READ THIS FIRST:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/
I recently stumbled upon Dr. Hugh's article on Facebook and felt the need to respond to his claims about transgender individuals. A long Facebook comment became a blog post.
Despite Dr. Hugh’s deeply troubling views, I have respect for his thoughtful delivery- it works a lot better than shouting and name-calling. I hope to be as thorough as he was (if not a bit more evidence-based). I’ll give quotes from the article and then provide a response.
“Over the last ten or fifteen years, this [transgender] phenomenon has increased in prevalence, seemingly exponentially….has spread to include women as well as men...”
It’s pretty audacious to imply that the rising number of openly transgender individuals in society is due to anything other than their increased acceptance in society. Up until as recently as a decade ago, transgender individuals faced almost universal bigotry and ostracization from society; the fact that they did not make their feelings public information is hardly surprising. One might similarly remark, “Wow! The rate of interracial marriage in the South has sure risen recently! What an interesting phenomenon!” without acknowledging the obvious root cause. The implication that transgender females did not exist prior to this movement is another implicit falsehood easily debunked- their existence has been recorded in America as far back as the Civil War (Source #1 below).
“...has promoted the idea that one’s biological sex is a choice…”
Here, Dr. McHugh is revealing how little he understands about LGBT issues- specifically, the difference between biological sex and gender identity. Caitlyn Jenner has not changed her sex- she remains biologically male. Biological sex and gender identity are separate. Why shouldn’t they be? Human beings are complicated. Additionally, human beings have individual freedom to decide how they wish to perceive themselves and be perceived by others, and what they would like to do with their bodies. In my view, it’s extremely disrespectful for any person to impose their own personal abstract view of what is “right” on another without a scientific reason for doing so. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves- more on Sexual Reassignment Surgery later.
“...[the LGBT movement] claim[s] that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons.”
More misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation, can’t tell which). Again, one’s gender identity is not their sex. It’s not a two-party system (see Source #2, where Hank Green explains the difference in layman's terms). I'd say the jury is still out on whether gender identity changes sometimes, or whether environmental factors affect the openness a person has about their gender identity. But really, who cares how other people see themselves? I sure don’t, because it’s not my body- let's be who we want to be, and let others do the same.
The conflating of sex and gender identity continues throughout the article, so let’s move on.
“Bruce Jenner...his...”
It’s interesting that he is disrespectful enough to call Caitlyn Jenner by a name and pronoun she does not identify with. My birth certificate says “Robin”, but if I were to shake hands with you and say, “I go by Rob,” would you mock my self-identification by insisting that my name is Robin, and continuing to refer to me as Robin everywhere you go? In my view, that’s the behavior of a bully. Even if Dr. Hugh believes that Caitlyn Jenner has severe mental illness, I think he ought to have more respect than that for his would-be patient.
“The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. 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.”
First of all, it's unclear from the Swedish study what kind of specific Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS) participants had. Caitlyn has not had "bottom surgery" (which refers to SRS which changes a person's reproductive organs), and has explained explicitly that she is not interested in doing so. Rather, she has had extensive "top surgery" in order to have an outward appearance that matches her gender identity. However, there is a much more troubling implication in Dr. Hugh's claims here.
It seems like the short-sidedness of Dr. Hugh’s viewpoint is its primary downfall. Obviously, transgender individuals exist in our society, have existed, and will continue to exist. The question seems to be, how do we respond to their presence in our society? With acceptance and celebration of their choices? With ignorance and rejection by apathy? Or with direct intervention in the form of trying to “fix” the person’s “disease”? Dr. Hugh acknowledges the potentially troubling results of the first approach, but not of the others.
Dr. Hugh cites a single randomized-control trial of 324 Swedish people that showed, over a span of 30 years, to have increased rates of suicide. These data seem to be used to imply that, even with social acceptance like in Sweden, suicide rates will rise. However, he fails to acknowledge body of evidence regarding the thousands of LGBT youth who commit suicide in the United States each year, due in large part to the ostracization they feel in their communities (Source #3).
*Admittedly, these data include all LGBT youth (rather than exclusively transgendered individuals), which is a challenge with all data on this subject; however, the factor at play seems to be social acceptance, which has historically been a major struggle LGBT individuals of all stripes in the U.S., and for many, remains so.
So, ignoring the problem is also the wrong approach. How about the third option- “curing” the “disease”?
“The grim fact is that most of these youngsters do not find therapists willing to assess and guide them in ways that permit them to work out their conflicts and correct their assumptions...both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters.“As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama."
Here, Dr. Hugh distances himself from the world’s scientific community with a bang. Plenty of misguided youth find their way to LGBT “conversion therapy”. This kind of “therapy” is universally rejected by governments, doctors, and scientists from countries around the globe, who deem it unethical, potentially harmful, and deeply troubling (sources 4, 5). Nevermind that until recent years, anti-LGBT “therapies” included lobotomy, electroshock therapy and chemical castration. Nevermind that, with both the old methods and the newer “peer prayer and pressure” methods, that it doesn’t work- numerous scientific studies have proven its ineffectiveness (see, for one example, Source 6). The real problem is that these methods are plagued by the very same problems Dr. Hugh accuses the opposition of having- “patients” of conversion therapy are 8 times more likely to commit suicide, and 6 times more likely to report severe depression (source 7).
What does all this tell us? Certainly, that the issue of LGBT suicide needs more study. I certainly don’t mean to devalue the problem- it’s a troubling one that many are working to solve. However, Dr. Hugh’s proposed solutions are at least as bad, if not far worse, than those posed by the LGBT rights movement. Of course we need to confront the issue of transgender suicide, but rejecting a person’s gender identity in the process of “helping” them is just hate with a love-colored jacket on. I have blue eyes; if someone told me “I love you...I just want to help you get rid of your blue eyes”, that would be offensive and unhelpful, and I would not accept the sincerity of the profession of love. Dr. Hugh seems to think that another person's identity is less important than what he wants their identity to be. Not just one other person, but thousands.
“...no evidence supports the claim that people such as Bruce Jenner have a biological source for their transgender assumptions.”
Wrong. Here’s a scientific study mapping transgender activity in the brain, specifically in Male-to-female transgender individuals like Jenner (Source 8). And before you say “the hormones did it!”, here's a quote from the article: "To be included in the study, the transsexual participants needed to self-identify as a MTF transsexual, report no history of hormonal treatment, and declare their intention to undergo estrogen replacement therapy."
Back to Dr. Hugh:
“But gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.”
I am a heterosexual cisgender adult male. I have no vested interest. I just think that Dr. Hugh is disguising bigotry with concern. And I rest my case.
Sources and further reading-
1. One of many transgender men who was a soldier in the Civil War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Cashier
2. Hank Green Explaining Human Sexuality-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXAoG8vAyzI
3. LGBT Suicide:
http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/facts-about-suicide
4. Conversion Therapy
http://web.archive.org/web/20110407082738/http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001.aspx
5. Conversion Therapy
http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/MoU-conversiontherapy.pdf
6. Conversion Therapy Doesn’t Work
http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/Practice%26Ethics.pdf
7. Conversion Therapy and Suicide
http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/facts-about-suicide
8. Mapping Gender Identity in the Brain:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/brain-mapping-gender-identity-what-makes-boy-girl-247122
