In my last post I tackled the TRA talking point Sex Is A Spectrum. Although I have more to say on that particular subject, in this post I will try to confine myself to a dissection of the concept of “gender identity”. It was Dr John Money, famous sexologist, who coined this term in the 1950’s*. Ironically, rather than something innate or inborn, Dr. Money claimed that a child’s gender identity, by which he meant an internal sense of one’s own sex and sexuality, was molded by external forces, and therefore subject to change. This is the old nature vs nurture argument, and he came down firmly on the side of nurture. (Of course, nowadays most TRAs claim the complete opposite: that so-called gender identity is innate and inborn, not subject to change, but only to “discovery”, as one “awakens” to one’s true self.) As luck would have it, a rare opportunity to test his theory came his way.
When presented with a male infant (David Reimer) whose penis had been significantly damaged during a botched circumcision with a burning tool, Dr. Money advised the parents to raise their child as a girl. This boy’s testes were removed in infancy, and his genitalia further altered to resemble female anatomy. Surgical interventions on children born with abnormal genitalia had advanced in the previous decade, and so such surgical techniques had been previously used, but only on infants with DSDs. It was Dr. Money who pioneered the idea that a “normal” child could be raised as a member of the opposite sex. David R. happened to have an identical twin named Brian, and thus a perfect control; the two boys were “treated” and interfered with by Dr. Money throughout their childhood, until age thirteen. When David (raised as Brenda) hit the age of puberty, his parents began dosing him with female hormones. Poor Brenda/David never conformed very well to the expectations of the doctor, and was bullied and miserable as a child. Dr. Money claimed otherwise, for at least 30 years. By age 13, David was threatening suicide if forced to return to Dr. Money. He actually made several attempts before his parents relented. Both David’s psychiatrist and his endocrinologist advised his parents to tell the boy the truth. As soon as they did, David attempted to reclaim what was left of his male self, reverting to a male name and identity. He dropped the imposed female “gender identity” about as fast as he could. Unfortunately, his relationship with both parents was severely damaged, and though he married, and attempted to reclaim his life, he never recovered from the consequences of his childhood trauma, and died by suicide at the age of 38. His unfortunate brother, who became mentally ill and was diagnosed as schizophrenic, died by drug overdose at the age of 36. I have barely skimmed the surface of this patient’s trauma, yet this case became the early argument for modern transgender medical practice. False assumptions, followed by drastic measures, and plenty of propaganda, set the direction for our present situation.
When I first began to study this subject in the 1980’s, the vast majority of patients seeking medical support for what was then euphemistically called “sex reassignment surgery” were male, and mature individuals at that. Many had already lived decades of their lives as men; married, fathered children, excelled in male arenas, such as sports or military, and now wished to declare themselves female, and be treated as women. The majority of these men were heterosexual in their lifestyle and orientation. According to Dr. Ray Blanchard1, most of these men lived with a paraphilia; namely, a compelling sexual impulse to imagine themselves as female. Although TRAs HATE Blanchard’s theory, and reject it outright, (because it sheds a powerful light on the MOTIVATION for these men to risk their health, marriages, livelihood, etc.) numerous first-person testimonies of young men who want to be women are now available, on Twitter, YouTube and elsewhere, that clearly illustrate the fetish behind their wish to transition. I intend to do a blogpost on this fetish; it is not well understood, even within psychiatry.
The minority of male patients seeking sex-reassignment decades ago were delicate and feminine men, usually young and homosexual, with some degree of internalized homophobia. Often cultural and family pressures were factors. In the past, doctors considered these patients to be the ones most likely to benefit from sex reassignment surgery. It appears that their own internal repressed homophobia played a role. In those days (50’s to 70’s) psychiatrists envisioned two possible scenarios for a person to live a successful life with sex-reassignment surgery. The first was a life of stealth. These candidates were encouraged to move to a new location, adopt a new name and identity, and avoid all discussion of one’s previous life as a male. If such a person fell in love and wished to marry, his doctor was likely advising him to remain secretive about his past, and the reality and limitation of his surgically-altered body. Does this sound like some internalized homophobia was at work? Or a successful strategy for longterm intimacy and a happy marriage? Amazingly, there were a few such successes, if doctors’ anecdotal stories can be believed. Of course, the “wife” had to lie about fertility, and other predictable issues. The second strategy was to go public, avoiding secrecy and deception. Since transsexuals were rare then, many who were public became minor celebrities, like Jan Morris and Renee Richards. Even today, the debate rages about whether or not TIMs should be truthful with their prospective sex partners. Of course, we now have many more transgendered individuals in the public eye, and an astonishing number of TIMs have won accolades for their accomplishments “as women”, such as Caitlin Jenner winning Woman of the Year, and Rachel Levine being celebrated as the “first female admiral”, etc. No wonder the transgender phenomenon now has a gloss of glamour. At the start, it was a men’s sex-rights movement, and the women who wished to declare themselves men were minor footnotes in the saga.
Nowadays that ratio has flipped, and we have gone from a few adult men to a flood of children and young people, most of them female. In 2005 there were no transgender children, only some gender non-conforming ones. Now we have hundreds of gender clinics treating thousands of children. This phenomenon is astonishing; all the more so, because the evidence that so-called gender affirming treatment for children is actually beneficial is sorely lacking.2 Nobody seems to be clinically interested in WHY children, especially girls, are increasingly obsessed with gender identity, and relentlessly pursuing drugs and surgeries. The few clinicians who have tried to research the question have been punished for doing so, their research rejected. The few studies done that do support treatment in children are methodologically flawed, and offer only short-term follow-up. While we pretend that long term outcomes are either positive or completely unpredictable, the growing number of detransitioners offers the strongest evidence to date that gender affirmation treatment, as it offered today, is as likely to harm as to help these young people.
Cross-sex hormones and surgeries used to be hard to get. Now girls can obtain testosterone through their local Planned Parenthood, without parental consent. Schools are being forced to teach children an ideology about sexuality which is based on a pack of lies. Nobody can change sex. By giving children puberty blockers, and allowing them to present themselves socially as a member of the sex not their own, we are seriously undermining their mental health, and their chances for a normal, healthy sexual future. The tragic tale of Jazz Jennings is a glaring case in point. We are facing a catastrophe, and it will not end well.
Blanchard, R. Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2008
See Jesse Singal’s recent post here on Substack.
Apparently, I am mistaken about this. Dr. Money’s preferred term was “gender role”, and I believe he was one of the first to separate the notion of gender from sex. It was Dr. Stoller in the 1960’s who first referred to “gender identity”. I thank an anonymous reader for this tip.
Thank you for writing fearlessly (and so cogently!) on this taboo topic. Every voice raised in protest, especially from within the medical/psych community, brings a renewed sense of hope—yet another adult has entered the room, and the madness might be that much closer to ending. Please, God.