Have you ever known anyone with anorexia? I’ve known a
couple. Their brain is telling them that they are fat, that they must do
something to lose weight, when in reality they are dangerously thin. They starve themselves, affecting their health,
possibly causing permanent damage, and risking their life if left untreated. It
is treatable, but not easily.
Would you go to such a person and support them in their
delusion about themselves? Would you say, “You’re right; those people who are
telling you that you don’t know what you’re talking about are so unsupportive.
You stay away from that food all you want”?
No. If you care about them, you do whatever it takes to
bring them back to reality—because their life is at stake. You get them mental
health care. You might get them to a hospital or live-in program that will
intervene long enough to get their brains to develop new neural pathways.
So, can we agree that, when a person has a mental disorder
that causes them to be unable to perceive or accept reality—if that delusion is
life-threatening, it would be better to offer treatment than to attempt to
change the world to buy in to their false view?
If we compare this anorexia example to gender dysphoria,
leading to transgenderism, we need to know two things:
·
Is the person with gender dysphoria unable to
accept reality?
·
Is going along with the delusion (if that is
what it is) life threatening?
If the answer is yes to both, then the treatment for gender dysphoria
ought to be similar in process to treating anorexia or other mental delusions.
I’m not saying the treatment is the same, or even that I know how to treat
mental delusions. I am saying that treating for the delusion is a more humane
approach than supporting the delusion.
I’m not the first to make this comparison. The CanaVox video
blog uses this as a way to discuss transgenderism in an age appropriate way when
it comes up with children. And, because of media, and activists within
academia, these issues are coming up for children at younger ages than we wish. I'm unable to provide the video here, but
this link will take you to the 5-minute video on Vimeo.
Let’s start with definitions. Back when my dictionary was
written (which I use in order to recall what certain words meant before recent
definition changes),
gender
referred mainly to the classification of nouns and pronouns in languages that
use those distinctions. In Spanish, for example, you can’t communicate without
knowing the gender of the nouns and modifiers you’re using. In English,
gender is mainly confined to pronouns
that are referring to the sex of a person or animal: he, she. But, colloquially,
gender can also be a synonym for
sex; i.e., male or female.
The invention of gender as something separate from sex,
something outside of biology, is newly invented.
So, back to the two questions. There’s the scientific,
biological answer. And then there’s the non-scientific, or philosophical (personal
belief) answer.
The non-scientific newly invented definition insists that
gender is fluid, and a matter of choice, and refers mainly to expression to the
world. That’s pretty vague. But it essentially means putting on the trappings—clothing,
hair, makeup, mannerisms—of the gender of choice. And this has been extended to
include more elaborate expressions, by hormonal and/or surgical interventions
that make the transgendered person appear more like the opposite of their
biological sex.
The scientific answer is that the gender, or the sex, of a
biological creature is determined by what part is played in the reproductive
process of the organism.
Ryan T. Anderson, author of
When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,
explains it this way:
Sex is a bodily reality that can be recognized well before
birth with ultrasound imaging. The sex of an organism is defined and identified
by the way in which it (he or she) is organized for sexual reproduction.
This is just one manifestation of the fact that natural
organization is “the defining feature of an organism,” as neuroscientist
Maureen Condic and her philosopher brother Samuel Condic explain. In organisms,
“the various parts… are organized to cooperatively interact for the welfare of
the entity as a whole. Organisms can exist at various levels, from microscopic
single cells to sperm whales weighing many tons, yet they are all characterized
by the integrated function of parts for the sake of the whole.”
Male and female organisms have different parts that are
functionally integrated for the sake of their whole, and for the sake of a
larger whole—their sexual union and reproduction. So an organism’s sex—as male
or female—is identified by its organization for sexually reproductive acts. Sex
as a status—male or female—is a recognition of the organization of a body that
can engage in sex as an act.
That organization isn’t just the best way to figure out which
sex you are; it’s the only way to make sense of the concepts of male and female
at all.
There is no alternative scientific definition of sex.
Maleness and femaleness are biological realities in particular organisms.
As Anderson says, this shouldn’t be controversial. In social
“science,” however, the non-biological approach has gained traction. That
should not be construed in any way to actual science overriding what we know of
biology. Anderson quotes Dr. Lawrence Mayer:
I have searched dozens of references in biology, medicine and
genetics—even Wiki!—and can find no alternative scientific definition. In fact
the only references to a more fluid definition of biological sex are in the
social policy literature.
Dr. Mayer says further:
Scientifically speaking, transgender men are not biological
men and transgender women are not biological women. The claims to the contrary
are not supported by a scintilla of scientific evidence.
So, the answer to the first question, about reality, is that
gender dysphoria is a condition in which the person is unable or unwilling to
accept reality. It is not possible to change from male to female, or from female
to male. It is only possible to do elaborate play-acting.
There are plenty of delusions in which otherwise sane people
might be unable to accept reality, and yet the delusional can go along with
their lives functioning well enough anyway. So the second question is also
important. Is it harmful?
“Transitioning” does not bring psychsocial outcomes of
wholeness. This proves true even in countries that are considered “trans-friendly.”
That is, they accept what many societies would consider weird, and take it in
stride without social isolation or stigma.
Long-term follow-up studies are rare and inconclusive. But Anderson
suggests the best one comes
from Sweden. There, it was found,
Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide
rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times
that of comparable peers.
An argument for having transitioning treatment (hormonal and
surgical) has been that it would solve the dysphoria, assuming the dysphoria
was caused simply by a mismatch between brain and body. So it was assumed the depression
and suicide among those with gender dysphoria would be drastically reduced.
Instead, the underlying problem causing the dysphoria is untreated, leading to
even greater hopelessness, and 20-fold more suicides.
It is difficult to know if that number is accurate. It may
be higher. One of the difficulties with long-term studies is that the few
attempted studies have lost track of more than half of participants. One likely
reason for being unable to re-locate a participant is suicide.
If that weren’t tragic enough, according to Anderson, “death
due to neoplasm and cardiovascular disease was increased 2 to 2.5 times as well.”
So the answer to the second question is, yes, going along
with this delusion can be life threatening.
Therefore, treatment to bring the person into touch with
reality is much kinder and more healthful than joining activists to change the
world and insisting it is wrong to even question the “right” and “rightness” of
playing along.
I am now acquainted with a transgender person, which I wasn’t
aware of a week ago. I have seen several, of course. But not among people I
know. This is not someone I know well. But I have known his wife since she was
born, and was there for their wedding.
He has decided to become a woman, and is already undergoing
hormonal therapy. He has not, prior to this, been cross-dressing. It used to be
a requirement, or at least a recommendation, before transitioning “treatment,” to
live as the opposite sex for a full year. Now it appears that, at the first
sign of gender dysphoria, a therapist encourages transitioning—permanent changes,
as yet untried, just to see whether it helps. Because a delusional person who
is denying biological fact should be treated as sensible and capable of making
such important decisions?
So, I am sad for the people I know who care about this young
couple. So far the couple is childless, and cannot going forward ever engage in
sex that results in offspring. They froze some sperm, just in case—because they’re
not actually unaware of biological reality. But they stopped going to church
and completely altered their lifestyle at the moment of beginning the hormonal
treatments. So their support system is compromised as well. The wife is staying
with him for now. But she is not a lesbian; she is not attracted to women. But
staying with him forces that pretense upon her.
Also, I’m just saying, as a woman, we’re aware of body
image, more so than your typical male. What are the odds that a 6”2” “woman,”
who is a slightly doughy and hairy male to begin with, will be without body
image issues simply by “changing” into a female?
My disapproval will matter not at all to these people; we
are not close enough for me to have that influence. But I am sad that people
who should have been able to offer actual help—particularly the psychiatric/medical
community—offered instead something that is likely to lead to suicide, misery, and
the loss of parenting opportunities and anything we might have meant when we wished
this couple happiness in their marriage. I see nothing but tragedy in their
situation—chosen, avoidable tragedy.
