Marcus Evans - psychiatry sits on a knife edge

depression/anxiety, poor academic achievement, poor family relationships, isolation, frustration or anger, grief, lonely, guilty, suicidal ideation, decreased gender dysphoria, diagnosis of ADHD, diagnosis of autism (not the complete list) so that covers a vast potential catchment

Wow! Is there a teenager in the UK who wouldn't be classified as trans under that list?

Astonishing that a group of transgender advocates should have been able to change the classification of gender dysphoria to one of sexual health rather than Mental Disorders. Marcus is absolutely clear that he regards gender dysphoria as a psychological issue and surely any scientific support for wrong brain/ wrong body was dispelled some time ago? Here's hoping that people like Marcus can put pressure on to change the classification.

It's all beginning to link up for me. Everything about Mermaids is regressive. Homophobia, pink and blue gender stereotyping, gender conformity and insistence that gender dysphoria is a physical (wrong brain/ wrong body) and not psychological. I hope the penny is beginning to drop with others.

On the one side, Marcus sees gender dysphoria as being a psychological issue, like anorexia. On the other, Mermaids et al actually believe a man’s brain can be trapped in a female body. So gender dysphoria is not a psychological problem

and I found myself wondering whether the stigma around mental health issues and latent or repressed homophobia are both involved here. I think critics of GIDS have been quite clear that some parents of children have been homophobic and we have some evidence from Susie Green that this played a part in her own situation. Psychological issues also carry a huge stigma and you can see how the old female brain trapped in a male body nonsense is being perpetuated to avoid having to accept that body dysphoria is a mental health issue.

I can't see Marcus's video to see if he mentions it but the WHO removed reclassified 'gender identity disorder' as 'gender incongruence' (better known as gender dysphoria) which is now featured under the Sexual Health Chapter rather than the Mental Disorders Chapter. Quote: an evolving scientific understanding of gender and work by transgender advocates have contributed to the reclassification.
So that would explain why everyone is funnelled towards GIDS rather than the usual MH pathway - although it would be very interesting to see the details of the argument for the reclassification and what their scientific understanding of gender is - my untrained eye can't see any difference between GD and all the other health issues mentioned above.

The difficulty is compounded by the 'catch all' nature of the symptoms as presented by Mermaids - they said that Gender Dysphoria may present as: depression/anxiety, poor academic achievement, poor family relationships, isolation, frustration or anger, grief, lonely, guilty, suicidal ideation, decreased gender dysphoria, diagnosis of ADHD, diagnosis of autism (not the complete list) so that covers a vast potential catchment and how can the GPs distinguish between GD and many other childhood MH issues?

[quote NeurotrashWarrior]More on that erroneous science....

www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/health/2020/august/prestigious-psychiatry-journal-retracts-findings-admits-sex-reassignment-surgery-didnt-fix-mental-health[/quote]
Thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3988886-Sex-Reassignment-Treatment-Does-Not-Improve-Mental-Health-Journal-Issues-Correction

On the one side, Marcus sees gender dysphoria as being a psychological issue, like anorexia. On the other, Mermaids et al actually believe a man’s brain can be trapped in a female body. So gender dysphoria is not a psychological problem.

In order to believe that people can be 'genuinely transgender', such that they don't have a psychological condition, you first have to believe that a brain can be born into a wrongly sexed body.

If you don't believe that brains can be born into a wrongly sexed body, the only rational explanation for those who believe themselves to be 'genuinely transgender' is that they simply believe that their brains have been born in a wrongly sexed body, and since this is impossible, they must have a psychological condition.

Thus is really interesting.

What it brings out for me is that this isn’t an argument about the best way to treat a psychological condition. It’s an argument about reality.

On the one side, Marcus sees gender dysphoria as being a psychological issue, like anorexia. On the other, Mermaids et al actually believe a man’s brain can be trapped in a female body. So gender dysphoria is not a psychological problem.

So using the anorexia analogy, Mermsids actually believe the anorexic is too fat & must lose weight. Marcus thinks she has a psychological problem with which she needs to be helped. They’re talking a totally different language. This is why it’s so important to focus on undermining the pink & blue brains theory, through neuroscience & feminist analysis of the hideous sexism implicit in it. We need to make it clear gender dysphoria is a psychological problem, just as anorexia is.

It’s astonishing to me that in the face of all the evidence from experts from the clinics themselves, as well as the stories of families and young people affected by this issue, we have actual adults scrabbling around to find counter “science” to justify an irreversible, medical pathway for children.

Why are they doing this? Why are doctors trying to defend a medical pathway for children with healthy bodies, which will leave them sterile, when there is no evidence that this is of benefit to them and plenty of evidence that harm is being done?

This reminds me of the old studies on the effects of smoking back in the 70s/80s.

I remember my grandfather (a retired gp) religiously filling in a survey every year informing them that he smoked 30 cigarettes a day (he did, originally untipped, then Marlboroughs), and stating he had no adverse effects at all.

He died of emphysema, after many years of ill-health, filling in the surveys until the end. Self reporting is never a good basis for accurate conclusions.

No adverts when I watched it. I now have to watch YT videos on Chrome because any other platforms won't support it.

I am watching the video and every couple of minutes I get an ad break. I have never seen that and I watch a lot of long form YouTube interviews. Not one for conspiracy theories but frankly nothing surprises me anymore.

It’s astonishing to me that in the face of all the evidence from experts from the clinics themselves, as well as the stories of families and young people affected by this issue, we have actual adults scrabbling around to find counter “science” to justify an irreversible, medical pathway for children. Doubling down on this issue will undo the trans movement. Once people know this is going on and even suspect that there are unethical practices at work in relation to children and children’s bodies, then allegations of “transphobia” against those who seek to protect children will open even more eyes to what “transphobic” actually means these days.

Just place marking for the references in this thread. Thanks everyone.

Very worrying interview.

Don't they realise that they are their own worse enemy? If someones so sure of what they are saying /teaching etc then they wouldn't be afraid of peope discussing it. False information would he quickly identifiable and and evidence easily providable.

The fact that professionals need to be blackmailed with their jobs into towing the line speaks volumes.

shedbuilder.

I did. But in reading most of the letters they published it was more a decision about the methodology to come to that conclusion. Therefore, I would be hugely interested to know if they redid the study including suicides and clarity around medication etc what would be the result. I don’t know that the group did actually redo the study for a definitive result to be stated. If you get my meaning.

I would rather know that was absolutely no correlation rather than the fact that it was merely inconclusive.

Either way, it was incredibly irresponsible to release a study like this stating that it was conclusive when it was effectively a defective study methodology being used. Very dangerous.

Thank you Shedbuilder for that link. It still horrifies me that the "science" on this issue for children has been so dreadfully manipulated by those with personal / political investment in it to the detriment of children's long term mental and physical health.
Every single piece of the limited amount of research that's been allowed is eventually proved to be found wanting. No other aspect of children's mental / physical health has ever been captured like this by adult groups with an agenda. It's unethical and immoral.

Did anyone else spot this on the zaneemma Twitter thread?

twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1290122158786502657

The American Journal of Psychiatry published an article by Branstrom and Pachinkis which 'showed' that surgical transition led to better mental health outcomes. Their methodology was challenged, they went through the data again and now it's concluded that actually, surgery doesn't improve mental health outcomes.

I imagine this is quite a big thing particularly in the US, where that admission might support a class action of those who regret surgery.

So it seems one of the letters neurotrash warrier points out that the Swedish study into mental health improving with surgery did not follow up on those no longer alive amongst other things, including sadly suicides. (obviously would have needed additional data for that) so that may well have significant impact on their conclusions regarding mental health obviously.

A pretty big factor to miss unless I have misinterpreted the letter pointing this out.

And it seems the ‘hack’ mentioned works btw.

Reading Irreversible Damage, I was appalled at what seems to be the next opioid crisis for the US. Here in the UK, we are actively listening to the desisters and to the clinicians saying affirmation is not working more positively that the US - so it seems.
It feels the NHS is still not responding quickly enough but at least it seems like the brakes are coming on and that the government is interested.

That there is a plethora of papers questioning the practices adopted based on affirming treatment doesn’t surprise me. That they are ignored is concerning. That they are not used as the impetus to now conduct deep research into the efficacy of the treatment is scandalous.

Thanks for sharing them neuro. Looks like some good reading there.