An open letter to friends, family, the media, our kids' teaches and doctors, and everyone else I come into contact with ever. Please help me stop ranting.
Thank you for your dispatches on this topic. I’m curious if you might be able to elaborate on this one aspect of today’s post: “It is not okay to teach kids that everyone has a gender identity…” Doesn’t everyone, though? I’m still pretty new to this, so please pardon the question if it’s too basic. Thank you.
Does every person? I don't think so. That's a relatively new and western concept. It has clearly been meaningful to a lot of people who do feel they have a gender identity.
Meaning, then, that for most people their biological sex and gender identity are one-and-the-same so much so that they don't even consciously consider the concept of gender identity?
"Gender Identity" is a post facto justification for medical, surgical interventions on people who suffer from "gender dysphoria" - it's a theoretical concept, not a real thing. No one is "born in the wrong body" - that's a religious belief. The entire history of this fringe niche within a fringe corner of "medicine" is based on very little actual science.
Someone upthread linked a good substack article. Here's another:
Actually, it's not. Everyone has a brain sex, so everyone has a gender identity, which really should be called sexual identity. It's been proven (Bill Reiner at Hopkins, 2004), and the biological existence of trans persons has been proven neuroscientifically. It has nothing to do with religion, and trans/intersex people have been recognized in various cultures and historical eras. Today's situation is more complex, and I will respond to Lisa in greater detail.
Well, I said social contagion wasn't a useful way to talk about the broader cultural phenomenon of gender-expansive people and the confusion over what's natural and what needs medicated. Like, there's so much happening beyond this population that some call ROGD. There's a massive zeitgeist shift and there are very happily transitioned people and there are so many contradictory experiences and bits of information and I think that if you try to take it all in, rather than just what confirms your bias, your brain will fall out, and that's where we should start. We should start with: this is so difficult to understand and if we don't have lots of debate and scrutiny we'll never be able to help these distressed kids. Does that make sense?
I get it, and I appreciate your thoughtful comment. From my perspective, having lived through other eras with similar disorders which burned brightly for a few years, then went dormant, I see so many similarities, and I want so badly to stop young people from losing their health, fertility, and sexual function thinking this will bring them happiness.
Yes, of course, what you want is very reasonable. But GD existed long before this explosive new population, before anyone had a word for it, and kids were suffering feeling that the category they'd been born into wasn't right. This population is still with us, but that's again why it's so important to know what can lead to it (beyond misdiagnosing depression and teen angst). I'm not advising medicating those kids, I am advising acknowledging their existence and struggles and making sure we understand and accept them. But I am also into joining forces with people with whom I don't totally agree as long as we're all committed to turning this from a war into a debate. I can't stand to see how institutions have shut down questioning and refuse to digest research that disrupts a predetermined conclusion.
Hold on just a minute there. How are you defining GD? Discomfort with one's body? Discomfort with restrictive gender roles? Discomfort with same sex attraction? Because I think this is sweeping in a lot of kids who would otherwise be gay or bi, or non-conforming.
One of the things which bothers me is that being uncomfortable with one's changing body is the default feeling of coming of age. We write children's stories about this, how the ugly duckling turns into the swan. And further, we tell children that they while they might feel small and unappreciated now, they have a secret self inside them, a beautiful heroic self, which will eventually be revealed to the world, which will love them and recognize their wonderfulness. Cinderella becomes a princess, Harry Potter leaves the room under the stairs to save the world. Whereas we used to just grow out of our awkwardness, and/or travel to the big city where we found our community, now there's this promise that transition will set everything to right. And now we're seeing the influx of detransitioners which we predicted five years ago.
It means significant impairment or distress. Not just discomfort. At any rate, yes, we have a broad group of people beneath the umbrella of trans, the umbrella of GD, and the questions you ask are good ones.
Young people are saying discomfort is distress or significant impairment... social dysphoria, autism and normal development are all falling under the GD and therefor trans umbrella
re "having lived through other eras with similar disorders which burned brightly for a few years, then went dormant, I see so many similarities, and I want so badly to stop young people from losing their health, fertility, and sexual function thinking this will bring them happiness" -- this is something I've been thinking about and posting about too -- the fact that many conditions are culturally created, and we don't recognize the difference between human universals and things we've essentially invented. We would do well to tell the difference!!
Not only is this an interesting comparison, but it's interesting that the guy who first gave this amputation condition attention was that fetishist John Money (the same guy who promoted sex change in children, and who abused David Reimer and his twin). What a huge coincidence, eh?
And speaking of culturally created "illnesses" have you heard of the new-ish Tourette's-ish "illness" arising through social media? I'll probably be writing about that soon.
Here is a post on gender by another substacker that I found very insightful:
https://bprice.substack.com/p/trans-is-something-we-made-up
This is such a good summary of the issues. Keep talking and writing Lisa!
To your resources, I’d add TRANSPARENCY (a Podcast from Gender Dysphoria Alliance).
https://transparency.podbean.com/
Transmen Aaron Terrell and Aaron Kimberley draw on their own experience and those of their guests.
I'll add, thanks!
We do know...
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/02/60143/
And moreover, this is the sort of outcome one might expect when emotional distress is treated medically and surgically.
Thank you for your dispatches on this topic. I’m curious if you might be able to elaborate on this one aspect of today’s post: “It is not okay to teach kids that everyone has a gender identity…” Doesn’t everyone, though? I’m still pretty new to this, so please pardon the question if it’s too basic. Thank you.
Does every person? I don't think so. That's a relatively new and western concept. It has clearly been meaningful to a lot of people who do feel they have a gender identity.
Meaning, then, that for most people their biological sex and gender identity are one-and-the-same so much so that they don't even consciously consider the concept of gender identity?
"Gender Identity" is a post facto justification for medical, surgical interventions on people who suffer from "gender dysphoria" - it's a theoretical concept, not a real thing. No one is "born in the wrong body" - that's a religious belief. The entire history of this fringe niche within a fringe corner of "medicine" is based on very little actual science.
Someone upthread linked a good substack article. Here's another:
https://kirino.substack.com/p/the-transgender-mirage
Also, check out Hacsi Horvath's writings on the subject...
https://4thwavenow.com/tag/hacsi-horvath/
Actually, it's not. Everyone has a brain sex, so everyone has a gender identity, which really should be called sexual identity. It's been proven (Bill Reiner at Hopkins, 2004), and the biological existence of trans persons has been proven neuroscientifically. It has nothing to do with religion, and trans/intersex people have been recognized in various cultures and historical eras. Today's situation is more complex, and I will respond to Lisa in greater detail.
I do not have a gender identity.
Brava again!!!!
Thank you!
I have trouble explaining the whole mess, as you call it, to people, grateful for this excellent introduction to share!
Keep on spewing!!
Nicely done. You said previously you did not think this was a social contagion. Do you still think not?
Well, I said social contagion wasn't a useful way to talk about the broader cultural phenomenon of gender-expansive people and the confusion over what's natural and what needs medicated. Like, there's so much happening beyond this population that some call ROGD. There's a massive zeitgeist shift and there are very happily transitioned people and there are so many contradictory experiences and bits of information and I think that if you try to take it all in, rather than just what confirms your bias, your brain will fall out, and that's where we should start. We should start with: this is so difficult to understand and if we don't have lots of debate and scrutiny we'll never be able to help these distressed kids. Does that make sense?
I get it, and I appreciate your thoughtful comment. From my perspective, having lived through other eras with similar disorders which burned brightly for a few years, then went dormant, I see so many similarities, and I want so badly to stop young people from losing their health, fertility, and sexual function thinking this will bring them happiness.
Yes, of course, what you want is very reasonable. But GD existed long before this explosive new population, before anyone had a word for it, and kids were suffering feeling that the category they'd been born into wasn't right. This population is still with us, but that's again why it's so important to know what can lead to it (beyond misdiagnosing depression and teen angst). I'm not advising medicating those kids, I am advising acknowledging their existence and struggles and making sure we understand and accept them. But I am also into joining forces with people with whom I don't totally agree as long as we're all committed to turning this from a war into a debate. I can't stand to see how institutions have shut down questioning and refuse to digest research that disrupts a predetermined conclusion.
Hold on just a minute there. How are you defining GD? Discomfort with one's body? Discomfort with restrictive gender roles? Discomfort with same sex attraction? Because I think this is sweeping in a lot of kids who would otherwise be gay or bi, or non-conforming.
One of the things which bothers me is that being uncomfortable with one's changing body is the default feeling of coming of age. We write children's stories about this, how the ugly duckling turns into the swan. And further, we tell children that they while they might feel small and unappreciated now, they have a secret self inside them, a beautiful heroic self, which will eventually be revealed to the world, which will love them and recognize their wonderfulness. Cinderella becomes a princess, Harry Potter leaves the room under the stairs to save the world. Whereas we used to just grow out of our awkwardness, and/or travel to the big city where we found our community, now there's this promise that transition will set everything to right. And now we're seeing the influx of detransitioners which we predicted five years ago.
It means significant impairment or distress. Not just discomfort. At any rate, yes, we have a broad group of people beneath the umbrella of trans, the umbrella of GD, and the questions you ask are good ones.
Young people are saying discomfort is distress or significant impairment... social dysphoria, autism and normal development are all falling under the GD and therefor trans umbrella
re "having lived through other eras with similar disorders which burned brightly for a few years, then went dormant, I see so many similarities, and I want so badly to stop young people from losing their health, fertility, and sexual function thinking this will bring them happiness" -- this is something I've been thinking about and posting about too -- the fact that many conditions are culturally created, and we don't recognize the difference between human universals and things we've essentially invented. We would do well to tell the difference!!
It's a fascinating topic which I've been thinking about in relation to social media and online life since the Atlantic published this article in 2000: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/
Wow, fascinating article. From an era when it was okay to discuss and discern, I guess.
Hey, let's do that now!
Not only is this an interesting comparison, but it's interesting that the guy who first gave this amputation condition attention was that fetishist John Money (the same guy who promoted sex change in children, and who abused David Reimer and his twin). What a huge coincidence, eh?
And speaking of culturally created "illnesses" have you heard of the new-ish Tourette's-ish "illness" arising through social media? I'll probably be writing about that soon.