Calling BS For What It Is

The right is twisting the facts again about us with their wild unscientific theories; their latest is that gender dysphoria just pops up in us.

Why 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria' is bad science
Med Xpress
By Florence Ashley and Alexandre Baril
March 23, 2018

A few decades ago, sexologist Ray Blanchard suggested that trans lesbians—trans women who are solely attracted to other women—were in fact men whose misguided heterosexuality led them to be aroused by the thought of being women.

Blanchard's theory has since been put to rest by careful analyses and scientific studies. Despite being discredited, the theory remains popular among opponents of transgender rights.

Another idea is now making the rounds in anti-trans circles: "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria." The theory suggests that youngsters are being misled into claiming a trans identity before they truly understand what that means. They are supposedly influenced by the internet, social media and peers.

It is presented as a critique of the gender-affirmative model of therapy, which encourages supporting the child through their journey of exploration and affirmation of their gender identities, without expectations as to the result.

Debra Soh and Barbara Kay's recent pieces in The Globe and Mail and National Post bring this previously underground notion into the mainstream. They claim that rapid-onset gender dysphoria contradicts gender-affirmative care, which they misleadingly portray as pushing children to transition.

Yeah it is all our fault… it is our secret agenda.

Why does this nonsense get traction?

People don’t want to believe that being trans isn’t a choice, they see it as a “lifestyle” that way they can justify their bigotry. When you read comments you see them sticking to the old notion of 1950 biology that it is all chromosomes or you see comments about external genital. Well nature is much more complicated than those simple notions.

It conveniently pulls on heartstrings by calling us to defend our children, much as Blanchard's work appealed to our sexual puritanism. It distinguishes "good," true transgender people from "bad," fake trans people, allowing proponents to claim that they have nothing against trans people—well, at least the real ones.

Theories which rely on the idea of "contagion" in order to invalidate marginalised identities are not new. The same has happened with other marginalised groups, such as gay, lesbian and bisexual people. Young people were thought to be misled by the "gay agenda" into mistakenly and rashly claiming a queer identity.

They, those follow this idea, want a simple explanation that doesn’t hurt their head or challenge their beliefs. They don’t know what the medical protocols are, they think that the doctors begin shooting up children with hormones that create permeate changes in the children.

The goal of gender-affirmative therapy is not transition, contrary to what proponents of rapid-onset gender dysphoria claim. The goal is to "listen to the child and decipher with the help of parents or caregivers what the child is communicating about both gender identity and gender expression."

But they don’t understand that.

I see one of the reasons why there is this lack of knowledge is because of our puritan background; we don’t teach sex education in the classrooms… its icky. Also most of our text books come from religiously conservative Texas so they are lacking in biology and science because they don’t want to buck Bible teaching.

Gender-affirmative therapy's motto is: "Follow the child." If that means following them to social transition and, in due time, medical transition, then so be it. But only if that's what they truly want.

It is something that we need to do more of... listening to our children not only for their gender identity but also for other things in life. They seemed to do pretty good yesterday at the "Marches for Our Lives" around the country and the world.