American psychiatrist explains the phenomenon gender dysphoria and trans movement

[Janie143]

thefederalist.com/2016/11/17/psychiatry-professor-transgenderism-mass-hysteria-similar-1980s-era-junk-science/

Clicky link thefederalist.com/2016/11/17/psychiatry-professor-transgenderism-mass-hysteria-similar-1980s-era-junk-science/

Is it the start?

The Federalist has been discussed as a news source recently on the Trump threads. It is right wing, anti-LGBT and has a clear agenda. Adjust your credibilty settings accordingly.

Courtesy of Painintheear on thevTrump thread:

Introducing The Federalist, A New Web Magazine For Anti-LGBT Conservatives
www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/02/introducing-the-federalist-a-new-web-magazine-f/198721

The Federalist's publisher is Ben Domenech, a right-wing blogger who used to be managing editor for "health care policy" at the Heartland Institute – a thinktank partly funded by the Koch brothers. The Heartland Institute is big in attempting to undermine climate science, and working with tobacco companies to deny the health impacts of smoking.

I was particularly impressed with the Heartland Unabomber advertising campaign:

On May 4, 2012, Heartland launched a digital billboard advertising campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others, asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?” The Institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. The Institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#May_2012_"Unabomber"_billboard_campaign

Good article.

Thanks Boat I think it is important to be aware of sources and bias. I am certainly pro gay rights and would not normally look at the federalist. I used to read the Guardian.

However since I have watched the Guardian leave out or play down important information about women and children's safety from articles on trans rights I have been concerned about their bias too, and tried to read more across the spectrum to get the full picture.

Media watch has it's own bias;
"dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

And when papers with a progressive and liberal stance in the U.K. are leaving out critical viewpoints on important issues I think it also important to question their motives. Eg who funds media watch? What is their agenda.

Wikipedia can be useful but is not the most reliable source so always worth verifying against other sources.

Hi Cobra I what did you think was good about it?

”Clearly, the transgender phenomenon is the tip of the spear of the LGBT movement, greatly energized by the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage that includes in the definition of liberty the right of people to “define and express their identity.” For the LGBT movement this literally includes the right to decide one’s gender,”

This shows the clear risk to the wider LGB community. I don’t like the article, but it may wake up some people who are supporting trans rights unquestioningly and sleepwalking into even more of a nightmare than women.

Also, having lived through the satanic ritual phase, which included appalling witch-hunts and children being removed from their parents (some of whom I knew peripherally) this article gives me hope that eventually this will turn out to be just another phase that will eventually be debunked.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the idea that a medicine that started as “these mentally ill people may feel better if we try to allow their bodies to be more like they want” has so quickly been shifted to “these are entirely rational people, who just happen to have the wrong body”

Another thought I had was that suicidal people obviously need help with their mental health. The suggestion that they are not mentally ill, but solely distressed because people aren’t treating them right is another assumption without any basis in fact. It scares me just how much people will believe when given pseudoscience presented as fact.

I did a quick check on the federalist before I did the clicking link and saw where it's roots are, but was in a rush this morning so didn't comment.

I also haven't had chance to read it thoroughly, and had reservations on the fact, I noticed the dismissive way mental health disorders are spoken about.

I would like to know if this psychiatrist professor wrote and independent article that the federalist then picked up and printed also putting thier own agenda on it?

Or if the psychiatry professor is part federalist and wrote the article for the federalist.

Will now go off and read it in full.

This article is from 2016 so not a new one.

I don't disagree with a number of points but it does have a distinctly anti gay undertone and a religious slant to it.

This is one of (the many) concerns about the transgender movement because it has latched itself so effectively to the LGB that if/when it comes tumbling down it's going to take gay rights backwards with it.

Having said that I am disappointed at how much the LGB orgs and some LGB individuals have supported it with a seemingly lack of critical thought (given how homophobic some of the trans rhetoric is).

If it eventually blows up and western society tips further to the right as a result I can absolutely see marriage equality being repealed on the basis of 'this is what started this whole thing off'.

Women's rights are clearly going to take a battering whether a country leans far left or far right.

The Federalist is indeed an ultra-right wing publication. However, it has published several articles on trans issues written by liberal left commentators - some of whom have openly stated that they pitched those articles to all the liberal left outlets and were turned down.

If the left allows no critique of postmodernism, queer theory, social constructionism and thus no critique of transgender theory because it's the bastard child of these things - left critics have nowhere else to go.

I'd advise reading what's written on the Federalist but doing due diligence on the author of any particular piece.

I found this article interesting too but am also cautious about the source.No mention of women's rights at all. They have a right wing religious agenda that many here will have a problem with. We need measured articles from left leaning publications ovr we run the risk of being tarred with the same brush.

I don't care who published the article. It makes points that need to be made.

I get that and caution is needed but I am not aligning myself with the publication, just the views in the article.