by Deborah C. Tyler
The transition in psychiatric nosology from the biopsychological terms "sex" and "sexuality" to the political concepts of genderism was effected by cultural and academic elites, mostly homosexual people, who derive their power through splitting and pitting. The purpose was to add a new consonant – T – to the political juggernaut LGB.
The shift from sex identity disorder to transgenderism all but eliminates scientific inquiry in this area of psychiatry and psychology.
The four-decade politicization of sex-related mental disorders has been prosecuted by academicians and activists who bear animosity toward the natural order but generally have no grounding in science or medicine. They are blind to their multifarious enmity. They resist the idea of God's authority and that His love is the soul's provenance of freedom, and they deny that He made all human beings of two sexes and nothing else. They do not understand that the purpose of God's design is to enable transcendence, not fortification, of sex duality.
They derive power by pitting a victim group against an oppressor group. The victim group never rises above victimhood and the oppressor group is never cleansed of their undeserved privilege. The fashionable victim class this political season is an extreme micro-minority who experience some degree of disturbance of sex identification, labeled by the political term transgenderism. Just as one drop of poison can make a whole goblet lethal, a tiny victim group can poison psychological theory and claim unjust power over others. In the case of transgenderism, the vast majority of people are in the oppressor group called cisgenders, which is the natural mind-body relationship that until recently did not have a name.
The shift from sex identity disorder to transgenderism all but eliminates scientific inquiry in this area of psychiatry and psychology. Beginning in the 1970s, gender propagandists began replacing science (which they impugn as patriarchal) with intellectually vapid gender theory. In the 1980s, gender theory began morphing into cultural, political, and academic dogma. Paradoxically, as responsible medical practitioners increasingly question the safety of artificial resexuation, political activists increasingly demand resexuation, which they term "reassignment." The official psychodiagnosistic nomenclature has morphed with the political winds, with the sequential medical labels of Gender Identity Disorder, followed by Gender Dysphoria, which is soon to be replaced with Gender Incongruence. The denial that the disturbance of sex identity causes distress or dysfunction will enable "gender tourism" for the wealthy but increase suffering and regret for many people whose psychotherapeutic options are narrowing down as they are influenced to submit to one-size-fits-all artificial resexuation.
In America, gender theory began as abstruse conversations among lesbian academics rolling up tweedie sleeves to the elbow patches and gossiping about Lacanian psychoanalysis and Kristevan linguistical fissures of abjection. A good time was had by all!
Gender theory is post-structural, which, philosophically, means everyone gets to insist that reality is whatever he wants it to be, and anyone who challenges that is a bigot. This intellectual corruption is the ideal framework for left-wing victim politics, and diametrically opposed to the assumptions of scientifically based medicine. Since its founding, gender theory has been recognized as an interdisciplinary field with no unique, independent knowledge base. It is usually described as deriving from linguistics; cultural anthropology; Marxist theory with "intersectionality" (seven syllables beloved by people without valuable knowledge who want to sound smart); critical race theory; and women's, men's, and queer theory. There has never been a school or movement within gender theory based on science.
By the late 1980s, feminism needed a facelift, and left-wing politics needed to grow the victim group roster, and the battle against the most foundational biological truth of human life – that there are but two sexes and no genders – was joined.
Before she became notorious for her hilariously nonsensical writing, Judith Butler was like any other sourpuss lesbian Berkeley professor one might happen to meet. Her 1990 book Gender Trouble made gender babble universal academic dogma, with dire implications for scientific psychology.
This insight earned Butler a bad writing award in 1997:
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
In a recent Ted Talk called "The Complexities of Gender," Sam Killerman (who calls himself a comic, a fitting profession for a gender theorist), provides the sum total of tripartite gender theory in about two minutes: 1) "gender identity," self-identification as male or female; 2) "gender expression," behaving as male or female; and 3) biological sex. He says, "There are as many versions of gender as there are versions of you," which means the term has no meaning. He repeats the foundational anti-male enmity of gender theory: "[there is] no extent to the limit of the Y [chromosome] privilege."
It is incredible that people who have oxygen supply to their brains are willing to listen to this. Actually, scientists working at Israel's Weizmann Institute of Molecular Genetics, probably not a Christian alt-right crew, have determined that there are 6,500 genes that are expressed differently in males and females. In truth, every human cell speaks its name of man or woman.
In another Ted Talk, "Beyond the Gender Binary," Yee Won Chong tells how he came out as "gay" in his mid-twenties. Now in middle age, he has started a "medical transition" to female. The gist of his talk is in opposition to the "sex binary" and expresses the fundamental fallacy of transgenderism, that being male or female is based on a social "assignment" that occurs after birth. This assignment is presented as almost a coin toss. He states, "It is common to conflate sexual orientation and gender identity because both are associated with gender." Neither is about gender, because there is no such thing as gender in human life. Homosexuality is not a gender. What is called gender identity boils down entirely to a profile of male and female characteristics. Chong demands of cisgenders, "Do not assume everyone goes by he or she" and suggests that they find out preferred pronouns and honor them. He is asking 99.99% of the population to doubt their own eyes and ears and live in his confusion. This is like someone who is depressed asking other people not to smile.
In a matter of months, the new diagnostic label Gender Incongruence will be installed in the U.N.'s World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). American psychiatrists and psychologists have resigned leadership in researching mental problems. The U.N. is more likely to identify being Israeli as a mental disorder than to turn back the clock on gender victimology.
The following table explains the clinical implications when an identity disorder is reframed as a political cause. We are on a dangerous path.
|Clinical Implications of Transgenderism vs. Sex Identity Disorder|
|Gender Incongruence||Sex Identity Disorder|
|Based on leftist/progressive political viewpoint & assumptions of interdisciplinary gender theory.||Bio-psychological scientific knowledge of sex, sexuality, psychosocial identity formation & abnormal psychology.|
|History, severity, chronicity, co-morbidities irrelevant to goals of transition and "reassignment." |
Advocacy more than psychotherapy.
Pressure to undergo medical transition (artificial resexuation) which is viewed as final solution.
|History, severity, chronicity, co-morbidities essential in helping unique person in whole-life context. |
Psychotherapy more than advocacy. Enables patient to consider full range of psychological issues and adjustment options.
Resexuation is not solution for everyone.
|Minimizes limitations & physical/psychological dangers of artificial resexuation.||Realistic information about risks and limitations of artificial resexuation, which presents different set of problems.|
|Demands approval & special rights. |
Devalues differing beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
Dr. Deborah C. Tyler, clinical psychologist
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.