Royal College of Psychiatrists Statement

[dorade]

What hope is there when respected scientific organisations uncritically adopt phrases like "sex assigned at birth" and use "two spirit" people as evidence for the need to mutilated bodies to a facsimile of the other sex?

Report here

the College believes that a watch and wait policy, which does not place any pressure on children to live or behave in accordance with their sex assigned at birth or to move rapidly to gender transition, may be an appropriate course of action when young people first present.

This sounds okay though, right?

What utter bilge. It comes from the position that there are two options - trans gender, and cis gender. So they have already jumped several steps ahead without any evidence that I can see listed.

Rat - the bit you mentioned - yes a watch and wait policy is good. But sex assigned at birth?? Sex is not assigned at birth, it is observed. It says that no pressure should be placed on trans-gender or gender diverse children to live or behave in accordance with their sex (and this bit is specifically for pre-pubertal children). Good, of course it shouldn't. Is that kindness only extended to trans children? It implies that cis children should presumably be encouraged to live and behave in accordance with their birth sex. Or if they think that all children should be allowed to express gender-divergent behaviour, however they 'identify', then what is even the point of that statement?

I don't think I have explained myself well but that paragraph is particularly infuriating.

the College believes that a watch and wait policy, which does not place any pressure on children to live or behave in accordance with their sex assigned at birth or to move rapidly to gender transition, may be an appropriate course of action when young people first present

It’s pretty weaselly, in my opinion.

Why not say watch and wait is an appropriate policy when children first present?

What I don't understand is how a group of pyschiatrists can get together and categorically accept that gender is not a social construct but is a biological truth. Which is what this document does. Without gender being a biological truth, the document is meaningless. Why and how have the RCP decided this? On what evidence? Gender as truth is being written into medical documents without any evidence and presented as a fait accompli.

My initial thoughts are that this is slightly but very significantly different to the 'if they tell you, believe them and take all steps to ensure that they are treated as if they were the other sex' position...

OK.

Gender diversity per se is not a disorder

I’m fine with that, as I think gender norms are shit.

But the WHO should

*declassify any terms they use to describe transgender as a mental health disorder”

troubles me.

So “transgender” is officially uncoupled from disphoria which IS a mental health condition, yes? Otherwise there would be no need to alter bodily?

It reads like well intentioned bollocks from people who have never thought before about what the concept of 'gender' actually means. We are ALL 'gender-diverse' you muttonheads!
They need to get some education from the people who have been thinking and writing about 'gender' for the last 50 years or so, ie academic feminists.

What hope is there? Margaret McCartney has waded in with a piece on trans medicine for the bmj (link in the dr webberley thread), which is fantastic news. If you don't know who she is, shes a gp who campaigns for evidence based medicine, and she's pretty much gone 'errr problem here'.

But this is the Royal College of Pyschiatrists.

The most eminent authority on how brains work.

And they are saying it is not a disorder to not identify with gender.

Which is a good position as long as the body disphoria element is still medicalised as a disorder. Otherwise GRC, medical treatment, anything is unnecessary for trans people entirely.

Which is bad for everyone, I think?

Yes, "sex assigned at birth" is a bit ridiculous, but I think it's just used as a turn of phrase these days. I agree that if broken down it's nonsensical, but we all know what they're getting at.

It implies that cis children should presumably be encouraged to live and behave in accordance with their birth sex

I didn't read it that way! I thought it implied that one might feel the need to encourage a transgender child to "conform" to their biological sex, and that instead of doing so they should be allowed to be divergent.

So rather than saying, "transgender kids should be treated this way but other kids should be treated the opposite way" they're actually saying, "transgender kids should be treated this way as opposed to being treated the opposite way"; does that make sense?

Without gender being a biological truth, the document is meaningless. Why and how have the RCP decided this? On what evidence?

Spartacus I wonder if the evidence they're basing it on is the hundreds of thousands of people worldwide presenting to them with a condition that would strongly suggest it is a biological reality - for them, at least. And I mean that as a genuine suggestion, I can't think of why else a group of psychiatrists (who obviously spend all day trying to decipher the contents of the human mind) might believe something to actually exist within the human mind; I guess lots of people for whom that appears to be the case is probably the best sort of evidence they get.

Not saying that is what they're basing it on of course, just pontificating.

It seems fairly clear that the paper divides the population in two: the cis gender ( they’re not terribly goid at defining their terms but that seems to mean people whose sense of their own gender aligns with their sex) and the trans gender (ie those whose sense of their own gender does not align with their birth sex).
That’s surely a very simplistic approach. What about those of us who reject gender?
The approach also seems to assume that gender is something which exists independently of sex but which is not purely a set of cultural ideas about appropriate behaviour for individuals of each sex. I don’t accept that premise. Surely it is the notion of sex appropriate behaviour which causes the problem in the first place.

is the word sex mentioned at all?

But all children should be allowed to be divergent. Are only children with a special "gender divergent" label to be allowed to be divergent? "No Susan, you can't play with the trucks, they are for boys. Do you identify a little bit as a boy Susan? Ok you can play with the trucks". I concede it might be my take on what they have written given the political nature of the discussion.

Re the "sex assigned at birth". The RCP must be aware of the political ramifications of what they are doing. I don't believe they aren't. They know that sex is not assigned at birth, it is observed. Why use that language? They could easily have written "sex observed at birth", or "natal sex", or any number of similar words that state it is biology. They chose not to however - why?

The phrase "two spirit" actually demonstrates something important. Surely this is the Royal College of Pyschiatrists are effectively saying this is a belief.

That's important because, no everyone is obliged to share a belief. Respect it yes, sign up to it no.

The RCP can't make policy on the basis of something being true because a number of people think it is true. Many, many people strongly believe that the royal family are actually lizards. Are the RCP making policy on that basis? If there is no evidence for something, the RCP should not take it as fact.

So ratroly, are you saying that gender is a biological reality for some people (not all)? Your post is confusing but that seems to be what you’re saying. If it is, where does this biological reality exist? Sex, we know, is defined chromosomally. How and where is gender defined - for those that have it? (I don’t)

Spartacus your truck example demonstrates very neatly how these approaches tighten the gender straitjacket - the source of the whole damn problem.

I wonder if the evidence they're basing it on is the hundreds of thousands of people worldwide presenting to them with a condition that would strongly suggest it is a biological reality - for them, at least

But their business is in diagnosing issues with how the brain works. They can’t deny biology on the basis of what people say they feel.

That’s the whole point.

They could easily have written "sex observed at birth", or "natal sex", or any number of similar words that state it is biology. They chose not to however - why?

Yeah, it does seem strange; clumsy and thoughtless at best, but I can't see what else it could achieve? Other than to placate anyone who might have as issue with an alternative wording I guess, and whilst I think that's silly and will clearly piss off those on the other side of the debate instead, I think it's pretty benign. Do you think it could be something more sinister?

The workings of the brain are the sphere of neurologists rather than psychiatrists. I suspect as the work of the former advances the latter will become obsolete!
They appear to believe gender as something which has independent objective existence outside cultural ideas and practice. Without citing any evidence whatsoever. Rather silly.

They can’t deny biology on the basis of what people say they feel.

I don't think they're defining biology on that basis though are they, they're simply saying there appears to be a think within the human mind - an aspect of one's sense of self - that is related to one's biological sex, and that we call this thing gender.

And that for most people their sense of "gender" is unremarkable and may go completely unnoticed, probably because it is in alignment with their biological sex. And their evidence for this is that for a small but significant majority their sense of gender is very keenly felt as it is at direct odds with their biological sex, and this often causes profound discomfort.

And this would be their evidence for the existence of an internal gender, surely?

Spartacus and wheresmy, sorry, just read your posts; does my reply to Nosquirrels make it any clearer? Like I say it's just a suggestion.

there appears to be a think within the human mind - an aspect of one's sense of self - that is related to one's biological sex, and that we call this thing gender

But it's not gender, is it? Gender is a social system imposing behaviour on individuals whether or not it fits their personality. The RCP is taking the view that it is up to the individual to reconcile themselves (or their bodies) to the demands of gender. The feminist view is that society should release individuals from gender's demands.

One could almost suspect that the RCP prefers the latter because it keeps them in business.

(the former)