Postmodern neo-Marxism ideology with respect to gender assumes that it is socially constructed and determined essentially by how a person “feels”; such feelings in the past were referred to as a “mental illness”. Interestingly, terms for pathology actually still exist even in ideologically dominated “professional” organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Their technical term for people not comfortable in identifying with their biological sex is “Gender Dysphoria”, although in some cases “Gender Identity Disorder” is also used. The difference between the two is that “dysphoria” indicates and unease or dissatisfaction, whereas “disorder” indicates pathology.
In the past there has been progress in understanding the origin of GD/GID, and there have been methodologies developed to aid in re-orienting people suffering from the disorder to identification with their biological sex. GD/GID often arises from early childhood environmental issues which place susceptible children at risk, such as for example parents who themselves deal with certain mental disorders.
However, clinicians such as Drs. Kenneth Zucker and Susan Bradley, formerly of the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto have found considerable success in helping youth finding relief from their gender dysphoria. Consider first of all their assessment of the sources of the dysphoria, in this example for that of boys:
A composite measure of maternal psychopathology correlated quite strongly with Child Behavior Checklist indices of behavior problems in boys with GID.
The rate of maternal psychopathology is high by any standard and includes depression and bipolar disorder.
The boy, who is highly sensitive to maternal signals, perceives the mother’s feelings of depression and anger. Because of his own insecurity, he is all the more threatened by his mother’s anger or hostility, which he perceives as directed at him. His worry about the loss of his mother intensifies his conflict over his own anger, resulting in high levels of arousal or anxiety. The father’s own difficulty with affect regulation and inner sense of inadequacy usually produces withdrawal rather than approach.
The parents have difficulty resolving the conflicts they experience in their own marital relations, and fail to provide support to each other. This produces an intensified sense of conflict and hostility.
In this situation, the boy becomes increasingly unsure about his own self-value because of the mother’s withdrawal or anger and the father’s failure to intercede. This anxiety and insecurity intensify, as does his anger. These men (fathers) are often easily threatened and feel inadequate themselves. These qualities appear to make it very difficult for them to connect with sons who display non-masculine behavior. Withdrawing from their feminine sons, they often deal with their conflicts by overwork or distancing themselves from their families. The fathers’ difficulty expressing feelings, and their inner sense of inadequacy are the roots of this emotional withdrawal.
With understanding of some of the root causes of the disorder, then Zucker and Bradley provide some insight into their treatment:
The fantasy solution [i.e., “identifying” as the opposite sex] provides relief but at a cost. They are unhappy children who are using their cross-gender behaviors to deal with their distress.
Treatment goal is to develop same sex skills and friendships.
In general, we concur with those who believe that the earlier treatment begins, the better. …It has been our experience that a sizable number of children and their families can achieve a great deal of change.
In these cases, the gender identity disorder resolves fully, and nothing in the children’s behavior or fantasy suggest that gender identity issues remain problematic. … All things considered, however, we take the position that in such cases clinicians should be optimistic, not nihilistic, about the possibility of helping the children to become more secure in their gender identity.
Yet even with that understanding, Postmodern neo-Marxist ideology resists dealing with causation and reparation and assumes that the child’s feelings are the priority. This intervention is a tragic factor, considering the high suicide rate among people struggling with GD/GID. Sadly, the ideologues take measures to block therapy which may in some cases be of benefit, and further advocate other measures to irreversibly trap youth in the dysphoric state via surgery and powerful medication.
So, the question needs to be asked: why did PC activists fire Dr. Zucker, and close his clinic in 2016, after decades of providing successful therapy to hundreds of patients? The answer? Because PC Gender Theory defies objective science to state that transgender people were “born that way.” Thus, any attempts to achieve change threatens their theory; plus, any successful transformations might tend to make transgender people feel badly. The only solution is “equal outcomes”; thus, they wish to force any child that has even fleeting cross-sex feelings to become permanent transgender people, whether or not the child or the family desires that outcome. In some states, they’ll even remove the suffering child from his parents, in order to ensure that they are never cured. Moral high ground?
And at a deeper level, Postmodern neo-Marxists need all the victims they can collect and ideologically enslave, to meet their long-range goal of cultural transformation.
Critique: An excellent description of the transgender issue was provided in a 2015 essay by Dr. Paul McHugh, formerly Psychiatrist in Chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, which terminated providing sex-change surgery in the 1970s. His opening statement summarizes his viewpoint, after working with patients dealing with GD/GID for over 40 years:
The idea that one’s sex is a feeling, not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake. Gender dysphoria should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.
His comment about sex-change surgery:
At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits. As a result, we stopped offering that form of treatment in the 1970s.
And here’s his assessment of the context of transgender issues:
In fact, gender dysphoria—the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.
And in terms of his assessment of the ideological or “meme” aspect, he does not hold back:
The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.
Regardless of the controversy over GD/GID, objective science vs. feelings, Gender dysphoria is actually a serious and troubling disorder, and anyone afflicted with this problem deserves the utmost sympathy and compassion, but also deserves the best treatment that modern medicine can offer, devoid of ideological concerns.
Additional videos discussing GD/GID diagnosis and treatment and the negative impact of ideology over science can be found here.