While reading this book, I realised how ignorant I was about the biological permutations that nature can dish out when it comes to sexual attributes. Add to that the interplay of hormonal idiosyncracies, which probably have not been thoroughly researched, one can begin to grasp the challenges that intersex people face when developing their gender identity. The author discusses at length the cultural and political ramifications, including turf wars over the appropriateness of this or that intervention and the ramifications of binary categorisations.
Hormones have a huge effect on consciousness and behaviour. Why would some like myself, whose baseline temperament is fairly introverted, spend my teens and most of my twenties being a gregarious party animal and performing musician, only to eventually lose interest? Because nature wants you to form social allegiances, show off, and reproduce. It's an intoxicating, mind bending hormonal hypnosis that hijacks the system, like some biochemical possession. Very weird.
When it involves us, or people we care about, we want personalised care. When it's for those we don't care about, it is filtered through Manichaeanisms, theories, impersonal structures of mind or society.
For most, this is a subconscious process.
I wonder if MPs had to take out 30mins 3x a day to meditate, whether their policies would improve.
Re: "Because of where I’ve worked, I’ve had little to do with people wishing to change sex. Several cases over the years were people already involved in a transition program interstate who were required to see a psychiatrist as part of the protocol. In each case, I took a normal history and went through the records but nothing much emerged: they were as normal as people who wanted to migrate or change to a different religion, so the sessions were little more than friendly chats."
Did you talk to their families to get a fuller picture? If not, why not? Did you complain that "talking to family members" was not part of the protocol? If not, why not? If you were certain you didn't need to talk to families, was that a special certainty as distinct from the delusional certainty described in this rest of this article?
All patients were offered the choice of bringing family or a friend. Three hurdles to jump before they actually arrived: Patient was willing; relatives were available; relatives were willing. Certainly helpful to have family present, at least initially. In two of the cases mentioned, the relatives were in a country with strict religious tradition and patient had left because of this, wanted nothing to do with them and vice versa.
While I am grateful for your response, I am still largely in the dark. You may say, "Well, I've worked as a psychiatrist, you haven't. I've actually met these patients, you haven't. So, just accept what I say." The trouble is, as you are probably aware, that there are other psychiatrists who have expressed different points of view on this sex change business. They seem to suggest that sex change is more dramatic than "migrating to another country". It seems to be a hotly contested issue. What should I do? Accept that I am poorly placed to understand these issues and leave it to the experts to duke it out? It would be different if I could hear from a random sample of gender-dysphoric people and their families myself, but it seems that even the experts have limited interaction in that regard.
Further to the matter of "should the families be consulted", you gave some seemingly clear information about families who did not want to be involved, but no information about families you met with. Meeting families is apparently another hotly contested issue. See the following where psychiatrist Paul Denborough says that, without the family being brought along, things get "very, very difficult". Two other experts follow up with contrary points of view:
Thank you, sir, for what I believe is a highly revealing take on the genealogical developments of the psychiatric views on gender dysphoria. To me, the value of this type of article is immense as social media liberationists commonly presumptuously attest that transphobia is inherently discriminatory. I'm afraid of transgender issues because I havent been educated properly on them.
I feel highly fortunate, however, that I do not have the bigoted mindset of established medical professionals who shut the doors on their minds at a very early stage in proceedings. Let's remember, for example, that the DSM only removed homosexuality as a pathological concern in 1974. The concern is the clinicians, and hardly if at all the sexual orientation.
Please understand that the value of your article is that it invites speculation, thoughtful consideration, critical reasoning, curiosity, and adventure. These are only real standards of scientific enquiry. The rest is a regrettable facade built upon something very evil in the developed, educated human psyche.
I'm sharing your article with a transgender former friend, and maybe with my clinicians at the Mental Health Service. I doubt that the latter will understand, but I've been trying for more than 20 years.
I digged into the DSM history (for homosexuality and similar conditions), and it's incredibly disgusting. Honestly, my summary understanding is that the DSM still hasnt got it fully figured out. What an absolute nightmare for patients.
You're right. It is designed for biological psychiatry and only makes sense in that system, however, they don't have a biological model of mental disorder. Like having a 4WD car designed for cross-country running but you live in a city and don't have a map showing where the country is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexing_the_Body
While reading this book, I realised how ignorant I was about the biological permutations that nature can dish out when it comes to sexual attributes. Add to that the interplay of hormonal idiosyncracies, which probably have not been thoroughly researched, one can begin to grasp the challenges that intersex people face when developing their gender identity. The author discusses at length the cultural and political ramifications, including turf wars over the appropriateness of this or that intervention and the ramifications of binary categorisations.
Hormones have a huge effect on consciousness and behaviour. Why would some like myself, whose baseline temperament is fairly introverted, spend my teens and most of my twenties being a gregarious party animal and performing musician, only to eventually lose interest? Because nature wants you to form social allegiances, show off, and reproduce. It's an intoxicating, mind bending hormonal hypnosis that hijacks the system, like some biochemical possession. Very weird.
When it involves us, or people we care about, we want personalised care. When it's for those we don't care about, it is filtered through Manichaeanisms, theories, impersonal structures of mind or society.
For most, this is a subconscious process.
I wonder if MPs had to take out 30mins 3x a day to meditate, whether their policies would improve.
Re: "Because of where I’ve worked, I’ve had little to do with people wishing to change sex. Several cases over the years were people already involved in a transition program interstate who were required to see a psychiatrist as part of the protocol. In each case, I took a normal history and went through the records but nothing much emerged: they were as normal as people who wanted to migrate or change to a different religion, so the sessions were little more than friendly chats."
Did you talk to their families to get a fuller picture? If not, why not? Did you complain that "talking to family members" was not part of the protocol? If not, why not? If you were certain you didn't need to talk to families, was that a special certainty as distinct from the delusional certainty described in this rest of this article?
All patients were offered the choice of bringing family or a friend. Three hurdles to jump before they actually arrived: Patient was willing; relatives were available; relatives were willing. Certainly helpful to have family present, at least initially. In two of the cases mentioned, the relatives were in a country with strict religious tradition and patient had left because of this, wanted nothing to do with them and vice versa.
While I am grateful for your response, I am still largely in the dark. You may say, "Well, I've worked as a psychiatrist, you haven't. I've actually met these patients, you haven't. So, just accept what I say." The trouble is, as you are probably aware, that there are other psychiatrists who have expressed different points of view on this sex change business. They seem to suggest that sex change is more dramatic than "migrating to another country". It seems to be a hotly contested issue. What should I do? Accept that I am poorly placed to understand these issues and leave it to the experts to duke it out? It would be different if I could hear from a random sample of gender-dysphoric people and their families myself, but it seems that even the experts have limited interaction in that regard.
Further to the matter of "should the families be consulted", you gave some seemingly clear information about families who did not want to be involved, but no information about families you met with. Meeting families is apparently another hotly contested issue. See the following where psychiatrist Paul Denborough says that, without the family being brought along, things get "very, very difficult". Two other experts follow up with contrary points of view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkceKAnAUb0&t=8784s
Thank you, sir, for what I believe is a highly revealing take on the genealogical developments of the psychiatric views on gender dysphoria. To me, the value of this type of article is immense as social media liberationists commonly presumptuously attest that transphobia is inherently discriminatory. I'm afraid of transgender issues because I havent been educated properly on them.
I feel highly fortunate, however, that I do not have the bigoted mindset of established medical professionals who shut the doors on their minds at a very early stage in proceedings. Let's remember, for example, that the DSM only removed homosexuality as a pathological concern in 1974. The concern is the clinicians, and hardly if at all the sexual orientation.
Please understand that the value of your article is that it invites speculation, thoughtful consideration, critical reasoning, curiosity, and adventure. These are only real standards of scientific enquiry. The rest is a regrettable facade built upon something very evil in the developed, educated human psyche.
I'm sharing your article with a transgender former friend, and maybe with my clinicians at the Mental Health Service. I doubt that the latter will understand, but I've been trying for more than 20 years.
Sincerely, Marc (fb.com/marcustenlow)
It was actually 1980, with DSM-III.
That "something very evil in the developed, educated human psyche" is the lust for power and domination. Professors are not immune.
I digged into the DSM history (for homosexuality and similar conditions), and it's incredibly disgusting. Honestly, my summary understanding is that the DSM still hasnt got it fully figured out. What an absolute nightmare for patients.
You're right. It is designed for biological psychiatry and only makes sense in that system, however, they don't have a biological model of mental disorder. Like having a 4WD car designed for cross-country running but you live in a city and don't have a map showing where the country is.