Story: "Trans teen regrets his ‘Frankenstein’ transition."

[HarryStotle]

But I do want to oppose the view that these horrendous surgeries are about persons pursuing flights of fancy, or purely self-indulgent in every case.

A comparable category of surgery might be something like cosmetic surgery done to enhance some bodily feature the individual isn’t happy with or causes them discomfort.

You would have to agree that some cosmetic surgery is “purely self-indulgent,” while other surgery done to repair scarring or injury of some sort could be legitimate.

I think in this comparison is where it might be made clearer where the “self-indulgence” factor of reassignment surgeries might arise.

Wouldn’t we call cosmetic surgery done to enhance a body part that no one but the person themselves thinks is problematic a “flight of fancy?” I mean if no reasonable or normal person looking at a “problematic” nose (i.e., one that only the person wanting “a fix” thinks is an issue) sees any issue at all with it, wouldn’t THAT be a “flight of fancy” or an overly sensitive response on the part of the person wanting a different nose?

What if that person was so sensitive, so appalled by their nose that they were determined to have surgery to correct it, no matter what anyone else said or thought? Even so, wouldn’t that still be overly self-indulgent, bordering on extreme vanity or some other psychological issue? We wouldn’t suggest that those around that individual should be forced into “seeing it their way,” would we?

And what of parents who insisted their 3 year old child must undergo a “nose job” when no reasonable person that the child’s nose was at all a problem? Should the parents be allowed to put a child through such a procedure purely for their own vanity?

Why then is it only the person who “doesn’t feel right” about their gender, that necessarily has the “correct” view on that? Why isn’t it “self-indulgent” of that individual to demand that everyone around them – parents, for example – be forced to see things as they do regarding what they think is their proper gender?

Appropriate to this discussion is the recent report that 35 psychologists from the NHS’ Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) owing to extreme concern for the children being put through procedures by their parents or by the service as adolescents. They cite fear of being labeled “transphobic” as a reason psychologists have been unable to properly assess patients.

The NHS is “over-diagnosing” children having medical treatment for gender dysphoria, with psychologists unable to properly assess patients over fears they will be branded “transphobic”, former staff have warned.

Thirty five psychologists have resigned from the children’s gender-identity service in London in the last three years, Sky News research suggests.
Source: NHS 'over-diagnosing' children having transgender treatment, former staff warn | UK News | Sky News

Douglas Murray has some interesting things to say about how identitarian ideology is impacting society in very negative ways.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Making some huge deal out of sexual attraction and identity as if that is the principal determiner of what defines the individual as a human being is certain to only create more anxiety and confusion.

Most gay men don’t think that their sexual orientation is the principle determiner of what defines them as a human being. It’s only one of many things that defines them depending on the circumstances. Sometimes gay men do need to identify themselves by their sexuality, otherwise how would they ever be able to find other gay men for friendship, romance, etc. in a world where most men are straight? And for a lot of gay men who are from isolated, small towns, coming together with other gay men for something like a parade provides an important sense of belonging. In other settings, most gay men probably don’t explicitly bring up their sexual orientation. If it comes up at all, it’s probably something like, " I’d like to introduce you to my partner, John."

This is almost believable. The problem with it is that it is being accompanied by an extreme social animus towards what was a decade ago the normative perspective of virtually everyone.

Apparently, continually attacking traditional values and views on sexuality is paying off for the progressive left.

Even back in 2015 a YouGov survey in Great Britain found that …

Asked to plot themselves on a ‘sexuality scale’, 23% of British people choose something other than 100% heterosexual – and the figure rises to 49% among 18-24 year olds.​

YouGov

yougov.co.uk

It appears that normalizing every behaviour except normal heterosexuality and self-restraint is resulting in converts to the progressive cause of undermining normal/responsible human sexual behaviour. How else to you explain a rise of 26% in seeing themselves as "something other than 100% heterosexual among 18-24 year olds (49%), while less than half (23%) of that result was manifested among the rest of the population.

It appears that individuals are far more pliant when it comes to sexual behaviour than what you would suppose. i.e., it isn’t so much genetic or brain caused, but far more susceptible to social engineering. I would guess the progressive social moulders knew that all along and were stringing everyone along the whole time.

 

[Rau]

A comparable category of surgery might be something like cosmetic surgery done to enhance some bodily feature the individual isn’t happy with or causes them discomfort.

If the premise here is that, say, a woman’s discomfort with the small size of her breasts is comparable with the discomfort of a person suffering a severe case of dysphoria - I’d tend to disagree with you.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

A comparable category of surgery might be something like cosmetic surgery done to enhance some bodily feature the individual isn’t happy with or causes them discomfort.

If the premise here is that, say, a woman’s discomfort with the small size of her breasts is comparable with the discomfort of a person suffering a severe case of dysphoria - I’d tend to disagree with you.

You aren’t claiming that mere severity of discomfort ought to determine the measures taken to alleviate that discomfort, are you?

In that case, should those suffering from anorexia to be given liposuction treatments, purely to alleviate their severe dysphoria?

 

[Rau]

You aren’t claiming that mere severity of discomfort ought to determine the measures taken to alleviate that discomfort, are you?

I am sure it is a factor in a situation where the morality of the proposed treatment is not confidently known.

should those suffering from anorexia to be given liposuction treatments, purely to alleviate their severe dysphoria?

Since there are knowN treatments, probably not. If shat you propose does more harm than good, definitely not.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You aren’t claiming that mere severity of discomfort ought to determine the measures taken to alleviate that discomfort, are you?

I am sure it is a factor in a situation where the morality of the proposed treatment is not confidently known.

should those suffering from anorexia to be given liposuction treatments, purely to alleviate their severe dysphoria?

Since there are knowN treatments, probably not. If shat you propose does more harm than good, definitely not.

So in the absence of known treatments, any treatment, no matter how severe or barbaric ought to be recommended, or at least tried? How, exactly, is it to be known whether it does more harm than good without trying it? At least, that is what the proponents of the “we ought to do X” will argue.

You would have supported bloodletting as the standard treatment for various conditions, from plague and smallpox to epilepsy and gout because no other effective treatment was known? And that the “more harm” wasn’t exactly a quantifiable entity at the time.

How about refraining from any treatment until the causes are better known? Isn’t that a more reasonable approach?

 

[PetraG]

How about refraining from any treatment until the causes are better known? Isn’t that a more reasonable approach?

This is particularly true when speaking of a malady that does not have a definitive diagnosis. You can’t do a test and identify why someone is experiencing gender dysphoria. These symptoms can last a lifetime, but they aren’t always lasting, particularly in the young.

Another confounding variable is the rate at which these symptoms are comorbid with problems such as major depression or autism. (I’m not going to cite the higher prevalence of gender dysphoria symptoms reported by autistic youth here, because I don’t have time to read through and find which is a better or worse one, but these are not hard to find. The challenge would be sifting through them to get a better idea about what is and is not believed about the link and the evidence, etc)

 

[Rau]

So in the absence of known treatments , any treatment, no matter how severe or barbaric ought to be recommended

All you words Harry - not mine.

How about refraining from any treatment until the causes are better known? Isn’t that a more reasonable approach?

Probably best to ask the sufferers that question.

 

[Rau]

These symptoms can last a lifetime, but they aren’t always lasting, particularly in the young.

True. Considerable prudence is required and there are disturbing examples where that is lacking.

 

[PetraG]

True. Considerable prudence is required and there are disturbing examples where that is lacking.

Well, we have to be honest and admit that we are in the camp that holds that changing gender is an impossibility. That makes the who matter of “gender-transition” inherently deceptive and therefore an unethical treatment when the goal is to convince the patient that all vestiges of the patient’s original sex has been eradicated.

(I appreciate that there are Catholics who hold that the emotional issues are evidence of ambiguous physiology every bit as much as a more obvious physical sexual ambiguity. I am afraid that has yet to have been established, though. There are ambiguous cases, but there is certainly no physical test that allows physicians to diagnose an identifiable physical ambiguity as the basis for all those who consider themselves transgendered.)

Having said that, if the treatment (i.e., of surgical rearrangement of primary sexual characteristics to portray the opposite sex) were as generally ethical in theory as being supposed even in places on this thread, there would still be a very high bar to cross for doing irreversible surgery on young people and their ability to reproduce. No one in medicine ought to be willing to make someone incapable of intercourse (let alone incapable of reproduction generally) without REALLY being forced to do it. The bar for surgery like this really needs to be extremely high for patients early in their child-bearing years, even from a perspective that rejects Church teaching and believes that gender reassignment can actually be accomplished.

In other words: It is far more ethically problematic to perform this kind of a surgery on a young person than on an older person who is past their reproductive years and who has had the symptoms for long enough past their adolescence that disappearance of the symptoms with time is less likely.

 

[Rau]

That makes the who matter of “gender-transition” inherently deceptive and therefore an unethical treatment when the goal is to convince the patient that all vestiges of the patient’s original sex has been eradicated.

I don’t think “convincing the patient” should be a goal. The goal is to do enough to relieve the dissonance sufficiently.

(I appreciate that there are Catholics who hold that the emotional issues are evidence of ambiguous physiology every bit as much as a more obvious physical sexual ambiguity. I am afraid that has yet to have been established, though. There are ambiguous cases, but there is certainly no physical test that allows physicians to diagnose an identifiable physical ambiguity as the basis for all those who consider themselves transgendered.)

Something is amiss in the brain. There are theories about “incorrect sexing” of the brain advanced by experts, but there is no certainty about what is going on.

there would still be a very high bar to cross for doing irreversible surgery on young people and their ability to reproduce. No one in medicine ought to be willing to make someone incapable of intercourse (let alone incapable of reproduction generally) without REALLY being forced to do it.

Agreed.

and believes that gender reassignment can actually be accomplished.

I don’t know what you mean by “accomplishment of gender reassignment”. The surgery can only produce a facsimile of the body of the other sex.

 

[PetraG]

I don’t know what you mean by “accomplishment of gender reassignment”. The surgery can only produce a facsimile of the body of the other sex.

What I mean is that while I don’t believe it is possible, someone who does still has major ethical hurdles to cross before they can justify resorting to such a drastic treatment.

 

[OraLabora]

Well, we have to be honest and admit that we are in the camp that holds that changing gender is an impossibility.

Transgendered people would agree with you. They are convinced without any doubt that their gender is the one they experience from within and it is unchangeable. Gender confirmation surgery is not about changing gender; it’s about making the outward body appear as much as possible to the body of the gender they experience from within. Living according to their outward appearance is attempting to change genders, in their view, whereas changing the body is simply an outward confirmation of the gender they believe they already are.

Whether this is true from a brain structure standpoint or is a psychological issue remains to be proved. Until then I take them at their word because without treatment too many end up with a horrible end.

Probably best to ask the sufferers that question.

Consideration of the lived experiences of transgendered persons is what is sorely lacking in this debate, from those that purport to know what is best for them.

Walking a mile in their shoes… probably impossible for non-trans persons, but surely at least hearing them say what their lives are like would be the next best thing?

 

[Rau]

surely at least hearing them say what their lives are like would be the next best thing?

Right, though not something available to us. There have been various tv documentaries, though those I can remember did not adequately address this aspect.

 

[OraLabora]

Well, since I am the father of a transgendered child, I have been trying to support her world-view here to anyone prepared to listen and at least consider that there is a very real, suffering, human being involved, beyond the pontifications of those smug in their world-view.

Few seem to be interested in considering that beyond all the theories, there is suffering crying for relief.

 

[vz71]

Gender confirmation surgery is not about changing gender; it’s about making the outward body appear as much as possible to the body of the gender they experience from within.

Gender confirmation?
They are mutilating a healthy body to make it conform to a belief of an individual that may not conform to reality.

This is not confirmation. It is a sin.

 

[Annie]

I think the issue of “worldview” is a problem. TG activists try to get us to concede that TGism is a normal thing like blue eyes or black hair, and that there is a tyrannical majority (like feminism and the pateiarchy) which (gasp!) assigns “gender” at birth rather than noting and recording the biological sex of the infant, etc.

However, we are also supposed to treat this as a medical problem, allowing TG people who desire surgery to get it under health insurance or government health services.

And we are also supposed to treat it as a psychological issue and not disturb TG people.

And all at the same time, we are also precluded from considering it a problem, because it is “normal,” and not look for sources of the problem, or try to treat other psychological issues TG people may have as anything other than resulting from the terrible treatment TG people receive at the hands of the tyrannical majority rather than a possible source of the TG issue, because that would be conversion therapy, which as we all know is totally evil because some few practitioners used abusive means, altho those who used electro-shock therapy are given a pass…

It’s one thing to say, some people have a problem, what can we do? And another to say, we do not have a problem.

 

[Thorolfr]

HarryStotle:

How about refraining from any treatment until the causes are better known? Isn’t that a more reasonable approach?

This is particularly true when speaking of a malady that does not have a definitive diagnosis. You can’t do a test and identify why someone is experiencing gender dysphoria. These symptoms can last a lifetime, but they aren’t always lasting, particularly in the young.

Another confounding variable is the rate at which these symptoms are comorbid with problems such as major depression or autism. (I’m not going to cite the higher prevalence of gender dysphoria symptoms reported by autistic youth here, because I don’t have time to read through and find which is a better or worse one, but these are not hard to find. The challenge would be sifting through them to get a better idea about what is and is not believed about the link and the evidence, etc)

If doctors were to refrain from treating people with mental disorders until their causes were known, then they wouldn’t be able to treat hardly anyone. Let’s look at what the website of the Mayo Clinic has to say about the causes of a number of other disorders:

Schizophrenia: “It’s not known what causes schizophrenia, but researchers believe that a combination of genetics, brain chemistry and environment contributes to development of the disorder.”

Bipolar Disorder: “The exact cause of bipolar disorder is unknown.”

ADHD: “While the exact cause of ADHD is not clear, research efforts continue.”

Depression (major depressive disorder): “It’s not known exactly what causes depression.”

Since the causes of most mental disorders are unknown, there are obviously no tests that can identify why someone has these disorders.There is no blood test that a doctor can run to determine whether a patient has depression or anxiety or bipolar disorder, etc., much less why they have it. The diagnosis is based primarily on a “clinical interview” with the patient and possibly with other persons who know the patient and relies on the training, judgment and skill of the person doing the interviews and making the diagnosis.

Or what about comorbidities? The fact is that most mental disorders are often comorbid with other disorders. For example, most books on ADHD list other disorders that are frequently comorbid with it. Here’s what one website says: “When comorbid conditions are present, it can make the diagnosis of ADHD much more difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint and the symptoms harder to treat. Some comorbid disorders that commonly occur alongside ADHD are: Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Depression, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Conduct Disorder, Sensory Integration Disorder, Learning Disorder, Early Speech/Communication problems.”

Gender dysphoria is not much different from most other mental disorders in the DSM in its causes not being known. And most mental disorders don’t have a truly definitive diagnosis. There are usually a list of possible symptoms and to make a diagnosis, the patient must have, say, at least five of those symptoms out of nine.

 

[HarryStotle]

If doctors were to refrain from treating people with mental disorders until their causes were known, then they wouldn’t be able to treat hardly anyone. Let’s look at what the website of the Mayo Clinic has to say about the causes of a number of other disorders:

I suppose that depends upon what the doctors have in mind as treatment. If the treatment is known not to cause an intolerable degree of potential harm, the treatment might be tried. Still, most treatments have rigorous testing standards where the potential for harm is very small.

In the case of gender reassignment surgery, the treatment is invasive, severe and for the most part not reversible. Ergo, it is this kind of treatment that is problematic. So let’s not lump all possible treatments together, as if they are indistinguishable.

A parallel would be a doctor who recommends a lobotomy for severe mental disorders where their causes are not known. Seems just a tad irresponsible.

 

[Thorolfr]

I suppose that depends upon what the doctors have in mind as treatment. If the treatment is known not to cause an intolerable degree of potential harm, the treatment might be tried. Still, most treatments have rigorous testing standards where the potential for harm is very small.

I’m not completely convinced that the potential for harm is always “very small” when it comes to treatments for most other disorders. Take ADHD, for example, a disorder that I know a lot about. One of the most common treatments for ADHD is a prescription stimulant such as Ritalin or Adderall. But according to an article in WebMD:

Nearly one in every five college students abuses prescription stimulants, according to a new survey sponsored by the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids. The survey also found that one in seven non-students of similar age also report abusing stimulant medications.

Young adults aged 18 to 25 report using the drugs to help them stay awake, study or improve their work or school performance. The most commonly abused stimulants are those typically prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as Adderall, Ritalin and Vyvanse, the survey found…

Even young adults who are legally prescribed stimulants for specific health conditions can risk becoming more addicted, as happened to the son of Kathleen Dobbs, a retiree who co-founded the grass roots coalition Parent to Parent, Inc.

Her son was diagnosed with ADHD at age 8 and began taking Ritalin at age 10, but by high school doctors switched him to various other drugs before Dobbs requested no more prescriptions. By then, however, he was seeking out Ritalin from classmates and then moved on to cocaine to “feel normal,” Dobbs said.

Also, what do we know about the long term use of stimulant medications? Here’s what one website says: “Side effects and risks associated with the long-term use of ADHD medication include: Heart disease, high blood pressure, seizure, irregular heartbeat, abuse and addiction, skin discolorations.” Or here’s a 2001 study, “Long-term effects of stimulant medications on the brain: possible relevance to the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” According to the abstract: “In spite of extensive data supporting the short-term efficacy and safety of stimulant medications in the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), only limited information is available on the long-term effects of these drugs.”

I was really hesitant to take a stimulant medication for my ADHD for a long time because I don’t know for sure what its long term effects on my brain will be or whether over an extended period of time it will significantly increase my risk of high blood pressure and heart disease. In the end, I decided (partly out of desperation) that the benefits of the medication outweigh the risks. I still don’t believe, however, that the potential for harm is “very small.”