Sad truths…
This “Suicide-Related Outcomes FFollowing Gender-Affirming Treatment: AReview - PMC” article literally has plastered all over it that the current state of research in this area is not robust enough to draw any conclusions. Consider the following paragraph from the discussion section:
“The majority of the 23 studies reviewed claimed that various forms of gender-affirming treatment were associated with reductions in suicidality; however, the validity and robustness of their results suffered from either a lack of measures of statistical significance and effect size, correction for multiple testing, controlling for psychiatric diagnostic makeup or psychiatric treatment history, substance use, the interaction of time since receiving gender-affirming treatment, or any combination of these.”
This is the point I was trying to make, many studies are making all kinds of claims, but they are severly lacking in meeting truthful academic standards, and yet they seem to be drawing lots of conclusions.
It’s actually the entire conclusion, read here:
“There is a need for continued research on suicidality outcomes following gender-affirming treatment. Future research that incorporates multiple measures of suicidality and adequately controls for the presence of psychiatric comorbidity, substance use, and other suicide risk-enhancing factors is needed to strengthen the validity and increase the robustness of the results. There may be implications for the informed consent process of gender-affirming treatment given the current lack of methodological robustness of the literature reviewed.”
1 Like
Yes, perhaps I should have been clearer in my acknowledgement of that.
“the data from that first study did show a decrease in suicidal ideation and outcomes, although the analysis said that more rigorous methodology was needed in many of the studies they looked at.” (from my previous response)
I also initially misread that statement that you quoted in the first paragraph as meaning that the majority of the 23 studies suffered from inadequate methodology instead of meaning that the majority of the 23 studies reported a drop in suicidality.
The existence of weaker evidence should be plenty of reason to go and look further, and to gather stronger evidence. Incomplete data is still data, and I was responding to an outright claim that medical/hormone intervention does NOT decrease the risk of suicide. I guess the answer should be “tentatively, it looks like gender alignment therapies reduce the risk of suicide, but more work is needed to verify this.”
This is a very interesting and underdeveloped area, and I think we both support more rigorous research, as it’s hard to make a proper argument out of incomplete data. It is unfortunate that this has become such a hotly politicized topic, as that often serves as a deterrent to studying it.
I think that technically it should fall under Multiple personality disorder, Obviously, they’re confused about who they are. But you’re right Often our government chooses the opinions of the doctors that agree with them.
Many push for banning sex-change treatments for minors, as well as they should. The problem is that somehow, many also do not think it is a problem if adults seek sex-change treatments.
This is not a “human rights” issue, not really. Nor is it in the same camp as getting tattoos, which is obvious. One does not have to have a disconnect between the mind and the body to get a tattoo. But to seek a sex change, there is a huge disconnect between mind and body, so the body is seen as a problem that must be altered to fit the mind’s image.
There are reasons that several other mental illnesses accompany the desire to change sexes, no matter the age. Genspect.org has found that among other things, autism also accompanies transgender desires. Perhaps is there a connection between the rise of autism rates in our country and also the rise for transgender impulses?
If someone with a mental illness had multiple personalities, the government shouldn’t make a law giving each personality a separate I.D., birth certificate, SSN, etc. Why? Because there is a division in the mind that needs to be healed, and not accepted as their civic right to think in different ways. So since transgenderism has a similar division, this time disconnecting the sexual image of the mind from the sexual organs, DNA, and genetic composition of the body, the government should also not enable laws allowing sex changes. Transgenderism as a whole should be treated as a mental disorder, whether for children or adults. In the same way, legal name changes should not be allowed if a man wants to change his male name to a woman’s name.
(And even in the rare medical cases where someone is XXY, XXYY, XYY, or the like, yet the there are patterns such afflicted people follow as to which sex they are. It’s not that they choose which one to go with. It’s rather that the true sexual identity as male or female is dominant, and makes itself known.)
Hey Roamer.
So, I’ve had some time to think about your very important Constitutional point, and I have come to the conclusion that you are correct in your argument. The Constitution gives Congress the ability to pass laws regarding the promotion of science, but only dealing with patents and copyrights. And so, to go beyond this (in this or the many other areas we know of) is outside the constituted authority of Congress.
That said, I also got to thinking about what policies in general are, and what they are not. Simply having a policy to reclassify transgenderism as a mental disorder does not mean that Congress therefore must be involved. Policies influence how government leaders speak on topics and encourage actions. Presidential or Congressional policies are often communicated with to governors and state legislatures, who can Constitutionally make laws to address these. Policies influence actions taken and give a direction as to which way to proceed in the situations that arise. Policies also could be foundational toward making another Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
So while Congress is not granted authority constitutionally to make reclassifying transgenderism as a mental disorder, this does not mean it should not be a policy.
Good discussion. Thank you for keeping me on my toes.
1 Like
Hello RevMayes.
A sad trend I’ve noticed on the hundreds of policies I’ve read here is that Americans seem to have either never learned about America’s founding principles, as articulated in the Constitution, or they’ve forgotten them. A resultant trend is for people who are reminded or informed that we have a Constitution, and acknowledge or even care about it, is to stretch the ancient parchment to try and force it to accommodate their clearly unconstitutional wishes.
Unfortunately, I see the same pattern in your response.
Art. 1, Sec. 8 begins with “The Congress shall have Power…” Each following clause in the list contains “to [verb]” plus other descriptors and aims. Whether by law, regulation, policy, declaration or [whatever term you like] if power over the specific thing isn’t given, then We the People never gave it to the federal government.
One thing I have been recommending to people for many years is, before advocating for a thing, consider the worst case scenario: how might your most loathsome political opposition use that thing you’ve done for evil? Playing rhetorical games to seize power is what the left did since the 1880 Progressive Era. The 20th Century is packed with obviously unconstitutional institution-building done by the left using the same rhetorical sleight-of-hand as you suggest.
For example, call centralized wealth collection at the point of a gun and its subsequent distribution “welfare,” and it sounds constitutional because that word is in Art. 1 Sec. 8. But Madison was clear (and literate people in that era understood) that “general welfare” are things that benefit us all, such as having military powers to defend against invasion, smooth commerce between states, national protection of intellectual property, etc. The only beneficiaries of the Marxist welfare state are leeches and the politicians who need their votes.
If you’re at all like me, you’ve noticed the Dems (with GOP support) are funding all sorts of perversion advocacy domestically and abroad. All of it is unconstitutional, which ironically justifies you and others doing things that are likewise unconstitutional. We’re in a post-constitutional era, so have at it. I’m merely suggesting that (best scenario) more tyranny isn’t likely to restore constitutional governance. We’re at the point now where (worst scenario) it may be that only another War for Independence will restore the republic.
Finally, I’d just reiterate that classifying mental illness in the DSM is entirely the right of the private owner of that book: the American Psychiatric Association. The APA folded on homosexuality and transsexuality, not because of scientific advances, but because starting in the 1970s noisy activists disrupted the APA’s annual conferences and demanded it. APA science geeks didn’t know how to respond except to eventually capitulate.
Why do you suppose there were no noisy activists for normalcy at APA conferences? Normies are too busy? Fine, but here we are. Same pattern with schools and everything else: our side was complacent and the freaks took over. The way to fight back is with the same tactic, not with unconstitutional “policies” that will flip as soon as the next Dem is in office.
Regards,
Thank you for this topic. I am a mother who endured watching my daughter being indoctrinated. She decided in 7th grade she wanted to be a boy. She went behind my back and had her hair cut very short. She had a friend’s mom take her to a second hand store to buy men’s clothing. She filled two garbage bags of new junior clothes I bought her for the new school year and put at the curb. To make this long story short, we sat down with her to hear her out. We listened. She wanted us to pay for hormone therapy, buy her breast wraps/binders, and speak to the doctors about having her breasts removed, etc. Our solution was to say to her, we will work with you when you turn 18. You have 4 more years to think about this. She continued for about 9 months looking like a boy. I bought her khakis from American Eagle and some men’s clothing one day and handed the bags to her. She came to me and said I can’t do this anymore. I don’t t want to be a boy anymore. Needless to say since we held our ground on her not mutilating her body until she was 18, our little girl grew up and now thanks her mom and dad for the strength to know how to attack this issue in a kind way. She is a gorgeous young lady and so thankful for our guidance.
5 Likes
A lot of the research has been dishonest, is why I said this. Some comments in this thread have referred to this.
1 Like
Roamer -
As always, I appreciate your intelligent and thoughtful analysis. You provide a lot of historical understanding of our nation and our founding documents. So first off, thank you.
I have replied, that I agree, Art. 1 Sec. 8 limits the power given to Congress. “Whether by law, regulation, policy, declaration or [whatever term you like], if power over the specific thing isn’t given, then We the People never gave it to the federal government.” And other than the Bill of Rights and Amendments to the Constitution (which I had also advocated for in my earlier response), the rest is not given to the Federal governments, but state governments have that power.
I think you are misunderstanding what a policy is. You hear the word “policy” as if this is synonymous with “a law.” So by advocating for a policy, you hear it as though I was trying to have Congress make a federal law. However, this is neither the definition of policy nor the thrust of my latest response. A policy is not a law, but a plan of action. It guides how one communicates and addresses issues. And the more people that share this policy, it could be made into an Amendment to the Constitution like the Bill of Rights, which also wasn’t mentioned in Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, yet it’s still valid.
You recommend to consider what the worst case scenario would be if the opposite side used this particular policy for evil. I would simply say, we are rapidly approaching the worst case scenario now. Left unchecked, we will be there before too long. Arrests for hate speech meaning, calling a man to be a man and not a woman, even if he is taking sex change hormones. Promoting transsexual reading hours at public libraries. Appointing a transgender person to the highest medical officer in the land. Where we’re heading is an Orwellian 1984 society, if we are not already in it. Where we’re heading if we are already Orwellian is to cement this even further and make it impossible to turn back, unless people on all levels speak up. This is what a good policy does. It focuses the communication and action of those on the highest levels.
Finally, the fact that the DSM, APA, and other groups are supposed to classify what is mental illness and what is not, does not mean they are actually doing this. Appealing to the APA to fix this is a lost cause. This ideology is deep in their minds. The media is decidedly rooted in this ideology too. Outside of an act of God, this looks like an insurmountable challenge to change the APA’s perspective back to what it had been. Your point about another War for Independence is well noted.
Meanwhile, individual families are being destroyed on both sides of the aisle. There are grief-stricken support groups of families of transgender children, again, from both sides of the political aisle. There is a growing deep regret and shame from those who changed their sex and then realized they were wrong, but the doctors and hospitals who did this are scot-free. There are doctors fired from hospitals and scholars fired from universities for speaking out against the harmful affects of transgenderism. There are powerful and rich backers who promote skewed studies, getting the intended results they paid for (or just having ghostwriters make these statistics up).
This is why a policy is needed - not a law, but a course of action. I’m pretty sure this issue isn’t one the founding fathers ever had to address, and had no way of knowing that they would have to address it.
But the governmental promotion of transgenderism as a neutral and even approved social choice is just as abusive as every issue mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. And if your policy is that the government leaders should stay quiet, and meanwhile let citizens write to the APA, those abuses will continue.
I need to reply to some others on here, so this will likely be my last response to you. Thanks for the good, civil discussion. Appreciate your historical knowledge and constitutional understanding.
We need to ban taking disorders out of the DSM for political reasons.
I agree with this. I do wonder if the chemicals in our food are affecting the neural pathways as well as the garbage in our vaccines.
Thank you for your response. I can tell how you are trying to be read up on this subject. And educating ourselves based on authentic research and not skewed research is absolutely needed.
There are a few weaknesses with the argument that says, “I want people to live their best life in whatever way they choose, but there needs to be protections afforded to them that ensure they are safely evaluated prior to completing a procedure that could forever change their life. On that note - It does fall to let someone make their choice to reassign.”
Problem 1 - The safety and health of others. Obviously, you and I would agree that a psychotic individual who wants to gun down people in schools or movie theaters should not be allowed to, even if that is how they want to live their life. The reason? Their psychosis harms other people.
We would want the government to step in if there was a cult that had brainwashed its followers. Even if they are doing what they want, it is not in the public good to allow cults such as Jim Jones or David Koresh had. These are public safety matters that harm other people.
So, does transgenderism harm other people? It absolutely does. I can attest to parents, grandparents, siblings of sexual dysphoric individuals who are traumatized for years. There are quite a few support groups for parents whose children are gender dysphoric and have taken irreversible steps. Mental health doctors (psychology and psychiatry) have patients of trans-parents who are suffering. For examples, https://www.pittparents.com (PITT - Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans) is a free newsletter filled with the sorrows and hurt parents have suffered. Another online resource is https://genderdysphoriasupportnetwork.com, which you can look through articles without having to subscribe.
Problem 2 - Gender dysphoria (which means “confusion”) is a mental health problem. In this case, the mind is disconnected from the way the body is sexually organized. (As organisms, bodies are ordered, primarily along the distinctions between male and female. And more than for just reproductive organs - bones such as the pelvis, the corpus collosum in the brain, etc.)
What other mental illness would we speak this way about? “If a schizophrenic wants to identify as two people, we have to let them. And while we’re at it, we should give all personalities involved separate I.D.s, SSNs, etc.” No. That would be enabling mental illness and not treating it.
Or what about clinical depression? “If a clinically depressed person chooses to be this way, we’ll let them be clinically depressed, all the while saying clinical depression is a choice, and a healthy alternative.” No, that would be trivializing mental illness and not speaking correctly about it.
The common misconception of current ways of speaking about transgenderism and cross-sex hormones is that this is somehow some kind of “civil rights” issue, instead of this being a human rights violation. Why should adults be enabled to treat the mental illness of transgenderism as if this is some kind of personal civic right? This applies to more than just minors and children. Transgenderism as a mental illness applies to adults too.
Therefore, because transgenderism afflicts families and especially parents of gender dysphoric children (of any age), and since mental health problems are not to be enabled and misunderstood as civic rights, or trivialized or called accepted ways of living alternate lives, then we must have compassion on transgender afflicted adults too, and the family members who love them and cannot bear with the hurt and strain.
This is why the government also should step in. Approving and accepting transgenderism as a civic right and not a mental illness is harming the citizens and families of this country.
Thank you for reading if you have read all of this.
2 Likes
I agree 100%. I was actually going to get my degree for social work. Had an interview for a great job that would have paid for it. Needless to say it changed my mind, due to my own research in psychology and others not treating transgenderism as a mental illness.
1 Like
But the issue isn’t that any American adult should be free to do as they please with their body. This isn’t a civil rights issue. This is a human rights violation.
Mentally ill people should be healed, not have their mental illness enabled.
We would not grant separate I.D.s to people with the illness of multiple personalities. Nor would it be good to grant a person with this mental illness for one personality to be married to one spouse, but the other to plan to get married to a different spouse.
The same thing applies to people afflicted with gender dysphoria. Taking such steps such as hormones or disturbing surgeries harm their families and loved ones (on both sides of the political aisle, mind you), not to mention themselves. This is not a good thing for society. It is truly a human rights violation. Therefore, we should not treat gender dysphoria as if it’s a neutral choice, or as if it is an acceptable choice. It is mental illness, and it needs proper healing so the disconnect between a person’s body and mind is re-connected.
This this this! Alongside creating stricter voting laws. Exclude people with serious mental illness etc.
The problem most definitely, as was stated in the original post, is that’s it’s experimental. Therapist here- we don’t know the long term effects and long term data of people who transition early and detransition or who have gender dysphoria and don’t transition. It has been reported that puberty blockers (which have been told are safe and no big deal) actually have links to early onset dementia. Human experimentation is unethical and that’s basically what this issue has turned into. Permanent measure of bodily changes should not be happening to anyone without the appropriate long term counseling and certainly not before frontal lobe maturity (25-30 years old). Statistically speaking only about 10% of the population is gay and even less than that is transgender. Now with 20-30% of individuals calling themselves trans- it’s just impossible. The statistics don’t naturally skyrocket like that. There’s more that’s going on with our society than runs deeper than what meets the eye and letting people, letting children, make lifelong permanent choice before they even understand who they are is a big cry for help
1 Like
Since this is not sane behavior, then let’s also do what we can do to prevent adults from receiving such surgical procedures, taking hormones, changing names to those of an opposite sex, and so on.
Because if this is mental illness for children, it’s equally mental illness for adults.
1 Like
If an adult wants to get cosmetic surgery, I can’t stop them. If they are receiving this surgery as “health care” this is a systemic corruption.
Protect the kids , protect the kids from these confused adults, and enable the confused adults a pathway to sanity.
1 Like
It is helpful to think of the idea of “gender identity” as a form of expression, and “gender dysphoria” as a behavioral disorder. Changing one’s genitalia, taking pills, or appearance does not magically alter a person’s genetic makeup. Transpeople are free to express themselves because we have the 1st amendment, but now we need government accountability for the surreal situations that are trending.
The key factor in this debate is “what constitutes Expression” and “what constitutes Medical Therapy”. I think we are seeing atrocities committed because these actions are being exercised around the fringes of the law.
The radical Transsexual “agenda” seems to be merging these two areas into a singular attack, that is deliberately confusing and open-ended - at our peril.