ColonizationThomas Szasz's NYT article from 42 years ago. Fairly prophetic.

submitted by [deleted] from nytimes.com

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]reluctant_commenter 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is AMAZING!!! So many good quotes that I almost pulled the whole article to quote.

Seriously-- this is a short read, would highly recommend to anyone.

Some quotes:

...the official definition “transsexualism” as a disease comes down to the strategic abuse of language — epitomized by confusing and equating biological phenomena with social roles (in the present case, chromosomal sexual identity with acting as a man or a woman). Although there are connections between these concepts and facts, neither one “causes'.’ or “determines” the other.

Ostensibly, the “transsexers” (from psychologists to urologists) are curing a disease; actually, they engage in the religious and political shaping and controling of “masculine” and “feminine” behavior. 

The claim that males can be transformed, by means of hormones and surgery, into females, and vice versa, is, of course, a lie. ("She‐males” are fabricated in much greater numbers than “he‐females.") Chromosomal sex is fixed. And so are one's historical experiences of growing up and living as boy or girl, man or woman. What, then, can be achieved by means of “transsexual therapy"?

The author cites Janice Raymond who apparently wrote The Transsexual Empire and detailed many of the ideas he's citing. That sounds highly worth reading, too.

Quoting Janice Raymond:

...she correctly emphasizes that “the terminology of transsexualism disguises the reality ... that transsexuals ‘prove’ they are transsexuals by conforming to the canons of the medical‐psychiatric institution that evaluates them on the basis of their being able to pass as stereotypically masculine or feminine, and that ultimately grants surgery on this basis.”

The “transsexual empire” is thus a Trojan horse in the battle between the sexes, helping men to seduce unsuspecting women, or women who ought to know better, to join forces with their oppressors.

Still, why should anyone (especially feminist women) object to men wanting to become women? Isn't imitation the highest form of flattery? Precisely herein lies the “liberal” sexologists’ betrayal of human dignity and integrity: They support the (male) transsexual's claim that he wants to be a woman — when, in fact, what he wants is to be a caricature of the male definition of “femininity.”

[–]winterwillow 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There's an episode of the actual feminists podcast (which is good overall) Reading hour: Sappho by surgery, where one of the hosts reads the chapter on trans lesbians from The Transexual Empire. Still very relevant today! It's on Spotify.

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks! I'll take a look.

[–]haveanicedaytoo💗💜💙 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Wow, this is excellent. I don't want to go off-topic, but I do believe that that the entire psychiatric profession needs a complete overhaul from the bottom up. The blame for this transgender bullshit is firmly on the shoulders of psychiatrists and the medical hacks who threw "do no harm" out the window and performed these surgeries. There is A LOT wrong with psychiatry today. Patients are not getting the help they need. Generational trauma is being completely ignored. Childhood trauma is being completely ignored. Millions of people have been tricked into believing that their depression/anxiety/etc is due to "Chemicals imbalance in my head" that comes from a genetic predisposition, rather than through untreated trauma and an epidemic of parental and school abuse, not to mention societal abuse and poverty. (I don't mean to imply that the chemical imbalance thing is always wrong, but more often than not, trauma is the actual cause.)

We are so advanced, but we are soooo sooo so incredibly backwards when it comes to mental health. I remember when we were teenagers, the boomers would scoff and say "How can you be depressed? You're a teenager?" and today I look at kids that same age and think "Of course you're depressed! You're a teenager!"

[–]MarkTwainiac 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The author of this piece, Thomas Szasz (1920-2012) was an eminently-respected psychiatrist and iconoclast who challenged the moral and "scientific" claims and foundations of psychiatry.

Millions of people have been tricked into believing that their depression/anxiety/etc is due to "Chemicals imbalance in my head"

This idea has only become mainstream in the time period since Big Pharma introduced the first SSRI Prozac in the late 1980s and in a push to promote mass use of benzos, began rebranding them as safe in the 1980s too.

As to the issue of genetic disposition vs trauma response vs chemical imbalance: all can be extant at the same time, and thus all of them often come into play as causes or contributors to depression, anxiety, breakdowns, neuroses, maladaptive coping strategies etc in individuals.

Also, there's considerable evidence that some "chemical imbalances" in human brains that can and do lead to depression, anxiety and even suicidal feelings, also can be the result of inflammatory processes set off by immune responses to physical illnesses, including a host of infectious pathogens and run-of-the-mill physical ailments like UTIs. Again, however, in most cases a lot of different things are going on at once.

[–]diapason 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's interesting how it all connects, isn't it? I've been finding some of the connections between gut health and mental health to be pretty interesting too. It's kind of amazing how much we don't know yet

[–]hetisachoice 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He was right and they vilified him for it.

[–]BEB 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Big Pharma.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At least then people could call out this bullshit.

[–]oyasuminasai50 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The NYT today would sooner go bankrupt than post anything as nuanced as this on trans issues.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's exactly why they're heading down that route to bankruptcy.

[–]hetisachoice 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They deserve bankruptcy. Hell, they deserved it for Walter Duranty's fawning coverage of the USSR in the 1930s.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For those who can't access the piece coz of the NYT paywall, I posted the whole article in this thread on GC a couple of months ago: https://www.saidit.net/s/GenderCritical/comments/6umc/eyeopening_read_nytimes_rave_review_of_feminist/

[–]HelloMomo 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

An archived version here: https://archive.ph/a7QNd

[–]BEB 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for posting this. This man called it.

This needs to be reposted all over the place, and emailed to NEW YORK TIMES editors & writers, and every other media outlet that spouts gender ideology (which in the US is most of them on the "Left").

[–]diapason 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Wow, that was a good read. Thank you for posting it! It's a shame that the NYT has drunk the trans koolaid now when 40 years ago they could publish stuff like this

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They're eating themselves from the inside out presently. The Internet devastated their business model. Any sane, rational person who gives a thought today that maybe they should study journalism in school quickly realizes it's not a viable career. So instead, the only people who want to because "journalists" are the fairly extreme activist types who want to tell you what to think, and how better than to become a "journalist?" So now the paper is chock-full of ideologues who of course, demand strict adherence to an ever-moving religion. Eventually, they'll cancel each other until there's just one person left standing and no one is left to run the presses.

You haven't seen me buy a copy of the Times recently.

[–]BEB 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I get the impression that a lot of young popular journalists on the "Left" are trust fund kids or at least upper-middle class, so have very little understanding or concern about truly "Left" class and economics issues, and are more about spouting what they were indoctrinated into at university, such as queer theory and critical race theory.

I don't know much about Critical Race Theory beyond a work seminar that felt to me like a struggle session, but queer theory seems to have definitely become a quasi-religion.

[–]reluctant_commenter 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I get the impression that a lot of young popular journalists on the "Left" are trust fund kids or at least upper-middle class, so have very little understanding or concern about truly "Left" class and economics issues

Yes, and-- believe it or not, there is actually a good reason for it: journalism as a field requires lots of unpaid internship experiences, and the only young adults who can afford to go do those are ones who have a financial safety net from Mom and Dad. I have met many people like this.

Totally agree that queer theory is a quasi-religion. I like to call it an ideology but the religion comparison is apt.

edit: a word

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I saw this and thought of you. The DAILY MAIL tends to be right-wing, so pls. take that into consideration:

Almost half of New York Times employees don't feel they can express their views freely at the newspaper, according to company survey

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9257275/Almost-half-New-York-Times-employees-dont-feel-express-views-freely-survey-finds.html

[–]reluctant_commenter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing. Looks like the survey is from the New York Post: https://nypost.com/2021/02/13/new-york-times-employees-feel-they-cant-speak-freely-survey/

Checks out to me.

[–]WildApples 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So instead, the only people who want to because "journalists" are the fairly extreme activist types who want to tell you what to think, and how better than to become a "journalist?" So now the paper is chock-full of ideologues who of course, demand strict adherence to an ever-moving religion.

Not just that. I think it was on an episode of Blocked and Reported where I learned that the NYT has dismantled the wall between its journalists and its admin staff. Now there is a company Slack group where all employees can express their opinions and criticisms of the paper. So a lot of young, woke activists with no journalism background who were imported from tech start-ups to work on technical, administrative stuff at the NYT are having a say on content in the paper. Not only are non-journalists at the paper encouraged to give their feedback, when they do it is taken seriously and it affects the stories that run in the paper.