rachel

It just seems to be going round and round in circles. My view is that Bailey has based his ideas on those of Ray Blanchard, fair enough, there are competing theories each of which stand or fall on their merits. I do not have a problem with that, but I do find it a little odd that Bailey talks about defamation when he seems to have invested a lot of time and effort provoking people. Even when many of his collegues said “Tone it down just deal with the sceince” he went right on ahaead and published his works, from his “parental choice” paper that proposed screeneing out “potentially homsexual fetuses” through “The man who would be Queen” Where he later said in public he said “I said they [transsexual folks] are especially suited for protsitution not best suited for prostitution”. Then its “Gay Straight or Lying”. Any criticism of this is met with “Oh it is political correctness”. Yes but he does not exactly avoid silencing his critics. Talk of double standards.

As for the appointment of Zucker and Blachard there are, what 3500 signatures objecting to that at the last count? Seems to me people do not agree with what is being imposed on them by some in the medical profession. And when the CAMH and Northwestern academics stir the hornets nest they then do this. carefully controlled damage limitation. It is becoming a bit of a regular spectacle.

I just wish they would all speak face to face and settle these disputes.

Assuming you are correct, why do you suppose that might be?

Predictable, Another blog, probably another “Defender of Bailey” according to some critics, and then after about 20 posts we will read the defenders of Bailey (The HSTS hit squad) complaining about the usual list of critics appearing to refute Bailey, and quite frankly it is getting a bit repetitive.

Let me see, Huffington Post, Scientific Blogging, then that Northwestern news blog, now here.

Perhaps it needs to be said again. because Professor Bailey does this every time he goes public. “Professor Bailey with all due respect there are people do not agree with you why is that so hard to accept?”.

So technically, Zucker can state that it is not homosexuality per se that is being “treated” but since most of these boys grow up to be homosexual men, all they have proved is that they have done nothing except try to enforce gender conformity which has no statistical link to transsexuality that is significantly higher than homosexuality (actually there is a much higher link with homosexuality). So why
call it gender identity disorder in childhood?

Some quotes from the Bailey’s “Queen” book:

“I do not ask Edwin about his childhood because I do not need to. I already know that Edwin played with dolls and loathed football, that his best friends were girls. I know that he was often teased by other boys, who called him “sissy”". (Page x in book) (See also page xi, where Bailey describes whom he knows Edwin would like to have sex with, being the feminine adult man, with which Bailey describes Edwin as being.)

“Zucker thinks that an important goal of treatment is to help the children accept their birth sex and to avoid becoming transsexual. His experience has convinced him that if a boy with GID becomes an adolescent with GID, the chances that he will become an adult with GID and seek a sex change are much higher. And he thinks the kind of therapy he practices helps reduce this risk” (Page 30 in book)

“….Zucker believes that most boys who play with girls’ things often enough to earn a diagnosis of GID would become girls if they could. Failure to intervene increases the chances of transsexualism in adulthood, which Zucker considers a bad outcome.” (Page 31 in book)

“Still most boys who want to be girls become men who don’t want to be women.” (Page 32 in book)

“…Zucker’s therapy seems kinder and more consistent, and thus more likely to be effective. Zucker believes that it is, although he is the first to ackowledge that no scientific studies currently support the effectiveness of what he does.” (Page 34 in book).

I respectfully suggest that our position paper does not mis-characterize Dr. Zucker’s personal beliefs or clinical approach to the treatment of gender non-conformity in children and adolescents. In support of this statement, I submit the following -

This statement by Dr. Zucker was quoted by Frank York on the NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) website. It originally appeared in a 2004 issue of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America

Dr. Zucker admits that there are complex social and ethical issues surrounding the politics of sex and gender in postmodern Western culture. He notes that the “most acute ethical issue may concern the relation between GID and a later homosexual sexual orientation. Follow-up studies of boys who have GID that largely is untreated, indicated that homosexuality is the most common long-term psychosexual outcome.”

The concern seems to focus on Dr. Zucker’s sense that NOT treating male children for GID will most commonly result in them becoming homosexual. Do we not “treat” people for conditions in the hope of preventing what might be considered by some to be a negative outcome?

Most transgender identified (as opposed to general spectrum gender non-conforming) children do much better in every way when supported and respected for their gender identity expression. Which begs the question, is Dr. Zucker treating the child in a way that is in their best interests, or simply to satisfy the desires of parents, therapists and culture? Furthermore, we believe that Dr. Zucker and others are using reparative & aversion techniques in treatment of GID in children and youth as a way to encourage only gender stereotypical expression and as a smokescreen for discouraging the potential of a gay or lesbian sexual orientation.

Zucker goes on to say, in the same article quoted above:
“… that clinicians have an ethical obligation to inform parents of the relationship between GID and homosexuality. Clinical experience suggests that psychosexual treatments are effective in reducing gender dysphoria and that individual counseling and parental counseling are both effective methods of treating GID.”

Our experience and a significant body of research indicates that, in fact, there is very little, if any, objective correlation between core gender identity and sexual orientation. The statement by Dr. Zucker that “psychosexual treatments are effective in reducing gender dysphoria” is, to be blunt, chilling and should be a glowing red flag to any parent or caregiver who would even consider takent their child to Dr. Zucker or others who follow his treatment guidelines and methods.

Continuing from the same article, Dr. Zucker states:
“While Zucker perceives gender identity and sexual orientation, especially among males, to become more fixed with age, he believes the data suggest a much greater plasticity in childhood.”

This belief contradicts the American Academy of Pediatrics which stated in 1999 that – “A child’s awareness of being a boy or a girl starts in the first year of life. It often begins by 8 to 10 months of age, when youngsters typically discover their genitals. Then, between 1 and 2 years old, children become conscious of physical differences between boys and girls; before their third birthday they are easily able to label themselves as either a boy or a girl as they acquire a strong
concept of self. By age 4, children’s gender identity is stable, and they know they will always be a boy or a girl.”

The above position by the AAP is most often assumed, in our cissexist culture, to apply only to cisgender children, however all evidence points to this being the case with the vast majority of transgender children as well. The fact that their anatomy may not match their gender identity does not, in any way, invalidate the certainty of their gender non-conforming identity.

And finally, from the same article, we have this:

And if a secure gender identity prevents the development of later homosexuality, as Zucker acknowledges as a possibility, parents should be informed of the research on the relationship between the two. Zucker’s priority is “helping these kids be happily male or female,” but he also acknowledges that the treatment process does, in some cases, apparently avert homosexual development .

And in support of parents’ rights to avert a homosexual outcome for their children, Zucker cites a persuasive quote from Richard Green: “The right of parents to oversee the development of children is a long -established principle. Who is to dictate that parents may not try to raise their children in a manner
that maximizes the possibility of a heterosexual outcome?

In light of this, I must ask, Dr. Bailey, precisely how have we mis-characterized Dr. Zucker’s position regarding preventing or to use his own words, averting a homosexual outcome?

TransActive stands 100% behind our previous statement, and we further state, unquivocally that:

Gender Identity pre-dates and is independent of Sexual Orientation in children.

Transgender identity in children is rooted in pre-natal development, as evidenced by both clinical research, historical analysis and anecdotal information.

Transgender & gender non-conforming children & youth are more well-adjusted, happier, healthier and more productive when supported in their expression of their gender identity, including allowing them, if they so desire, to transition to their target gender.

Dr. Zucker’s treatment methods damage children and their families, including the one recently profiled on the NPR program.

Non-conforming gender identity, including transgender identity, is no more a ‘disorder’ than is cisgender identity. It is simply more rare.

Sincerely,

Jenn Burleton
Executive Director
TransActive Education & Advocacy
Portland, OR

As for the harm of this kind of therapy by trying to enforce their birth gender, that’s harmful enough. I experienced this kind of therapy when I was 6-9, it didn’t work, and I was pulled out. Why? Because I tried to hang myself when I was 9 because of how bad the therapist made me feel. It wasn’t Zucker, mind, but the techniques sound awfully and VERY painfully familiar.

They may seem relatively harmless to some folks here, but you’re being told this by a strange adult you don’t know in a labcoat, and you stare at him/her, and then shift your gaze to your parents who look conflicted, but in the end nod solemnly that it is true/correct to act differently. This alien authority figure steps in and simply tears you apart with a methodical uncaring voice.

Even if they weren’t, even if they were actually caring, and compassionate and gentle, I do not remember it. I remember emotional agony, depression, and trying to cut off my air supply with a belt.