Breast Growth For Genetic Males

Full Version: Transgender Bias Today
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I'm probably opening up a can of worms by starting this thread, but our rightful place in the world is affected by the attitudes of the public toward transgender people.

I hope you will read (if you can stomach it) this article by Dr. Paul McHugh, former director at John Hopkins Hospital, that appeared in the Wall Street Journal today.

Transgender Surgery Isn't the Solution

McHugh believes that transgenderism is a life style choice, not biological, and should be treated as a mental disorder like anorexia or bulimia nervosa.

I was shocked that such an anti-transgender piece would even be accepted in a respected, high circulation national paper. This guy is so out of touch it boggles the mind.

EDIT: Here's the article in full:

Transgender Surgery Isn't the Solution
A drastic physical change doesn't address underlying psycho-social troubles.

By Paul McHugh
June 12, 2014 7:19 p.m. ET

The government and media alliance advancing the transgender cause has gone into overdrive in recent weeks. On May 30, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services review board ruled that Medicare can pay for the "reassignment" surgery sought by the transgendered—those who say that they don't identify with their biological sex. Earlier last month Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that he was "open" to lifting a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Time magazine, seeing the trend, ran a cover story for its June 9 issue called "The Transgender Tipping Point: America's next civil rights frontier."

Yet policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.

The transgendered suffer a disorder of "assumption" like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature—namely one's maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.

With body dysmorphic disorder, an often socially crippling condition, the individual is consumed by the assumption "I'm ugly." These disorders occur in subjects who have come to believe that some of their psycho-social conflicts or problems will be resolved if they can change the way that they appear to others. Such ideas work like ruling passions in their subjects' minds and tend to be accompanied by a solipsistic argument.

For the transgendered, this argument holds that one's feeling of "gender" is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one's mind, cannot be questioned by others. The individual often seeks not just society's tolerance of this "personal truth" but affirmation of it. Here rests the support for "transgender equality," the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.

With this argument, advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states—including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts—to pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor. That government can intrude into parents' rights to seek help in guiding their children indicates how powerful these advocates have become.

How to respond? Psychiatrists obviously must challenge the solipsistic concept that what is in the mind cannot be questioned. Disorders of consciousness, after all, represent psychiatry's domain; declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field. Many will recall how, in the 1990s, an accusation of parental sex abuse of children was deemed unquestionable by the solipsists of the "recovered memory" craze.

You won't hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.

We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into "sex-reassignment surgery"—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as "satisfied" by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

There are subgroups of the transgendered, and for none does "reassignment" seem apt. One group includes male prisoners like Pvt. Bradley Manning, the convicted national-security leaker who now wishes to be called Chelsea. Facing long sentences and the rigors of a men's prison, they have an obvious motive for wanting to change their sex and hence their prison. Given that they committed their crimes as males, they should be punished as such; after serving their time, they will be free to reconsider their gender.

Another subgroup consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from "everything is normal" sex education, amplified by Internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. "Diversity" counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.

Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston's Children's Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.

At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. "Sex change" is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.

Dr. McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, is the author of "Try to Remember: Psychiatry's Clash Over Meaning, Memory, and Mind" (Dana Press, 2008).

Clara Smile

Hey, sis...this requires a subscription...can you cut a paste it?
(13-06-2014, 03:21 PM)Samantha Rogers Wrote: [ -> ]Hey, sis...this requires a subscription...can you cut a paste it?

Oops, sorry. See edited post above. Clara
Thanks for posting clara, i have read similar things (maybe even from the same person) before, i dont realy think they can call it a mental illness, there is good evidence that the brain of a trans person is different, although the test on that part of the brain can only be done on someone when dead though, i disagree with a number of points but i wont go into them all, they dont know how someone is actually feeling, they only interpret what they are told, i know what feelings i have had during my life, my experimentation with oestrogen as a teen, my more recent subconscious actions and feelings prior to starting pm, i know since starting pm i am for the first time in over a decade happy and comfortable, i am wary of srs and it would not be something i would want to rush into as its a heck of a big step, yes people have regretted it and i wouldnt want to be one of those people, i think there are enough sensible knowledgeable people about working with trans people for the above article to not be taken too seriously Smile
I read this man's biography. He is an unfeeling asshole. He successfully fought to shut down the gender identity unit at Johns Hopkins permanently. He opposes embryonic stem cell research on religious grounds. And there is the real problem. He is one of those sub moronic pukes who thinks his religious values give him the right to resrict the freedoms of others. Moreover, his comments reflect an utter unfeeling disdain for TG as some sub human group needing to be fixed. His is the attitude that threw the mentally ill into Bedlam in olden days.

Having now vented my feelings about this monster as a person, let us look at his argument.
The nub or central theme of his argument is that post SRS TG are still possessed of "issues" and liable to get depressed and/or commit suicide, and that it is therefore stupid to operate on them in the first place.
Hogwash.
Blithering, right wing, homophobic cat puke.

That argument is akin to finding a person caught by huge boulders in a rock slide, and amutating a leg in order to stop the bleeding but then seeing that they still have rocks on their chest making breathing difficult, saying we should have left the leg and let them bleed to death.
And at the same time blaming them for getting buried by rocks to begin with.
The reason post SRS people still have difficulties is that society still oppresses them, ridicules them, discriminates against them and often even threatens them physically. Is it any wonder they remain depressed?
The problem is that society itself needs to be changed. And this is the exact kind of powerful and connected reactionary asshole fighting the very change that needs to occur.
What an utter dick. This is the face of evil.

Here is a fairly succinct bio:
Www.tsroadmap.com/info/paul-mchugh.html
Sorry....end of rant.
If this is gonna be the social conservatives new rally cry they will lose just as badly as they did on the whole anti gay deal....

They are ALL full of shit but its hard to miss the hypocrisy here....

Those WSJ people try to come off as all "free market" pro individual rights and freedom, then they run this crap??? And thats just another load of blatant in your face heaping pile of BS on top of a MOUNTAIN of it thats so big it would take years just to point it all out...

As a reformed former "conservative" and now hardcore libertarian all I can say to this jerk is shut the fuck up and mind your own business...

Even if this was a "choice" what does it matter to anyone??? I own my body and Im free to do as I please with it as long as Im not harming anyone else...

I personally am happy they removed the whole "disorder" deal...

Actually if they want to use people like me as an issue I welcome it because they will lose and they will lose epicallyRolleyes
(13-06-2014, 03:02 PM)ClaraKay Wrote: [ -> ]I'm probably opening up a can of worms by starting this thread, but our rightful place in the world is affected by the attitudes of the public toward transgender people.

Oh. My. God. Other people have different opinions than you. How dare they! They don't agree with me, we must murder them!

I don't see one thing from you or anyone else thus far in this thread that factually refutes what he's got to say. I am an empirical and scientific thinker. I do not operate on wishes and feelings. If you want to convince people like me, you'd best try to come up with some facts that will bear out repeated experiment. Until then, you're just a whiner. Sorry.


(13-06-2014, 03:02 PM)ClaraKay Wrote: [ -> ]McHugh believes that transgenderism is a life style choice, not biological, and should be treated as a mental disorder like anorexia or bulimia nervosa.

I'm not too sure some of us don't have some other mental disorders. I can see where he'd get the idea.


(13-06-2014, 03:02 PM)ClaraKay Wrote: [ -> ]Yet policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending

I'm not terribly fond of the way that he's phrased this, but it speaks to what I've already pointed out regarding the Medicare decision. That is, you do not have an innate right to taxpayer funds for anything, let alone something that is not life-threatening. SRS on the public dime is NOT a right. It just isn't.

Maybe some people should try reading the Constitution. I know it's in the English of yore and has multi-syllabic words, but get a literate person to explain it to you, slowly, if necessary.


(13-06-2014, 03:02 PM)ClaraKay Wrote: [ -> ]For the transgendered, this argument holds that one's feeling of "gender" is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one's mind, cannot be questioned by others.

Everything is subject to question, for the scientific mind. We don't learn, grow, or attain new horizons without questioning.

Yet you, ClaraKay, and others on this forum, are determined to stifle questioning. You obviously wish to stifle discussion, because any time someone disagrees with your political opinions, you either shout them down, or whine about the "tone" of the discussion. It's a classic Alinsky tactic: when you can't prove your case, misdirect.

At no period in human history has mankind known everything there is to know, and we sure as hell aren't there now. Yet you would have us, as well as the rest of the public, believe that your opinions of what transgender is are divine truth.


(13-06-2014, 03:02 PM)ClaraKay Wrote: [ -> ]Here rests the support for "transgender equality," the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.

This is what he's on about. Not whether you have a right to exist. Not what you think or feel as a dysphoric person.

If anything, I have more right to this than you -- I live as androgynous/female every day of the week in full public view. I'm not in a closet. My face and name show up in the news occasionally. So I should be more upset about this man's words, right?

All of his essay is pointing to one thing -- that you don't deserve taxpayer funded plastic surgery for a non-life-threatening condition. Either you didn't actually read his whole essay and reacted viscerally, or you don't know how to find the point in an essay.

Again, the author is not hating on you. He's talking about governmental fiscal common fucking sense. The rest of the essay is the case he's making for that point. You may not agree with all of his case, but the point is entirely, 100% valid.


(13-06-2014, 03:02 PM)ClaraKay Wrote: [ -> ]Psychiatrists obviously must challenge the solipsistic concept that what is in the mind cannot be questioned. Disorders of consciousness, after all, represent psychiatry's domain; declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field.


He is absolutely right to use the specter of solipsism here. It's all "me me me, my feelings," isn't it?

And while I'm no great fan of the profession of psychiatry (think I've made that clear!) he is absolutely correct here. If we cannot question at all what is in a person's mind, how may we question the likes of James Holmes, the theater shooter who mowed down 12 people? How do we know he wasn't born that way, the poor dear... or that God didn't tell him to do it?

Again, the notion that anything is unquestionable, is ludicrous. Stupid. Childish. Anti-intellectual. Anti-scientific. Etc.


(13-06-2014, 03:02 PM)ClaraKay Wrote: [ -> ]Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as "satisfied" by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

This is what I've been saying, and yes, it does DIRECTLY destroy the argument for public funding. Here's how, step by step:

Step 1: We must taxpayer-fund SRS because trans-folk can be suicidal.

Step 2: SRS does not reduce the suicide rate.

Do I really have to explain this further? Take you by the hand, look you in the eye, and show how these things contradict each other? I hope not. That's about as open-shut, black-white, thus-and-therefore as any argument gets. Subject always to question of course, but I'm pretty sure it bears scrutiny well.


(13-06-2014, 03:02 PM)ClaraKay Wrote: [ -> ]They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems.

And it never does. FWIW, I am active in the LGBT community in a large city. I know and associate with post-op TSs. Some are friends.

In exactly ZERO cases has SRS solved their issues, and they know it. They rushed in thinking it would fix everything wrong with their lives, and it doesn't. If anything, it creates more problems.


(13-06-2014, 03:02 PM)ClaraKay Wrote: [ -> ]"Sex change" is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women.

Can anyone disagree with this assertion on scientific merit?

-----------------------


I'm sure I'm going to earn the hysterical wrath of some members of this forum. Know what? I don't care.

I have never been a herd animal. I am not a sheeple. I have never felt the need to join a majority opinion just because it's a majority opinion. As Mencken said, "often, being in the majority just means that all the idiots are on the same side." Or maybe it was Twain; I don't recall.

I'm just really growing tired of the bullshit.

Yes, there's a wide spectrum of people who exist. No, we don't all fit in neat categories. Yes, we all have the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and we certainly all have a right to exist and live our lives as we see fit, so long as we don't interfere with anyone else's rights.

But to demand that we all get money from the public trough because we are a bit different? No! Can anyone do math? If everyone is receiving from the government, and not paying in, how will it work?

This country is already saddled with debt in numbers that most people cannot even comprehend. There is already more money going out than coming in. As years go on, and technology eliminates job after job after job, there are fewer and fewer taxpayers to support more and more leeches.

And you want to be a leech? Breed more leeches? How long do you expect to have a country to live in? It's true enough that the American empire is already doomed, but maybe we could slow down the rate of decay instead of trying to hasten it, don't you think?

Miss C,

I suspect you know what I'm going to say even before you read any further.

You do have a way of appealing to my Libertarian mentality. I do disagree with this doctor's opinion and the notion that transgenderism is inherently a mental illness. My concern lies with those who get the government to adopt their view or do their bidding, as oppose to others simply disagreeing with me. With that said, I agree with you about the problems about the national debt and excessive government. I think the government should get out of healthcare along with a multitude of other aspects of our lives. Does that mean I think transgender individuals seeking SRS should be thrown under the bus? No. I think those who need help or assistance should get it, but through other means like NGOs. In my opinion, individuals and private organizations have a very strong incentive to be prudent and avoid making mistakes when possible. If they don't they may fail and go out of business. The government doesn't have this problem and thereby lacks an incentive to be productive and make sound decisions.
Oh boy! I'm glad I DIDN'T read the article judging from the response most of you had. I saw the headline outside of this forum earlier and decided, judging by the title, it was something I didn't want to read. I'll just agree with the rest of you that he's an idiot! It doesn't need to be said here but I'll say it anyway. None of us brought GD on ourselves, acquired it like a virus, would continue with it if we had the choice or are "ill" because of it. The idiot in question, obviously needs to do a colonoscopy to find his brain and then engage it to see that GD is just as legitimate as being born a close minded buffoon which apparently, there there seems to be no cure for either.

EDIT:
Just to clarify, my comments are directed to the author of the WSJ article, not Miss C.
(14-06-2014, 03:26 PM)kari leigh Wrote: [ -> ]Oh boy! I'm glad I DIDN'T read the article judging from the response most of you had. I saw the headline outside of this forum earlier and decided, judging by the title, it was something I didn't want to read. I'll just agree with the rest of you that he's an idiot!

There's about the very definition of going off half-cocked. You're going to critique someone, call him wrong, call him an idiot -- without even reading what he wrote. Don't you think that makes you look a bit... prejudiced? And you call the author closed-minded? When you won't open your own mind to discussion? My mind boggles how one does this with a straight face.

Perhaps, like the White Queen, members of this forum are equipped to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast daily.

I mean, while I don't agree with everything published in the Wall Street Journal, I'm pretty sure they don't publish idiots. They know their readership -- which is not the average dullard on the street.


(14-06-2014, 03:26 PM)kari leigh Wrote: [ -> ]None of us brought GD on ourselves, acquired it like a virus, would continue with it if we had the choice or are "ill" because of it.

So you too join the club of putting words in the man's mouth. There is nothing in that article that says anything like you just said it did.

Nothing.

So not only did you not read the article you think is proof of the author's idiocy... you've added stuff to it that was never there, and that stuff looks a bit like straw men.


Wow.

Do you realize how idiotic it looks to do that?

Don't you think, if you want to appear to be open-minded, that you'd give it a read and at least a brief consideration, and then go to refuting it? You know, with facts?

I do not see one actual argument in this thread. I see a bunch of bratty children pointing fingers and shouting, "he's a poopy head! Poopy head! Poopy head!"


I sure miss the days when only nerds could figure out how to get on the internet. Dodgy



Pages: 1 2 3