QotD: “We have absolutely no idea what we’re doing, and yet we’re prepared to allow this very recent niche ideology to justify the butchering of healthy bodies of young people. We should all be very angry”

We need to recognise the fact that the language has changed over the last decade from ‘transsexual’ to ‘transgender.’ Nobody seems to have questioned the significance of this change.

‘Transsexual’ literally means a change in biological sex: it’s used to describe a small group of people who suffer extreme body dysmorphia, where the body is experienced as disgusting and wrong to the extent that a ‘sex change operation’ has been shown to be a valid way to ease suffering.

‘Transgender’ on the other hand, is a subjective term. The meaning of the word ‘gender’ is open to interpretation; some interpret it as social roles imposed on the sexes, some people think it is innate ‘natural’ characteristics of the sexes. In either case it is an abstract idea, not a biological fact. To ‘trans’ gender means going from one subjective undefined idea to the supposed ‘opposite’ subjective undefined idea.

We are saying that kids are transgender, and yet we are treating them as transsexual (a term we would hesitate to apply to children). Transgender is a very convenient word to obscure what we’re really doing, which is changing children’s biological sex [*], not their gender.

Along with the change in language has been a change in the claim made that a ‘trans woman’ for example, is a real woman, was always a woman, and is no different to any other woman. Transsexuals did not (and do not) make this claim.

We have absolutely no idea what we’re doing, and yet we’re prepared to allow this very recent niche ideology to justify the butchering of healthy bodies of young people. We should all be very angry.

Stephanie Davies-Arai, interviewed at 4thWaveNow

[*] Davies-Arai adds in the comment thread: “Yes of course it’s impossible to change biological sex, perhaps I should have put that in inverted commas!”
Also Davies-Arai in the Wales Art Review:

The pressure on schools to go along with the trans narrative will also increase if The Gender Identity Research and Education Society gets its way. GIRES has presented evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee, calling for children as young as three to be taught about transgender issues in school. The trans advocacy charity criticised the DfE for failing to include ‘atypical gender identity development’ in the curriculum.

Teaching children that it’s fine to be ‘atypical’ simply involves allowing children to play with whatever they want, encouraging all children in an expansive definition of what their sex can be, and having no tolerance for teasing or bullying of those children whose behaviour doesn’t fit the stereotypes for their sex.

What GIRES are advocating though, is giving kids the opposite message. Through books in which right-on versions of Pingu tell their friends ‘We’ll tell them you are Sally and were never really John!’ they want children to be taught that if you are a boy who likes what society deems to be ‘girl’ interests, then you must actually be a girl.

Schools are in a bind: teach all children that a little boy can be a little girl and grow up to be an adult woman, and little girls can grow up to become adult men, or be seen as transphobic. If we do teach children that these things are possible, we also have to re-write the whole biology curriculum – perhaps we could call it Biological Creationism.

The theory that children have an innate ‘gender identity’ which does not match their biological sex has no scientific basis; it is impossible to have a brain which is the opposite sex of the body. The idea that male and female brains are significantly different has long been discredited. There is no existence of a pathophysiology to support treatment: to have preferences typically associated with people of the opposite sex is not a pathology, and there is nothing medically wrong with the body.

To even make the claim that a child is biologically male but ‘is a girl inside’ requires a definition of the term ‘girl’ as a recognised category with a set of definable characteristics. The definition we have is the biological classification ‘young female.’ Beyond that, we are in the realm of subjective judgment and stereotype. If ‘girl’ is a self-definition, an identity or a feeling, then the word means potentially anything and therefore nothing.

Children in any case have no fixed innate ‘identity;’ children’s identities are in process of being built through interaction with environmental influences, without which no identity can develop. ‘Social transition’ then is nothing short of indoctrination into a trans identity.

There is also no evidence that a child’s non-conforming behaviour is in itself problematic for the child, or whether any experienced distress is caused by secondary factors such as the judgements of adults, imposed restrictions of expression or teasing and bullying from peers.

We are nevertheless advised by self-appointed gender specialists to try to fix something non-pathological in the head by medically treating the healthy physical body; making this the only situation in which medical intervention does not cure a sick body, but healthy organs are mutilated in order to match a psychological identity.

The facts, verified by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, are that most children with ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ will grow out of it by adolescence, and of those who don’t, the overwhelming majority will be gay or lesbian. Given this fact, we should be wary that the ‘transing’ of children is effectively just another form of gay conversion therapy.


5 responses

  1. “We are nevertheless advised by self-appointed gender specialists to try to fix something non-pathological in the head by medically treating the healthy physical body; making this the only situation in which medical intervention does not cure a sick body, but healthy organs are mutilated in order to match a psychological identity.”

    Aren’t there other situations where we do the same thing, quite uncontroversially?
    e.g. people with ears that stick out and are very self-conscious about it have plastic surgery to “correct” the problem. Theoretically we could try to educate everybody that sticky-out ears are fine and values about aesthetically pleasing ear shapes are socially constructed, but in practice it’s easier just to have the op, and many people will be happier that way.

  2. Reblogged this on Stop Trans Chauvinism.

  3. I would argue that plastic surgery isn’t actually ‘uncontroversial’, or that it actually makes people happier. A quick google search for “plastic surgery mental health” had this article from 2012 as one of the first hits:


    Plastic surgery does little to alleviate mental health problems. In some cases, the new look even worsens symptoms of depression and anxiety.

    Girls who undergo cosmetic surgery are also more likely to have sustained injury from cutting themselves.

    That is the conclusion in a new study by Tilmann von Soest and colleagues at Norwegian Social Research, who looked at younger women’s mental health before and after plastic surgery.

    About seven percent of Norwegian women between the ages of 18 and 65 have undergone cosmetic surgery, according to Statistics Norway.

    They found that girls who decide to undergo cosmetic surgery are on average more depressed and anxious than those who do not. They are also more prone to suicide.

    Plastic surgery is certainly becoming ‘normalised’, as is the transing of gender non-confirming children, but ‘normal’ doesn’t necessarily mean good, or right, or beneficial, it can just mean ‘commonplace’.

  4. Also, there is a world of difference between pinning back a child’s ears (a one-off, relatively uncomplicated procedure), and chemically sterilizing them, then committing them to a life time of surgery and medication, based on a faulty premise of ‘brain sex’.

    Remember, the vast majority of gnc children, when left alone, grow up to be gay adults – so this isn’t just irreversible, it is wildly misdiagnosed (if the diagnosis really exists at all).

  5. The main drug used to block puberty is Lupron, a “Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone analog/agonist” which is used on prescription by men with prostate cancer as a ‘last resort’ option, it has only been licensed as a puberty blocker for children experiencing precocious puberty.

    There have been no long-term studies of physically healthy children given Lupron for ‘gender identity’ reasons. These trans children are effectively a generation of guinea pigs.

    Because sex hormones are not just involved with fertility and secondary sexual characteristics, Lupron does not just affect those areas, it also affects neural function, bone density and can cause severe gastro-intestinal problems. So it’s potentially not just sexual development that’s being stunted, but neural development as well. Also, doctors just don’t know what suppressing sex hormones at the time of normal puberty does to a child’s long-term neural development.

    Hormones mediate these reactions via hormone receptors. Estrogen and androgen receptors are located throughout the brain and the nervous system, on the heart, in GI system, in fat cells, in immune cells, in muscle, the pancreas, the gallbladder, the liver, everywhere. When hormones bind to these receptors, whether they are membrane bound, nuclear, or other types, the hormone-receptor complex activates or deactivates what are called signal transduction pathways, essentially message lines. Those messaging lines tell the cell to do something. Too much or too little of any one type of hormone, sends mixed messages, skewing cell behavior just slightly at first and when there are only small changes in hormone concentration, but with more chronic or more severe hormone changes, the signals become increasingly more deranged and the compensatory reactions, meant only for short term, become more exaggerated and self-perpetuating.


    Since the hormones and receptors are broadly located throughout the body, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if we kill off one or more hormones completely, as Lupron does with estradiol, there are going to be negative effects globally, and they are likely to be pretty serious. So, even a surface level evaluation of the safety of drug like Lupron, would suggest a strong possibility of negative outcomes in regions of the body not associated with reproductive function.


    Because of these side effects, children are being rushed to make a decision about the use of cross-sex hormones; in the US, children aged 13 and 14 are being given cross-sex hormones, some of the effects of which will be permanent.

    If maturation is being blocked, then how can an adolescent make a ‘mature’ decision? Not only are these children having their neural development stunted, they are then obliged to make a life-changing decision at an age when they are not allowed to vote or consent to sex or get into long-term financial arrangements like a mortgage.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: