The Theatre of the Body: A detransitioned epidemiologist examines suicidality, affirmation, and transgender identity

This article is a long read, and includes detailed analysis of several research studies. Interested readers may want to review the bibliography and familiarize themselves with the relevant studies in order to engage most meaningfully with this post.

As with all articles and comments on 4thWaveNow, the views expressed by the author in this piece are his own.

---

by Hacsi Horváth, MA, PgCert (Sheffield)

I am an adjunct Lecturer in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). I’m an expert in clinical epidemiology, particularly in systematic review methods, epidemiologic bias and evidence quality assessment. As a researcher at UCSF, I managed the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Group for over a decade and on several occasions served as a consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO) in their HIV guideline development processes.

For about 13 years, I also masqueraded “as a woman,” taking medical measures which suggest, shall we say, that I was completely committed to that lifestyle. Most men would have recoiled from this, but in my estrogen-drug-soaked stupor it seemed like a good idea. In 2013 I stopped taking estrogen for health reasons and very rapidly came back to my senses. I ceased all effort to convey the impression that I was a woman and carried on with life.

As you may imagine, I have a lot of anger at transgenderism and its enablers, as well as an “inward bruise” (as Melville called it). I am not a happy camper. I have been badly harmed. However–as a father myself–I am far angrier that thousands of young people are being irreversibly altered and sterilized as they are inducted into a drug-dependent and medically-maimed lifestyle. I’m furious that women and girls are being steamrolled by trans activists into accepting any man who claims to be a woman in sex-segregated changing rooms, prisons, shelters, women’s sports, and elsewhere. If any man can simply announce that he’s a woman, then what is a woman?

My strong feelings often show through in what I write. On Twitter, in blogs and elsewhere online, I have often taken a very strident, confrontational tone. I have offended many with my refusal to utter words that I consider to be unsubstantiated, politically motivated jargon, along with my unrepentant “misgendering,” among other sins. In contrast, in real life, I try to get along with everyone and tend to be diplomatic with people whose views conflict with mine. I’m somewhat reclusive and generally not very keen to blast other people with peremptory critique.

1. Prologue

Where gender dysphoria (GD) is discussed, “suicide risk” and “transphobia” may lurk nearby, especially when the topic concerns adolescents and young adults (AYA). Why is this so? In this article, I will demonstrate that activists have created the false impression that the risk of suicide in adolescents and young adults (AYA) with GD (AYA-GD) is unique and unparalleled, that AYA-GD suicides are common and that “transphobia” is the main cause of such suicides. I will show why the shockingly high suicide attempt rates they commonly cite are not credible. I will also show evidence that AYA-GD suicide attempt rates are likely similar to those of other populations with similar risk factors. While these rates are higher than in the general population, they are much lower than they are touted to be in transgender activist propaganda.

Finally, I will look at the statistics for completed suicide in AYA-GD, before closing with some observations about losses to follow-up in studies looking into outcomes in people with GD, some years after their trans-related surgeries.

GD is a poorly-defined syndrome comprising one or more mental health problems, commonly including anxiety or depression, among others. It includes a “strong desire” to “be” the opposite sex, or at least to perform its stereotypes. At minimum, patients may have come to believe that they are utterly unsuited to fulfil the stereotypic roles and gestures socially prescribed for their actual sex, even if they have had tremendous lifelong success in doing so, and even though they are quite free to ignore such stereotypes. Gender dysphoria’s concomitant cognitive bias may keep the patient from ever getting better. The reason they may never recover from it is that this cognitive bias tells them this mental illness is really “mental wellness” (Levine 2018). They typically only visit doctors and psychotherapists who are willing (or even eager) to “affirm” their opinion that they are somehow inhabiting the wrong body. They are steered with increasing ease into a transgender trajectory and the mysteries of “transition.” Costume change, with or without cosmetic surgery, is an ineffective means of changing sex. Indeed, changing sex is impossible. “Transition” is thus mostly concerned with personality expression and receiving (in my view) unnecessary medical care. It can begin almost at a moment’s notice. In the US, self-diagnosed adolescent and adult GD patients may even receive prescriptions for cross-sex synthetic hormone drugs on the day of their first clinical visit.

Until recently, having GD and “being trans” were considered synonymous. This belief has shifted somewhat, as the phenomenon of “non-binary” people emerged. Also, it’s apparently no longer necessary even to have GD to be considered transgender. In San Francisco, if you want to be “trans,” they will “rubber-stamp” you and you’ll have your genitals inverted (or your breasts will be gone) in no time.

I don’t believe GD reflects any kind of problem or glitch in the human body. Here’s what I suggest, in broad strokes, is going on with adolescents and adults:

• Heterosexual males (the vast majority of men with GD) have autogynephilia.
• Homosexual males with GD enjoy “femininity” and mistakenly believe this means they are “trans” or even women.
• Females with GD have internalized misogyny and/or internalized homophobia.

In my opinion—which is based upon extensive research, as well as my own 13-year-long experience in pretending to be a woman–GD is only superficially concerned with one’s sex. It’s more a disturbance of identity, of mistaking the signifier for the signified. Patients have whatever mental illnesses they may have, or that develop while in the ruminations and hypomanic states that typically precede “coming out as trans.” I propose that GD is a moody, brooding syndrome that accompanies these mental illnesses. People with GD have cultivated an idealized vision of themselves as the opposite sex. At a critical point of rumination, after the patient has sufficiently disparaged his or her actual life and idealized life as the opposite sex, he or she realizes that body parts of the opposite sex may be obtained through the services of doctors (Raymond 1979, Billings 1982). Actually transforming into the opposite sex starts to seem feasible. The self-conception “splits” in two, and idealization becomes identity. Having negated any value in their actual male or female presence in the world, and now feeling themselves to actually be the self-generated persona, patients perseveratively ask themselves, “what’s stopping me?” “Feasibility” seems to trigger the split. Here begins the acute phase of GD.

Patients become obsessed with “transition.” To the same extent that they can be energized by the belief that they are making “progress,” as their bodies morph via the hormone drugs and shop clerks address them by their preferred honorifics (i.e. Miss or Ma’am for the males, Sir for the females), they can also feel destroyed by any little delay or perceived setback—including being “misgendered” or identified by others as their actual sex. Nothing else matters but “transition.” The apparent certainty of these patients, as well as their zeal to continue, is seen by “affirmative care” doctors as evidence of “being trans.”

Gender is a hierarchal framework that stratifies and categorizes “masculine” and “feminine” attributes and behaviors. In the context of transgenderism, it is also a convenient rhetorical device to elide the problem of sexed bodies and to label oneself as endorsing one or the other sets of sex role stereotypes. Earlier articulations of GD as “gender identity disorder” made more sense, but it seems that most people understood it to mean “having an opposite-sex gender identity.” I would suggest that it may more accurately be understood as simply an identity disorder, a disordered or disturbed identity, with a fixation on gender.

I agree with the late French psychoanalyst Colette Chiland when she said: “Transsexuals stage everything in the theatre of the body, and nothing in that of the psyche” (Chiland 2003). It is true that persons in the driven, obsessed stages of gender dysphoria can seemingly think of nothing except transition. No-one dreams of asking them to slow down, to seek psychotherapy, perhaps even find a way through this work to prevent transition, which can be costly on so many levels. It would be like standing in the way of a bolting, bucking horse. The fact that people with gender dysphoria are like this is a sign that something is wrong, yet they are not impeded at all.

But doctors are doctors and patients are patients. These surgeries and lifelong hormonal drug regimens didn’t used to be given out like crackerjack prizes. Virtually no research has been done in psychotherapeutic methods to alleviate the symptoms of gender dysphoria, prevent it, or get rid of it altogether. The entire literature comprises a couple of dozen case reports and small case series, some promising, nearly all from before 1990, and all using archaic methods. Based primarily on the pronouncement of Harry Benjamin, the “godfather” of transsexualism, that psychotherapy with these patients was a waste of time, the medical profession increasingly found ways to justify surgical and hormonal transition as the standard of care (Billings 1982). I will get back to this near the end of the article.

The biggest risk factor for continued large increases in GD may be the normalization of what has become common practice: that people with a variety of problems in life, or even just confusion, should be able to self-diagnose as trans, be celebrated and congratulated as such, and then turned into permanent patients. In North America and the United Kingdom, and perhaps in other settings, even children’s schools seem to operate as factory farms for transgenderism, with a pseudoscientific curriculum that disseminates transgender ideology.

“Affirmative” harms

There are three main models for treating children and adolescents who seem to have GD (Byne 2012, Costa 2016, Ristori 2016). The most sensible one helps kids to become more comfortable with who they are in material reality (Byne 2012, Costa 2016, Ristori 2016).

Another at first glance appears neutral about the question of whether the child should have a normal life or become a transsexual and therefore a permanent patient. Children subject to this strategy are often given drugs to block their puberty (Byne 2012, Costa 2016, Ristori 2016). Ostensibly, this is done to “give them time to decide,” but while deciding (and emulating the opposite sex) they surely become more deeply invested in rocketing further down that road.

The most hazardous approach of all is “affirmative care” (Byne 2012, Costa 2016, Ristori 2016), which is mainly seen in North America. According to this model, young people and adults who keenly desire to emulate opposite sex stereotypes, or perhaps show an indication that they might someday be homosexuals, are assured that they definitely “are trans,” and that it is essential to help them transition immediately (Byne 2012, Costa 2016, Ristori 2016). This model even encourages toddlers to “socially transition,” with boys being indoctrinated into stereotypic femininity and “girlhood,” and girls into masculinity and “boyhood.” Yet social transition has been shown to be predictive of persistence of GD (Ristori 2016). This means that even though young children nearly always desist from believing they are the opposite sex, socially transitioned kids are much more likely to begin puberty-blocking drugs at age 8 or 9, and then carry on with the rest of the complex medicalized transition process. If parents make any objection or refuse to “affirm” their child’s plan, they are shamed and belittled as “transphobes.” In some instances, parents can even be prosecuted and have their children taken away by the government.

Under the affirmative model, adolescents and adults are generally enabled to pursue medical interventions right away, seldom being told by their doctors “no, you are making a mistake.”

In this article, when I speak of trans activism, trans ideology and the like, I am referring especially to the “affirmative care” model. The old “gatekeeping” of patients with gender identity problems, which was developed in the 1950s to keep these often mentally unstable persons from rushing into irreversible, experimental interventions, is a ghost of what it once was. In cities like San Francisco, it has essentially been replaced by “informed consent” – which in practice translates to “on demand.”

Proponents of affirmative care have dealt the deathblow to what little gatekeeping that remains. Their activities could well be described as marketing and recruitment for “being trans.” Patients of any age need only say they think they are really the opposite sex, or wish they were, and affirmative care clinicians are happy to get busy, scheduling surgeries and prescribing lifelong drug regimens. They seem to see themselves as affirmative pioneers, especially those who work tirelessly to provide medical interventions to more and more children and teens, thus creating an iatrogenic illusion from which the kids may never emerge.  A few examples follow.

Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles is a prominent affirmative care physician. Earlier this year at a gender conference, she described radical mastectomy outcomes in gender-confused girls as young as age 13. She doubled-down on this affront to Hippocrates by suggesting that if teen girls later regretted the loss of their breasts, they could “go and get” new breasts, suggesting that breast implants would make them as good as new. There has been a tremendous surge over the past decade in girls and young women presenting to gender clinics (Zucker 2017, Littman 2018), and Olson-Kennedy says she has personally ushered more than 1100 of them into the medicalized trans lifestyle. In a 2018 paper, she recommends referring girls for this “top surgery” first, and only afterwards prescribing testosterone – thus removing the option for what might have been a little more time to think through this irreversible decision (Olson-Kennedy, 2018).

At the Kaiser-Permanente Medical Center in Oakland, California, surgeons have removed healthy breast tissue from gender-confused girls as young as age 12.

Psychologist Dr. Diane Ehrensaft of University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is keen for toddlers and small kids to begin a “social transition” and likely continue along the path to medical transition (Ristori 2016). As mentioned above, children and adolescents no longer need to have GD; all are welcome to begin transition. At a symposium earlier this year, UCSF paediatrician Dr. Ilana Sherer told of feeling “challenged” when “lots and lots of kids” presented to her gender clinic without feeling any gender dysphoria. The “challenge” to which she alludes is that insurance companies (rightly) require evidence that these kids are receiving psychological support before the company agrees to cover the trans-related medical interventions they seek. Sherer spoke of the solution to this problem. After a brief meeting with a child, Ehrensaft (as Sherer describes it) essentially “rubber-stamps” the youth’s paperwork so that insurance companies will pay. In other words, she is approving services for patients who not meet diagnostic criteria and indeed do not have any distress. A question comes to mind: are health insurance companies and/or the health care fraud division at the US Department of Health and Human Services aware of this practice?  It seems likely that if they knew, they would feel quite “challenged” to let it just go on.

Cross-sex hormone drugs have a drastic effect on the body and carry serious health risks. Notwithstanding this, UCSF’s guidelines suggest that almost anyone is qualified to prescribe a lifelong regimen of the drugs –  even physician assistants, naturopathic providers (!) and nurse midwives. It is unclear why the MTF author of these guidelines, Dr. Madeline Deutsch, who trained as an emergency room physician, thought this would be wise. A healthy endocrine system’s ecological balance can easily be thrown into chaos – which is what happens when one takes cross-sex hormones anyway.

So, these are some of the better known members of the clinician crowd I am speaking about most directly in this article. Their approach is not the global standard – its recklessness seems clear to most people outside North America – but they are certainly marketing it aggressively.

2. Weaponizing our instinct to protect the vulnerable

Few things in life break our hearts more than to learn of a young person’s death, especially by suicide. We can’t help but have an emotional response to such news. The trans industry – comprising the activists, academics, healthcare providers, clinics, and pharmaceutical companies that benefit from transgender ideology, financially or otherwise – understands this well. The spectre of suicide in AYA-GD is a key component of trans activism. Not merely a talking point, it is a truncheon that activists and trans industry clinicians, other industry partners and virtue-signalling “allies” wield to force full compliance with their demands. To prevent trans suicides, the trans industry requires nothing less than a world that is utterly purged of transphobia.

Well, what is transphobia? Is it, as activists insist, a type of “hatred” that people who are not confused about the sex to which they belong (“cis,” in industry jargon) aim at the oppressed, still emerging masses of women and men, boys and girls who were “born in the wrong body”? No, of course not. Criticizing transgender ideology has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with mammalian evolution over the past 200 million years, the scientific method and common sense.

Then is it really homophobia, perhaps? Yes, in some cases it might be, because (in my view) no one is actually “trans.” Gay men and lesbians who take the transgender path are still essentially gay men and lesbians. But transphobia is much, much more than this.

“That’s transphobic.”

In real terms, transphobia could be defined as anything that an ordinary person does, says or even believes that “invalidates” transgenderism and its core principles, or invalidates any belief of a person claiming to be trans. In other words, factually stating that men cannot become women, nor can women become men, has a high probability of increasing GD in any trans persons within earshot. It would be considered transphobic. When a “trans woman” is made to feel that it is inappropriate for him to be in the women’s restroom or changing room, he feels tremendously dysphoric and “invalidated.” Similarly, to “misgender” a trans person – to accurately refer to a male with masculine pronouns, or a female with feminine ones (“gender” does, after all, exist in the grammar of many languages) – can send dysphoria through the roof, as validation plummets. People need to feel validated! But validating a lie so they might feel better for a minute is not helpful. Trans activists insist that misgendering is an “act of violence” that “literally kills” – meaning that being addressed with the wrong pronoun might drive them to suicide.

Why do many clinicians and other educated people go along with this nonsense? The trans activists insist on “validation” in everything they do or say, without objection. Objections or disagreement are transphobic. Any utterance or action that increases GD for anyone is transphobic. Unwillingness of society or any individual to accommodate any desire of men or women claiming to be trans is transphobic. Mirrors are transphobic. Biology is transphobic. Reality is transphobic.

Lifesavers

In contrast, every type of medical or social intervention for the supposed benefit of people with GD, especially youth, is described as “life-saving.” The refrain of “life-saving” echoes everywhere in the discourse around this topic. This has been a key strategy in convincing people that major surgeries are a “medical necessity” – “the basic healthcare they need to survive.” According to the trans industry and its friends, spikes in GD due to transphobia seem to lead almost automatically to AYA-GD wanting to end their lives. It is as if they are always on a ledge, ready to jump. This incessant repetition of purported suicide risk is like a strange new variation of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, wherewith trans activist adults and some clinicians effectively threaten suicide on behalf of the young people. They do this to socially-engineer, manipulate and intimidate non-industry doctors, politicians, community leaders and families of AYA-GD. They are well aware of the emotional responses they will get with this rhetoric. Meanwhile, experts in suicide prevention have always recommended against strongly emphasizing suicide risk in a given population.

“READ MORE…”