Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Liberals Take Over Your Brain

By Ben Shapiro (Archive) · Wednesday, February 17, 2010

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ben-shapiro/2010/02/17/liberals-take-over-your-brain/ (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ben-shapiro/2010/02/17/liberals-take-over-your-brain/)

On a similar note, the DSM has redefined gender identity disorder (GID) -- or rather, they've renamed it. Gender identity disorder is a mental condition where members of one sex think they're in the wrong bodies. The DSM now calls this condition "gender incongruity," explaining that the new term "better reflects the core of the problem: an incongruence between, on the one hand, what identity one experiences and/or expresses and, on the other hand, how one is expected to live based on one's assigned gender."

Clearly, this is propaganda -- gender is not assigned at birth. It is assigned with biology; as scientific studies have amply shown, males and females have significant differences in brain biology. But the DSM isn't concerned with actual science -- they're more concerned with the issue that "many [transgendered people] very clearly indicated their rejection of the GID term because, in their view, it contributes to the stigmatization of their condition." This is inane. Sufferers of a condition do not get to rename that condition at will to spare their feelings. Otherwise, kleptomaniacs would be able to call themselves "friendly borrowers."

wow I didn't pick up on that but it's so true ....hhmmmm

QuoteThere was no actual scientific reason to do so -- homosexual men still have higher rates of suicide and depression than heterosexuals, homosexual women still have higher rates of substance abuse, homosexuals are statistically deviant (a crucial issue when discussing normality in any statistical sense), and homosexuals are definitionally incapable of natural reproduction. But due to pressure group influence, homosexuality was out.

Women past menopause are incapable of reproduction. Are they therefore deviant if they remain married?

The issues of suicide are related to the disaffection from society, not homosexuality.

I am homosecual. I am not suicidal.

The point isn't that there was no scientific reason to remove homosexuality, it is that there wa no scientific reason to include it in the first place. It was their for political reasons.

QuoteThe left consistently argues that the right wants to shut down science. But when the left has an agenda, it ignores science at will, whether with regard to global warming, abortion or mental health.

He has a point here, though not the one he thinks.

There is no science of human behaviour. There is no science of mental illness.

The are based upon subjective observations. Observations that are completely incapable of withstanding any scientific, ie control testing.

There is no consistancy in any human behaviour, either in any specific human, nor between humans.

The argument that, with large enough studies, patterns emerge is a nonsense. Put enough monkeys infront of typewriters and eventually one will come up with Shakespeare. That doesn't mean any monkey can read.

Psychology is nothing more than psuedo-religion. Psychologists are quacks.

Therapists are charlitans who take money from the gullable to be professional friends. Prostitutes.

Psychiatrists, at least have proper medical training. But their theories are so varied and numerous as to be effective bunk.

And they are just theories. They have absolutely no basis in any fact, scintific or otherwise.

The entire field exists to control. The small minority who have serious mental illnesses continue to be push to one side as irrelevant.

Clearly Mr. Shapiro hasn't done any research into the topics he discusses.  For example, the current version of DSM does in fact have a category for individuals who are distressed about their sexual orientation and want psychological assistance: 302.9 Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.

Yes, gender may very well be assigned by biology, although not as Mr. Shapiro believes.  The past ten years have seen a growing body of research pointing to the biological origin of transsexualism. However, Shapiro isn't concerned with actual science, which is why he didn't bother to do any research.  Instead, he simply wants to blindly promote conservative propaganda, and this is the basis of his article.

First - I am a licensed psychotherapist. I take my profession seriously, read research almost daily and teach at a graduate institution. So I have a personal interest in what I am saying, and some background in this area.

I have learned over the years that although human behavior is very complex, we yearn for simple answers. We also tend to like having an enemy to attack with our simple answers. So the title "Liberals take over your brain" says a lot about the author and the likely level of analysis - which as Zoe Brain points out is overly simple and often erroneous.

Nevertheless, there are some good points, among them being that the DSM is a political document as much or more than a scientific document. And specifically the Diagnosis of trans-people has significant political implications no matter how it is done. Not everything in the DSM is as problematic. Depression, anxiety, and other problems are real. I believe the DSM is at its worst in describing problems that are major social issues as well as personal issues. LGBT issues push many peoples buttons. And, unfortunately, another human tendency is to label anyone who is different as "abnormal."

Spacial, I have read many posts by you and I always appreciate what you have to say. I agree that homosexuality should never have been a diagnosis of abnormality. And I believe the DSM is not going to succeed this time in a satisfactory label for the complexity of Transgender issues.

But I would invite you not to tar all of psychotherapy and therapists with such a broad and negative all-inclusive condemnatory brush. (Unless you meant all of the following as satire. I could not tell.)

 

QuoteTherapists are charlitans who take money from the gullable to be professional friends. Prostitutes.

I have been in practice for 30 years and have participated in helping a large number of people help themselves. I have not managed to get wealthy as i charge a sliding scale fee and hate insurance companies.

QuoteThere is no science of human behaviour. There is no science of mental illness.

The are based upon subjective observations. Observations that are completely incapable of withstanding any scientific, ie control testing.

There is no consistancy in any human behaviour, either in any specific human, nor between humans.

Psychology is nothing more than psuedo-religion. Psychologists are quacks.

Psychiatrists, at least have proper medical training. But their theories are so varied and numerous as to be effective bunk.

And they are just theories. They have absolutely no basis in any fact, scintific or otherwise.

The entire field exists to control. The small minority who have serious mental illnesses continue to be push to one side as irrelevant.

We actually know quite a bit about human behavior - and there is an amazing amount of overlap between theories which are often more similar than different. And there are many solid control group based outcome research results to show that a variety of psychotherapies are as or more effective than many commonly accepted medical treatments - at least with some problems. It is also true that any individual session psychotherapy is a combination of applied scientific understandings, relationship, and some indefinable, maybe spiritual process when it is at its best.

This is not to deny that there are problems with the field - and major problems with the conception and execution of the DSM. I echo the recommendations of many that one has to interview carefully before settling down with one therapist. There are bad therapists. But I assert that there are also good therapists giving good caring services for the money they are paid. There are those of us who strive not for control but to empower.

Looking forward to the next post.

Kendall

Kendall

I apologise for not getting back sooner.

I have had to think very carefully about how I could respond. It is important to remember that the majority of the people on this board are Americans and as such, tend to be rather sensitive when any of their cherished notions are affected.

But, after a number of attempts I've come up with this:

Psychologists and therapists are, to all extent and purposes, unreliable quacks with about as much credibility as Voodoo because:

Their training is unregulated.

Their titles are unregulated.

Their practises are unregulated.

Their behaviour is unregulated.

Their ethics are unregulated.

They actively seek out and prostrate themselves to political movements.

They make pronouncements they are clearly unqualified to make. eg. On this forum, a few weeks ago, a poster said his psychologist ordered him to see a psychiatrist because he has psychotic depression.

I have come into contact with a number of these people during my own time working in medicine and before that, social work. They are universally arrogant, stupid, pig headed and completely ignorant of the realities of what mental illness is, what psychosis is, what neurosis is. Without exception their views were governed by the personal relationships they developed with their patients. They lack any semblance of professionalism. Many were unable to perceive any contradiction between their work and satisfying their personal neuroses.

Anyone can set themselves up to be a psychologist or therapist. If you fancy doing so, you can buy a diploma from the Upstairs University of Las Vegas. Act quickly and they may even throw in a doctorate at half price.

The idea that gender isn't assigned is, IMO, quite ridiculous. Keep in mind that by "gender" I mean the whole social construct - roles, stereotypes and preconceptions, romantic and sexual ideas, conceptions of bodily characteristics, all the baggage that comes with being labeled "male" or "female." Physical sex isn't exactly binary either - it's not as though there are precisely two body types in the world, and all XX people have one, while all XY people have the other. Intersexuality opens up all sorts of interesting questions: on what are we to base our concepts of physical sex? Are we to treat each chromosomal configuration as a sex, thereby making XXY, XYY, XO etc. separate sexes? No reasonable trans person can accept the idea, which most people seem to hold, that genitalia determines gender - but does it determine sex? That would mean that a woman who has her vagina destroyed somehow is no longer a woman - a proposition few would defend. One can go on at great length with such questions.
Nonetheless, we are not assigned our bodily characteristics; we are born with them. However shaky or imprecise the division of bodies into "male" and "female" may seem upon close reading, we are obviously not assigned the sex indicators themselves - those sought-after, feared, leered-over and oft-misunderstood genitalia, breasts, hair-growth patterns etc. that get us lumped in the popular mind into "male" and "female."

That we are assigned our gender is to me undoubted; a doctor pronounces us male or female, often while we are still in the womb, based solely on appearances. Once that pronouncement has been made, we are henceforth saddled with all the gender baggage society has to offer us. Many of the items most of us are given in early childhood are made specifically for either boys or girls; parents are so anxious to have us correctly identified by others that we are color-coded - girl pink, boy blue - and covered in symbols such as skirts and overalls as soon as we are considered old enough. We are treated as though our bodies determine our psychology, and this socializes us to adapt that psychology. As Simone de Beauvoir famously stated, one is not born a woman. One is made a woman.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on February 21, 2010, 03:10:43 AM
. We are treated as though our bodies determine our psychology, and this socializes us to adapt that psychology. As Simone de Beauvoir famously stated, one is not born a woman. One is made a woman.

That's the nub of it really, for us as well as for psychology.

I suggest the solution, however, is to break the stereotypes, rather than single ourselves out as special.

There is no justification for enforcing dress based upon gender. Women have the right to wear trousers.

Few of us seek the limelight. We simply want to live our lives quietly and without fuss, in a manner of our choosing.

We shouldn't need medical justification, nor permission form social guardians. Once we reach the age of majority, we currently assume the right to control our bodies. We can opt for plastic surgery. We can vote. We should be allowed the same access to gender reassignment surgery as we are to any other.

"Their training is unregulated.
Their titles are unregulated.
Their practises are unregulated.
Their behaviour is unregulated.
Their ethics are unregulated."

Maybe where you live, but here, all those things Are regulated.

Quote from: Miniar on February 21, 2010, 03:13:28 PM
"Their training is unregulated.
Their titles are unregulated.
Their practises are unregulated.
Their behaviour is unregulated.
Their ethics are unregulated."

Maybe where you live, but here, all those things Are regulated.

I'm sorry Miniar, they are not. Individual groups may regulate to an extent. But essentially, these professions work in an unregulated environment.

The US has a tendency to licience many professions. But that is not the same as peer regulation of training, ethics and process.

Medical Drs, Nurses and such are so regulated.

However, the point I am making is not to attack psychologists and therapists, it is to assert our right as intelegent, free individuals to decide for ourselves what we do with our bodies.

The medical profession is ultimately responsible for the surgical procedures that we seek. Since this is a relitively unusual operation and one with such dramatic and irreversal consequences, they have elected to impose a period of peer counciling by psychiatrists.

That much we have little choice but to accept.

The drafting into this of the irrelevant and intrusive intervention of unregulated, non medical professionals is intolerable.

Eventually, the medical profession will simply need to accept that we are sane individuals who have made a considered choice about our own bodies and lives.

But the presence of psychologists, with their pletoroia of notions based upon little other than their personal intuition and biggotries will remain an unacceptable intrusion into our lives.

Quote from: spacial on February 21, 2010, 10:55:40 AM
That's the nub of it really, for us as well as for psychology.

I suggest the solution, however, is to break the stereotypes, rather than single ourselves out as special.

There is no justification for enforcing dress based upon gender. Women have the right to wear trousers.

Few of us seek the limelight. We simply want to live our lives quietly and without fuss, in a manner of our choosing.

We shouldn't need medical justification, nor permission form social guardians. Once we reach the age of majority, we currently assume the right to control our bodies. We can opt for plastic surgery. We can vote. We should be allowed the same access to gender reassignment surgery as we are to any other.

I agree completely. If someone wants to conduct themselves in a certain way, or encourage others to do so, that's fine - but that's where it should end. Being trans, like being gay or subscribing to an unusual religion or political viewpoint, is a victimless "crime." Also, I do think that it's important to place ourselves within the broader continuum of different types of humans, not to isolate ourselves as Different.

That being said, I have had two very competent queer- and trans-positive therapists, both of whom are knowledgeable, well-trained and skillful. I know nothing about the regulation of the psychological professions, and I too resent the nanny-handling regarding surgery and am well aware that the DSM is a political document, but I would caution you from taking such a broadly negative stance towards the profession. Like all fields, it has bad apples - but I know the good apples are there, because I've used their services.

I understand the point about negativity, but that is more a reflection of my general outlook than an intended image of people.

Especially, in the last 30 or so years, psychologists have been creating, then claiming to treat an increasing number of conditions.

These conditions have become increasingly popular as people adopt them as an explanation for problems they believe they have.

SAD, BDD, ODD are but a few. All seem to have snappy sounding titles and tend to explain, as illnesses, problems which are really just part of life.

Example.

Up till about 4 years ago, many parents of wayward children would obtain, from a psychologist, for a small fee, a diagnosis for their children of ODD. In recent years, courts have been less willing to accept it as any sort of mitigation.

The history of this is interesting.

In the late 80s there lived a family, in a trailer park in Texas. The father was a huge man, almost 6 feet tall, with shoulder about as big. He was known as gruff and aggressive. He had hands like shovels.

His wife was a dumpy woman, about 5 feet tall. Caring of her family and defencive to aggression.

They had 3 sons, an older boy and twins, about 9 years.

Then, one day, the man decides he is a woman and starts to wander around the trailer park wearing a dress.

The family were quickly chased away. The boys were left with the mother's parents, in a fairly nice house, while the parents moved to Chicago.

After almost a year, the boys were sent to Chicago.

They arrived at a large group house, in a run down area, with a banner outside proclaiming Gay Pride.

Needless to say, the boys found themselves fighting with other children, partly because they were outsiders, but also against taunts relating to their parent's lifestyle and their home.

at 11 years, one of the twin boys was caught breaking into a house. He was actually going after another boy who'd been taunting him.

He was summoned to court. Before he went, he was seen by a psychologist who knew and support the local gay, transgendered community. He was given a diagnosis of Obedience Deficit Disorder.

An 11 year old boy, who had been chased off a Texas trailer park, dragged to the other end of the country and who's father wears dresses while looking like a gorilla, is odd!

A few hundred years ago, in Europe, the Church was supreme. The individual priests, had their basic ideas of human reality, which they combined, with their personal comprehension of the local society. They would council and support distressed parishioners, who in turn, would receive considerable benefit. The primary function of the church was to support, guide and nurture local communities.

The medieval priests reformed individuals and society, because their pronouncements were taken as reality. The submission by ordinary people, to the will of the priests, was done, not through fear of penalty, but for the reward of social acceptance, by society as a whole.  For the majority, even minor rejection is sufficient to encourage conformity. This is apparent in the tendency of many young men to join with others in celebrating almost fanatical support and loyality for a sports team. Their collective attitudes toward supporters of opposing teams demonstrates that their entire behaviour is irrational. But failure to participate in this behaviour, at least to the same extent as others, leads to rejection from the peer group. Social conformaty is the membership fee.

This was the basis, of the remarkable success, of the Church, for almost 1000 years, in that it attempted to embrace all the various cultures, within a frame work. A subjective framework, whose strength, was the belief of the parishioners, in the unconditional, reliability and superior understanding of the priests. It is also interesting to note that, this framework, began to break down when, through improved communications, the contradictions, then anomalies, between the different branches, became apparent.

But while it continued, it functioned as intended. Unifying society. People accepted its pronouncements and followed its dictates because these fitted into their perceptions of reality. Control group testing is a modern measure but it is conceivable that it would have produced positive results.

Today, medicine and especially psychologists have replaced the first estate as the moral guardians. They relieve us of any guilt over our personal conduct and failings with snappy diagnoses of mysterious illness.

Most people feel depressed in winter. It's generally cold and wet limiting opportunities to socialise, to be creative and be alone. Fresh foods are limited. The shortening days undoubtedly have an affect upon all of us. Together with the stupid custom of altering clocks, we often feel tired, a little depressed and a little miserable.

Yet psychologists have come up with a snappy sounding illness for this. SAD. Seasonal Affective Disorder.

If you stop and think about it, what these people are really doing is making fun of us.

This isn't science. This is an utter joke.

I am well aware that the compulsive pathologisation can get a bit out of hand, and that psychology and psychiatry can be used as a form of moral guardianship. However, the solution to this is to empower and educate the consumers of mental health and mental modification services, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Psychiatry malpractice and ill-conceived treatment have certainly messed people up in the past, and I think that it has a long way to come (as does all medicine, but psych especially). However, it has done many good things as well. There are some "disorders" and treatments that are rather specious - ex-gay therapy, Dr. Kenneth Zucker's infamous gender-binarization therapy for children, and "sex addiction" therapy among others. Some diagnoses can seem a bit trivial - ODD and SAD - but these things are a matter of the context in which they happen. I lived in Western Washington State for 3 years, where it's overcast and rainy nearly year-round. Since I had serious depression to begin with, the SAD was a big deal - it pushed my depression to an unbearable level.

Psychiatry is imperfect and hardly "scientific" in the sense that, say, quantum physics or biology are scientific, but at least it tries; anti-psych reasoning can get to be a bit like the reasoning for "alternative medicine" - "The medical system is all ->-bleeped-<-ed up, so all traditional Western medicine is garbage and we should use completely illogical and mystical or pseudo-mystical treatments like homeopathy and energy healing instead. By the way, cancer can be cured by regular exercise and a diet of fruits and vegetables!"

unregulated? tell that to every lazy doc and nurse who doesn't want to do their CME credits. (but at the risk of losing their license) :P

This is an interesting series of comments. I agree mostly with PanoramaIsland, and appreciate their reasoning. I do not agree with Spacial, but I also appreciate her reasoning.

I will point out that Spacial talks about Psychology as a monolith, and maybe it seems like that to others, but to me there seems not to be that much agreement in the field. And some of us psychotherapists are very much into counter-culture, cultural change, a more inclusive gender analysis, a greater appreciation for and enhancement of diversity, openess to social change and empowerment of individuals and small communities. Of course I am in California, which has a lot of very liberal people - and actually a lot of regulation of psychotherapy for that matter. And I am not a "Psychologist," I am a Marriage and Family Therapist.

Additionally, my specialty is treatment of domestic violence and trauma. I treat both survivors and the people who are abusive. We do not let people who are abusive blame others, make lame excuses or minimize the damage they do. We balance holding people accountable and helping them learn a different way to deal with life that does not hurt others or themselves. Psychotherapy as I practice it uses scientific research where it exists and is applicable, but I also use Buddhist philosophy and simple common sense. I use the DSM as little as possible, as I find it has limited utility in understanding or helping people. There are therapists and theoretical orientations I totally disagree with.

I love your picture FlanHusky. It made me smile.

Kendall.

It is true, many psychologists are into a variety of approaches, from crowd pleasers, politically sensitive notions to alternatives and counter culture.

How nice for us mere mortals that these demi-gods should grace us with such efforts. Their mere presence within each of these circles validates each of us who are also there. (Sarcasm).

Their qualification to take such a social high ground?

Panorama.

I think you've missed the point.

We have no choice. There will always be a first estate, a moral estate. If common sense prevails, this will be separate from the second, as it is in Europe and China.

We appoint the first estate by our preparedness to accept them as our intellectual and social superiors. If you read Swift it becomes obvious that we actually appoint all our superiors. Dictators exist because we like being pushed around.

However, the point I am making is that the intelligent among us can be aware of these realities, as intelligent people have always done.

We don't need to submit ourselves to the variable of these guardians of public morals except where it suits us.

There will always be people in society who need extra leadership. People to tell them what to do. The people who get their electricity cut off then buy a battery TV. The people who buy tabloids. The people who waste their brains and lives on drugs and alcohol.

But we can rise above this simple because we have the intelligence to be aware of it and not need someone to tell us what to think.

If we are compelled to use a psychologist then we play the part. We recite the required nonsense. We pay the appropriate fee.

But these people, to us, because we are intelligent, are simply vendors, selling a product. They deserve no more gratitude and respect than someone selling a bar of chocolate.

Discussing the validity of therapists and psychiatrists is one thing, but suggesting that in order to take the profession seriously you have to be an alcoholic or a drug addict and/or at the very least, unintelligent is an entirely different thing.

Quote from: Miniar on February 23, 2010, 06:26:18 AM
Discussing the validity of therapists and psychiatrists is one thing, but suggesting that in order to take the profession seriously you have to be an alcoholic or a drug addict and/or at the very least, unintelligent is an entirely different thing.

It certainly is.

But I am not aware of anyone say that.

Can you describe this person? Have they had any serious help?

diagnoses are just labels to behaviour deemed abnormal.
the mental health professional is only as good as their training, experience, and personal beliefs.
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out stuff happens in the clinician-client relationship, both are human and prone to screwing up.

I went to a therapist initially just for surgery letters, but are now dealing with things I would have likely never worked on by myself, that's just how things go.

Quote from: spacial on February 23, 2010, 07:28:22 AM
Can you describe this person? Have they had any serious help?

all mental health professionals as part of clinicals undergo psychotherapy themselves.

Sounds like another mindless conservative rant. He thinks homosexuals are mentally ill, because they have higher suicide rates substance abuse etc. But he misplaces the causality. Homosexuals have higher suicide rates because of PEOPLE LIKE HIM. Not because of mental illness.

Quote from: JillEclipse on February 23, 2010, 12:55:52 PM
Sounds like another mindless conservative rant. He thinks homosexuals are mentally ill, because they have higher suicide rates substance abuse etc. But he misplaces the causality. Homosexuals have higher suicide rates because of PEOPLE LIKE HIM. Not because of mental illness.

Da-dum-tchhh

Yeah, pretty much. It's a bit like blaming pornography for causing a divorce when, you know, the pornography was being obsessively viewed for a reason - because the spouse viewing it was sexually desperate, and wasn't getting their needs met at all. Duh.
But nooooo, this person is a "sex addict" and needs a twelve-step group.  ::)

Quote from: FlanHusky on February 23, 2010, 12:15:42 PM
diagnoses are just labels to behaviour deemed abnormal.
the mental health professional is only as good as their training, experience, and personal beliefs.
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out stuff happens in the clinician-client relationship, both are human and prone to screwing up.

I went to a therapist initially just for surgery letters, but are now dealing with things I would have likely never worked on by myself, that's just how things go.

all mental health professionals as part of clinicals undergo psychotherapy themselves.

I say this with great respect and compassion, but this is exactly the situation I am trying to refer to.

When we see these people we must try to be aware of what they are doing and keep control of the situation.

If we open up to these people we put ourselves under their control. Our information is their ammunition.

In an ideal world, these people would professionally, do the job they have been assigned.

But the world isn't ideal. These people are humans with the same variety of needs and inadequacies as everyone else.

More importantly, these people are highly competitive. Psychiatrists because they have been through medical school and failed to reach the top 3% in their class. Psychologist and therapists because they are basically fake psychiatrists. They resent being second best. They resent failing to gain entry into medical school. They opt for psychology as an easy option. (Relatively).

We are not ill. We are adults who have made a decision about our lives and bodies.

Our decision is no more significant than someone who opts for plastic surgery on their nose. Or someone who opts to emigrate.

Ours is a lifestyle choice. And it is a choice. Our feelings are not choice, but we can choose to live a miserable life in our birth gender or a satisfying life in our preferred gender.

The surgeons, naturally, want to be sure someone asking for this surgery is not psychotic. They want to be sure they are not being set up for a major lawsuit. That much is perfectly understandable.

But when we go to see these people, we must keep in our minds the reason for our visit.

We are not going to discuss our issues with our parents. We are not going to discuss our miserable childhood, our crush on the school janitor or how we masturbated in the toilets at break.

We have no anger issues with society. The world is the way it is. We don't seek to change it, but rather to experience how it changes naturally over time.

We are going to discuss our reasonably happy child hood where we made every effort to please our parents and conform to their expectations. Yeah, we were lonely at times, but we had a few good friends and a reasonably enjoyable child hood. Naah, we haven't really kept in touch, but if we do see each other, we are pretty happy.

Anything that we feel particularly angry about?

Not really. We did feel kinda pissed when mary/martin refused to go out with us when we were 14. (small laugh here). Later found out that mary/martin had personal problems at the time.

Have we told all our significant others?

More or less. (few relevant details illustrating that you are a caring and considerate person here. ).

Are you attracted to the same sex as your birth gender.

Yes. We have had some relationships with the opposite sex. The friendship was more satisfying than any physical encounters. Relationships with the same sex as our birth gender have been more satisfying. (Limit details here. Your sex life isn't their business. Let them ask you for specifics. Answer specifics matter of fact, yes or no. ).

This is how you maintain control with these people.

Remember, none of these people have any special insight into your mind or soul. All they have is tendencies. People who do this tend to do that and people who do that don't tend to do this.

Get your background fixed in your mind. The easy way to do this is, think of all the positive aspects of your childhood and keep these. Then think of all the negative aspects of your child hood and either, tell the opposite, or twist them into a positive.

Example. Your parents once caught you trying on your sister's skirt. They beat the s**t out of you. They told everyone and humiliated you.

I once tried on my sister's skirt. My parents caught me and gave me a bit of a hiding. It wasn't really fair on my sister, she was quite sensitive at the time. (Small smile).

My parents continually humiliated me.

It was a bit of a standing joke really. I suppose I was annoyed now and again, but they are my family.

If you feel uncomfortable lying, and I certainly do, remember, these people lie as a matter of course. They are not interested in you. They get paid whatever. if they think you're a bit of a softy, or a miserable sod, they will act the same as any other bully does.

If you want to win with these people, don't be a victim. We have little choice but to see these people. We should feel no guilt about manipulating them as they do to everyone else.

the problem with genital surgery as a medical issue is mostly really a legal one. idiots do stuff they regret all the time, while most who go through transition are better off afterward, there are some who really should have considered the consequences of their actions before hand. that's why the need for the mental health professional before medical treatment that will have permanent effects and consequences.

edit: yeah I know it's impossible to stop stupid, just limit the damage

Flan, the question in my mind is if it's really the role of government to stop people from doing bad things to themselves. I fully believe that it's the role of government to make sure people are aware of the consequences of severe, life-altering actions, to make sure service providers properly inform their clients, to see to it that safe equipment is used, etc. However, when it comes to actually prohibiting people from making the decision to do something like modifying their own body, I begin to feel quite leery. I understand that this is not an entirely black-and-white issue, but laws are a blunt instrument, and smacking people with that instrument when they wish to do something to themselves contrary to popular wisdom is a bit much of the tyranny of the majority for my taste. It may be justifiable, but the justification should be very substantial.

PanoramaIsland:when I say legal that mostly means of the lawsuit kind rather then the government saying "you can't to that to yourself". just like the thread about the detransition pulp, there is a certain sort of fool who, after doing something, will want to blame external forces for their actions.

I do not know if this is worth saying, but I am going to try once more.

Spacial, when I read your last post I felt sadness that you seem to have had such bad experiences. I am assuming that what you are saying is true of some psychologists. I get that you and others of us contemplating physical transition resent the Harry Benjamin protocols that give "these people" such arbitrary power over our lives. I am reading up on how things go before I decide it is totally unnecessary.

But I also hope that anyone reading what you are saying knows that you are overstating your case. You are presenting an extreme and biased picture - and being unfair to people you have never met. Many people on this site have reported therapists being very helpful, humane, honest and behaving with utmost integrity.

I would plead with anyone going to therapy, if you feel you cannot trust your therapist anymore than Spacial apparent does, find another therapist. Keep looking until you find someone you can trust. And believe that if you keep looking you can find someone you can trust and be honest with.

I am sad for you Spacial that you seem to have your mind made up, and do not seem to be open to other input. But Spacial, when you say they are all liars - you are attacking me. I am a therapist. Not a gender specialist, but part of the profession you are so unfairly critical of. Some of my best friends are therapists. Some therapists are as bad as the picture you paint. But most are not. And it does not help people to recommend blanket distrust and dishonesty to handle the situation. Caution, yes. Assertiveness, yes. But not dishonesty.

I have had clients that distrusted me. I see clients ordered by a court to come to therapy. If we cannot come to a place of mutual trust, and if I cannot help them identify goals they want to reach - their goals, not mine - then I have not been able to help. I cannot do this unless I am honest and caring as well as very clear about my limits. I would not do this work if I did not care deeply about the people I work with - and see clearly that I am helping my clients.

Please, look at more than one side of things.

Kendall

Kendall.

That was either a very carefully crafted response or a very badly done one.

Either way, you've managed to put your head on the chopping block and dare me to cut it off.

This is a discussion. Join in. Say your piece and defend your ground. There is little more boring than people sitting around, agreeing with each other because disagreement may cause offence. The point of a forum, especially the section titled Opinion, is to disagree.

Try it. It's fun.

I can assure you, it takes a lot to offend me. I've been involved in intellectual debate of one kind or another for many years.

Anyhoo.

I don't recall saying all psychologists are liars. But I do contend they are frauds.

I make that point because they are, for the most part, intelligent and educated people who pass their subjective judgements over as some sort of definable science.

But what I've been attempting to suggest here is that we are being treated like children, whose request for assistance with our issues must be carefully considered by wise grownups.

I have attempted to point out that psychologists are motivated by their egos. That, with a little thought and care, we can quite easily massage those egos and get what we want.

I'm sure that many psychologists do indeed help many people.

But what they do is little more than can be achieved by a chat with a decent friend.

I attempted to make a comparison between the psychologists and the old time priests. I suggest that they are almost identical in their approaches, their motivations and their methods. The only real difference is the priests worked from a more or less, standard text. (Which, at the time, few were permitted to see). While psychologists work from whatever preconceptions and personal neurosis happen to affect them.

Having said that, I would like to think, if we ever did meet, we could shake hands and call each other friend. I certainly don't resent you or your profession. We, as society, are in this mess because we have allowed it to happen.

spacial: that's the kicker, things just happened the way they did, going from a pure medical model (via the institutions like Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and University of Minnesota, Program in Human Sexuality) that had insurance cover the costs at the expense of being told you have to look and act a certain way to get services in the first place.

the soc and the so called triadic therapy model may not be the best, but its allowed more people to transition into more happy lives, the entire point of the psychology profession.

Sorry FlanHusky, can you clarify your point please.

I have to confess, it's a bit above me at the moment.

While you're at it, can you say whay that stuffed cat is on your head?  :D

triadic therapy is soc speak for therapy leading to "hormones = = > real-life experience = = > surgery".

the therapy and hormones part are getting more liberalized, but social integration and surgery of some sort are still the milestones that a mental health practitioner wants to see. (as in a happier client afterwords as results of successfully jumping through hoops to get surgery)

ps: plushkitty owns me like a headcrab, it's an in-joke. :P

I think I understand now.

I apologise for asking for the carifications. Abbreviations are used by most people of course. Sadly, much like slang and dialect, they tend to be local.

I've heard of Triadic, in a number of different contexts, though not in this before. I wasn't really sure of how you were using soc. I take it this is the social model

It sounds quite interesting. Sort of total care package. Or is that a bit glib?

Can you also describe some of the behaviours the two universities expected of you?

Spacial, its me again. My last post was carefully crafted whether or not it was successful.

So I agree if we met face to face I would hope we would be friends. I enjoy your comments, even when I do not agree.

I also believe I have learned from your comments about how psychotherapy can go wrong, can be arrogant and disrespectful of clients, and can be subject to the limits of its practitioners. Especially when psychotherapy is put in place as a gatekeeper for transition surgery, which may not be appropriate.

What have you taken in from me?

Peace

Kendall

spacial: when I was at university of MN, the assigned psychologist, Cesar Gonzalez, wanted 18 months of concurrent therapy before the first surgery letter. (I was 3 months in HRT at that time)

contrast that with private practice therapists who are simply waiting for my surgery date. (she asked me today when I needed the letter from her)

the big difference is the attitude of the institution to play by the book and reject everyone who doesn't fit the mold, from the "sexual disorder" diagnosis for being pansexual, to "gender identity disorder, not otherwise specified" for being genderqueer. they want cookie cutter clients, so they can act out a script.

(that's my experience, your mileage may vary)

Thanks FlanHusky.

I can understand what you've been through here now.

These people, like many accademics are really only interested in their next paper.

Kendall.

I am so pleased you seem to have got the point of what I was trying to say.  :)

My issue with psychology is that it is a hotbed of incestuious and nepotistic slimeballs.
The peer review process ussed in psychology is a sure way to insure that those at the top are never truely chalenged on thier veiws.
People are the same regardless of the job they choose. The therapy culture only seeks to maintain its own existance.
I do not care if 'you' are a good therapist. It doesn't absolve your industry of the damage it has chosen to inflict on society.
The new DSM is practicaly going to pathologize the majority of the population. Basicaly so the therapists keep jobs and the pharma industry stays in the gree.
I am not sorry that I have painted therapist types with such broad strokes. When the lower caste of 'psychologists' stage a coup and unseat thier 'betters', maybe we can get a system that isnt so money orientated. But curently we are at the mercy of those who think they know better than the rest of us. LAME!

I resent the gatekeepers. And I'll be damned if I'm going to pretend to be straight in order to get medical care.

But I don't blame the therapists (some of whom are lovely people, I'm sure) - I blame the society that's given them so much power over people's lives. The Stanford Prison Experiment (ironically designed by psychologists) tells us a lot about how people behave when given power over others' lives, and the Milgram Experiment illuminates the propensity of intermediaries (doctors, police, etc) to do the bidding of "experts" in positions of authority.

And it's not just us - there are tons of people with less-easily-resolved problems who face the prospect of either conforming to their therapist's idea of who they should be and how they should behave, or losing their freedom entirely.