transgender medicine

[superbstarling]

I'm new here, you all peaked me. I across this which I think some of you will find interesting!

Eresh- narcissism is a particular vulnerability- it’s not a kind of badness.

And degrees of it are also ordinary- pride in our children is a form of narcissistic satisfaction just as despair when things go wrong can be thought of as in part narcissistic injury. In careful, non judgmental clinical thinking- none of this is a character attack.

I don't think I made a character attack, did I? My sympathies are more with the victims of narcissists though.

No- I’m not saying you did. But it gets thrown about here like an insult. And people rarely talk about the ‘victims’ of those with borderline personality disorder in the same way. In my mind they all have developed protective strategies which are actually not always helpful- and can hurt those close to them. But they develop these strategies because they need to.

That's all very well, but others may also need to protect themselves from them. I'm really not sure what your point is with reference to my comment. The narcissistic person may want to lash out/manipulate/control for their own reasons. That doesn't mean others just have to take it. That transactivists sometimes apparently think they should, is testament to their completely self centred approach to life.

Good post - yes the roots of the transgender medicine movement and its funding bear much examination - as it reveals the truth - that it is founded upon consumerising distress for the benefit of those who profit from it, not in the interests of those with gender dysphoria distress. Using a variety of covert shopfronts and NFPs, grants are awarded with terms and conditions that support the forwarding of the vested interest agenda. Policy by stealth weaponising the grants system and skewed research that does not bear professional scrutiny.

Additionally I observe derailing tactics under the guise of identity politics on this thread as elsewhere recently. One can agree with the message but not necessarily all of what the messenger thinks and says. Those that believe that are in good company. Andrea Dworkin commented about how her views found much support with right wing Christian groups - she dined with them, not on them:

We talked about her respect for the Christian conservatives who fought against forced prostitution and sex trafficking and her revulsion against Bill Clinton's abuse of women. Politically she belonged to the far, far, far left, but she had little use for an antiwar movement that made excuses for Saddam Hussein or Islamic extremism.

Dworkin actually made a couple of good points. They are: 1) Pornography is degrading to women 2) Prostitution is not "empowering" 3) Those beads-wearing, "peace 'n' love"-spouting flower children of the 60's could be nasty, wife-beating brutes 4) She supported the death penalty for convicted wife-murderer Scott Peterson.

www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/weekinreview/a-radical-feminist-who-could-dine-with-not-on-conservatives.html

Additionally I observe derailing tactics under the guise of identity politics on this thread as elsewhere recently

Absolutely.

Good post - yes the roots of the transgender medicine movement and its funding bear much examination - as it reveals the truth - that it is founded upon consumerising distress for the benefit of those who profit from it, not in the interests of those with gender dysphoria distress. Using a variety of covert shopfronts and NFPs, grants are awarded with terms and conditions that support the forwarding of the vested interest agenda. Policy by stealth weaponising the grants system and skewed research that does not bear professional scrutiny.

YY. This is the point here and it's explained in the video.

The religious right in Iran are very pro 'trans rights'. I don't see that putting the TRAs off.

No, in fact Riley J Dennis commended Iran for its trans inclusionary stance.

Here's the article written by Paul McHugh and Lawrence Mayer referenced in the video. Well worth a read.

www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/part-three-gender-identity-sexuality-and-gender

This twitter thread looks at 56 transgender studies about quality of life and the benefits of an affirmative approach and considers the robustness of the science.

twitter.com/doormatt134/status/984339908658651138?s=21

@Ereshkigal

That was just the last part of a paper published by Paul McHugh and Lawrence Mayer covering sexuality and gender. In Part One linked below, they doubt the research suggesting homosexuality is innate..

www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/part-one-sexual-orientation-sexuality-and-gender

I like this quote:
the “born that way” notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are biologically innate or the product of very early developmental factors — has led many non-specialists to think that homosexuality or heterosexuality is in any given person unchangeable and determined entirely apart from choices, behaviors, life experiences, and social contexts. However, as the following discussion of the relevant scientific literature shows, this is not a view that is well-supported by research.
As warned above by others, citing research from conservative, christian right doctors who have a very small minority view to prove a point or reinforce a "prejudgement" about one group, can have severe effects on another larger group.

Using these opinions to underpin an argument to debunk the T will leave the LGB wide open.

Soz please ignore the post at 15:16:20. I was distracted and corrected myself unnecessarily..

I wasn't commenting on the analysis of research into sexual orientation. I am not informed enough about this subject to analyse it. I was specifically commenting on the overview of gender identity research, which I have made a point of informing myself about. I just said the piece was worth a read. Which it is.

Paul McHugh was also a founding member in the kind of psychiatry underlying transgender medicine. It's worthwhile to read his perspective whether you agree with him or not. With caveats, such as I have given about this video from the outset. Perhaps it's your own cognitive bias which assumes he doesn't have anything useful to add about this specific subject?

From the McHugh article: None of the studies included the bias-limiting measure of randomization (that is, in none of the studies were sex-reassignment procedures assigned randomly to some patients but not to others)

This is a red herring. It's not going to happen. It's never going to be considered ethical to randomly assign sex-reassignment to some patients and not others. Ever.

That's a fair point. But that's then a limitation of these studies, which can't be avoided.

So does that mean we do nothing? There is other evidence even though it is weaker than rcts.

Not nothing, no. A cautious approach.

Sorry if I have misunderstood but is there something wrong with the idea that not everyone is "born this way" with regards to their sexuality?

Saying .... “ooh Christian fundamentalists” and choosing what to think based on “cannot agree with them” is nonsensical.

They (American College of Pediatricians):
Campaign against abortion
Oppose emergency hormonal contraception (for adolescents)
Promote abstinence only sex education
Oppose 'cohabitation'. Just for a laugh read their position statement. They conclude:
research indicates living together before marriage (cohabitation) can bring significant harm to the relationship and the individuals involved.
Justify (at considerable length) Psychotherapy for Unwanted Homosexual Attraction Among Youth

Explicitly oppose adoption by same sex parents. This is a good one. They call it: Homosexual Parenting: Is it time for a change? They state: Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm. And conclude: This position is rooted in the best available science.

Do you not question how people with such biased repulsive views can reach credible opinions? Does their view of what makes 'best available science' not make you wonder if anything they say can be trusted?

What makes you think their views about gender identity and against sex reassignment are any more reliable?

Supermatch your argument is empty and ridiculous. Neither allies nor consensus have any bearing on what is true, and what is not true.

It is true that no one can change sex. It is true that innate 'sexed' identity has never been detected. It is true sex is binary and defined by reproductive role.

These things are true whether the American Christian Right, or you, or I, or anybody, or nobody, believes them or disbelieves them. Material reality is material reality whether or not it is described in language, or not described at all.