Transgender issues: Paul McHugh’s Wall Street Journal article has limited focus

[Olivia P]

Posted by Jillian Page. June 13, 2014. 12:53 am

I'm betting the transgender community and its supporters will be abuzz — not happily — about an article on the Wall Street Journal site written by Paul McHugh, a former psychiatrist at John Hopkins Hospital in the United States.

Paul does not support sexual reassignment surgery for trans people. In fact, he doesn't seem to buy into the idea that one can be the opposite of their birth sex. As far as he is concerned, trans people have mental disorders — a disorder of the consciousness — and should be treated by psychiatrists accordingly. He feels that ->-bleeped-<- is the domain of psychiatry.

I suppose his approach is what you would expect from a psychiatrist, who sees the world through psychological lens, though I strongly suspect there are other psychiatrists who would disagree with him.

More: http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/2014/06/13/->-bleeped-<--wall-street-journal-article-has-narrow-focus/

[Olivia P]

I love this point she makes:

And finally, there is one thing that Paul is missing entirely. Trans people do not owe him — or anyone else — explanations or apologies, just as a gay person does not owe any explanations. It doesn't matter whether a person has a trans gene or a gay gene. It doesn't matter whether it is biological, psychological, physiological or just simple choice. People can be trans because they want to be. And society must accept them, just as we have to accept so many other types of people (i.e. bigoted, exclusionary superstitious Christians who believe in mythological supernatural beings — might that be a mental disorder? Why isn't it being treated?).

[helen2010]

Olivia

While it does reinforce the John Hopkins view and is fundamentally out of step with best and common practice in psychiatry, psychology  etc I think it will cause more than a buzz.  It will further damage John Hopkins standing and relevance.   Let the firestorm begin

Aisla

[suzifrommd]

Olivia

While it does reinforce the John Hopkins view and is fundamentally out of step with best and common practice in psychiatry, psychology  etc I think it will cause more than a buzz.  It will further damage John Hopkins standing and relevance.   Let the firestorm begin

Aisla

Wish I could agree. The WSJ is read by A LOT of people who will see only McHugh's POV and no one else's. Already one very intelligent friend emailed me this link suggesting I reconsider my surgery based on what he read.

I wonder if there's any way we can suggest that well known scientists who are informed about the state of the art provide some sort of response.