You’re Wrong About Why People Change Gender - Dr Az Hakeem interview

@FarriersGirl hiya i have just re read it.i had a rant earlier because it is so obviously a psychological problem not a societal problem.

As in it is not a disability, or a sexuality issue that needs protection.

Bumped.

I have just finished reading Detrans the book referred to upthread. The links to autism are well described, there is less on other specific co-morbidities. Some chapters are written by people who have actually detransitioned including females and describe their experiences. I thought that these were some of the most interesting parts of the book.

Yes, I think that seems to be the case based on what he said.

I would be interested to know if one group is more or less likely to have general personality disorders like narcissism or BPD - I wouldn't be surprised if something like that were the case and might make that group more likely to be anti-social.

The autistic type he describes actually sounds to me like it's an important group as well, because they are very likely to push boundaries if their situation isn't managed properly.

As far as the transvestites, I think his feeling is tthat when they medically transition - and not all do - they are being misled by the current medical pathways, but when they have good therapy they usually don't make that mistake.

This makes a lot of sense.

Hopefully he also believes that good therapy would stop other potential escalations. Bearing in mind he sees this side of it as trauma-influenced, I assume he does i.e. if a transvesite is drawn towards a sexualised urge to control, following an earlier trauma, exploring the feelings associated with the trauma may de-escalate this urge.

I think his interest is primarily in supporting males who are drawn towards transition but he seems to be open to the societal benefit that could be achieved in doing this.

The only difference is what's in their heads, which is what Dr Hakeem is interested in. Their actions are the same, and it's their actions which affect women.

This ⬆️
Any benefit to women is incidental. But he doesn't pretend otherwise. Fair enough.

I think you're agreeing with me.

The first group want to change their bodies but start by crossdressing (as an easy and accessible way to look like a woman), then go for the medical route if it's available.

The second group just enjoy the crossdressing, but can sometimes be led into changing their bodies.

You imply that the medical route can be the wrong one for both groups who can be influenced by those pushing this path.

For the first:
if you make that kind of thing available obsessives with little self-insight will go for it

For the second:
they are being misled by the current medical pathways

To an outside observer, there really doesn't seem to be much difference between the two groups. They are behaving in very similar ways and following the same pathway of escalation from crossdressing to body modification, encouraged by social media and the medical profession. The only difference is what's in their heads, which is what Dr Hakeem is interested in. Their actions are the same, and it's their actions which affect women.

So as far as cross dressing among those who want to change their bodies, my guess is that it is part of the attempt to create the appearance of a female body. Which in the past would have been about all you could do. It's only relatively recently actual physical changes could be contemplated. But it's a bit, build it and they will come, if you make that kind of thing available obsessives with little self-insight will go for it.

As far as the transvestites, I think his feeling is tthat when they medically transition - and not all do - they are being misled by the current medical pathways, but when they have good therapy they usually don't make that mistake.

My understanding from what he said is that the trauma-instigated transvesite is about control and is likely to have deep-seated roots from an early age (e.g. Eddie Izzard lost his mum aged 5ish... there is a clip of Nigella Lawson asking him about whether he thinks it contributed to his transvesticism but I can't find it ATM) whereas someone who develops an anatomically-driven desire from the outset has a different root cause.

Obviously I'm not a psychologist but if he's saying he's got less experience with ROGD young men, perhaps he's over-simplified his explanation of the differences? Perhaps ROGD onset "proto-AGP" is more closely related to anime/gaming and is more likely to be anatomically-driven from the start, bypassing clothes because it was never about a costume or control, but about the conflation of emerging libido with a confused understanding of the difference between a) males and females and b) the desire for a character and the self as that character. Given it escalates so quickly at a young age, this cohort may be more likely to take the risk of going through with anatomical interventions because they have conflated their understanding of themselves with the non-desire driven HSTS cohort. Maybe the older transvestites are less likely to have surgery if they can still get their "hit" in other ways.

The bit where he leaves a gap is that transvesticism can escalate and become anatomical too, as evidenced by Debbie Hayton amongst others. I guess it depends how strong the desire becomes as per Debbie's explanation. Being older doesn't necessarily mean decision-making will be sensible. There is a brilliant documentary called Regretters (hopefully still on Netflix) in which a heterosexual AGP and a HSTS both talk to each other about their surgeries and what led to them removing their penises and testicles to create a neo-vagina. They both had very different drivers, most obviously linked to one being heterosexual and the other homosexual. Both were adult men when they did it but I can't remember at what age they had their operations. Both are in their 60s and are accepting of the fact that they are men when they are talking about their regrets.

So I think maybe he was saying that the visible distinction is the focus on clothing vs actually changing the body.

Well, yes, I think that's what he said. But how does that fit with the observation that transvestites sometimes end up changing their bodies and those who change their bodies usually start by crossdressing?

Debbie Hayton (self-confessed AGP) talks about this here:
My autogynephilia story – Debbie Hayton

He mentions clothes a lot:
As a child: I wanted to wear girls’ clothes, something I knew was forbidden.
As an adolescent: it was during adolescence when my long-running fantasy — usually of waking up to find myself magically transformed into the other sex — became a compulsion to start buying female clothes. By the time I was 16, I would travel to neighbouring towns, buy what I could and squirrel my purchases away in intricate, secure hiding places.
But as an adult it's about changing his body: When I knew that medical and surgical transition was possible, it rapidly became irresistible.

He also mentions the old joke:
What’s the difference between a transvestite and a transsexual? About five years.

Of course, we don't know what really went on in his childhood and maybe he just invented a childhood and adolescence full of cross-dressing, but the 'old joke' surely didn't come from nowhere. And in Hayton's account, the crossdressing and changing the body are two aspects of the same compulsion.

So I think maybe he was saying that the visible distinction is the focus on clothing vs actually changing the body.

But that the origins of the fetish were differernt from these two groups. One being about control, and the other being more of a trauma response.

Which would make sense, that some serious trauma could impact the sense of bodily integrity which could also manifest sexually.

I imagine they could be quite different from a treatment path perspective.

Ah, OK. Got you. In some ways, we're saying the same thing but in a different way.

We are dealing with a wide range of people who all want to queer society and control everyone around them, and are using any excuse that they can get away with.

Agreed.

India Willoughby doesnt believe in gender souls, he believe that a chemical imbalance in the womb caused his body brain mismatch.

The mismatch therefore being a gendered female mind/soul trapped in a body that developed as male. Katy Jon Went says something similar, inferring a DSD in the mix too.

Blair White says he finds it easier to present as a woman.

Because Blair "feels like" a woman, despite being open about actually being a man with a mental health issue. Ergo having a gendered soul of sorts, as a way to reconcile and understand the mental health distress.

Debbie hayton talks about being turned on by the idea of himself as a woman. Eddie izzard talked only about clothes 'till very recently.

Debbie and Eddie are good examples of people who share just enough of their understanding that their sexual behaviour has led to them presenting as stereotypical women. Eddie Izzard certainly used to anyway, but doesn't talk about being a transveste these days. Caitlyn Jenner is another, who talks about stealing underwear from a daughter. Debbie Hayton is the most overt of the 3 when it comes to talking about the sexual aspect.

Similarly with Blair White, the important thing is not to drop the hard boundaries between sex and gender identity, just because they are articulate and seem more "GC" on some issues. Eddie Izzard no longer does and is becoming increasingly less articulate on it all, relying increasingly more on TRA soundbites... and making increasingly less sense to anyone but true believers in gendered souls. Whether Eddie truly believes in a soul-driven "girl mode" and "boy mode" is anyone's guess.

Some people do truly believe in gendered souls, some people come up with all sorts of reasons for why they act in the way that they do. At the heart of it though is the notion that apparently "male" and "female" aren't physical constructs, which leads to sex (observable fact, even with the complexity of DSDs) and gender identity (belief in a separate gendered soul) being separated... and then intertwined again e.g. "sex assigned at birth".

Read what young trans people are talking about online. Its not about souls, its about controlling everyone around them.

Because they believe, or feign a belief, that their gendered soul a) exists and b) is more important than their sex. The control of everyone else's language and acceptance in sports and spaces is the enforcement of the belief as fact.

Its also gives people hope that we can logic our way out of it - if we highlight the inconsistencies we can snap them out of the belief completely. Its an atheist version of the missionaries.

Nobody can snap anyone out of their belief. I wouldn't waste any effort trying to do so. I did spend some time on X when I first joined, asking questions to understand gender identity belief better - and occasionally this led to interesting discussions - but I was never going to convince a gender identity believer that they didn't have a gender identity. Nor were they going to convince me that I did.

But we can logic our way out of this belief being enforced on to the rest of us. The Forstater case set in law that we have the legal right not to believe that everyone has a gender identity. Therefore treating is as fact in law, sports, healthcare, education and workplaces is logically unlawful, regardless of whether someone has "gender critical beliefs" or not. "Gender critical belief" is akin to a "belief" in gravity or that the earth is a globe - it's just a legal way to handle observable scientific facts, given that courts don't have a mandate to determine scientific knowledge. We already know far more about DSDs than we did in the past and that it's observable that every DSD is either male- or female-specific. Christians gave up legally enforcing Christianity and its tenets a long time ago in the UK, partly because science started providing observable answers where previously the only explanation was that "god did/made it".

The important outstanding clarification will be from the Supreme Court's decision on whether the EA means sex or "legal sex", as modified by a GRC. Regardless of which it means, the wheels are already in motion to challenge the concept of the GRA itself because GRCs are certificates that force us all to legally hold a belief that a person's declared gender (identity) is real.

I've put this essay in other threads and it's apt here. I got it from another MN thread a long time ago. The person writing it is a man (who knows he's a man) with autogynophilia. He still believes that he has a gendered soul but he's fighting the urges to act on his feelings. He also recognises the reality of his biological sex and why autogynophilia is dangerous in society:

https://archive.is/2pQIq

I never said religions dont have conflicting ideas within them. I said they dont have conflicting reasons for the religion to develop in the first place. People believe that following the teachings gets them closer to god or heaven.

India Willoughby doesnt believe in gender souls, he believe that a chemical imbalance in the womb caused his body brain mismatch. Blair White says he finds it easier to present as a woman. Debbie hayton talks about being turned on by the idea of himself as a woman. Eddie izzard talked only about clothes 'till very recently.

Read what young trans people are talking about online. Its not about souls, its about controlling everyone around them.

The idea of gendered souls is only one of many many reasons that have been thrown out. And im going to say its the one that GC latch on to more than trans ideologues do. Im guessing because its a purer reason than sex, or excludes the role scientific experts have played. Its also gives people hope that we can logic our way out of it - if we highlight the inconsistencies we can snap them out of the belief completely. Its an atheist version of the missionaries.

We simply arent dealing with a religious belief system. We are dealing with a wide range of people who all want to queer society and control everyone around them, and are using any excuse that they can get away with.

Except it shouldn't be for educators (based on experience) There's a revolving door of ideas in education and once you've been teaching for years you become familiar with a practice that was dumped 10 years ago suddenly being re modelled and presented as the latest great idea. Older teachers tend to roll their eyes and get on with it.
The difference of course with this, is that's it's being presented in the framework of a quasi religion that we must all celebrate - which makes it harder to quietly reverse. But it can be done. Schools just have to stop inviting in the dodgy groups and individuals and stop using the gaslighting materials. There's plenty to do in schools - it won't be noticed except by the transactivists and it's time they were relegated to eternal playground duty.

Religions dont that that many conflicting reasons.

Religions have many conflicting ideas within them. Some are in direct conflict with science (e.g. the idea that a virgin can give birth), some with each other (e.g. thou shalt not kill... except when you're fighting a war/excuting a murderer in some US states) etc. There are many more.

Part of holding a belief is to be at some level of peace with these conflicts. Another related part of this is having explanations which justify and prove why the belief is "true".

I should imagine most abusers who use a belief as a front don't waste much time worrying about the depth of their belief. Many will simply be thankful for the cover it provides.

Obviously not every Christian is an abuser, nor an active abuse facilitator. Likewise not everyone who believes in gendered souls will be either. Some people are passive facilitators without even realising it. The Be Kinders remind me of the congregation in this alleged scandal:

https://archive.ph/0TJoZ

His trial date keeps moving so I appreciate he is currently innocent of the charges. Either way, the congregation was passively supporting some odd practices.

All of this ^^.

Unfortunately it appears that once the idea has been implanted in the minds of educators, counsellors and health practitioners it is as equally difficult to change as it is for a young autistic male.

Its pointless falsely framing this as a completely religious like phenomenon when it clearly isn't.

I'm not sure what's being "falsely framed" here. The fact remains that many people actively believe that we all have a gendered soul (or are sufficiently agnostic to accept it at face value). This is what allows the whole thing to thrive, because too many people are ready to accept that there are people who have gendered souls that are trapped in the wrong body. That's what justifies all of it, from medical interventions through to women's sports and spaces. It's about "being kind" to those who society perceives have a gendered soul that is mismatched with their body. Those who feign this belief as a front for their actions are laughing all the way to the bank/ladies' changing rooms/gold medals etc.

Whether the "gendered soul" matches or not doesn't matter. It's the concept that we all have a gender identity, a soul that is separate from the body which has a sense of "gender" that is the belief. Some people genuinely hold this belief. Some people pretend to do so.

And thats why the very first thing i said was what is similar to religion is the signposting of this gendered soul belief/concept.

Its pointless falsely framing this as a religious like phenomenon when it clearly isn't.

What is clear about trans ideology is how many different theories are used to justify it - its like left handedness, its a dsd of the brain, its because of difficult relationship with their mother, its another sexuality, its just gender non conformity.

Religions dont that that many conflicting reasons.

I dont think saying we are the ones with a mismatched gendered soul is similar to a religious belief at all - it would be like saying we are are the Gods. Christians for example are followers of jesus, not jesus. Saints aren't self appointed.

Whether the "gendered soul" matches or not doesn't matter. It's the concept that we all have a gender identity, a soul that is separate from the body which has a sense of "gender" that is the belief. Some people genuinely hold this belief. Some people pretend to do so.

The majority of TRA and supporters are in reality libertarian. There actions are justified not from a faith basis, but from a rights base.

Some will genuinely believe that they have a gendered soul. Some will just be using the belief of others, including allies.

I cant help thinking that the different types of trans is just a mix of culture and personality type.

Bruce Jenner is going to have lots of surgery because hes surrounded by cosmetic surgeons.

Older guys are going to dress in old fashioned clothes, because their idea of sexy women is stuck in 1980s fashion. The younger ones will look more alternative and less like your mum because thats the what they find attractive.

The men who have surgery are more likely to be the ones who are impulsive. They are probably have a history of betting their life savings on one get rich scheme or changing their life styles completely in a whim.

Transvestites may have a personality that can and want to separate their sex life from their family or work lives. Whereas others cant. Nothing is different just the personality of the man?

Being a particular type of ally is comparable to a religious belief - if we support the idea of gendered souls we show our faith and our kindness to other believers.

I dont think saying we are the ones with a mismatched gendered soul is similar to a religious belief at all - it would be like saying we are are the Gods. Christians for example are followers of jesus, not jesus. Saints aren't self appointed.

The majority of TRA and supporters are in reality libertarian. There actions are justified not from a faith basis, but from a rights base.

Yes. I've never thought of them as any different. Maybe just an escalation.

Isn’t that the old joke?
Q. What’s the difference between a transvestite and a trans woman?
A. About two years.

I don't get the transvestite vs AGP distinction that Dr Az makes.

This does seem an odd distinction. Isn't physical transition for a transvestite just an escalation of the same sexual motivation? Don't AGPs start by cross-dressing then escalate to body modification?

Once the idea is implanted in their minds, it’s very difficult to change.

Agreed. It's going to take a concerted effort from schools (to stop promoting gender identity belief and recognise the safeguarding risks within it), local authorities (to consider those vulnerable to this in their EHCPs), CAMHS (to assess mental health needs), Educational Psychology (to join the dots into Speech and Language Therapy for cognitive processing and Occupational Therapy for body disassociation), SALT and OT to deliver the appropriate therapeutic care and Autism organisations (to recognise and address the risk). EHCPs last until someone is 25 years old. This could make a real difference for autistic males and females.

None of that is simple to join up unless a safeguarding approach is taken, similar to Prevent. The parallels between gender identity belief and religious belief in this respect are clear: believing that we all have a gendered soul is as innocuous as believing in God/Allah. It becomes a safeguarding matter when such a belief is central to people being harmed i.e. the depth of someone's belief is combined with external influences that lead to harm. Whether that's harm to the self and/or others.

As a start point, the Nolan principles should be applied to everyone who works in a role associated with the public sector e.g. schools, local authorities, CAMHS. They should not be promoting gender identity belief in any way, such as flying Progress Pride flags or sharing preferred pronouns on email signatures.

Edited for typos