Gender Dysphoria, Medical Data Vs Ideological Spin

[deep state]

Seems there isn't a thread on the subject and since I am going to be blogging about this for the foreseeable future, I thought I'd start one for sharing some of the more compelling discoveries


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mtQ1geeD_c&t=

ABSTRACT: Gender dysphoria (GD) of childhood describes a psychological condition in which children experience a marked incongruence between their experienced gender and the gender associated with their biological sex. When this occurs in the pre-pubertal child, GD resolves in the vast majority of patients by late adolescence. Currently there is a vigorous, albeit suppressed, debate among physicians, therapists, and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for GD in children. This new paradigm is rooted in the assumption that GD is innate, and involves pubertal suppression with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists followed by the use of cross-sex hormones—a combination that results in the sterility of minors. A review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is founded upon an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base, and violates the long-standing ethical principle of “First do no harm.”

Gender Dysphoria in Children: This Debate Concerns More than Science

Gender is a term that refers to the psychological and cultural characteristics associated with biological sex.1 It is a psychological concept and sociological term, not a biological one. Gender identity refers to an individual’s awareness of being male or female and is sometimes referred to as an individual’s “experienced gender.” Gender dysphoria (GD) in children describes a psychological condition in which they experience marked incongruence between their experienced gender and the gender associated with their biological sex. They often express the belief that they are the opposite sex.2 The prevalence rates of GD among children has been estimated to be less than 1%.3 Sex differences in rate of referrals to specialty clinics vary by age. In pre-pubertal children, the ratio of boys to girls ranges from 2:1 to 4.5:1. In adolescents, the sex ratio is close to parity; in adults, the ratio of males to females range from 1:1 to 6.1:1.2

The debate over how to treat children with GD is primarily an ethical dispute; one that concerns physician worldview as much as science. Medicine does not occur in a moral vacuum; every therapeutic action or inaction is the result of a moral judgment of some kind that arises from the physician’s philosophical worldview. Medicine also does not occur in a political vacuum and being on the wrong side of sexual politics can have severe consequences for individuals who hold the politically incorrect view.

As an example, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, long acknowledged as a foremost authority on gender identity issues in children, has also been a lifelong advocate for gay and transgender rights. However, much to the consternation of adult transgender activists, Zucker believes that gender-dysphoric pre-pubertal children are best served by helping them align their gender identity with their anatomic sex. This view ultimately cost him his 30-year directorship of the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.4,5

Many critics of pubertal suppression hold a modernist teleological worldview. They find it self-evident that there is a purposeful design to human nature, and that cooperation with this design leads to human flourishing. Others, however, identify as post-modernists who reject teleology. What unites the two groups is a traditional interpretation of “First do no harm.” For example, there is a growing online community of gay-affirming physicians, mental health professionals, and academics with a webpage entitled “First, do no harm: youth trans critical professionals.” They write:

We are concerned about the current trend to quickly diagnose and affirm young people as transgender, often setting them down a path toward medical transition…. We feel that unnecessary surgeries and/or hormonal treatments which have not been proven safe in the long-term represent significant risks for young people. Policies that encourage—either directly or indirectly—such medical treatment for young people who may not be able to evaluate the risks and benefits are highly suspect, in our opinion.6

Advocates of the medical interventionist paradigm, in contrast, are also post-modernists but hold a subjective view of “First do no harm.” Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, and leader in pediatric gender transitioning, has stated that “[First do no harm] is really subjective. [H]istorically we come from a very paternalistic perspective… [in which] doctors are really given the purview of deciding what is going to be harmful and what isn’t. And that, in the world of gender, is really problematic.”7 Not only does she claim that “First do no harm” is subjective, but she later also states that it should be left to the child decide what constitutes harm based upon their own subjective thoughts and feelings.7 Given the cognitive and experiential immaturity of the child and adolescent, the American College of Pediatricians (the College) finds this highly problematic and unethical.

Gender dysphoria as the result of an innate internal sexed identity

Professor of social work, Dr. William Brennan, has written that “[t]he power of language to color one’s view of reality is profound.”8 It is for this reason that linguistic engineering always precedes social engineering — even in medicine. Many hold the mistaken belief that gender once meant biological sex. Though the terms are often used interchangeably they were never truly synonymous.9,10 Feminists of the late 1960’s and 1970’s used gender to refer to a “social sex” that could differ from one’s “biological sex” in order to overcome unjust discrimination against women rooted in sex stereotypes. These feminists are largely responsible for mainstreaming the use of the word gender in place of sex. More recently, in an attempt to eliminate heteronormativity, queer theorists have expanded gender into an excess of 50 categories by merging the concept of a social sex with sexual attractions.9 However, neither usage reflects the original meaning of the term.

Prior to the 1950s, gender applied only to grammar not to persons.9,10 Latin based languages categorize nouns and their modifiers as masculine or feminine and for this reason are still referred to as having a gender. This changed during the 1950s and 1960s as sexologists realized that their sex reassignment agenda could not be sufficiently defended using the words sex and transsexual. From a purely scientific standpoint, human beings possess a biologically determined sex and innate sex differences. No sexologist could actually change a person’s genes through hormones and surgery. Sex change is objectively impossible. Their solution was to hijack the word gender and infuse it with a new meaning that applied to persons. John Money, PhD was among the most prominent of these sexologists who redefined gender to mean ‘the social performance indicative of an internal sexed identity.10 In essence, these sexologists invented the ideological foundation necessary to justify their treatment of transsexualism with sex reassignment surgery and called it gender. It is this man-made ideology of an ‘internal sexed identity’ that now dominates mainstream medicine, psychiatry and academia. This linguistic history makes it clear that gender is not and never has been a biological or scientific entity. Rather, gender is a socially and politically constructed concept.

...

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-spea ... n-children


also of interest for the strong of stomach:

Gender-affirmative therapist: Baby who hates barrettes = trans boy; questioning sterilization of 11-year olds same as denying cancer treatment

and:
Has the UK become a police state? (And has Twitter become its informant?)

[C_D]

How many children does this affect - as a percentage of the population?

0.1% - 0.01% - 0.001% - or less?

Whatever the figure is, it's way less than the amount of kids that have been killed in warzones this year. Sounds a bit preachy, but I'd wager it's a fact.

If a kid who feels they are trapped in the wrong body takes action to remedy the feeling, it's theirs and their parents call. For many it will mean liberation, for some it will be a dreadful mistake with lifelong ramifications. Play the cards you're dealt and hope to win an ocassional hand.

Yet another thing to rage about.

[deep state]

That depends how you look at it

Body dysmorphia is widespread and homosexuality obviously that much more so; there is a shared spectrum and "trans" is just the most politically explosive and the one that is impacting the most people.

If you were to ask how many people is the trans agenda impacting in the Western world, I'd say (barring a few Amish and forest dwellers) 100%, tho the ones who don't have kids or know anyone who's transiting, not so directly, obviously.

I can think of no cultural phenomenon more destructive and far-reaching in its implications & effects currently than this one, a) because of how it is targeting children from infancy on (i.e., is state-sponsored and publicly embraced child abuse); b) because it undermines some of the most fundamental ontologies we have, namely the teleology of the body, of sex, and of male-female relations.

[Edit, the specific trans stats in the US are between 0.6 and 1% but they can only be rising rapidly with social contagion and the new education, legal, medical, and governmental reforms.]

[C_D]

Body dysmorphia is widespread and homosexuality obviously that much more so; there is a shared spectrum...

I don't see a valid connection between the two. The first is a state of mind in which the individual feels trapped in a place that it shouldn't be; the second is sexual attraction to one's own sex. Linking these two is a bit risky, imo - I can see why it's done - a female in a male body is going to fancy males, presenting the outward appearance of homosexuality - but it isn't the same as a male, who identifies as a male, fancying other males. Two seperate and distinct things.

By linking the two conditions above, are you suggesting that body dysmorphia may be unrecognised homosexuality at an early age?

If you were to ask how many people is the trans agenda impacting in the Western world, I'd say (barring a few Amish and forest dwellers) 100%...

Even if that were true, is it really any of our business?

I can think of no cultural phenomenon more destructive and far-reaching in its implications & effects currently than this one...

Obsession can be a cruel mistress

[deep state]

I don't see a valid connection between the two. The first is a state of mind in which the individual feels trapped in a place that it shouldn't be; the second is sexual attraction to one's own sex. Linking these two is a bit risky, imo - I can see why it's done - a female in a male body is going to fancy males, presenting the outward appearance of homosexuality - but it isn't the same as a male, who identifies as a male, fancying other males. Two seperate and distinct things.

From the OP article:

A large body of clinical literature documents that fathers of feminine boys report spending less time with their sons between the ages of two and five as compared with fathers of control boys. This is consistent with data that shows feminine boys feel closer to their mothers than to their fathers. In his clinical studies of boys with GD, Stoller observed that most had an overly close relationship with their mother and a distant, peripheral relationship with their father. He postulated that GD in boys was a “developmental arrest … in which an excessively close and gratifying mother-infant symbiosis, undisturbed by father’s presence, prevents a boy from adequately separating himself from his mother’s female body and feminine behavior.”21

It is risky. I sure wouldn't post that at RI.

Even if that were true, is it really any of our business?

Obsession can be a cruel mistress

I guess you are implying that I am obsessed? Complete with the smilie to make your comment seem playful & benign, the effect is rather of passive aggressive superciliousness and a lack of respect.

Maybe I'm over-sensitive, but (what I experience as) your smug tone is one of the reasons I lost interest in posting here - FYI.

[C_D]

Yes - I'm smug, condescending, ocassionally belligerant, often opinionated and pretty fickle.

I still disagree that there is 'no cultural phenomenon more destructive and far-reaching in its implications & effects currently than this one'.

Where do you see this cultural phenomenon leading to? What's the End-State?

[deep state]

If this


and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6DLhFiLqds

are where we've arrived in 2018, I'll leave it to you to envision the "End-State."

Course, it's nobody's business, so don't let any of this pull you away from your Third State ruminations. (yes, sarcasm)

From an email I sent today

The other thing I dislike so strongly about current MS leftism, political correctness and ID politics is that it is very apparent to me that, having jumped the shark with trans and other ontological insanities, its entire effort seems more or less guaranteed to pave the wave for a corresponding kickback from the opposition, as we are already seeing in play. The sad thing is that these well-meaning reformers don't even realize they are preparing the ground for the Right to goosestep right in. It's shadowplay.

I don't think this is arbitrary or unplanned either. In the Trans movement, for example, there's a clear correlation between the supposedly liberalist celebration of difference and a now widespread eugenics program to sterilize all these anomalies by first getting them to "come out" and receive their corporate blessing.

[C_D]

That email makes your position clearer - you don't like what's happened/happening in this field - but also you don't want other people, that also dislike what's happening in this field, to be given any further ammunition because those type of people are goosestepping right-wingers. I sort of agree.

The GRA video is funny. I have a piece of paper which says that I'm something, therefore I am. I would counter the importance of this certificate - and it's legislature - with the fact that it is becoming increasingly apparent that few in the UK trust, like or respect the government - so their proclamations might be the law of the land, but people always find ways to circumvent that which they find unreasonable. Celebrity Big Brother last year included a man that insisted on being called a woman and everyone, male and female in the house ended up shunning him (except Boris Johnsons arsehole sister, on a point-scoring mission).
Implementing forced inclusiveness - at the tip of a sword - is not a viable strategy in the long run.

I must reiterate that I have met a woman trapped in a mans body and I have also met a man masquerading as a woman. These are two seperate and distinct states of mind. The first - in my vastly over-inflated opinion - deserves every help available, the second - tolerance (up to a point).
If a man masquerading as a woman demanded inclusion in my personal space, I would simply tell him to go away or ignore him - and face the consequences of a system that has lost a sense of reason. I can live with that.

[deep state]

I must reiterate that I have met a woman trapped in a mans body

Can you explain the rationale behind this?

I mean, why you choose to phrase it this way, rather than as, "a man fully convinced that he was a woman trapped inside a man's body"?

[C_D]

I must reiterate that I have met a woman trapped in a mans body

Can you explain the rationale behind this?

I mean, why you choose to phrase it this way, rather than as, "a man fully convinced that he was a woman trapped inside a man's body"?

When I see a man or boy, I am immediately aware that he is male.

When I see a woman or girl, I am immediately aware that she is female.

However - on talking to, or observing the behaviour of an individual, it can become apparent that the 'essense' of the person being addressed or observed does not match their outward appearance.

I am heterosexual. I once met a woman that was trapped in a man's body. I had been told beforehand that she was a woman in a mans body. She was delightful, kind, funny and charming. I found her personality to be womanly - (she reminded me, in some ways, of the angel I call my wife). She told me that she felt like she should have born a woman and I believed her. Everything about her screamed woman - her gentleness, kindness, understanding - she radiated it. She thought like a woman. She walked like a woman. There was not a hint of campness to her, she didn't flounce, there wasn't a continuous raft of sexual innuendo, there was no pouting or trying to emulate a 50's sex siren.
I cannot explain it in terms of reason, but I sensed she was a woman.

This is not inconceivable, surely? That Nature occassionally gets things a little, if not majorly, mixed up? The trouble comes when a male mind thinks it likes the idea of being a woman, has the change, but continues to think like a man that thinks he's a woman. The ones that demand to be treated like a woman, not realising that that right has to earned. Who get annoyed when hetero men don't fancy them and get aggressive, or upset that other women that can't accept them as a woman, because other women can sense it too - they see the masquerade a mile off.

My intuitive guess puts the number of women trapped in a mans body at a vanishingly small number. Nature is generally quite kind.

[Harvey]

I know enough to know that although we know a lot, our ignorance is still far greater so I'm watching with interest, no great concern. (On this.) if you want to worry DS, watch Guy Mcpherson talk on his subject. There's far worse than this to worry about. That's a fact. Of which there are precious few.

[deep state]

I once met a woman that was trapped in a man's body. I had been told beforehand that she was a woman in a mans body. She was delightful, kind, funny and charming. I found her personality to be womanly - (she reminded me, in some ways, of the angel I call my wife). She told me that she felt like she should have born a woman and I believed her. Everything about her screamed woman - her gentleness, kindness, understanding - she radiated it. She thought like a woman. She walked like a woman. There was not a hint of campness to her, she didn't flounce, there wasn't a continuous raft of sexual innuendo, there was no pouting or trying to emulate a 50's sex siren.
I cannot explain it in terms of reason, but I sensed she was a woman.

That's a poetic and heartfelt testimony, but it sure isn't science. You've been persuaded, that much is clear. But these sorts of testimonials don't constitute arguments, just anecdotes.

This is not inconceivable, surely? That Nature occasionally gets things a little, if not majorly, mixed up?

Of course there are anomalies in Nature, such as two headed cows and intersex humans. But you are talking about something that is not represented by Nature, at least in the sense of natural science. There is no "essence" that has sex in nature because sex relates to biology. To posit a woman trapped in a man's body you first need to establish what you mean by this essence, i.e, what's your frame of reference besides Nature. If it's a spiritual one, and we are speaking of souls, then you need to explain how and why souls have sex when they do not have genitalia or biology. If it's not a spiritual one then what is it?

You can't just talk about essence, claim it has sex, and then offer nothing but a subjective experience as your evidence. That's either idiotic or it's disingenuous.

This model of woman trapped in man's body is internally contradictory and fundamentally incoherent, which is why I find it to be so pernicious. Even the gusto of your testimony speaks to that; it's designed to persuade emotionally and romantically rather than logically or rationally. But the effect isn't only to "defend" a psychological anomaly by making his experience somehow empirically real, it's also to pull the ground out from under the discussion. I would even say it's inherently dishonest, tho not intentionally. Just more proof of how loopy people become when they espouse "spirituality" divorced from psychology.

I know enough to know that although we know a lot, our ignorance is still far greater so I'm watching with interest, no great concern. (On this.) if you want to worry DS, watch Guy Mcpherson talk on his subject. There's far worse than this to worry about. That's a fact. Of which there are precious few.

I looked him up.

an American scientist, professor emeritus of natural resources and ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona.[1][2] He is best known for promoting the idea of near term extinction (NTE), a term he coined[2] about the possibility of human extinction as soon as 2030.

I see the two areas (trans and humanity's self-destruction) as inherently connected, even inseparable. Ever heard of Spermageddon?

[C_D]

That's a poetic and heartfelt testimony, but it sure isn't science

I reject the rigid inflexibilty of your science, deep. Simple as that. I see glaring holes in it that constantly need plugging with patches of mental gymnastics. I'm glad you made that statement, because I now see you in a completely new light. I had no idea you were thus inclined. I've stated elsewhere here at AM that I'm more interested in what isn't than what is. Current scientific thinking, carried forward on the wave of what we are now, does not inspire me - in fact, I find it constraining, controlled and fundamentally flawed on many levels. Not all. But many.

That's either idiotic...

I had wondered how long it would take for a little piece of RI to be brought here. And there it is.

This idiot has little else to add, having considered the reception with which he will be met.

[deep state]

Yeah, sorry about using the I-word. It tends to happen when the ground gets pulled by "mental gymnastics"

Otherwise we agree to disagree.

[C_D]

One other observation -

I never understood why the LGB movement became the LBGT movement, because transexualism is absolutely nothing like - or even closely related to - being gay, lesbian or bisexual, in my mind. I see being gay, lesbian or bisexual as a totally different state of mind to what has been termed transexualism. Gay and lesbian entities simply feel drawn, sexually and emotionally fulfillingly, to their own sex. Bisexuals (the very luckiest of all people - imagine finding potentially anyone of adult age sexually attractive!) similarly, only either sex.

I think 'transgenderism' as a catchall for the current seperate and indivual states of mind to be not specific enough. It seems to me that the concept of a woman or man being born into the wrong body - literally a person that feels female in a mans body or a person that feels female in a man's body - has been lumped together with (predominantly) men that want to take cross-dressing to it's ultimate conclusion and become real-life drag queens - with all the resplendant body parts - who continue to act as such. I reiterate, this is a very different state of mind to born in the wrong body - a state that I would describe more as 'mis-bodied at birth' than what 'transgender' has come to mean.

[deep state]

I reject the rigid inflexibilty of your science, deep. Simple as that. I see glaring holes in it that constantly need plugging with patches of mental gymnastics.

For example?

I'm glad you made that statement, because I now see you in a completely new light. I had no idea you were thus inclined. I've stated elsewhere here at AM that I'm more interested in what isn't than what is. Current scientific thinking, carried forward on the wave of what we are now, does not inspire me - in fact, I find it constraining, controlled and fundamentally flawed on many levels. Not all. But many.

I would agree and that's rather my point. Your own style of thinking, what isn't rather than what-is, is much more in line with the current push away from the scientific method (which I attempt to apply above) towards Scientism, which puts ideological affiliation, feelings, and personal preferences ahead of logic, facts, or impartial observation of phenomena and comparison of data.

Actually, my own lens is not scientific but psychological, which is a soft science, you might say. I was going easy on you by saying that your own "argument" wasn't science, because it wasn't psychology, logic, or rationality either. It was a 100% subjective impression, an anecdote.

I am surprised you miss the irony of how precisely that squares with the current trans-ideology of "You are exactly what you think and say you are."

I never understood why the LGB movement became the LBGT movement, because transexualism is absolutely nothing like - or even closely related to - being gay, lesbian or bisexual, in my mind.

Perhaps not in your mind but in social reality there is a clear and undeniable overlap and, once again, you have presented no evidence and not much of an argument, outside of whole-cloth philosophical statements, for your subjective opinion. That said, gender identification is certainly not equivalent to sexual orientation, but that's sort of the point. GI threatens to eradicate SO because people finding their sexuality are being redefined not as having a non-typical sexual orientation but as having a biologically in-congruent gender (born in the wrong body). Now a new curve has been added because we have men claiming to be lesbians in men's body, and so on.

You want to see the trans-activist insanity as distinct from a fundamental ontological reality (one which, like those activists, you can't or won't define) of "people born in wrong-sex bodies." I see the insanity as an inevitable social development of a foundational error that, if looked at in its social history, as reported in the OP article, was not even an error but a deliberate, willed deception.

[C_D]

...you have presented no evidence and not much of an argument, outside of whole-cloth philosophical statements.

Yes, your Honour - I stand before the court guilty of that of which I am accused.

...the current push away from the scientific method...

I'm not too impressed with where the 'scientific method' has taken us as a species.

..logic, facts, or impartial observation of phenomena and comparison of data.

This court believes the world to be a logical place, Your honour- and that logic can bend all to its will. This court is sorely mistaken. Logic is a tool wielded predominantly for justification, as demonstrated by your judgement, your Honour.

I was going easy on you

My thanks, you Honour - I always appreciate clemency in the face of a higher power.

You want to see the trans-activist insanity...

I would like it put on the record, you Honour, that these are the courts words, not mine. I do not see this phenomena as insanity, but simply an opposing point of view.

your subjective opinion

How can there be any other personal opinion, your Honour? Am I not being tried in this court by one, subjective individual?

In the closing of my defence, you Honour, I wish to make it known that the possibility of a mind being born into the wrong body is not only a possibility, but for some rare instances, a reality - and that this is a distinctly different phenomenon to the myriad of other psychological states experienced by entities that are also, in effect, deeply uncomfortable with themselves. That we have not had the available time or resources to explore and fully categorise all of these states of mind yet, is unfortunate. However, these new states of mind will continue to crop up as we evolve towards where we are headed. These new states of mind may also appear to the logical mind as senseless and in some cases ridiculous, however, we have to find a way to work with them, because our reality makes them a part of us as a whole.

[gods+lonely=man]

A friend showed me this and even though it's not gender dysphoria i think it is telling of a overall trend in body dysmorphia.
There seems to be a growing amount of people who are doing this as medical procedures become less expensive,but i don't understand why they are not being referred to mental health specialist first before going through medical surgery.
I sorta feel like its some sort of overall astrological transit in which the boundaries of what externally defines us are be broken down in order to reveal something.These people are unknowingly playing the role of scapegoat or sacrificial lamb
in order to show humanity something about ourselves.If people can become anyone culturally/race/gender,sex wise at least externally then what does it mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1yWH6QSP4k

[C_D]

...but i don't understand why they are not being referred to mental health specialist first...

It's called free will - and I'm rather fond of it. The only caveat is this - do no harm to others when exercising your free will.
And by harm, I mean physical harm.
Emotional harm is way, way too individualistic to ever get a handle on for legislative purposes. They are trying, but it will fail - in time.
'If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out'. This rather comical-sounding saying has a lot of common sense embedded - if you don't like what you're seeing, don't look.
The lady in the video is happy with where she's at - for the time being, at least. Despite the mocking and ridicule. She may wish to change again. It's her right. Her state of mind could possibly be made more compliant with the wishes of others by the use of drugs, councelling or maybe even peer pressure, but to what end? To make her just like the rest of us? To be more 'normal'? She's extremist and she revels in it. But she isn't doing us any harm.

I have sometimes nightmared into existence a reality filled with none but myself. Grim.

[deep state]

Well-argued article by regretful "transitioner, some highlights:

Twelve years ago, The Guardian reported that a review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transgender patients by the University of Birmingham Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility found “no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective . . . Research from the US and Holland suggests that up to a fifth of patients regret changing sex.”

Shortly after undergoing sex change surgery, most people report feeling better. Over time, however, the initial euphoria wears off. The distress returns, but this time it is exacerbated by having a body that is irrevocably molded to look like the opposite gender. That’s what happened to me, and that’s what the people with regret who write to me say happened to them.

Based on six years of experience treating over 500 people with cross-gender hormones, Dr. Ihlenfeld sounded a warning on gender transition. He found that there was simply too much unhappiness among patients after changing genders, and that too many people who had sex change surgery later took their own lives.

...

People with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria are encouraged to undergo sex transition as treatment. But according to studies, over half of this population is likely to have one or more coexisting psychiatric disorders, such as depression, phobias, and adjustment disorders, which influence the outcomes, as we saw in the letter earlier. The coexisting psychiatric disorders should be treated first before undergoing irreversible, life-changing sex change surgeries.

Individuals with gender dysphoria are discouraged from seeking treatment for their depression, phobias, and adjustment disorders. Instead, it is assumed that their psychiatric difficulties are due to their “not being true to themselves,” and they are fast-tracked to transition. 

...

A staggering 41 percent of people who identify as transgender reported in a national survey that they had attempted suicide. That’s over twenty-five times the rate of suicide attempts (1.6 percent) among the general population. 

The majority of transgender people (62.7 percent, according to one study) have at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder. Many people think transgenders are homosexual and that changing genders is about sexual relations. That wasn’t the case for me, nor for the people who have written me over the last ten years. Every single one of them had unwanted pain caused by sexual abuse, deep trauma, mental disorders, horrible loss, or terrible family circumstances in early life. Often the parents were not aware that any abuse or trauma had occurred. Treating psychological pain with sex change surgery doesn’t work.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/06/17166/