? Are they taking illegal test and not using SERMS? Have they been exposed to xenoesteogens (anything from lavender oil to pthalates) and developing breast tissue? Is it fatty tissue from obesity or something else.
Its not hard to make a clear thesis statement, provide a summary of examples of the numbers (tabular form) with a highlight on the data that support the thesis, and then deconstruct the data - original sources, corrected formulas, problems.
This is an unfortunate mishmash. I can’t even suggest reading it to anyone
I have seen activists claim that gender affirming care is accepted for "cis" kids, but not for trans kids, implying that it's inconsistent, hypocritical, and just transphobic. But calling gynecomastia removal "gender affirming care" is an abuse of language and a classic definist fallacy. "Gender affirming care" was recently coined for treatment of supposed misalignment of biological sex and gender identity, not removal of abnormal tissue.
Treatment of gynecomastia and of trans kids are fundamentally different. The former is the treatment of a medical condition, a physiological abnormality, albeit largely cosmetic, much like gender-neutral abnormalities, such as skin tags or benign tumors. GAC in trans kids is for a ***psychological*** condition in kids with normal physiology. And only the latter comes with a host of serious side affects and life long medicalization.
"Gender affirming care" should always be written in quotes
I agree that the expression is propagandistic and odious. But I also want to say that gynecomastia removal doesn't qualify as gender affirming care on the most sensible reading of "gender affirming care." Calling it "gender affirming care" is fallacious.
The claim is ridiculous on its face, then again so is the whole premise behind "transgender".
All of the studies using terms like "cisgender" and "transgender" present deceptive, disingenuous language. Recently a new term for the psychiatric illness characterized by cross-sex ideation has surfaced, originated by Dr. Elliot Kaminetsky, a child psychologist. He accurately names this malady as a sub-category in obsessive-compulsive disorder: Identity-Based Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. We know from detransitioners that hormones and surgeries do not heal a mental illness. Rather, working on cognitive/emotional strategies to put obsessive thoughts out and replace them with functional thought streams is key to recovery. For my observations as the ex-wife of a man who did not discover happiness "as a trans woman" link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgsq3wxXsDQ&t=14s
I agree with the opinion that gender dysphoria is obsessive in nature. I am glad to hear that another professional is talking about this.
I had this exact argument thrown at me, accusing me of being hypocritical, when I disclosed that I had a gynecomastia removal performed.
The response is simple: Men who seek a breast reduction are not doing so to “affirm their gender.”
Those men were always men, even with the extra breast tissue. There was never any confusion about their sex — much less their “gender.”
The gynecomastia removal is a cosmetic procedure to enhance aesthetics, plain and simple.
It takes a special kind of stupidity and/or dishonesty not to understand that distinction.
So many of the arguments gender jihadists use are just sophistry; I can't tell you how many times I have heard, "If sex is about gametes what about post-menopausal women?"
I wish these folks would just state their beliefs and then defend *those* beliefs, instead of engaging in false analogies and conversational derailments. If they think that hormones, blockers and surgery should be available at the request of the patient, regardless of age, then just say so. Just defend *that* position, so we all know what we're talking about. Instead, they throw out a bunch of irrelevancies-- Clownfish! Intersex people!--until you just get tired of it all and quit the field. No doubt, just as they intend.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"!
I finally got around to finishing the article, well done! Thank you for continuing to be a voice of sanity!
Laura Bolyard
Why the umlaut on cïs? Spin̈al Tap?
“rooted in bias and stigma against TGD identities and seeks to address a perceived problem that does not actually exist.” sounds very immature. the hyperbolic second clause after the "and" is attributing a motive which could be left out. It would make a stronger argument to allow data to speak for itself. The perceived threat of "denying the existence" of something seems truly ironic. Why all of this preoccupation with what others think? I feel sad for these social media kids. Also, what's happened to English instruction?
I was sidetracked by TGD - WTF - when writing for a lay audience I insist my teams avoid acronyms. I’m with you on this one. Saturated with jargon, and I’m still fascinated by the concept of so many male kids having gynecomastia. It’s not unusual as testosterone ramps up and gets aromatized into Estrogen, and it’s easy to find anecdotal reports of boys developing breast tissue upon exposure to estrogen mimics. I’ve been reading them for years - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lavender-tea-tree-oils-may-cause-breast-growth-boys - it has a very serious effect on final height because estrogens cause epiphyseal (growth) plate closure in children.
Referring to boys as cisgender is an affront, and anyone can effortlessly see treatment for an abnormal condition is not the same as causing an abnormal condition through iatrogenic damage. There is no such thing as gender affirmation. There is pubertal affirmation through avoidance of anything which damages a natural cycle. That’s all that’s needed.
Was very bemused at this writing. Totally with you.
I read this article several times and I’m still unsure what the thesis is. Bad statistical analysis? Not really. Misleading something? Misleading what? The use of the word “respectively” to partition a sequential list of numbers? Really? If you partition data one way you get 97% and another you get 67%? What are you partitioning? There are streams of bare numbers referred to from paragraphs 3, 4 prior without context.
My main surprise was that boys are having gynecomastia surgeries at a high rate - why? Are they taking illegal test and not using SERMS? Have they been exposed to xenoesteogens (anything from lavender oil to pthalates) and developing breast tissue? Is it fatty tissue from obesity or something else.
Its not hard to make a clear thesis statement, provide a summary of examples of the numbers (tabular form) with a highlight on the data that support the thesis, and then deconstruct the data - original sources, corrected formulas, problems.
This is an unfortunate mishmash. I can’t even suggest reading it to anyone
Gynecomastia is not fatty tissue, but rather glandular tissue. It can’t be lost with diet and exercise, hence the need for surgical removal.
Boys who are overweight during puberty often develop gynecomastia, as well as men who use steroids.
I’m aware - but at these levels in young men? Seems very surprising.
Interesting I wonder if that has changed over time
Yes, it’s actually quite common. I believe I read once that something like 30% of men have a mild to severe case of gynecomastia.
I had it myself due to being overweight during puberty. I had it removed in my late 20s.
I think that twitter is a terrible place to hash this nonsense out. At least for quite a lot of twitterati.
I didn’t grasp it was from twitter I saw some career citations and gave it a read, thanks