Notes on the Journey

Posts tagged ‘ROGD’

“Evil Womxn”: The Silencing Of Biological Reality And The Technology Of Obfuscation

From Forbes:

“Evil Womxn”: The Silencing Of Biological Reality And The Technology Of Obfuscation

Julian Vigo

Social Media 

I cover the anthropological intersections of tech, politics & culture.

Dedicated to Electric Light Orchestra

In the UK, the recent Reform of the Gender Recognition Act consultation ended on Monday which temporarily marked a pause to one of the most heated issues in the country. For the past five years, I have been actively researching and writing about what is at the heart of these “gender wars” where one side of this debate has persistently attempted to interchange biology with socialization while shutting down any debate on this subject. Briefly, the pro-gender side of this discussion has argued that gender (masculine/feminine) is innate or biological, while contending that sex (male/female) is a social construction. This thesis is not only completely false and scientifically unsound, but it is a direct reversal of what we do know: sex is biological and gender is socially constructed. Women are not menstruating because they wear pink, they menstruate because of the sex of their body. Inversely, men do not earn more money than women on average today because currency has an “invisible magnet” to the human penis, but it is because how socialization has historically had men in the seat of economic power, a fact which is slowly leveling off over time and with legislation.

Children born with a penis or a vagina are somatically sexed by the physical fact of their primary sex characteristics, namely: genitalia, gonads, and sex chromosomes. Secondary sex characteristics are what develop later in puberty: the enlargement of breasts for females, the physical contouring of the body, the elongation of the body for males, the storage of more body fat for females, body hair, the shape of the face in both sexes, the structure of the pelvis and other bones, increased muscle mass for males, and so forth. These are somatic markings of the body which can vary, but as a rule females and males are entirely distinct sexually because of these characteristics in addition to the basic fact that females are the only sex which can get pregnant. The transgender narrative insists that children are “assigned a gender at birth” which is in fact incorrect. Children’s external genitalia are observed and from this a sex is recorded. Nothing more. Gender is what pushes the sexed body into a social box because “boys should do this” and “girls that.”

Hold on there—wait, wait!! I know, you are going to say, “But what about intersex?” I’m coming to that now. Intersex does not interrupt the fact of sexual dimorphism which is defined as “the differences in appearance between males and females of the same species, such as in color, shape, size, and structure, that are caused by the inheritance of one or the other sexual pattern in the genetic material.” That there are various intersex conditions no more changes the scientific fact that humans are sexually dimorphic any more than a person born with one leg does not change the fact that humans are bipedal, or that another person born with one eye makes us copepods (one-eyed crustacean species). In fact, many intersex organizations and spokespersons have repeatedly asked to stop having their condition politicized and used to further the transgender political ideology.

Still, the reversal of these terms “sex” and “gender” is not a coincidence—it is the result of a conscious conflation of these terms for the past decade where transgender activists have been using these terms interchangeably. And the effect of this is that now, nobody knows what the other means. Take for instance The New York Times article from Monday states that the Trump administration is planning to “define gender goes beyond the limits of scientific knowledge.” The fallacy of this statement I will address in a moment. For now, let’s note how the Times uses “gender” here while going on to quote Dr. Joshua D. Safer, an endocrinologist at Mount Sinai who discusses sex and gender interchangeably. While these two terms are not at all the same, an endocrinologist and president of the Professional Association of Transgender Health is clearly conflating them, and it would seem purposefully so: “As far as we…understand it in 2018, [gender identity] is hard-wired, it is biological, it is not entirely hormonal.” Indeed, it is easy to use gender and sex interchangeably while offering no proof of any hard wiring whatsoever while also reverting to vague clichés that have no scientific basis. Gender does not “originate between yours ears.”

Like The New York Times piece, there are several articles which have been making the rounds on social media this week which also falsely posit that sex is a spectrum: this one in Nature, a blog post about this first piece from Stanford University, and this piece in Wired. In effect, the Nature piece is not a piece of scientific research and is an op-ed on Disorders of Sexual Determination (DSD) which relies on the anomaly to posit that human sex is not dimorphic even though like my above examples, human sexual dimorphism is not changed by anomalies or disorders. (Here is a great breakdown of the Nature article.) The Wired article jumps the shark by contending that because people have virtual identities online that it is somehow “old school” all the while claiming that gender is scientific because these writers as well demonstrate not knowing the difference between gender and sex. And this op-ed by Anne Fausto-Sterling is a rinse and repeat of the same analysis of the anomalies of sex and positing them as the norm. A parallel to this type of logical fallacy in political economy would be to analyze the wealth of the 1% and declare that poverty is over concluding that this means that everyone is opulently wealthy.

But here is where things get interesting. The New York Times article, from which all these other pieces are spun, mis-interprets the Trump administration memo as the word “gender” when in reality it is “sex.”

The term, gender, has been weaponized to such a degree that most people don’t understand the distinction between the two. Michael McConkey situates the current obfuscation of gender and sex where the “social constructionist agenda is premised on exploiting the broader public’s confusion about the meaning of the word “gender’.” While CNN got the story down correctly and referred to the memo’s wording of “sex,” it completely misunderstood what is at stake with the legal definition of sex being proposed, writing, “The argument goes that to deny someone a job because they’re not masculine or feminine enough constitutes sex-based discrimination.” Someone’s being “too” or “not enough” masculine or feminine is entirely related to gender, not sex.

Yet, women being denied employment because their possible employer deems them to be a child-bearing “risk” is an example of how sex, not gender, is used to oppress a class of humans. And these distinctions are not minor, they are the very basis upon which women—from butch lesbians to effeminate women—around the planet are raped and forcibly impregnated today. Boko Haram didn’t ask how its hundreds of rape victims identified. Yet, transgender ideology labels this inherent biological vulnerability in females, as “cis privilege.”

Still, we do know that identity is psychological and not somatic. To date there is no proof that gender identity for some is anything more than a manifestation of “gender dysphoria, a condition classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5). While for many others, given the recent evidence of ROGD (rapid-onset gender dysphoria) amongst adolescents in recent years, it is widely believed that we are facing a wave of social transitioners who are self-identifying as transgender because of a social contagion. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the UK where the onslaught of pro-trans lobby groups have infiltrated the education system—even advising the NHS despite these groups not being professionally qualified in this field—such that there has been a 4000% increase over the past decade in girls presenting to the country’s only gender clinic for children, the Tavistock in London, self-identifying as transgender. If anything speaks to the fact that gender is social and sex somatic, it is this rising numbers of girls being sterilized by puberty blockers. To clarify—that’s their sex, not gender, being permanently shutdown for any possible reproduction, in addition to the skyrocketing increase of voluntary mastectomies of these girls as young as 13.

So what is the fallout from this attempt to conflate sex with gender? First, you have the recent phenomenon of males wanting to be housed in female prisons, such as the recent case of Karen White, a rapist sentenced to prison yet treated as a woman by the prison service. Aside from the tragedy of the women he sexually assaulted behind bars, the fact that now crime statistics falsely reporting “women as rapists” will sky rocket over time giving inaccurate census information and misdirecting much needed services for women (eg. women are the overwhelming victims of male violence, not the perpetrators thereof).

Relatedly, in areas where there is a recognition of women in certain fields, you now have males who are entering into this framework taking accolades and other forms of recognition from women, such as Pippa/Philip Bunce who received the Financial Times Top 50 Female champions of Women in Business. Bruce is a transvestite who comes to work in a suit or dress depending on his mood. And the recent removal of the word woman from a major Pap smear campaign by Cancer Research UK this past summer, angered women across the UK, replacing “woman” with “anyone with a cervix” as has Planned Parenthood’s removal of “pregnant woman”, now replacing this with “pregnant person” in tandem with media that is capitulating unquestioningly ideology. And this week The Guardian ran a fake news piece saying that “YouGov asked 538 menstruators about their experiences of period pain in the workplace.” Yet when you go to the YouGov website to see this poll, nowhere does the abject word “menstruator” appear. This was the fabulation of Guardian writer Poppy Noor scoring some “woke points.”

Are feminists being alarmist to think that the category of women is not only under erasure but that there is a conscious political ploy to render biological females invisible? Well, when  Brendan O’Neill who is usually quite critical of feminists, come to call out this very erasure of women in the public sphere, we must realize that this is a massive problem and a serious threat to the rights of women. It is time for everyone to pay close attention to what is actually going on.

Proof in point, writer and feminist, Julie Bindel, was invited to speak later this month at “Truth to Power Café” in London’s Roundhouse, an event specifically celebrating free speech. Then earlier this week, Bindel was no-platformed from this event by the event organizer, Jeremy Goldstein, under pressure by two other participants. Bindel is a well-known British feminist and activist who has worked on issues central to the rights of women who has unfairly been branded as “transphobic” since an article she wrote in 2004. After it was made known that Bindel was no-platformed, Index on Censorship pulled out of the event and finally the Roundhouse cancelled the “Truth To Power Café” event issuing a statement about the “safety of [their] young people, audiences, staff and volunteers” and that they feel that they “can no longer guarantee it is a safe space, particularly for our young artists.” One would have thought Isis had been invited to this event and not a human rights campaigner.

Similarly, feminist campaigner, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull of Standing for Women in the UK has produced billboards around the country, only to see most of them taken down after various media companies were lobbied by trans campaigners. What did her billboards contain? The dictionary definition of the word “woman”: adult human female. Keen-Minshull’s first billboard in Liverpool last month was was removed after the media owner, Primesight, apologized saying that they were “misled by the campaign’s message.” (Yeah, because the definition of woman is so cryptic that Tom Hanks will be soon starring in a forthcoming Da Vinci Code sequel on the cryptic meaning of “woman.”) Keen-Minshull then went on to post more billboards—one in Leeds which was up for a day and a half and another in London which survived a couple of hours before both were removed. Also, ten buses which were supposed to carry this definition on a side were also declined on the basis that it would be “likely to offend the general travelling public.” As Keen-Minshull related these events to me, she paused, stating, “How can we be talking about the dictionary definition of woman as controversial?”

We are at an impasse where the elliptical and conscious misrepresentations of sex are being used to shut up women in Canada, the US, the UK and beyond from live talks which are de-platformed, to social media accounts which are shut down, to billboards being removed, and the very linguistic basis for discussing sexual difference being erased. More bizarrely private and public institutions are coming on board thoughtlessly parroting an ideology they have no comprehension of such as the Wellcome Collection in London which two weeks ago was excoriated for using the term “womxn” because they felt it was “important to create a space/venue that includes diverse perspectives.”  But how can spelling the word for adult human female with an be anything but exclusive of, er, women? Just like the revamping of  women’s toilet’s into gender neutral toilets today, it is no coincidence that it is not men’s toilets which are rendered gender neutral, but women’s. Similarly, those making demands that women “include men” in feminism will then shift to their next demand that women “include” men as women. As absurd as it is to fathom that my writing six zeros after my bank account balance will make me a millionaire, somehow large tranches of society have been duped into believing that words cast a magic spell upon reality.  What is crystal clear here is that being “gender neutral” and “inclusive” has become a political mandate shoved at women as if they are supposed to fix the problems of why the default to an effeminate male is a female. Other questions abound:  why should these gender non-conforming males, because of their non-conformity, be sanctioned to the women’s toilets? Why should gender neutrality in any way implicate women as arbiters between men when it is men who need to sit down and discuss amongst themselves why some of them are intolerant of non-masculine males in their toilettes, showers, and other intimate spaces? Because of the unspoken and underlying presumption that women are easier to bully and manipulate, women have been saddled with sorting out men’s “sock drawer.”

Women the world over reject the social status attached to having a female body given that the benefits are highly outweighed by its deficits. Yet, as a class of people who are politically and economically disenfranchised still in 2018, we are facing the evisceration of the only power we have to name our reality and speak out against what is an appalling Orwellian stage in our human history: language. We need to understand that the cure to the weight that gender imposes upon all of us—especially upon females— is not to shantay and sashay our way into fabulousness or to rebrand ourselves as a new word as if words function like three clicks of Dorothy’s ruby slippers. Our task as humans is to to expand upon the experiences we live and to state in clear and loud tones that there is no “wrong body,” just very regressive politics in relation to material reality.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website or some of my other work here.

I am an independent scholar and filmmaker who specializes in anthropology, technology, and political philosophy. My latest book is “Earthquake in Haiti: The Pornography

… Read More

The Cracks in the Edifice of Transgender Totalitarianism

The Cracks in the Edifice of Transgender Totalitarianism



“What we live through, in any age, is the effect on us of mass emotions and of social conditions from which it is almost impossible to detach ourselves. Often the mass emotions are those which seem the noblest, best and most beautiful. And yet, inside a year, five years, a decade, five decades, people will be asking, ‘How could they have believed that?’ because events will have taken place that will have banished the said mass emotions to the dustbin of history.”

–Doris Lessing, Prisons We Choose to Live Inside (1987)

The epidemic of supposed gender dysphoria among children and adolescents—“transgenderism”—has often been described as a cult. The designation is in some ways apt. Though lacking a charismatic leader usually found in such movements, other expert descriptions of cults certainly apply: “designed to destabilize an individual’s sense of self by undermining his or her basic consciousness, reality awareness, beliefs and worldview, [and] emotional control.” Cults also lead the target to believe that “anxiety, uncertainty, and self-doubt can be reduced by adopting the concepts put forth by the group.” The promise is a “new identity” that will solve all problems, even as it separates one from family and previous life.

This is especially true in cases of so-called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, in which previously normal teenagers (usually girls) suddenly announce their desire to transition to the opposite sex. It is readily apparent how a teenager struggling with severe or even common adolescent angst could be lured into such a group.

Perhaps transgenderism is better described as a form of “social contagion.” This term refers to “the spread of ideas, feelings and, some think, neuroses through a community or group by suggestion, gossip, imitation, etc.” The explosion of cases of gender dysphoria, previously an exceedingly rare condition, over the last few years has coincided with a meteoric increase in sympathetic attention to the topic in regular and social media—thus suggesting social contagion. Parents whose children “come out” as transgender when their friends do certainly agree with this explanation.

Individuals who have been ensnared in but escaped from the transgender movement describe it as an ideology, with elements of both the political and the religious. The devotion to the ideology is so deep that, as one psychiatrist describes the mindset, “[a]nyone who hesitates in supporting transition and [sex-reassignment surgery] is a dinosaur committed to an outgrown, inherently discriminatory understanding of trans persons and needs to be defeated in court or in the public arena.”

And yet these descriptions—cult, social contagion, ideology—fail to capture the uniqueness and enormity of what is happening with the transgender movement. Past and current cults have seduced their victims into losing all sense of reality and embracing bizarre and dangerous beliefs; social contagions and mass crazes have affected large groups of seemingly intelligent individuals; ideologies have taken hold that have altered societies and cost lives. But now we are facing something different.

Previous cultish or similar social phenomena have generally been limited to some degree by time, space, or eventual return of the senses. But Western civilization is now gripped by a cultural cyclone that is blowing through such limitations with totalitarian force. Transgenderism has shaken the foundations of all we know to be true. Scientific knowledge is rejected and medical practice co-opted in service of a new “reality”—that “gender” is independent of sex, that males and females of any age, even young children, are entitled to their own transgender self-identification based only on their feelings, and that literally every individual and every segment of society must bow to their chosen identity at risk of losing reputation, livelihood, and even freedom itself.

Remarkably, this revolution is happening without any credible scientific evidence to support it. The concept of changing one’s biological sex is, of course, nonsense, as sex is determined by unalterable chromosomes. An individual can change his hormone levels and undergo surgery to better imitate the opposite sex, but a male on the day of his conception will remain a male on the day of his death. And as discussed below, the idea that there is a real personal trait called “gender” that challenges or invalidates the identity significance of biological sex is equally fallacious. But the absence of genuine evidence is simply ignored, and faux “evidence” is created to validate the mania.

So far. But there are signs of cracks in the grand edifice of transgenderism. As Dr. Malcolm warned in Jurassic Park, “Life finds a way.” So does reality. At some point it will reassert itself, and we will ask how this ever could have happened.

The Science of Sex and Gender Identity

Before exploring the revolution, it is necessary to outline briefly the science in the area of sex and gender identity. According to guidelines of the National Institutes of Health (which itself is currently funding ethically dubious studies related to the treatment of gender-dysphoric patients), grant applicants for health studies must consider sex as a biological variable “defined by characteristics encoded in DNA, such as reproductive organs and other physiological and functional characteristics.” Human sex “is a binary, biologically determined, and immutable trait from conception forward.”

Although certain rare congenital disorders of sexual development (“intersex” disorders) can result in ambiguity about biological sex, there is no “spectrum” of sex along which human beings can be found. Biological sex is binary. According to University of California–Santa Barbara evolutionary biologist Dr. Colin Wright, “The claim that classifying people’s sex upon anatomy and genetics ‘has no basis in science’ has itself no basis in reality, as any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences.”

By contrast, “gender identity” is a psychological phenomenon, not an immutable characteristic, and not found anywhere in the body, brain, or DNA. There is no medical test that can detect it. Because twin studies show the infrequency of both genetically identical twins’ suffering gender dysphoria, the condition clearly is not genetic. Nor is there any evidence to support the common claim that a patient has a “girl’s brain in a boy’s body,” or vice versa, as repeated in media sensations such as I Am Jazz. To the contrary, every cell of a male’s brain has a Y chromosome and every cell of a female’s brain has two X chromosomes, which is true regardless of whether the individual “feels like” the opposite sex. Any “evidence” of an innate gender identity is utterly fictitious; to the contrary, there is much unrefuted evidence that various psychological and environmental factors are determinative.

Not only can the feeling change, research shows that it does so in a great majority of cases (at least for child patients). For example, children with gender dysphoria who are allowed to experience natural puberty will come to accept their sex by adulthood in 61 to 98 percent of cases. By contrast, children who are subjected to transitioning treatments such as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones (discussed below) almost always go on to live as transgender adults. Data on the persistence rate of adult patients is unreliable, primarily because so many patients are lost to follow up. But many of those patients are increasingly seeking medical help to reverse the procedures.

There is no evidence that so-called gender-affirming treatment (GAT) has any positive effect on the long-term psychological well-being of individuals who suffer gender dysphoria. Such people do, in fact, have high rates of suicide before treatment (with the rate of suicide attempts nine times the rate of the general population). But a study from Sweden, a highly “affirming” country for citizens who consider themselves transgender, shows that undergoing GAT does not reduce the suicide rate for these patients. In fact, their rate of completed suicide was found to be 19 times the rate for the general population.

The History of “Gender Identity”

In light of the dearth of credible scientific support, where did the concepts of gender identity and transgenderism come from? Origins rest in a group of “sexologists” of the 1950s, prominent among them German-born endocrinologist Dr. Harry Benjamin and PhD psychologist Dr. John Money.

Until that time, the psychoanalytic professions considered the desire to be a member of the opposite sex as a (rare) disorder to be treated with psychotherapy. Benjamin, however, theorized that this desire indicated “a unique illness distinct from transvestism and homosexuality . . . and not amenable to psychotherapy.” He called this condition “transsexualism” and urged its treatment with “sex reassignment” surgery (a longstanding interest of his, dating back to his early-career fascination with efforts to change surgically the sex of guinea pigs). Perhaps related to his own unsatisfactory personal experience with psychotherapy, “Benjamin forever after deplored psychoanalysis as unscientific.” He thus ignored (according to his own case-history write-ups) blatant signs of psychopathology in the patients whom he treated medically for confusion about their sex.

Like Benjamin, Dr. Money of Johns Hopkins University designated transsexualism a condition to be treated medically rather than psychologically. Money changed the terminology used, co-opting the term “gender” from the realm of grammar (i.e., the classification of nouns by which they are designated masculine, feminine, or neuter, in certain languages), to now mean “the social performance indicative of an internal sexed identity.” In other words, Money decreed that an individual could have a “gender” that differed from his or her biological sex. “Transsexual” thus became “transgender.”

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) describes the linguistic innovation as follows:

From a purely scientific standpoint, human beings possess a biologically determined sex and innate sex differences. No sexologist could actually change a person’s genes through hormones and surgery. Sex change is objectively impossible. [Sexologists’] solution was to hijack the word gender and infuse it with a new meaning that applied to persons.

There is not and never has been any scientific basis for Money’s dichotomy between gender and sex, interpreted as the idea that a person can be born into the “wrong” body. (As pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Quentin Van Meter puts it, “There is zero point zero zero” science behind the concept.) Yet Money’s social–political construct now dominates medicine, psychiatry, academia, and the culture at large.

Money’s enthusiasm for administering irreversible medical treatments to transgender patients led Johns Hopkins to establish one of the earliest programs for that purpose, enlisting psychiatrists, psychologists, endocrinologists, and surgeons. Under their ministrations, patients underwent hormone treatments and surgery to amputate healthy organs and create faux new ones. Despite ethical objections from psychoanalysts and many surgeons (“it is one thing to remove diseased tissue and quite another to amputate healthy organs because emotionally disturbed patients request it”), Johns Hopkins forged ahead with the experimental practice.

Not until 1979 was Johns Hopkins Chief of Psychiatry Paul McHugh―a physician who recognizes the psychological basis of gender dysphoria and who characterizes the possibility of sex change as “starkly, nakedly false”―able to shut down the program. But McHugh is no longer the chief of psychiatry, and the zeitgeist barrels ahead; so “in solidarity with the LGBT community” (note the political language), the program has recently been revived.

Other surgeons and hospitals lacked the scruples of Dr. McHugh. By the early 1970s, so-called sex-reassignment surgery (SRS) was becoming routine, leading the director of the gender-identity clinic at UCLA to declare that “the critical question is no longer whether sex reassignment for adults should be performed, but rather for whom?” Medical institutions have scrambled to add to the proliferation of gender clinics in response to, as admitted by a Dallas endocrinologist, “patient demand” rather than medical necessity.

With respect to what used to be classified as “gender identity disorder” (GID), medical associations have bent to the prevailing political winds. In 2013 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) changed the DSM-5 to replace GID with “gender dysphoria,” a term that now focuses not on the psychological basis for a patient’s rejection of his sex but rather on the distress produced by that rejection. If there is no distress, reasons the APA, there is no problem—it is perfectly normal, and certainly not a “disorder,” for a person to refuse to acknowledge the significance of his or her body. The “stigma” supposedly disappears.

(The APA has so far resisted the demands of some transgender activists to “de-pathologize” the condition completely. The absence of a recognized diagnosis means the absence of insurance coverage. So in the professional literature, transgenderism occupies an uneasy limbo between a psychiatric condition and a normal state of human identity. Someone has to pay for these expensive “re-assignment” procedures.)

The American Psychological Association’s guidelines acknowledge that not all clinicians believe in affirming the beliefs of gender-confused patients (at least when those patients are children), but they largely adopt the agenda of the transgender radicals. The organization states flatly that “gender is a nonbinary construct that allows for a range of gender identities, and that a person’s gender identity may not align with sex assigned at birth.” Having adopted this manifestly unscientific foundation, they go on to build their house of cards around a political rather than medical scaffold.

The political reclassification of gender dysphoria has gone global, with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) May 2019 decision to remove the condition from the list of mental disorders and refer to it as “gender incongruence.” WHO explained this move as necessary to remove discrimination against dysphoric individuals and declared that their right to GAT should be guaranteed.

Transgender Totalitarianism

Transgender orthodoxy (or ideology or theology) has thus seized Western society with absolutely no basis in fact. It is difficult to identify any comparable cultural phenomenon at any point in history. Nations have been engulfed by political movements such as National Socialism, based on fabricated science about racial identities, but those movements were different in kind from the transgender revolution. Even totalitarian political systems are built less on broad citizen acceptance than on the naked power of the armed State. By contrast, transgenderism is defeating reality without firing a shot.

At various points in history, the field of medicine has embraced evidence-free practices, such as lobotomies in the early twentieth century, as has the field of psychotherapy (phrenology, for example). But in none of these cases did the professions as a whole demand absolute acceptance of, and perhaps participation in, the groundless doctrines. Instead, the practices were confined to a narrower group of experimenters who had limited and only temporary success against the reality of science and common sense.

This is not the case with transgenderism. Supposedly sophisticated and highly trained medical professionals across the spectrum now not only ignore the absence of evidence, they deny even facts that have been obvious to every sane human being since creation.

Actual physicians now declare under oath that there is no physical basis for determining whether a human being is male or female. Dr. Deanna Adkins, a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of a new Duke-affiliated gender clinic, testified in a North Carolina court, “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity. . . . It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.” This would come as a surprise to the millions of doctors and billions of other normal people who have been classifying individuals that way since the beginning of time.

This politically based insistence that black is white has enshrined treatments that are extraordinarily damaging to patient health, both physical and mental. Pediatricians refer dysphoric children to complicit endocrinologists, who administer hormones with harmful and often irreversible consequences, who then refer the children to complicit surgeons, who wield the scalpel to remove healthy organs and create pathetic, non-functioning replicas of others. Psychiatrists or psychologists may be involved, but often only to rubber-stamp the patient’s supposed need for the radical treatments. Gender clinics spring up like mushrooms after a shower of acid rain.

Professional medical societies cower before these activists and create guidelines based not on science but on politics. Dissenting physicians are bullied into silence, leading the outside world to believe the lie that the medical profession as a whole supports the “affirmation” of gender identity as incongruent with biological sex. Medical ethicists muse that physicians’ participation in these schemes should be required as a condition of licensure.

Claiming a place among actual medical societies, and presenting itself as the gold standard in transgender treatment, is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). WPATH purports to be the voice of medical experts on this issue but operates more as a political-advocacy organization―no professional degree of any kind is required for membership. Despite the “all comers” approach to membership, WPATH’s guidelines for treatment are considered gospel in some parts of the medical profession.

A noteworthy aspect of WPATH’s 2011 revision of its Standards of Care was its encouragement of a new paradigm for obtaining informed consent from patients. As described by Dr. Stephen Levine, a psychiatrist at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine:

[The new model] asserted that patients know best what they need to be happy, generally meaning that patient autonomy is the singular ethical consideration for informed consent. . . . This includes children and adolescents. The mental health professionals’ roles in recognition and treatment of the highly prevalent psychiatric co-morbidities and decisions about readiness were de-emphasized, particularly by the pronouncement that there is nothing pathological about any state of gender expression.

According to WPATH, then, doctors are to sublimate their ethical concerns about treatment of dysphoric patients to the current desires of those patients.

WPATH has spawned USPATH, which openly proclaimed the political mission of its 2017 conference: to “stand as a strong statement of support for continuing the rapid developments in trans health in America, and for the community of health providers, researchers, and advocates who are advancing that care.” At that conference, organizers bowed to threats of violence from transgender radicals and cancelled the appearance of Dr. Kenneth Zucker, a psychologist who takes the apparently loathsome position that patients will generally be happier if they can be reconciled with their biological sex. The only concern among these supposedly objective professionals about how to silence Zucker’s lone skeptical voice was how to do it without getting sued.

Transgender activists in the medical profession go a step further: They even support legislative prohibitions on what they call “conversion therapy.” This means psychiatrists and other psychotherapists are banned from even exploring with a patient the underlying psychological basis for the dysphoria. To paraphrase Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Paul McHugh, referring a gender-dysphoric patient for “affirming” therapy is similar to referring an anorexic patient for liposuction. But doctors in the new gender industry collude with the political gender radicals to ban the very psychiatric treatment that could spare a patient a lifetime of warring with his own body.

Just as history offers no parallel for the moral and professional rot in the medical field, it contains nothing comparable in the wider culture:

• The transgender revolution has captured all categories of government, with legislative, executive, and judicial branches rushing to impose policies preferred by the activists.

• It has captured the media, which dutifully present the radical ideology as the new normal and paint opponents with a hostile tinge. Social-media giants such as Twitter routinely censor any content deemed insensitive to dysphoric people, even a simple statement of truth such as “men aren’t women.”

• It has taken over public and some private schools, from preschool through higher education. If a student claims he’s transgender, he is, and all students and personnel must treat him as a member of his newly chosen sex.

• It has taken over American business, with requirements (sometimes self-imposed, and frequently in response to well-funded bullying) for public pledges of allegiance to the new orthodoxy. Corporations are now urged not only to support the concept but to apply pressure in the public square against dissenters.

• It has corrupted religion, especially mainline Protestantism, by replacing Scriptural teachings with the dogma of narcissistic choice and entitlement.

• It has corrupted athletics, with biological males now allowed to compete against smaller, slower, less muscular women and girls to the inevitable detriment of the female athletes.

• It has corrupted the law, with statutes that were enacted without any thought of gender identity now being interpreted to elevate the “rights” of the dysphoric over those of other citizens. Even the federal statute that was enacted to protect girls’ access to meaningful participation in sports (Title IX) has now been inverted to protect the male invaders of girls’ teams.

• It has corrupted research, with the federal government now funding unethical and unprofessional research projects that are designed to support a particular outcome rather than arrive at scientific truth. Further, it has ginned up outrage at any research that reaches conclusions contrary to transgender dogma.

• It has corrupted language, with demands for false and fabricated pronouns to refer to transgender individuals, and with enforced redefinition of basic terms such as “man,” “woman,” “father,” and “mother.” What even radicals referred to ten years ago as “physical sex” or “biological sex” is now routinely deemed “sex assigned at birth,” as though the attending obstetrician recorded whichever sex first came to mind.

• It has trampled religious freedom, including the rights of couples who wish to adopt or foster children and the organizations that help them. Unless these individuals and organizations agree to speak and act in accordance with transgender mandates—to deny their most fundamental beliefs—they will be forced out of these critical childcare and family-formation programs.

Perhaps most seriously, it has bulldozed the ancient, fundamental rights of parents to protect and guide their children. The Obama administration issued guidance recommending that school officials not notify parents whose child is experiencing gender confusion; and though that guidance is no longer in effect, keeping parents in the dark remains the rule in some states. Parents who do know of the problem but reject the notion that their child is trapped in the wrong body are subjected to emotional blackmail directed by the “experts,” who, of course, profit from this new industry. Warned that without hormones and surgery their child will commit suicide, parents are told bluntly that their choice is between a “live daughter and a dead son,” or vice versa. If they still refuse to consent to what they know will harm their child, the government may strip them of custody. When the medical and governmental establishment excludes the natural protector of a child—the person who knows and loves him more than anyone else on earth—from decisions that can literally ruin the child’s life, civilization itself is undermined.

Trans Kids

During the decades after the widely publicized “sex change” of Christine (né George William) Jorgensen in 1952, medical experimentation in this realm was largely confined to adult patients. There was no serious attempt to medicalize children confused about their sex (to the extent there were such children—statistics from 2011 estimated that only 0.2 to 0.3 percent of the adult population suffered gender dysphoria, so presumably the percentage of children was even smaller). But a particularly disturbing feature of the current transgender mania is the insistence that even very young children can “know” they are of the opposite sex, with the resulting conclusion that they are entitled to medical assistance in permanently transforming their bodies to match their feelings.

The modern treatment regimen for gender-dysphoric children originated with Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric endocrinologist who founded the nation’s first gender clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital. The process includes potentially four steps: “social transition,” in which the confused child is referred to by a new name and new pronouns and is allowed to dress and otherwise act as a member of the opposite sex; suppression of natural puberty by administering puberty-blockers called GnRH agonists, which supposedly will give the child more time to decide on further transitioning steps before his or her body can develop naturally into sexual maturity; “hormonal transition,” the administration of powerful physiology-manipulating, cross-sex hormones; and then “surgical transition.”

The undisputed physical effects of this GAT are shocking. According to massive research compiled by the American College of Pediatricians, administering cross-sex hormones and puberty-blockers carries enormous risks: heart disease, blood clots, strokes, arrested bone growth, osteoporosis, cancer, crippling joint pain, depression, and suicidal ideation. Interference with normal puberty and sexual maturation, which results from both puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones, will also cause sterility and permanent sexual dysfunction. These are merely the known effects; because this type of treatment is so new, long-term consequences are unknown. GnRH agonists are not FDA-approved to inhibit normal puberty and are used off-label for this purpose.

The surgery (SRS) is gruesome. Female patients may be given hysterectomies, vaginectomies, and double mastectomies—all of the removed organs, of course, perfectly healthy—and some  surgeons are stripping skin from girls’ forearms to create non-functioning replicas of penises. Sex organs (penis, testicles, scrotum) of a male patient are removed, and a faux vagina is created that must be kept openwith a dilator to prevent the wound from collapsing on itself and healing.

In other words, these “affirming” doctors battle against normal systems of the human body, which retaliates by fighting off the intrusions. Patients will be engaged in this war for the rest of their lives.

An objective observer would assume that doctors who participate in GAT are pushing or overstepping the boundaries of acceptable medical practice, risking discipline from the governing authorities. In the current political environment, not so. In 2017 the Endocrine Society issued guidelines that allow treatment of dysphoric children and adolescents with puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones despite the known and as yet unknown health risks.

Though the guidelines are replete with admonitions to “monitor” various aspects of the patient’s health during GAT and to involve mental-health professionals in largely unspecified ways, the only thing they advise an endocrinologist not to do is administer puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones to pre-pubertal children. Otherwise, all bets are off. Even age limits for receiving irreversible cross-sex hormones are flexible, since there may be “compelling reasons” to do this to teenagers younger than sixteen. As long as there is a “multi-disciplinary team” in place to “monitor” the increase in heart attacks and strokes and bone deterioration and malignancies and crippling depression, all should be well.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the Endocrine Society’s subordination of sound medical practice to political demands is its treatment of the permanent sterility that will result if the GAT is fully implemented. The guidelines take a casual approach: “Clinicians should inform pubertal children, adolescents, and adults seeking gender-confirming treatment of their options for fertility preservation.” Nothing about serious counseling to explain the enormity of this decision. No recognition that children and adolescents cannot be expected to grasp it anyway. No, just tell the kids—for whom having children of their own is at this point beyond their imaginations—about “options for fertility preservation.”

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has not issued ethical guidelines about participating in GAT, but the worldview of this professional organization is evident from its description of these surgical procedures as “gender confirmation” surgery. The Society’s website advertises facial “feminization” or “masculinization” surgery as well as “transfeminization” and “transmasculine” “top” and “bottom” surgery.

As suggested by the Endocrine Society’s guidelines, until recently puberty-blockers were not used before the patient reached age 11, cross-sex hormones before age 16, and surgery before late adolescence or adulthood. But the industry is lowering the ages of administration regardless of what any guidelines recommend. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a California pediatrician gaining notoriety for pushing the envelope in this area, altered the protocol for a federal study she is performing to allow administration of cross-sex hormones to children as young as age 8. Double mastectomies are being performed on girls as young as age 13. Stanford University pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Tandy Aye is urging legislative changes to allow adolescent minors to undergo sterilizing surgery, even though the idea that a minor can fully understand the ramifications of sterility is, to say the least, inconsistent with what is known about adolescent brain development. Some surgeons are already performing mutilating surgery on minor boys, arguing that “age is arbitrary” and that teens are better off having the grotesque and painful procedures while they are still at home where their parents can supervise post-operative care. These surgeons claim to perform these permanent, life-altering procedures only on “mature” adolescents. Maturity, of course, is determined by the ideologically driven doctor, and apparently with little or no recognition of the obvious emotional problems of a boy who wants to be castrated.

Presumably medical guidelines will be modified to accommodate the experiments these pioneering practitioners want to perform. As it is, elite transgender doctors such as Olson-Kennedy simply flout the guidelines at will and do whatever they want. One could conclude that the guidelines that do exist are there for appearances only—to help direct inexperienced physicians how to handle these patients in politically correct ways, and to present a veneer of sober reflection to ward off intervention by some professional or governmental body that might actually shut down some of the horrors.

The insistence that children’s feelings be honored, even unto inflicting irreversible treatments and surgeries, is alarming and unprecedented. For good reason children are not allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, vote, drive a car, sign a contract, or access certain entertainment. Nor are they allowed to obtain other medical treatments without parental consent. But powerful adults are arguing that the feelings of children who are too young to buy cough syrup should override all contrary considerations.

Dissent is not tolerated. Anyone—whether parent, physician, teacher, classmate, or other—who questions their decisions is labeled a transphobe, a bigot, and must be silenced.

Why Now?

Why is this happening? Why has a fog of lies descended on entire societies such that even children are being sacrificed to this voracious leviathan?

Volumes will be written about the underpinnings of the mass transgender hysteria. A few considerations:

• The transgender mania naturally results from the relentless march of the sexual revolution. The denial of human nature began with the birth-control pill’s decoupling of sex from reproduction. That led to the separation of sex from marriage, which dissolved restraints on non-marital sexual activity and non-marital childbearing. A family of mother and father was no longer considered necessary for creating children, which meant there was nothing special about the maleness and femaleness of romantic partners. Enter Obergefell, which by discovering homosexual marriage as a constitutional right obliterated even physical, biological distinctions between the sexes. And if there is no meaningful distinction, a human being should not be confined to one sex but rather should be inherently capable of moving between the sexes or stopping somewhere in the middle.

• The mania results from the elevation of the narcissistic autonomous Self, which is entitled to whatever choice it deems desirable at the moment—even a choice that violates physical reality.

• The mania results from the developing concept that patient desire should be the primary if not sole determinant of medical treatment. The WPATH guidelines make clear that the demands of the patient trump the ethical concerns of the physician. Carrying this concept to its logical conclusion, one dysphoric man argued in a chilling essay in The New York Timesthat a doctor should be obligated to provide the mutilating surgery the patient wants to better resemble a woman—even if the patient knows and admits that the surgery will cause great physical harm and will fail to relieve, and perhaps will even increase, his emotional distress. Under such a standard, the physician ceases to be a healer and becomes merely a tool for fulfilling the fevered desires of a troubled patient. And unlike a healer, a tool has no right of conscience, no legitimate basis for refusing to participate in the requested procedures.

• The mania results from the cult of experts. Parents whose every instinct screams that their children need psychotherapy, not GAT, yield to professionals who claim to know better. If the expert says the appropriate treatment is X, then every non-expert is expected to submit without question—even if the folly of the recommended course is a flashing red light.

• The mania results from hubris. One GAT physician describes the heady adulation from desperate patients and families: “Every single encounter is so rewarding. They tell us, ‘You are my hero. You are saving my kid’s life. We don’t know what we would do without you.’” According to researchers who interviewed surgeons involved in the early phases of SRS, the surgery appealed to some physicians’ desire “to prove to themselves that there was nothing they were surgically incapable of performing.” Change a man into a woman or a woman into a man, and ye shall be as gods.

• The mania ultimately results from the decline of religious faith. None of the cultural evolution described above could have happened in a society that still recognized the reality of God, and of biblical and natural law. And to paraphrase Chesterton, the person who does not believe in God believes not in nothing, but rather in anything.

Of course, one should never dismiss the lure of one of the oldest temptations known to humanity: greed. Some professionals in this expanding area of practice no doubt desire to ease the suffering of confused patients. But the health care professionals who have uncritically accepted the quackery of the unholy Money–Benjamin alliance, as well as the pharmaceutical industry that will churn out drugs and hormones which hapless patients must take for a lifetime, will reap the benefits that are projected to hit almost $1 billion by 2024. This kind of reward can go a long way toward easing the twinges of conscience.

Cracks in the Edifice

This bleak picture suggests that humanity has been infected by a monstrous virus that so far has resisted all remedies. But scientific and moral truths can be buried for only so long, and there are signs of their revival.

One encouraging development is the increasing number of physicians publicly proclaiming the nakedness of the transgender emperor. Indeed, that analogy first came from Dr. Paul McHugh writing here in Public Discourse, who has been outspoken against the fallacies and the harm of the transgender revolution.

Other physicians have joined his chorus. From the American College of Pediatricians (established in reaction to the increasingly politicized American Academy of Pediatricians) to individual physicians who speak the truth at no small risk to their careers—see two events hosted by Ryan Anderson at The Heritage Foundation here and here—resistance is growing.

An example is a letter written by five physicians (Drs. Michael Laidlaw, Quentin Van Meter, Paul Hruz, Andre Van Mol, and William Malone) and published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. These physicians challenged the emerging orthodoxy among providers that gender-dsyphoric young patients should be administered GAT, presenting undisputed evidence of our inability to scientifically diagnose the condition, the manifest medical risks of puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones, and the scientific research supporting alternative treatments. The fact that the Journal was even willing to publish the letter suggests that medical sanity has retreated but not surrendered.

Professionals who are challenging the transgender narrative span the political spectrum. A group called Youth Trans Critical Professionals defines itself as “psychologists, social workers, doctors, medical ethicists, and academics” who “tend to be left-leaning, open-minded, and pro-gay rights.” However, they declare, “we are concerned about the current trend to quickly diagnose and affirm young people as transgender, often setting them down a path toward medical transition.”

Some mental-health professionals are also challenging the legal restrictions on their ability to provide the best care for dysphoric patients. An Orthodox Jewish psychotherapist relies on the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion in his lawsuit to overturn New York’s ban on “conversion therapy.” In Tampa, Florida, a federal magistrate ruled in favor of a similar suit filed by two psychotherapists. Such legal challenges are an encouraging sign that some professionals are willing to do the right thing for patients regardless of the potential harm to their careers.

The credibility of these physicians and other mental-health professionals is bolstered by the witness of doctors who do not necessarily reject the transgender concept outright, but who are troubled by the prevailing ethic that evidence should be replaced by feelings. Physicians such as Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine psychiatrist Dr. Stephen Levine think medical treatment may be helpful in some situations but resist the more radical claims of the gender industry and its allied activists.

Another promising development is the advent of networking groups for parents who have seen the gender madness harm their own children and families. These parents are unwilling to have “experts” tell them things about their children they know are untrue, and rush the kids into medical interventions they know will ruin their children’s lives. Groups such as Transgender Trend4thWaveNow,  and the Kelsey Coalition  (named for the FDA pharmacologist who refused to authorize thalidomide for the market) have organized to help parents resist and defeat the abuse that is being perpetrated on their children. You can read the stories of five such parents here at Public Discourse.

Many of these parents are reacting to the most cult-like aspect of the mania—so-called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, which has gripped their adolescent girls. The parents tell sadly similar stories: The daughter, perhaps struggling with depression or another mental problem, is exposed to transgender ideology through either other individuals or the Internet; she spends hours watching Internet videos about transgenderism and the magical power of GAT to sweep away anxiety; she suddenly decides, perhaps along with friends, that she is transgender; she insists on being evaluated by a “gender specialist,” who agrees with her self-diagnosis and quickly starts her on either puberty-blockers or cross-sex hormones; the specialist ignores information from the parents about other aspects of their daughter’s experience that may be contributing to her delusion; and both the daughter and the specialist warn the parents that she will kill herself if they stand in her way.

But the new networking organizations have enabled parents to understand the scam in its full malevolence and to realize they have allies in their resistance. Like the professionals mentioned above, many of them are not politically conservative. What they all have in common is a recognition of truth, a rejection of lies even when offered by experts, and a fierce determination to protect their kids.

Some government entities have begun to question the skyrocketing numbers of children denying their natal sex. In Great Britain, the Minister for Women and Equalities recently ordered an investigation into why the number of children requesting gender transition increased 4,000 percent in eight years. Even laypeople—even bureaucrats—understand that such a startling surge in dysphoria cannot be occurring naturally. The willingness to examine the issue is another welcome sign that the mania may in some ways be releasing its grip.

In the United States, many government entities have embraced the transgender movement without serious study. But there is at least some sign of a correction there as well. For example, the Trump administration has taken several steps to restore the rule of law in this arena.

One was the February 2017 rescission of the Obama administration’s school “guidance” that expanded the interpretation of “sex” in Title IX to include gender identity. A related development was the Justice Department’s October 2017 announcement that Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, would not be interpreted to apply to actions based on gender identity. Since Congress clearly intended the 1972 (Title IX) and 1964 (Title VII) statutes to cover only biological sex, these steps demonstrated a welcome return to the norms of self-governance.

In May 2019,  the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) moved toward a scientific definition of  “sex” in federally funded health programs. While the Obama administration had decreed that statutorily prohibited discrimination on the basis of “sex” should encompass discrimination on the basis of “gender identity,” HHS recently issued a proposed rule reversing that expansive and unlawful interpretation. “Sex,” the proposed rule clarifies, will be given its scientific meaning, referring only to demonstrable biological sex rather than to amorphous, changeable feelings of gender identity.

Finally, HHS strengthened enforcement of pre-existing conscience protections for individuals involved in healthcare provision or research. This means these professionals cannot be forced to violate their consciences by participating in GAT or related research.

Although governmental policy could change as soon as the administration does (for example, the so-called Equality Act would cement extraordinarily damaging and totalitarian policy with respect to gender identity), this pushback holds out hope for a future restoration of reality-based policy-making.

Another example of resistance comes from the world of sports. While boys and men who “identify” as female are handily defeating girls and women, notable personalities are taking exception. Tennis legend Martina Navratilova, herself a lesbian and vocal supporter of “gay rights,” called male participation in women’s sports what it is: cheating. The recently organized group Fair Play For Women publicly advocates for the rights of women and girls to meaningful participation in athletics—which means restricting their sports to biologically female athletes.  Every photograph of a bigger and stronger male defeating a girl, and maybe eliminating her opportunity for advancement and scholarships, develops the public understanding that transgenderism incorporates a significant degree of narcissism and unfair entitlement.

Feminists are beginning to recognize the threat of transgenderism not only to fair competition in athletics but to women as a whole (see herehere, and here). If a male is allowed to join the female sex simply by declaring he feels like a woman, is there really such a thing as women? Is there any basis for protecting women in private spaces (such as restrooms and locker rooms), colleges, dormitories, even prisons? Is there any way to ensure that programs designed to help women, such as dedicated loans or set-asides in government contracting, are restricted to actual women?

Transgender radicals are so concerned about the resistance from feminists, especially lesbians, that they have created their own slur to describe the leftist dissidents: Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, or TERFS. The name-calling, however, has not deterred these feminists, who recognize that enshrining legal rights based on gender identity rather than sex “would eliminate women and girls as a coherent legal category, worthy of civil rights protection.”

Perhaps the most powerful voice leading to a restoration of sanity will come from “detransitioners” —individuals who underwent medical transition, realized they had made a tragic mistake, and are now speaking out to warn other victims of the gender industry.

Walt Heyer endured years of gender dysphoria that he now understands was influenced by mistreatment from his grandmother and childhood sexual abuse. As an adult he underwent hormone therapy and surgery and lived for eight years as a woman before de-transitioning. A regular contributor to Public Discourse, Heyer is now in his late 70s and devotes his life to helping other victims recover their authentic lives as he did. His website,, has been accessed by hundreds of thousands of users from 180 countries, and he reports enormously increased traffic as the transgender virus has proliferated.

Other adult detransitioners are similarly outspoken about the folly of “sex change” (see Hacsi Horvath’s scholarly work on transgenderism and Rene Jax’s harrowing account of his experience in Don’t Get on the Plane.) But with some victims, the realization of the truth comes much earlier. More and more adolescents and young adults are speaking out about the mistake they made in transitioning and warning other young people not to be sucked into the cult (see herehere, and here, for example). Although reliable information on the level of regret about GAT is unavailable because so many patients are lost to follow-up (perhaps some to suicide), the more detransitioners speak out, the more will feel comfortable doing so.

The lucky ones are those who got out before surgery or other irreversible treatment. As for the others, perhaps the legal system will eventually provide recompense via malpractice suits. Just as legal liabilitydissuaded psychotherapists from pushing the “recovered memory” theory with troubled patients, the prospect of substantial payout to GAT victims may cause practitioners to think twice.

Is This Time Different?

Every time the forces of the sexual revolution claim another victory—dismantling the norms of sexual morality, or achieving acceptance of homosexual behavior, or imposing same-sex marriage, or coercing third parties to celebrate the latest milestone—individuals of more traditional values think that this time, the radicals have gone too far. Surely this will be the development that swings the pendulum back to basic decency and common sense. But instead, the revolutionaries have pocketed the victory and advanced relentlessly on to the next goal.

But perhaps the transgender movement is different. The damage inflicted by the previous campaigns was real and profound, but it was not immediately obvious. It has taken decades, for example, for the consequences of “anything goes” sexual behavior to become apparent—family disintegration, fatherless and broken children, increased substance abuse and other cultural pathologies—and even now ideologues resist the conclusion that these trends resulted from the cultural shifts they advocated.

By contrast, the damage of transgender affirmation is immediate and apparent. The medical harm alone is undeniable, and the mental anguish festers and grows. The affected children and adolescents, especially, become the walking wounded whose shattered lives testify to the abuse inflicted by “experts” who profit from their misery. The voices of detransitioners penetrate the politically correct chatter to warn that what’s happening is destroying lives, here and now.

Hacsi Horvath, an adjunct Lecturer in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California at San Francisco, has written at length on the bizarre acceptance of the fantastical concept of gender identity:

In my opinion—which is based upon extensive research, as well as  my own 13-year-long experience in pretending to be a woman—GD  is only superficially concerned with one’s sex. It’s more a disturbance of identity . . . . There is absolutely no good reason why gender dysphoria has essentially been excluded from 15 years of research in new “transdiagnostic” approaches to treating people with depression and anxiety disorders. . . . GD is not sui generis, unique, super-special! It is well within the spectrum of conditions efficaciously treated with transdiagnostic approaches. It is as though the “transition” promoters of mainstream transgenderism had some kind of racket going on.

Fellow survivor Walt Heyer pulls no punches in describing the enablers of the transgender mania. Especially with respect to affirming the false beliefs of minors, he says:

This is child abuse. . . . We are manufacturing transgender kids. We are manufacturing their depression, their anxiety, and it’s turned into a huge industry that people are profiting from after kids’ lives are completely torn apart.

He concludes: “There is absolutely nothing good about affirming somebody in a cross-gender identity because it destroys their life. . . . It’s insanity.”

The transgender castle that radicals have constructed by sheer force of will is built on shifting sand without supports of any kind. The wave that will sweep it away is gaining strength. May the time come soon when we will all say, with observers of past hysterias, “How could we have believed that?”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: