Wildflowers. Taken yesterday:
The trans proliferation – Part II: What’s the rationale for transgender medical treatment and surgery for minors?
[NOTE: Part I can be found here.]
In May, Florida joined over a dozen other states in banning transgender surgery for minors. But it wasn’t all that long ago that minors didn’t have access to such surgery. What was behind the push for extending it to minors in the first place?
Part of it is that the left became far more focused on trans causes because it was the next step after other causes, such as gay marriage, had been won. Social media is another big factor, because the trans movement spreads through the susceptible younger population in that way, particularly among adolescent girls dealing with the conflicts inherent in going through puberty and becoming a woman in an era in which they feel pressured to be sexually active, and are aware – many through internet porn – of some of the more violent and extreme aspects of sexuality. A great many of these young people are gay, and are in retreat from that. There’s also an element of some unknown number of older people with various sexual fetishes encouraging and “grooming” the younger ones, particularly online. And of course, there’s money for pharmaceutical companies, therapists, and doctors.
But there’s a physiological reason, too, and that has to do with the way puberty affects the body, especially the bodies of biological males. Back when most people who identified as trans were adult biological males who described themselves as having felt from early childhood that they were females, it was well known that adult transition could be especially difficult for those men because they often had trouble “passing.” Adult women on testosterone often had a somewhat easier time looking like men even if they had started taking male hormones and had their surgeries in adulthood after puberty, because the growth of facial hair, the prominent Adam’s apple, the deepening of the voice, and the gaining of muscle mass as a result of testosterone in a female is significantly easier than the taking away of those things in a male once they have already occurred post-puberty. Testosterone has a more potent masculinizing effect than estrogen has as a feminizer, especially for post-pubescent adults. And both are dangerous drugs for the opposite sex to take, although that is glossed over by most trans activists and trans activist doctors.
That latter goal – making the adult male-to-female trans person’s voice higher, getting rid of male facial hair, doing away with the heavy musculature of a man – wasn’t really convincingly accomplished by most biological males taking estrogen in adulthood. Once vocal cords have thickened, they don’t thin to female proportions. Once the jaw has grown and male facial features are set, it ordinarily takes heavy-duty plastic surgery to change things and even then it usually doesn’t quite make it (that’s why, for example, Caitlyn Jenner nee Bruce Jenner continues to have a masculine facial “look,” despite extensive facial surgery). And at the time, the vast majority of people identifying as trans were adult men who wanted to transition to female.
There also was a growing idea – although not supported by research (see this, for example) – that suicide in young people with body dysmorphia could be prevented through early medical intervention. And so the idea of having childhood medical treatment with puberty blockers and then hormones, followed in many cases by early “top” surgeries (for girls; otherwise known as double mastectomies) and sometimes (but less often) by early bottom surgeries, became more and more common, more demanded, and more accepted. They were adopted back when they applied mostly to boys wanting to be girls, but since then the vast majority of self-identified young trans people are girls wanting to be boys, a population in which delaying puberty for cosmetic reasons in order to “pass” is not as important as it would be for male-to-female transitioners. But now the social contagion, plus the fact that many websites advise teens what to say to authorities in order to be greenlit for medical transition (threatening suicide works, even if a person isn’t really suicidal), have made it very easy for both sexes to take puberty blockers and sex hormones, and undergo irreversible surgeries.
It is therefore sadly ironic that, for girls, taking testosterone is usually so very good at causing irreversible physical changes that will enable them to more easily pass as males (ordinarily better than taking estrogen works for males wanting to pass as females), because girls who change their minds and de-transition when they are a bit older can often find that, even after stopping the testosterone, they don’t go back to their previous selves and that they now sometimes have trouble “passing” as females, their actual biological sex.
It is a tragic situation, enabled by the left and the supposed health professions, and that is often true even for girls who have not had surgery. To watch de-transitioner videos and hear their deep voices and listen to them talk about permanent changes in their genitalia, their prominent Adam’s apples, their hair loss, and their wider jaws, is to see something both sad and infuriating. And the people to be infuriated with are the members of the medical and therapy professions who allowed this to happen.
The potential dangers are obvious and not always told to these young people, and certainly often not well-understood by them even if they hear them. Informed consent is not possible at those young ages. And many adolescents, especially the girls with late onset gender dysphoria, actually are suffering from other mental disorders such as what used to be known as Asperger’s syndrome and is now known as being “on the autism spectrum.”
The surgeries themselves – difficult and problematic at best – have special problems when done early, after puberty blockers have been given. Apparently, it turns out that going through normal puberty is usually vital for psychosexual development. To be blunt, with the taking of puberty blockers, many of these young people never develop normally to the point of having orgasms and later cannot do so even when taken off the blockers. Even with “just” hormones, there can be fertility problems and bone density problems, and even cardiovascular problems. To be blunt again, biological boys who have been medically blocked from going through puberty tend to not have enough penile material to accomplish bottom surgery (the creation of a fake vagina) in the usual way it’s done for adults. I could go on, but I think you get the idea without my getting even more graphic.
At least adults can be assumed to have informed consent, but that simply isn’t true for teenagers. And their parents are often counseled by health professionals who say that, if they don’t consent, their children are likely to kill themselves. Even the most reluctant sometimes consent when they are told that.
Now we have the backlash of states banning the surgical procedures for minors. Some also ban hormone therapy for minors, as well. These laws have predictably met with fierce resistance from the left and trans activists, for obvious reasons. Leftist “progress” is not supposed to be rolled back in this way.
One interesting wrinkle in all of this is that I have yet to meet a therapist who approves of the medicalization of the treatment of children who say they are transgender, and that includes all the therapists I know who are liberal Democrats or on the left, and I know plenty of them. The ones I know tend to be older or even retired, and they were trained under a very different system long before medical treatment and “gender affirmation” for minors were ever contemplated. But despite their current disapproval of these methods, they still vote reliably Democrat, and for the most part – actually, in every case so far – they were unaware of the devastation these treatments can wreak until I told them. And these developments are not nearly enough to change their minds and convince them to vote for anyone on the dread right. I plan to work on that a bit by talking to them more; should be interesting.
NOTE: I plan to write a Part III.
Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson: quite a contrast
As part of the recent SCOTUS affirmative action decision, Clarence Thomas took special care to offer a critique of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in the case. Here’s what he had to say on the matter.
I find it particularly interesting to look at the backgrounds of Thomas and Brown Jackson, the two black justices who are on very opposite sides of this issue. Who had the privilege and who didn’t? Who was more oppressed? Compare and contrast.
Clarence Thomas is 75, and was born under segregation in the deep South. Brown Jackson is 52 and was born in unsegregated DC and grew up in unsegregated Florida. But that’s just the beginning.
From Clarence Thomas’ Wiki profile [emphasis mine].
Thomas was born on June 23, 1948, in Pin Point, Georgia. Pin Point was a small, predominantly black community near Savannah founded by freedmen after the Civil War. He was the second of three children born to M. C. Thomas, a farm worker, and Leola “Pigeon” Williams, a domestic worker. They were descendants of enslaved people and spoke Gullah as a first language. Thomas’s earliest known ancestors were slaves named Sandy and Peggy, who were born in the late 18th century and owned by wealthy planter Josiah Wilson of Liberty County, Georgia.
Thomas’s father left the family when Thomas was two years old. Though Thomas’s mother worked long hours, she was sometimes paid only pennies per day, struggled to earn enough money to feed the family, and was forced to rely on charity. After a house fire left them homeless, Thomas and his younger brother, Myers, were taken to live in Savannah with his maternal grandparents, Myers and Christine Anderson.
Thomas experienced amenities such as indoor plumbing and regular meals for the first time while staying in Savannah. Myers Anderson had little formal education but built a thriving fuel oil business that also sold ice. Thomas has called Anderson “the greatest man I have ever known”. When Thomas was ten years old, Anderson started taking the family to help at a farm every day from sunrise to sunset. He believed in hard work and self-reliance, and counseled Thomas to “never let the sun catch you in bed”. He also impressed upon his grandsons the importance of a good education.
More can be found here on Thomas’ background experiences. His mother was eighteen when he was born, and they lived in “a one-room wooden house near the marshes. It had dirt floors and no plumbing or electricity” [emphasis mine]:
A devout Catholic who created his own fuel oil business in Savannah in the 1950s, [Thomas’ grandfather] provided the example of self-motivation in the face of segregation that would inspire his grandson. Through hard work and a refusal to submit to the poverty and degradation of menial work, he “did for himself,” as one of his favorite expressions went. He fed and cared for Clarence and Peanut and paid for their education at St. Benedict the Moor; at this all-black grammar school, white nuns exercised firm discipline. The racist vigilante group known as the Ku Klux Klan often threatened the nuns, who rode on the backs of buses with their students and demanded hard work and promptly completed assignments.
It’s not hard to imagine why Thomas is offended at the idea that a legacy of slavery hampers every single black student today, when they have so much much less of that to contend with than he did.
Clarence’s grandfather took him to a meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), of which Anderson was a member, and read the boy’s grades aloud…
Clarence’s favorite retreat was a blacks-only library in Savannah—the Savannah public library was for whites—funded by the Carnegie family. His browsing there helped to formulate his ambition: He would one day have the sophistication to understand magazines like the New Yorker.
Remember that Thomas’ first language was Gullah.
More:
In his memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son,” Thomas says he felt “tricked” by paternalistic Whites at Yale who recruited Black students.
“After graduating from Yale, I met a black alumnus of the University of Michigan Law School who told me that he’d made a point of not mentioning his race on his application. I wished with all my heart that I’d done the same,” he wrote.
“I learned the hard way that a law degree from Yale meant one thing for White graduates and another for blacks, no matter how much anyone denied it,” Thomas wrote. “As a symbol of my disillusionment, I peeled a fifteen-cent price sticker off a package of cigars and stuck it on the frame of my law degree to remind myself of the mistake I’d made by going to Yale.”
Thomas’ hardship story is a contrast to Brown Jackson, whose story is rather different, to say the least:
Johnny and Ellery Brown, Jackson’s parents, have been married for 54 years.
Intact family.
Both Miami natives, [Brown Jackson’s parents] were raised in the Jim Crow South, attended segregated primary schools, before graduating from historically Black colleges and universities, according to her White House biography. They settled in DC and both worked as public school teachers.
So it’s actually Brown Jackson’s parents who are of Clarence Thomas’ raised-in-segregation generation (although perhaps not so poverty-striken as Thomas’ rather extreme situation), and they became teachers. Then her father went to law school.
“My parents taught me that, unlike the many barriers that they had had to face growing up, my path was clearer, such that if I worked hard and believed in myself, in America I could do anything or be anything I wanted to be.”
I guess her parents were of similar mindset about that as Clarence Thomas, since this quote resembles his philosophy. This seems to run counter to Brown Jackson’s dissent in the Harvard case.
Also:
Jackson credited her interest in law to her father, recalling in her opening remarks, “My very earliest memories are of watching my father study – he had his stack of law books on the kitchen table while I sat across from him with my stack of coloring books.”
Once again, a very different atmosphere and upbringing to that of Clarence Thomas. Her brother is a lawyer, too.
For decades I’ve seen and read so many criticisms of Clarence Thomas from the left, most of them quite vicious. And yet his story would be legendary – if only he were a Democrat rather than a conservative.
When is a high school debate not a debate?
When a debater tries to argue a side that doesn’t favor the left.
That doesn’t sound much like a debate does it? And yet it’s come to that, as the Gramscian march continues unabated. I’ll let this high schooler describe what happened to her:
Open thread 7/6/23
Of course, gallbladder attacks are rarely if ever fatal. But still, this kid is just so smart and cute and sweet:
Cocaine at the White House? No biggee
The story of cocaine found at the White House has been changing rapidly, and now it’s been declared a non-story of sorts:
Again, there are cameras everywhere in the non-residence areas of the White House. There are security checks and various other means to track who goes in and out. Yet, the Biden administration is pretending this is some unsolvable happening. Why are they not helping the Secret Service? Why is the Secret Service not going over the tapes to see who stashed the coke there? None of this adds up.
One reporter pointed that out by noting that according to Jean-Pierre, anyone can apparently just walk into the White House with anything.
The current story is that there’s just no way to find the perp (unlike, let’s say, every single person anywhere near the Capitol on January 6th):
But one official familiar with the investigation cautioned that the source of the drug was unlikely to be determined given that it was discovered in a highly trafficked area of the West Wing…
Asked what the chances were of finding the culprit, the official said that “it’s gonna be very difficult for us to do that because of where it was.”
“Even if there were surveillance cameras, unless you were waving it around, it may not have been caught” by the cameras, added the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity given that it’s an ongoing investigation. “It’s a bit of a thoroughfare. People walk by there all the time.”
And yet earlier there were successive reports about where the drug was found and what form it was in, and they don’t conform to this latest one. There’s no particular reason to trust any of the reports, either. But my guess is that, although authorities actually could find the culprit if they wished to do so – or may already know who it is – the public will never learn the answer. The obvious suspect is protected darling Hunter Biden, but he is by no means the only possibility.
Federal judge enjoins government and big tech partnership to censor the right
Here’s William Jacobson on the decision:
We previously have covered the lawsuit brought by Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden administration regarding collusion with big tech platforms to silence mostly conservative voices.
After extensive pre-trial proceedings, the federal District Court has issued a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting further collusion. The Memorandum Decision is 155 pages. Most of it consists of extensive findings of fact and evidence of the collusion.
I believe that the most important aspect of the case is the participation of the government in the suppression. From the Memorandum:
The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature.
Not only that, but it seems that most of the suppression of factual information was suppression of truth. In fact, here’s another quote from the decision: “the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,'” and that this represents an “almost Dystopian situation.” Actually, I’d eliminate the word “almost” there.
It should be interesting to see how this plays out in a trial. I would imagine if the decision goes against the Biden administration there will be an appeal, and possibly more fodder for leftist hate towards SCOTUS if the Court renders the decision I think it will.
The left has become accustomed not only to controlling government, education, entertainment, the press, and social media, but it’s become used to controlling most federal court decisions and even SCOTUS till now (with recent supposed “swing” justices often swinging to the left). Not only has the left become used to these things, but it thinks that this dominance is the way things should inevitably be, and any deviation from it is an abominable and illegitimate outrage.
This is today’s BBC: on youthful terrorists
[Hat tip: Steven Hayward at Powerline.]
Get a load of this BBC “reporter,” whose name is Anjana Gadgil:
First she fences with words, calling armed terrorists between 16 and 18 “children” and implying that gives them some sort of dispensation to kill. Then she cites “the UN definition,” as though that matters. Then she tries to not answer Bennett’s question involving a personal hypothetical. And then she falls back on a meaningless moral equivalence in a cycle-of-violence argument that ignores reality. All with a serious demeanor, as though she’s not spouting nonsensical propaganda – because she knows plenty of people will swallow her argument.
[NOTE: Speaking of Jenin, please see this.]
Open thread 7/5/23
I plan to watch some local fireworks tonight…
…if it doesn’t rain.
How about you?
A good summary of the trans medicalization phenomenon
The whole discussion on this video was of interest to me because it’s about how “affirmation therapy” is not actual therapy, and how therapists have been pressured into not offering real therapy for people identifying as trans or presenting with gender dysphoria. But I’ve cued up a two and a half minute segment that I think encapsulates something very basic about trans medicalization:
For the Fourth: on liberty
[NOTE: This is a repeat of a previous post from many many years ago. It was written in the springtime during a visit to New York City. Reading it now, it seems almost archaic in certain ways.]
I’ve been visiting New York City, the place where I grew up. I decide to take a walk to the Promenade in Brooklyn Heights, never having been there before.
When you approach the Promenade you can’t really see what’s in store. You walk down a normal-looking street, spot a bit of blue at the end of the block, make a right turn–and, then, suddenly, there is the city.
And so it is for me. I take a turn, and catch my breath: downtown Manhattan rises to my left, seemingly close enough to touch, across the narrow East River. I see skyscrapers, piers, the orange-gold Staten Island ferry. In front of me, there are the graceful gothic arches of the Brooklyn Bridge. To my right, the back of some brownstones, and a well-tended and charming garden that goes on for a third of a mile.
I walk down the promenade looking first left and then right, not knowing which vista I prefer, but liking them both, especially in combination, because they complement each other so well.
All around me are people, relaxing. Lovers walking hand in hand, mothers pushing babies in strollers, fathers pushing babies in strollers, nannies pushing babies in strollers. People walking their dogs (a preponderance of pugs, for some reason), pigeons strutting and courting, tourists taking photos of themselves with the skyline as background, every other person speaking a foreign language.
The garden is more advanced in time than gardens where I live, reminding me that New York is really a southern city compared to New England. Daffodils, the startling blue of grape hyacinths, tulips in a rainbow of soft colors, those light-purple azaleas that are always the first of their kind, flowering pink magnolia and airy white dogwood and other blooming trees whose names I don’t know.
In the view to my left, of course, there’s something missing. Something very large. Two things, actually: the World Trade Center towers. Just the day before, we had driven past that sprawling wound, with its mostly-unfilled acreage where the WTC had once stood, now surrounded by fencing. Driving by it is like passing a war memorial and graveyard combined; the urge is to bow one’s head.
As I look at the skyline from the Promenade, I know that those towers are missing, but I don’t really register the loss visually. I left New York in the Sixties, never to live there again, returning thereafter only as occasional visitor. The World Trade Center was built in the early Seventies, so I never managed to incorporate it into that personal New York skyline of memory that I hold in my mind’s eye, even though I saw the towers on subsequent visits. So what I now see resembles nothing more than the skyline of my youth restored, a fact which seems paradoxical to me. But I feel the loss, even though I don’t see it. Viewing the skyline always has a tinge of sadness now, which it never had before 9/11.
I come to the end of the walkway and turn myself around to set off on the return trip. And, suddenly, the view changes. Now, of course, the garden is to my left and the city to my right; and the Brooklyn Bridge, which was ahead of me, is now behind me and out of sight. But now I can see for the first time, ahead of me and to the right, something that was behind me before. In the middle of the harbor, the pale-green Statue of Liberty stands firmly on its concrete foundation, arm raised high, torch in hand.
The sight is intensely familiar to me – I used to see it frequently when I was growing up. But I’ve never seen it from this angle before. She seems both small and gigantic at the same time: dwarfed by the skyscrapers near me that threaten to overwhelm her, but towering over the water that surrounds her on all sides. The eye is drawn to her distant, heroic figure. She’s been holding that torch up for so long, she must be tired. But still she stands, resolute, her arm extended.
NOTE: I was going to add a photo of the Statue of Liberty here. But instead I was very taken with a video about how the statue was constructed. I’d never previously thought about the challenges involved and how they were surmounted, but I learned about them here. And the video also caused me to reflect, and not for the first time, on how the forces arrayed against the US right now are good at destroying but not at building. Destroying is so much easier:

