Interesting article on transgender kids

[Locutus of Bored]

It's not ignorant or prejudiced in that she's not actually advocating any policies or views that are ignorant or prejudiced.

As I summarized upthread, she's not advocating for ill treatment of them, she's not denying that the condition is a real thing or that gender reassignment can be effective in certain cases.

She's manufacturing fear that mental health professionals are over-diagnosing gender dysphoria without any actual evidence to support that idea. That is ignorant (because it lacks facts to support her assumptions) and prejudiced (because the author and her sources have an anti-transgender diagnosis agenda) and potentially destructive in that it can influence parents not to seek professional treatment for their children, or to seek alternative and often dangerous methods like the kind practiced by Dr. Zucker.

In short, what I'm getting from your responses is that expressing an opposing view on the issue itself is all that there is as evidence of an expression of ignorance. You're acting like it's a settled issue and the only motivation for arguing her position MUST by definition be ignorance or prejudice, and considering the history of the field of psychiatry and psychology I don't think that's a fair position to take.

No, what I'm saying is that when you're dealing with something already as delicate as mental health, something which has a known history of suicide, like transgenderism, and something where children often feel isolated and mistreated as a result, that you tread lightly before creating fear of misdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment. And that if you do seek to make changes, you better damn well have extensive research and evidence to justify that change instead of just outdated and bigoted views and baseless supposition.

I admit that I should have researched the author of the article and the people she references in it, but then again, it's not like posting on a message board is like academic research or that I'm a paid blogger or something. I was merely presenting a "this is interesting" topic. I guess it was only interesting to me.

I'd buy that if you didn't continuously keep shifting the goalposts to give the article's premise credibility it doesn't deserve, simply because it reenforces your own preconceptions.

 

[IndyJones]

As I summarized upthread, she's not advocating for ill treatment of them...

You don't think that withholding proper treatment from people who are suffering does them any harm?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's not ignorant or prejudiced in that she's not actually advocating any policies or views that are ignorant or prejudiced.

J refuted this in an amusing fashion. My take on this is that it's a rather content-free statement, that is essentially of the form:

She's not doing anything that she's not doing.

No kidding! Though, she is in fact advocating views, that are both ignorant and prejudiced, which makes the part of the statement that isn't content-free false.

In short, what I'm getting from your responses is that expressing an opposing view on the issue itself is all that there is as evidence of an expression of ignorance. You're acting like it's a settled issue and the only motivation for arguing her position MUST by definition be ignorance or prejudice, and considering the history of the field of psychiatry and psychology I don't think that's a fair position to take.

Funny, I thought I made it clear that the reason her opinions are ignorant and prejudiced is because they are uninformed. Opposition as the issue is a red herring. It's already been pointed out in-thread by Locutus here that a reasonable position would have been to demand more research, but that's not what Wente did.

She's already found answers that satisfy her. In her view, transgenderism is blown out of proportion, and political correctness running amok is masking what are mainly just family problems. Her closing words express her belief that, today, transgender diagnoses are largely harmful. Her best advice for dealing with transgenderism is to refuse to acknowledge it, cross your fingers, and try to wait it out, just like they did back in the good old days. According to her, by way of Dr. Zucker, three out of four times that will work.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

It's not ignorant or prejudiced in that she's not actually advocating any policies or views that are ignorant or prejudiced. As I summarized upthread, she's not advocating for ill treatment of them, she's not denying that the condition is a real thing or that gender reassignment can be effective in certain cases.

She's spreading FUD., and I'm now convinced it's deliberate.

She's aware that if she wrote something blatantly anti-trangender, her "point" won't get across to that many people, as we've been learning as a society to know better than that. So she is trying to reach people who like yourself are sympathetic to transgender people, but don't quite see the things from their perspective. If the article featured something glaringly prejudiced many of the potential readers, including you, would have dismissed it out of hand, so instead she plays with concerns that seem reasonable on the surface but aren't.

Many of the parents of transgender children might have the same doubts that you do. However, when faced with the issue, they read on the matter, they consult professionals and they help them dissuade those fears and do what's the best. However, if they've read too many articles like this that have played into their doubts, they might be inclined to not trust the professionals – despite the fact that the fears in the article have no evidence to back them – and do the wrong thing. If one day you discovered your child was transgender, what would you do, and do you think articles like this one will actually help you?

The analogy with vaccines causing autism is spot on. All such suggestions ever did was spread unreasonable, unsupported fears that made people do the wrong choices. This is no less a subject that is in the purview of science. There was a time when the link between autism and vaccines wasn't yet explicitly debunked. It was still bullshit then. It had no backing, and it was causing people to do the wrong thing for themselves or their loved ones. And that was terrible.

Even if the points in this article are not yet "debunked", they are doing the same thing.

1. is the internet and pop culture having the impact of artificially inflating numbers for this?

No, no evidence of that happening. Do you really think there are that many parents out there who would make choices like this based on what's popular at the time and what goes on in pop culture? Can you give one example of that happening, or if you don't know of a real one, try to describe to us how it's supposed to look like, because I have a hard time imagining it.

2. the potential harmful effects that hormone therapy or other treatments can have if done too soon or if the diagnosis turns out to be incorrect

Very potential. I don't know of any cases where this has happened. Do you?

These things don't happen quickly, they take some time, and by the time they happen, concerns that it might be too soon have been gone. Parents, who most often don't know much about these things, need time to figure out what is going on with that child. Then they need the time to accept it. Then they take their time to professionals, who by the way do advice them to take things slowly and one step at the time (for varying definitions of "slowly"). Nobody is rushing these things, unless the child is, say, suicidal, and even then "rushing" is probably an overstatement.

Children are not given opposite sex hormones at all, I believe you're usually adviced (and required) to wait until adolescence, and at least a few years into it.

In fact, I'd sometimes worry about the opposite. While all other children and teens are going through puberty, yours is waiting. I remember being terrified that my own development trailed those of other kids by almost a year. I assume they aren't exactly happy that they are waiting, so the worries for "too soon" should also be accompanied by worries for "too late". (Which they probably are anyway, so I am also talking out of my ass here.)

3. this one I mentioned before, but the issue of is the wait and see approach being discredited not by science or sound psychology but politics, and a fear of being labeled conservative or reactionary, as well as confusion between that approach and reparative therapy?

That's the same point. Again, people do wait, how long do you think they should wait? How much would you wait?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's a shame that sonak has an opportunity here to get an education on this topic and consistently refuses to engage it honestly.

I'm wondering, if there is some trend of overdiagnosis and rushes to treatment, who is benefiting from that? After all, it would require complicit medical personnel of various types. Is it some conspiracy by therapists, pharmaceutical companies, and surgeons to get more and more kids diagnosed as transgender so those people can make more money? So, who would be doing this, and why?

Since sonak is the one presenting this idea to us, it's up to him to back it up. So far, he's not done that at all, just offered suspicion and speculation based on nothing at all.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

She's manufacturing fear that mental health professionals are over-diagnosing gender dysphoria without any actual evidence to support that idea. That is ignorant (because it lacks facts to support her assumptions) and prejudiced (because the author and her sources have an anti-transgender diagnosis agenda) and potentially destructive in that it can influence parents not to seek professional treatment for their children, or to seek alternative and often dangerous methods like the kind practiced by Dr. Zucker.

No, what I'm saying is that when you're dealing with something already as delicate as mental health, something which has a known history of suicide, like transgenderism, and something where children often feel isolated and mistreated as a result, that you tread lightly before creating fear of misdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment. And that if you do seek to make changes, you better damn well have extensive research and evidence to justify that change instead of just outdated and bigoted views and baseless supposition.

In a way, the manufactured fear in the article reminds me of what happened when vaccines were blamed for the rise in autistic spectrum disorders. Without any factual basis (this article), much less rigorous review of research (ASD and vaccines), parents become afraid and hesitate to give their children the medical care they would have otherwise provided (treatment and vaccinations). The result is a rise in healthcare issues (disease on the one hand, mental health issues on the other). There's a real danger from unsubstantiated fear mongering.

 

[sonak]

As I summarized upthread, she's not advocating for ill treatment of them...

You don't think that withholding proper treatment from people who are suffering does them any harm?

a diagnosis of manic depression/bipolar disorder is often not made before adolescence. Now, would you, by definition, say that a mental health professional would be doing a pre-adolescent child harm if they refrained from such a diagnosis? Of course I would say that a child should be treated for whatever related problems might come with a potential condition without necessarily accepting right away that they have it.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

As I summarized upthread, she's not advocating for ill treatment of them...

You don't think that withholding proper treatment from people who are suffering does them any harm?

a diagnosis of manic depression/bipolar disorder is often not made before adolescence. Now, would you, by definition, say that a mental health professional would be doing a pre-adolescent child harm if they refrained from such a diagnosis? Of course I would say that a child should be treated for whatever related problems might come with a potential condition without necessarily accepting right away that they have it.

You're not a doctor and I'm not a doctor. How about leaving those determinations to experts? What is with lay people assuming they know better than actual experts and professionals? As much as I am a supporter of fair treatment and rights for trans people, my first instinct if someone came to me expressing gender dysphoria would be to a) accept that their experience is legitimate and b) advise them to seek professional care. I sure as hell wouldn't try to determine whether their dysphoria is sufficient for a diagnosis or to suggest a particular course of treatment. I don't have the knowledge or expertise. All I can do is be supportive. And you know what? That's all you should do, too.

(For what it's worth, I actually did know a preteen who was diagnosed with bipolar and depression and was medicated for it. It made a big difference, too.)

 

[JarodRussell]

This transgender thing irritates me extremely. When physically, someone is a male, but thinks he is a female (and vice versa)? And then some go great lengths to actually physically alter their bodies with hormone therapy and surgery. I don't know what to think of that. But it sounds to me like facilitating psychological issues. If someone thinks he needs a vagina and breasts to be eternally happy, isn't that the same as someone who thinks he needs to cut his arm off in order to be eternally happy with himself? Good thing I don't have to decide on that.


Not so irritated on the other hand with intersexuality, when physically it is not clear what sex the person has.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

This transgender thing irritates me extremely. When physically, someone is a male, but thinks he is a female (and vice versa)? And then some go great lengths to actually physically alter their bodies with hormone therapy and surgery. I don't know what to think of that. But it sounds to me like facilitating psychological issues. If someone thinks he needs a vagina and breasts to be eternally happy, isn't that the same as someone who thinks he needs to cut his arm off in order to be eternally happy with himself? Good thing I don't have to decide on that.


Not so irritated on the other hand with intersexuality, when physically it is not clear what sex the person has.

If your goal was to make sonak look better by comparison, I think you've accomplished it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

This transgender thing irritates me extremely. When physically, someone is a male, but thinks he is a female (and vice versa)? And then some go great lengths to actually physically alter their bodies with hormone therapy and surgery. I don't know what to think of that. But it sounds to me like facilitating psychological issues. If someone thinks he needs a vagina and breasts to be eternally happy, isn't that the same as someone who thinks he needs to cut his arm off in order to be eternally happy with himself? Good thing I don't have to decide on that.

Well, people who shoot their mouths off about serious medical issues in a way that can be hurtful or harmful to others without any knowledge or evidence to back up their assertions irritate me extremely. Why don't you decide on how to discuss things in the future without coming off like a total jerk.

 

[sonak]

You don't think that withholding proper treatment from people who are suffering does them any harm?

a diagnosis of manic depression/bipolar disorder is often not made before adolescence. Now, would you, by definition, say that a mental health professional would be doing a pre-adolescent child harm if they refrained from such a diagnosis? Of course I would say that a child should be treated for whatever related problems might come with a potential condition without necessarily accepting right away that they have it.

You're not a doctor and I'm not a doctor. How about leaving those determinations to experts? What is with lay people assuming they know better than actual experts and professionals? As much as I am a supporter of fair treatment and rights for trans people, my first instinct if someone came to me expressing gender dysphoria would be to a) accept that their experience is legitimate and b) advise them to seek professional care. I sure as hell wouldn't try to determine whether their dysphoria is sufficient for a diagnosis or to suggest a particular course of treatment. I don't have the knowledge or expertise. All I can do is be supportive. And you know what? That's all you should do, too.

(For what it's worth, I actually did know a preteen who was diagnosed with bipolar and depression and was medicated for it. It made a big difference, too.)

Um, you realize that there are people on this very thread who disagreed with two experts because of their opposition to them on an ideological or political basis, right? That is certainly their right, and it ends up making your criteria circular: agree with the experts when they confirm your views or match your ideological preferences, but feel free to disagree with them if they don't.

Moreover, a default trust in elites or experts is problematic in a democratic society where citizens are supposed to make decisions about issue X even if they don't work in a related field or have an advanced degree. Also, experts have their own biases. Look at some of the elite economic advisors in this country or sources in media that have corporate interests. Not all experts are detached philosopher kings who have the straight arrow to truth.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

a diagnosis of manic depression/bipolar disorder is often not made before adolescence. Now, would you, by definition, say that a mental health professional would be doing a pre-adolescent child harm if they refrained from such a diagnosis? Of course I would say that a child should be treated for whatever related problems might come with a potential condition without necessarily accepting right away that they have it.

You're not a doctor and I'm not a doctor. How about leaving those determinations to experts? What is with lay people assuming they know better than actual experts and professionals? As much as I am a supporter of fair treatment and rights for trans people, my first instinct if someone came to me expressing gender dysphoria would be to a) accept that their experience is legitimate and b) advise them to seek professional care. I sure as hell wouldn't try to determine whether their dysphoria is sufficient for a diagnosis or to suggest a particular course of treatment. I don't have the knowledge or expertise. All I can do is be supportive. And you know what? That's all you should do, too.

(For what it's worth, I actually did know a preteen who was diagnosed with bipolar and depression and was medicated for it. It made a big difference, too.)

Um, you realize that there are people on this very thread who disagreed with two experts because of their opposition to them on an ideological or political basis, right? That is certainly their right, and it ends up making your criteria circular: agree with the experts when they confirm your views or match your ideological preferences, but feel free to disagree with them if they don't.

The "experts" cited in this thread are totally at odds with the consensus of their field, so their judgments are irrelevant.

Moreover, a default trust in elites or experts is problematic in a democratic society where citizens are supposed to make decisions about issue X even if they don't work in a related field or have an advanced degree. Also, experts have their own biases. Look at some of the elite economic advisors in this country or sources in media that have corporate interests. Not all experts are detached philosopher kings who have the straight arrow to truth.

Next time you're sick, go ask your auto mechanic for advice, then.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Um, you realize that there are people on this very thread who disagreed with two experts because of their opposition to them on an ideological or political basis, right?

Um, you realize that nobody here has done the thing that you just described?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^ Yes, where has anyone in this thread disagreed with Wente's experts on ideological or political grounds?

 

[sonak]

^ Yes, where has anyone in this thread disagreed with Wente's experts on ideological or political grounds?

JAllen referred to Zucker as an "ideological asshole" and wrote that he was at odds with the LGBTQ community, the first is an ideological objection the second a political one.

 

[Pingfah]

Logic fail. Calling someone an ideologue is not the same as disagreeing with them on ideological grounds, and noting that their opinions are at odds with the majority of transgender people is simply stating reality, and providing context to their views, it's not a political assertion in any way.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

So now sonak thinks it's controversial or unfair to consider gay conversion therapists unreliable authorities? Good lord...

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Um, you realize that there are people on this very thread who disagreed with two experts because of their opposition to them on an ideological or political basis, right? That is certainly their right, and it ends up making your criteria circular: agree with the experts when they confirm your views or match your ideological preferences, but feel free to disagree with them if they don't.

First off, they're not legitimate "experts" on gender dysphoria, nor are they respected in the field. They're bigoted, religiously motivated snake oil salesmen who consider being gay a mental illness and try and reverse it through conversion therapy, and apparently think they can do the same with gender dysphoria. You've been corrected on this multiple times yet still keep claiming they're experts. It's not just ignorance any more, it's deliberate and malicious misinformation on your part now, because you're so dug in on this issue.

Secondly, since when is it "political" to disregard the unscientific ravings of charlatans when it comes to medical treatment? Do I have to give equal weight to every Flat-Earther and Creationist now, lest I be considered politically biased? People are free to believe whatever they want so long as they don't harm others (which they are possibly doing in this case), but that doesn't mean they all deserve an equal place at the table of scientific debate.

Moreover, a default trust in elites or experts is problematic in a democratic society where citizens are supposed to make decisions about issue X even if they don't work in a related field or have an advanced degree. Also, experts have their own biases. Look at some of the elite economic advisors in this country or sources in media that have corporate interests. Not all experts are detached philosopher kings who have the straight arrow to truth.

So, when did you take up climate change denial? Tell us more about Obama's fake birth certificate and how 9/11 was a controlled demolition. I mean, shit, you've basically stated that we can't trust anything experts have to say... but we know that's not true, and that you still find those other things ridiculous; it's just this issue that you're irrationally hung up on, probably because you find the idea icky or distrust psychiatry.

What exactly are you even trying to prove in this thread any more? How stubborn someone can be in the face of being completely discredited? You're not even arguing the premise of the article any more, because there's nothing to argue there. You're just digging in your heels and keeping things going because dammit, you think gender dysphoria is weird, and you're going to make sure everyone knows it.

 

[JarodRussell]

This transgender thing irritates me extremely. When physically, someone is a male, but thinks he is a female (and vice versa)? And then some go great lengths to actually physically alter their bodies with hormone therapy and surgery. I don't know what to think of that. But it sounds to me like facilitating psychological issues. If someone thinks he needs a vagina and breasts to be eternally happy, isn't that the same as someone who thinks he needs to cut his arm off in order to be eternally happy with himself? Good thing I don't have to decide on that.

Well, people who shoot their mouths off about serious medical issues in a way that can be hurtful or harmful to others without any knowledge or evidence to back up their assertions irritate me extremely. Why don't you decide on how to discuss things in the future without coming off like a total jerk.

Okay, if it makes me a jerk to say I don't know what to think of it, and then to ask a question about it, then so be it. I actually was hoping for a serious answer. Why is it not a psychological issue, when there is a definite sex, but the person thinks he/she has the wrong gender? Or, rephrased, what makes the person right in its assumption that it has the wrong gender, which is used as the justification for extensive physical therapy?