Comment (54)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiFocus on gender politics: Is changing gender as simple as changing clothes?
Newsweek recently painted a sympathetic portrait of women imprisoned in men's bodies. Such people need a psychiatrist, not a surgeon.
Political correctness is not only contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment of the American Constitution but also makes for soporific discourse. Newsweek’s recent cover story on transgenders certainly proves that the priests of tolerance and diversity have successfully exorcised the ghost of satirist H.L. Menken from the mainstream media. Newsweek’s coverage was so saccharine that I needed wet wipes after each page.
An issue involving sex and castration should generate a lot of hotly disputed questions. Unhappily, Newsweek relegated any dispute to the usual evangelical bogeyman, with mild scepticism replacing controversy. After all, it averred, we can’t really know the difference between men and women, or male and female. Even the experts at the International Olympic Committee plead ignorance, it was claimed, when it comes to "scientifically" differentiating between a man and a woman. (If East Germany still existed I guess that its athletes could get their medals back!)
At conception, men and women are bestowed an unchanging role in the procreation of offspring. As male and female, we can either participate or not participate in that relationship; but we can’t switch roles. We can't be reassigned.
Newsweek also avoided the other key debate about this difficult issue: whether or not transgenders have a mental illness or merely an inconsequential desire. The word "transgender" is a neologism coined by activists to denote people who at least sometimes identify themselves with the opposite sex. Typically, these folks are transsexuals and/or transvestites. Both transsexuals and transvestites have been in the psychiatric "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (DSM). Transvestitism is intense sexual arousal to women’s clothing. Transsexuals identify themselves as the opposite sex. In 1980, transsexualism was added to the third edition of DSM. In 1994, the term "gender identity disorder" replaced transsexualism.
Doctors get involved because transsexuals often demand hormones and surgery to fulfill their desires. But are physicians enabling a mental illness or merely complying with a cosmetic request?
Many transgender activists object to the "crazy" label. The brother/sister of actors, Rosanna, David and Patricia Arquette was featured in Newsweek. Alexis Arquette is on a crusade against current standards of care. He/she complains that sceptics are "questioning the sanity of people like myself". Most sexual reassignment centers require two years of counselling before the procedure. Alexis objects to the counselling and seems to propose that physicians ought to treat castration and penile amputations as casually as nose jobs.
A few years ago I attended a program at the American Psychiatric Association’s Annual Conference. An editor of the DSM was under attack for describing gender identity disorder as a mental illness. But in the course of the debate, in a remarkable display of having your cake and eating it too, the transsexual woman who argued against its inclusion was forced to admit that a DSM diagnosis was necessary after all. Why? Because otherwise people suffering from the disorder could not get their health insurance company to cover the cost of the procedures.
Which leads to the $64,000 question. If transsexualism is a disease, then is sexual reassignment the cure?
Let's look more carefully at this notion. Sexual reassignment, with hormone treatment and surgery, is a woolly term which is used far too casually. Take the word "reassignment". What are defenders of transsexualism implying when they use it? In my view, they are relying upon both hoary old Freudian ideas and a silly recent movement called constructivism. The upshot of these two schools of thought is that nature is unimportant compared to nurture. Society and technology always trump biology. So using the word "reassignment" implies that sex is an arbitrary category imposed by the dominant culture through the family. From this perspective, sex is merely a societal convention. In the same way that we expect men to be soldiers and women to be nurses, we expect boys to be boys and girls to be girls. But things can change: women can become soldiers and men can become nurses. So, hey, why can't boys become girls and girls become boys?
Our unquestioning acceptance of the phrase reflects the modern separation between sex and reproduction. Sex has lost its primary meaning as a relationship of two beings vis-à-vis the procreation of life. At conception, men and women are bestowed an unchanging role in the procreation of offspring. As male and female, we can either participate or not participate in that relationship; but we can’t switch roles. We can't be reassigned.
What happens in sexual reassignment? Doctors employ a range of pharmaceutical, surgical and cosmetic procedures to produce either more feminine or more masculine features. Some trans-women may only take up electrolysis and breast augmentation. Others spend tens of thousands for amputation, castration and vaginal construction. Obviously, these procedures destroy the procreative relationship.
The most famous transsexual, Renee Richards, has publicly expressed regret about her decision. Born as Richard Raskind in 1934, she went to Yale and became an eye surgeon and an international tennis star. She even married and fathered a child. But in 1977 she had sex reassignment surgery. She even competed in the US Open in various women's and mixed doubles. But in February 2007, she told the New York Times, "Better to be an intact man functioning with 100 per cent capacity for everything than to be a transsexual woman who is an imperfect woman."
Newsweek presents transsexuals’ pursuit of sex change as inevitable. However, sex researcher J. Michael Bailey in his book, The Man Who Would Be Queen, notes the decision for sex reassignment has a "rational component" and that the "large majority of boys who start out looking transsexual ultimately do not pursue sex reassignment."
The most outspoken critic of sexual reassignment has been Paul McHugh, MD, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. After becoming chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the elite Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, McHugh began studying gender disorders and the sexual reassignment program at his university. After discovering that many transsexuals had strongly masculine interests, McHugh became sceptical of the standard story about "women trapped in men’s bodies." He became convinced that reassignment should be discouraged. Eventually Johns Hopkins stopped doing the procedures.
McHugh’s scepticism was eventually supported by research indicating that bisexual and heterosexual transvestites and transsexuals are sexually aroused by the idea of being a woman. They fantasise about being the female during sex. A sexologist from the Canadian Clarke Institute, Ray Blanchard named this desire autogynephilia. Transsexual physician Anne Lawrence has described autogynephiles as "men trapped in men’s bodies."
In a 2004 article in the journal First Things, McHugh pulls no punches. In a long account of how he managed to persuade his colleagues that sex reassignment was bunk, he asserts that: "We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia."
I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. Their parents usually lived with guilt over their decisions — second-guessing themselves and somewhat ashamed of the fabrication, both surgical and social, they had imposed on their sons. As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their "true" sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.
Many cities have had much less qualms about cooperating with this madness. Last November, New York City’s Public Health Board recommended that people be allowed to change the sex on birth certificates if they provided evidence from a physician that the change would be permanent. Transgender advocates praise the health board for eliminating anatomy -- and any other physiological, genetic or medical requirements -- as proof of sex. A spokesman for the New York Transgender Rights Coalition, offering some armchair Freudian insights, praised the change as "a move away from American culture’s misguided fixation on genitals as the basis for one’s gender identity".
In moving away from anatomical considerations, health commissioner Dr Frieden announced a new standard for redefining one's own sex. Frieden emphasized that it’s the "permanence that matters". Permanence? For Frieden this meant two years of living as the opposite sex. But how would a doctor prove that this two-year requirement? With hidden cameras? A physician would become merely a rubber stamp for anyone who appears in his office and claims to have lived as a woman for two years. Still, transgender advocates pushed for the elimination of any medical requirements.
The swift public response surprised the health board. Hospitals complained that women would be forced to share rooms with men. Prison officials complained that they would be forced to transfer men to female facilities. Dr McHugh warned the board that such changes would make sexual identification impossible. "I’ve already heard of a ‘transgendered’ man who claimed at work to be ‘a woman in a man’s body but a lesbian’ and who had to be expelled from the ladies’ restroom because he was propositioning women there," he said. "He saw this as a great injustice in that his behavior was justified in his mind by the idea that the categories he claimed for himself were all ‘official’ and had legal rights attached to them."
The Board of Health withdrew the proposal. "This is something we hadn’t fully thought through, frankly." Health Commissioner Friedan admitted. "What a birth certificate shows does have implications beyond just what a birth certificate shows."
The madness is beyond transsexualism.
Theron Bowers MD is a Texas psychiatrist.
One minor correction: the word “Transgender” was not invented by “Activists” in favour of genital surgery. It was invented by Virginia Prince, who, like Dr Bowers, is of the opinion that anyone requesting surgery is insane, and was specifically intended to differentiate the sane transvestites, drag queens and cross-dressers like him - Mr Prince I mean, not Dr Bowers - from the crazies.
That someone speaking as a Psychiatrist doesn’t know this is troubling. One might be forgiven for suspecting the Doctor’s knowledge of this area is less than complete. I think I’m correct in stating that Dr Bowers’ specialty is dealing with substance abuse, not gender issues?
I must add in Dr Bowers defence that the word “Transgender” in the US has come to mean anyone who has gender irregularities, ranging from the classic fetishist transvestite through to those born with ambiguous genitalia, Kleinfelters syndrome, Turner syndrome and so on. As an MD, I’m sure Dr Bowers is familiar with the technical terms.
It would be an easy mistake for an amateur to make to think that the word “Transgender” was an “Activist Neologism”, but surprising for someone “speaking as a Psychiatrist” .
Nonetheless, and as he speaks as a Psychiatrist, I hope Dr Bowers can tell us of his extensive experience successfully treating patients with GID using conventional methods, and show that the successes lasted at least 5 years. Perhaps he can point to his longstanding membership of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (now WPATH), the medical “special interest group” dealing with GID. I’m sure the experts in the area would find Dr Bowers views… outspoken. Eccentric, even.
Personally, despite having doubts, I hope Dr Bowers really does have data that backs up his unusual and extreme opinions. We really don’t know nearly enough about gender and neurobiology, and anything he can contribute with a factual basis would be most welcome. Unsubstantiated opinion from a non-specialist though is not particularly helpful.
These comments are predominantly from those who ‘don’t get it’! I don’t believe Mercator should give them a chance to vent! When serious studies back up common sense and traditional good, these sad folk are pushing a rock uphill and choose to hurt themselves. The spiritual reward of clean living is health and happiness.
MercatorNet:
“I don’t believe Mercator should give them a chance to vent!”
It is an forum. Please continue your discussions, as this is a great oppourtunity to spread sound ideas!
“I think we have the freedom to decide how we want to live our lives; not by decisions swayed by religious inclinations of a doctor at Johns Hopkins.
Could it be that all of this should be left up to the individuals “pursuit of happiness” as penned by Thomas Jefferson? Let each person decide how they want to live their lives. Would that hurt society so much?”
Sorry but no one has the freedom to commit evil.
Thomas Jefferson believed in God, just in case some people still don’t know.
Yes people should be allwed to decide how they want to live their lives, but only as long as their decisions do not violate the moral teachings of God.
Such freedom is not absolute and only remains freedom as long as it does not violate God’s Word, once it does it is no longer freedom but immorality and perversion.
What these sexual deviants go through because of their immorality is irrelevant, it does not make their immorality moral.
This article sickens me ... and doesn’t even try to cover up the bias and ignorance. Easy to prove a point by only talking to one side, only telling one side of the story, only those people who share the same attitudes and beliefs that you do.
Theron Bowers - Where is the other side of the coin? Why have you so blatantly disregarded or tried to discredit anyone and any idea that does not mesh wish your beliefs.
You have no idea what transsexuals and transgendered people go through in life .. as a man, or woman. You may want to research this more, and try to rid your mind of the obvious prejudice and fear (or hatred) that exists in there before writing again.
Speaking as a Scientist, Dr Bowers appears to be wanting to have his cake and eat it too regarding the infallibility of the DSM defining Mental Illnesses.
I’ll quote from him :
“Psychiatry built the medical tower of mental disorders by equating emotional suffering with disease. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) identifies distress as a hallmark of mental disorder. The focus on distress is so entrenched that many perversions such as bestiality, sado-masochism and transvestitism are no longer classified as mental disorders unless the practitioner is “distressed” over the behavior.”
One could be forgiven for thinking that Dr Bowers proceeded from the premise “transvestites are perverts” based on his profound and deeply-held religious convictions, then constructed a justification by cherry-picking evidence, often from people with like minds (such as former Vatican advisor on sexual matters, Dr McHugh).
From “The Sex Abuse War: Faithful Catholics Face Gay-Media Axis”
“In the May issue of Fessio’s CWR (Catholic Weekly Review), Theron C. Bowers Jr., M.D., said, “As a psychiatrist, I have a not-so-tongue-in-cheek strategy for clearing up the scandal. We could hypnotize the bishops into believing that these sexual offenders are orthodox, pre-Vatican II troglodytes.”
As a psychiatrist.... again, one could be forgiven for thinking that Dr Bowers is not so much speaking on these issues “as a psychiatrist”, but “as a Catholic”. I might add that my own son is being brought up in the Catholic Faith, with my full blessing. Over the long term, they have a good track record.
“Eventually Johns Hopkins stopped doing the procedures.”
Indeed. Dr Bowers - by what I am sure us just an oversight - fails to mention that the closure happened in October 1979, and that most of the medical evidence for a neurobiological basis for transsexualism (scanty though it is) dates from 1996 or later.
Zhou J.-N, Hofman M.A, Gooren L.J, Swaab D.F (1997)
A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Transsexuality.
Kruijver F.P.M, Zhou J.-N, Pool C.W., Swaab D.F. (2000)
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus
Exactly what makes us “know” whether we are male or female, something proven independant of our genital configuration or socialisation, is not well understood. We have good reason to believe that structures around the Hypothalamus are involved, but that these are symptomatic rather than causal.
I’m sure that it was another oversight that Dr Bowers failed to mention the consistent failure of any other therapeutic regime, be it psychotherapy, neurosurgery, any non-hormonal drug intervention, or even exorcism, to effect any cure or even improvement over 5 years in controlled studies.
I’m not being sarcastic when I mentioned exorcism, there is at least one psychiatric paper on the subject claiming success, though with no follow-up.
Now for a disclaimer, because I’m not just speaking as a scientist. I had gender affirmation surgery (to use the politically correct phrase), or sex reassignment surgery (the more common if inaccurate term) in November last year. Not the normal op, because I am Intersexed, and the normal op assumes a normal genital configuration. But “the op” anyway, even though I was classed as medically female long before by Medicare Australia based on my general soma and hormone balance, despite the 46xy chromosomes.
Dr Bowers view of “Men are Real Men and Women are Real Women” is a very good approximation, and we abandon it at our peril (especially in Texas). But it is just an approximation, and the Real World is far more messy around the edges than such facile memes. If one’s Religious beliefs deny Reality, rather than resort to Exorcising Unclean Spirits, or stigmatizing people whose existence is inconvenient as “insane”, perhaps dogma should be re-examined in the light of new evidence.
That’s called “science”. Something that medicine, yes, even psychiatry, is supposedly grounded on. I say that speaking as a Scientist.
Thw Bailey/Blanchard/McHugh critique is well-known in theraputic circles and is thoroughly discredited. For Dr. Bowers to focus solely on their discredited “research” is to write an article about anti-transsexual ideologues. Transsexuality is a real and legitimate condition originating during the development of the fetus. It affects less than 1% of the population, is not “contageous” and when properly dealt with through reassignment surgery leads to an individual so affected, to then lead a happy and productive life. I know this to be the case in my own instance, as a very well-adjusted, heavily-psychoanalyzed, and successful and employed transsexual. The pseudo-science discussed by Dr. Bowers does not survive serious scrutiny. The best thing that right-wing ideologues can do is to allow people unlike themselves to live their own lives, without having to subject others to yet another rehash of discredited pseudo-science.
Although I applaud Dr. Bowers’ skepticism regarding certain claims by transsexuals and their advocates, I would also like to correct a false impression one might get from his column. It is Dr. Bowers’ suggestion that autogynephilic motivation for sex reassignment surgery is a good reason to reject such treatment. I believe that suggestion is false. Dr. Ray Blanchard, Dr. Anne Lawrence, and I have been the individuals most closely associated with the concept of autogynephilia (which Dr. Blanchard originated). All of us believe that autogynephilic transsexuals are often likely to be happier after becoming women.
For all the “experts” quoted in the article, there are “experts” on the other side of the issue. I can find completely differing viewpoints that argue the correctness of an individuals decision to pursue sexual reasignment surgery.
So which camp is correct in all of this? This is like the never ending religous conflict of which deity is the supreme being...who’s god is “God”.
Should we ban eye corection surgery, dental proceedures, elective cosmetic surgeries (botox, face lifts), hair coloring, wigs, makeup, or any other personal choice that deviates from our natural state? Why then try to treat a bipolar disorder? after all its how a person was “born”.
I think we have the freedom to decide how we want to live our lives; not by decisions swayed by religious inclinations of a doctor at Johns Hopkins.
Could it be that all of this should be left up to the individuals “pursuit of happiness” as penned by Thomas Jefferson? Let each person decide how they want to live their lives. Would that hurt society so much?
Sorry but your arguments sound too much like those of the Catholic church decreeing that the sun circled the earth, those that believed that the earth was flat, and of course those that would have kept others in slavery as property. Im sure that they held the same “indisputable” views as do you.
Lastly as long as an individual is a law abiding citizen what harm is there in what they choose to do?
There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Bowers premise that there is only a sex and gender dichotomy of male and female.
(2) Intersex Society of North America’s
(3) Ex-Gay Watch’s: The Scientific Problem With Sex Dichotomies</a>:
Page 4 of 4 : « First < 2 3 4