“The war is over.”
This was the bold declaration of the author of this 2017 article from Huffpost (considered a respectable publication by some).
What war? Did you know we were fighting?
In fact, the author calls it a “War Against Trans Children”
According to her, an invisible machine wages a millennia old war against children who refuse to conform. And now it’s over. Won. The children stand victorious. If true, it could be a beautiful story; but let’s investigate what made her finally to declare victory.
As she states,
“The debate about trans care for adults and adolescents is over, and the consensus is global. … the World Health Organization (WHO) will de-psychopathologize adolescent and adult trans persons”
De-psychopathologize is a word that is not in any dictionary. However, Wikitionary provides this definition for “psychopathologize”
“psychopathologize (third-person singular simple present psychopathologizes, present participle psychopathologizing, simple past and past participle psychopathologized)
"(transitive) To bring into the realm of psychopathology; to treat as a mental disorder."
Now, the WHO pretends to be an organization of medical professionals. Isn’t it the job of medical professionals to “treat as a mental disorder” things which are, in reality, mental disorder? Aha, so the issue at hand is revealed. This entire battle has hinged on a definition change — a change which was made in the publication of the fifth edition of the North American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and which the WHO has followed suit in editing in its own guidelines. According to the author, they will (and now have)
“remove Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescence and Adulthood from the mental illness classification, and rename it the value-neutral ‘Gender Incongruence’ coding in a new chapter in Sexual Health.”
So, let’s take a look at these terms, and then we will determine the reasons this change was a necessary victory for a radical movement.
According to the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2001):
“The gender identity disorders (GID) are defined as disorders in which an individual exhibits marked and persistent identification with the opposite sex and persistent discomfort (dysphoria) with his or her own sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.”
The important word in this definition is “disorder”. A disorder means something is not right; something is out of place. It implies a normal, and it implies a deviation. In fact, this disorder carries many unpleasant side effects. As Linda C. Shafer M.D., wrote in Massachusetts General Hospital Handbook of General Hospital Psychiatry (Sixth Edition), (2010):
“In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by a variety of symptoms, such as preoccupation with getting rid of primary and secondary sex characteristics (e.g., requests for hormones or surgery), or a belief in being born the wrong sex. By late adolescence or adulthood, 75% of boys with a history of gender identity disorder as a child will have a homosexual or bisexual orientation. Children with gender identity disorder may have co-existing separation anxiety, generalized anxiety, and depression, whereas adolescents are at risk for depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. Adults with the condition often have co-existing anxiety and depression. Adult males may have a history of transvestic fetishism as well as other paraphilias. Associated personality disorders are common in male patients.”
Those without diagnosed Gender Identity Disorder don’t suffer these symptoms at the same rates as those with, and they are not at the same risk for these issues. So, the disorder was defined and understood. That is, until the name and definition were changed.
And it was not immediately changed to Gender Incongruence, as the author of the Huffpost article insinuates. In fact, this change had been made years before this article was even published:
“People with gender dysphoria are typically transgender. The diagnostic label gender identity disorder (GID) was used until 2013 with the release of the DSM-5. The condition was renamed to remove the stigma associated with the term disorder.”
The American Psychiatric Association articulates the philosophy behind the first definition change on their website:
“The presence of gender variance is not the pathology but dysphoria is from the distress caused by the body and mind not aligning and/or societal marginalization of gender-variant people. It needs to be ego-dystonic to qualify as a diagnosis and having a discussion with our patients about the diagnosis prior to charting it is necessary and good care.
“The DSM–5 articulates explicitly that ‘gender non-conformity is not in itself a mental disorder.’ The 5th edition also includes a separate ‘gender dysphoria in children’ diagnosis and for the first time allows the diagnosis to be given to individuals with disorders of sex development (DSD). DSM–5 also includes the optional ‘post-transition’ specifier to indicate when a particular individual’s gender transition is complete. In this ‘post-transition’ case, the diagnosis of gender dysphoria would no longer apply but the individual may still need ongoing medical care (e.g., hormonal treatment). Nevertheless, discussions continue among advocates and medical professionals about how best to preserve access to gender transition-related health care while also minimizing the degree to which such diagnostic categories stigmatize the very people that physicians are attempting to help.”
These distinctions are dense but not subtle. While identification with the opposite sex would be a clear indication of Gender Identity Disorder, that same identification will not be called “Gender Dysphoria” unless the individual experiences distress as a result. Gender Dysphoria is not called a disorder. Its theory does not assume that the identity is out of place. Instead, the identity is affirmed, and only the symptoms are treated. All of this; to suggest that a man who believes he is a woman is not suffering a case of mistaken identity; but, in fact, is exhibiting the appropriate response to existing as a sexed individual. According to the APA: his feelings are not wrong, his body is. Once this frame is established, remedial steps become apparent.
This definition brings with it its own plan of treatment: medical, hormonal, and surgical transition to the opposite sex. And when this “transition” is complete, the individual no longer has Gender Dysphoria. Diagnostically, he cannot, because his identified sex and perceived sex now align. Never-mind that these “post-transition” patients continue to experience higher rates of all the awful symptoms associated with Gender Identity Disorder. That fact is overlooked by the medical professionals who write these guidelines. His distress cannot be attributed to a gender identity mis-match, therefore it cannot be called Gender Dysphoria. In fact, his distress does not fit any umbrella definition in the DSM 5.
That, post-transition, individuals experienced “higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity” were the results of a 30-year study conducted in Sweden, completed in 2003.
And this recent study had similar results:
“They found transgender adolescents (TGAs) had higher rates of suicidal ideation, plans, attempts and attempts requiring medical care compared to [not transgender] teens. They also had higher rates of non-suicidal self-injury, according to ‘Suicidality Disparities between Transgender and Cisgender Adolescents,’ (Thoma BC, et al. Pediatrics. Oct. 14, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-1183)."
And, in a supreme act of demented irony, the suicidality rates for this group, previously considered a symptom of the disorder, are the last line of defense in a line of reasoning which justifies unheard-of treatment.
The Centre for Suicide Prevention recommends medical transition as a method of suicide prevention, on their website:
“The decision to medically transition to the gender with which one identifies can be stressful and may place someone more at risk for suicide. However, studies show that once a transition is completed, it does have beneficial effects.”
However, it seems that very little research has been done on this 7-year named disorder. Indeed, even less has been done to study the effects of the recommended treatment for it.
It may be a good analogy to suggest that we will one day look back at the current medical treatment schedule for GI individuals as nothing less than a medical lobotomy. It is indeed castration. Naturally, there is some evidence that preventing natural puberty in children leads to cognitive delays in adulthood. (This quote is long but it is very informative.):
“By 2004, it was known that surgical castration of male animals can lead to ‘profound loss of synaptic density in the hippocampus and changes in learning and memory’ due to absence of testosterone. Synapses are the junctions between cells through which information is shared by tiny electrical impulses or chemical transmitters. Their reduction implies reduced or altered activity of that region of the brain. GnRH blockers are a means of chemical as opposed to surgical castration, therefore, the effect of reduction of testosterone by blocking the pituitary needed to be elucidated.
“By 2007, as animal and behavioural studies suggested blockers ‘may have significant effects on memory’ their effects were examined in humans. Interference in memory and executive function, and abnormal cerebral function was found in women receiving blockers for gynaecological reasons.
“In 2008, review of the effect of testosterone deprivation due to blockers in men receiving them for prostate cancer raised the ‘strong argument’ that blockers, alone, caused ‘subtle but significant cognitive declines’. Other studies confirmed ‘higher rates … of cognitive impairment’ compared to controls, but were denied by some. Laboratory studies were needed.
“In 2009, scientists in universities in Glasgow and Oslo had begun collaborative research on the effect of blockers on the behaviour and brains of sheep. These foundational studies revealed that exposure of the pre-pubertal lamb to blockers led to an observable increase in the size of the amygdala, that the activities of a large number of genes in the amygdala and hippocampus were altered by the blockers  and, not surprisingly, that some aspects of brain function were disturbed . Female sheep had less emotional control and were more anxious. Males were more prone to ‘risk taking’ and alterations in emotional reactivity. Males suffered reduction in spatial memory that persisted after treatment.
“These results suggest that blockers may alter the shape of the brain and the capacity of cells to communicate with each other at a molecular level . This could be due to a direct effect of the loss of GnRH or, alternatively, a reduction in GnRH-dependent production of local neurosteroids involved in the formation of synaptic connections when the brain is developing. 
“Contrary to the laboratory studies, a recent study by the Dutch group on its own human patients asserted that no difference could be found in executive function between mid-teens on blockers and controls. Little reassurance can be gained from this conclusion, however, because close reading of the results reveals that males on blockers transgendering to females did have ‘significantly lower accuracy scores than the control groups’. However, the authors declared that ‘it is possible that this is just a chance finding due to the small size of the subgroup (of eight adolescents)’. Alternatively, it could have confirmed what had been revealed in sheep; but, indeed, the numbers were small.
“Other psychological studies have suggested positive outcome in humans on hormonal therapy but all are weakened by small numbers and their reliance on observations by involved therapists. Reviews stress lack of evidence. It should be emphasised that, unlike older men with cancer whose brains are deteriorating with age, children are being given blockers at a time of great brain development. Moreover, compared to the men whose treatment lasted only months, many children receive blockers for years.”
This bizarre medical experiment in now taking place, and children in the US and across the world are becoming its victims.
And not for nothing, either. The doctors who perform sex-reassignment surgeries make a fair penny doing it. Doctors are in turn paid by the pharmaceutical companies who make these medications. It is in only within the interest of medical corporations to recommend their own services, and to extoll the supposed benefits. The Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery shares a price sheet of surgeries costing thousands, and tens of thousands of dollars, each, for its patients.
One person seeking sex reassignment may receive all, or most, of the surgeries on this list in their lifetime. These costs are in addition to the life-long cost of replacement hormones and doctor visits. The people who seek out this treatment course become permanent patients.
Now, the WHO has renamed the disorder again. In it’s eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), “Gender Incongruence” has been defined this way:
“‘a marked and persistent incongruence between the gender felt or experienced and the gender assigned to birth’12. This incongruity is manifested in at least two of the following criteria:
“Strong dislike or disagreement with primary or secondary sexual characteristics due to incongruence with the experienced gender.
“Strong desire to get rid of some of those sexual characteristics due to the incongruence with the experienced gender.
“Strong desire to have the primary or secondary sexual characteristics of the experienced gender.
“Strong desire to be treated and accepted as a person of the felt gender.”
Apparently, tho only criteria which can now qualify this diagnosis is a strong desire to become the opposite sex. Soon, everyone who has pondered the notion, or even those who engage in a wistful fantasy, may be convinced of their need for diagnosis. But this can’t be shocking. The definition has simultaneously become so narrow; that it includes only a single symptom of the affor-named “Gender Identity Disorder”; at the same time, its prevalence as a diagnosis increases. The numbers of children referred to gender re-assignment clinics have risen sharply as a result. According to a study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior:
“Over the last decade, several child and adolescent gender identity services have reported an increase in young people who seek help with incongruence between the experienced gender identity and the gender to which they were assigned at birth (Aitken et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2013). Many of those, but not all, would meet the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria (GD) (APA, 2013). It has been suggested that this increase is mostly due to an influx of birth-assigned females coming forward.”
Even so, the named authors at the Mental Health Journal proclaim proudly the semantic games of the WHO, having this to say about the final term “Gender Incogruence”:
“On June 18, 2018 the World Health Organization (WHO)5 establish [sic] itself as a pioneer in the process of depathologization of transsexuality. This struggle, in order to stop transsexuality from being considered a mental disorder and to eliminate the gender identity disorder of the international manuals of mental disorders, had been represented in the last decade by the powerful movements of depathologization (Stop Trans Pathologization, depsychopathologisation statement released, etc)6,7,8.
“The Manual of International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11) eliminates the term ‘transsexualism’ and replaces it with the term ‘Gender Incongruence ‘ (GI)9. This new terminology will no longer be part of the chapter on mental disorders (chapter 6) but a new chapter is created (chapter 17) called ‘conditions related to sexual health’. These ICD-11 changes implied an advance and a great liberation for trans people who were doubly stigmatized since transsexuality has always been located around paraphilias and within personality disorders.”
When homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1987, it meant that homosexuals were no longer treated by psychologists. It meant that they were free to live their lives on their own terms, apart from medical and therapeutic intervention — not so with transsexuality. All these definition changes have placed gender identity disorders squarely on the developing edge at the intersection of medicine and psychology. In this case, the “de-psychopathologization” of transsexuality has meant that individuals with gender disorders are receiving more hormones, more surgeries, and more interventions than they ever have. And medical proponents of this plan have practically become the pioneers of a terrifying new field of medicine — one that is not quite plastic surgery, and not quite psychiatry — but somewhere in the middle. It may be the only field of medicine which endeavors to change the body, in order to conform it to the mind.
It begs the question: is this a treatment? Or a program?
Ironically, the authors at the Mental Health Journal reveal the motivations of Radical Trans Rights Activists in their discussion of the initial revisions made to the DSM:
“This first draft didn’t meet the expectations of the trans people that harbored the hope that transsexuality would disappear from the international diagnostic classifications just like it happened with homosexuality11.”
What the authors at this journal attribute to “trans people” is better recognized as the strange want of Radical Trans Rights Activists, who have undoubtedly gained influence in the medical community, where they successfully push their agenda. Do not be mistaken: the purpose of this definition change is to normalize the medical transition of children. Removing the diagnosis altogether is the mechanism which intends to permanently normalize transsexuality. The Huffpost author who heralded the end of this war put it bluntly when she said:
“Being a patient with a diagnosis implies there’s something wrong with you.”
And with that statement, the real intentions of the war are revealed, and the combatants stand in stark relief. As if reeling in the aftermath of an explosion, they are gathered together on each side. They regroup, and do not fear to re-engage. But the enemy is strong. The trumpet of victory was blown too soon. As the author implies, the goal of this movement is not only to “de-psychopathologize”, but even to “de-diagnose” sexual variance — to make it commonplace. And with that, sexual transition will become routine medical care. This is not the war against oppression it figures. This is a war waged by Radical Trans Activists against the sanity of every heterosexual man and woman on the planet. This is the war against gender, as a concept; and sex, as a dimorphic reality. The aim of the Radical Trans Activists who fight in this war is to eliminate, once and for all, men and women. Imagine for a moment: there is no distinction to be made, because none exists. This pictures their utopia.
Perhaps a better name for this war would be: The War Against Our Children.
It is one that cannot continue. We cannot afford to stand idly by while our boys and girls fall victim to this medical machine. This fight can only be fought by Men and Women standing for biological reality. Their agenda can no longer stand up to scrutiny. It dies in the light of information.
[–]Nemesis 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - (1 child)
[–]ANIKAHirsch[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–]ANIKAHirsch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)