Comments on: More on the Dr. Phil episode on gender identity: Reparative drive theory

By: Zoe Brain

Zoe Brain — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:37:09 +0000

Albert levy – you’ve made some strong statements there. Ones that condemn parents as either evil or sick, and the children as irrational.
What evidence have you to back those statements up? Or is it something you just “know” without having to look at the data, like everyone “knows” the Earth is flat?
I do have one piece of data that immediately contradicts you. The fact that people who get Genital Reconstructive Surgery have to be cleared by not one, but two mental health professionals, including a post-doctoral specialist. They have to stake their professional reputations that the patient is not psychotic.
You talk about people being born male. But how do you know they are? What criteria do you use for judging their masculinity or femininity? Look, I completely agree that in over 98% of cases, the question is a matter of common sense, obvious, and can be considered a “stupid question”. But we’re not dealing with that majority here, we’re dealing with cases that are anything but average.
Sex can be determined on the basis of several biological criteria:
1. Genitalia – primary sex characteristics
2. Secondary sex characteristics
3. Endocrine (Hormonal) balance
4. Genes, either XX vs XY, or presence/absence of SrY complex
5. Neuroanatomy, sexually dimorphic development of the brain.
None of these are strict binaries though. They all have gradations with 2 distinct peaks, one for female, one for male, but some in the middle.
The Gender Binary is an excellent approximation, where all 5 criteria align 59 times out of 60. The difficulties begin when we try to make an approximation into an absolute: biologically, this is senseless.
Some common examples:
1. Kleinfelter syndrome, with neither 46xx nor 46xy but 47xxy chromosomes. Most are sterile males, some are infertile males, a very few are infertile masculinised females, and there’s a handful of fertile females.
2. CAIS or “Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome” where the endocrine system is male, but a mutation in cellular receptors causes insensitivity to the male sex hormones. The women concerned have got underdeveloped female genitalia, male endocrinology, but all the rest is strongly female. Having insensitivity to testosterone makes them look very female indeed, and their neurology is very female too.
3. Transsexuality or “Harry Benjamin Syndrome”, where the neurology is strongly cross-gendered and mismatches (most of) the rest, I say “most of” because about 10% have other mismatches too.
There are other, less common, conditions where the primary and secondary sex characteristics can naturally change, due to endocrinal and cellular receptor anomalies (5ARD and 17BHDD syndromes). Configuration at birth may not be the configuration after puberty. There’s also a handful of cases where such changes are Idiopathic – they happen, but we haven’t found the cause yet. These are only 1 in several million though.
The subject is complex, I’m afraid. 59 times out of 60, it’s easy. The other 1 in 60 can be very difficult, and neither “male” nor “female” may be accurate 1 time in 1000.
The majority view – though this is still disputed and certainly not proven beyond all doubt – is that most, and perhaps all, cases of transsexuality are caused by cross-gendered neuro-anatomy. Certainly there’s correlation, but causation is another matter. On the balance of probabilities, this cross-gendered neurology is caused by any of a number of genetic pre-dispositions (though only a few have been positively identified), plus anomalous endocrine levels in the womb. There’s a mountain of evidence in support of this, and none against.
So please, what’s your evidence? Because what you’ve said is not just hurtful but harmful to some, so we should be very sure before we give it credence.

By: albert levy

albert levy — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:14:09 +0000

To be born a male and think you are a girl or a woman is…..a delusion no matter how you slice it.No pun intended.
It is totally abnormal to want to mutilate or amputate one’s sexual organs.
It is,to be blunt,psychotic.
Be a fly on a wall of these homes when the kid starts to get derailed and you will clearly see how all this craziness got started.The suicidal impulses occurred way way early on in these kids lives.It’s the self-destructiveness which causes these kids to want to amputate their organs.

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:09:34 +0000

Well – I was talking about single parenting in general – but I suppose that’s a possibility.

By: Evan

Evan — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:07:00 +0000

In reply to Jayhuck.

What if it doesn’t depend on the parent as much as it depends on what kind of child gets single parenting?
I mean, maybe Tina was her middle son’s “GID germ”, but not the others’.

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:13:23 +0000

David,

Regarding blaming parents…single parenting loads negatively on all sorts of factors from drug abuse to being a high school dropout to violence. Sorry, but the buck has to stop somewhere.

That is true, but since many people who grow up having single parents do absolutely fine in life, I wonder if perhaps there is a right way and a wrong way to handle being a single parent, and if there is more we can do as a society to help them out? 🙂

By: David Blakeslee

David Blakeslee — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:59:03 +0000

We live in a culture of craving freedom while complaining of impinging forces…
One of my clients said to me, “It is hard to take my suffering seriously in the contect of being a white american male in the first half of the 21st century.”
The freedom to choose in the context of temperament, limited co-parenting resources and a lack of scientific certainty tempts us, perhaps at the conclusion of everything, to choose the passive voice…
We say, “what else could I do?” or “I was powerless.”
The small sample of behavior we see in the mother suggests “passivity,” I am only saying it is a small sample, of anecdotal behavior.

By: carole

carole — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:42:15 +0000

I understand, David, and that’s why I have taken no position at all as to what would or would not have been the most reasoned course of action for this child as to gender reassigment nor have I uttered a word on Haggard.
I do have a background, however, in linguistics and in the use of language and how language relates to thought. When a person uses the passive voice in the way she did, or chooses to make someone other than herself the subject of a sentence to indicate something she perceives as negative, it is illustrative of how she, the mother, views herself in this world. It gives a strong indication of how she views herself as a parent as well–not as one who acts but as one who is acted upon.
While I haven’t kept up scrupulously on my anthropological linguistics in years, the studies of culture, language, and thought are voluminous. Our use of language reveals a great deal about how we see ourselves and the world around us and that, along with “I wasn’t close to him” struck me.
Knowing her child is just that–

a child still

, not an adult who has gained enough in maturity and self-confidence to deal with the world as an adult would –I don’t think a mature, responsible parent, one whose first concern was the happiness and contentment of her now-daughter, would have chosen to go on Dr. Phil’s show.
Yes, I can provide arguments in her favor that sound good ,and I have even argued on her behalf in playing Devil’s advocate to my position:
1. She was doing it to share her child’s story and her family’s story with a national audience so that others going through such things might be helped .
2. She might have been cajoled into appearing by people who made such an appearance sound as if she had a responsibility to others to do this and in a weakened state, she acquiesced.
3. She may have been told by someone it was good therapy for her–a cathartic experience.
I could go on and on offering reasons why it might have sounded like a good idea. While I tell myself all those may have validity, there is only one problem–her child should come first, even over the thousands of others who are out there. The child is still just that, a child. Her child. Where is the parenting in that?
This is not about shame. This is not about hiding in the closet. This is about adults having the good sense to allow their kids and themselves to work out their challenges until it appears they both have gained insight and emotional stability and maturity until sharing their story. There is no way to gauge how her family’s appearance on this show might negatively impact this child. Why chance it? One day when the kid is an adult, emotionally mature and healthy, then and only then, with the grown-up child’s consent, would I think it a selfless parental decision for her mother to show her face on tv with those pictures and share her family’s story.
I am not saying she’s an evil person. I am saying her appearance on the show as well as what and how she said things tells me something. What is that something? That she is a person concerned with her own issues first, and I really feel for the kid, as if he/she didn’t have enough to deal with.
I’m not a therapist. I was a teacher. I know that all people face challenges in being a parent, and a parent with GID has monumental challenges. A parent’s emotional maturity that doesn’t discount one’s own feelings but still places the child first is what I believe was called for here, and I see evidence that this woman abrogated a basic parental responsibility.
I can see that a counselor or therapist would see things from the perspective of both the child and the parent and that is where I am lacking here, I know.

By: David Blakeslee

David Blakeslee — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:04:34 +0000

@ Carole:
I understand your formulation and I am sure such people exist…
But can you see how skeptical and cynical you must become in such an assessment?
When we have much more data, such a conclusion is possible…even responsible if people are coming to us with these questions.
But to come to such conclusions about her (and Ted Haggard) based on the very limited data we have not only does harm to the objects of our assessment…WE HAVE TO TWIST OURSELVES UP IN ASSUMPTIONS AND BIASES…I really think it is bad for all of us…somehow…”cosmically.”
(Play the Twighlight Zone music here)
Carole…I think your assessment is very bright and possible…but we seem to do a lot of educated guessing in the Social Sciences; I mean no disrespect in this assessment of your comments, only that so much of the harm in the conversation about SSA seems to come from anecdotal data (Mommy made me do it…Nicolosi made me suicidal) and making large logical leaps based upon dubious data (TV shows, 5 minute clips about mother).

By: concerned

concerned — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:29:00 +0000

In reply to Mary. Mary, I do not think she was the one who was set up.

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:24:16 +0000

@carole: I agree with David as well. Anecdotes are not sufficient to establish general principles.