You have probably seen many news stories in recent years about young children who are supposedly “transgender” — little girls who want to have short hair and play with trucks; little boys who want to have long hair and play with dolls. Instead of just letting them do this, parents of such children these days coercively program them with the belief that they “really are” the other sex.
The parents take their increasingly-confused kids to specialized “gender clinics” where depraved “doctors” confirm a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” — the little boy supposedly has a “female gender identity,” or vice-versa. Together, and without the child’s mature consent, the parents and doctors begin planning out the child’s “puberty suppression” with experimental drugs, soon to be followed by a range of major surgeries and a lifelong regimen of dangerous hormones.
In other words, a shattered body and a whole life (though probably shortened) under close surveillance by the medical industry. The child’s parents then begin a publicity campaign with appearances on TV talk shows, magazine articles and YouTube videos.
Instead of reacting in a normal way to this blatant child abuse, i.e. with outrage and horror, the mainstream public has now been conditioned simply to smile and say how wonderful these parents and doctors are, how wonderful that science can now fix this “mistake.” Poor child, “born in the wrong body.”
The “Transgender Chicken Circuit”, for the uninformed, is a patchwork of media appearances, news and feature articles, talk shows, documentaries, convention and seminar appearances that savvy parents can weave together into a modest cottage industry of transgender child celebrity. Think of it as a Munchausen-marinated transgender version of “Toddlers and Tiaras” whose fans are aging cross-dressing male autogynephiles in possession of both a wistful longing for an unexperienced girlhood, and a generous disposable income. These men are the funders of the agencies and lobbying groups promoting the medicalization of childhood gender nonconformity. The best known example is billionaire financeer and lifelong closeted crossdresser (and father of three) James “Jennifer Natalya” Pritzker whose Tawani Foundation single-handedly funds the experimental pediatric transgender drug clinic at Children’s Hospital of Chicago.
What is really going on here?
There is no such thing as a “transgender child.” The concept of an innate “gender identity” is completely fake. It was invented by male transvestites (with autogynephilia, the sexual kink of imagining themselves as “women,” taking synthetic “female” hormones and having drastic surgeries to superficially resemble real women) in order to justify their fetish and make it seem like it’s something people have innately, even before they are born.
It is crucial to the agenda of organized transgenderism that many examples of children with “gender dysphoria” be exhibited to the world. Only with “early examples” of “trans kids” can the “gender identity” lie be made to seem legitimate. Meanwhile, the adult female impersonators try desperately to suppress the evidence that their “gender identity” is based entirely on masturbation fantasies. Charming.
The male transgenderites, aided and abetted by crooked physicians, activist “researchers,” pharmaceutical and psychiatric industry donors, “civil society,” government and the mass media, have, for the moment, been wildly successful with their plan. New “adorable” child victims are trotted out every week, their “brave” parents celebrated, their “courageous” doctors applauded.
“Gender identity” is still a crock of shit. Remember “phrenology”? Gender identity is a throw-back to phrenology. There is nothing going on in the brain that would make a male child want to replicate stereotypes of “femininity” in his appearance and behavior, or vice-versa. Children sometimes don’t conform to sex role stereotypes. It’s also important to consider the very strong likelihood that children’s parents are actually coaching them from a very early age to begin saying they are the opposite sex. These toddlers obviously don’t know any better, and such behaviors elicit smiles and praise from all the grown-ups — so they submit to this parental mind control.
In many of the videos presented of these children, it is easy to perceive a pedophilic subtext to the whole enterprise. Think of what is happening: The children are being manipulated to “change sex,” the dearest sexual fantasy of male autogynephiles pushing the “gender identity” lie.
Paraphilias [like autogynephilia] tend to cluster or co-occur: Men with one paraphilia have an increased likelihood of having one or more other paraphilias as well. Because autogynephilia is conceptualized as a paraphilic phenomenon, it is not surprising that many informants described other paraphilias as well. These included sexual masochism and forced feminization, gynemimetophilia and gynandromorphophilia (attraction to feminized men), pedophilia, autonepiophilia (infantilism or adult baby syndrome), abasiophilia and autoabasiophilia (leg brace paraphilia), and unspecified paraphilias.
Not only are the male transvestites achieving their agenda, but the “home videos” of young boys being forcibly feminized turns them on too.
from GenderTrender again:
There is a disturbing element of pedophilia exhibited by many “fans” of the “Transgender Chicken Circuit,” as evidenced by plentiful transgender adult male YouTube channels featuring dozens of videos of these children, creepy-ass fetishized “fan sites”, and expensive glossy coffee table photography books of the sort that would get Calvin Klein into trouble. Add the transgender pornography sites which track the children’s “progress” and it’s pretty clear that sexualizing these children is a large part of their marketability.
Beyond the overt pedophilia, and the marketing of a fetishized version of “girlhood” to adult male fantasists, the transgender movement “needs” to create transgender children (as activist Autumn Sandeen has explained) to “take the sex out” of the transgender equation whose most dominant practitioners are adult male sexual fetishists. But perhaps the most important reason to impose transgender labels onto children is to publicize a “born this way” narrative like the one the gay liberation movement used to pacify critics.
Narcissistic parents who pimp out their children as “transgender” have a form of Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSP). Some may just be extremely stupid, but I think most are well aware of what they’re doing.
- a child’s illness is fictitious or induced by a caregiver;
- interaction with the health care system results in multiple medical tests and procedures;
- denial by the caregiver as to the real cause of the child’s illness; and
- symptoms abate following separation of the child from the caregiver.
These characteristics are found in most forms of child abuse.
Sounds accurate so far. There are different sub-types of MSP. Here’s one:
Factitious Disorder by Proxy
A psychiatric diagnosis in the perpetrating caregiver who falsifies or fabricates the child’s signs and symptoms to meet an underlying, self-serving psychological need to have or be associated with a chronically or seriously ill child, is diagnosed with factitious disorder by proxy (FDP). The emphasis is on the pathology of the adult.
That sounds right too.
Let’s look at the question in a different way, for a moment. What do we actually know about the psychopathology of parents who pimp out their “trans kids”? As early as 1991, Susan Coates and Sonia Marantz found that in mothers of boys with supposed “gender identity disorder,” more than half met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder — they themselves had profound and psychotic problems with their “identities.” Only 6% of mothers of normal boys met the criteria. A much larger proportion of the “gender identity” mothers were also clinically depressed. This type of research is no longer permitted — it’s “transphobic.” You might as well say you wanted to replicate some of Dr. Mengele’s “experiments.”
But even putting aside any “psychiatric diagnoses” — and just looking at what they do — their publicity-seeking and extreme willingness to push their children into massive harms and multilations — it’s obvious that if they aren’t just totally stupid, these parents are completely disturbed and spiritually bankrupt individuals.
And now let’s look at the doctor’s role in perpetrating medical child abuse.
What makes MSP a unique form of child abuse is the active role health care professionals play in the initiation and perpetuation of the syndrome.
True enough. In the most “charitable” view, these poor doctors are also victims, guilty only of a failure to think critically.
Munchausen syndrome by proxy … evolves as a product of the relationship between a parent who has both the capacity for abuse and the potential to be gratified by the medical system and a medical system that is specialized, investigation-oriented, fascinated by rare conditions, often ignorant of abusive behaviors, and too accepting of reported histories.
However, that’s bullshit. One of a physician’s most important skills is a refined ability to figure out what’s really happening (i.e. differential diagnosis). There are so many other possibilities to explain why a boy may insist he’s a girl — most likely parental programming, as we’ve discussed, but they could also consider autism, dissociative disorders, or even schizophrenia and other kinds of psychological problems — and they choose to move forward with the worst, fakest, most trendy and most destructive option: that he “really is” a girl and should be hormonally and surgically transformed into a simulacrum of “femininity.”
Given the nonsensicality of the diagnosis, the correct procedure would be to help the child get back in touch with reality, and if necessary, straighten out the idiot parents. Until just a few years ago, that was what they normally did.
There is no question that the doctors and other “professionals” involved in this debauchery should be condemned for medical child abuse. Filthy perverts like Dr. Norman Spack — who was “salivating” at the prospect of sexually mutilating children’s bodies. Psychotic criminals like Dr. Johanna Olson (possibly a female impersonator) — who is happy to skip the “puberty blocking” drugs and just start the kids on hormones immediately, even at age 12. Other vicious child abusers like Dr. Sherman Leis and Dr. Michelle Forcier, who will get the sex-change party started as soon as the kids are 16. An actual autogynephiliac doctor, a very sick man called “Madeline” “Maddie” Deutsch, who also thinks it’s fine to start kids early on the hormones. “Jenn” Burleton isn’t a doctor, just a crazed male trans activist from Oregon who runs an organization dedicated to sexually mutilating children and teenagers. He may be largely to blame for that state’s shocking new law.
All this despite plenty of evidence that left unmolested, very few so-called “transgender children” will have such inclinations when they grow up. (This essay analyzes the scare tactics used by trans activists to suggest that “trans kids” will have horrible lives and die young if they aren’t fast-tracked for hormones and surgery).
OK, so what about medical ethics? Surely these doctors must follow accepted principles of bioethics? Respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence (i.e. “first, do no harm”), beneficence? Nope. They follow only the “bible” of trans activists, the “World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standard of Care,” guidelines based mainly on wishful thinking, men’s sexual fantasies and women’s self-hatred. Indeed, they often leave this document in the dust as they constantly remove more varieties of recommended “gatekeeping” — so insistent and determined they are to “get their hands dirty” with younger and younger children.
In an article called “How Young is Too Young: Ethical Concerns in Genital Surgery of the Transgender MTF Adolescent,” a pseudo-ethicist admits that these doctors have had to cook up new “ethical” principles as they went along: “A new set of ethical guidelines was created in order to support treatment professionals in their decision making process.”
It is the official standard of WPATH to defer genital surgery until the transitioning individual has reached 18 years of age. This position is also shared by The Endocrine Society, a worldwide organization dedicated to the education and practice advancement of endocrinology. In 2009, the Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee of the Society appointed a task force to formulate evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of transgender individuals . By using the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), members of this and various other European endocrinological societies jointly issued a summary of recommendations concerning the treatment of adolescents, in which they suggested that surgery be deferred until the individual has reached the age of 18. In terms of grading, the recommendation itself is acknowledged by the Endocrine Society as “weak” and the quality of evidence “very low.” This is mainly because the evidence comes from unsystematic observations provided by the panelists whose principal source of evidentiary contributions consists of opinions, values, and preferences, with remarks subsumed under “suggestions.”
Although the Standards of Care recognize that the legal age of majority varies from nation to nation, the age of majority is currently 18 in both the United States and Germany; hence, the procedure performed on a 16-year old girl [sic] was clearly not in accordance with the WPATH Standards of Care— neither the current nor the previous version, valid during 2005–2011. In addition, anecdotal reports and personal communication with surgeons in the United States who wish to remain anonymous confirm that genital surgeries in female-affirmed patients under 18 have been performed, thereby contravening the Standards of Care and thus prompting physicians, therapists, and other clinical professionals who otherwise adhere to the WPATH criteria to maintain official silence in the matter. From a treatment perspective, this is no surprise—if social transitioning and administration of hormones are sliding toward younger ages, the request for surgical procedures among younger individuals will follow.