Well, this is a bombshell, but a necessary step in the right direction. I assume that Genspect has included the appropriate officials in the Trump administration in this appeal, as well as other key individuals and organizations who are active in the effort to curb the harmful effects of gender identity ideology.
I agree that the disorder that was previously called "gender identity disorder" should be officially recognized as a type of psychopathology. I also agree that an overvalued belief is part of the symptom picture. I am more inclined to return to "sexual identity disorder" or something of that kind. It doesn't really matter what I think, however, as the process of getting any diagnosis accepted by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM) or the World Health Organization (ICD 11) is very daunting. Even when national and global politics had less influence over the content of diagnostic systems, the internal politics of the APA was one determinant of what was included in the manuals.
"I am more inclined to return to 'sexual identity disorder' . . ."
That would be a red-letter day indeed, since official acceptance of that wording would signal that tolerance for the term "gender" in all its pernicious senses had come to an end at last.
Yes it would. I anticipate there would need to be a lot of discussion among gay, lesbian and bisexual people as well, about reclaiming terms like "sexual preference" or "orientation" that would uniquely refer to us.
The rationales for psychopathology are compelling, but then we may no longer argue, as some convincingly do, that it is a religion. And then we lose a strong rationale for keeping it out of secular spaces like schools and government. Or can these two rationales be reconciled?
To be clear, a “consistent, persistent and insistent” break with reality is a delusion. This phrase is repeated often in trans-associated literature particular for children; but is not linked to the consequent word, “delusion”.
The DSM has 7 delusional categories, and then unspecified - but delusions fit into two categories. Bizarre and non-bizarre.
Trans beliefs (“I have the wrong body, that penis is not mine, I have a woman’s body”) are simple “bizarre” delusions contradicting reality.
The psychopathology of delusion is well-defined, and treatment approaches are too.
Nothing is required of DSM to correctly classify dysphoria as delusional dysphoria (unhappiness that others don’t recognize the delusion as fact); in children as pubertal anxiety; and treatment, like any delusion - acknowledge the feelings, insist on reality, support ways to cope without self-damage or violence towards others.
The nuance is to acknowledge that the behavior, not the condition, is “sexual mimicry”, and label it as such. Someone picks up debilitating sexual mimicry due to the delusion or a fetish.
The etiology is as of yet unknown because medical practitioners refuse to acknowledge the biology.
The markers are:
Persistent, consistent, insistent belief that their sex is false; wrong body; wrong sex organs; brain is wrong; that they actually have sex organs of the opposite sex; persistent grooming as the opposite sex; persistent insistence on being referred to as the opposite sex; verbal abuse or violence towards others who refuse to recognize the sexual mimicry; refusal to acknowledge sex boundaries; falsification of identify; fraudulent claims of opposite sex; self-mutilation; chemical self-abuse; use of mimicry to enter women’s spaces; use of sex mimicry to lure women to rape; unwanted exhibition of sex organs; attempts to induce others to commit to delusion; claims of sex victimhood; sex mimicry of women as prostitutes; insistence on biological functions of the opposite sex.
I agree that a constant, persistent, and insistent break with reality is a delusion. And the list of “trans beliefs” you describe fits well within that pathological frame.
My hypothesis is that this loss of reality is, in fact, induced by the affirmative strategy.
There have always been feminine boys and tomboyish girls, but never were they told that they were “born in the wrong body,” or that although they were “assigned” one sex at birth, they were “actually” the other. They weren’t told they could “change sex” through hormones or surgeries, or encouraged to live as if they were the opposite sex.
This, I believe, is what pathologized otherwise normal homosexual boys and girls: the ideology of affirmation itself.
In The “Sissy Boy Syndrome” and the Development of Homosexuality (1987), Richard Green describes his 15-year study of 66 feminine boys and a control group of 66 conventionally masculine boys. Of those 66, only one —Todd— persisted into early adulthood with a trans identification.
When offered the possibility of transition, Todd showed ambivalence and doubts. At all times he recognized that he would never literally “become a woman.” A few excerpts from Green’s interviews illustrate his state of mind:
Todd: That’s the fundamental problem. I want to be a woman before I have sex with a man.
Green: But there are men who have sex with men while still being men.
Todd: That doesn’t appeal to me too much.
Green: Suppose surgery today, with good doctors, could make you appear like a normal woman. What would you think then?
Todd: I guess I would. But I wouldn’t think about it until I finish college. I want it now.
Todd: I don’t want to live as a woman for two years.
Green: Why not?
Todd: It seems like a waste of time. I’d be deceiving people. It’s too weird.
Green: When you think of not having a penis and testicles anymore, how do you feel?
Todd: Like a woman. But I’d never feel normal. I’d always know I was once a man.
Green: Compared to last year, is your desire to become a woman stronger or weaker?
Todd: It’s the same, but I don’t think about it as much. I still want it, but not enough to go through all the pain and problems. I’m lazy.
These passages show Todd was far from psychotic. He maintained a reasonable contact with reality, expressed doubts, recognized limitations, and even questioned the very narrative that was being proposed to him.
That’s why I’m not convinced that boys like Todd, who wished they had been born female, necessarily represent a pathological condition —as long as they haven’t lost touch with reality.
In summary, Todd illustrates that even persistence could coexist with a reasonable grip on reality, with doubts and self-criticism. To me, the core issue is not the condition itself —the incongruence of gender— but the affirmative ideology that today repathologizes it in bulk and turns it into an induced and reinforced delusion.
Medical practice (not science yet) itself admits that affirming a delusion can or will cause harm to the person and those around them, precisely as you describe. Once the psychotic break from reality is complete, there are no boundaries to behavior.
I came across Genspect less than a month ago. My interest in the “trans” issue began a little over a year ago, after an exchange with an affirmative-oriented psychologist who challenged me on Facebook. Since then, we’ve been engaged in a debate that by now could fill a book.
During this time, I’ve read between one and two thousand studies, reviews, and opinion pieces, along with about a dozen specialized books. When I discovered Genspect’s documents, I was struck by how strongly they resonated with many of the conclusions I had already reached on my own, after repeatedly testing my interlocutor’s arguments against the evidence.
My difference with Genspect?
It’s not really a difference, but rather a doubt concerning the question of (re)pathologization. I am absolutely clear in my rejection of so-called “affirmative therapy”: it is not therapy but a harmful practice, whether applied to children, adolescents, or adults. Pathological or not, the “trans” condition does not justify presenting social affirmation (which funnels people into medicalization) — much less surgical mutilation or hormonal interventions with lifelong consequences — as a “remedy.” No one should be led to believe that cutting off healthy body parts or disrupting their endocrinology is a path to healing.
My remaining question is this: setting aside the large number of children and adolescents confused or influenced by affirmative ideology, I think there may still be some very particular cases that could be described as “extreme homosexuality” — boys or girls who intensely wish they had been born the opposite sex. Without affirmative influence, these children would never consider blockers, hormones, or surgeries. So my question is: is it really “pathological” for a homosexual to wish they had been born the opposite sex?
I attending this years conference. The best decision I made this year. Although I made a lot of great decision as well.
I took the survey and the question asked how I aligned and the TERF was one of the answers all of us could choose. When I looked up the meaning I thought of a quote my mother said often in my life.
"If you give them an inch they will take a mile." - Carol Estes.
The trans activists have taken a million miles and betrayed our empathy and kindness. This is how TERFS are formed when our sacred life has been stolen from us and our children have been destroyed. If you don't want people to be TERFS then don't destroy our lives and our children. We wouldn't be here if you hadn't begun. I am more and more like my mother every single day.
Well, this is a bombshell, but a necessary step in the right direction. I assume that Genspect has included the appropriate officials in the Trump administration in this appeal, as well as other key individuals and organizations who are active in the effort to curb the harmful effects of gender identity ideology.
I agree that the disorder that was previously called "gender identity disorder" should be officially recognized as a type of psychopathology. I also agree that an overvalued belief is part of the symptom picture. I am more inclined to return to "sexual identity disorder" or something of that kind. It doesn't really matter what I think, however, as the process of getting any diagnosis accepted by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM) or the World Health Organization (ICD 11) is very daunting. Even when national and global politics had less influence over the content of diagnostic systems, the internal politics of the APA was one determinant of what was included in the manuals.
"I am more inclined to return to 'sexual identity disorder' . . ."
That would be a red-letter day indeed, since official acceptance of that wording would signal that tolerance for the term "gender" in all its pernicious senses had come to an end at last.
Yes it would. I anticipate there would need to be a lot of discussion among gay, lesbian and bisexual people as well, about reclaiming terms like "sexual preference" or "orientation" that would uniquely refer to us.
The rationales for psychopathology are compelling, but then we may no longer argue, as some convincingly do, that it is a religion. And then we lose a strong rationale for keeping it out of secular spaces like schools and government. Or can these two rationales be reconciled?
What is the difference between an extreme overvalued belief and a mass delusion?
To be clear, a “consistent, persistent and insistent” break with reality is a delusion. This phrase is repeated often in trans-associated literature particular for children; but is not linked to the consequent word, “delusion”.
The DSM has 7 delusional categories, and then unspecified - but delusions fit into two categories. Bizarre and non-bizarre.
Trans beliefs (“I have the wrong body, that penis is not mine, I have a woman’s body”) are simple “bizarre” delusions contradicting reality.
The psychopathology of delusion is well-defined, and treatment approaches are too.
Nothing is required of DSM to correctly classify dysphoria as delusional dysphoria (unhappiness that others don’t recognize the delusion as fact); in children as pubertal anxiety; and treatment, like any delusion - acknowledge the feelings, insist on reality, support ways to cope without self-damage or violence towards others.
The nuance is to acknowledge that the behavior, not the condition, is “sexual mimicry”, and label it as such. Someone picks up debilitating sexual mimicry due to the delusion or a fetish.
The etiology is as of yet unknown because medical practitioners refuse to acknowledge the biology.
The markers are:
Persistent, consistent, insistent belief that their sex is false; wrong body; wrong sex organs; brain is wrong; that they actually have sex organs of the opposite sex; persistent grooming as the opposite sex; persistent insistence on being referred to as the opposite sex; verbal abuse or violence towards others who refuse to recognize the sexual mimicry; refusal to acknowledge sex boundaries; falsification of identify; fraudulent claims of opposite sex; self-mutilation; chemical self-abuse; use of mimicry to enter women’s spaces; use of sex mimicry to lure women to rape; unwanted exhibition of sex organs; attempts to induce others to commit to delusion; claims of sex victimhood; sex mimicry of women as prostitutes; insistence on biological functions of the opposite sex.
I agree that a constant, persistent, and insistent break with reality is a delusion. And the list of “trans beliefs” you describe fits well within that pathological frame.
My hypothesis is that this loss of reality is, in fact, induced by the affirmative strategy.
There have always been feminine boys and tomboyish girls, but never were they told that they were “born in the wrong body,” or that although they were “assigned” one sex at birth, they were “actually” the other. They weren’t told they could “change sex” through hormones or surgeries, or encouraged to live as if they were the opposite sex.
This, I believe, is what pathologized otherwise normal homosexual boys and girls: the ideology of affirmation itself.
In The “Sissy Boy Syndrome” and the Development of Homosexuality (1987), Richard Green describes his 15-year study of 66 feminine boys and a control group of 66 conventionally masculine boys. Of those 66, only one —Todd— persisted into early adulthood with a trans identification.
When offered the possibility of transition, Todd showed ambivalence and doubts. At all times he recognized that he would never literally “become a woman.” A few excerpts from Green’s interviews illustrate his state of mind:
Todd: That’s the fundamental problem. I want to be a woman before I have sex with a man.
Green: But there are men who have sex with men while still being men.
Todd: That doesn’t appeal to me too much.
Green: Suppose surgery today, with good doctors, could make you appear like a normal woman. What would you think then?
Todd: I guess I would. But I wouldn’t think about it until I finish college. I want it now.
Todd: I don’t want to live as a woman for two years.
Green: Why not?
Todd: It seems like a waste of time. I’d be deceiving people. It’s too weird.
Green: When you think of not having a penis and testicles anymore, how do you feel?
Todd: Like a woman. But I’d never feel normal. I’d always know I was once a man.
Green: Compared to last year, is your desire to become a woman stronger or weaker?
Todd: It’s the same, but I don’t think about it as much. I still want it, but not enough to go through all the pain and problems. I’m lazy.
These passages show Todd was far from psychotic. He maintained a reasonable contact with reality, expressed doubts, recognized limitations, and even questioned the very narrative that was being proposed to him.
That’s why I’m not convinced that boys like Todd, who wished they had been born female, necessarily represent a pathological condition —as long as they haven’t lost touch with reality.
In summary, Todd illustrates that even persistence could coexist with a reasonable grip on reality, with doubts and self-criticism. To me, the core issue is not the condition itself —the incongruence of gender— but the affirmative ideology that today repathologizes it in bulk and turns it into an induced and reinforced delusion.
You’re 100% on the mark.
Medical practice (not science yet) itself admits that affirming a delusion can or will cause harm to the person and those around them, precisely as you describe. Once the psychotic break from reality is complete, there are no boundaries to behavior.
I came across Genspect less than a month ago. My interest in the “trans” issue began a little over a year ago, after an exchange with an affirmative-oriented psychologist who challenged me on Facebook. Since then, we’ve been engaged in a debate that by now could fill a book.
During this time, I’ve read between one and two thousand studies, reviews, and opinion pieces, along with about a dozen specialized books. When I discovered Genspect’s documents, I was struck by how strongly they resonated with many of the conclusions I had already reached on my own, after repeatedly testing my interlocutor’s arguments against the evidence.
My difference with Genspect?
It’s not really a difference, but rather a doubt concerning the question of (re)pathologization. I am absolutely clear in my rejection of so-called “affirmative therapy”: it is not therapy but a harmful practice, whether applied to children, adolescents, or adults. Pathological or not, the “trans” condition does not justify presenting social affirmation (which funnels people into medicalization) — much less surgical mutilation or hormonal interventions with lifelong consequences — as a “remedy.” No one should be led to believe that cutting off healthy body parts or disrupting their endocrinology is a path to healing.
My remaining question is this: setting aside the large number of children and adolescents confused or influenced by affirmative ideology, I think there may still be some very particular cases that could be described as “extreme homosexuality” — boys or girls who intensely wish they had been born the opposite sex. Without affirmative influence, these children would never consider blockers, hormones, or surgeries. So my question is: is it really “pathological” for a homosexual to wish they had been born the opposite sex?
I attending this years conference. The best decision I made this year. Although I made a lot of great decision as well.
I took the survey and the question asked how I aligned and the TERF was one of the answers all of us could choose. When I looked up the meaning I thought of a quote my mother said often in my life.
"If you give them an inch they will take a mile." - Carol Estes.
The trans activists have taken a million miles and betrayed our empathy and kindness. This is how TERFS are formed when our sacred life has been stolen from us and our children have been destroyed. If you don't want people to be TERFS then don't destroy our lives and our children. We wouldn't be here if you hadn't begun. I am more and more like my mother every single day.