Wall Street Journal Op-Ed: Being Transgender Is Just A "Confusion"

[Carolyn Marie]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/06/13/former-johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution/

This article reprints portions of Dr. McHugh's recent Op Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. I could not post that piece, as it required a subscription. This should provoke a lively discussion.

Carolyn Marie

[Carolyn Marie]

Here's an opposing viewpoint regarding Dr. McHugh

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/13/wall-street-journal-op-ed-being-transgender-is/199720

Carolyn Marie

[Guest Sarah Faith]

Really this is why I always say that there needs to be more research done into transsexuality, as our scientific understanding of it is still sorely lacking beyond the basic framework thats been in place for the last 20+ years. Until it is thoroughly understood you will naturally have those even in the medical and psychiatric fields who will question the validity of such treatments. By using statistics to match their own personal views on the subject, what he fails to really mention or possibly acknowledge is that the patients who were "satisfied" and were yet still somewhat troubled were likely emotionally and mentally scarred from years of abuse and lack of self validation. I know many go into Transition and SRS thinking it will fix everything only to find out after that it only fixes certain aspects of the gender dysphoria, it isn't going to fix all of their ills that may have spun out of gender dysphoria. Such as social anxiety disorder.. Yes for me Hormones helped my anxiety ALOT but to actually get over thee social anxiety I had to force self exposure...

So yes I think more research is required, but I also think that this Doctor at least from the snippets I read is missing the greater picture of how much damage gender issues can cause outside of actual gender related concerns.

[Guest DesiB]

I cringe every time I hear someone describing the type of surgery I had as some sort of mutilation or amputation! From the time I first took an interest in the feel of my private body parts I knew they were wrong. I knew what it was supposed to feel like if I had an "innie" rather than an "outie." Today, I can feel that with no special effort, because it was not mutilated or amputated!

And as far as views go on the removal of ovaries or testicles, I see how that may be an issue for people who disagree with birth control, but I had already had a vasectomy years ago. There is no danger of having an underpopulated planet right now.

[Guest LizMarie]

I just blew up that "80% change back" pile of BS. And his assertion that this is a mental illness defies the biological research that has uncovered the brain structure differences in trans people.

Further, this research goes back much more than the last 20 years. Much of what this jerk says was refuted at Johns Hopkins itself 40 years ago.

Finally, this statement reveals his own transphobia and bigotry rather clearly.

At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. “Sex change” is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women.

I have no respect for someone who makes such blatantly erroneous statements and tries to use his professional standing to totally ignore and make irrelevant massive amounts of biological proof that he is, to be blunt, full of nonsense. The man is a disgrace to his profession and the fact that the Wall Street Journal published this? The WSJ is a bigoted right wing rag, that just this year lamented the loss of white male privilege governing the world. That's the sort of people who edit and control the WSJ editorial page so seeing garbage like this from them is no surprise.

[Guest Ky_Ki]

This only lends credence to my belief that statistics and studies can support whatever you want them to and that pschychiatry/psychology are more psuedoscience that science. Really it's all based on opinion, anecdote, and generalization.

And "satisfied" seems like a pretty damn good reason to perform an elective surgery. Give the good doctor unsolicited srs and hrt and hen tell him his desire for his old equipment and body is all in his head. [mostly sarcasm ;-)]

I do agree though that parents probably shouldn't rush on the anti androgens and hormones without careful consideration with both the child and doctors. But one would think that's mostly the case already.

[Carolyn Marie]

I've never been a proponent of anything other than blockers for kids younger than 16-17. I base it on nothing other than caution; if it was my child, that's what I would do. I know there are doctors who do otherwise. I just wouldn't want to be those doctors, or those parents, if their child feels differently about gender later on. Exceptions ought to be a rarity.

Scientists make mistakes, even in the hard sciences. Group think can be a powerful force to overcome. I do not believe that there is no possibility that psychologists and MDs can be wrong about transsexualism, its causes or treatment. New evidence comes up about everything in science, and consensus should and will change because of it. That's what the scientific method is all about. But until the day that someone proves conclusively that I'm having delusions or mental illness, I will continue as I am now.

Hmmmm, time for some eggs, butter, chocolate and wine. Weren't there some studies just done proving they are all beneficial?

Carolyn Marie

[Guest April Kristie]

Statistics, numbers manipulated to bring the researcher the result they are looking for. I used to work for a huge multinational, at corporate they had a guy whose entire job was to gather statistics about product use and opinions of same by polling. He himself told me that the numbers gathered were from sources (that were manipulated in the first place). By them asking the questions to the answers they wanted to see. Sure double blind testing and placebo medications might work for the pharma business, but when it comes to an 83 yr old McHugh spouting off his poison, he proves he is out of touch with the current medical world, but they drag him out of retirement for one more snap of the bigoted whip. Get out a new road if you can't lend your hand for the times they are a changing!

[Guest Sarah Faith]

Statistics, numbers manipulated to bring the researcher the result they are looking for. I used to work for a huge multinational, at corporate they had a guy whose entire job was to gather statistics about product use and opinions of same by polling. He himself told me that the numbers gathered were from sources (that were manipulated in the first place). By them asking the questions to the answers they wanted to see. Sure double blind testing and placebo medications might work for the pharma business, but when it comes to an 83 yr old McHugh spouting off his poison, he proves he is out of touch with the current medical world, but they drag him out of retirement for one more snap of the bigoted whip. Get out a new road if you can't lend your hand for the times they are a changing!

Something to keep in mind is that no matter how much times change there will always be those who will hate, and sometimes those people will be respected individuals in the medical field. Even if one day we completely understand everything about it, you will still have people who will choose ignorance over the science.

[Guest April Kristie]

Sarah, totally agreed. As propagandists know, if they keep repeating a message over time no matter how wrong and unbased, the simpletons in the public will shake their heads in agreement eventually. This then becomes mainstream thought and beliefs.

This is true with many of the half truths we hear everyday, perk your ears up and question all you hear.

[Guest LizMarie]

Someone else ripped apart "Dr". McHugh.

http://crystalgaze2.blogspot.com/2014/06/really-dr-mchugh.html

[VickySGV]

Me thinks the good Mc Hugh is a bit delusional himself. He has erroneous assumptions of mental adequacy to judge another garden slug's mental adequacy.

[Carolyn Marie]

Someone else ripped apart "Dr". McHugh.

http://crystalgaze2.blogspot.com/2014/06/really-dr-mchugh.html

Very good stuff, LizMarie. Thanks for posting that link.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest Carla_Davis]

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed: Being Transgender Is Just A "Confusion"

http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201406130003

Hugs,

Carla

[Guest LizMarie]

And here's a little more about "Dr" McHugh's track record, his clear bias against science when it conflicts with his "orthodox Catholicism" and his usage of his personal prestige to push discredited and harmful ideas.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/16/the_wall_street_journal_displays_shocking_ignorance_about_lgbtq_issues.html

[Carolyn Marie]

And here's a little more about "Dr" McHugh's track record, his clear bias against science when it conflicts with his "orthodox Catholicism" and his usage of his personal prestige to push discredited and harmful ideas.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/16/the_wall_street_journal_displays_shocking_ignorance_about_lgbtq_issues.html

The article is very interesting, LizMarie. However, I disagree with your use of quotes around the title "Dr." However you feel about the guy, and I don't blame you a bit for feeling that way, he is, factually, a medical doctor. The quotes suggest he is a fraud, much the same way that quotes around "transgender" in an article denigrates us. Neither is appropriate, IMO. You are free to disagree, however.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest LizMarie]

Fair enough, Carolyn. But a medical doctor who deliberately ignores the science and the medical information is not practicing medicine. He's practicing quackery. We can disagree about the quotes but he's not practicing medicine according to the AMA itself by adopting those particular positions. He's practicing bigotry rationalized on religious grounds and attempting to use his credentials to lend credence to those bigoted positions.

[Guest Sarah Faith]

Fair enough, Carolyn. But a medical doctor who deliberately ignores the science and the medical information is not practicing medicine. He's practicing quackery. We can disagree about the quotes but he's not practicing medicine according to the AMA itself by adopting those particular positions. He's practicing bigotry rationalized on religious grounds and attempting to use his credentials to lend credence to those bigoted positions.

Liz, you need to understand that the opinions released by the AMA are guidelines and are not codified law. The AMA publishes guidelines all the time but that doesn't mean that it shuts down all debate and research within the medical community, which is good because our understanding of things is always expanding and changing. The way a Doctor practices is between the Doctor, their patient, the insurance companies, and government regulatory bodies, not the AMA. A pretty good example of this is how many insurance companies still do not cover transcare, meaning a Doctor cannot even treat with HRT unless its paid for out of pocket. He can publish his opinion as much as he likes and it doesn't undo the education he received or any other honors he's aquired over the years. It's actually a bit inappropriate to call into question his title, even doctors who lose their license to practice due misconduct retain their title because they still have the education and they still graduated from a Medical School.

[Guest LizMarie]

Resurrecting an old thread because of something relevant...

Apparently WPATH itself responded to Dr. McHugh, correcting many of his deliberate errors and misstatements and called his article and his conclusions a "hoax".

http://www.transadvocate.com/worlds-experts-condemn-the-mchugh-hoax_n_13924.htm

Unfortunately, the WSJ deliberately edited and redacted the WPATH response to make it seem more in line with McHugh's original statement. That's bald faced anti-trans propaganda. The actual letter to the WSJ is provided as well as a link to the full response from a WPATH representative.

Also note the post-1989 SRS regret rate - 0.3%. I know that many in the community want "informed consent" but that low number, to me, says that the current system works amazingly well. I know there are those that complain about "gatekeepers" but the success rate seems to justify the current procedures.

[Carolyn Marie]

Thanks for providing this link, LizMarie. It's very informative. I would like to point out that it is "The Transadvocate" that characterized McHugh's piece as a "hoax," and not the author of this article at hand.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest LizMarie]

Yes, WPATH just calls him "stuck in the past", says that he "mischaracterizes" trans children, and points out that he erroneously draws conclusions about the efficacy of transgender surgeries from a study that explicitly indicated it should not be used for that purpose. While WPATH didn't use that term, I think "hoax" is pretty reasonable. They could have just called him a liar, which is true too.

[Guest Jennifer T]

Well, whatever transgenderism is- biological, mental or alien... - one thing he did get right, it is confusing. My only words to him would be this, "try living it."

Peace.