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

[UtopiaPlanitia]

Andrew Gold interviewed Dr Hakeem at the Battle of Ideas and it’s, as usual with Dr Az, a fascinating interview. Thought I’d post it here for anyone who’s interested in watching:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bumped.

@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.

IIRC Dr Hakeem found the most effective therapy was group therapy where post-op and pre-op people talked to each other, with him there to facilitate and advise.

He found the post-op people were very effective at persuading the pre-op people not to go through with surgery. He found that the pre-op patients wouldn't listen to advice from doctors or counsellors but they would listen to post-op patients who had been through surgery. He also found that the views of post-op people were taken more seriously and given more weight by pre-op patients than general medical and psychological advice.

Yes.

Thank you for reminding me why I like listening to what he says, even if I don't agree with all of it and find he sometimes misses some important stuff.

Everyone who has strong opinions on difficult subjects has a ego to some degree or other. But his humility in realising that this was the best kind of therapy (even if he does congratulate himself for it 😁) is refreshing to see. It also really helps to highlight his interest in this: he sees people as victims first and foremost. I respect him for this but it might also help to explain his forgiving take on Jan Morris. Perhaps he hasn't seen anything that would suggest otherwise with Jan (until I read Jan's daughter's article, I hadn't) - he certainly didn't hold back on Freda Wallace though. Presumably there's a point at which even the most understanding psychotherapist thinks "FFS, you're beyond help and are simply a societal problem".

I don't mind his narrow interest. He's an important voice on this issue and I'm thankful for him speaking up. I might just follow Banned's lead and re-read Detrans with the context of this thread in mind. It's a relatively short book, and flows easily from memory.

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.

This sums up my thinking too @BonfireLady That there’s no point in debating each others beliefs. Why I don’t debate or argue with my vehement TWAW DCs. We are not going to convince each other. The only thing I do is point out inconsistencies in the wider world (we agreed that Isla Bryson was not a ‘true trans’ but no agreement that it’s impossible to know who is/isn’t).

The only point in speaking is to resist the enforcement of that belief on me. That is quite hard enough.

If AGPs are driven by sexual gratification, what is the point of having the full surgery? To be blunt - if you end up with no dick you’re not going to be able to have a wank! Even if you’re one of the few who are left with some vestige of sensation it’s not going to be the same surely??

That's why the vast majority (85-90%) don't! I suspect the numbers are falling all the time because SM and local networks for AGPs are so strong now. I imagine that those who do go through with it have more complex mental health problems and less insight than those who don’t. The internet is also awash with stories of men who have had orchiectomies or SRS who are distressed to realise that post surgery they did not have a misaligned gendered soul but merely a fetishistic sex drive which has completely disappeared.

Also, they seem to convince themselves that they'll get female sentations instead.

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.

Thats not given.

People believe or not in different religions. The result is not to remove religion from these organisations, but to make practical and proportional compromises when people want to live by the religion. Not demanding people work on religious days, for example.

The starting point in sport isnt that gender is a belief therefore isnt relevant to sport, its how can we balance a mans right to practice gender ideology and live as a woman with others believing that he can never be a woman.

The proportional compromises may be he gets to live as a woman in the mens team, but we've seen lots of sports compromising in other ways and not falling foul of the law.

I was reading an ad for phalloplasty, where you have even less sensation, I believe. And it really glided over all the downsides.

And I've seen plenty of stories of post op men saying they have shuddering whole body orgasms, from head to foot.

Not being honest, and being entirely untethered from reality is a hallmark of the ideology.

But I agree, logically it doesn't make much sense. (Another major characteristic!)

I respect him for this but it might also help to explain his forgiving take on Jan Morris. Perhaps he hasn't seen anything that would suggest otherwise with Jan (until I read Jan's daughter's article, I hadn't)

The widespread feeling among the Establishment (particularly the media) that Jan Morris was a goodun really baffles me, particularly after reading Morris’ daughter’s account of her home life. I think the fact that Morris lived an outwardly conservative public life has had something to do with it. Nobody in the media seems to give any thought to how his wife and children were affected. It’s very much the same media reaction to the Caitlyn Jenner story of his teenage daughter finding him trying on her clothes - the media isn’t sympathetic to the daughter in this situation, for some reason Jenner gets their sympathy 🤷‍♀️

To the media, Morris and Jenner seem more reasonable in comparison to people like F Wallace and S Molly but they’re really two ends of a belief system that is the same for both, with the same core beliefs, however one end is socially conservative and one is extreme.

I agree. Neither morris nor jenner wear sexy clothes. I know jenner did that magazine cover, but he's usually smartly dresssed, no boobs on show.

Maybe it stops men seeing the fetish? They arent trying to be sexy so its not sexual for them?

That and they had noteworthy careers? Jenner was a sports star, but if he didnt i dont think hed be taken as seriously just as a reality star.

I thought it was a great interview.

I hadn’t considered the noteworthy careers aspect: these were both widely respected men’s men so perhaps other men, and the media more generally, view their choice to crossdress etc as more acceptable because the interpretation is that this isn’t something a manly man would do unless he absolutely had to 🤔