"Gender affirming doctors cause a serious form of mental illness called shared psychosis. They stop children with developmental problems learning to separate reality from fantasy. Gender identity obscures this unethical behaviour."

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Excellent article from an Australian Psychiatrist.
https://x.com/AusPsychReview/status/1942453287376282072

archive: https://archive.ph/t4RcZ

Tries again.
"The fall of gender medicine is taking far too long".
Agreed. It's infuriating to know that children continue to be harmed by the charlatans involved in all this. But thank heavens for whistle blowers like James Esses and countless others shining a light on what some would prefer to keep hidden.

Thanks for the article, it’s really good. I would say at an individual level it can be a shared psychosis, but overall it’s a culture bound disorder, like Koro or similar.

Culture bound syndrome seems to be a very apt way of explaining it. It reminds me of social manias or crazes that have happened in the past like people thinking they were made of glass or the children’s crusade. People can only use the cultural tools and language that their society allows them to label their distress and, apart from men with sexual fetishes, this dysphoria seems to be bound up in children feeling constrained by sexist stereotypes, distressed by being unable to live up to unrealistic expectations set by various types of media, and the pressures of growing up in a world very different to past generations.

Mia Hughes has done some excellent research in this area, I’ve watched some of her guest lectures online on this topic.

From the tweet:

"Shared psychosis involves a dominant person or group imposing false beliefs on a submissive person or group. It shares features with the abusive relationship style now recognised as coercive control. At the start of a shared psychosis submissive partners are aware that other people don't share their dominant partner's delusional beliefs, but they lose this awareness as their own psychosis develops.

Over time, the dominant partner limits the submissive partner's opportunities to reality test by limiting their contact with other people. At some point, the submissive partner is so convinced of their partner's delusions that those beliefs become almost impossible to challenge. This leads to further isolation and dependence."

This is persuasive. But it does differ from conventional usage of the term in that shared psychosis is usually thought to be self limiting, i.e. one of the parties has a real, sever psychiatric condition like schizophrenia and transmits their delusion to someone within their sphere of influence due to that person's susceptibility. But the person who acquired the delusion does not acquire schizophrenia, and is typically not thought to be at risk of transmitting their own delusions to another without the added influence of the first party.

Andrew seems to be arguing, though he doesn't state it explicitly here, that there is enough diffused mental illness among the social networks of people contemplating transition, transitioning and having transitioned (including, presumably on line) that a severe form of psychotic mental illness in any specific individual is not needed to precipitate the delusion in susceptible people. And the fact that transition tends to attract people with severe mental illness (though mostly non-psychotic) and debility, that that maintains the potency of the diffused mental illness in the cohort, even though few have a psychotic illness per se.

It does seem speculative. But it's a serious attempt to link the socially contagious nature of the trans identity among young people with the extreme dis-regulation of the community as a whole, and high (but not uniform) prevalence of mental illness of those who seek to transition at a young age. Something that we've all observed.

Absolutely agree with this … and I am a doctor.

Couldn't agree more. We all know you can't change sex. How has this, this area / strain of psychiatry, been allowed to happen, when irs in conflict with the basic principle of health to look after the patients wellbeing, ie to address the core issue, their mental health. Why isn't this psychiatry being criticised by the rest of the health care system? (Money. We all know the answer!), I mean morally. It's a doctor's ethics, their code of ethics, at the root / the foundations, / the whole basis of their profession. Let's hope it turns, and starts soon.

weird little guy

Listen to yourself.

Nah money is far too simple, I believe. This is much deeper than money.

This lobby has played on people’s definition of what is kind and what makes you a good person. This cuts to the core of people seeing themselves as good people. If you don’t subscribe to trans ideology in its entirety then the ideology has sewn it up that you are a bad person.

It has twisted reality towards a common agreed delusion.

I’m wondering if it would be kinder to stop engaging with the handful of recent male posters on here.
Their constant lurking presence, waiting for responses and monitoring every reply cannot be helping their psychosis.
I know that Mumsnet supports free speech ( thank God!) and that increasing subscribers are obviously great for advertising revenue but maybe enough is enough.

Hmm @Huggersunite. I do of course know it's not just money. I actually shouldn't have written that, or should've expanded. But money is one of the causes. Trying to treat the patient, get rid of patient, as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Or if money was no object might the Doctor prescribe another treatment, another more expensive pill, a much more expensive operation?

And yes I think your idea of doing what is kind is true. But is that because it's also the much easier option.

And, what ARE the other 'Drivers' or reasons behind it all, what can actually be changed, and how easily?

When I first read your in parenthesis section "(Money. We all know the answer!)" my thoughts went to John Money and poor David Reimer.

Very good points.

I think where I’m coming from is I know a GP who has been caught up in this (non UK so prescribing pbs/ cross sex hormones etc) the whole rigmarole and she is so far from being motivated by money. I truly think that money doesn’t feature almost at all in the minds of those dealing with this from the “caring” professions.

From my experience of her situation she genuinely cares and wants to help and I think that care is being avidly manipulated by this ideology.

Maybe money is more of a driver in the US when people can actually make money out of it but not in more what the US might consider more socialist type economies.

I've always equated it to people who are mentally unwell and think they should have been born disabled.we don't chop their leg off do we? Although one doctor did if I recall correctly and got struck off (I may have made that up).

It has always seemed bonkers to me.

Agree in that I know of GPs in Canada who’s caught up in this and it’s from a ’bekind’ impulse. Saying no as the most kindest of actions seems lost from our societies.