Paul McHugh, MD: “Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme | Public Discourse”

I’ve written before about contradictions in modern Western viewpoints such as the view that sexual orientation is innate and cannot be changed, but that sex isn’t innate, and can be changed. As I discussed, such views tend to lead to the public denial of self-evident truths, something I find pretty worrying. But there’s also the human cost to consider, an aspect taken up by this article on transgenderism by Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at John Hopkins Hospital. Some particularly relevant snippets below:

At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits. As a result, we stopped offering that form of treatment in the 1970s. Our efforts, though, had little influence on the emergence of this new idea about sex, or upon the expansion of the number of “transgendered” among young and old.

First, though, let us address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade: the idea that exchange of one’s sex is possible. It, like the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

There are several reasons for this absence of coherence in our mental health system. Important among them is the fact that both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters. “As part of our dedication to protecting America’s youth, this administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama.

In two states, a doctor who would look into the psychological history of a transgendered boy or girl in search of a resolvable conflict could lose his or her license to practice medicine. By contrast, such a physician would not be penalized if he or she started such a patient on hormones that would block puberty and might stunt growth.

What is needed now is public clamor for coherent science—biological and therapeutic science—examining the real effects of these efforts to “support” transgendering. Although much is made of a rare “intersex” individual, no evidence supports the claim that people such as Bruce Jenner have a biological source for their transgender assumptions. Plenty of evidence demonstrates that with him and most others, transgendering is a psychological rather than a biological matter.

In fact, gender dysphoria—the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.

via Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme | Public Discourse. (my emphasises)

Regrettably I imagine McHugh’s comments will simply be dismissed or shouted down as “bigotry”, and that the state and health systems will continue to push “treatments” that end up mutilating the body and increasing the likelihood of suicide.

“Do you really think there are no sins of intellect?”

Recent events and comments have reminded me of the following:

FOR A moment there was silence under the cedar trees and then-pad, pad, pad-it was broken. Two velvet-footed lions came bouncing into the open space, their eyes fixed upon each other, and started playing some solemn romp. Their manes looked as if they had been just dipped in the river whose noise I could hear close at hand, though the trees hid it. Not greatly liking my company, I moved away to find that river, and after passing some thick flowering bushes, I succeeded. The bushes came almost down to the brink. It was as smooth as Thames but flowed swiftly like a mountain stream: pale green where trees overhung it but so clear that I could count the pebbles at the bottom. Close beside me I saw another of the Bright People in conversation with a ghost. It was that fat ghost with the cultured voice who had addressed me in the bus, and it seemed to be wearing gaiters.

“My dear boy, I’m delighted to see you,” it was saying to the Spirit, who was naked and almost blindingly white. “I was talking to your poor father the other day and wondering where you were.”

“You didn’t bring him?” said the other.

“Well, no. He lives a long way from the bus, and, to be quite frank, he’s been getting a little eccentric lately. A little difficult. Losing his grip. He never was prepared to make any great efforts, you know. If you remember, he used to go to sleep when you and I got talking seriously! Ah, Dick, I shall never forget some of our talks. I expect you’ve changed your views a bit since then. You became rather narrow-minded towards the end of your life: but no doubt you’ve broadened out again.”

“How do you mean?”

“Well, it’s obvious by now, isn’t it, that you weren’t quite right. Why, my dear boy, you were coming to believe in a literal Heaven and Hell!”

“But wasn’t I right?”

“Oh, in a spiritual sense, to be sure. I still believe in them in that way. I am still, my dear boy, looking for the Kingdom. But nothing superstitious or mythological. . . .”

“Excuse me. Where do you imagine you’ve been?”

“Ah, I see. You mean that the grey town with its continual hope of morning (we must all live by hope, must we not?), with its field for indefinite progress, is, in a sense, Heaven, if only we have eyes to see it? That is a beautiful idea.”

“I didn’t mean that at all. Is it possible you don’t know where you’ve been?”

“Now that you mention it, I don’t think we ever do give it a name. What do you call it?”

“We call it Hell.”

“There is no need to be profane, my dear boy. I may not be very orthodox, in your sense of that word, but I do feel that these matters ought to be discussed simply, and seriously, and reverently.”

“Discuss Hell reverently? I meant what I said. You have been in Hell: though if you don’t go back you may call it Purgatory.”

“Go on, my dear boy, go on. That is so like you. No doubt you’ll tell me why, on your view, I was sent there. I’m not angry.”

“But don’t you know? You went there because you are an apostate.”

“Are you serious, Dick?”

“Perfectly.”

“This is worse than I expected. Do you really think people are penalized for their honest opinions? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that those opinions were mistaken.”

“Do you really think there are no sins of intellect?”

“There are indeed, Dick. There is hidebound prejudice, and intellectual dishonesty, and timidity, and stagnation. But honest opinions fearlessly followed-they are not sins.”

“I know we used to talk that way. I did it too until the end of my life when I became what you call narrow. It all turns on what are honest opinions.”

“Mine certainly were. They were not only honest but heroic. I asserted them fearlessly. When the doctrine of the Resurrection ceased to commend itself to the critical faculties which God had given me, I openly rejected it. I preached my famous sermon. I defied the whole chapter. I took every risk.”

“What risk? What was at all likely to come of it except what actually came-popularity, sales for your books, invitations, and finally a bishopric?”

“Dick, this is unworthy of you. What are you suggesting?”

“Friend, I am not suggesting at all. You see, I know now. Let us be frank. Our opinions were not honestly come by. We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it because it seemed modern and successful. At College, you know, we just started automatically writing the kind of essays that got good marks and saying the kind of things that won applause. When, in our whole lives, did we honestly face, in solitude, the one question on which all turned: whether after all the Supernatural might not in fact occur? When did we put up one moment’s real resistance to the loss of our faith?”

“If this is meant to be a sketch of the genesis of liberal theology in general, I reply that it is a mere libel. Do you suggest that men like …”

“I have nothing to do with any generality. Nor with any man but me and you. Oh, as you love your own soul, remember. You know that you and I were playing with loaded dice. We didn’t want the other to be true. We were afraid of crude salvationism, afraid of a breach with the spirit of the age, afraid of ridicule, afraid (above all) of real spiritual fears and hopes.”

“I’m far from denying that young men may make mistakes. They may well be influenced by current fashions of thought. But it’s not a question of how the opinions are formed. The point is that they were my honest opinions, sincerely expressed.”

“Of course. Having allowed oneself to drift, unresisting, unpraying, accepting every half-conscious solicitation from our desires, we reached a point where we no longer believed the Faith. Just in the same way, a jealous man, drifting and unresisting, reaches a point at which he believes lies about his best friend: a drunkard reaches a point at which (for the moment) he actually believes that another glass will do him no harm. The beliefs are sincere in the sense that they do occur as psychological events in the man’s mind. If that’s what you mean by sincerity they are sincere, and so were ours. But errors which are sincere in that sense are not innocent.”

“You’ll be justifying the Inquisition in a moment!”

“Why? Because the Middle Ages erred in one direction, does it follow that there is no error in the opposite direction?”

“Well, this is extremely interesting,” said the Episcopal Ghost. “It’s a point of view. Certainly, it’s a point of view. In the meantime . . .”

“There is no meantime,” replied the other. “AH that is over. We are not playing now. I have been talking of the past (your past and mine) only in order that you may turn from it forever. One wrench and the tooth will be out. You can begin as if nothing had ever gone wrong. White as snow. It’s all true, you know. He is in me, for you, with that power. And- I have come a long journey to meet you. You have seen Hell: you are in sight of Heaven. Will you, even now, repent and believe?”

“I’m not sure that I’ve got the exact point you are trying to make,” said the Ghost.

“I am not trying to make any point,” said the Spirit. “I am telling you to repent and believe.”

“But my dear boy, I believe already. We may not be perfectly agreed, but you have completely misjudged me if you do not realize that my religion is a very real and a very precious thing to me.”

“Very well,” said the other, as if changing his plan. “Will you believe in me?”

“In what sense?”

“Will you come with me to the mountains? It will hurt at first, until your feet are hardened. Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows. But will you come?”

“Well, that is a plan. I am perfectly ready to consider it. Of course I should require some assurances … I should want a guarantee that you are taking me to a place where I shall find a wider sphere of usefulness-and scope for the talents that God has given me-and an atmosphere of free inquiry-in short, all that one means by civilization and-er-the spiritual life.”

“No,” said the other. “I can promise you none of these things. No sphere of usefulness: you are not needed there at all. No scope for your talents: only forgiveness for having perverted them. No atmosphere of inquiry, for I will bring you to the land not of questions but of answers, and you shall see the face of God.”

“Ah, but we must all interpret those beautiful words in our own way! For me there is no such thing as a final answer. The free wind of inquiry must always continue to blow through the mind, must it not? “Prove all things” … to travel hopefully is better than to arrive.”

“If that were true, and known to be true, how could anyone travel hopefully? There would be nothing to hope for.”
“But you must feel yourself that there is something stifling about the idea of finality? Stagnation, my dear boy, what is more soul-destroying than stagnation?”

“You think that, because hitherto you have experienced truth only with the abstract intellect. I will bring you where you can taste it like honey and be embraced by it as by a bridegroom. Your thirst shall be quenched.”

“Well, really, you know, I am not aware of a thirst for some ready-made truth which puts an end to intellectual activity in the way you seem to be describing. Will it leave me the free play of Mind, Dick? I must insist on that, you know.”

“Free, as a man is free to drink while he is drinking. He is not free still to be dry.” The Ghost seemed to think for a moment. “I can make nothing of that idea,” it said.

“Listen!” said the White Spirit. “Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them. Become that child again: even now.”

“Ah, but when I became a man I put away childish things.”

“You have gone far wrong. Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth. What you now call the free play of inquiry has neither more nor less to do with the ends for which intelligence was given you than masturbation has to do with marriage.”

“If we cannot be reverent, there is at least no need to be obscene. The suggestion that I should return at my age to the mere factual inquisitiveness of boyhood strikes me as preposterous. In any case, that question-and-answer conception of thought only applies to matters of fact. Religious and speculative questions are surely on a different level.”

“We know nothing of religion here: we think only of Christ. We know nothing of speculation. Come and see. I will bring you to Eternal Fact, the Father of all other facthood.”

“I should object very strongly to describing God as a ‘fact.’ The Supreme Value would surely be a less inadequate description. It is hardly . . .”

“Do you not even believe that He exists?”

“Exists? What does Existence mean? You will keep on implying some sort of static, ready-made reality which is, so to speak, ‘there,’ and to which our minds have simply to conform. These great mysteries cannot be approached in that way. If there were such a thing (there is no need to interrupt, my dear boy) quite frankly, I should not be interested in it. It would be of no religious significance. God, for me, is something purely spiritual. The spirit of sweetness and light and tolerance-and, er, service, Dick, service. We mustn’t forget that, you know.”

“If the thirst of the Reason is really dead . . . ,” said the Spirit, and then stopped as though pondering. Then suddenly he said, “Can you, at least, still desire happiness?”

“Happiness, my dear Dick,” said the Ghost placidly, “happiness, as you will come to see when you are older, lies in the path of duty. Which reminds me. . . . Bless my soul, I’d nearly forgotten. Of course I can’t come with you. I have to be back next Friday to read a paper. We have a little Theological Society down there. Oh yes! there is plenty of intellectual life. Not of a very high quality, perhaps. One notices a certain lack of grip-a certain confusion of mind. That is where I can be of some use to them. There are even regrettable jealousies. … I don’t know why, but tempers seem less controlled than they used to be. Still, one mustn’t expect too much of human nature. I feel I can do a great work among them. But you’ve never asked me what my paper is about! I’m taking the text about growing up to the measure of the stature of Christ and working out an idea which I feel sure you’ll be interested in. I’m going to point out how people always forget that Jesus (here the Ghost bowed) was a comparatively young man when he died. He would have outgrown some of his earlier views, you know, if he’d lived. As he might have done, with a little more tact and patience. I am going to ask my audience to consider what his mature views would have been. A profoundly interesting question. What a different Christianity we might have had if only the Founder had reached his full stature! I shall end up by pointing out how this deepens the significance of the Crucifixion. One feels for the first time what a disaster it was: what a tragic waste … so much promise cut short. Oh, must you be going? Well, so must I. Goodbye, my dear boy. It has been a great pleasure. Most stimulating and provocative. Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye.”

The Ghost nodded its head and beamed on the Spirit with a bright clerical smile-or with the best approach to it which such unsubstantial lips could manage-and then turned away humming? softly to itself “City of God, how broad and far.

C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

Truth and lies

A few months ago I found myself reflecting on the importance of truth. I had been wondering why I found it difficult when people espoused certain concepts with the claim that these things were “helpful”. I find myself almost instinctively pulling away from such things, but I wondered why I did it, and if I was wrong.

After some pondering, I realised what I found objectionable was the idea that I should accept something because it was helpful, without knowing if it was true, and on a personal level found I had to reexamine myself for those ideas I had come to accept that were unhelpful, and also untrue. Because truth matters, on a cosmic and a personal level.

I do not believe it is a coincidence that God is described as “the spirit of truth” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:23-26), nor that the Brother of Jared’s great statement of faith that permitted him to be redeemed from the fall and enter the presence of God was “Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie” (Ether 3:12, my emphasis). In contrast, one of Satan’s preeminent titles after his fall is “the father of all lies”, who aims to “deceive” men (Moses 4:4). We are especially directed to avoid lying about other people (Exodus 20:16), but there is a broader principle at stake: To the extent that we tell and believe truth, we become closer to Our Father in Heaven and Our Saviour. And the extent to which we either tell or believe lies places us closer to the Adversary. And this will be especially important in the times to come, for one attribute of those who are prepared for the Second Coming is that they “have not been deceived” (D&C 45:57).

Truth in the public square

Which takes me to a related topic. Namely the social and legal changes that have been happening in the West concerning marriage, family and identity.

It goes without saying that I oppose these changes. I believe, and the scriptures teach, that these developments are founded on a mistaken idea of human identity, and on what will promote human happiness. They furthermore lead people away from the plan of salvation that God has set. For those who do not know this yet, I invite them to read the words of ancient and modern prophets, and prayerfully seek truth. I believe these will have eternal consequences for individuals and families, and consequences upon the nations involved, as stated in The Family: A Proclamation to the World: “Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets”.

I am furthermore concerned at the wider implications of these developments, upon family stability, in education, in employment and ultimately for freedom of conscience, which has already come under attack. For those Church members who are complacent or supportive of these developments, I invite them to think about what has happened and what will increasingly happen to those who oppose these developments in public.

But there is another aspect of many of these developments that I have found increasingly concerning. And this is what is happening to truths in the public sphere, even self-evident truths that one can recognise regardless of one’s opinions. Regardless of one’s opinions of same-sex “marriage”, said couples cannot have children by themselves. Children attached to such couples are not the children of both, and said children do not have two fathers or two mothers; the truth is that said children have in many cases been deprived of a mother or father respectively (in some cases under very sad circumstances). In such cases we are deliberately creating broken families, and then asserting that everyone involved, including the children themselves, deny the existence of one of their parents. Likewise, regardless of one’s opinion of the efficacy of “sex-reassignment” surgery, someone such as Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner was not “always a woman”, as advocates are arguing (never mind the fact that he actually remains anatomically male!). He was born a man, he fathered children; to support such a rewriting of history, or the rewriting of birth certificates, is not only to deprive children of a father, it is to tell an untruth. Likewise the idea that the US Constitution contained a right to same-sex “marriage” that was somehow undetected for 228 years until found merely by application of the law is manifest nonsense. And so on, along with the notion that the judgement of nine black-robed priests somehow represents a triumph for “democracy”, or the simple intellectual incoherence that goes with believing that sex isn’t innate, but sexual orientation is, and that there is no mental difference between men and women, unless we’re talking about a transsexual man.

This is all bad enough, but is worse for the degree that such untruths are becoming enforced through state recognition, state education and social pressure. Believing untruths is dangerous enough, but saying untruths when we know them to be untrue can be even more so. In 1984, doublethink is the phenomena by which – partly through state action, but partly through the desire to fit in – people knowingly espouse untruths and hold mutually contradictory ideas. Hence the Ministries of Peace, in charge of war, or the Ministry of Truth, with responsibility for propaganda and lies. According to the book, the logical culmination of this would be the insistence that 2+2=5. And this is what we are seeing: the assertion that children have two fathers, the claim that a man and father has always been a woman, or that contractual sexual relationship between partners of any sex constitutes a marriage. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

This knowing acceptance of lies forms a powerful lever of social conditioning by which people can be persuaded of the rightness of actions they know are wrong. It is a way by which people’s moral compasses can be wrenched into untrue forms, so that they lose the capacity to recognise truth and become mental captives. Yet this is not being forged for us by a vicious police state with an all-powerful intelligence apparatus. We have forged these chains for ourselves, so that the saying of truths can be rendered unacceptable and intolerable, and people’s livelihoods ruined, with little state action at all, but the mere noise of the mob. While state action may follow (and the signs aren’t good), and may intensify, we are making ourselves mental slaves entirely by our own hands.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
(Isaiah 5:20)

And he beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced.
(Moses 7:26)

Edit: And in a related issue to this post, it seems the calls for the imposition of taxes on churches and so on haven’t even waited a few days to start. Considering the claims that Same-sex marriage would have zero consequences upon religious freedom or anything else that I heard as recently as (literally) yesterday, I can’t help but regard this as part of the “We have ALWAYS been at War with Eurasia” “We have ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia” mindset I was talking about.

There is no beauty that we should desire him

A lot of artistic depictions of the Saviour depict him as – at least what I’ve been told – a handsome man. Indeed I’ve heard more than one story where investigators being taught by missionaries have become distracted by the alleged attractiveness of the art work. And that’s hardly something confined to LDS artwork, as one can see in the variety of depictions, including in cinema and including the oft-mocked ‘Boxing Jesus‘ (though personally – while everyone else in the seminar laughed at it – I kind of have a soft spot for that one).

Yet the one time the scriptures speak of Christ’s attractiveness, it paints a different picture:

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

(Isaiah 53:2)

Now, since Isaiah was prophesying, rather than being present in person, it’s possible that what he’s saying here doesn’t reflect on actual physical appearance. But it might do, and the broader point is true either way. Christ wasn’t ‘attractive’ – most of those whom he taught in mortality turned away or rejected him. Likewise his superficial background wasn’t appealing: “can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” This is very human, as we often judge on such superficial grounds; never mind our entertainment (where goodness is often portrayed as being physically attractive, and evil as physically ugly), perceptions of physical attractiveness affect the outcome of our legal system (see here and here)! But Isaiah reminds us here that these human judgements are flawed. Truth can come in unattractive packages, and healing and salvation – indeed the Messiah himself – was and is to be found in someone that the world did not desire.

Edit: fixed link to Boxing Jesus