Good morning ,
As I expected, there was mixed reaction to my last RSADaily, with some
readers pleased with what I wrote about the issue of 'gender medicine':
- "Well said, you have my support"
- "As Stella O’Malley says in the linked video you provided, a problem arises when the doctors are led by the activists. When there is a spate of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) among adolescent girls, as illustrated by the graphs you supply, it is up to expert
clinical psychologists and psychiatrists – unswayed by WPATH activists, or by dismissive religious conservatives – to distinguish between hardwired trans children and adolescents and those young people who are confused by psychoses, same sex attraction, past sexual assault and a limited coping repertoire, autism spectrum disorder, social isolation, and all the other possible ROGD triggers."
- "With you all the way on
transgenderism"
Others, however, took strong exception. One couple wrote at length about having a child who is trans and who has benefited from medical and surgical treatment. Among other things, they wrote:
- "I did not wish to engage in a debate around the existence of transgender people. I can see that you
are firm in your beliefs. I respect that and do not for one second think that anything I have to say would change them. I do not appreciate being labelled a victim by you. You have neither the scientific nor personal experience to claim expert status in this ‘debate’ you insist on having. It is not about you or for you. Yet, you continue to create trauma for the people who are affected. Let me also be clear, being trans is not traumatic. It is the
behaviour of people like you who make it so. You are the director of the rationalist society. I understand you think a discourse on this topic is necessary. Let me affirm to you that it is not. You are placing your personal view above the people that have expertise and experience in this area. In turn, you have alienated people who have joined your group. You cannot deny the existence of a group of people whose identity has been documented from ancient times in
cultures worldwide just because you don’t agree with it." [emphasis added]
- "The Binary sex argument on sex is irrelevant to the conversation of gender dysphoria. The rationalist and yourself is doing everything to label sex based on sperm and ovary and the primary sex characteristic. And if that’s all you are going to use to identify sex of course its binary. What is the point of science
if it doesn’t help to understand behaviour. Who cares if you have argued to identify sex as being defined by a strict finite definition of the sex organs you are born with. [It's not the 'sex organs', it's the capacity to produce eggs or sperm] This definition has led to the inequality of women over a thousand years. The definition of male and female used in primary sex characteristics has been used to create division and harm for thousands of years. If only the definition of sex stayed at the
organs you were born with but it doesn’t. There is an expectation of behaviour that it carries that causes dysphoria and often inequality. Having sex defined as a combination of various traits [that is gender, not sex] is at least an attempt to explain and potentially assist the world to not treat people as binary which has been harmful and discriminatory for generations." [emphasis and comments
added in square brackets]
They have then noted that I am on the executive of the Australian Republic Movement and have written to the ARM. I view this as an attempt to 'cancel' me.
- "I am a concerned paying member of the ARM with the actions of one of your executive
directors Dr Meredith Doig. Dr Doig is often posting [I have posted twice] about the complex debate around trans gender health, often depicting [I have said this once] as quoted below “pseudo science”. Believing all sex is binary and that women and men accept their designated primary sex characteristics at birth and questions the ethics of Doctors in this field who treat teenagers and adults with trans gender
hormones and surgery. Whilst this is a complex topic,I don’t feel the ARM needs a voice on their executive committee telling all kids and kids of children with gender dysphoria that you are victims of unethical doctors and symptomatic of a societal fad." [emphasis and comments added in square brackets]
From my replies to
this couple:
- I also have a good friend whose daughter has identified as transgender and I sympathise with the emotional and social difficulties this presents - not only for the child but for her parents. But I guess where we differ is how we see the cause of these obvious difficulties.
- I see the cause as being socially induced (by, in my view,
misguided activists) and the 'victims' as being the affected children and their parents.
- My understanding is that some of the children who take puberty blockers and then go on to have surgery are satisfied with the outcomes and go on to live the lives they want. But many don't and I blame the medical establishment for failing to do their jobs properly - that is, failing to treat underlying emotional and social issues but
instead, assuming hormonal and surgical treatments will 'fix' the problem. This capture of the medical, and particularly the psychiatric, professions has happened before.
- We have yet to see the long-term outcomes for the alarming numbers of children who have (in my view) been socially induced to identify as transgender. I suspect there will be many legal cases in the future, as those children grow into adulthood. I suspect the
medical insurance industry will withdraw cover for medicos who fail to obtain proper informed consent. I suspect there will be some medicos who are struck off for unethical conduct.
- I did say this but I reiterate it here: I recognise there are a very small number of children who are true trans-sexuals and for whom hormonal and surgical treatments to transform their look and feel to that of the opposite sex will alleviate
their body dysphoria. There have always been such people and as a society, we should accept them whatever way they present and do everything we can to alleviate their distress.
- But what is different now is the sheer number of children presenting with body dysphoria and wanting hormonal and surgical interventions. Statistically speaking, the probability that such a huge increase in the numbers is caused by a natural
phenomenon is vanishingly small.
- I agree with you that the politicising of this issue is distressing - but to me, the origin of the politicising is the transgender activists, not people like me (and many others) who are committed to exposing what I see as a dangerous social fraud.
- I am not DENYING the existence of trans people. I am advocating that society ACCEPT
people who feel a different combination of male and female characteristics.
- I am not claiming expertise in the field of gender medicine, but I am disputing the SCIENCE of it
- I recognise there are many individuals and groups who maintain that there is a range of sexes; from what I have read, this is simply not true. There are 2 sexes - but there IS a range of genders. Gender is a
social construct. Sex is biological.
- I do believe continued discussion about this is necessary, despite some people thinking it is a closed topic.
Below, Skeptic president Michael Shermer lists previous widespread, socially
induced beliefs that have eventually been discredited - "the Subliminal Messages scare, the Satanic Panic, the Recovered Memory mania, the Self-Esteem movement, the Multiple Personality craze, the Left-Brain/Right-Brain fad, the Mozart Effect mania, the Vaccine-Autism furor, the Super-predators fear, the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program that increased teen drug use, the Scared Straight program that made adolescents more likely to offend, the Critical Incident Stress
Debriefing (CISD) programmed that worsened anxiety and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and many more that have plagued psychology and psychiatry." And he includes ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria) as the latest.
PS: in the one prior post I made about gender
medicine, I made it clear that the RSA does not have a formal policy on this matter, largely because it is so controversial. So these are my own views. To me, it's not a matter of discrimination/equal opportunity/human rights but a matter of science denialism. That, to me, is a rationalist issue.
