At some point in the last decade, everything became about trans people. And I wanted to know why. So two years ago, when I began making this video, I knew things were bad. Stop the harm. Stop the harm. Transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely. But it's so much worse than I thought. We've interviewed Craig's family recently. They say that the therapy you did with him as a child led directly to his suicide as an adult. What do you say about that? I didn't know that. That's too bad. The more I dug, the worse it got. I want to make you understand what I'm getting at. Now take your clothes off. What I found was lies, abuse, and conspiracies. Decades of studies built upon vulnerable children. Every single part of trans research is rotten. And it all starts with this question. Why are people transgender? In 1990, there were four recorded cases of transgender kids in the UK. In 2021, there were more than 5,000. But this video isn't about that question. It's about the people who try to answer it. [Music] I think I think I have an idea for a new video. I'm kind of working on something else right now right there. But this book, I got it recommended or I I saw some people recommending it of exposing the trans lie inside the UK um health service. It's called A Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock's Gender Service for Children by Hannah Barnes. Hannah Barnes is a um is a journalist from the UK. Anyways, h if you don't know because nobody knows, the Tevertock gender service for children was the place in the UK where children could get help if they are transgender or if they show signs of gender dysphoria. The first chapter starts from the uh point of view of a clinician called Anna Hutchinson. Dr. Hutchinson was seriously concerned. Are we hurting children? She asked, keen to be reassured. It's the question that underpins everything she's feeling. She was not told no. So, the whole point of this book is to examine whether the health service was hurting children and specifically children, trans children, children with gender dysphoria. This is all fine and dandy, right? But something just doesn't something doesn't Sorry. Something doesn't add up. Let me put you down here. Hannah Barnes seems like an honest journalist, right? She uh uses a lot of citations and she uses the right pronouns for trans people. She's totally woke. But in bringing credibility to the book's narrative, Time to Think, she interviews a lot of different experts, a host of them. Those are among a couple of others. Susan and her husband Marcus Evans, um, Asa Keem, David Bell, Kirsten Whistle, Melissa Midian, and then of course Anna Hutchinson. Who is Anna Hutchinson, you ask? I can hear you. Anna Hutchinson is a clinical psychologist with more than 25 years of experience. There are five themes that I think are interesting that I maybe want to have a look at. So the first one is um this one. Whereas most most of the literature on gender non-conforming children was about boys who had a lifelong sense of gender in congruence, Hitsu's waiting room was overpop populated with teenage girls whose distress around their gender had only started in adolescence. That's a rapid increase in the amount of trans people and we know this that trans people have kind of become a hot button topic, right? Listen to this. Many of them were samesex attracted. The same was true for the boys attending kids and many were autistic. Their lives were complicated too. So many seemed to have other difficulties, eating disorders, self harm, depression or had suffered abuse or trauma. How could such different lives and presentations lead to the same answer. Puberty bloggers. There's this rapid increase. There are so many more kids coming into this service. uh most of them are autistic or they're they're complex in some way and they are very vulnerable. Hannah Bans keeps saying that these are vulnerable children and they get puberty bloggers and puberty bloggers by the way is described as something pretty horrific. They're called um extreme medical intervention in the first couple of pages. And listen to this. While there are studies that describe the self-reported high satisfaction of young people and their families of being on puberty bloggers and some improvement in mental health, others suggest there is evidence that puberty blogger use can lead to changes in sexuality and sexual function, poor bone health, stunted height, low mood, tumorlike masses in the brain, and for those treated early enough to continue on to cross sex hormones, almost certain infertility. Maybe they get make these children happier. But she also writes, "Many studies claim to show the benefits of puberty bloggers to mental health, but these have all been heavily critiqued and shown to have significant methodological flaws." Okay. Anna Hutchinson, the the clinical the clinician from before um asks, "What if it's not right to put young people, 10 year olds on puberty bloggers?" "It is mad," was the reply. So why why do it? I don't get it. If it's so bad, one thing is trans people going through the whole puberty block ordeal. But what if it's what if they aren't trans? We know that not all young people who identify as trans go on to live as trans adults. Hutchinson says, "These studies are small and imperfect with methodological flaws, but according to the NHS showed that in prepubertal children, mainly boys, the dysphoria persisted into adulthood for only 6 to 23% of cases. Boys in these studies were more likely to identify as gay in adulthood than as transgender. According to the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the DSM5, rates of childhood gender dysphoria continuing into adolescence or adulthood range from 2 to 30% for males and 12 to 50% in females. There's a rapid increase in the amount of children. Uh, a a lot of these children are autistic and it's they're complex somehow and they all get puberty bloggers, but puberty bloggers are bad and maybe they aren't trans. It's like, I don't know, those five things shouldn't be that hard to look into. rapid increase autism complexity, puberty blockers, and um the transition. Should be a should be a small quippy video. This video has taken up my day every day for the last 2 years. It has taken up my weekends. It has made me drop out of university. It has made me stay in a lowpaying dead-end job only because it was the only way I could keep focus on this. But every time I thought I finally reached the end, every time I thought I finally understood the inner workings of this thing, I always managed to turn a corner only to find that I'd really only seen the first floor. That there are levels to this, that the network looped back upon itself, that really everything I thought I understood or knew was only partly true or an outright lie. I'm not a journalist and I don't even have enough subscribers to make money off of this video, but I'm extremely obsessive. Then again, I'm not a perfectionist. There are more things I haven't managed to fit into this way too long video, and there's even more I don't fully understand yet. It's not done, but you know, I am, and that's okay. You know, I've been wrong for a long time. The gender, feminism, economics, on one hand, I didn't understand, but on the other hand, I don't think I wanted to understand just how wrong I can be. And then I went to therapy that one time and realized, hey, being wrong is okay. But staying wrong, however, hurts not only me, but in turn makes me hurt the people around me. I know I was wrong and it hurts to accept that you're wrong, but if you want to get better, you have to accept it. All of this is just to say if you watch the whole video and disagree with everything I'm saying, then you're wrong. Now, you may think I'm this or that, but just close down the video, be angry, and come back later. Okay? I just want to read you the last three sentences of the opening chapter of time to think which I think sums up my approach to this. Um because for me it's about healthcare really and how so many people sat back, watched and did nothing. It takes Hanniban's 500 pages and 92 sources to conclude that yes uh they were hurting children and on this we agree. I also think children are being hurt, but how they're being hurt or pretty much everything else. No, I do not agree with Barnes. Look, Hannah Barnes is so wrong that trying to retrace her steps has led me to question, well, pretty much everything I thought I knew. How do I know Barnes and this book is wrong? Well, there are two ways of going about it. You could read through all his sources through the decades of research, court documents, counterarguments, sociological and scientific advancements, political movements, leaks, corruption, and motives. All my sources are linked right here and in a separate document in the description. You could do that or, you know, you could just listen to trans people. And to any trans person watching, you don't need me to tell you that you have a right to exist. You deserve love and kindness, but you don't need me to tell you that. And if you're trans, I'll warn you, there's very little kindness in what I'm going to show. So, all in all, let me show you what happened when I looked into those five small things. rapid onset of possible transness, autism, complexity, puberty bloggers, and desistence. But first, we're going to have to lay out some fundamentals just so we don't accidentally misunderstand each other. Chapter 2, transphobia. In the summer of 2019, Kirsty and Whistle published an open letter to the director of the Tavistock clinic, Poly Carmichael. Christian Whistle is one of the people who hands interviews in a time to think and whistle had begun her work with the Tavstar clinic in October of 2017. She lasted exactly one year. The open letter is a little superficial as she herself admits that she was a little naive about the whole gender stuff when she started working there. But what's interesting is not really her professional warriors. It's the same stuff about puberty blockers and complexity and dransition that I'll go over in a bit. The interesting part is her personal worries. She mentioned how she has continued to follow transgender issues online. And one of the things I felt concerned about is seeing the bullying and intimidation for those people who raise valid concerns and how she urges the director to look up stories of dransitioners. It's very clear that she's afraid, honestly. Afraid of what might happen to those children she oversaw, afraid of the reaction she'll get when she publishes the letter, and that she'll be ignored and labeled a transphobe. Kirsty and Whistle mentions transphobia 14 times throughout her letter. One of the major themes in Hannah Ban's book, aside from the whole vulnerable children thing, is how quickly the Tavisto had to expand. that there wasn't enough time to think. I mean, I obviously time to think is is the rationale for the blocker, but it it was also that it was too there were there was no time to think for any of these clinicians either. Whenever a clinician wanted to explore other options, they were disincentivized to do so. Whenever someone tried to think critically instead of accepting a child's gender and version of events, they were shut down. Whenever someone was raising valid concerns about their child or gender ideology in general, they were called a transphobe because that is what these concerns were, not transphobia, safeguarding and clinical concerns. But uh neither Hannah Barnes nor Christian Whistle ever define what transphobia is. It just kind of sounds bad. And Whistle writes in her letter that calling people transphobic when there are clearly no ground for this allocation causes clinicians to feel anxious about raising concerns. It's almost framed as a slur. And this makes sense if you Google transphobia definition and click on the first result. Both Oxford Cambridge and Miriam Webster defined it something like this. Dislike or fear of and/or aversion to trans people. No one likes being a bad person and this is bad person behavior. Come on. In whistle seems like a person who would march with trans people if they were discriminated against. I fundamentally disagree with Oxfords and Cam Bridges and Miriam Webster's definition. Stick with me for a bit here. Okay, let's say hypothetically that a child is born. A doctor inspects them and finds evidence suggesting the existence of external genitalia penis. The doctor yells out, "It's a boy." And the amorphous child ceases to exist and transform into a boy. Nothing has changed, but everything has changed. When the boy grows up, he might like the idea of being a man. Cool. Maybe he doesn't really think about it. Oh, so cool. If that's the case, he would go under the definition of cisgender or just sis. That means that the gender he was assigned at birth, boy, matches the one he identifies with, man. But maybe the boy doesn't like the idea of being a man. Also cool, but then they might not be a man. Then they might be transgender. So a trans woman is someone who was deemed to be a boy when they were born, but they are actually a woman. A trans man is someone who was deemed to be a girl when they were born, but they are actually a man. What if they don't feel like either a man or a woman? Well, then they're neither non-binary. And what does it feel like to be not a man nor a woman? Don't ask me. I don't know. The three genders, man, woman, and prefer not to answer. By the way, uh some people will have you believe that sis is a slur. It's not. It might feel bad when someone tries to define who you are or like your identity nullifies your experience. Huh? I'm going to use both sis and trans to make it easier to understand what and who I'm talking about. This would be a really bad video if I was scared of offending anyone. And like sure, some people hate trans people. Then the original definition makes sense. But let me explain why that isn't the whole picture. When we talk about racism or homophobia is not only defined as fear, aversion, or dislike. These isms and phobias are also about the relation of one group to another. So it would be sexist to believe that men are superior in nature to women, right? And racist to believe that one ethnic group of people is innately superior to another. I'd argue it's the same way with gender identity. So simply transphobia is believing that transgender people and being trans is inferior to cisgender people and being cis. But it's also something more because we can see the color of people's skin. And we can see when two people make out who are the same gender. We can observe and accept the existence of this with our own eyes. But gender identity, well, we kind of have to trust that what the person is telling us is the truth. Transphobia then is not just believing in the inferiority of a group. It's also questioning whether that group even exists. Chapter 3. Gender. Because the end whistle said, "I don't have a gender identity. I'm just female." This was immediately branded as transphobic. Okay. Even with the definition of transphobia I just gave, that statement doesn't make sense to label transphobic. [Music] Or does it? I I think we can all agree that whether a man is masculine or feminine, a man is still a man, right? Let me paint the picture for you. Slim wrists, not a hair on his chest, sitting and knitting on his sofa. He might even be wearing a dress. It doesn't matter. This man is still a man. A feminine man being feminine doesn't make him any less of a man in principle. But but we can also all agree that this man is not very masculine. Right? Now let's say for the sake of argument that this man doesn't want to be feminine anymore. He begins to work out. His shoulders broaden. He stops shaving, growing a beard, takes off the dress, and puts on a suit. Total Chad. And now he's much more masculine. All right. So we all somehow know implicitly that some traits are masculine and some traits are feminine. We also know that a person can make themselves more masculine or feminine. But even though masculinity and femininity might be a spectrum, this doesn't change that a man wearing a dress is still a man wearing a dress. Dresses don't make you female, right? Still just looks and actions, descriptors. We can picture the most feminine man ever, but it's still a man. And this is actually really interesting because this hypothetical man is only imaginary. He doesn't have chromosomes. But you know that he is a man because I tell you he is. So when I say the words, I am a man, you can judge my looks and actions and how that compares to your idea of a man, the male archetype perhaps. So you can judge my gender. But when I tell you I am a man, your idea of me is contextualized against what I am saying. You have no idea about my chromosomes or girth or whatever. I promise you I am a man. And there both the promise and the action of telling you what I am is a performance of gender. The man wearing the dress is a man because that's what he is and that's his gender identity. But biology, I hear you ask. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We'll get to that. Anyways, I'd argue that cisgender people think just as much about gender as trans people do. It's just not an active distinction we make. It's so ingrained in us. It's so fundamental to us as humans that there's no way not to think about it. But exactly because it's so fundamental, we don't even realize that we think about it. Cisgender people constantly try to alter our gender. the way we are perceived against what it means to be a man or a woman. Let's see. Hair transplants, steroids, getting your chest hole pushed out or breast implants, BBLs and lip fillers, Viagra, laser hair removal, finestide, dermar rollers, wearing bras, breast tissue removal, vagina, comastia, hormone replacement against menopause, hormone replacement therapy against aging in men. I sorry I my sources are in the script. Goddamn testicular implants. Yes, all of this has to do with gender. You might even call it gender affirming care. Actually, why don't we call this gender affirming care? What is the difference between a sis person and a trans person trying to live up to how they want to be perceived? For any trans person trying to get help or treatment, they usually have to go through the medical system and that means getting diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This acts as a third party stamp of approval that yes, this person needs treatment. Gender dysphoria is simply when the sex you were assigned at birth doesn't match up with the one you actually are. That your gender identity is in congruent with your assigned gender. that your body doesn't match your gender, that the you you are is far from the ideal. And maybe this doesn't sound so different from what you and I might feel when we look in the mirror, but there has to be a difference, right? This gender dysphoria must be another kind. Okay, so what if I told you that not all trans people experience gender dysphoria? It's not gender dysphoria that makes a person trans. Not all trans people have this knowing feeling of being born in the wrong body. And this is why I think it gets kind of uncomfortable for a lot of cisgender people. How do we know that someone is trans if they don't fit into the diagnosis of what should make them trans? What actually makes someone trans? Well, I don't know. I don't know. Don't look at me. Listen to trans people. It's well known that not all trans people experience dysphoria and it's generally accepted that you don't legally need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to get treatment. Well, try getting a doctor to take you seriously with that attitude. Bucko Hannah Barnes actually writes about this phenomenon in her book. Some children learn from others what they should and shouldn't say at kids to access hormone treatment. for example, that they're advised not to admit to previous abuse or trauma or uncertainty about their sexual orientation. Oh my god, these children help each other, woke mind virus, etc., etc. But, but okay, think for a moment. Why does the medical system act like Burkheim's doorman? Even the children know that this way of looking at transess as a condition to be fixed is a pretty bad way of looking at it. Young people faced the long waits and often experienced the GID system as gatekeeping. Most of those attending GIDs didn't see themselves as having a psychological or medical condition. And yet they had to face what can seem like intrusive, repetitive, and unnecessary questioning. This isn't just something these kids do. It has literally always since the introduction of the word transsexual to the English language in the 1950s been like this. When the first transexuals were evaluated for their suitability for surgery, their behavior matched up gratifyingly with Benjamin's criteria. It took a surprisingly long time, several years, for the researchers to realize that the reason the candidates behavioral profiles match Benjamin so well was that the candidates too had read Benjamin's book, which was passed from hand to hand within the transsexual community, and they were only too happy to provide the behavior that led to acceptance for surgery. These people have to convince the doctors to take them seriously and the only way to do that is to play into the doctor's preconceived notions of what a trans person should be. It becomes a feedback loop. The clinicians write articles reaffirming the diagnostic criteria and the only people who are seen as really trans are those who match the criteria and so on and so on. I'm not saying that gender dysphoria isn't a real thing. I'm just saying that what it means to be trans is more than being born in the wrong body. Okay. But actually, what makes someone trans? Then there must be some factor somewhere that one person is trans and another person isn't. And honestly, that's what this whole video is about. The search for a why. I've seen two rationale for this search for a cause. On one hand, a course would validate trans people in their existence. Then they wouldn't need to convince anyone. There would be something tangible to point to and maybe people would begin to take them seriously. On the other hand, the other reason and the one I will be focusing on is that with a cause, it would allow doctors to actually treat the trans condition to fix and eradicate a thing they so want to be pathological to stop people from being trans. To come back to Kirsty and Whistle's comment, saying, "I don't have a gender identity. I'm just female." was probably called transphobic because her job was literally about gender identity. Maybe she should have known better, but she definitely shouldn't have taken so personally. What's worse, calling someone racist or that someone actually being racist? Well, I don't think about racism. I'm just skin colored and colorblind. The patriarchy doesn't exist. Men have a really high suicide rate. Haven't you heard? I don't care about money. I'm a landlord. I don't think about my sexuality. I'm just normal. I don't have a gender identity. Pronouns are woke rights. I'm a man. I'm a male. I'm a he. You know, I don't care why trans people are trans. Easy for me to say, I know. But I also don't have an answer. Humankind is not defined by how we relate to our animal ancestors, but how we differentiate from them. What it means to be a man and a woman shifts throughout time and culture. And exactly because it shifts, because we have the power to influence these shifts. And because the ideals themselves are contradictory, inongruent, and impossible, we see gender as separate from sex. So, what is sex? Chapter 4, biology. Before we can get back to Hannah's book, I want to go through one last thing. To do that, I think I should introduce you to Helen Joyce, someone who wasn't featured in Time to Think. Joyce has a formal education in mathematics together with a PhD in geometric measure theory. From 2005 till 2022, Joyce was employed by the newspaper The Economist where she worked as finance editor, international editor, and then executive editor. But around 2017, Joyce came to an earthshattering revelation. She found out that trans people exist. She had to tell others about the harrowing news. Some hear ominous echoes of another time when well-meaning adults enthralled on ideology put children in harm's way. The post 1968 sexual liberation movement on continental Europe sought to overturn sexual taboos and some thought that meant starting young. In German kindergartens run along radical left lines. Teachers encourage children to fondle them, look at pornography and simulate intercourse. This article is in response to many of the same themes that Hanniban's book covers. Early transition, hormones, surgeries, and then she imagines a future filled with inevitable nasty transitions. But while Barnes is kind of bland, Joyce goes into almost pornographic detail on surgeries, sex determination, and then correlates the leftists and pedophilia. And take a look at the next paragraph. Such child abuse was motivated by political conviction, not sexual desire. But it did not take long for pedophiles to spy an opportunity. The radical left was led by men focused on legalizing homosexuality and smashing the nuclear family. Though they did not intend to endanger children, they gave them little thought. I think her writings gives us a good idea of how she thinks the world works. Another example might make it a little clearer. So, let's fast forward to 2021 when Helen Joyce published her first book, Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. This is not a book about trans people. I will present the scientific research into what causes gender dysphoria and cross- sex identification, but it is irrelevant to evaluating the truth of gender identity ideology and to whether self-declared gender should replace sex across society. This is rather a book about trans activism. It is a story of policy and institutional capture of charitable foundations controlled by billionaires joining forces with activist groups to pump money into lobbying behind the scenes for legal change. I'd argue that gender has replaced sex a long long time ago. Anyways, I want to focus on how she imagines the trans agenda has gone to be. A few wealthy people can have considerable sway. They have shaped the global agenda. Now, Joyce has the courtesy of actually naming these few wealthy people who she accuses of having shaped the global agenda. Jennifer Pritska, John Striker, Martin Rothblat, and George Soros. And okay, first of all, the idea of equal rights, gay rights, and trans rights as not that grassroot movement, but instead a small cabal of people pulling the strings to bring power to the people or ruin western civilization or whatever is an abject lie. Like outright, it's a completely idiotic and uninformed statement to make. Even the smallest glimpse of any history book on, you know, any part of any class uprising will make it crystal clear. Then again, choice is just a mathematician. Okay. Second of all, those four people, Rothblat, Striker, Pritsker, and Soros, all have one thing in common. And can you possibly guess what that is? Yes, they're all Jewish. But since Joyce doesn't provide any sources, we can't for sure know if she is actively spewing neo-Nazi Jewish questions about propaganda or if she's just very very unlucky and her objectively wrong hypothesis of a global agenda controlled by four people who simply happens to be Jews was just a little oopsie. That is, we can't know for sure unless the hypothesis lines up perfectly with another article from Jennifer Blake, another anti-trans activist. And Joyce wrote that she had a meeting with Ble and also commented that while we were waiting for her book, we could read more about the following the money in Bleck's pieces. So yeah, that's what happened. Joyce got the idea from Blick. I lied a little bit before. I don't know if Striker is actually Jewish, but Bleck definitely thinks he is. And Jennifer Beleck is a Nazi conspirator. I'm not being pedantic when I say that Belong does whole highing, Jewhating Nazi propaganda. The radical right is led by evangelicals focused on repressing the people and securing a future for children. And it does not take long for Nazis to spy an opportunity. While Joyce might not be a neo-Nazi, she was too motivated by her political conviction, not moral obligation, to notice when she laundered their ideas. Though Joyce didn't intend to platform Nazis, she gave them little thought. But it's such an simple, easy way of viewing the world. Easy explanations, quick conclusions based on hasty assumptions about something she obviously knows next to nothing about. [Music] But this actually has nothing to do with what I wanted to talk about. This is about something way more boring. This is about sex. So, let's zoom into one particular interview Helen Joyce gave to Peter Posian. I think that they often think that you are dog whistling, that you're you're not actually saying what you think. You're saying a palatable lie as a sort of as a gateway into what you might actually think. As a gateway to like throw trans people in ovens. Yes. Yes. Exactly. Even if that's true, wouldn't it be best to just try to use reason, evidence, and argument to defeat the claim on the board? Oh, blind me. Caught in an alley with a murderer. Don't shout for help. It's loud and grating and may irritate the general public. Oh, why not try debating your way out with facts logic instead? Peter, are you are you are you stupid? Uh so we're seeing the worst mass delusion and spread of a culturebound syndrome globally that the world has ever seen. Uh it's on something very fundamental which is the the type of species we are namely mamalian with two sexes. It's extremely harmful to children to women to gay people. Don't think it's great for men either frankly because it's so anti-reality. And so of course you've got to stand up and fight it if you see this. But it's ridiculous. Oh my god. I've never said so. I've never had to counter so many stupid things in my life. Idiotic. Like, imagine I'm having to tell you what sex means. We both know what sex means. It wasn't even a question before. I just want to remind you that Helen Joyce is a mathematician. She has no background in biology, sociology, psychology, nothing. She is as much of an authority figure on this as I am, which says a lot. But maybe especially as a mathematician, something which should be by the laws of nature a static field. I'm not sure I can stress how idiotic it is to think that we both know what sex is. Just like everything that seems basic and is used by the wider public, sex is pretty goddamn complicated. So when a doctor wants to determine the sex of a baby, they go to inspect the genitalia. Sometimes this happens with an ultrasound or later when the child is born. Simply is dick present and this is the most basic common way of determining the sex of a person. But calling it sex determination is a misnomer. The only thing really being established is the existence or lack of a fallace. Because while you might reasonably assume that the corresponding gonads, chromosomes, and hormone production follows, this is wrong. Genital inspection literally only establishes the existence of genitals. Nothing else. You see, biology doesn't conform to the neat categories we use to make things easier to understand. So then you might say, well, a man has XY chromosome and a woman has XX chromosomes. And this is both right and wrong. Men are expected to have XY chromosomes and women are expected to have XX chromosomes. But we cannot make this correlation with absolute certainty. Penis is just a penis. A man is just a man and neither are about chromosomes. M the truth that is rooted in our bib biblical understanding that God set forth from the beginning of creation is that your gender is fixed at birth and you cannot change it. And again, you haven't yet answered my question about where do inter where do interex people fall into that equation. Yeah, those interex individuals are still XX or XY. So you can't change that. You sure you don't know? Andy, that's not true. Some people are born with both a penis and a vagina. Are they a man or a woman? Maybe a person can be born with female XX chromosomes yet also be born with a penis or be born with a vagina and have male XY chromosomes. Some people are born with XXY or XY carotypes. Some are born with a single X. Some are lucky to have the hottest version, the triple X variant. Some have XX Y and some even have one part of their body BXY and another part of their body BXX. And the list of these varieties go on. And this is what we call interex. Look, I'm not arguing that sex doesn't exist. I'm not even arguing that interex people are necessarily a third kind of sex. It's just that what a man is or what a woman is is not two very unique categories. but instead clusters of data points we then assign a value either man or woman. I can also make a religious argument for this if that's something you dig. Uh so this is from uh the Bible. You may have heard about it. Then the Lord made a woman from the ribe taken out of the man and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman for she was taken out of man. And it's the same with the Quran. Oh humanity, be mindful of your Lord who created you from a single soul and from it he created its mate. Man and woman are not separate but of one flesh of one soul. Anyways, intersects. I remember in an editorial meeting the first time I heard somebody say um oh 2.7% of people are interex as many as have red hair. That's just one of those talking point things and I was completely boggled. I was like what? Like I've literally never met somebody who can be categorized as male or female. So what's your point? Yeah. If we take a closer look at these outliers, I think it gives us a much better understanding of the instability of sex and how far people go to groom biology to fit into two simple boxes. There are two statistics I've seen being used to estimate the frequency of interex people being born. Either that 1.7% of the population is interex or that 0.03% of the population is interex. And both estimates are right, but it just depends on the definition. Only one of those estimates is used to invalidate certain groups. And can you guess which? Some people only acknowledge interex when there is true confusion. When the doctor pulls you out and has no idea what they're looking at, or when you have, let's say, the body of a man, but the reproductive organs of a woman, or when the chromosomes don't match the physical body. This is around 0.02% to 0.05% of the population. The 1.7% includes Kleinophila and Turner syndromes having XXY or a single X chromosome. And that's as common as people with red hair. Nature doesn't decide where the category of male ends and the category of interex begins or where the category of interex ends and the category of female begins. Humans decide. Wherever the line is drawn, we still don't entirely know how common being interex really is. For one, most people never get their chromosomes checked because why would they? Also, even if we only take the estimates of ambiguous genitalia, we still can't make a reliable estimate. It was only in 2015 that the EU recognized that interex people had the right not to get sex reassignment surgery. Listen to this. The prevailing medical opinion is that ambiguous sex can and should be fixed. And in fact, genital surgeries on interex babies have become routine in spite of the fact that they are rarely medically necessary. Emphasis is placed on the newborn's ability to pass for one sex or the other, thus meeting social expectations rather than on the child's best interest and welfare. For example, male newborns with penises smaller than 2 cm considered too small are assigned the female gender and reconstructed to look female, while clitorises larger than 0.9 cm are considered too big and are reduced in size. Joyce introduced her book by wondering whether self-declared gender identity should replace sex across society. But we have never used sex. There's only ever been gender identity. Those who fit and those we make fit. The only difference is that instead of other people declaring your gender, you should have the power to make that declaration yourself. Seriously, we practically never ever use sex because sex is not defined by genitalia, reproductive organs, hormones or chromosomes. Sex is determined by the size of gametes. the sex reproductive cells, the oam and spermatossa, the egg and [ __ ] A man is then someone who produces the small types of gametes and a woman is someone who produces their large size. But aren't we just back at reproductive organs again? Aren't you a woman if you can't produce eggs? Or aren't you a man if you can't produce sperm? Of course you are. Gender critical people who thinks that biological sex is real, important, and immutable have gone from believing sex is related to genitals, but that would mean surgery could change your sex to thinking that reproductive organs define sex. But of course, if infertility erase your sex, it would be Armageddon for one in six people to chromosomes. And this is where it stops being basic biology where chromosomes and hormones and brain differences shift from being a binary to spectrum because it counterintuitively is more precise to gametes. And of course your sex isn't defined by your ability to actually produce gametes. Then infertility would kind of invalidate this argument. Again, it's like Matt Walsh when he and I don't agree with a lot of Matt Walsh's politics, but when he went around going, "What is a woman?" I know. I know. Did you watch that film? Yeah, I did. I do. Remember the chicken? They they do chickens cry. Sounds like we've established there are some people who in principle can get pregnant and there are some people who can't. So there's two categories otherwise known as binary. Lots of women can't get pregnant either. Yeah. But they're still of the nature to get pregnant. So sex is not defined by your body, but whether the organism to which you most closely relate is designated to produce eggs or produce [ __ ] And then we just end up back where we started. Yes, sex is a thing that exists, but no, it has no bearing on who you are. Exactly because it is so complicated. Exactly because normal people can't use gametes for anything. Exactly. Because genitals and gonads and chromosomes and hormones don't fit into neat categories into two neat boxes. It is us, the people who have made the distinctions of what ultimately defines a person. Sex tells us so much, but at the same time, it doesn't tell you or me anything at all. When examining the term sex under a microscope, the dividing walls vanish. We're left with categories that seem made up because it makes the world easier to understand, huh? Maybe like they're con like they constru constructed in some way. I have to pause for a moment, guys, because an important ruling just came up. The UK Supreme Court has now ruled on a definition of what is a woman. Finally. Finally, Matt Walsh has an answer. Thank the Lord. This ruling was only done to exclude trans women from women's spaces. And this was done by three organizations. The Lesbian Project, LGBT Alliance, and Sex Matters. And to bring it back around, Helen Joyce is a director of advocacy for sex matters. She has then had a direct influence on what defines a woman. A woman in the eyes of the UK Supreme Court is defined by her biology. What is biology? You ask. Well, I also ask that question because every single newspaper article I read doesn't mention it. They just say, "No, it's defined by biology." Now, after reading through the 80 or so pages, I can conclude that h is England dumb. Is England kind of stupid? The UK Supreme Court just ruled that a woman is defined by her biology. And that is not chromosomes, it's not gametes, it's not hormones, it's not phenotypical sex characteristics, it's not secondary or primary sex characteristics. No, a woman is defined by her ability to give birth, her ability to bear children. A woman in the eyes of the UK Supreme Court is a birthing machine. And you can decide for yourself if that's a good thing. Oh, Jasper, but have you given a slight piece of a thought to sex differences in sports? H I I don't give a [ __ ] about sports. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care about sports. I don't care. These are real human beings we are talking about. I don't care about sports. I don't care. I don't care. With all that out of the way, we can finally get to debunking time to think. So, just to reiterate, there are only five things I wanted to look at. Children are rapidly getting gender dysphoria. These vulnerable children are autistic. This is too complex to figure out. They go on to extreme medical intervention. Puberty bloggers. and five almost all of them will dransition. Chapter 5 R O Gd Whereas most of the literature on gender non-conforming children was about boys who had a lifelong sense of gender in congruence's waiting room was overpop populated with teenage girls whose distress around their gender had only started in adolescence. GIDS by the way stands for gender identity development service and this phenomenon of a rapid increase in the amount of girls referred to the tavtock is mentioned quite a lot by barns let's see it's mentioned on page 93 19 37 96 125 126 132 1345 147 168 172 174 4 176 181 224 233 248 249 292 296 306 37 336 339 351 413 424 428 434 and 453. And you would think that something which is given so much intention would also be given a name. But Barnes throughout the whole book never ever gives this precise definition of this phenomenon even though it's right it's right right on the tip of my tongue rapid rapid on incre let me introduce you to Lisa Litman who is a certified obstitrician and gynecologist Litman used to co-author papers on contraceptives so nothing really to do with gender dysphoria but this person who had no prior experience experience working with trans people has now become a household name in trans academia. You see, in 2016, she managed miraculously to establish a link between gender dysphoria and phone equals bad. Okay, that's oversimplifying a bit. Um, let's see how she describes it. So the ROGD hypothesis proposes that social influences, maladaptive coping coping mechanisms and other psychosocial factors can contribute to the development of gender dysphoria and transgender identification in recent populations of teens and young adults with late onset gender dysphoria. She calls this rapid onset of gender dysphoria or ROD. Even though Hannah Barnes constantly reinforces the idea of rapid ons and gender dysphoria, she never, not even once, mentions the theory by name, and I just can't get myself to believe that that isn't a deliberate choice. It's not as if Barnes doesn't know about Lisa Litman. She references one of Litman's newer studies on dransitioners later in the book. Uh back in 2016, Lisa Litman's original study, parent reports of adolescence and young adults perceived to show signs of rapid onto gender dysphoria strive to put an answer to the increase in the amount of referrals to gender clinics. like that chart from the Tavvertock I showed at the very beginning of the video, for example. Going from four cases in 1989 to more than 5,000 in 2021 is a 120,000% increase. It's unheard of. And hm, this can't be right. H there shouldn't be so many trans kids, right? Essentially, Litman started with a presumption of no, there shouldn't be so many trans kids. There can't be. what we're seeing can't be a real thing. And since it can't be a real thing, something must have triggered it in the youth. It must have a place of origin. It must be a sort of contagion. As I talked about before, a trans person usually needs to go through the medical system to get medical treatment. And as I said, that has in almost all circumstances throughout recent history been dependent on getting properly diagnosed with gender dysphoria. All diagnosis of gender dysphoria since the 80s have been one of these two categories. Gender dysphoria in adulthood and gender dysphoria in childhood. The explicit goal of Lisa Litman's study was to create a new third category, that of rapid onset of gender dysphoria. Rapid onset gender dysphoria seems to be a new subtype. This would allow researchers to have a tangible way to differentiate between real dysphoria and fake social media/attention/coping dysphoria. Let's see how this totally random guy Michael, what's his name? Bailey, frames it. A young adult woman who in therapy came to believe that her father molested her terribly over years. broke off contact with the family. Which is worse, that or having your daughter say she wants testosterone because she's trans? We shouldn't have to choose. Both this epidemic and the ROG epidemic represents the worst, most irresponsible, unforgivably irresponsible conduct of the mental health profession. Okay, that was taken a little out of context. Bailey is comparing rapid onset gender dysphoria and the rise in referrals with forced memory syndrome, a moral panic from the '9s where some psychotherapists made their clients believe that they had been victims of childhood sexual assault. Anyways, that's not what's important. What is important is the framing that it isn't real. that these people who are referred to gender clinics are in fact not transgender at all but cisgender children who have been duped into believing they are trans. I believe ROD to be the single most influential recent theory on transgender people. Why? Well, I've read tens of thousands of pages on trans research, and inevitably you end up noticing some patterns, theories, treatments, authors, and activists. But one particular pattern stood out. There was a very noticeable shift in 2017, like with Helen Joyce, for example, or even Hannah Barnes. Somewhere along the way, somebody must have emailed you and said, "Have you have you have you heard about what's going on in JIS at the Tavveristo?" No, it wasn't that. I think I first came across it at all in 2017 and there was really not very much around at all and this is right around when Litman's paper on rapid answer on gender dysphoria was published. I don't think it's the only factor but I think it was part of the perfect storm. In 2016 the most prominent researcher on trans people was fired. There was a BBC doc television documentary about what was going on in Canada and and Ken Zucker, who I know you've had on the show about what was going on with his clinic and um or what had happened. The theory of rood ushered in a new era of narratives. No longer was it a [ __ ] up kid here and there, but a threat to children in general. Okay. So this graph, yep, you can see a remarkable upturn that is an epidemic. But the theory of rapid onset gender dysphoria was rotten to its core before it was even published. And I think Hannah Barnes knows this. That's why she doesn't mention the theory in her book at all. So let's take a look at Lisa Litman's parent reports of adolescence and young adults perceived to show signs of rapid onto gender dysphoria. There are at least four problems with the study. Priming proxy bias and pathology. Before 2016, very few people talked about the rise in trans people and practically no one thought that it had something to do with a social contagion. Litman study even mentions as much. So the one thing you absolutely for any reason would not want to do was to plant the idea of cause and effect. You were being asked to take part in a research study if you have a child who when they were between the ages of 10 and 21 developed a sudden or rapid onset of gender dysphoria. This may have occurred in the context of either increased social media/ internet use and/or belonging to a friend group in which one or multiple friends have developed gender dysphoria and come out as transgender during a similar time frame. Look, I dropped out after three semesters in business and even I know that this is the biggest do not do please. It's the 101 of biased research. This was planting the idea that our odd is real. Let me reframe it to a different example. You are being asked to take part in a research study if you have a child who when they were between the ages of 1 and four developed autism. This may have occurred following the administration of an MMR vaccine. When you add the last part, you implicitly infer that there is a relation between vaccines and autism. That's going out of your way to create the connection. So when Litman asks, "How many of your children have experienced a sudden or rapid onset of gender dysphoria which began after puberty, she has primed the parents to think that gender dysphoria can be rapid and is caused by social media or friend groups." So no, she never asked the children. Instead, she asked the parents, which well was a bad idea. Not only does she rely on the parents to diagnose their kids with gender dysphoria and a hitherto non-existing form of rapid answer on gender dysphoria at that, she also relies on the parents to decide when this gender dysphoria manifested in their child. And look, parents, I I'm sure you want the best for your child, but you have no idea what's going on in their little heads. You aren't a mind readader. And being in trans usually involves coming out to the people around you. A person might feel something for years before they can admit their feelings to themselves. And then it's going to take more time for them to say it to anyone because what if they're wrong about what they're feeling? Senior Jones from gender analysis explains four separate studies of around 1,200 trans children and adolesccents. In all four studies, the child felt different, but it took them 3 years to see themselves as trans. When they felt trans, it still took a couple of years before coming out and yet another couple of years to live in their identity and gender. It's not an overnight thing. If they weren't trans, they likely wouldn't go through the years and years of waiting to get treatment. So, it's not that their children aren't trans. They're just not telling their parents right away. And then it's a simple boolean. They aren't trans in the eyes of the parents until they have told them. Of course, it seems rabid then. Some children actually have very good reasons not to trust their parents, but we'll get to that later. I hope that most parents want their kids to trust them. Look, some children are afraid of talking with their parents because they are afraid that the parents won't believe them. Many such cases actually. Oh, and would you look at that? Out of all the parents from Litman's study, only 2.5% believed their child when they said they were trans. That seems extraordinarily low, huh? [Music] This might have something to do with the people who answered the questionnaire. You see, Lisa Litman decided to recruit from three websites and one private Facebook group. Particularly the websites are interesting. Fourth wave now, transgender trend and youth transcritical professionals. Really rolls off the tongue. Well, those three websites are all deeply critical of trans people. Fourth wave now supports conversion therapy for trans kids. We oppose any form of therapy that seeks to change a child's sexual orientation. However, we are deeply concerned about the impact of recent so-called conversion therapy legislation forbidding careful nuance treatment of children and young people with gender dysphoria. Transgender trend and its founder Stephanie Davis Ara apparently don't believe in trans kids as we we don't have any evidence that children really are trans. This is a very new phenomenon which is based on no credible scientific research. Anyways, the last website youth transcritical professionals is it's closed down. Too bad I I could have talked about how its founder, Lisa Machano, most likely invented the whole social contagion thing and maybe even helped Litman write the theory. Or how Lisa Machano shared stories comparing trans support groups to ISIS. Or this one that compares being trans to a fetish. or this dransition story from someone named Jamie Shupe who conflates autism and gender and says transitioning is like the emperor's new clothes. Of course, Litman flings these accusations of oh soal transphobia to the side. If they hate trans people so much, why do 88% of them believe that trans people deserve the same rights as other people? I they would march with you if you were discriminated against. Please. But like, let's be honest, just because they accept that some people are trans, it doesn't mean that they would accept their own child being trans. Once again, I'll refer to Senior Jones and Heather McNamara. We also need to look at what else the general population believes about trans people. And that's not such a rosy picture, which I mean, look around or even better, just watch this video. The ROGD study is subject to selection bias, proxy bias, recall bias, and leading and loading question bias. Yes, it's that bad. Okay, I hear you say, "But that one pilot study might be bad, but aren't there any other good studies on ROG?" No, there aren't. The largest and most recent study on ROG recruited from parents of rood kids.com, which also uh it's retracted. Rapid onset gender dysphoria has been rejected as a theory by the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and 60 other medical associations. But there's something more fundamentally wrong with the ROG narrative. And that has to do with the whole contagion thing that being trans is a pathology or a harmful idea that can be contracted if you hang around the wrong sorts of people, which is not. Did you know that almost no people were left-handed 100 years ago? Even though people are born as left or right dominant or ambidextrous, the backward society of yesterday year punished people for writing with the wrong hand. Thereby, the lefties laid dormant until we found out, hey, this is really dumb. Maybe we should be okay with being left-handed. And then suddenly, like a miracle, more left-handed people emerged. Chapter 6. autism. Many of them were same-sex attracted. The same was true for the boys attending kids and many were autistic. Their lives were complicated, too. This is the second claim I'll be looking at from B's book. Time to think. Just like our odd, this is one of those themes that plays a large role. The words autism or autistic is mentioned more than 30 times throughout her book. The argument is essentially that autism somehow maybe causes people to be trans. Most of the cases with the parents who have contacted me, their children have been diagnosed with high functioning autism or asperers. A few of them, however, it's kind of going the opposite way. They're saying my child was never diagnosed with that. But now that they are coming out with rood, now I want them to be assessed to see whether they may have actually had autism, and that's why they're doing it. It's kind of It's weird how it's morphing in that way. First, let me ask, so what? So what if some of these children are autistic? What would that entail exactly? And this might surprise you, but I think there's a very good chance that some of these children are autistic. In a little bit, I'm going to show you several papers in favor of the hypothesis of the interplay of autism and gender dysphoria. But let me show you another explanation first. The psychiatrist Jack Turpin has noticed how basically all studies on the intersection of gender dysphoria and autism don't actually measure autism diagnosis, but instead they measure autistic traits. So he proposes that what can look like autism, social impairment for example, is not caused by autism, but instead by stress and anxiety. He argues that these children are not autistic but only show symptoms resembling autism which researchers then have mistaken for correlation. Okay. The argument for the intersection of autism and gender dysphoria goes something like the following. More and more people are getting diagnosed with autism. Whereas we once thought it was 1 in 150 people who were autistic, modern estimates land at around 1 in 36. So around 3%. I will not elaborate on this. But what about trans people? In a meta study of 641,000 participants, 24 of the gender variant respondents showed clinical levels of autistic traits compared to 5% of the cisgender group. So both of these groups are over the global estimate and on the surface this seems extraordinary but yeah you should take it with a grain of salt. Okay depending on the recruitment methods and what autistic criteria researchers look for the levels of autism in trans and gender diverse people can vary greatly from 4.8% to 26%. But even if we say that 26% of all trans people are autistic, it still doesn't explain the remaining 74% who aren't autistic. No, wait. It It actually doesn't even explain the 26% because we can't just equate autism with gender dysphoria. It's not like all autistic people are gender variant. So, what actually is their argument? How would autism make a person trans? Well, I've been lying a little bit because their argument isn't that autism makes you trans. only that it makes you gender dysphoric. As noted earlier, one idea is that ASD sometimes leads to intense interests in cross- sex objects or activities, giving rise to a clinical presentation of GD. This particular psychology, what's his name? Zuka implies that autistic people just get superficial obsessions like you know how hores get special interests and collects Pokémon or pictures of Randy from South Park or weep stuff and that's all really cool but maybe hm maybe maybe their special interests are women so they want to become women. Melissa Mitchen is also an expert from time to think. She's a psychotherapist who's worked with different parts of the Talisto clinic and uh coincidentally she shared an office with Anna Hutchinson the psychologist from the intro of this video and from the start of the book. Anyways, Mitchen and Hutchinson also has some theories on autism. We have also witnessed a coincidence of autistic spectrum conditions and gendered/sex distress. The lens of gender can seem very apt for these girls retrospectively to understand the difficulties. They realize their nent sexual desire is going to be problematic. They struggle in puberty because it is uncomfortable, weird, and unpredictable, particularly heightened if they happen to be on the autistic spectrum. Okay. All right. I feel like there's this underlying misogyny from a lot of these women's rights activists. Like, oh, these are just little girls. They don't know what's best for them. It's something that permeates much of the discourse on trans boys, but I don't actually have time to go into it. Also, I don't really feel like it's my place to speak. But this one, this one's really bad. That's really, really bad. But the argument isn't about autistic trans people because they don't actually believe that trans people exist. Listen to what Melissa Mitchin has to say. My take-home message is not any dispute about the existence of gender dysphoria as a set of symptoms and attendant experience, but rather the conflation of GD with transgender. It's never about helping autistic people or trans people. No, it's just another way to not take these children seriously, to erase their needs and voices. It's also such an infantilizing way of thinking about autistic people. Oh, these little artists don't even know what they're doing. They don't have free will. Their feelings are hard and they are vulnerable. So, we should make sure that they don't make these decisions themselves. They can't listen. The intersection of gender dysphoria and autism is one where suicidality is even more prevalent. And so is not being listened to. The presence of autism just gives these researchers like Melissa Midian and Anna Hutchinson an excuse to not believe what these children are telling them. We need to take these children seriously but not literally. Autistic people are rarely listened to sometimes because we are totally incompetent at explaining what we feel and that feels bad. Some participants described concerns that the affirmed gender had been questioned due to their autism diagnosis. They viewed it as an obsession, but it's really not the same thing. And I don't know why they thought that. I don't want to linger on this point too long. It's just that infantilizing autistic people is like really last decade. We aren't just exposed to Rainman as the only representation in this day and age. Yes, I do think that some of these children are autistic, but I don't think this is anything new. It's kind of cringe to go around and do postlude psychiatric evaluations on people, especially when you have no business doing it. But allow me to be hypocritical for a second, okay? If you go back and read some of the case studies from the 70s and 80s and '9s, it's not as if none of them have an autistic aura. Some of them are definitely giving a All right, there aren't any theories that fully explain why there is this core occurrence of GD and ASD. None really. But yes, a fraction of trans people might be autistic. But honestly, so what? Autism is never brought up in these debates to be more empathetic is only brought as a reason to not take people seriously. Maybe we should take them even more seriously since this is the only chapter where I can call myself an expert. I am autistic after all. Have you noticed? Let me just vibe for a sec and throw my own theory into the mix. Okay. Autistic people can have a hard time understanding the underlying structures of society. where things might come naturally to a neurotypical person. An autistic person first need to understand that something is and then why it is and then use it. And gender is complicated. Come on, that's what this whole video is about. So the hierarchical normative social structure of gender is observed and replicated in society but autist might experience it not as a given but as an confrontation and ask why not why don't I fit but why should I and that's why there are two wolves inside autistic people you either see through the [ __ ] and understand that gender is malleable and often times nonsensical and if that's the case why should you hold yourself to a non-functioning fabric licated standard or you find a simple quas high coherent narrative from conservatives chapter 7 complexity what binds these people like Hannah Barnes Senna Hutchinson Melissa Mitchen Christian Whistle Helen Joyce Peter Posian Jennifer Bleck and Lisa Litman together is not scientific rigor I mean obviously it's transphobia There, I said it. I said the magic word. Now the title finally makes sense. But it's not the kind where you hate trans people. I don't really think these people do. Okay, maybe Hillen Joyce does, but the other ones, even the Nazi, I don't think they hate trans people. I just think that they think that trans people don't really exist. I mean, I don't believe there's any actual instance of trans. I don't believe it's that kind of thing. It's a culturebound syndrome. You think the whole thing is a No, not the increas I I I I believe the whole thing is a culture ban syndrome. Oh my god. Really? Yeah. Yeah. Completely. Completely. Because there What does it mean to say that a man can really be a woman in [ __ ] Sam? So you don't believe that there's anybody like Buck Angel or any of these people who literally have something in their brain? Absolutely not. or maybe that one in like 10,000 is trans, but 99% of people who say they're trans are trying to deceive not only society, but also themselves. Honestly, this is rarely any better than hating trans people. So, this is the one chapter where I will not be debunking whatever Hannah Barnes wrote in her book. I'm not going to cover these children's trauma. Sure, whatever. They might have complex backgrounds, but I don't really care. Using trauma as an argument for why these children might not be trans is, I think, kind of disgusting. And my arguments against it would be the same as for autism. So what? If you still want an answer, a quick one. Gender dysphoria is not caused by trauma. Asterisks. Gender itself might be caused by trauma. Oh, climbing the mountain is an allegory for gender. Anyways, that's a discussion for another time and for people smarter than me. But if you want to know more, you should probably read um gender without identity. So instead, I want to look at what happens when you don't believe that trans people exist. And this is the narrative that binds these people together. That men are men and women are women. So simple. Okay. But what does it actually entail that men are men and women are women? How can you then explain trans people? And the answer to this is much more complex than just accepting that trans people exist. To do this, I think we need a very, very short explanation of where trans comes from. In the Western world, the trans condition can seem like a very new thing. What's called transgender today was until pretty recently known as transsexual. And the word transsexual was only introduced to the English language in the early 1950s. Transsexual was made as a distinction to transvestite. It became apparent to Harry Benjamin in the 1950s, one of the people who coined the term transsexual, the transsexual phenomenon, how some of these men didn't just dress as women. No, they felt like women. They were in all but physical appearance and sometimes also even in physical appearance women. What defined them as men was not themselves but their surroundings. This is in contrast to transvestite which Benjamin described as being primarily interested in the aesthetics of the opposite sex but not actually belonging to the opposite sex. The term transvestite was only coined in 1910 by Magnosfeld, one of the first and also most important sexologists. He dedicated a whole book to crossdressing. In English, that's transvesticism, the act of erotic crossdressing. Maybe the distinction between transvestite and transsexual was also made simply because operations became a possibility. Some of the people from Hishfel's book were only labeled transvestites. I think because transsexual or third gender or whatever wasn't part of the vocabulary. They know all too well that a profound contradiction exists between their bodies and their souls. Therefore, one can understand all too well that most of them wish they had been born female. It's not like this hadn't ever been documented before, even by earlier sexologists. I haven't seen anyone mention this, but since I took the time to read through several 100-year-old books on sexology, you are going to hear it now. A German fron ebing in sucopathia sexualis from 1886 also describes a cover of a people who now go under the term transgender. He just calls it transmutio sexus. The English sexologist Havlis used some other cool terms sexesthetic inversion or eonism in studies in the psychology of sex volume 2 from 1915. trans people have always existed. Anyways, what's important is the very framing we can observe in the history of sexology. In essence, the history of sexology is about the dividing the abnormal from the normal, the natural from the unnatural, the perverse from the pure. In Hinrich Khan's Sikopathia Sexualis from 1844, noted as the very first academic book on sexology, we can see this illustrated perfectly. On one side there's kois and on the other side it's everything else. Things that are still seen as heinous today and for good reason. Beiality, necrophilia, pedestine, but also also more normal things such as h onism and fruing and scissoring which Khn labels lesbian love. In all things perverse, Khan of course couples to inferior races, the opposite of the pure white breed. Khan was a super racist. I'd love to tell you that research has evolved beyond good and evil, but then I wouldn't be talking about it now, would I? There's a fascinating part of your book where you talk about a condition called I think it's pronounced autogenia. Autogyophilia. Gyophilia. I mean the best estimate of the number of men who are erotic crossdressers is about 3%. Really? Um so some share of those men, it's not just about the clothes for them. It's about the whole idea of being a woman. That's what's erotic. They imagine being a woman when they're making love. They imagine being a woman, you know, turns them on to just do anything that is coded female. [Music] Autogginophilia is how some people explain away what they can see with their own eyes. That trans people exist and with that transjoy exists as well. But they see trans not as a natural neutral state of being but regresses it back in history as a continuation of transvesticism just taken to the nth degree. They skew Harry Benjamin's argument and erases transsexuals or transgenders. Instead, autogophiles are men who get off on not just dressing as women but actually being women. Autogginaphiles they argue are men deviant perverts who like being women and who like dating women. Ooh. Now, there are a couple of problems with this idea. First of all, there's absolutely no scientific basis to it. Cisgender women get often themselves just as much as trans women do. Two, they strictly value the purity of femininity of trans women who date men. They call these people homosexual transsexuals over the queer femininity of trans women who date women. So, a pure or perverse dichotomy within the trans condition. any trans woman who is not exclusively attracted to men and who has not been um very feminine from early childhood which is kind of the stereotype. Any trans woman who's not like that is motivated by autoophilia. The book that popularized the theory was written like a bad W what pad story. The researchers actively drool over hot women in this book. I start upstairs to get the panoramic view and I see Kim for the first time on the stairs dancing, posing. She is spectacular, exotic and sexy. Her body is incredibly curvaceious which is a clue that it may not be natural and I notice a very subtle and not unattractive angularity of the face which is also not clearly diagnostic on this tall siren. It is difficult to avoid viewing Kim from two perspectives as a researcher but also as a single heterosexual man. Afterwards, my avowedly heterosexual male research assistant told me that he would gladly have had sex with her, even knowing Kim still possessed a penis. And these people don't take men's focus on [ __ ] and balls into account at all or penis theory or penis envy or anything. And of course, it doesn't account for the rise in teenage girls. But that's why the theory also needs ROG to work to balance the deviant men with the pure innocent girls. Seriously, there's nothing good or right about the story of autogeneria only that it fits into the narrative of the dichotomy of pure or perverse of woman or man. So that would be my evolutionary psychology explanation. We have heterosexuality and we have everything else. And among the everything else, we have those things that are not harmful and those things that are. This is Ray Blanchard, the inventor of the theory of autogophilia, but he's just a researcher. The one who popularized autographia is Michael Bailey. It was his horny writings I showed you before. He did it through his book, The Man Who Would Be Queen. Anybody who is sufficiently interested uh can Google the man who would be queen. And I want to give you another little excerpt which I think will make all this rambling make a lot more sense. When Bailey wrote the book in 2003, transgender was still called transsexualism and it was labeled as a mental disorder. And this is wrong. Not only is this whole video about trans people literally just being normal people, but we know for a fact it's wrong. 10 years later in 2013, a new version of the diagnostic manual, kind of the dictionary of psychiatry, was released. With that, transsexualism was relabeled to transgender and gender identity disorder became gender dysphoria. And then it was no longer recognized as a mental disorder. In 2003, none of this had happened yet, of course. But in his book, Bailey described how some people, the anti-gender identity disorder folk, didn't think that being trans was a disorder. No, they argued being trans was not wrong. It was just society who had deemed it so and society, not trans people, society was mistaken. Bailey saw this as ideological grandstanding. He wrote, "Who can really hope to change society?" Bailey doesn't really believe that he holds the power to change society. Society to him is sort of calcified. What there is is probably there for a reason, and that reason is probably a good one. How are we to know anyways? But I argue, Bailey, you are more wrong that you can possibly comprehend. Not only did the anti-gender identity disorder vote actually managed to change the definition, but so did Bailey. And as I've shown, the very field of sexology, what is deemed right and wrong, the history and evolution of understanding of trans people, the very words themselves have not only been changed, but have been invented during the past 200 years. We absolutely can change the course of history. We can change society. We can create a better world. Isn't that the point? Isn't the point to change society? But within those words, who can really hope to change society lies also an admission? Billy hasn't thought about changing it. Why should he? He's perfectly content. It's nice when things make sense. It's nice when they're opposite neat categories. But it's wrong. Every point I go through shows it to be wrong. There's no scientific argument that shows that trans people do not exist. And there is no moral argument either. Only a reliance on a system of good and evil with roots in religious fundamentalism and vulgar really vulgar racism. A system of pure or perverse, of pathological or natural. All things we ascribe meaning to. All things we created. All things we can change. What ties the people like Anna Hutchinson and Hannah Barnes and Melissa Mitchen and Kirsty End whistle, Helen Joyce, Jennifer Ble, Peter Bosian, Lisa Litman, Ray Blanchard, and Michael Bailey together is transphobia. But let me turn it on its head. A transphobia is just a symptom of a sickness. A belief in man-made systems held up by time and society. An unwillingness to accept that not only are they wrong about trans people, they are wrong about the world. Because there is no good and evil. the world is only what we make it. Of course, it doesn't matter to them if I debunk every single claim made about trans people because their belief is not rooted in science or truth or even reality. They think that any child who grows up to be trans is someone they couldn't save. And when it comes to saving children, anything goes. Chapter 8. Puberty bloggers. In 2019, a legal complaint was filed against the Tavisto clinic to protect vulnerable children from radical experimental medical treatment. A case to protect them from puberty blockers. This is where we meet Susan Evans. She was one another one of those sure experts from time to think. You see Susan Evans worked as a nurse from the Tavveris for 4 years from 2003 to 2007. Surely that must have been very very hard for her. In 2019, 12 years after she quit her job at Tavveristock, Susan Evans sets up a fundraiser to essentially force the Tavistock clinic to stop whatever they were up to. She wanted them to stop administering puberty blockers. Evans initiated judicial review proceedings against JIDS, arguing under 18s cannot give informed consent to puberty blockers when not enough is known about what they do. And this came to be one of the most important legal cases against trans healthcare. Susan features an anonymous mother, Mrs. A, to help her fundraiser. Mrs. A represented a group of parents, but she specifically had concerns about her autistic daughter who was referred to the Tavto. We want the best for our children, but we need this to be from a position of evidence-based, not experimental medicine. Please support me in this case to prevent further harm being caused from this unproven experimental treatment. It seems that's also what Susan Evans wants. A treatment based on evidence. I mean, she links to Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine on her website. That seems seems fair. Now, even though it took Susan more than a decade to finally stand up to what she frames like child torture, I don't think it was just because she has a pure patient heart. For one, Susan has a husband named Marcus Evans. I'm Marcus Evans. I'm a psychoanalyst. I worked in the NHS for 40 years. Originally I trained as a psychiatric nurse and then for the last 20 years in the health service I was head of the nursing discipline at the Tavistock clinic. I then went on to become the governor which is a voluntary position on the board of governors of the Tavistock clinic. Marcus Evans is a psychoanalyst and worked with the Tavistock both before and after Susan quit. So Marcus continued a close relationship with child experimenters for a decade. Then in 2019 Marcus was appointed to the position of governor at the Tavistock and 3 months later he quit. He says that he quit because of a concerns from a mother who represented a group of parents. Where have I heard that one before? And a report on the gender clinic from David Bell, another governor. David Bell's report questions whether the clinic should do more to consider young people's personal histories, notably by examining whether they are on the autistic spectrum, have experienced trauma, or are being influenced by social pressures before helping them on the path to transition. David Bell, of course, has never worked with trans children. We shouldn't use the term transgender or transgenderism when it comes to young people because by doing so you you behaving as if you know what you're talking about as if there is an object called transgender which has is a diag it's not a diagnosis it's a symptom. Would it surprise you if I said that David Bill was also one of those experts from Barnes book? They all repeat the same [ __ ] talking points. But anyways, back to the fundraiser and legal case. Now, since Mrs. A or her child never actually stepped foot in Tavveristock, Susan needed someone with more oomph. And with almost 100,000 raised from the crowdfunding effort, it allowed Susan Evans to hire a team of lawyers and get in contact with someone who was willing to put a face to the legal claim. I should have been given intensive therapy basically to investigate the feelings that I was having to try and you know figure out how I got to that stage. 8 years on she wants to transition back to being a woman and is suing the NHS. Her lawyers will argue children cannot give informed consent to treatment delaying puberty or helping them to transition. Kiraabel is what's called a dransitioner or retransitioner. You see, Kira was born a girl, but even in early childhood, she was one of the boys. Then puberty hit. She developed hips and breasts, which she hated. She lost her male friends. Kira became depressed, isolated, and suicidal. She hated that she was turning into a woman. Belle wanted to be a boy, a a man, and then she was presented with that possibility. Kira kept insisting that she wanted to be a boy. So when she was 15, her psychologist referred her to the Tavveristo and Kiraabel kept being adamant she was a boy. A year later at the age of 16, she was administered puberty blockers. A year after that, she was put on gender affirming hormones. 5 years after her initial referral, Belle had her breast removed. But Kira wasn't Kira any longer. In her place stood Quincy and then she dransitioned. The further my transition went, the more I realized that I wasn't a man and never would be. Okay, any speculation would be really really dumb of me. I do think maybe she should have used different before the transition after the transition picture in her article. Maybe. What makes me a man? I remembered my idea as a 14-year-old that hormones and surgery would turn me into someone who appeared to be a man. Now I was that person, but I recognized that I was very physically different from men. Living as a trans man helped me acknowledge that I was still a woman. [Music] All right, I'm not saying Kira Bell is lying. If you listen closely, Belle never outright says that she doesn't want to be a man, just that she never thinks she never could be or would be a man. She never says she regrets her initial transition. And I accept her as a woman just like I would accept her as a man. So if she ever was the perfect face to oppose puberty bloggers and as soon as Girabel joined the legal case, she got in touch with some very powerful people who were eager to help her. It's very interesting because I'm going to talk a lot about science and medicine and best medical practice, you know, academic topics, but I'm required by my university to make this disclaimer that I I I'm disavowing my affiliation with my university um because of the the politics involved here. One of those powerful people was Paul Cruz, who served as expert witness. He's closely affiliated with Alliance Defending Freedom and other far-right organizations who have worked to undermine same-sex marriage and try to enforce sterilization as a requirement for transitioning. When Fruce was told how limiting access to gender affirming care might result in more children dying to suicide, Fruce simply answered, "Some children are born in this world to suffer and die." Paul, of course, isn't an expert. Paul has never treated anyone, child or adult, for gender dysphoria. His own university denounced him, stating, "He is not a psychiatrist, a psychologist, nor a mental health care provider of any kind who could speak knowledgeably of transgender health. He still did wonders in the trial." Another person Belell got in contact with was Stephanie Davis Ara. Hero sat next to Stephanie Davis Arai who was an intervenor in the case. We held hands tightly. Davis Ara recalls Stephanie Davis Arai is part of Time to Think. Stephanie is also the founder of Transgender Trend. That's one of the websites Lisa Litman used to recruit for her rapid onset gender dysphoria study. Transgender is an ideological label. It's not a clinical term. It's distinct from the clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. To call a child transgender is to make both a claim that the child's feelings represent material reality and an assumption about that child's future. They will not change. Essentially, anyone with an interest in blocking care for trans people was welcomed. And this is going to be a theme moving forwards even if they are religious fundamentalists or frauds or even just only financially invested. But like let's look at the facts here. Kiraabel went through the system and it worked the way it was designed. She had to wait years to get hormone treatment and she was a fully grown adult when she made the decision to get breast reduction surgery. In March of 2024, puberty blockers for adolescence in the United Kingdom were blocked. Bill's case is not the sole reason, but it was one of the first steps. This judgment is not political. It's about the protection of vulnerable children. Please read it carefully. Anyways, what is the deal with puberty blockers? Let's first describe what puberty blockers actually do. Before puberty, there's very little actual differences between boys and girls. That's part of why Kiraabel could be accepted as one of the boys when she was a child. It's the onset of puberty that triggers secondary sex characteristics to evolve. Puberty blockers are painfully literal. They simply act as a way to pause a person's production of either testosterone or estrogen and progesterone. Even though we say puberty blockers, their actual description is gonadotropen releasing hormone agonist or gnr for short. And they aren't just used for trans people. In fact, they're used in all cases where it might be a good idea to suppress testosterone or estrogen, such as in men with prostate cancer, as fertility treatments for women, as a way to reduce the risk of losing eggs during chemotherapy, as a way to prevent some children from entering puberty too early. And yes, Aspans is so keen to point out also as a way to chemically castrate male sex offenders, which sounds really scary, but like it's really not, right? Puberty blockers do not cause changes to the body. They do the opposite. They're meant to stop the change. And if you stop taking them, your body begins producing hormones again. This is why they're called fully reversible. In the case of Kiraabel, she began taking puberty blockers at the age of 16. So, at this point, she had already entered female puberty. If she changed her mind, she would just stop taking puberty bloggers and her female puberty would resume. Remember, it's the hormones that have an effect on the body. So, Belle's body only began to masculineize when she got gender affirming hormone therapy, testosterone. But the argument isn't that puberty bloggers don't pause hormones. It's not about the intended effects as much as it is about the side effects. So, let's get back to time to think to look at those arguments, shall we? While there are studies that describe the self-reported high satisfaction of young people and their families of being on puberty blockers and some improvement in mental health, others suggest there is evidence that puberty blogger use can lead to changes in sexuality and sexual function, poor bone health, stunted height, low mood, tumorlike masses in the brain, and for those treated early enough to continue on to cross sex hormones, almost certain infertility. Let's wait a bit with a high satisfaction rate and look at the side effects that Barnes gives credence to first. Okay. Barnes links to two sources for the change in sexuality and sexual function. The first study looks at sexual problems and dysfunctions in trans people. That's really bad, right Jasper? Not so fast. This study has nothing to do with puberty blockers. It investigates how great an effect no medical treatment versus hormone therapy versus hormone therapy and surgeries have on the well-being and sexual function of trans people. You see the people in the study were already on gender affirming hormones. So they had already taken the next step from puberty blockers. These people are in their 30s and 40s, not teenagers or children. Okay. Anyways, what did the study find? simply that trans people have difficulties in seeking and initiating sexual contact and difficulty in achieving orgasm. When the participants were asked about this, some of them explained how this was due to body dysphoria. Trans women have as hard a time achieving orgasms as sis women. When they went through surgeries, problems diminished. It's almost like you feel better when you feel at home in your body. The second study investigates the intersection of pubertal timing and psychosexuality. Interesting. And once again, this is not about trans people on puberty bloggers. It's actually about sis people with a gonadotropenreleasing hormone deficiency. Meaning people who need help to enter puberty, but essentially need the opposite, puberty status. Basically, this study tells us that people entering later into puberty than their peers might not be as sexual. Not in a kinky way, just in a very vanilla want to procreate with my spouse kind of way. The study raises the question when it's best to enter puberty. And even though it's not about trans people, it still allows us to ask, is it really ethical to let trans people wait so long before allowing them to enter puberty? Doesn't it ostracize them from their peers? Doesn't maybe create the very same sexual dysfunctions we were just talking about. Okay, next. Bounce writes about tumoralike masses in the brain. And once again, the study isn't about trans people. It's not even about tumors. The study is about one cisgender girl who developed pseudo tumor cerebri after the fourth dose of G&HA. A pseudo tumor is not a tumor, but instead a buildup of pressure, which is more commonly known as an idiopathic intercranial hypertension. Okay, get this. This was the first time this was ever recorded in a child, which is saying something since we have been using puberty blockers for children since the 80s. They're only weekly associated with pseudo tumors. Specific vitamin A treatments for acne, for example, like retinoids are far more likely to cause pseudo tumors, but we never hear about that, do we? Now, we can get to the really interesting stuff. Bone mineral density and stunted height. The idea that puberty blockers weaken your bones. The hypothesis or the way that Barnes presents it is that puberty burgers basically turn you into Samuel L. Jackson from the movie Unbreakable, not into a black man, just that all your bones splinter and weaken. Okay, bounce links to a couple of different sources for this. They all pretty much say the same thing and they all seem to have the same problems. So, let's just look at the first one. And this one is about trans people finally. So this study observes 51 transirl and 70 trans boys on puberty bloggers and 36 trans girls and 41 trans boys on hormone therapy and takes different measurements throughout the years. Specifically they measure their bone mineral apparent density or BMAD which is a fancy way of saying size and weight of bones. Then they take these measurements and compare them to the population average accounting for age and sex. And this is called the Ccore. The study found that the bone density of those on puberty bloggers practically didn't change. But when they were compared with the CC scores, the population average, it worsened more and more. Okay. Why do I think this is so funny? Maybe you've already picked up on it. Try to imagine what happens when you enter puberty. You grow body hair. Your voice changes. You transition to adulthood. You literally grow up. So, the study takes people who have grown up and compares them with people who haven't grown up. They're comparing the bones of people who have entered puberty and have grown up and people who have had the puberty blocked. And I don't know, maybe it should be a little troubling that the people who use bone density as an argument can't wrap their head around this idea. Wrap your heads around a pole, please. The fact that there is no significant change in bone density should be worrying, claim other endocrinologists. Puberty is usually a time of rapid bone mass acruel. For it to stay static should be of great concern to any practitioner using this medication. What the [ __ ] do you expect that they enter puberty while on puberty blockers? Are you totally dafted? It gets even dumber. Okay. When these trans children and adolescence get hormones and actually enter puberty, their bone mass increases significantly. But for some weird reason, trans girls bone mass never reaches the population average. H look, they're not only comparing the corresponding age, but also the corresponding sex. So they are comparing the bone mass of trans girls with the bone mass of cisgender men. And to the study's credit, they do ponder this fact, but only very, very briefly. Another issue is which reference population should be used to calculate BMD or BMADC scores in trans girls who started treatment in early puberty. Bone architecture may be more similar to that of cisgender females than to cisgender males. Oh, you think? You really think? And this study isn't doing anything out of the ordinary, by the way. Most studies compare the bone density of trans women to cisgender men. Finally, infertility. No. Uh, puberty bloggers do not make you permanently sterile. Hormone therapy probably will though in the long run. But all people who go to a doctor or clinician or psychiatrist for gender dysphoria are made aware of this. It's why gender affirming hormones are often only available after you turn 16. And it's still very possible to preserve sperm and eggs. Trust me, we aren't helping these children by forcing their hand. Okay, so now I think it's time to look at whether puberty blockers actually help trans people. Many studies claim to show the benefits of puberty bloggers to mental health, but these have all been heavily critiqued and shown to have significant methodological flaws. Oh, really, Hannah? Have they really all been shown to be flawed? Bance links to two studies that show improvement to mental health, which she then shoots down with three critiques. But I don't really care about those two studies. So, let's just look at the three critiques. And those are one by Jesse Single, one by 770 KTTthTH Conservative Radio, and one by Michael Bigs. And sure, the first one Single's article is it's it's so boring that he can just have that one. Okay, I don't care about the two studies. The next critique from 7070 KTTthTH Conservative Talk Radio is literally a commentary on this article from Single. So B just reuses the same arguments from a commentary on a commentary. And finally, the last person, Michael Bigs, is someone who I find really funny. Bigs is a professor in sociology at the University of Oxford with the PhD from Harvard. Well, in 2018, some reporters at Oxford investigated him and found that he had a Twitter account under the pseudonym Mr. Henry Wimbush. And there he could freely speak his truth. He posted on average 37 times a day about trans people in a span of 7 months. That's 6,700 tweets. Even though I think he's a total freak, his article is again, it's fine. What these three critiques is saying is basically that there is no difference in the mental health of trans adolescence on puberty bloggers and those not on puberty bloggers. And like okay, but let me just set it straight. These are not the only studies that have ever been conducted. Senior Jones from gender analysis, for example, links to eight studies that all show mental health benefits for trans adolesccents when they medically transition. Though the most important thing that these people always call on is a control group. Otherwise, you might argue that even though a lot of studies do show improvements to mental health, it ultimately doesn't matter because maybe over the years that would have happened if they got on the blocker or not. The gold standard version of such an experimental setup would be to find 100 people with the flu and then divide them randomly into two groups of 50, each of them equally sick on average. You treat them identically with the clinic visit, symptom measurement, and so on. With the only exception being half of them get the actual treatment, and half of them get a sugar pill or some other sham treatment we wouldn't expect to have any impact on the flu. Okay? But we're not talking about flu symptoms here. Puberty blockers are not in the same category as pain medication, nicotine, gum, or SSRI. It's not a matter of feelings. It's a matter of the unstoppable train of aging. You either get the blocker and don't enter puberty or you don't get the blocker and enter puberty. It's much more like a contraceptive for example. So if I should give you an example, what would a control group look like? Um, it would be like taking 100 women where 50 of them are taking the contraceptive pill and 50 of them are receiving a placebo and then every day for two years they're inciminated with the sperm of Elon Musk and whoopsie. Irreversible changes that not a single person would appreciate happened to them. Oh, they feel bad. Oh, good thing we had the control group to figure that out. Okay. Otherwise, we couldn't have known. Who could have known you didn't want to have much child? And if you did it with puberty bloggers, some people would go through puberty and others wouldn't. Wonder if it might cause some trauma if people had to gamble on the body turning against them. And then what do we want them to continue taking the placebo when they actually enter puberty? Like how stupid can you be? The thing is, puberty bloggers are not meant to treat depression. They aren't meant to treat self harm, trauma, having friends, a dysfunctional family, or a government that wants to eliminate your existence. They just treat puberty. Mental health outcomes are also just a side effect. I honestly don't care if they make trans children feel better or not because that's not the function. And it has been shown again and again that while puberty bloggers might not help, gender affirming hormones absolutely irrefutably do help. So if you want these children to be happy, let them go through a normal puberty with the help of gender affirming hormones. I don't like that children have to get double masectomies, getting their breasts removed. And if you don't like it either, you should also just support puberty bloggers. It really is that simple. I'm 100% for puberty bloggers for children at whatever age they need them. It's idiotic to only allow them for adults where they already have gone through puberty. Kiraabel would never have to had her breast removed if she started transitioning before she went through puberty. When she then inevitably dransitioned, she would just have gone through a second female puberty. Another argument Hannah Bans makes is that puberty blockers might somehow make children trans. 98% of them who started puberty blockers went on to cross- sex hormones. So you set something in train that although it's talked about as being a pause for thought or being reversible in the first stage, you know, it it clearly isn't. She cites a study where 98% of all children who are administered puberty bloggers also go on to hormone replacement therapy. And this, she says, is totally unheard of. Is that's just way too many for it to be real. But how isn't this a good thing? How can these people go on and on about these children might not be trans when they're shown at every turn that yes, these children are very aware of what they want and what they need? Would the study only be successful if 50% of children stopped transitioning? We wouldn't hear them complaining about fasttracking or transing them. Then what do they want? More people to change their mind. Yeah. Well, that's exactly what they want actually. And that's exactly what they believe is going to happen. Chapter nine, desistence, part one. Every single one of these arguments relies on the idea that most or all those who transition will later come to regret it. If they don't regret it, if they continue living happily, the concerns of causes, surgeries, puberty blockers, side effects, you name it, will the concern shift to being about ethical trans healthcare? And like, let's be real, that's not what these people care about. No, they're scared that the hardships that trans people face are in actuality happening to sis people who have somehow been tricked into being trans. Well, have they are people being tricked? If they are being tricked, we should expect to see a rapid acceleration in people who retransition. That's what's usually referred to as dransition or desistence rates. And look, I I don't get it. Look at it like this. If you're sis, but think that you're trans and you transition and you're happy and satisfied, then you're trans. Who are we to decide if you're sis or trans or a man or a woman or neither? This idea that you have to be one thing and be that one thing all the time and never be dissatisfied or unsure or unhappy and never get a redo or a say in the matter. It's just it's kind of stupid to me. Barnes lists three sources for the high desistance rates. One, which is the NHS standard contract for gender identity development service for children and adolescence. Two, the DSM5 or DSMV. And three, a critique of methodological flaws. Apparently, the whole desistance model is filled with them. And this one's by someone named Kenneth Sucker. Probably not an important guy. Whatever. And I can hear what you're thinking, but the NHS and the DSM, those are legitimate. Of course, of course they are. Don't worry, we're so close to being done. And don't look at the video progress bar, please. Are these videos filled with an hour of patron names at the end anyways? First, the NHS, and they don't make the numbers up, luckily. In follow-up studies of preubertal children, mainly boys, who were referred to clinics for assessment of gender dysphoria, the dysphoria persisted into adulthood for only 6 to 23% of children. Boys in these studies were more likely to identify as gay in adulthood than as transgender. Newer studies, also including girls, showed a 12 to 27% persistence rate of gender dysphoria into adulthood. Huh, it's that it's that soccer guy again. The DSM5 book is expensive. So instead of linking directly to that balance just scrolls a bit further down the page where it reads according to the DSM5 rates of GD continuing into adolescence or adulthood vary. In assigned males this has ranged from 2 to 30%. In assigned females this has ranged from 12 to 50%. It's clear that for the majority of gender confused boys and girls, gender dysphoria desists over time as they enter adolescence. Sucker again, huh? All right. Well, compared to Barnes, I did find the DSM or the fifth edition she refers to. And let's see where they get those sources, shall we? Rates of persistence of gender dysphoria from childhood into adolescence or adulthood vary. In natal males, persistence has ranged from 2.2 to 30%, in natal females, persistence has ranged from 12 to 50%. There aren't any sources. However, extent follow-up samples consisted of children receiving no formal therapeutic intervention or receiving therapeutic interventions of various types, ranging from active efforts to reduce gender dysphoria to a more neutral, watchful waiting approach. Oh man, I'm really looking forward to getting to know these active efforts more intimately. And would you look at that soccer on the DSM5 task force? He he's practically the one who wrote the whole section on GD. Who is this guy? Uh he's from Toronto. Maybe he knows the only other psychologist that Jordan P. You may have been told this, but perhaps you weren't. So there are good long-term studies of children with gender dysphoria. Most of them were conducted in Toronto where I happen to be by a man named Ken Zucker. And Zucker ran a a clinic for gender dysphoric kids way before this became part of the culture war, let's say. And he was a very straight and honest scientist, a very good researcher, not a political person. And what he showed was what his clinic showed, many peer-reviewed studies, was that gender dysphoria of the type that you described is relatively rare. But if you leave kids alone till they're 19 or 18, 80 to 90% of them settle into their biological identity. If you leave them alone, Peterson, we'll see about that, Bucko. But if you just backed the hell off and waited, those kids would settle into their body. But generally, I' adopt a homosexual orientation. And so that was, as far as I could tell, that was the best research. Now, Zucker got slaughtered for this. And he was slaughtered for this when it all turned political. All he said was, "Back the hell off." His guideline medically was, "Don't do any harm." Right? Back the hell off. God. All he wanted was for people to leave the children alone and he was slaughtered for this. When it all turned political, let me just take a look at his wiki. Life boring. Therapeutic intervention. Boring. There it is. Closure of the CAM age gender identity clinic for children. In January 2015, Saka was the psychologist in chief at Toronto Center for Addiction and Mental Health, CAMH, and head of its gender identity service. Rainbow Health Ontario submitted a review of academic literature and clinical practices for transgender youth and expressed concern that the gender identity clinic was not following accepted practices. Others linked the gender identity clinics practices to suicide of transgender youth caused by conversion therapy and referenced the high-profile case of Leela Elhorn, a transgender teen from Ohio. Oh, chapter 10. Kenneet Sucker. Hello guys. I got some feedback that people wanted to order content warnings. So from here on out, um, expect things to get worse. content warnings for major child abuse, conversion therapy, suicide, sexual abuse, and pedophilia, which spans pretty much the rest of the video. So, if you do not want to subject yourself to that, you have my full respect, and that's okay. If my channel ever gets monetized, that would be pretty epic. Yippee. Anyway, take it away, Jasper. [Music] Kennet J. Saga is probably the most prominent researcher on gender identity. Man, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where that was a good thing? Not only has he practically defined how the world views trans people through his place as head of the committee on sexual and gender identity disorders in the DSM5, but Zucker also helped write the DSM4 and the DSM3R. Dr. Kenneth Zuker is one of the world's foremost child psychologists specializing in gender dysphoria. He's been in the forefront of the mainstream sentiment on trans people for the last 50 years because he has also overseen which studies and research has been published on trans people. Kenneet Sucker is the editor-inchief of the academic journal archives of sexual behavior. His stamp of approval is one of the reasons we still talk about ROG and autogophilia and well honestly why the transbate is even a thing. You see, Kennet Sucker wants to eliminate trans people. Not kill them, but if he can convert them to being cisgender, that'll make him happy and comfortable. His viewpoint of valuing sis people higher than trans people. His power as editor-inchief of a large academic journal and his influence on the very definition of what it means to be trans has resulted in Kenneth sucker being dubbed public enemy number one to transgenders at least according to this piece from 2009. So now I think it's time to well go back in time. I think we should start with sirus magnamopus gender identity disorders in children and adolescence which he wrote in 1995 with the help of Susan Bradley. This was the main piece of evidence for the 6% persistence rates from the NHS. Michael Bailey, the guy who was really horny earlier, described it as surely the most comprehensive text ever written on this topic. Now, the book is so niche that it's practically impossible to get a hold of, but I did find some snippets on Google. The book starts with some case examples of suckers patients. Clinical assessments revealed that some of these boy prefer to sit to urinate, which seems to fuel a fantasy that they have female genitalia. A sixth was persistent in claiming that she had male genitalia. If hit in the stomach with a hockey puck, she would clutch herself and exclaim, "Oh, my balls. Maybe that's funny." During a raw shack ink blood test, one child exclaimed, "You know what? It's a dick. It's not a nice thing to say. It's sort of rude. It's okay if you say dick, but not if you say it like this dick." Also pretty funny. The others are not and I'll spare you for now. Sucker and Susan Bradley then go on to discuss whether or not gender identity disorder is a mental illness. They had also noticed some of the protests from the anti-G folk at the time, but Saka and Bradley were pretty adamant that no, these children are sick in the head. Anyways, let's see what else we can find in the book, shall we? As noted in chapters 2 and six, boys with gender identity disorder are often highly avoidant of rough and tumble activity. In contrast, girls with gender identity disorder are often oriented towards sports and rough and tumble activity. Other specific factors within the boys may be that they are unusually attractive. What? Unusually attractive, huh? And citations to back it up. Okay. Now, clip to foreshadowing is a is a is a let's skip to the fun part. treatment. Behavior therapists were criticized for their treatment of cross-gender identified boys, which often consisted of extinguishing or punishing specific feminine behaviors such as playing with Barbie dolls and rewarding or encouraging specific masculine behaviors such as playing with dart guns. Are they gamified gender? How fun. Anyways, it's never been trans people who thought that if boys played with dolls, they were actually girls. No, the gender essentialism was literally written into how sis people define what it means to be trans. A 4-year-old boy was fitted with a wrist counter and told to press it only when playing with boys toys. This behavior was initially facilitated by behavioral queuing in which the boy wore a buck in the ear device and was told when to press the counter. An overall examination of the above case reports, particularly those by RAS and his group, suggests that behavior therapy do have some immediate effects on the sex-type behavior of crossgender identified children. And there we have it. At this point in time, Sucker supports conversion therapy for trans people. Get to them young when they're gullible and malleable and naive. That's when conversion Sorry, sorry. I mean reparative sorry I mean exploratory therapy is most effective according to soccer. Okay I hear you thinking but trans people don't have it easy. Isn't a little conversion good if they can avoid the pain. So you are asking why conversion therapy is bad. Seriously that's your question I wrote for you? Well let me put it in this really disgusting light. It doesn't work and it cost a whole lot of money. Actually, let me just read it out for you. Among 28 published studies which included 190,695 LGBTQ individuals, 12% of youths experienced S Ogica, sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts. Relative to LGBTQ individuals who did not undergo sgic recipients experienced serious psychological distress, depression, substance abuse, and attempted suicide. In the economic analysis over a lifetime horizon with a 3% annual discount rate, the base case model estimated additional $97,985 lifetime cost per individual with SOGIC associated with 1.61 61 QLY quality adjusted life years lost versus no intervention. Affirmative therapy yielded cost savings of 40,329 with 0.93 qlaws gained versus no intervention with an estimated 58,892 youths at risk for sic in 2021. The total annual cost of SGIC is estimated at $650 million with associated harms totaling an economic burden of 9.23 billion. Now, you might argue that homosexual conversion therapy and gender conversion therapy aren't the same or aren't in the same league. That's at least what someone like Anna Hutchinson thinks. Let's get real. Conversion and aversion practices were once practiced by therapists in the NHS with same sex attracted adults. These practices were often punishing and included horrors such as electric truck sheep treat electric shock treatment uh and induced vomiting. There is no evidence that this is happening today and certainly not with children because that would be illegal. But it did happen. And in my opinion, we mustn't minimize the suffering of this previous generation of gay adults by appropriating their experiences and misapplying them to a new generation of gender questioning children. And wrong again, Hutchinson. She argues that real conversion therapy is electroshock and hypnotism and vomiting. And these are all things that have been used on trans people as well. History has shown that conversion therapy is rarely about sexuality. It's usually about eliminating effeminate behavior. I'm not sure really thinks that it's two different things, even though he claims that the prevention of homosexuality has never been a goal in his research. It's mainly because of the lack of empirical evidence. [Music] So on one hand, yes, maybe Saka is very picky about his conversion therapy, but on the other hand, he did also publish a funny little 363page book on exgay research. And you know, it's fine to investigate the idea of fluid sexuality. The problem is that it will most definitely be used to counter gay acceptance as the very idea of wanting to be hedro is by definition anti-gay. In the first chapter of the book XK research, Saka mentions that for any readers interested in learning about the intellectual and ideological positions of Nath National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a subscription to the NA Bulletin is worth the few dollars it costs. NAT now going by the name Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity. Wow. if you don't know, is kind of the leading organization in the pseudoscientific research of conversion therapy for homosexuality. And while soccer doesn't directly condone Nath, Nath doesn't play fast and loose with conversion therapy. They just like all of it and they really like soccer. Nath wrote a letter on his research in 2007 and in support of parents rights to avert a homosexual outcome for their children. Sucker cites a persuasive quote from Richard Green. The right of the parents to oversee the development of children is a longestablished principle who is to dictate that parents may not try to raise their children in a manner that maximizes the possibility of a heterosexual outcome. If that prerogative is denied, should parents also be denied the right to raise their children as atheists or as priests? So, in 1995, when this book was published, Sucker was at least comfortable with the idea of conversion therapy for homosexuality. if there just was evidence to show it worked. There is now widespread recognition, at least among mental health professionals, that homosexuality is not inherently related to general psychopathology or mental disorders. However, the treatment of crossgender identified children for the purpose of preventing homosexuality has been justified on other grounds including parental taste and parental morality. With regards to the former, Green has mused the rights of the parents to oversee the development of children is a long established principle. Who is to dictate that parents may not try to raise their children in a manner that maximizes the possibility of a heterosexual outcome. If that prerogative is denied, should parents also be denied the right to raise their children as atheists or as priests? Until it has been shown that any form of treatment has any effect on a child's future sexual orientation, Green's point is moot. In 1973, Robert Spitzer was largely responsible for removing homosexuality as a diagnosis from the DSM3. No longer was it recognized as a sexual deviation and disorder on par with pedophilia and transvesticism, which probably helped gays to be accepted in wider society. So, you could call Spitzer pro- homo, I guess. In 2001, Robert Spitzer published a paper called, "Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation?" Which, of course, was a retaliation on the idea that there was no scientific evidence to support conversion therapy, which Sucker complains about. This will show him. Spitzer thought, "Gay men don't have it easy. They just need to accept their maleness and then their unwanted male attractions will decrease, he argued. He never stopped to think why it might be unwanted. Who could hope to change the world? I guess the paper of course is like really bad. Kind of in the same way that the LG paper is bad. There was an immediate backlash to it as well. Even the American Psychology Association issued a critique because no matter how bad it is, it was still going to be used to justify conversion therapy. And of course, that's what happened. The exgay movement sprang on it like a rabbit in heat. But soccer, having just taken over the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, well, he kind of thought that Spitzer's paper [ __ ] So in 2003, Spitzer publishes the paper through Sucker's journal. This was done on the condition that the commentaries on the paper were also published. Then mitigating the ever irritating need to peer review. Fast forward a decade and Spitzer finally realizes his mistake. Through the years, Spitzer apologized many times, accepting and understanding the critique, perhaps finally understanding that it isn't enough that homosexuality isn't a mental disorder. You also have to accept it as normal. However, he never actually officially retracted the paper. Why? Sucker wouldn't let him. Okay, Sucker might not be a direct proponent of gay conversion therapy, but he has a pretty good idea of how someone might argue for it. if they set out specifically to prevent homosexuality at all would probably do so with the view that a homosexual lifestyle in a basically unaccepting culture simply create unnecessary social difficulties. He then uses the very same argument to explain why conversion therapy for transgender people is good actually. A fourth rationale in the treatment of crossgender identification in children is the prevention of transsexualism in adulthood. There is little controversy in this rationale given the emotional distress experienced by gender dysphoric adults and that's all that's available from Suckers Book Online. Sadly, it's practically impossible to get your hands on, especially where I live and I've seen them go for north of $100. Oh well, luckily I do have a copy. To be honest, the rest of the book doesn't provide a lot of new information. What it does, however, is allow us a real glimpse back in time. A couple of things sprang out to me. Sucker doesn't really believe in trans people. He doesn't think that a trans man is a man. Instead, to him, a trans man is a defective woman. To him, people can't change gender. They aren't the gender they say they are. Listen to this. Some adolescents with gender identity disorder have an almost delusional sense that they really are the opposite sex or can really be the opposite sex. But it struck me just how important this factoid is for his whole philosophy. If people can't become a man or woman if they aren't what they say they are, if trans people aren't real, then basically all treatments to prevent transition are valid. I've read quite a lot of books on psychopathology over the last two years. And there are usually two ways they're written, either empathetically or condescending. And Sucker's book is definitely not empathetic. He lists one example of a trans man who thought he had impregnated his girlfriend and another example of a trans man who creates a penis held up by wire which he uses to fantasize a fellio with his girlfriend. Like, yeah, they're kind of they're kind of out there, but Saka never tries to understand why these people feel the way they do. Obviously, you can't impregnate someone without sperm, but can't you understand that someone might just hope? And obviously, a DIY dildo isn't a penis, but neither are any other dildos. Sex isn't just about procreation or physical sensation, right? You don't use a strap on because you imagine the dildo feels really good. Maybe you like dominating. Maybe you like simulating a man. Maybe you just like watching your partner squirm. I don't know. A Saka just whoops it to the side like I simply cannot comprehend simulaka. This is a natural and you are delusional. Lastly, a floridly psychotic adolescent may present with the statement that he or she is of the opposite sex. Such statements are typically part of the delusional system and generally cease with the treatment of the psychosis. This book is so focused on treating treating treating the child to rid them of cross-dressing behavior that it never pauses and imagines a world where these children can feel welcome. Only the world sucker himself inhabits where the children are either repaired or failures. At least three goals. Elimination of peer ostracism in childhood, treatment of other psychopathology, and the prevention of transsexualism in adulthood are so obviously clinically valid and consistent with the ethics of our time that they constitute sufficient justification for therapeutic intervention. The book makes me feel as if I'm standing behind a pane of glass to inspect these children as if they are some kind of zoo animal. It's almost David Atenburghesque except David understands that nature is weird and is not designed to be comprehensible to mankind. Four-year-old might say uh that he's a dog. Um do you go out and buy dog food? So with the ultimate goal of eliminating transgender behavior, Saka set out to find any trace of origin and was seemingly willing to practice any treatment if it meant that these children would grow up normal. And this ties in with the second point. Saka mentions social constructionists a couple of times. You know, people who believe society is replicated and understood through interactions and relations and not just heretic genetics. Social constructionists, the contemporary gadflies of psychiatry are disdainful of the notion of intrapersonal distress except as a response to social oppression. In their view, one can never be the architect of one's own misery. Suddenly, all his theorizing made so much sense. I believe that soccer believes that psychiatry is a pure science with certain factually right and wrong answers. If there's a problem, there must also be a root to that problem. And if we haven't found it, it's just because we haven't dug deep enough. A person is made up of pure genetics and decisions, an ultrarational individual organism. And to that I say, n maybe take a single course in sociology like I did. But really it explains so much of the book. If a child is a result of some formula, the next logical step to understand why the child is the way it is is to look to its roots and to look into epigenetics, eiology and associated psychopathology. But the parents and especially the mother is a part of the problem if they even dare to tolerate that the child crossdresses. G is seen as a rejection of a real identity. a rejection of real biology and an escape into a fantasy land into a world of constructions. So when the parents tolerate or even accept their child's behavior, this book sees it as playing into the delusion, being part of the problem. Of course, soccer's approach was never watchful waiting. It was active discouragement and punishment for deviant and perverse tendencies and affirmation of biologically accepted sex type behavior. And on the journey to find any probable reason for a cause, it led these researchers down some weird [ __ ] paths because they had come to realize just how attractive some of these children with gender identity disorder were. and super hot kids must be a sign of something, right? This was based on Robert Stalter's work from the 1960s, a previous well-known psychiatrist. Stal's theory goes something like this. It's a three generational formula. A mother is negligent towards her daughter. The daughter experiences strong love from her father, but only very briefly. And this cocktail encourages the daughter to identify with maleness. This of course makes her bisexual. When the bisexual daughter grows up and becomes a mother herself, her husband becomes absent. Of course, this absence of the father makes her want to feminize the fellows of her beautiful son. And therefore, the sun crossdresses. And boy oh boy, these researchers just couldn't help but notice just how beautiful those children were. Maybe this sounds crazy, but this was the state of trans research before the turn of the millennia. So Saka set out to test it because what if these children were transgender because they were too beautiful to be boys? A group of boys with an average age of 8.1 years had pictures taken of them from the chest up and graded on how cute, pretty, attractive, and beautiful they were. They found that those with gender identity disorder scored higher on attractiveness. The more feminine the kids were, the hotter apparently. So, of course, they wanted to do this with a little girls as well, but this one's different. The researchers took 12 girls with the DSM3 diagnosis of gender identity disorder, 10 normal girls as a control group, and a further 12 as a clinical control group. But if the clinical control group weren't normal, and they weren't trans, what were they? Of these last 12, 11 of them, and I cannot stress how [ __ ] up this is, were taken from a pool of girls referred to a child protection agency because they had been either sexually abused or had experienced physical abuse or emotional neglect. The girls were on average 6 and 1/2 years old. With parental consent at the time of assessment, a colored photograph was taken of each girl, usually from the chest up. The girls were instructed to smile. Subsequent photographs showed that only three girls did not smile. Just like the previous study, the girls needed to be scored on how attractive they were. A group of 31 men and women with an average age of 21.6 years were instructed to rate the girls on a fivepoint scale of being attractive, beautiful, cute, pretty, and ugly. I wonder what they found. The girls referred to the gender clinic were apparently uglier than the rest. But the clinical control group of sexual abuse victims were on average more attractive, beautiful, cute, and pretty than the rest. Also, older girls scored worse. Chapter 11. Richard Green. And soccer isn't even in the French part of Canada. Shaking my damn head. Fun fact, for some reason soccer book decides to leave out that some of the girls were abuse victims. But no matter how disgusting I feel that study was, of course, it doesn't invalidate the whole body of work of Sucker and his colleagues. Also, he's known for being quite latigious. So no, no, it's not that all these men, Sucker in the Studies, Richard Green in his book, or Stalin in the transsexual experiment, all for some inexplicable reason, comment again and again on the extreme attractiveness of the boys with gender identity disorder that makes me discredit them. No, it's their whole body of work, or most succinctly, their base philosophy that makes me discredit them and in particular, soccer. I'm not even sure exactly what they wanted to accomplish with the study. There haven't been any follow-ups. Maybe Sucker got inspired by some of his colleagues to investigate paraphilas. There are some truly revolting studies by his buddy Ray Blanchard. And I realized that uh we used to use these brief movie clips. They were they were basically deteriorating too much. We couldn't I I just couldn't see continuing with them. So I wanted to go with photographs instead. But the still photographs, as I described to you, looking like medical textbook illustrations, they just weren't quite strong enough. So, what I did was I wrote a series of stories. Each is about 54 seconds long. So, if if I'm showing you a photograph of an 8-year-old girl, you're hearing about a minute long story about how you're interacting sexually with this 8-year-old girl. If I show you a photograph of a 25year-old man, you're a long you're hearing a story about sexual interaction with a 25year-old man. So the two things together kind of beefed up response and we're getting better results than we got with slide stimuli alone. If I'm being totally honest, I don't have that much of a problem with this book. Uh, this one, by the way, to me, it's so obviously ancient and outdated that it reads more as a piece of history than a relevant academic work. That is, I wouldn't have a problem with it if it wasn't still used today. God damn it. It's still one of the major works backing up the DSM5. There are a handful of books from this era still being cited today as credible evidence for the low persistence rates. The most notable are these four. Money and Russo 1979. Homosexual outcome of discord and gender identity/roll. Longitudinal followup. Sen Bradley 1995. Gender identity disorder and psychosexual problems in children and adolescence. Suka 1984 early effeminate behavior on boys outcome and significance for homosexuality. And Green the 1987 the [ __ ] boy syndrome. I've mentioned Green a couple of times. He's a lesserknown entity in the space, most likely because he's dead. Anyways, he was the editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior before he handed it off to Saka in the 2000s. But I want to focus specifically on his work, The [ __ ] Boy Syndrome, as the book is largely comprised of the recorded interviews with the patients. Also, it's a wonderful name for a queer band. of the original 44 patients who were diagnosed with gender identity disorder in childhood and who then subsequently were sent to treatment to prevent cross-dressing. Only 12 were available for the follow-up. The book contains the full interviews with these 12. Only one person was labeled as an adult transsexual. So this is where the 2.2 persistent statistics come from. Cool, right? real cool when you read the interviews. And I don't know if it's just me, but they are really sad. These kids enter into psychiatric care to get help, but the only help they get is Green telling them, "No, you can't be a girl." And then he weirdly tries to lecture children on male and female sexual anatomy. So when you become married and you become a daddy, you'll help the mommy have a little baby. And that's why it's good to be a boy. And that's why it's good to have a penis. So you can help the mommy. She needs you. What the [ __ ] Crane? What the [ __ ] are you on about? What? There's lots of talk of sexual fantasies and masturbation. It's weird and it feels very intrusive. Anyways, while yes, most of these children grew up to be homosexual or bisexual, there's a definitely lingering shame permeating all of the stories. One of the fathers of the then children says, "My worst fear is that that he'd be a homo or he'll be a you know, it's a funny thing. As I get older with the kid, I'm not so concerned with him. Yet, there are times with his relationship with certain guys, I'm wondering what the hell is going on." Only then to acknowledge that the father himself has had prior experience with guys. Or another guy who got into an argument with his mother. My mother asked me when I broke up with my girlfriend. She goes, "You know, now that this is over, do you think you'll be going back to it?" And I said, "My god, for 3 years and plus I've been straight. I haven't gone back to that or thought about even looking at it. You know, I have made so many goddamn efforts and I've changed my life for the better and you guys still, you know, drop it." I said, "Jesus Christ, can't you ever give me just a hug and a kiss and just praise me and say, you know, I believe you." Or how one interviewer talks about an experience with a guy and his twin brother. This guy wanted you two to [ __ ] each other or he wanted to [ __ ] both of you. He wanted my brother to [ __ ] me and no way. My brother was there and he said, "Yeah, I'll do it." Your brother was willing to do it? Yes. I think it would [ __ ] anything. I would starve and die before I would. He was up to it? Yeah. He was totally up to it. He was so pissed off at me. Why? Cuz he could have made $250. No way. I'm not entirely sure all these people ever got fully rid of their want to be women. One of them still has his moments. Another is afraid of being seen as too feminine. It sometimes seems that they are just suppressing it to the nth degree. But I don't know. I just want to ask again, why not just let these people be? Why force these children? Has it made their lives better? Of course, I I have no idea. In 1987, sure, Green makes the argument that the surgeries are pretty bad, but now if people are able, then why stop them if it makes it a life worth living? Finally, Green also comments on another psychiatrist, George RAS. And uh this one's interesting because Green outlines a major reaction he had to RA's treatments. See, RAS didn't just try to prevent adult transsexualism, but also homosexuality. I have even more difficulty with the moralistic basis that has recently revealed behind RA's attempts to treat these children. That basis is described in his books, Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity and Growing Up Straight. The goal of the treatment is to promote real masculinity, which should be affirmed in every young man in order to prevent them from being strongly tempted by the sexual perversions. Homosexuality is an unfortunate perversion and a manifestation of promiscuous and perverted sexual behavior. I don't know if it's wreckers or reers or how it's pronounced, but I can tell you what he does unequivocally. He is number one a Baptist minister and a founding member of the Anti-Gay Family Research Council. We're familiar with them. Tony of Tony Perkins fame. He's also a board member of an organization called Narth. They basically espouse that gays can be fixed. They can turn straight. He's also a board member of the American College of Pediatricians, uh, which is a shell group which basically just wants to bring credibility to anti-gay distortions. He has a lucrative career going on as a witness against gay adoption in trials. He gets paid whether the adoption happens or not. Sometimes as much as 60 grand for one trial appearance. This is the most important thing. He most recently has been caught with what is being called a rent boy who advertised himself as somebody with a quote smooth sweet tight ass and a perfectly built 8 in [ __ ] uncut. Now if you don't remember RAS is the guy that Sucker cites extensively in his chapter on treatment. While Saka has written critiques on RA's scientific inconsistencies, it is RA's approach to therapy Suka defended when he wrote of the ostracism in childhood, treatment of other psychopathology, and prevention of transexualism in adulthood are so obviously clinically valid and consistent with the ethics of our time that they constitute sufficient justification for therapeutic intervention. Chapter 12, treatment. Let's dig a little deeper into RA's methodology for attempting to extinguish feminine behavior, shall we? This is one of his and Libuovitz's first major studies on gender in congruence. And just so you know, this specific study was referred to as a prime example of the treatment until recently. That is the study centers around one child sudinum Craig who's between 4 and 5 years old as he sent treatment at UCLA for severe deviant behavior in the form of crossdressing. Side note, this is the same place the children from Green Study were sent to. At first, Craig was videotaped during playtime at the clinic. I'll use masculine pronouns, by the way, as that was what he used later in life. These videotapes were distributed to a couple of observers who were to score the behavior as either masculine or feminine. When this clinical baseline was noted, Craig's mother was to note her child's behavior in the home and look for signs of femininity four times a day, 10 minutes at a time. And this was done throughout the procedure to see if the behavior got more tolerable. And uh what is feminine behavior? It's playing with girls, playing with female dolls, female roleplay, whether it be as an actress, mother, female teacher. And then for other feminine gestures, limp wrists, swishy hand, arm and torso movements, way of hips, etc. Then for 1 hour, three times a week, the mother and the child was to come into the clinic. Each session was comprised of three 10-minute play times where the child had a variety of toys to pick from. from the therapy table. The mother was to sit and read a book and only look up to give Craig attention if he was showing masculine behaviors. The mother was to wear earphones, allowing her to hear both her child and the experimentter, who would tell her when to stop talking to him now. Pick up the book, look away from him now. And when she followed the instructions, she would also be rewarded with words of affirmation. Good. Great. That's what we want. The mother was told that we had great confidence in her ability to serve as Craig's primary therapist at home, which is the role she was in fact assigned. The mother was required to sign a written contract with the investigators that specified that continued treatment was contingent upon the mother's success in carrying out two instructions. To take reliable observational data in the home and to gain control over a non-gender related behavior. To accomplish this, she was to give the child different types of poker chips depending on its behavior. A blue token meant TV time and candy bars. Red tokens meant no TV time, isolation in a corner, or physical punishment in the form of the father spanking the child. The disobedient behavior did sharply decrease when the red tokens were backed up by spanking. Craig was told that he would get one SWAT from his father for each red token he collected. After collecting two SWATs in this manner for red tokens he had received while engaged in non-gender related behaviors, Craig carefully avoided receiving but a few red tokens from that time on, even though the treatment was to persist for more than half a year. Sucker cites this specific study as a method of effective treatment on page 271. Actually, he sites RAS extensively in the 1995 book. So extensively in fact that RAS has the third highest number of sources cited only outmatched by John Money and Kenneet Sucker himself. But at least it seemed like it worked, right? Child abuse has no silver linings. We know today who the child referred to as Craig in the study was and what came off him. Content warning. If you just want to skip this one, that's totally fine with me. Craig was in reality named Kirk and was the middle child in a family of five. Father, mother, an older brother, Kirk, and a younger sister. Kirk's family had no idea George Rers has for the last three decades used Kirk as an example of a child whose affeminite behavior was successfully altered. In numerous publications, Rickers has written about Kirk, calling him Craig to hide his identity. What was described as two SWATs in the study was in fact not limited to SWATS. I'm uh just going to read parts of the article about it. Okay. The family said the spankings were severe. The younger sister remembers lots of belt incidents. She escaped the screaming by going to her bed to lay in the room with my pillow on my head. Later, she would go to Kirk's bedroom and lay down and hug him. And we would just lay there. And the thing that I remember is that he never even showed anger. He was just numb. During one particularly harsh punishment, their mother recalls her husband spanked Kirk so hard that he had welts up and down his back and on his buttocks. She remembers her older son saying, "Cry harder and he won't hit so hard." She says, "Today it would be abuse." Sometimes the older son would try to protect his brother to make his beatings less severe. I took some of the red chips and put them on my side. It left Kirk just totally stricken with the belief that he was broken, that he was different from everybody else. The younger sister recalled, "He even ate his lunch in the boy's bathroom for 3 years of his high school career, if you want to call it that." In 2003, he died by suicide. Would you just talk to us for a second about your therapy with the patient named Craig? It's published. We've interviewed Craig's family recently. They say that the therapy you did with him as a child led directly to his suicide as an adult. What do you say about that? I didn't know that. That's too bad. You're not aware of his suicide? No. What do you say to the family if they say that the therapy that you did with him as a child led to his suicide as an adult? Oh, well, I think scientifically that would be inaccurate. But a psychiatrist who followed up with Kirk when he was 18, Dr. Richard Green wrote that Kirk told him he tried to kill himself the year before because he didn't quote want to grow up to be gay. I want to remind you we still use these studies. They are the basis of much of what is in the DSM5 on gender dysphoria. Funny, right? It's not that the studies aren't useful or that they haven't contributed to society. The basic problem with these studies is simply their age and therefore they're wrong. definitions, methods and treatments. No, more than that, the whole philosophy regarding gender has shifted. To put it into perspective, the money and Russo follow-up was written only 5 years after women got the right to have a bank account in the US. Female genital mutilation first became an offense in the UK in 1985. 10 years later, it was also prohibited in the US. Marital rape was legal in the UK until 1991. Gender has shifted. What was once people lost to history became a medical miracle, which turned into medicalization, transforming to pathologization, fetishism and deviance, transvesticism to turn sexualism, then to gender identity disorder, deviant to fetishism, and back again. People no one understood because no one listened to gender dysphoria. And who wrote this history? Rarely the ones it's about. It's impossible to read the now decades old documents and studies and not get the sense that those doctors were on the floor scrambling for roots to answers they themselves put together and reasons for roadblocks they made up where once doctors asked children to undress expect genital arousal and ask about their sexual proclivities. Now some still do that and that's stop. Some clinicians have turned instead using implicit response testing or you know just asking the children and actually listening. In the present day most doctors don't or at least agree on not treating transness. Steps have been taken to depathize the trans condition. But those four old sources are all proponents of some sort of conversion therapy. Even though soccer acknowledges himself in the 1995 book that behavior and psychotherapy haven't been totally proven in its effectiveness, we should not lean on those who have proved to hurt those they claim to help. I'm not going to stay on this topic, but take someone like James Caner who makes himself out to be an expert in transgender issues. He has testified in court about a dozen times regarding transgender health care. Sometimes for minors, so he should be. Well, he's a specialist in pedophilia, but gender identity. No, not in my opinion. And I'm not the only one. And I don't know, man. After reading his 1,000page deposition, he seems like a fraud to me. He doesn't even work with children. There are a bunch of these so-called experts with which I allege people who go out of their way to harm children and adults. They should not be taken seriously. These men and women still are not up with the time, sometimes deliberately so. Yes, some of them pioneered a lot of knowledge when it comes to transgender people. But the thing is, most of these things are not useful anymore. the faults, the principles governing the science they made up. No one but those still stuck in the past, too far up their own ass to accept that the life's work has in the end brought more harm than good are still using the faulty theories laid out by Sucker, Suga, Bradley, Bailey, Blanchard, Green, Money, RAS, and lot. The best thing I can say about them is that if they aren't already dead, they're old. Chapter 13. Munchchowen. There were fears more widely that in some instances the family seemed more invested in transition than the young person themselves. Munchen by proxy or as we now call it fictitious disorder imposed on another was first introduced in 1976 by June Valves and John Money. H small world derived from Baron Munchin. A fictitious character based on Heronomous Fre. It doesn't matter. What matters is how it in theory works. June and John coined the term as a way to describe reversible hyposomatropism, dwarfism induced by abuse. The study examines two families who abused their children. And this might be in the case of verbal or physical abuse such as scolding, shouting, hitting or dietary restrictions. And this then manifested itself in the children as a lack of mental ability and started high. When the children in the study were placed in a recovery center, however, all symptoms of abuse subsided. Munchousen syndrome is making yourself believe that you have a disorder to the point where you show signs of the disorder. When it's by proxy, it's inducing a fake disorder in another person, though the symptoms are just similar enough or identical to the real disorder. Mhousen by proxy is child abuse. I've seen this theory pop up here and there. Sometimes it sticks and then it fades out only to resurface again five years later. One study that shared a lot is by Susan Coats. It tried to correlate how mothers of boys with gender identity disorder had a higher chance of showing borderline personality disorder symptoms. In the study, they make it sound like the mothers forced or at least induced cross-dressing in their children. So, is that the case? Does parental negligence or abuse make kids trans? Any trans person should be able to see the irony in this. First of all, borderline personality disorder is not the same as Munchousin by proxy. Second, only 25% of the mothers with children with the GID showed clinical levels of borderline. Not 53% are stated here. That refers to the number of mothers with either depression or borderline. Third, Susan Coats, the author of the study, helped to write the DSM4 section on gender identity disorder. She worked together with Saka to develop the disease models we for some reason still use today. She believed people who are gender non-conforming suffered from a great mental disorder. And then she helped make that belief a reality. Fourth, what's considered borderline today is not the same as borderline from the 80s where the DSM3 was used. Since it was an identity disorder, you'd probably be considered to have borderline personality disorder if you were unsure about your gender. The diagnostic criteria were vague to say the least. Fifth, the study hasn't been replicated. And sixth, it's sexist. Other than coats, people like Kenneth Sucker, Michael Bailey, and Susan and Marcus Evans have all tried to implant the idea of transgenderism coming from the mother. As I said, Sucker and Coach work together quite a lot. And honestly, in my opinion, it's just sexist [ __ ] Blaming the mother is a psychiatric equivalent of blaming the butler in the murder mystery. It's cliche. It's outdone. It doesn't work. Does fictitious disorder imposed on another exist? Yes. But to vaguely gesture at a phenomenon and then point to all mothers as the culprits, that's extremely harmful. There are real consequences to this. People have been falsely convicted and sent to prison because of the belief that they killed their own child. So how do we know that people being transgender isn't a case of Munchousen by proxy? Well, pretty easily actually. If gender dysphoria is induced by the parents, we should see the symptoms subside pretty quickly when the child moves out. And since the NHS and the DSM5 claims that there's this 80% desistence rate, we'll come back to this, I promise. For now, I only want to look at if we can find any evidence other than just pilot studies that haven't been replicated. The fact is that there is a lot of parents who do abuse their children. Not because of the lack of gender dysphoria, but exactly because of it. Lack of family support for transgender people is the largest predictor of suicidal ideiation. It also leads to poorer mental health, substance abuse, and adverse life outcomes, just like it does in all children. But when parents actually support their children, the kids thrive. Levels of depression are equal to those of sis children. And as we saw before, it's not like psychologists and psychiatrists never use the family as reinforcement, but now we are beginning to understand how a support system supports the child. Wally good insights from the last 50 years, guys. Banger. Anyways, the evidence we looked at our GD earlier and maybe we can put that under the umbrella of Munchousen by proxy. then it's called cyber munch and I love that word and safe to say that was bad bad evidence. The remaining literature on gender dysphoria by proxy is how should I put it dog [ __ ] and the evidence even worse. Other than vague anecdotes, I only found one website that points directly to examples of possible munchousen by proxy and it's by parents of our GD kids and they list two examples. Parents wishes for a child of the other gender. It's hard to believe but there are many such documented cases. Consider the sad story of Nancy Fhelst who was legally euthanized in Belgium after a botched sex change operation. Her parents hated and rejected her because she was a girl and they wanted another boy. So, she tried to become a boy and when it didn't work, she took her life. Okay, that's not the whole story. Nathan Fels was euthanized in Belgium because of unbearable psychological suffering. Assigned female at birth and born Nancy, Nathan's mother always wanted a boy. But Nathan had friends who loved and accepted him, who were there and who tried to understand. His brothers abused him and his mother hated him. She was so ugly. Her death doesn't affect me. I feel no sorrow, no doubt, and no anger. We have never had a bond between us. Therefore, it couldn't be broken. I can recommend the documentary called Free as a Bird, which was made about Nathan. Originally, it was only meant to shed light on the journey of Nathan's transition. [Music] [Music] Nathan never regretted his gender affirming surgeries, But he wasn't satisfied either. So when Nathan told the director of his plans to die, the focus shifted to the last week of his life. Nathan didn't try to become a boy. He was 44 years old and died as a man. That parents of our GD kids dead names and misgenders him. I don't care who you are. I don't care what you think. If you choose to disrespect a man who decided to euthanize himself because he never felt loved, felt enough, felt accepted, to not acknowledge that he had power over his life, his gender, and his name. To then go out of your way to hand over that power to his abusers, the people who didn't want him, but who named him. It's [ __ ] ghoulish. I don't even care if it was the abuse that led him to change his gender. I don't care. Nathan said he felt more comfortable as a man. He chose to live like a man and he chose to die like a man. This isn't the own that parents of RGD kids thinks it is. It's just a sad sad story. Next one. Next one's a doozy. Okay. The mother of a 5-year-old girl sent an email to the divorced father announcing that Jay was transgender and would from then on be considered a boy, wear boy clothing, and be called bridge. Also, that she would begin transitioning Jay from girl to boy, and she had discussed this with Jay's school. The mother was found by the courts to be forcing this on the child. Okay. Horrible. Anyway, let's look at the court documents, shall we? I'm just going to call them mom, dad, and child. Mom and dad were married twice. During their second marriage, she got pregnant and gave birth in 2005 to see their child as the parents got their second and final separation in 2006. Dad didn't appear at the hearing regarding custody and therefore mom got sole custody over the child. The next 5 years comes and goes and in 2011 mom sends dad an email telling him their child is trans. All right, so stories match so far. Dad calls mom into family court. In court, dad tells how the child was with him for five weeks during summer break, and he didn't notice any signs of gender dysphoria. His sister testifies a similar story. Happy girl, happy world, fine with wearing girls clothes, but not a girly girl. The same story is heard from dad's parents. girls who didn't like freely clothes, but a girl nonetheless. The court appoints a doctor to make a clinical evaluation of the parents. The doctor explains how dad has ADHD, but otherwise nothing major. Mom, on the other hand, shows signs of anorexia, bulimia, and bipolar disorder. According to mom, these are all under control. The doctor didn't find any support for the diagnosis of gender identity disorder for the child and that while mom didn't meet the criteria for munchousen by proxy, she did have striking similarities with that diagnosis. Then mom herself testifies. She explains how dad didn't help during pregnancy and childirth and how he had a drug and alcohol problem. One night he came home, shouted at the crying child and shook the crib it was laying in. Mom took the baby and sought rescue with her friends where she stayed for more than half a year. She found an apartment but when she was laid off of her work, she was forced to move back to her parents. And uh the dad didn't see the child during this time even though he was invited. The mom could not for the life of her get her child to wear girls clothes. So her parents recommended her to go to an art therapist they knew. Uh since the child repeatedly stated how they wanted to be a boy, the therapist caught the inclination that it might be a matter of gender identity disorder. However, since she didn't have experience in the field, she referred mom to a psychologist. You see, the idea that the child was transgender didn't happen overnight. The psychologist saw the child five times and recommended affirming the child's gender without trying to push anything. It was the psychologist's professional opinion that the child should start school as a boy, why they wrote a letter to the school explaining the situation. The mom was so uncertain that she went to get a third and fourth opinion on her child's well-being. The mom states how she really didn't understand the diagnosis of gender identity disorder, thinking that her child was just going through a tomboy phase. She wanted to do what was best for her child with the recommendations given to her by medical professionals. So she went on to see a specialist with more than 30 years in the field of transgender studies. He sees the child and writes a report stating that yes, in fact, the child does show signs of gender identity disorder. But the mom lost the case. The court didn't believe that she had her child's best interest at heart. And they found it concerning that she so quickly accepted the diagnosis of such a rare disorder without first questioning the professionals methodology. The court evaluated that mom's actions to continue to get opinions from clinicians clearly do not reflect the actions of a mother distraught over her child being diagnosed with gender identity disorder. She wasn't found to be forcing her child to be transgender. However, they even admit that the child might be or will in the future be transgender and do not believe that mom induced munchen by proxy. Oh well. Hey, I'm not a lawyer and I'm just reading a decades old document. I have no idea whether this was the right choice. I don't know these people. I don't know where they are today. So, I can't really answer if it was the right choice. Except Except I did find something. I don't know how the American justice system works. So, all of this is allegedly okay. I just want to be able to pay my rent. At some point, I traced the father back to an old social media profile and I'm not even sure I'm going to post sources for this just to in respect of privacy for the child preferably. I am a Christian conservative. In 2016, I sat ties with a small liberal art college in my former community of I could no longer continue relationships with godless men, beta males who judge others based upon their religious convictions and political ideologies. Hm. So, uh, having found this, I dug further. I found his name on some court hearings. I cross referenced pictures, dates, and ages, and sure enough, it matches, at least as far as I know. In 2020, during the Black Lives Matter protests after George Floyd's murder, yeah, this is really happening. He tries to drive his car through the crowd of protesters only to be stopped by police officers. He then propels a can of bare maze pepper spray into the crowd, wounding three protesters and five police officers on the way. One of the protesters was reportedly taken to the hospital as a result of the injury. He's charged with three accounts of fourthderee assault and five accounts of third degree. He pleads guilty. So, I find another report dating 2 years after the original incident. The dad won't serve jail time. It says in the article, he explains that this was an act of self-defense, that a protester reached into his car and then he sprays the person. One of the victims, noting her six years in practice as defense attorney, said that she has never seen anybody that she believed to be a felon more than D. She called him a dangerous human being and said that he should not own weapons. Oh, the American criminal injustice system. Oh, the sorry father. Oh, the righteous concerns of anti-trans organizations. The mom, on the other hand, went on to work to help transgender people. See what I mean? Kind of sexist. I do have a somewhat dumb hypothesis, though. Hear me out. uh it has been pretty well established that it's usually the mother of the child who goes with a kid to see a physician, psychologist, psychiatrist. When looking at the case studies from the '9s, 80s and 70s, the fathers in the families were often absent or extremely unhelpful with raising the child. So maybe because it's often the mother who shows concern, she also gets the blame. Maybe these women or most of them at least were actually just concerned for their children and just wanted the child to be happy. Whether that meant therapy or crossdressing or another gender. Even several decades back when times should be different, they still defended their children and wanted only a good life for them. Whatever that looked like. I have one more story I want to tell. It's not nice, but I think it's worth hearing. And since it's being used against trans people, I also think it's worth telling. Chapter 14, John Money. Serious content warning on this one. It's the mid1 1960s. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated 2 years prior, and the Cold War has gone from a slow simmer to a brawling boil. Cuba is currently undergoing negotiations with the USSR, partially a result of a failed invasion by pigs, an embargo, and a liberal headwind. Just as Juan Marachal hits John Rosebro in the head with a bat, a pair of twins are born500 miles northeast in Winnipeg, Canada. Two boys to be specific. They were happy and healthy, except for one thing. 6 months after birth, the parents noticed that both boys were suffering from fimosis, a condition where the foreskin is restrictive to the point of pain and stops urination. The boys had to get circumcised. Disregarding ethics, circumcision is usually a pretty minor operation. Following the referral from a doctor, the two infants were brought to a surgeon, but everything didn't go as planned. Maybe it was the fault of the doctor. Maybe it was a malfunction. The mother of the two children were called in as the surgeon explained how something had gone wrong. And then the doctor said, "There has been a slight accident. Uh the penis has been burnt off from circumcision." Instead of using the usual gunko clamp or just a simple scalpel, the method had been electrocorderization, a needle burns through the skin and as the heat automatically closes off the blood vessels. Bleeding is minimized. But instead of just torching the tip, the whole penis was blackened, burned, and broke off in pieces. Parallel to this, John Money was featuring in the TV. Quickwitted and charming, he showed how he and the team from the John Hopkins Hospital had been able to transform a man to a woman. Dr. Money, it's still a pretty drastic procedure, isn't it? Perhaps the best way to understand it is that it seems no more drastic to them than circumcision. Maybe there was hope for the child if he was able to be raised as a girl. After all, a boy without a penis seemed hopeless. The transsexual certainly made an impact. Here's our answer. Here's our salvation. Here's our hope. So, the parents called in and John Money told them to come immediately. [Music] Money was a proponent of gender neutrality, a theory stating that basically all gendered behavior is learned and not something innate to the physical body. It can be altered and coaxed in the first few years of childhood. All nurture, no nature, you might say. If it was simply a matter of nurture, I could nurture my child into being feminine. And fun fact, Kenneet Sucker seems to believe that gender can be altered before the age of 10. Wow. Funny fact. But even though money believed and wrote about his theory, he never actually had the chance to prove it. And now the perfect trial stood before him in the form of twins, both boys. Yet one was to be raised as a girl. The boy was neutered, having his testicles removed, and then it was stressed to the parents that he was never to know about this. Instead, they should raise him as a girl, giving him girly things, using a nude name, and making him engage in girly behavior. To me, it seems that the parents only wanted what was best for their children, whatever that might look like. They put their trust in the doctor, and I wonder if you wouldn't do the same. For now, I'll refer to the child as a girl or by the name of Joanne and the twin as boy or John just to make it easy to understand. Those were also the names they were known as for many years during the study. To enforce the stereotypes of girl and boy, the twins were given different toys and different things to do with their parents. When they were around 5 years old, the father was shaving and John joined in to mimic his dad. Joanne on the other hand was told to put on makeup and lipstick with her mother. You know, reinforce gender stereotypes, right? Well, the thing is Joanne refused. She wanted to shave as well. Moreover, when Joanne was brought a dress, she would rip it off and didn't want to put it on at all. No, she wanted to do the things that boys do. This is from an article by Milton Diamond interviewing Joanne in adulthood. There were little things from early on. I began to see how different I felt and was from what I was supposed to be, but I didn't know what it meant. I thought I was a freak or something. I looked at myself and said, "I don't like this type of clothing. I don't like the types of toys I was always being given. I like hanging around with the guys and climbing trees and stuff like that." And girls don't like any of that stuff. But John Money didn't give up. In his mind, it should absolutely be possible to coax a child to be a certain gender. And seriously, content warning, it's really getting bad now. Okay. To reinforce the gender stereotypes, the two children were forced to do sexual rehearsals. Joanne was told to go down on all fours where John, her twin brother, would come up behind her and be instructed to thrust with his crutch against her. Joanne was ordered to spread his legs with his brother on top and they were 60 years old at this time. On at least one occasion, Money took pictures of them doing this. Money was aggressive and forced them both to strip to do genital inspections on each other. I want to make you understand what I'm getting at. Now, take your clothes off. No. Take your clothes off now. His argument was that sexual behavior should be learned on top of all the other stuff to really complete the socialization. Despite the absence of a penis, Joanne often tried to stand to urinate. Joanne persisted to such an extent that at school she was caught standing to urinate in the girl's bathroom sufficiently often that the other girls refused to allow her entrance. Mother recalls the other girls threatening to kill her if she persisted. Joanne was forcibly put on feminizing hormones, estrogen, from the age of 12. Several times he tried to throw away his medicine, but he was ultimately made to go through a puberty he never wished for. The unwanted puberty brought with it the development of breasts, things he didn't want, so he wouldn't wear a bra. In discussing his breast development with his endocrinologist, he confessed, "I suspected I was a boy since the second grade." Finally, at the age of 14, Joanne retransitioned to John, but for the first time, it was by his own will. John was given male hormone therapy and grew into not just a normal boy, but a handsome man, especially with the help of gender affirming surgeries in the form of a double masectomy and a phaloplasty. As an adult, John was asked, "Why not accept being a female rather than fighting it?" His answer was simple. Basically, he wanted to please his parents and plate the doctor, so he often went along. But doing so didn't feel right, and the confusion between his feelings and theirs he saw was mentally devastating and would lead to suicide if he were forced to continue. The most often voiced and deeply felt emotion expressed by John was always feeling different from what was expected or desired by others. Doctor said, "It's going to be tough. You're going to be picked on. You're going to be very alone. You're not going to find anybody unless you have vaginal surgery and live as a female." And I thought to myself, you know, I wasn't very old at the time, but it dawned on me that these people got to be pretty shallow if that's the only thing they think I've got going for me. that the only reason why people get married and have children and have a productive life is because of what they have between their legs. If that's all they think of me, that they justify my worth by what I have between my legs, then I got to be a complete loser. The boy grew up and found a loving wife, adopting her three children in the process. His former student, Richard Green, argues that Dr. Money did the best he could in an era when we knew less. with the benefit of hindsight based on what we knew at the time about how you become male or female or boy or a girl with the advantage of hindsight knowing the difficulties to say the least of creating a penis surgically the decision that John Money made at the time was the correct one and I would have made the same one at that time then around 35 years after the incident with the botched circumcision his brother died to suicide 2 years Later, John got divorced and 2 days after the divorce, he committed suicide as well. We don't know exactly why. We can't ask him, but I'd like to quote Judith Butler's postcript to that chapter on this incident in undoing gender. The norms governing what it is to be a worthy, recognizable, and sustainable human life clearly did not support his life in any continuous or solid way. A life for him was always a wager, an risk, a courageous and fragile accomplishment. Can I come to a satisfying conclusion on this story? No. I didn't live his life and I can never understand. All I've seen are remnants of a distant life in the form of black pixels on a brightly lit computer screen making up a few pages on an outdated website. Then why do I think this is an important story to tell? Well, the story has gotten a lot of attraction from certain people just asking questions about the history of mainstream gender theory as if this was something woke to suppress. But no, Bucko, no honey. It's pretty wellnown how horrible much of queer history actually is. The only reason they point to this story is to be able to say, "Oh, see, transgenderism shouldn't be practiced. It doesn't work. Sex is immutable." But they don't notice the forest for the trees. Because even though this story is wellknown and widely cited in history in different literature on gender, I mean even in a Norwegian Manuel I read just for fun, it's far from rare. It's not about the immutability of sex and the evils of one particular doctor. It's also about the thousands of trans people experiencing the very same thing this very day. It's not about forcing a child to be trans. It's about forcing a child to be something they're not. It's incredibly ironic to use this story of John, Joanne, then John again as an example of the evils of trans ideology. Those people are either willfully lying or just painfully dreadfully stupid. I I I didn't like dressing like a girl. I didn't like behaving like a girl. I didn't like acting like a girl. I'm not a professor or anything, but you, you know, you don't wake up one morning deciding that you're a boy or a girl. You just know. Chapter 15, the assistance part two. Thanks for sticking with me through that small detail. Only took what an hour and 15 minutes. You remember that this was about one paragraph from one source from one claim from time to think. How history has shown that these children aren't really trans but gay. Hannah Barnes gave three sources for the high desistance rates. The first source was from England's National Health Service which relies heavily on old studies. the studies in which the children are coerced, ridiculed, and beaten into viewing their experience as a delusion. The second source was the fifth edition of the DSM, which is also based on the very same old studies and headed by a person dubbed enemy number one to transgenders, Kenneet Tucker, who was often the one responsible for the studies. The third and final source is a critique of methodological flaws of some of the newer studies. No, that's wrong because the source that Bounce links to is not the actual critique, but instead a reply to the critique. And can you guess who wrote the reply? Yeah, it's it's Kenneth Tucker. Of course it is. Let me make this very clear. When you hear anyone talking about high dransition or desistance rates, they point to credible sources like the National Health Service or the DSM, but they obviously haven't read any further. Otherwise, they would stumble upon decades and decades of child abuse, of studies ranking how attractive. Researchers find boys and girls and sexual abuse victims of children and adults dead because of the treatment they went through. All in the name of science, in the name of normal or deviant, in the name of trying and failing to prove that being trans is bad actually. But this information is cloaked and laundered through credible sources which people use to their advantage to sell a story of trans inferiority. I do not care if they didn't know. Then they shouldn't gamble with the lives of trans people. And when Barnes tries to cover her basis, oh, these studies are methodologically flawed, she then chooses not to link to the actual critique against the studies, but instead to a reply to the critique, which argues for the studies made by Kenneth Sucker, a person who was fired from his own clinic, a clinic which in 2015 still asked kids what made them sexually excited, where one-way mirrors were the norm, and where they took pictures of children without their consent and shared them with colleagues. [Music] [Music] But whoops. All my arguments would be stupid and invalid if the 80% desistant statistic was actually true. In a little bit, I'm going to give you a bunch of sources against the 80% desistence narrative. But flinging out citations doesn't really help if we don't first understand that this way of thinking is wrong. It's playing into the narrative. It's accepting the premise that transness is even something that's possible to desist from. So, let's take a look at the actual critique on follow-up studies written by New Hook, Pine, Holmes, Tosh, and Picket. They take four often cited studies and ask, "Hey, should this be the backbone of what is taught, of what is practiced?" The critique is mostly interested in follow-up studies. Temple New Hook Adal chooses specifically not to include the earlier studies on transsexualism from the 70s and 80s and '90s, even though, as I've shown, they are still used as evidence. Instead, New Hook takes what was at the time of the critique four recent widely cited studies so people can't just dismiss it as it was a different time. Those four studies are by Drummond Adel 2008, Valian Adidel 2008, Stinma Adidel 2011 and Stinsma Adel 2013. The four studies specifically look at the desistance rates of transgender adolesccents with 37, 77, 53 and 127 subjects respectively. Essentially, they take a measure of how many people with gender dysphoria there are at one point in time and then several years later they contact the participants and measure again for gender identity disorder to compare the two numbers. First, hm let me ask you a question. We want to look at how many adolescence go on to transition and how many do not. Would it be fair to include children who are not over the clinical levels of gender dysphoria in that data? I mean, we're looking at so-called desistant statistics, which kind of implies that the children, at least at one point, identified as a gender not assigned at birth. Well, 40% of the children from Drummond El's research study did not qualify to be clinically diagnosed with a gender identity disorder. They might have shown gender non-ongruent behavior. Yes, but not to a point where they exceeded the diagnostic criteria. They were still used in the data. It's the same story with Valian Nidal from 2008 and students metal from 2013 where 25% and 37% respectively did not meet diagnostic criteria. That's 81 out of the combined 294 participants. Another problem is the aggregated 25% of children who did not attend the follow-up. All of these are reported as desisters. Finally, none of the children were formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Let me just repeat, none of the children were formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This is because all of the studies relied on either the DSM3, the DSM3R, the DSM4, or a mix of them. But the diagnosis of gender dysphoria was only added in the DSM5 which came out in 2013. So not only were none of the children diagnosed with gender dysphoria, but 27% were sub threshold for gender identity disorder. Yet they are still referenced as reliable data for the 80% desistence rate for gender dysphoria. Potato potato, you might say. Gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder. Does it even matter? uh well to be eligible for a diagnosis of gender identity disorder. The child didn't need to have a desire to be another gender. They did not need to experience gender dysphoria to be diagnosed with gender identity disorder. It is more difficult to fulfill the criteria for the DSM5 diagnosis than to fulfill the diagnosis criteria for the DSM4 which itself is more difficult to fulfill than the DSM3R diagnosis. That paper is the reason I've been hesitant to use the words persistence, desistence, and dransition. As new hook states, the dominant framework for understanding variations of childhood gender is rooted in the field of criminology where desistence is defined as the sessation of offending or other antisocial behavior. That means that when you say someone desisted from being trans, you imply that transess is deviant and now they've returned to normal. Hm. But describing it as desistance isn't just about semantics. It has another implication as well. It also means that these studies are more successful if there are fewer trans people by the end. This lies at the very center of the problem with ROGD. All of the anti-trans talking points and the rot I found within the research that being trans is bad. It's it's transphobia, but it's also called cisgender supremacy or cis sexism. New hook at Al makes another interesting and slightly radical point. If you at any point in life say that you are sis, even if you've questioned your gender or been trans, this is seen as returning to the optimal stable state. If you're trans, on the other hand, you need to be absolutely unwavering in your identity. You are expected to show no signs of uncertainty. If you're not completely stable in your gender, you'll never be taken seriously. Then it's being delusional about a delusion. Mad. Not only will you not be helped, but you might be used as a token or as an argument for why other transgender or queer people are deviant. This is a core part of cis sexism or cisgender privilege. Like, try to look up transroken arm syndrome. It's wrong. Of course, your gender evolves alongside you. Anyways, these studies are not the only ones with methodological flaws. It's normal, even expected, to inflate the distance reports that makes the study more successful. Remember, on a now longforgotten website, I found an article that examines Sucker's research and compares it to a 2002 reply, much like the critique from Temple New Hook. To arrive at the conclusion that the majority, 76% of gender referred children, including those with a diagnosis of GD, expressed cross- sex wishes, soccer aggregated the categories once in a while and very rarely together with frequently/ everyday. A more diagnostically relevant interpretation of Sucker's table, leads to the conclusion that the minority, 23% of the boys and girls in his sample expressed what could be considered repeated cross- sex wishes indicative of strong and persistent crossgender identification. Cross-ex wishes that are expressed once in a while or very rarely are arguably not indicative of strong and persistent crossgender identification. Barn's whole book concerns itself with transition might be good for some, but it's bad for most. And since we aren't hearing nearly enough bad stories from people who dransition, it can only mean that we will see a flood of them in the future. The narrative is based on the idea that it's better to be cisgender than being transgender. And the whole argument is based on these statistics that only 3 to 20% of people with gender dysphoria in childhood are actually trans. that we effectively will see 80% of trans people in the future dransitioning. All the other theories, rapid onset gender dysphoria, autism, vulnerable children, autogginia, puberty blockers, they're all invented to predict a nasty transition movement. But there is no nasty transition movement. This is also made up. Trans people don't exist. If they're trans women, it's only extreme edge cases of autotosexual wannabe women. If they're trans men, it's because of internalized misogyny. If people aren't trans because of the oppression of women, it's a mental disorder, a delusion and a perversion, and we should treat it. If it's not a mental disorder, it's caused by other mental disorders, and we should treat those. If we can't, we should make it as hard as possible to transition. So, we make sure that they aren't faking it. In any case, all children fake it. They don't know any better. They shouldn't be allowed to transition. If they transition, it's only because of the drugs. If it's not the drugs, it's a social contagion. If it's not a contagion, it's just mad. They shouldn't transition because transitioning is bad. They'll regret it. If they don't regret it, they'll kill themselves. [Music] Trans people shouldn't exist. Don't you get it? Society hates trans people. Couldn't be me. I would march with you if you weren't discriminated against. I respect their pronouns in my anti-trans book. Look at how woke I am. Look at me, the feminist. I said earlier that being transphobic doesn't mean that you hate trans people. just that you don't really think they exist or that it's preferable to be cisgender. Then I said that this way of thinking is rarely any better than actually hating trans people. That's because not believing that trans people exist is dehumanizing them. It's taking away their agency, effectively taking away their life. Some people really hate trans people. Even those who don't can't mourn someone they don't believe exists. You know, I really, really despise Okam's race arguments, especially the people who make them. But come on, isn't it easier to just accept that trans people exist? That trans people can be funny, boring, beautiful, ugly, cringe, and charming. That they're normal people just like you and me. That they have the capacity for good and bad and beyond just like everyone else. For all the resources devoted to studying these children, we have much more to learn by listening to them. Chapter 16, desistence, part three. I've shown the unreliable data from the desistance statistics that in 80% of cases, gender dysphoria doesn't continue into adolescence. I don't like the conflation of those statistics with people who dransition. Those with gender dysphoria who do not go on to transition should not be correlated with those who do transition. I mean, I think those two data points should be separated and then it's possible to look into false positives on those who transition and false negatives on those who do not. I also fundamentally disagree with the whole desistance model. For clarity, I'll still use the word drt transansition for those who socially or medically transitioned to later retransition to their original assigned gender. But I think the word retransition would actually be more accurate. So let's take a look at some of the evidence we have right now. What's the percentage of people who transition and subsequently dransition? Honestly, we don't entirely know, but we have a pretty good idea. The thing is the desistance rate from the studies that Temple New Hook Adal mentioned isn't actually that crazy if we think in terms of all people referred to gender identity clinics. Finally, I can site that goddamn book as a single good source. 40 to 45% of young people seen by kids are referred for puberty blockers. This means this means that not everyone referred to the clinic ends up with a formal diagnosis or prescription. As I talked about earlier, not all people who experience gender dysphoria are trans. So, of the whole population, a certain percentage experience gender dysphoria. A part of that percentage is trans. And what's more, only a part of trans people manages to get through the system to get puberty blockers. But practically all those administered puberty blockers will end up getting hormone replacement therapy. Why? Because the extensive rigorous testing to determine the authenticity of dysphoria means that practically no false positives exist. Almost no sis people go through the whole medical transition from start to end. In almost all other scenarios, it would be a rounding error. who would stay on waiting lists for years on end, face bigotry and rejection from both medical professionals and society as a whole, then go through several layers of therapy examinations, double, triple, or quadruple sourced acceptance with even further clinical trials. On top of that, if they weren't transgender, very, very, very few. It's so hard to get help with transgender issues that it Maybe should be easier. H maybe maybe society values the lives of cisgender people so much higher than the lives of transgender people that we are willing to stop hundreds of people from transitioning just to make sure that one cisgender person doesn't mistakenly have to go through the same thing that all transgender people do. that a person just like you and me can be swallowed up in a system that labels them a secondass citizen and a sick freak. Someone who's confronted every day with how they're wrong. How we shouldn't let children be near them. How we should intervene and do everything within our power to stop them, to poke and prod and belittle, to design ideologies only meant to exclude them. And this is only wrong if they happen to be what is deemed normal by the exact same system. If it isn't clear, I'm not against people who choose to dransition or retransition for whatever reason. There's no need to make this a dilemma. There's no right baby to throw into the orphan crushing machine. Why do we have an orphan crushing machine? Look, it's easy to get puberty blockers if you're a sis child who enters puberty too early. Long acting analoges of G&H have been the gold standard treatment of central precocious puberty worldwide and have an enviable track record of safety and efficacy. Sis children can get puberty blockers even under 6 years old, but we want to rule it out for trans people under the age of 18 where they already have gone through puberty. It's easy to get testosterone if you are an old man and your body no longer produces it. According to this paper, 3.75% of all men over the age of 60 were receiving hormone replacement therapy in 2011 in the US. But it has been shown several times how many of the men didn't even meet the criteria for hypogonatism, low testosterone. Yet, they were still prescribed TRT. And what's more, it's been estimated that 25% of men of all ages didn't get their testosterone levels checked before their prescription. And half of those didn't even get it checked after. They were just able to ask and receive. It's easy to get breast reduction surgery if you're a sis woman. There were 71,000 cases of breast reduction surgery in the US in 2022. Even if you're a sis woman under 20, it's relatively easy to get breast implants or breast reduction. In 2022, there were 2,492 and 5,996 cases of implants and reduction, respectively. It's easy to get breast removal if you're a boy on a 20 with gynecomastia. The list goes on. To put that into perspective, less than,400 people with a gender dysphoria diagnosis from ages 6 to 17 went on puberty bloggers in 2022. 282 got double masectomies in the ages 13 to 17. Oh, but that's so young. Sue Evans had managed to remove herself from thinking too much about git for more than a decade. But learning what was happening in the United States where children as young as 13 were receiving double masectomies, she felt there had to be some kind of action. Let me drill this point home. Yes, it's young. The source for Susan's outrage were that, wait for it, two 13year-olds got top surgery, which both of them wanted. 100% of all respondents in the study affirmed that it was a good decision to undergo chest reconstruction. 13 is not the usual age for top surgery. In the US, gender affirming surgery is specifically prohibited and the ages where you can get it varies depending on the state. In the future, it might even get prohibited for adults. Sorry, but isn't that crazy that a cis child can get breast implants, but a trans child can't even get puberty blockers? Anyways, though no definitive answers exist yet, several studies have been made on dransition rates. But before I go into this, I want to say that it's not unusual for people to dransition and it shouldn't be seen as some definitive measure of effectiveness. Look, this study has more than 17,000 respondents who had pursued gender affirmation. Of these, 13% had a history of dransitioning. When asked why, 82% cited at least one external factor and 16% decided at least one internal factor. What's the external factors you ask? Oh, you know, trouble getting a job, 29%, pressure from family, 26%. Or spouse, 18%. From parents, 36%. Or because of harassment, 31%. Or that is simply too hard. Oh, I wonder why it's so hard. Hm. And a dransition in this case doesn't mean regret. It doesn't even mean permanent. In fact, 62% of those 13% lived full-time in a gender different from their birth. So that's what 5% who didn't who retransitioned to their assigned gender. Only 5% of the 13% answered that they realized gender transition was not for them. That's 0.65% of the sample. And so it's not like they didn't want to transition. They just had to retransition a couple of times. But we have a lot more data. Okay, this is going to be a lot of citations. Ready? In a random sample of 303 patient files from the Nottingham Center for Transgender Health, only one person were found to have dransitioned. That's 0.3%. In another study of 1,989 patients who underwent gender affirming surgery, six dransitioned or applied for reversal surgery. Again, 0.3%. The cash report mentions an analysis from the DIS from 2018 to 2022 where 3,36 people were included. Fewer than 10 people dransition, less than 0.3%. [ __ ] this review, by the way. I was just about done with reddrafting when this thing came out, and it doesn't even tell us anything new. But Cass still finds it time to mention, oh, how the numbers of the transitioners might be rising. Spooky. C, it can practically decrease from 0.3% and as we'll see, it's probably not increasing. Anyway, in a meta analysis of 27 studies related to gender affirming surgery done on 7,928 transgender patients, 77 showed any form of regret. The most common reason was poor social and or family support. Only 35 people showed clear regret, meaning wanting to dransition. You see, regret is not always dransitioning. It's not even necessarily regretting the effects of the surgery. In this retrospective study with 6,793 trans people spanning more than 40 years from the largest Dutch gender clinic treating more than 95% of all trans people in the country. 0.6% of trans women and 0.3% of trans men experience regret following a gonadctomy. That's removing balls and or ovaries, by the way. But for many, the regret wasn't a result of the actual effects of the surgery, but because of the stigma they faced from family and communities. A long-term follow-up on regret rates related to double massctomies with 139 patients who had undergone surgery from 1990 to 2020. 0% had any regret. The authors even kind of seem irritated since they can't do complex analysis on the results with a nonexisting regret rate. In the largest to date survey with 92,329 respondents, 94% felt more satisfied with a life after transitioning. 98% of all who underwent hormone treatment felt more satisfied with a life. There aren't any further explanations on this number. So the 2% who don't feel more satisfied might as well be because they're treated like [ __ ] by their country. H something to think about. In a longitudinal analysis of all applications for gender affirming surgery in Sweden from 1960 to 2010, there was a 2.2% regret rate. Regret here refers to the application to retransition to their assigned gender at birth. Interestingly, the analysis shows how regret rates become rarer as time goes on, probably because of better surgical procedures and a more accepting environment. Whereas four out of 15 people, that's 27% had regrets from 1960 to 1970, only one out of 360 people had regret from 2000 to 2010. Those 360 people account for almost half of the total and 1 divided by 360 leaves us with a regret rate of 0.3%. [Music] Finally, in a systematic review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and 2017 assessing the effects of transitioning on well-being was made by Cornell University. Of all 72 studies, 17 were literature reviews or guidelines. Of the remaining 55 studies, 51 showed that transitioning resulted in an improvement to well-being and four studies showed mixed or no difference and not negative findings, mixed or no findings. Between all 72 studies, they found a regret rate ranging from.3% to 3.8%. Regrets are most likely to result from a lack of social support after transition or poor surgical outcomes using older techniques. This is not a case of oh not wanting to discuss a problem or that someone is suppressing evidence but simply that we cannot rely on bad data and a worldview in which not being trans is seen as superior. Chapter 17 the anti-trans network. Hannah starts her book with Anna Hutchinson asking are we hurting children? 450 pages and 92 citations later, we're led to conclude yes some. But today we're left with a new question. How many? Um, good question. Wait, who is Anna Hutchinson? In bringing credibility to the book's narrative, Barnes interviews a host of different experts. Those are among a couple of others Susan and her husband Marcus Evans as David Bell the owner of transgender trend Stephanie Davis Ara Kirsty and whistle Melissa Midian and of course Anna Hutchinson. Dr. Anna Hutchinson is a clinical psychologist with 25 years of experience in the field. She specializes in adolescent physical and mental health and worked at the Tavistock clinic from 2013 to 2017. In 2016, she was writing positively on the affirmative model for transgender healthcare. Yet, at some point after that, something must have shifted for her. Fast forward to 2023, and she's discussing the ethics and definitions of conversion therapy. That gender identity disorder overtook homosexuality's place in the DSM3. And now the transit movement itself is a form of conversion therapy to avoid homosexuality. One person's affirmation therapy might be another person's conversion therapy, but no one can agree which is which. Which is why conversion therapy for gender identity should not be made illegal. According to Hutchinson, in March of 2024, some people were protesting at a conference called first do no harm. Why would anyone protest against the hypocratic oath? The event was organized by clinical advisory network on sex and gender can SG who invited several speakers including Anna Hutchinson to network and discuss evidence-based care. The Royal College of General Practitioners who housed the conference had been notified months earlier about the likelihood of protests. You see, KandsG is super duper hooked on conversion therapy or just like Hutchinson, they don't believe that conversion therapy for gender identity exists. And since it doesn't exist, they don't need to be careful about it. And if there was such a hypothetical national ban on gender conversion therapy, this would hinder their exploratory psychotherapy practices. So, please, please don't ban it. Uh, this was the Royal College of General Practitioners response to the potential protests. The RCGP is one of 20 health organizations that have signed a memorandum of understanding opposing conversion therapy. So we were very vocal opponents of the government's proposal to ban the practice for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in England and Wales, but not for trans people. When the document was updated to include gender identity, we worked with other signitories to ensure the memorandum was clear that being opposed to conversion therapy did not mean opposing appropriate clinical and psychological interventions for trans and gender questioning people and that it is entirely possible to deliver a ban on conversion therapy that protects all LGBTQ plus people. Who is CANSG then? A clinical advisory network on sex and gender is founded by Marie Aine, Stella Mali, Asakim, and Robert Withers. It calls for an alternate viewpoint on gender identity treatment, one which should be founded in better data collection, rigorous science, evidence-based politics, and unbiased information. Robert Withers is a union psychoanalyst with 30 years of experience working with researching and writing about people with gender dysphoria. According to him, of the writing Withers has done on these people, I've only been able to find two articles he authored. One of those being the seventh penis, which is it's retracted. The paper's goal was to explore whether whether effective analytical work with the issues driving a person's determined wish for sex reassignment surgery is possible. Particularly consideration is given to how such work might navigate a path between traumatizing and pathologizing the patient on one hand and avoiding important analytical material out of fear of so doing on the other. He's asking if traumatizing his patients might be a price worth paying for, you know, making them not trans. I do not consider myself an expert on transsexualism or transgendered states. Okay. Uh, what the hell does he or does he not have 25 years of experience? The seventh penis was retracted due to Withers not preserving the confidentiality of his clients as well as a lack of consent. He even mentions as much in the paper. He was found guilty on three counts of misconduct. Since he was solely affair with confidentiality, it made it possible for transness, a support group for trans women, to reach out to the client of Withers, allowing her to tell her side of the story. He puts himself out as this really clever psychotherapist who has had so much experience with trans people, but in actual fact, he's only ever seen two trans people in his entire career. I was deeply traumatized by Robert Withers. I found him on YouTube talking with a group of anti-trans activists and all of a sudden he started making up some rubbish about why he thought I had a disassociative episode. What he didn't mentioned and never has, it was because he was being so dominant over me. And during the session, he did the whole spreading his legs business. I'm a survivor of sexual violence and the combination of his body language and what he was doing triggered me. He says he was wanting to not expose me to abuse, but he pursued and abused me nonetheless. Any therapist worthless or would be very aware of the body language. Not only that, trauma therapists don't launch headlong into opening up experiences of abuse without first concentrating on safety and stabilization. Traumatizing his patients is a price he's eager to pay. Apparently, Hakee, the next in the list of Ganesh Gi's founders and the top gender expert in the UK, has a particular distaste for trans people. In the book, Lectures on violence, perversion, and delinquency, Hakee features as the author of one of the chapters. Chapter 10, Transsexuality, a case of the Emperor's New Clothes by Asakim. It seems very difficult to attempt to understand the mind of a transsexual. If the definition of a delusion is that of being a firmly held unshakable false belief, then surely the conviction that one is what one is not is also understood as a delusional disorder. Aim is a prime example of a gatekeeper. He believes that the existence of a trans person is contingent on his allowance. He's also too stupid to ask the question why one is what one is not. I am the only one who thinks. Therefore, I am the only one that is kind of stupid person. That woman at that point in time believed that she was a cat. The management of this patient that I thought appropriate was not to collude with her delusional belief and convince myself that she was a cat, but instead try and understand her condition as being an encapsulated psychosis. To her team, this woman may not have been a cat, but neither was she ever a person. She was her psychosis and only through her psychosis did he try to understand her condition. To suggest that the core belief defining an individual as a transexual, the belief that one is the gender, that one is not be understood as an encapsulated monodilusional belief is surprisingly controversial. Brand's people are to her not only auto delusional psychotics, but they're also literally freaks. With surgery allowing us to be increasingly creative, we perhaps believe that we can become the ultimate creator. The danger is that we may actually become more like Dr. Frankenstein. Not only are they freaks, but they're also barely human. Their entire being is a sick, twisted and incomprehensible unreality. Such a flight away from mindfulness may be a reflection of how difficult it is to try and think about the disturbance created in the transsexual mind. Hakee's distantly amused reaction to the possible suffering of the people who come to him for help is to me just [ __ ] nauseating. But really the thesis of this chapter is exposing the lies of trans people that they are deluding not only themselves but also the people around them and that we should not let such lying scheming filth think that they are anything they're not. That's why the chapter is called Empress New Clothes because according to Hakee the people need to see through the deception and call it out anywhere always. This takes us back again to the story of the emperor where it was the young boy who had the freedom to express his honest feelings was able to be true to himself and not collude with the madness and deception he found all around him. It is interesting that one of my patients has reported that an indicator of how convincing he is as a woman or how successful that deception is is to walk down the street in public around the time that schools are closing. The very politically incorrect honesty mixed with the unfortunate cruelty of children allow this individual to gauge whether he is successful in his endeavors of deceit and control of others when the level of remarks passed by children will be few. In contrast, if his deception is unsuccessful, this will be manifest in much taunting and humiliation. It seems that in our profession it is only the psychoanalytical psychotherapist or the similarly informed psychiatrist and only the more vocal braver ones at that who take on the role of the boy in the story and are able to present the voice of reality rather than the voice of the perceived majority who are seen to collude with the fantasy and deception. This theme comes to a head in the final pages of the chapter where Hakee discusses how society should never treat a trans person with respect because imagine the horror sis people would be subject to should trans people by chance ever be seen as equal. Of course, neither I nor any of the other clinicians with whom I work are opposed to a transsexual being allowed the right to marry, but our objections are that they are allowed to marry as a person of the sex, which they are not. A similarly related ongoing battle currently in process is the fight for the transsexual to be allowed to change the gender specified on the birth certificate. Again, we are faced with deception. A further illustration of the deception would be the possibility arising in the event of both the affforementioned pieces of legislation. They could result in a man marrying what he presumes to be a woman who had a female passport, a birth certificate declaring him to be female at birth, who is taken to be female, and an individual whom he believed he could marry and who could be the mother of his children. But in reality, his wife is actually being a man. I I'm I don't know why this one infuriates me so much. I should have become desensitized to this by now. Hakee is an adviser to the UK LGB alliance group who wants to severize with the T in LGBT. Neither Hakee nor LGB alliance believes in the existence of trans people. Gender ideology is made up. It's a social construct. It's a cult belief. The trench in the crisis is a current form of youth subculture. You know, like punks and goths. LGBT Alliance was formed to oppose the emancipation of trans people and to support the rights of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Which is weird because one of the LGBT Alliance founders, Bev Jackson, argues for working with the Heritage Foundation to bring down the trans movement. The Heritage Foundation is anti-climate change. is against same-sex marriage, abortion, and they founded project 2025. You might say they would salute the words, "We must secure the existence of our people and the future for American children." Both Beth Jackson and co-founder Allison Bailey incidentally promoted the work of Jennifer Bleck, who, if you remember, is the neo-Nazi Helen Joyce used as a source for her book. Malcolm Clark, a third co-founder of LGBT Alliance, argued against LGBT clubs in schools since predatory gay teachers might exploit the situation. Clark also argued that the true ideal of the transgender movement was to transform the UK into the Islamic Republic of Iran. They are truly sending their best here. Okay, let's go a bit faster and fill this thing out. Okay, KSG's last important founder is Stella Omali. Not only is she the founder of CANSG, she's also in charge of the podcast Gender a Wider Lens and Jenspect. She co-host Gender a Wider Lens with Sasha Ayad where they interview well anyone with a view on gender that differs from the norm as long as they are fundamentally against trans people. Of course, Genpect is one of the largest gender critical organizations featuring advisers such as Aza, Sasha Ayad, Lisa Litman, Abigail Shria, Julia Mason, Kathleen Gonan, and Lisa Makano. Lisa Macano is the founder of Therapy First, but she was also a key member in at least four other organizations. Lisa Makano, or as she sometimes goes by, Lisa Bell, was the founder of the now abandoned youth transcritical professionals. The same website linked to in Lisa Litman's studies, the same Lisa Bell or Machano, who Julia Serrano believed to have created the hypothesis of rapid onset gender dysphoria. More on that later. Macano was one of the members of International Association of Therapists for Desisters and Drtitioners. And even though the organization is also closed down and abandoned, we can still find remnants of the other members. Those being Stella Ali, Sasha Ayad, Kirsty and whistle and estasis Biliadis and Anna Hutchinson. Yet another abandoned organization was Gender Exploratory Therapy Association. Maybe the name was a bit too revealing. Get's founders included Stell Mali, Sasha Ayad, Susan Evans, and Roberto D'Angelo. One of their advisers were Robert Withers. And in 2024, GA became therapy first. Finally, the largest of the abandoned anti-trans organizations, pediatric and adolescent gender dysphoria working group. Sasha Ayad, Stella Omali, Anastasis Biladis, Robert Withers, and Roberto D'Angelo counted among their members. What sets this group apart is the amount of old guard and people with interesting affiliations. Other members included Michael Bailey, Ray Blanchard, Susan Bradley, James Caner, Michael Lateaw, and Kenneet Sucker. I've already covered Sucker, Bradley, and Cancer, but what's the deal with Blanchard and Bailey? Blanchard coined the term autogophilia from earlier. He also wanted to introduce hepopilia into the DSM as a distinction from pedophilia. Heilia then is the sexual arousal to children aged 11 to 14 instead of just children. Why would anyone try to make a pedo light? No. Really imagine why anyone would do that. Blanchard in another stroke of genius wanted to remove the pathogization of pedophilia turning it into a sexual orientation instead of a diagnosis. He argues that it should be okay to fantasize and masturbate to the thought of children. It is unclear what, if anything, would be lost by excluding such persons from the diagnosis of mental disorder. It does not need to be pathized as long as you yourself don't feel distressed about it and as long as you don't go out of your way to sexually assault children thrice. As a reminder, yes, Blanchard very much want to pathize trans people in all circumstances. Now, Michael Bailey didn't believe in male bisexuality until he discovered it in 2020. Incredible. At least he keeps up with the contra points drama on Twitter. Huh. H. and really seems to like Charles Murray and for some reason liked a tweet of Trump talking about his nice jeans for 3 minutes which closes on his proudness of having German jeans. The tweet was made by a self-proclaimed Nazi. No, I don't think Bailey is actually a Nazi. Rather, I think he's too stupid to realize that he likes Nazi tweets and philosophies. All of these people and organizations are pro-gender identity change efforts. Conversion therapy. The argument is that sexuality is innate and should not be changed. But gender identity is simply a subculture, a fetish, a contagion. It doesn't harm anyone when you try to change their gender. In fact, it's the morally right choice that real conversion therapy is electroshock and vomiting. Pavlovian conditioning and shaming that these gender activists are too stupid to realize that what they're protesting is for their own good. Actually, no, they should count themselves lucky. In December 2020, a committee meeting on justice and human rights was held with regards to Bill C6 in the House of Commons in Canada. Bill C6 sought to prohibit conversion therapy. The opening remarks were made by a former client of Kent Saka. I am a survivor of transcon conversion therapy. Dr. Sucker saw me as a patient for 7 years from the ages of 16 to 23 and denied me transaffirming healthcare in the form of both hormones and surgery until I was 22. Dr. Sucker instead put me through what he has termed desistance treatment for trans youth. He interrogated me in talk therapy for hours at a time, inquisitorially attacking, damaging, and attempting to destroy my identity and my self-esteem and to make me ashamed and hateful of myself. Years into treatment, he had condemned me to the fate that I wish to avoid. The very one I asked him every session to save me from. He made my body a prison, and it is to this day. Conversion therapy almost broke me, and I live with its physical and emotional scars to this day. But I was only a small part of Sucker's practice. Sucker and his colleagues are the international proponents and researchers of conversion therapy for trans people of all ages across the world. Whatever these theories and papers call their practices autogophilia, rapid onto gender dysphoria, watchful waiting or desistence therapy by Saka and Blanchard and Litman and Cander and Bailey and Bradley and so many others. They all have one thing in common. They are all conversion therapies and practices for trans people. There are many briefs in front of the committee stating that gender affirming care is actually conversion therapy for gay, lesbian, or bisexual youth and that gender identity should be removed from the purview of Bill C6. I implore you, do not listen to them. The wounds that soccer caused me can never be undone. I don't know if I'll be able to heal and feel right or whole or right as a person ever again. Everyone I've mentioned and everyone I'm going to mention are opponents of gender affirming care. They are all against banning conversion therapy for gender identity. They are all enemies to trans people. Society for evidence-based gender medicine held in 2023 a conference featuring more than 30 experts from different parts of the world. They got together to discuss experiences and concerns of clinical staff working at youth gender clinics and to review current treatment guidelines through the lens of evidence-based gender medicine. When CANSG, Sex Matters, Jensen Spect, and others mentions evidence-based gender medicine, this is what it's led up to. It's also become a dog whistle. The conference featured among others Anna Hutchinson, Hannah Barnes, Lisa Litman, Roberto D'Angelo Kennet Sucker, Michael Bakes, Sasha Ayad, Kathleen Gunnan, and William Malone. Looking through Seekm's advisers, we find Sasha Ayad, Lisa Macano, Anastasis Biladis, and Michael Bakes, who is also known as Mr. Henry Wimbush. Seekm lists five founders on the website. Julia Mason, Roberto D'Angelo, Sa abuses, and William Malone. What's interesting about Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine is not only its list of supporters and old guard, but also the kind of people the organization is willing to working with. William Malone, the president of SEM, has rubbed shoulders with a lot of people from American College of Pediatricians. Take for example this letter to the editor signed by Michael Lelaw, Quinton Faner, Paul Cruz, Andre Fan Mol and William M alone from 2018 where they argue against the use of puberty bloggers and certainly propagate the idea of gender exploratory therapy. Of the five authors, all except William Malone is a member of American College of Pediatricians. I I I know it's hard to remember all these names, but this Paul Shrews is the same Paul Shrews who served as an expert witness for Kira Bell in the chapter on puberty blockers. The same Paul Shrews who said some children are born in this world to suffer and die. American College of Pediatricians or ACPEDs is not to be confused with American Academy of Pediatricians or AAP. AAP was funded almost a century ago and they're interested in safety for children whether through recommendation in regards to car seats wanting to ban child targeted advertising or through gun safety regulations. ACEDs on the other hand was founded in 2002 and is interested in other kinds of safety for children. They preach abstinence only sex education are strictly anti-abortion and samesex marriage. And when I say samesex marriage, I mean they equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Michelle Cretella, the former president of ACPs, also once served on the board of directors at NAT. Incidentally, NAF, the original conversion therapy organization for homosexuality, was formerly advised by George Rers and was founded by Joseph Nicoloi, who I might have forgotten to mention Saka and Bradley referenced in regard to prevention of homosexuality in their book. In 2017, the Department of Justice wanted to include gender identity into section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. This section specifies who and how you allowed to discriminate in health and federal financial assistance programs. If passed, gender identity and by extension trans people would also be covered and thereby prohibited to discriminate against on par with race, sex, color, national origin, age, and disability. Then in 2018, the Trump administration overruled the inclusion. something then labeled the crulest thing the Trump administration has done to trans people yet. A host of people wrote in support of this decision. Michelle Cretella of ACpeds was spearheading the petition to uphold the scientific definition of sex. Other signitories were Quinton Fanita, Paul McHugh, Michael Lelo, Paul Ruse, Susan Bradley like you who's from Canada, Michael Bailey, Laura Haynes, and Tony Perkins. Other signitories range from Catholic university departments to the former CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian group who wants to outlaw abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage, and who defended state enforced sterilization for trans people in Europe. But ACES seems to be just far enough removed from the anti-trans network. Maul, Misa, and Kruella don't really present themselves as experts on trans healthcare. You could argue that it's only a few bad apples who engage with the nationalistic rightwing. The anti-trans network does their best to keep their hands clean, yet they're often only one step removed from the nationalistic and conservative rightwing. Except when they're not. Let me show you. The Kelsey Coalition is another disbanded anti-trans organization founded by someone under the pseudonym Katherine Cave after their child came out as trans. Their mission statement is essentially to keep that from happening to any other parent. Katherine Cave, by the way, is also the person who published the piece that Bev Jackson of LGB alliance shared on Twitter. If you remember, this is the one where Bev Jackson argues for working with the Heritage Foundation. And this is how the Celtic coalition introduced themselves. History is replete with medical scandals, frontal labbotoies to treat mental illness, forced sterilization to control undesirable populations, the infamous Tuskiggee experiment, indefensible, unethical medical procedures were performed for years. Why did it take so long to stop them? History is repeating itself. What the organization says is fairly insignificant, but what inellas is not. Active between 2019 and 2020 with only six outwardly facing members, four of whom are anonymous parents, this abandoned website seems like any of the other anti-trans farms with only a shell of infrastructure plasted with the same regurgitated speaking points. Yeah. So, let's first connect it back. You see, they are one of the few organizations to publicly work with right-wing think tanks. The Celtic Coalition formed a very close relationship with the Heritage Foundation during its one functioning year. One of the six members were Michael Lateaw from AC Pets, the same Late Law who works with William Malone. In 2019, one of the anonymous parents was featured alongside Late Law in a panel by the Heritage Foundation. This parents testimony was then reprinted in several right-wing publications following the panel. If you searched the web for the Kelsey Coalition Now, the first result is a website allowing you to download the parent resource guide developed by the Minnesota Family Council in 2019. A fun little tidbit of information is Minnesota Family Council's affiliation with Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council. FRC was founded in part by George Rickers in 1983 and the current president is the Tony Perkins who signed to remove gender identity from the 1557 affordable care act. Anyways, this guide was developed in collaboration with AC peds family policy alliance, the Kelty Coalition, the Heritage Foundation, Women's Liberation Front and Parents of our GD Kids. Supporting members of the guide are among others Michelle Cretella, Michael Lelaw, Susan Bradley, William Malone, and Sasha Ayad. The guide itself isn't worth going through. It's just a dumb down conservative version of what the first half of this video was about. It does show us a piece of the puzzle, though, that yes, obviously these people are very willing to working with conservative organizations. There's also another little detail. Practically all the endorsements are made by key policy makers or professors. [Music] And then there's James Shupe, a US Army veteran. What if I told you that James Shupe doesn't exist? When Shupe transitioned for the first time in 2013, it wasn't a nice experience. She suffered from blood clots and rashes caused by poorly monitored hormone levels. She was a retired veteran and worked for a pro-LGBTQ organization. She also became the first legally recognized non-binary person in the US. But in 2017, something in her must have shifted. My head is off to the Heritage Foundation because it's really the only place that people such as myself and these radical feminists are getting a voice. In an interview with a reporter from New York magazine, Shupe stated that she never thought of herself as female and talked about sex stereotypes and how she agreed with the radical feminists on the immutability of sex compared to gender. The dogs barked. Shup was contacted by several anti-trans activists asking her to share her story. And then as a result, Shupe was dropped from her job. When Shupe reached out, the anti-trans network picked her up. In 2019, Shupe legally retransitioned to male. Shupe became one of the most influential dransition voices at the time. Think of the word transvestite. They've succeeded in making it a vulgar word, even though it just means men dressing like women. The diagnostic code in my records should read transvestic disorder. Instead, the novel theories of Judith Butler and Anne Fasto Sterling have been used to cover up the truths written about by Blanchard, J. Michael Bailey, and Ali Streer. I confess to have been motivated by autogenia during all of this. Blanchard was right. This is what James Shu wrote in 2019 in an article for the Daily Signal. A fast forward 3 years to 2022 when seemingly out of the blue, a blog post appeared on elisup.wordpress.com. Radical and gender critical feminists, conservatives, and faith-based groups would like everyone to believe that gender dysphoria can be cured simply by adopting dangerous beliefs. They want you to think that praying, undergoing conversion therapy, etc. can cure and change you. I can attest that all of their treatments failed to work in my case. Publicly, I sustained during that 10 years time by lying to myself and others that what they said worked. I also shamefully sold their ideologies to the media and the public while overdosing on estrogen supplements in private, trying to desperately lower my testosterone level. Direct them to this post and set the record straight. Trans women are legally women. Trans in their lives matter. Going forward, although I have adopted the name Elisa Shupe, please call me Lisa. My pronouns are she and her. So, what happened? This is Kathleen Gulan, advisor to both Jensen Spectre and SEM. Here she is at a panel discussion in 2023 hosted by Moms for Liberty and sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. The power of social transition is is not to be underestimated. It is a major psychoggenic intervention and we have to fight against it at every step and raise questions about it from the moment you see any sign of it in your children, your grandchildren, your children's friends. And you don't back down. On her left sits JW Richards of the Heritage Foundation. On her right sits January Little John of antitrans group do no harm. You might even recognize her from somewhere. Hm. January. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. And to the right of her sits Aaron Brewer, co-founder of Advocates Protecting Children. Ah, look, it's Michelle Cretell again. So, when I was looking to retire, I started uh talking to people like Abigail Shrier who wrote um Irreversible Damage. She sent me to Dr. Paul McHugh who I know from my uh faith and uh they encouraged me to get involved and one step led to another and I found my way to Jenspect. Paul McHugh, if you don't know, is a conservative Catholic psychiatrist who closed the John Hopkins gender identity clinic in 1979 called Homosexuality and erroneous desire and served as an expert witness in the defense of numerous priests accused of child sexual abuse. He was also appointed by Bush to the President's Council of Bioeththics. If that means anything to you, what is the plan? we we're going to unwind the relationship with that pediatrician. We're going to go find a different therapist or we're going to find no therapist cuz this child doesn't need to be told they're sick. They're not sick. We need to tell them they're healthy. We need to get them outdoors. We need to get them into sports. We need to explore the world, anything but fixating on themselves cuz one of the things they do is just think about themselves. That's all they think about. Going to have to uh play a dual game for a while. I've been to the schoolboard meetings in Harvard County where the bulk of the parents talking about this topic were advocating for social transition. They were thanking the school for transitioning their kids. So, we're just going to have to bring the presence forward of those that don't agree and ask them to play uh to meet our needs as well. It it's going to be awkward for a while, but I think we're stuck with doing that. But it will it will we'll gain momentum. We'll have more and more parents say, "What do you mean they're asking my kid for pronouns? Um, we're going to have to be we're going to have to live in two worlds for a while." But right now, they're living in one. The wrong one. The wrong one. In 2023, Elisa Shupe leaked 3,400 emails detailing the last 6 years of her life. I have read through all the emails but even then my obsessiveness still has an end especially when there are more talented people who has already compiled the information. A lot of the story then is from Jude Doyle's article in Extra Magazine and Medicine Paul's article in Mother Jones. Within the leaks are four pieces I want to cover. He has a porn account on Twitter. I usually use people's pronouns, but not for the likes of him. This is Lisa Machano, advisor to Sem and Jenspect, talking about trans journalist Senior Jones from gender analysis. But wait, it gets worse. Can you get me links to those Kib Farm pages? I think someone mentioned she mods some porn Reddit subs. Do you know anything about that? Anything you've got on her, please send. Is there an archive of Jones's Tumblr? Links are being passed to Fox News. Lisa Miano, LCSW, certified union analyst. Machano wants to share revenge porn of Jones. She wants to crawl through Kiwi Farm pages. Revenge porn is sexual abuse. But the emails don't tell us anything more. We don't know who shared the links to Fox News or if they ever even were shared. We can only see what was able to reach Lisa Shupe, but sometimes that allows us to then interpret the ripples. This is a tweet from Ray Blanchard. Take a note of the date. This is only 2 days after Lisa Mariano wrote that links were being passed around. Sia Jones in her Satana Kennedy persona has posted a great deal of shemail pornography online some free redacted.com or someone close to her likely shared links to Ray Blanchard. Did anyone else get links passed to them? We don't know. What we do know is that Marano has a broad network of accompllices. When Shupe wrote to Mago to help her with a possible lawsuit, this was Mano's reply. Yes, I know people who would testify. I believe that Ken Sucker would Mike Bailey perhaps also. And if they can't, they will know people who can. Keep me posted. I won't say anything to anyone yet, but I know several smart people who would likely have some helpful thoughts. So, just let me know what you need. I am going to have a lot of resources for you on this. Really, you let me know when you are ready and I will start introducing you to people. May I have your permission to mention this to fourth wave now? I trust her to keep it secret and she will be jumping for joy. Mariano is interesting and she likely plays a bigger role in the anti-trans network than we are aware of. This is from Doyle's interview with Lisa Shupe. Shupe suspects Machano's role is larger than the public knows. Macano never explicitly said that she is the inventor of ROGD, but the evidence points to her and she's listed as the contributor to the Lisa Litman study on plus one. She writes to me, "My opinion is that Machano and the fourthwave now folks are behind the RGD study and Litman merely fronted it for them to make it appear unbiased. Both Litman, Macano, and the founder of fourthwave now discredits this, but this video is already it's too long. So I recommend Julia Serrano's timeline on RGD and Sia Jones timeline on Lisa Machano's anti-trans activism. There are some weird coincidences about the spread of the social contagion hopes leading back to Machano. We see how Machano leveraged Shup's free time to make her look into, let's say, other unpleasant things. Hi Jamie, I'm hoping you can help us with a research project. Comparing notes, we are noticing that the only suicides of trans teens that we hear about are among those kids who are being supported and affirmed and are transitioning or have transitioned. Leela Elorn being the only exception. Since there are no national statistics that would allow us to test the hypothesis that transition may increase suicidality, we want to try to mine news reports to see what they show. Are you able to put your hands on as many reports of trans teen suicide stories as possible? We can possibly have someone analyze them to see if there are any conclusions that can be drawn. The emails also allows us a glimpse of introductions to friendly faces. After Michael Lelaw contacted Shupe through Twitter, he quickly introduced her to Michelle Cretella and Andra Fernol. Almost a year after the last correspondence, Mariano again wants Shupe to look into kid suicides. Not only do we get glimpses of a network, we are also able to see how it evolves. Mike Blaw and Will Malone are active within it. I am less so. Let me find out if the group is out yet. This email marks the formation of Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Hey, Walt. This is one of those private conversations. My attorney wants me to start stepping away from media interviews because of the cases that are going to get filed. I feel like I'm letting you and others down with that, but it's the best thing. Plus, I need to work on my mental health, which is really fragile right now. As Shupe's mental health deteriorated, she buried herself deeper in the anti-trans network. Now, I'm not going to take away Shup's responsibility. There was no one forcing her. She never stood up and stopped it. But I can't deny her courage. She knew what was in those emails. She knew the role she played against trans people. And yet, she leaked all of it. When Shu retransitioned to male in 2019, the Social Security Administration did not allow her to change to male sex, only male gender, she sought help from Karadansky from Women's Liberation Front, a radical feminist anti-trans organization described as knitting together the turf movement and the far right. I wonder if this might be something ADF would take on if you are willing to work with them. who was, as history shows, very willing to working with the ADF. Even though she had legally dransitioned, she never actually stopped taking estrogen. The lawsuit made sure to cut off her supply almost immediately. When she lost access to gender affirming care, she went to the social worker who a year prior had helped set up her advanced directory. If you're not in the US, then that's her wishes for medical care. should she be unable to tend to her herself. A year before I'd said, "Keep me alive at all costs, even on a ventilator if I'm brain dead." I said, "Let me die." That was a pretty dark day. I told them, "Let me die for any reason." Shupe knows very well that HRT can be a matter of life and death. And still she collaborated with lawmakers all over the USA to ban gender affirming care. I don't have an excuse for that. Shupe says eventually there is no excuse for that. One of the things I found most interesting from Extra Magazine's article and interview with Shupe was how they documented the loss of Shup's voice. If she couldn't write her story herself, others were willing to do it for her. One of those was her attorney, Bob Sullivan. I could help you write them if you are interested in this effort. This is the draft Sullivan gave Shupe. The red section here is where Shupe should write something herself. The rest was done. The ADF also wanted to help her write her personal story. They only needed a very rough sketch and then their writers could do the rest. Her emails from December to Daniel from the Heritage Foundation shows us how she hadn't been able to write anything since her last opit was published in the Daily Signal in March. Honestly, my head isn't clear enough to write. I haven't successfully authored anything since the last OPET. I'm in the weekly trauma therapy and the VA has me on an anti-depressant and Valium. When Shupe finally did begin her next up, she got help from both Daniel and I believe another reporter named Rachel Deluis, I can't pronounce it, who also writes for the Daily Signal. Shu wanted to make sure that the ADF and her lawyer Herbert Gray was mentioned. It's important ADF gets credit. They paid for this. But the ADF wanted nothing to do with it and her. Within the emails, there are two pieces of legislation I want to explore. This is the smaller one, Bill H509 in Idaho, which disallows people to update their birth certificate should they change gender. And at this point, it wasn't just a private conversation between a couple of people. This email chain was comprised of 30 people, experts in the field, you might say, including the founder of Kelsey Coalition, Michael Lelaw, Paul Ruse, Paul McHugh, William Malone, Michelle Coutella, and others from the ADF, the Heritage Foundation, Child and Parental Rights Campaign, at least one homosexual conversion therapists, and a lot of Catholics. The goal was to let these experts comment on the bill before it was officially proposed. The eraser of biological sex negatively impacts the health and safety for all individuals. For example, the Society for Evidence-based gender medicine has declared that the conflation of sex and gender and healthcare is alarming and is poised to subject hundreds of thousands of transgender and cisgender identifying individuals to unintended medical harm from receiving incorrect diagnosis and being subject to incorrect treatments. That looks great. My only concern is with the quote from Sem William Malone. Would you consider this first the reference cisgender identifying individuals? I believe there is a way to make this point without using a word like cis which indirectly endorses the ideology upon which transgender identities are based. I agree that adopting use of cisgender only validates transgender as a healthy variant which it is clearly not. This state is enforcing people to participate in a lie akin to 2 + 2 = 5. I mean, no one should have to appeal to their freedom of religion/concience to stand up against 2 + 2 = 5/ a man is not a woman. If this is not the definition of insane, I don't know what is. Dear friends, I cannot thank you enough for your help and support. It is official. Governor Little signed both H500 and H509 today. Many tears and prayers of gratitude. The fight goes on. What wonderful news, Julian. This is truly a ray of light in dark times. Thank you for your perseverance. To God be the glory. The last piece I want to cover is also, I think, the most impactful. This is about another piece of legislation, the Vulnerable Child Protection Act, which would ban the administration of HRT, Puberty Bloggers, and Gender Affirming Care for Miners. These email chains feature a lot of the same people, the only exception being Michael Bakes, who's now also CCd. All just a note to update you on status of the vulnerable child protection act. I'm comfortable the bill and white paper are at near final form. Not a single legislator spoken with so far has a clue about what's happening with transgender advocacy nor affirmative therapy. All of this is new to them. Casey from Celtic Coalition will be developing her suggested strategy for testimony that I'll bounce off our South Dakota team. As always, please do not share this with media. The longer we can fly under the radar, the better. Let's fast forward half a year to January of 2020. Without this ban in place, South Dakota will allow what is already happening in other states. miners who successfully sue in court to obtain this supposedly lifesaving medical intervention. The claim that this is a lifesaving medically necessary intervention is the big unchallenged domino that is driving both the legal and medical scandal. This is an off repeated claim with no support and it must be confronted directly. Let's memorize Katherine's response and repeat it at nauseium regardless the question or accusation. That is the bottom line here. We must be bulldogs on this fact and principle. Doctors who willfully harm patients are criminals. If a doctor drugs a patient unconscious and surgically removes her 14-year-old healthy breasts, this is a criminal act. Indeed, these are not physician patient relationships at all. They're criminal victim relationships. The physician who does masectomies of 14year-old breasts or provides 11year-olds puberty blockers has willfully caused harm to child not withstanding the desires or knowledge of the preventable child. The physician is ultimately responsible for the harms as he or she is the only one who can sign the prescriptions and use the scalpels and surgical tools in the operating room. The physician is criminal in these scenarios and must be prosecuted by the law. As usual, you guys are working above and beyond the call and putting out excellent exclamation mark work. Stepping back a bit though, philosophically, we are trying to make something to be recognized as a crime by the legal system. But is a crime not a crime if it is not yet on the books? Today we do battle in the South Dakota House floor. I thank you for all your work and your prayers. Fred know that many have prayed and are praying for you this day. Do not back down, nor should you be afraid. Know that the Lord is with you. The children of South Dakota belong to him. He is jealous over them. Let his jealousies be spoken forth in the House of Representatives of South Dakota today so that his children would be made safe. No, you are his representative today. The Vulnerable Child Protection Act didn't pass. Thank you for your courage. Though our session in South Dakota is now over and our efforts to protect gender confused vulnerable children failed, I continue to receive ugly email and social media posts. Dear Fred, please do not say that the South Dakota effort failed. You successfully inspired, encouraged, and counseledled numerous recap efforts around the country. And most importantly, you connected us all to each other. This is just beginning. At least it didn't pass in 2020. As of October 2024, I found bills eerily similar to the one from South Dakota, which have included the words vulnerable, child, and or protection in 12 states. 26 states have now banned gender affirming care for people under 18. The Department of Justice will investigate big pharma and the big hospital networks to determine whether they have deliberately covered up horrific long-term side effects of sex transitions in order to get rich at the expense of vulnerable patients. In this case, very vulnerable. We are still not entirely done with Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, though, because they still have two people on the board of directors who aren't public information. One of those is Marcus Evans, the one who's married to Susan Evans from Hanniban's book. The other is their treasurer, Steven Beck, who can only be found if you go through their accounting files. To bring it full circle, Steven Beck's wife, Sharon Beck, is herself in charge of two organizations. Cardinal support network and parents of our GD kids. But the Becks have good reason not to be too public. After all, they have a transgender child. Everything I'm going to talk about is from the article by Senior Jones. If you have the masochistic urge, read it. If you at all interested in top class journalistic work or if anything in this video has left you wanting more, please check out her and Hill Magnamara's work at gender analysis. There's a link in the description and I'll talk more about resources later. In 2022, House Bill 454 was trying to pass through the Ohio House. HB454 is also known as the SAFE Act, an acronym for safe adolescence from experimentation, which if passed would erase the entirety of transitional and gender affirming healthcare and psychological safety for all trans adolesccents in Ohio. There was one hearing opposing the bill and three in favor of. On the third in favor hearing, a certain Maria Polaris went to the board to testify on behalf of my chartmother who wouldn't be able to attend due to travel. Maria Polaris, of course, is Sharon Beck. I thoughtfully picked out her name. I named her after one of my favorite first ladies who was a strong woman long before her time. It except my chartmother is also Sharon Beck. Searching through the testimonies metadata reveals the author of the PDF as Sharon Beck. Mind you, Sharon Beck, also known as My Childmother, also known as Maria Polaris, has already testified at the second hearing. Steven and Sharon Beck's child is trans and non-binary. They had moved out years prior to this hearing and were only trying to keep themselves informed when, to their shock, their mother stepped up to testify before the court. I could feel my heart sinking from every word she spoke in that room. Her 30inut narrative barely made sense, but she had no hesitation to say the most negative things about me and other trans people in her speech. If this bill were passed while I was under 18, my therapists may have been forced to share aspects about me that I feared my parents finding out about. Without their confidential support, my story may have ended differently. It is sad to be the age I am now, knowing that those fear I had as a minor were truly justified. Sharon writes about her child changing their name. But Shan Beck is no stranger to name changes herself. Senior Jones found more than 10 aliases she has used on different platforms including Sheribeck, Maria Polaris, Maria Boreales, Maria Riveres, Mary McDer, a loving cardinal, and not a chicken. Uh, let's see what she's willing to say when she thinks no one is listening. You are a willing victim of a terrible misleading ideology. There are two genders, male and female. All these other manifestations are affair to try and normalize transsexualism, which is a real and extremely rare mentality ill condition. Do you want this sort of attention the rest of your life? Folks my age view this for what it is. Mental illness. Wow. We cut off our daughter as far as money for school, rent, anything. We hope it slows down the process. And it has. Because of Obamacare, you are not permitted to take your child off insurance until 26 by law, even if they get married. I know because we tried. Lily, I believe the best way is to stay calm and take the Columbbo approach and ask some open-ended questions. Who are her friends? In a way, try not to panic, but get to the bottom of it with the who, what, where, when questions and inform her of the facts that this is a mental disorder. Does she want to be a medical patient? I would suggest trying to keep her really busy. plays soccer, kickboxing, anything that will keep her so busy she can't do much else. You are in a great place, so please don't worry about being hated. I have nothing to lose. I was hoping that my daughter would turn things around, but clearly she's not going to do that on her own. We need to crawl through windows if need be. If my daughter was on an operating table soon, I would find out who is doing that surgery and report them to the medical board of the state. What's there to lose? My sarcastic gender has finally come out. Today, I ran as fast as my dog. So, therefore, I decided that I am a dog, too. I even painted like him, and my hair color is similar. So, I really think that I am a dog now. Is there a therapist out there that can help me be a dog? Would you rather have an alive human or a dead dog? I am very afraid that if my parents don't agree with me, even though they're in the 80s, then I might have to kill my dog. Wow. You and the same boat. We also, due to her unstable mental condition, kept our college daughter on our insurance. Then, almost as divine intervention, my husband lost his job and therefore the insurance. Could this happen to you? That way, it would not be your fault. Since you hardly see her, how is she to know? and then find a way to drop her. A suffering mom, I would say, then disengage completely from therapists. It is fully within your right to have a therapist be on the same page. And if she still insists on therapy, then have her get a job so she can pay for it herself. Also, monitor her cell phone use and don't make the mistake I made by completely unraveling and losing your temper. Also, ask your friends or local church for a therapist. They tend to know and if they have anything regarding gender in their business card, this is a strong indication that they are activistoriented and will work behind your back. You know, my mother said that my brother told her that I should accept what my daughter is doing. And so I said, "Great. Where can I ship hormones to his daughter and see how he likes it?" I get so sick and tired of family members who don't have the decency to attend a birthday party, but they say crap like that. My husband and I have been going through this for a couple of years now. It is the most dangerous cold of our time set up by the liberals to make money off of us. It is a great evil. They got her. They meaning the trans activists. She's gone. So yes, do everything you can. They care more about their ideology than the health of the teen. They do not love the teen. They do not know the teen. It really seems to be a quest against parents. And guess what? They won in my case, and I get to live with it. So, you betrayed your parents' trust by acting like an ass. Most likely, trust is difficult, but not impossible to rebuild. You can start by doing your part and apologizing and have the same life in person as you do online. Parents are not the haters here. I plan to send the gross surgery pictures to this girl. At least she might freak out. I nearly passed out when I saw them. If I send her the same thing I did as channel 9, they will connect the dots. Which is why I have concealed carry cameras all around my house. Still dreaming of running over the trans activists that help fund my daughter's bilateral masectomy. You know, as this project went on, it became more and more difficult to just answer working. When people asked what was going on in my life, when I finally told someone that I was making a video on transphobia, their first question was without exception, why? I think after working on this so long, I can comfortably say I'm not trans. But I would be lying if I said that I have always been sure. I think it's impossible for anyone who really tries to understand not to reflect it a bit back upon themselves. At least I think it should be impossible, unethical even. It is not hard to answer the question, why am I sis? But answering the question, why am I not trans? Is something else entirely. I found that in general there are four kinds of transphobes. those whose payroll is dependent on it. Uh those who don't know any better, those who can't accept their trans child, and those who felt they grew out of their gender dysphoria. When I was a child, I wanted to be a girl. As you might have noticed, I'm not. This isn't an egg or coming out moment, by the way. I've seen a lot of women who argue against trans people because they feel that if life had been a little different, they would be trans. But as they grew up, one of two things happened. They grew into womanhood and out of dysphoria, or they learned to cope. Then they became transphobic either because they resent that anyone should have the possibility they didn't or that if they can grow out of it, why shouldn't you? I never felt gender dysphoria and I never disliked being a boy. It never really manifested itself in anything. But even that brief reflection on who I am has made me see how even if I grew out of it, why should you? I've talked about trans research in the start of the 20th century and then picked it back up again in 1960, but there's a 30-year gap from 1930 to 1960. I never got into. On the 30th of January of 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor of the German state. On the 10th of May of the same year, book burnings were held throughout Germany. Any book deemed unger fell victim. Within these were the more than 10,000 books of the library of Das Institute of Fexual Visionaft led by Marshfeld. The Institute of Sexual Science was the western world's leading institute on interexuality and transsexuality. But then again, the Institute of Sexual Science and Magnoses work wasn't completely wiped off the earth. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to talk about it. One of the students of the institute, Harry Benjamin, moved to the US to work as a sexyologist and endocrinologist. His book, The Transsexual Phenomenon, even mentions the book burning in Germany. In 1948, Benjamin saw a young patient who, even though they were born a boy, insisted on being a girl. The recommended treatment at the time was to make the mind fit the body. But Benjamin knew this wasn't the right approach. Why not the other way around? Why not make the body fit the mind? He decided to treat her with estrogen. This started his interest in what he and David Caldwell simultaneously, but separately developed into the study of transsexualism. Interestingly, you're sometimes able to trace the influence of either Benjamin or Caldwell depending on how the word transsexual is spelled. Caldwell often used only a single S. Benjamin always used two. Since Benjamin was one of the only doctors who were gender affirming, he got hundreds of referrals from Caldwell and Robert Stalter, the author of Sex and Gender I talked about earlier. Eventually, Benjamin would meet the person who came to be known as Christine Yarn. Maybe you've heard of her. In 1977, the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association was established. This would later change name to World Professional Association for Transgender Health or VPath. It's funny, times are bleak. Even when I buried myself in this project as I read through disgusting, vile studies, books, and firsthand accounts, my outlook never really changed. I'm not pessimistic. Yes, a trans research is rotten, but within that rot, it is sometimes possible to glean the existence of something truly alive. The accounts from trans people throughout the century are some of the most heartbreaking, beautiful, and lifeaffirming things I have ever read. I never became pessimistic because the light seeped from those accounts and overwhelmed everything else. Trans research is rotten. Yes, but only the research. It's not Benjamin's story that's important here. It's that trans people have always existed and trans people will always continue to exist. Being trans isn't political. But being trans and continuing to live is an act of rebellion, of defiance, of infinite worth. Not only is transjoy an act of resistance, but living in and of itself is an ultimate victory. And that's actually what this whole video is about. This video may have taken 2 years of my life to make, but I have not gone farther than anyone before me. I've not duck deeper. This has only been possible because trans people have already done the work. Yes, the scientific literature on trans people is worse than I thought, but trans people have been against it from the start. They have written and spoken and marched for decades. I got the whole idea of the anti-trans network from the folks at Health Liberation Now. There Lee and Kai document how to avoid conversion therapists and Southern Poverty Law Center who have mapped out the relations of conservative think tanks and anti-trans activists. The map I made is comprised of 55 people and 28 organizations. Are there more? Yes. Will their legacy endure? No. Compare that to the millions of trans people in the world. As more trans people get to live their life, more will become doctors, researchers, philosophers, politicians, journalists, artists, students. Maybe someday trans will no longer be a prefix. Someday they will get to decide for themselves. Now, I would love to take your money. I I really would. But I think it's better spent on the people who made this video possible. You'll find links in the description. Please support them if you have the means. When I saw how Health Liberation Now mapped out their therapists and activists, all I could think was, "That's it. This isn't as bad as I thought. It's the same people over and over and over again." But maybe you already picked up on that. Most anti-trans propaganda is made by just a small handful of people. Keep in mind, Harry Benjamin lived only two generations ago. The person who coined the term transsexual died in 1986. Transess is still in its infancy. The major problem with this video is, of course, that to debunk the anti-trans talking points, I've had to accept the premise of scientific transphobia and transmedicalism, at least as a leverage. I know. I have tried my best. But I believe that I've shown that there is absolutely irrefutably no reason to believe them. They hide behind science because it gives them a veil of deniability. And when that's taken away, what's left? Hate and lies and death. Yes, children are being hurt. Of course they are. These are people who sell their soul to harm their neighbor. parents who want to hurt their own children and researchers who can't accept that their lives work has been a failure. What's more, not only are the anti-trans activists fringe, they are straight up wrong. They try to back up their hate with disinformation and lies because what else have they got? If they accept that trans people exist and can live a normal, fulfilling life, their whole worldview stops making sense. their lifelong mission of conversion therapies and pathologization falls apart. Every single argument against trans people made in this video makes no sense. If only trans people continue on living, then they have nothing. Good. Give them nothing. Live.