Treatment Harm in Gender Medicine

A recent article from the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Iatrogenic Harm in Gender Medicine,1“iatrogenic” – relating to illness caused by medical examination or treatment. clarifies the risks of Transgenderism.

The author wants us to consider “the increasing number of young detransitioners.”

Published June 19,2023. Author Sarah C. J. Jorgensen.

ABSTRACT
Although transition regret and detransition are often dismissed as rare, the increasing number of young detransitioners who have come forward in recent years to publicly share their experiences suggests that there are cracks in the gender-affirmation model of care that can no longer be ignored. In this commentary, I argue that the medical community must find ways to have more open discussions and commit to research and clinical collaboration so that regret and detransition really are vanishingly rare outcomes. Moving forward, we must recognize detransitioners as survivors of iatrogenic harm and provide them with the personalized medicine and supports they require.

Many proponents of youth gender transition downplay regret as vanishingly rare (Astor, Citation2023; Coleman et al., Citation2022; McNamara, Lepore, & Alstott, Citation2022; Respaut, Terhune, & Conlin, Citation2022), and it’s easy to understand why: if young people can be mistaken about their gender identity and regret their decision to transition, then the diagnostic approach endorsed by many gender-affirming clinicians, which is based upon the premise that young people “know who they are,” (Ehrensaft, Citation2016, p.114) and adults should “[follow] their lead” (Ehrensaft, Citation2016, p. 54), is clearly failing some patients. The processes of differential diagnosis and clinical assessment that clinicians perform in all other patient encounters have been recast as unnecessary “gatekeeping” under the gender-affirming care model (Amengual, Kunstman, Lloyd, Janssen, & Wescott, Citation2022; Ashley, Citation2019; Cass, Citation2022). Many detransitioners report not receiving sufficient exploration of psychological and emotional problems before being offered hormones or surgery (Gribble, Bewley, & Dahlen, Citation2023; Littman, Citation2021; Pullen Sansfaçon et al., Citation2023; Vandenbussche, Citation2022). “Minority stress,” (i.e., the theory that external forces, such as sigma and discrimination related to gender non-conformity, are the drivers of co-occurring mental health problems) is often evoked to explain away self-harm, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and even autism (Coleman et al., Citation2022; Kingsbury, Hammond, Johnstone, & Colman, Citation2022; Rood et al., Citation2016; Turban & van Schalkwyk, Citation2018), despite evidence demonstrating high rates of mental illness and neurodiversity before the onset of gender-incongruence 

Source: Taylor & Francis Online


Companion Post

+++

Thousands of Babies Saved

No matter where you stand on this issue, it is indisputable that 1000’s of babies have been saved in the past year since the Supreme Court Dobbs decision, a decision that sent the regulation of abortion back to individual states.

“Baby sleeping POV” by robscomputer is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

To celebrate these saved lives take a look and listen at the following series of short clips I posted last year. And see what abortion does.

Start with this one.

+++

Choose Life

If ‘Banned’ Books Are Harmless, Joe Biden Should Read Them to Kids

Excellent commentary on this subject by David Harsanyi.

Begins like this…

Editor’s note: The following material contains explicit references and may be offensive to some.

Joe Biden recently hosted a Pride Month event for families with LGBTQ kids on the White House South Lawn. Ahead of the event, he announced that he’ll appoint a “banned book” czar whose job it will be to try to compel local communities to stock their libraries with race-obsessed pseudohistories and books depicting oral sex, rape, violence, and gender dysphoria.

Now, if that sounds like an unfair description, there’s an easy way for the president to debunk his critics: He can read selected outtakes from some of these “innocuous” books to prepubescent kids like those who showed up to the event.

Even better, he can do it on TV. After all, “book banning erodes our democracy,” says White House Domestic Policy Adviser Neera Tanden, and “removes vital resources for student learning, and can contribute to the stigma and isolation that many communities face.”

Perhaps the White House could set up a themed reading circle on the South Lawn where the president can recite selections from “Lawn Boy,” which describes 10-year-old boys performing oral sex on each other. It is, after all, on PEN America’s Index of School Book Bans. (PEN America is an advocacy group that promotes freedom of speech for writers.)

The School Library Journal praises “Lawn Boy” as an exploration of “race, sexual identity, and the crushing weight of American capitalism.”


Read the rest.

Companion Post

+++

Parents, Stand Up For Your Children