Psychiatrist Paul McHugh explains the troubles with transgender activism

In the Wall Street Journal.


The transgendered suffer a disorder of “assumption” like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature—namely one’s maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.

With body dysmorphic disorder, an often socially crippling condition, the individual is consumed by the assumption “I’m ugly.” These disorders occur in subjects who have come to believe that some of their psycho-social conflicts or problems will be resolved if they can change the way that they appear to others. Such ideas work like ruling passions in their subjects’ minds and tend to be accompanied by a solipsistic argument.

For the transgendered, this argument holds that one’s feeling of “gender” is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one’s mind, cannot be questioned by others. The individual often seeks not just society’s tolerance of this “personal truth” but affirmation of it. Here rests the support for “transgender equality,” the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.

With this argument, advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states—including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts—to pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor. That government can intrude into parents’ rights to seek help in guiding their children indicates how powerful these advocates have become.

How to respond? Psychiatrists obviously must challenge the solipsistic concept that what is in the mind cannot be questioned. Disorders of consciousness, after all, represent psychiatry’s domain; declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field. Many will recall how, in the 1990s, an accusation of parental sex abuse of children was deemed unquestionable by the solipsists of the “recovered memory” craze.

You won’t hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.

We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into “sex-reassignment surgery”—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as “satisfied” by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a “satisfied” but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

We seem to have this popular idea in our culture now that the loving thing to do in every case is to just affirm whatever anyone feels like doing. Want to have sex-reassignment surgery? No problem. Want to be surgically altered to look like a cat? No problem. Want to have an amputation because you don’t like your arm? No problem. Want to have taxpayer-provided heroine injected by nurses? No problem. Want to adopt a lifestyle that involves having risky sex with hundreds of unprotected partners? We’ll wave a rainbow flag for you. Want to get drunk and have sex before you (and they) have even graduated high school? Here are free condoms and free abortions to fix anything that might go wrong.

The really, really bad thing that we must never, ever do, apparently, is to tell someone “it’s wrong”.

I am really struggling to understand why telling people NOT to do things that are bad for them is a bad thing. I set boundaries on myself to keep myself out of trouble. Why can’t I let other people know what they are? Why do I have to pay taxes so that other people can afford to do risky and/or immoral things that I would never do?

10 thoughts on “Psychiatrist Paul McHugh explains the troubles with transgender activism”

  1. I know someone who, his entire life, acted in a more feminine way that a masculine way. After going to school for many years for psychology, he declared that he was actually a transgendered woman. Every single one of our mutual acquaintances – Christian and not – affirmed his “decision” in some way or another. Not a single one to my knowledge ever confronted it as absurd or detrimental to him.

    And so now he is trying to change his name. Surgery seems like a next step. All for a blatant falsehood. As if no one could stand up and say “the emperor has no clothes” or at least “you have X and Y chromosomes in every cell in your body, a male brain, male hormones, and male organs”. As you said, the only thing off-limits is saying the choices and decisions of others are wrong, no matter what those decisions are.

    Christians need to start realizing that transgenderism is an assault on sexual realism and an assault on God’s declaration that His Creation in man and woman was very good.

    And feminists, incidentally, need to start realizing that transgenderism is a full-on assault on their entire philosophy.


  2. This is a very interesting post. I’m almost positive that advocates for reassignment surgery would blame the high suicide rate on society or environments being homophobic etc. How does one handle that objection?


  3. It all comes down to what “truth” is: is what is true determined by what one sees or what one feels. In seeking to define truth, not by what is, but by what is felt, a dichotomy is created, and eventually, reality comes crashing down.


  4. “The individual often seeks not just society’s tolerance of this “personal truth” but affirmation of it.”

    It’s the homosexual agenda in a variant form.


  5. This is both interesting and very sad. Allowing people to continue in harmful delusions is NOT a good thing. As a former anorexic who weighed 68 pounds at 21 and still saw herself as obese, I speak from experience. People suffering from such problems need solid help and honest, fact-based guidance (that will oftentimes require brutal, seemingly cruel honesty that is probably nearly as difficult for the doctor to dispense as it is for the patient to take).

    Very sad news. I also wonder if the data about long-term emotional distress is presented to patients seeking the surgery?


      1. I have often wondered if it is a physical chemical imbalance in the brain, a very strong impulse for self-punishment/manipulation due to not meeting an external (or internal) ideal that perhaps makes one more susceptible to such an imbalance, or simply very determinedly willing oneself to believe that which is not true—or a combination of all. There are so many possibilities I doubt we’ll ever really know why people do that to themselves; for me it was certainly the second, my determination to meet an absurd external ideal. (I’ve never bought the “it’s all about control” theory.)

        It was much labor to overcome, something I could only have done with God, that is to be sure.


  6. I always heard that the brain was the most powerfull sex organ, so I am troubled when someone says that homosexuality is a given condition with no cure.


  7. I don’t see how subsidized injections follows the others. The others are about making arbitrary and harmful decisions to suit what is be proposed as a whim. There is a greater social cost to restricting safe(r) drug use. If subsidizing drug use seems too painful due to society having to foot the bill, you can always just legalize drugs. But most people are uncomfortable with that and supervised injections is a good middle ground harm reduction method. People that call themselves transgender probably aren’t going to chop off their penises if they don’t get the surgery, so the surgery isn’t really a form of harm reduction here. People will use drugs either way, drug use is a health problem, supervised injections is the best help many will ever be willing to receive.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s