Change Your World-NOT your Body

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Trans Kids-The Old New Abuse of Gay/Lesbian Children

Before, During and After the Male Medical Machine quantified homosexuality as "abnormal" in their DSM bible, teens suspected of being Gay or Lesbian or teens who declared themselves Gay or Lesbian faced the possibility of Conversion Therapies by homophobic parents and an equally homophobic society and medical community. Therapies that include/d rape, castration, clitoral removel, alcohol, drugs, shock treatment, pornography, prostitutes, to name just a few.

Despite the removal (actually it wasnt really removed just neatly tucked out of sight) of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 and despite the overwhelming evidence that homosexuality isnt a mental disease, conversion therapy and many of its tortures still persist today. But in much smaller numbers, and many of its sick straightening out practices are considered by many in the Male Medical Machine as abuse and torture. I have yet to hear it said though that the parents motives and course of action be declared child abuse. But thats how homophobia works, even when those in authority claim to be against it, they conveniently turn a blind eye when it comes to negative/abusive parental treatment of gay and lesbian youth.

What if a parent caught or suspected their son or daughter of smoking pot and the parents instigated the removal of their son's testicles or the rape of their daughter in order to get them to cease smoking pot? If found out by authorities, these parents would be arrested, tried and every other person in the country would want to see them fry! BUT, if it is a parent doing the very same thing to save their child from a life of homosexuality? Well those tortures are not only worth it, but completely understandable and medically stamp approved!

It is from this very homo/lezbo-phobic structure that the door for parents to transition their children (some as young as 2) has swung wide open and only silence is heard from these clear cut cases of child abuse! Young, innocent and highly trusting and impressionable minds are being brain washed that their abnormal behaviour (behaviour not in accord with the Gender Straight Jacket) is because they were "born in the wrong body" rather than the reality which is BORN IN THE WRONG SOCIETY! A society so homophobically sick it either fully agrees with transitioning children, lethal hormone blockers and all or it shrinks from legally and ethically calling out of the child abuses being done to children suspected of being gay or lesbian by parents and doKtors!

Encouraging likes and dislikes is a positive in a child's life, but sexing those likes and dislike including any behaviour behind them to the point of pathology IS child abuse!




  1. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

    Quote from George Santayana

    The transgendering of children: Gender eugenics

    Women's Studies International Forum

    Volume 35, Issue 5, September–October 2012


    "This article will argue that the practice of transgendering children, that is becoming increasingly common in the twenty first century, should be understood as a contemporary form of eugenics practice. This practice employed sexual surgeries (Largent, 2008) and drug treatments to modify the behavior of the “unfit” in the early twentieth century, and family counseling in the mid century to regulate sex and gender. Presently, children as young as 10 in Australia, with the connivance of the Family Court, are being put on puberty delaying drugs as a result of being diagnosed with “gender identity disorder”, with the expectation that they will be moved onto cross-sex hormones at 16 and receive surgery to amputate their sexual characteristics at 18 (Jeffreys, 2006). Though Australia is in the forefront of this practice, other countries are catching up. In Germany in 2009 a 16 year old boy had his genitals removed to become a “girl” (The Telegraph, 2009). The UK government agreed in April 2011 to enable an experiment administering puberty delaying drugs to children from 12 years old (Alleyne, 2011). This practice sterilizes the children. There has been an absence of critical feminist literature on the transgendering of children and this article seeks to contribute to remedying this.

    The eugenic sexual surgeries and drug treatments of the past and the transgendering of children in the present share a number of similarities which will be examined here. The most significant similarity lies in the fact that a project of social engineering lies behind both forms of practice. Both practices are based upon the idea that certain problematic behaviors have a biological basis and can be “cured” by treatments which alter and affect sexual characteristics. In the first half of the last century a project of social engineering took place in Europe and North America which was directed at the control or elimination of the economic underclass, “morons”, prostituted women, criminals, those deemed to be “gypsies”, those seen as morally deficient, lesbians and gays, all considered to be the “unfit”, through sterilization. Presently a regime of transgendering children, as well as adults, has the effect of shoring up a correctly gendered and heterosexual state and citizenry. Another similarity is the origin of the ideas for these treatments, which come in both cases from sexologists or scientists of sex, biologists, endocrinologists and psychiatrists. Another similarity lies in the targets of the sexual surgeries. Lesbians and gays were targeted by eugenicists and those with same sex sexual orientations are, in practice, a principal target of the sexual surgeries of transgenderism today. The practices are connected too in that they were both supported by persons who had otherwise progressive agenda, such as sexologists who were often socialists, and some feminists. This is certainly true of the practice of transgenderism today, which has been supported by many on the Left and many feminists, though the issue of transgendering children has not been much remarked upon by these constituencies as yet."

  2. The transgendering of children

    "The practice of transgendering children is a consequence of the increasing normalization of the practice of transgendering adults. Before the 1980s, the practice of transgenderism was carried out on comparatively small numbers of patients, and the practice did not have the extensive and normalizing media coverage that it does today (Meyerowitz, 2002). In the 1980s there was a name change from transsexualism into transgenderism, and the beginning of a “transgender” movement, which modeled itself on the lesbian and gay movement. This movement called for “transgender” rights, which included treatment on medical insurance or the public health, and legal recognition of their new status. It was strongly aided from the 1990s onwards by the Internet which enabled a mushrooming of support groups and political organizing. There has been a campaign to transgender children from two constituencies, adult men who have been transgendered, and some sexual scientists, particularly endocrinologists.

    The demand for early intervention and treatment of children identified as “transgender” has been spearheaded by organizations dedicated to the rights of those who have been transgendered, such as the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) in the UK, and influential individual transgender blog activists such as Laura from Laura's Playground (Laura, n.d.). These male to transgender activists generally transitioned later in life, from their forties onwards. This meant that passing as women was difficult for them due to their male bone structure and height. They argue that early intervention is vital to prevent what they see as “transgender” children from experiencing puberty and the entailed physical changes which will make transition harder later on, and require expensive and more complex surgeries to achieve a convincing simulacrum of the desired sex. The ‘international symposium’ that GIRES, with Mermaids, the support group for the transgendered, ran in 2005 to counter the significant resistance from within the medical profession to the idea of treating children, is an example of this campaigning work. The symposium was for “doctors… who care for children and young people experiencing gender variance”, and GIRES and Mermaids “remain in close contact with these professionals” (Department of Health, 2008). A precisely similar form of campaigning to enlist the services of the medical profession was employed by the Erikson Foundation on behalf of adult transsexuals 30 years before (Billings & Urban, 1982). The international campaign spearheaded by GIRES achieved a major success with the publication in 2009 of draft guidelines from the Endocrine Society which recommend that children identified as “transgender” as young as 12 should be given medication to delay puberty (Endocrine Society, 2009). The recommendations are largely based upon the experience of a clinic in the Netherlands which has been prescribing puberty blockers for some time to those under 16. The guidelines recommend that “adolescents who fulfill eligibility and readiness criteria for gender reassignment initially undergo treatment to suppress pubertal development”. They “suggest” that “pubertal development of the desired, opposite sex be initiated at about the age of 16 years, using a gradually increasing dose schedule of cross-sex steroids” (Endocrine Society, 2009, p. 4). They recommend referring the children for surgery when they have completed a “real life experience” of living as the desired sex, but “suggest” that surgery should be deferred until the child is “at least 18 years old”.

  3. "Pressure to treat children with drugs to delay puberty is also coming from some of the professionals at gender identity clinics. Norman Spack, for example, endocrinologist and co-director of the DSD (Disorders of Sexual Differentiation) Clinic at the Boston Children's Hospital, expresses a rather unseemly enthusiasm for being able to perform such treatment, “Yes, we remain at a crossroads, salivating at the prospect of applying the Dutch protocol for pubertal suppression, yet without permission from health insurers to pay for the expensive drugs or pressure from the medical and mental health communities to demand it. The frustration level of parents is rising, fueled by knowledge of what could be done” (Spack, 2008, p. xi). Spack knows what can be done and wants more freedom to treat children in the way he thinks appropriate. He is one of the authors of the 2009 Endocrine Society Guidelines that recommend puberty delaying drug treatment for children.

    As the campaign by lobbyists and sex scientists to transgender children has achieved increasing success, there has been an emergence of online NGOs to support the parents of “transgender” children, and the publication of advice books. The practice of transgendering children is being normalized by books from psychologists who make a living from identifying and treating children as “transgender”. One of these is a “handbook”, The Transgender Child, written by Stephanie Brill and Rachel Pepper, which advises parents on how to recognize that a child is “transgender” so that they can receive professional help (Brill & Pepper, 2008). Stephanie Brill, who describes herself as a member of the ‘butch/trans community’ (St. John, 2010), is a “gender educator” and founder of Gender Spectrum Education and Training (Gender Spectrum, n.d.), which offers support to parents of “gender variant” children and offers gender training programmes for schools. Rachel Pepper is described on the book jacket as a therapist who specializes in “transgender and gender variant clients”. A number of organizations set up to service the families of “transgender” children dispense similar advice on their websites, such as Trans Youth Family Allies (TYFA, 2008). Parents are invited to identify their children as “transgender”, often at very young ages. Brill and Pepper tell parents that their first insight into their child's transgenderism will be at 18 months, “When your 18-month-old girl's first words are ‘me boy,’ or your 2-year-old son insists that he is a girl, and these responses don't waver or change over the next few years, you can be pretty sure that you have a transgender child” (Brill & Pepper, 2008, p. 2). Parents are advised to be watchful for such matters as whether their young children select sex appropriate “underpants”, i.e. the boy should not choose those with flowers on. The tone of these published and online resources is apparently compassionate, but also quite coercive. Parents and professionals are told that the treatment of transgendering children is the only responsible way forward, that it is just, and that it may be the only way to protect the children from self-harm and suicide."

  4. "GIRES has been so successful in securing the support of the medical profession for its preferred treatment options, that it was able to play a major role in developing the guidelines on medical care for persons seeking to be transgendered which were published in a series of pamphlets by the UK National Health Service (NHS) in 2008. The series includes one on medical care for “gender variant children and young people” (Department of Health, 2008). This provides a useful insight into the ideas that have now been accepted, and the practices that medical practitioners are now advised to adopt. The NHS pamphlet explains that gender variance in children can be identified by boys saying “they want to be girls, or that they actually are girls” and girls wishing themselves to be or believing themselves to be boys (Department of Health, 2008, p. 4). The pamphlet asserts that “gender variance” in its “severe” form is “biologically triggered”, “small parts of the baby's brain progress along a different pathway from the sex of the rest of its body” (Department of Health, 2008, p. 5). In fact research to suggest that behaviors commonly associated with “gender” difference are biological is very thin on the ground and likely to be as flawed as all forms of brain research are in proving that gender differences are inscribed in nature and not nurture (Fine, 2010).

    Like the handbooks and online resources emerging from the US on the need to transgender children for their own good, the NHS pamphlet uses strong persuasion to pressure health practitioners to accept the practice, stressing the extreme distress that children they consider to be “transgender” experience at puberty. Treatment is justified as a way to avoid difficulties with “passing” in adulthood, “The irreversible effects cause life-long disadvantage because they often make it difficult, or even impossible to ‘pass’, that is, to look and sound completely like a person of the opposite sex” (Department of Health, 2008, p. 13). The anxieties of adult men who are transgendered are clearly revealed here, as the pamphlet states that those who are not transgendered as children “may be ‘read’ on the street and consequently may suffer prejudice, harassment, humiliation and even violence” (Department of Health, 2008, p. 13). The language of being “read” is common to male crossdressers, and its use suggests that the concerns of adult males who may have quite different experiences and interests are being transferred onto children, for whom they may be quite inappropriate."

  5. "Identifying “transgender” children

    Children are diagnosed with “gender identity” disorder as a result of engaging in socially unacceptable behavior, specifically behavior considered unsuited to the child's biological sex. As such, I argue, the transgendering of children should be understood as a project of social engineering which has similarities to the practice of sexual surgeries that were carried out on persons seen as engaging in socially unacceptable behavior in the previous era of eugenics. In the earlier period the problematic behaviors included chronic poverty, homosexuality, and criminality. In this section I will illustrate the socially unacceptable “gender” practices that lead to the diagnosis of a child as having gender identity disorder. Physicians are faced with the difficulty of distinguishing children who are genuinely in need of being transgendered from those many who, as they readily admit, are likely to have worries about gender but do not wish to be transgendered when they are adults (Department of Health, 2008). The NHS pamphlet does not create confidence in the process by which this is accomplished,

    As puberty approaches, the leading clinics will make a careful assessment of which children are almost certain to develop as transsexual adults and which are unlikely to do so. No physical test is available for detecting and measuring gender variance that may develop into adult dysphoria and transsexualism. Hence, clinicians must rely on the young person's own account of his, or her feelings, or information from the parents about the way the child talks and behaves and on psychological tests (The Department of Health, 2008, p. 17).

    The main indicator that they use, though, is likely to be the response of the child to the physical changes of early puberty. Unfortunately, puberty is arriving earlier and earlier for children presently. Precocious puberty is identified by the Boston Children's Hospital, which treats “transgender” children, as before age 8 for girls and as before age 9 for boys (Stafford, 2011). If the logic underlying the transgendering of children is accepted, then children might have to be identified and treated with drugs even before these ages, as the pamphlet advises intervention early enough to suspend physical changes before they begin.

    The diagnostic criteria for “gender dysphoria” in children, previously known as “gender identity disorder in childhood”, appear in the US Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). The DSM is currently under revision, and I shall use here the version of the criteria, published in 2011, which is likely to appear in the new edition, number 5. The criteria are based upon gender stereotypes. Children with gender dysphoria must have “a strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that he or she is the other gender”. The indicators that they are of the “other gender” are:

    …in boys, a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; in girls, a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing; a strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe or fantasy play; a strong preference for the toys, games, or activities typical of the other gender; a strong preference for playmates of the other gender; in boys, a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; in girls, a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities (DSM5, 2011).

  6. "Absence of critical literature on transgenderism

    Though there are important connections between the early twentieth century eugenics practice of carrying out sexual surgeries and sterilization on the unfit for purposes of social control and social engineering, and the transgendering of adults and children in the late twentieth and early twenty first century, these practices have not been linked together in scholarly literature. Indeed there is an absence of critical literature in politics and the social sciences today on transgenderism. This is a change from thirty years ago, when criticism of transgenderism as a practice formed one aspect of a critique of the politics of medicine. In the 1970s and early 1980s, social scientists and feminist and lesbian and gay activists were likely to be incisively critical of the medical profession and of psychiatry. They were inspired by the anti-psychiatry movement which subjected mental health practice to political criticism, and by a liberation politics which was fundamentally critical of psychiatric medicine as an institution of domination (Radical Therapist Collective, 1974). Also, the diagnoses of mental illnesses were criticized as being socially constructed and for serving to conceal the way in which capitalism and male domination caused sickness and stigmatized unacceptable behavior (Chesler, 2005, 1st published 1972).

    Dwight Billings and Thomas Urban carried out research in this more critical period, using observation and interviews in a “gender” clinic (Billings & Urban, 1982). As critical sociologists of the time, they engaged in a swingeing critique of the medical practice of transgenderism. They argued that physicians created and promoted sex-change surgery which would heal “neither the body nor the mind, but perform a moral function instead” and that the surgery “privatizes and depoliticizes individual experience of gender-role distress” which is a symptom of social change and challenge to the political construction of gender roles (Billings & Urban, 1982, p. 266). They say that there was very considerable resistance by psychoanalysts to the practice of “sex-change” surgery as promoted by Harry Benjamin in the 1950s, with critics saying that “it is one thing to remove diseased tissue and quite another to amputate healthy organs because emotionally disturbed patients request it” (Billings & Urban, 1982, p. 267). They charge the physicians and surgeons involved in the practice with being motivated by the desire for monetary gain and the excitement of scientific experimentation, and of having deliberately sold anguished men the idea that they could have sexual satisfaction and “gender role comfort” if they suffered “amputation”. They conclude, powerfully, that, “By substituting medical terminology for political discourse, the medical profession has indirectly tamed and transformed a potential wildcat strike at the gender factory” (Billings & Urban, 1982)."

  7. "The most well known feminist critique of the medical profession's practice of transgendering adults, mainly male at that time, was The Transsexual Empire (Raymond, 1979), from the philosopher of science, Janice Raymond. It emerged from the same time period, was inspired by similarly radical politics, and argued that the medical profession had instituted a diagnosis and treatment for transgenderism that served their profits, and was engaged in social control through the maintenance of patriarchal gender roles. Apart from Raymond's book, there has been but one other detailed feminist critique of the practice, Bernice Hausman's Changing Sex. Transsexualism, Technology, and the Idea of Gender (1995), which is a history of the development of the concept of gender identity disorder from a cultural studies perspective. In the nineteenth century “transgenderism” i.e. behavior in persons of one biological sex which was considered more appropriate for its opposite, was understood to be an aspect of homosexuality in which male homosexuals had female minds in male bodies (Ellis, 1913). The idea that there was a particular kind of person who was really a member of the sex not indicated by their biology, and who required treatment for this condition, was an invention of the mid twentieth century. As Bernice Hausman explains, this development was related to the sexological adoption of the notion of gender, as the appropriate behavior that should develop in particular sexed bodies, and increasing scientific knowledge of, and motivation to experiment with, sex hormones (Hausman, 1995). The biologist Eugen Steinach was the most significant pioneer in the use of hormones to alter bodily processes, in men in particular (Steinach & Loebel, 1940).

    Radical sociological approaches to transgenderism, however, look rather bold in the present. The philosopher of science, Brian Martin, has argued that the connection of science studies to the politics of social movements, to feminism and the project of social change was lost when it entered the academy and chased theoretical dead ends (Martin, 1993). The incisive and political critique of the earlier period disappeared. Thus the burgeoning academic literature on transgenderism today makes no connection with the grim history of sexual surgeries, with the sterilization of the unfit, with eugenics, or with social engineering, and is generally uncritical of sexual science

    This body of work includes histories of the way in which sexual science constructed transgenderism in the US (Meyerowitz, 2002). It includes a sociological literature based on interviews with women who have transitioned to become “men” which seeks to reveal their motivations and experience (Devor, 1999 and Lewins, 1995) There is a literature developing on the politics of transgenderism, particularly on the issue of “transgender” citizenship (Monro, 2005), and collections on what is referred to as “transgender” theory (Ekins & King, 1996). In 2006 the first collection was published which was designed as a resource book for the emerging field of “transgender studies” (Stryker & Whittle, 2006). This weighty literature does not incorporate a feminist or sociological critique of the practice. In relation to the transgendering of children, critical work in the social sciences, with a few exceptions (Gottschalk, 2003 and Jeffreys, 2006), is remarkably absent. The increasing quantity of social science literature on the “transgender” child is not critical, or analytical. It consists of handbooks for social workers and for parents (Brill and Pepper, 2008 and Mallon, 2009), and for teachers. All of this literature speaks of “affirming” the “transgender” child and the positive tone of the materials can be adduced from the titles of two examples, “Working with Transgender Children and Their Classmates in Pre-Adolescence: Just Be Supportive” (Luecke, 2011), and “Trans-Friendly Pre-School” (Dykstra, 2005)."

  8. "Despite the absence of critical work in relation to the practice of transgenderism in the social sciences literature, there is an emerging critique in the clinical literature. The psychologists Susan Langer and James Martin, for instance, argue that the diagnosis of gender identity disorder in childhood “serves primarily to advance a political or social agenda” (Langer & Martin, 2004, p. 15), and the “mental health community” should take a “strong stand against the continuation of GIDC as a sanctioned diagnostic category” (Langer & Martin, 2004, p. 19). There are other mental health professionals criticizing the diagnosis of gender identity disorder in childhood and adulthood, particularly in the way that it affects the social control of homosexuality (Bower, 2001 and Wilson et al., 2002). The most swingeing critique comes from the psychiatrist Az Hakeem. He works at the Portman Clinic in London which specializes in therapy with those seeking to be transgendered and those who have been transgendered, but continue to suffer distress. In a book chapter aptly titled “Trans-sexuality: a case of ‘The Emperor's New Clothes’”, he calls the notion of persons seeking to be transgendered that they are really of the other gender or sex an “overwhelming false belief” (Hakeem, 2007, p. 184). He criticizes the practice of treating transgenderism as a biological condition that resides in the body and can be cured through hormones and therapy, commenting that, “It seems strange that as psychiatrists we attempt to address an internal psychological conflict with an exterior surgical solution” (Hakeem, 2007, p. 183). However, neither the earlier critical literature, nor that which is beginning to emerge from mental health professionals in the present, connects transgenderism in any form to the history of eugenics. In the next section I will identify some connections between the transgendering of children and eugenics practice which may help inform the development of a more critical social science literature."

  9. Connections between transgenderism and eugenics practice

    There is a burgeoning literature on eugenics campaigns and practices from social historians and historians of science, which provides evidence of ideas and practices which are echoed in the contemporary practice of transgenderism. This literature describes how the eugenics movement developed in the US (Largent, 2008 and Reilly, 1991) and in Europe (Lucassen, 2010) and became centred on the practice of sterilization. Some point out that this practice, though it was mostly brought to an end in the 1970s, lingers on, particularly in relation to teenage girls who are considered at risk of pregnancy because they are vulnerable to sexual predation (Largent, 2008). This literature makes few connections with the contemporary practice of transgendering children despite the fact that this, like the sterilization of the unfit, is carried out by sexual scientists for the purpose of social engineering.

    The ideological foundations of eugenics emerged from the work of Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin (Largent, 2008). They were adopted and promoted by biologists, sexologists and psychiatrists who were politically leftwing such as J.B.S. Haldane and Henry Havelock Ellis in the UK, and Auguste Forel in Switzerland (Lucassen, 2010). It is relevant that all of these men saw themselves as socialists, because in the twenty-first century the practice of transgendering men, women and children, has been adopted as an issue of positive human rights by progressive people such as the Left theorist Judith Butler, rather than as a practice that violates rights (Butler, 2004). The Left of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was generally supportive of eugenic ideas, as exemplified by Sydney and Beatrice Webb, of the Fabian society in the UK (Lucassen, 2010). In Sweden social engineering through the sterilization of the unfit was adopted enthusiastically by the Myrdals, sociologists associated with the founding of the Swedish welfare state. Legislation to enable the sterilization of the unfit was adopted in Sweden in the 1920s and from then until the 1970s, 63,000 persons were sterilized, ninety percent of them women. Eugenics was adopted on the Left as a way to create a better “race”, meaning, at that time, “nation”.

  10. "Importantly, eugenicist ideas, including sterilization of the unfit, were adopted by many feminists before the Second World War. The US birth control campaigner Margaret Sanger was one of them. In 1932 she sought to explain how eugenics could lead to an end to war, through preventing overpopulation, particularly of the unfit, that she considered an important cause (Sanger, 1932). These measures included immigration policies to prevent entry of the unfit, segregation of the unfit so that they could not reproduce, and sterilization. Immigration controls, she said, should keep out, “feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others” and a “stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation” should be applied to those who might have “tainted progeny”. People should, she considered, be given the choice of segregation or sterilization. The British birth control campaigner, Marie Stopes, too was inspired by eugenicist ideas and concerned to limit the breeding of persons who were not of sufficient “quality”. She opined in a BBC interview as late as 1957 “We are breeding rubbish” (quoted in Garrett, 2007, p. xlii). The extent to which feminists embraced eugenics before the Second World War in the UK is a topic of controversy amongst historians. There is general agreement that feminists tended to include eugenic language in their theory and practice in order to make themselves more persuasive and easily understood, but their degree of commitment is another matter (Bland, 1995 and Makepeace, 2009). However, the absence of criticism, or active support, of the practice of transgendering adults and children, by those who see themselves as progressive or even feminist in the present, should not surprise, as there is a history of such support for similar projects in the earlier period.

    Sexual surgeries

    Eugenics practice was centred on the performance of sexual surgeries on those considered unfit, and the practice of sterilization of the unfit in the USA illustrates the scope and acceptability of the practice. Two-thirds of the states in the USA passed compulsory sterilization laws between 1907 and 1937 (Largent, 2008, p. 65). Sterilization was not just carried out for eugenic purposes, i.e. to prevent reproduction of defective children, but to punish and for therapeutic purposes such as changing unacceptable behavior. The sexual surgeries carried out on those considered unfit included complete castration, with removal of the testes, as well as the less invasive practice of sterilization through vasectomy. Largent explains that, in the US, amputation of the testes and scrotum was used from the late nineteenth century up to the 1930s to “treat, punish or control hundreds of rapists, child molesters, and men who engaged in activities associated with homosexuality” (Largent, 2008, p. 5). He calls this practice “mutilation”, and it was mostly practiced on men who were in mental hospitals and prisons. He explains that the reasons given changed over time, going from “punitive and eugenic” to “therapeutic and prophylactic” over four decades. The psychiatrists involved in sexual surgeries regularly used them as a “cure” for women's unacceptable behavior. G. Alder Blumer in the US at the end of the nineteenth century recommended “gynaecologic surgery” for women patients (Dowbiggin, 1997, p. 89). He considered that “insanity was a genital reflex”, an idea that was widespread from 1850 to 1900 and led to the removal of women's wombs and ovaries. In particular he recommended such surgery for women who were loud and vulgar in their language."

  11. "One significant connection between the heyday of eugenics and the transgendering of children today is that lesbians and gay men form a constituency that is targeted by both practices. The grim details of the control and punishment of lesbians and gay men by the scientists of sex throughout most of the twentieth century was laid out in the earliest, gay liberation-inspired, history of lesbians and gay men in the US, Jonathan Katz's Gay American History (1976). This history is important because the carrying out of sexual surgeries on lesbians and gay men is common to both the early period and to the transgenderism of the present. Katz writes that, “Lesbians and Gay men have long been subjected to a varied, often horrifying list of ‘cures’ at the hands of psychiatric-psychological professionals, treatments usually aimed at asexualization or heterosexual reorientation" (Katz, 1976, p. 197). These treatments, which went on well into the second half of the twentieth century, included surgeries such as castration, hysterectomy, and vasectomy. Women were subjected in the nineteenth century to surgical removal of the ovaries and of the clitoris, a treatment designed as a “cure” for various forms of what was called female “erotomania”, and included lesbianism. Lobotomy was performed as late as the 1950s. A range of drug therapies were also used such as the administration of hormones, LSD, sexual stimulants, and sexual depressants, alongside other treatments such as hypnosis and electric and chemical shock treatment, and aversion therapy (Katz, 1976, p.197). Katz comments that the homosexual victims of sexual surgeries were sometimes “acquiescent”, and sought out treatment, as those requesting to be transgendered do today. Indeed involuntariness is by no means a necessary element in eugenics practices generally. Katz explains that the case histories he examined in his research showed, “Numbers of these histories concern guilt-ridden, self-hating homosexuals, who have so internalized society's condemnation that they seek out cruel forms of treatment as punishment; they play what can only be termed a masochistic game, in which the doctor is assigned, and accepts, a truly sadistic (as well as remunerative) role” (Katz, 1976, p. 200). Katz does not include the transgendering of homosexual men and lesbians within these abusive medical treatments, but Bernice Hausman, in her feminist critique of transgenderism, does (Hausman, 1995). Hausman argues that the treatment of intersexuality and transsexuality in the mid twentieth century was motivated by a large extent by the desire to reduce the possibility of homosexuality and to create heterosexual citizens. She points out the first example of sex change surgery to be highlighted in the media in the US, that of Christine Jorgensen in 1951, concerned a man who described himself to his doctors as either homosexual or a woman, and was persuaded by them that he suffered from a condition that pervaded every cell of his body, that of being a woman (Hausman, 1995). The Jorgensen case led to a surge of interest in changing sex in those who, as Hausman puts it, were thus encouraged to see themselves as patients."

  12. "Despite the similarity between the control of homosexuality in eugenics practice and in transgenderism, this is seldom discussed in the social science literature today. The fact that many of the men and most of the women who seek to transition are homosexual before treatment is, nonetheless, an open secret. Though males seeking to be transgendered may be attracted to women or other men, it is recognized that the women are generally lesbians before they are diagnosed as “transgender”, “Virtually all females with Gender Identity Disorder will receive the same specifier-Sexually Attracted to Female- although there are exceptional cases involving females who are sexually Attracted to Males” (Mental Health Today, n.d.). Professionals involved in treating Gender Identity Disorder in Childhood are aware that three quarters of the boys referred for diagnosis by their parents will be homosexual or bisexual when they reach adulthood (Mental Health Today, n.d.)."

  13. The transgendering of children: Gender eugenics

    Women's Studies International Forum

    Volume 35, Issue 5, September–October 2012

    "The interest of eugenicists in the control and punishment of homosexuality was a part of their interest in the creation of properly gendered and sexed families and children, an aspect of the movement which relates clearly to the transgendering of children that takes place today. The historian of the US eugenics movement, Alexandra Stern, explains how the eugenics movement shifted focus after the Second World War to concentrate on making families conform to its idea of appropriate gender roles (Stern, 2005). Stern explains that in the 1950s there was less enthusiasm for the more familiar practices of eugenics which were stigmatized by association with Nazism, such as sterilization, though, as she says, these by no means came to an end, and the laws stayed on the books. Instead eugenicists gravitated towards what was called “positive” eugenics, concentrating on population control and “often began to locate the marrow of human differentiation not in racial distinctions… but in sex and gender”, such that, ‘the racism of the 1920s was rearticulated into the sexism of the 1950s’ (Stern, 2005, p. 154). The American Institute of Family Relations (AIFR), which was a main motor of eugenic population policy in the 1950s, and its director, Paul Popenoe, promoted a “family-centric eugenics that demanded sex and gender uniformity” and promoted the idea that the male/female distinction was the greatest that could exist between two human beings and was based on evolution, nature and genetics (Stern, 2005, p. 155). When clients were assessed for counseling by the AIFR, the first step was “gauging the degree to which their gender identity and comportment corresponded to their anatomical sex” (Stern, 2005, p. 167). They were then treated on the basis of ideas emanating at that time from “psychiatry, psychometrics, endocrinology and sex research” (Stern, 2005, p. 180). This form of eugenics practice is exemplified in the way in which sexologists in this period developed ideas of “gender” and “gender identity” and used them in their approach to children they identified as intersex and in their treatment of transgenderism, a practice which continues today (Hausman, 1995 and Meyerowitz, 2002). The avoidance of homosexuality and the construction of robustly heterosexual, and gendered, families, children and adults motivated the sexologists of the period."

  14. The eugenics of children who don't fit neatly into sex based stereotypes of what constitutes socially acceptable masculinity and femininity still continues. This barbaric practice still occurs in 2013. Below is an example of the sterilization of an intersex child. As we've stated on this blog before, the vast majority of transgender identified people don't have an actual intersex (disorder of sexual development) disorder.

    How will future historians view the practice of administering puberty suppressing drugs to "gender dysphoric" teenagers?

    Please note that many news articles refer to what happened to this child as "sex reassignment surgery". Aren't some of the surgical procedures involved in the sterilization and mutilation of intersex children and "sex reassignment surgery" for adults basically the same? Didn't some of the pioneers in sex reassignment surgery also work on intersex children?

    "South Carolina parents sue over sex-reassignment surgery

    May 2013

    "COLUMBIA, S.C., May 14 (UPI) -- A South Carolina couple said Tuesday they're suing doctors and the state's child welfare agency for performing sexual-reassignment surgery on their child.

    Pam and Mark Crawford and their attorneys from the Southern Poverty Law Center have filed a lawsuit in state and federal courts against the Medical University of South Carolina, Greenville Hospital System and the South Carolina Department of Social Services, alleging the sexual-assignment surgery performed when the child was in foster care as a toddler was a violation of the child's 14th Amendment rights.

    The child was born with both male and female reproductive organs. Doctors and department officials decided the child should undergo sex assignment surgery to make the child a girl. The child, who was later adopted by the couple, is now 8 and identifies as a boy.

    "There was no medical reason to perform this surgery, which robbed M.C. not only of his healthy genital tissue but also of the opportunity to decide what should happen to his own body," the legal advocacy organization said Tuesday in a release.

    The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated the child's substantive and procedural due process rights by subjecting M.C. to the unnecessary surgery "without notice or a hearing to determine whether the procedure was in M.C.'s best interest."

  15. Dear Anonymous x14,

    A friendly suggestion to perhaps open your own blog? The idea behind commenting is for people to have their bit on whatever they just read, not to verbatim copy and post things that are better left linked elsewhere to support your point(s).

    When I see 14 comments I'm hoping to catch a discussion, not what you just did,

  16. Dear Anonymous x14,

    A friendly suggestion to perhaps open your own blog? The idea behind commenting is for people to have their bit on whatever they just read, not to verbatim copy and post things that are better left linked elsewhere to support your point(s).

    When I see 14 comments I'm hoping to catch a discussion, not what you just did,

    Sorry. If Dirt wants to delete any or all of it, that is her choice.

  17. I agree with Avid Reader.
    Please shut the fuck up and stop copy pasting walls of text that NO ONE is going to read.
    How about talking about your own opinion instead of just reading some articles and going "OHHH I'M GONNA SHOW EVERYONE ALL OF THIS HEHE!!".
    Just copy paste the link jesus christ.

  18. It's child abuse, and for those adults who transition, self-abuse. Women, men and children who dont fit into patriarchy's boxes... they are wonderful... but instead, patrarchy's axe comes down upon them. I have come to realise that "transition" is just another genocide. State sanctioned mutilation in the name of conformity. Why would any adult female cut off her healthy breasts for any other reason than hatred? As a parent, with a child in early puberty, its my responsibility to help him in any way I can with education and love. Thats called nurturing. The opposite of abuse. And as a feminist blog which is successfully debunking many readers myths about "trans idenity" this blog is highly nurturing. Thank you Dirt. You, along with other feminist's Ive been reading, have reminded me of the fallacies, refocused me, and helped me be a better parent, friend, partner, and friend to myself.

  19. Fantastic! Thank you Dirt and "Multi-post Anonymous", Jeffreys and Raymond. As Sam notes, this is abuse. Next step: Google transgender child stories in internet media and write comments. No one wants a child to suffer, but when the agenda serving the child is one based on legitimatizing the sexual fetish of middle aged men, it is obvious that the "solution" offered in not in the child's best interests. Ordinary people need to hear this. When it isn't directly in their lives, they mistakenly believe they are being supportive to agree with whatever alphabet letter gets tacked on the end of LGB.

  20. To each their own! Didn't your mother's teach you to mind your own business? No one judges your asses for the shit you do, so don't judge others!

  21. Mudkip, known as the Mud Fish Pokémon, are small blue Pokémon with a large fin on their head that allows them to sense movements within the air and water, acting as a radar. While in the water, they use the orange, spiky gills on their cheeks to breathe while using their large tail fin to propel themselves. They are extremely strong, despite their small bodies; they are able to lift or crush large boulders. When sleeping, they bury themselves within the soil at the edge of the water. Mudkip and members of its evolution family dwell in swamps or other wetlands, deep inside isolated islands, because of their dislike of fresh water lakes and ponds. According to The Illustrated Encyclopedia of North American Reptiles and Amphibians, Mudkip and its evolutions are based on salamanders.

    Salamanders are any of approximately 550 extant species of amphibians within the order Caudata. They are typically characterized by a superficially lizard-like appearance, with slender bodies, short noses, and long tails. All known fossil salamanders and all extinct species fall under the order Caudata, while sometimes the extant species are grouped together as the Urodela. Salamanders have never more than four toes on their front legs and five on their rear legs, but some species have fewer. Their moist skin usually makes them reliant on habitats in or near water, or under some protection (e.g., moist ground), often in a wetland. Some salamander species are fully aquatic throughout life, some take to the water intermittently, and some are entirely terrestrial as adults. Unique among vertebrates, they are capable of regenerating lost limbs, as well as other body parts. Many of the members of the family Salamandridae are known as newts.
    The earliest known salamander fossils have been found in geological deposits of China and Kazakhstan, which have been dated to the middle Jurassic period, up to 164 million (plus or minus 4 million) years ago.

  22. The Jurassic is a geologic period and system that extends from 201.3± 0.6 Ma (million years ago) to 145± 4 Ma; that is, from the end of the Triassic to the beginning of the Cretaceous. The Jurassic constitutes the middle period of the Mesozoic Era, also known as the Age of Reptiles. The start of the period is marked by the major Triassic–Jurassic extinction event. Another extinction event, the Late Piensbachian/Early Toarcian event, occurred in the Early Jurassic, and a third extinction event, the Late Tithonian event, occurred at the end of the Jurassic; however neither of these two events rank among the 'Big Five' mass extinction. The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
    By the beginning of the Jurassic, the supercontinent Pangaea had begun rifting into two landmasses, Laurasia to the north and Gondwana to the south. This created more coastlines and shifted the continental climate from dry to humid, and many of the arid deserts of the Triassic were replaced by lush rainforests. On land, the fauna transitioned from the Triassic fauna, dominated by both dinosauromorph and crocodilomorph archosaurs, to one dominated by dinosaurs. The first birds also appeared during the Jurassic, having evolved from a branch of theropod dinosaurs. Other major events include the appearance of the earliest lizards, and the evolution of therian mammals, including primitive placentals. Crocodylians made the transition from a terrestrial to an aquatic mode of life. The oceans were inhabited by marine reptiles such as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs, while pterosaurs were the dominant flying vertebrates.

    The Jurassic period is divided into Early Jurassic, Middle, and Late Jurassic epochs. The Jurassic System, in stratigraphy, is divided into Lower Jurassic, Middle, and Upper Jurassic series of rock formations, also known as Lias, Dogger and Malm in Europe. The separation of the term Jurassic into three sections goes back to Leopold von Buch (* 1774, † 1853). The faunal stages from youngest to oldest are:
    Upper/Late Jurassic
    Tithonian (152.1 ± 4.0 – 145.5 ± 4.0 Mya)
    Kimmeridgian (155.7 ± 4.0 – 150.8 ± 4.0 Mya)
    Oxfordian (161.2 ± 4.0 – 155.7 ± 4.0 Mya)
    Middle Jurassic
    Callovian (164.7 ± 4.0 – 161.2 ± 4.0 Mya)
    Bathonian (167.7 ± 3.5 – 164.7 ± 4.0 Mya)
    Bajocian (171.6 ± 3.0 – 167.7 ± 3.5 Mya)
    Aalenian (175.6 ± 2.0 – 171.6 ± 3.0 Mya)
    Lower/Early Jurassic
    Toarcian (183.0 ± 1.5 – 175.6 ± 2.0 Mya)
    Pliensbachian (189.6 ± 1.5 – 183.0 ± 1.5 Mya)
    Sinemurian (196.5 ± 1.0 – 189.6 ± 1.5 Mya)
    Hettangian (199.6 ± 0.6 – 196.5 ± 1.0 Mya)

  23. Dirt, can you please delete these comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

    Thank you..

    July 15, 2013 at 9:23 PM
    July 15, 2013 at 9:24 PM

  24. Dirt,
    This is excellent. Thanks for the info.


Copyright © The dirt from Dirt | Powered by Blogger
Design by SimpleWpThemes | Blogger Theme by | Distributed By Blogger Templates20