Inconvenient Truths about 'ABC of My Trans Adventure'

Here is a link to part one, two, three, and four.

In the first of four installments of the "ABC of My Trans Adventure" series, the author takes readers on a wild ride through a labyrinth of logical fallacies, misrepresentations, misinformation and mysticism. Buckle up, dear readers, as we embark on a point-by-point journey to unravel the tangled web of claims presented in this article, which reads more like a sensationalized tabloid piece than a well-researched, factual analysis of the complex issues surrounding transgender individuals and their experiences. Armed with credible sources, scientific evidence, and healthy doses of critical thinking and common sense, let's dive into the murky waters of "The ABC of My Trans Adventure, Part One" and shed some much-needed light on the truth behind the hyperbole.

1. False Analogy and Hasty Generalization:
   Argument from the article: "If you walk in the rose garden of the Los Angeles campus of the City of Hope (a cancer research and treatment center), you'll see the iconic 'Golter Gate', named for one of the City of Hope's early leaders. On this gate, written in golden letters, it reads: 'There is no profit in curing the body if, in the process, we destroy the soul'. It captures pretty thoroughly the problem with the so-called 'trans care' paradigm. In an attempt to 'cure' the mental anguish associated with gender dysphoria by affirming the delusion and seeking to align an otherwise healthy body with a sick mind, we end up ravaging the body, as an overwhelming majority of 'transitioners' become, given enough time, a pitiful shadow of their 'former' selves.’ They become lifelong medical patients and also destroy their "souls" as their mental health deteriorates and the suicide rate grows exponentially post transition.
   
   The article begins with a false analogy, comparing the treatment of cancer to the care provided to transgender individuals. This analogy is flawed because cancer and gender dysphoria are fundamentally different conditions with distinct causes, symptoms, diagnostic criteria, and treatment approaches. By equating gender-affirming care with "destroying the soul," the article misrepresents the purpose and outcomes of such care.
   
   Furthermore, the article suggests that gender-affirming care leads to the destruction of the body and soul, citing high suicide rates post-transition. However, numerous studies have shown that access to gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and surgery, can significantly improve the mental health and overall well-being of transgender individuals. Suicide rates among transgender people are often linked to discrimination, stigma, and lack of support, rather than the transition process itself 12.
   

   Transgender individuals face significant discrimination, stigma, and lack of support in various aspects of their lives, including family, education, employment, healthcare, and social interactions. These experiences can lead to minority stress, a term that describes the chronic stress faced by members of stigmatized minority groups. Minority stress has been linked to adverse mental health outcomes, including an increased risk of suicidal ideation and attempts among transgender people3.

   
   If there is any evidence of a soul, or that it is destroyed through any part of gender-affirming care, I have yet to hear about it. If anyone has any studies that prove either case; a soul exists; gender-affirming care destroys one’s soul then I would be happy to read such a study and consider the evidence.
   

2. False Equivalence:
   Argument from the article: The article compares gender dysphoria to Body Identity Integrity Disorder (BIID) through the personal story of Chloe Jennings-White. and suggests that affirming transgender identities is equivalent to enabling BIID.

   
   While both conditions involve a mismatch between one's body and identity, and we do use this term loosely to respect Chloe, the scientific understanding and treatment of gender dysphoria and BIID differs significantly, and for good reason. Gender dysphoria is recognized by major medical organizations as a legitimate condition with evidence-based treatment options, whereas BIID is not as well-understood nor widely accepted 45. With more evidence and study, we may yet better understand why one experiences BIID and how to best treat it. Contrast that to gender dysphoria, with nearly a century of personal testimony, evidence, data, studies both pre and post treatment outcomes, there is little room for doubt that 1) gender identity has a biological basis that we do not fully understand yet6, much like how one is born gay and 2) what the most effective treatment protocol is for those who are born transgender7.

3. Misrepresentation:

   Argument from the artcle: The article claims that gender dysphoria is a severe psychiatric disorder and that the fact that it is no longer classified as such doesn't change this reality.

   
   The declassification of gender dysphoria as a mental disorder in the DSM-5 and ICD-11 was based on a growing body of research and expert consensus. This change reflects the understanding that gender diversity is not inherently pathological and that the distress associated with gender dysphoria is often a result of societal stigma and discrimination 89.
   As stated previously, there is a growing body of evidence that gender identity has roots in a biological basis and process, and that gender dysphoria is not pathological, i.e. a mental illness, but a symptom of an mismatch between one’s gender identity and physical body. I admit, as the author of this article, this is likely a crude oversimplification, but I hope it carries the point in a receptive manner to those who struggle to understand.

4. Anecdotal Evidence:

   Argument from the article: "In their own words, former patients of the infamous Tavistock gender clinic explain: 'I kind of feel...mutilated and like an experiment gone wrong...I feel jealous...of women who still have their voice, their natural characteristics. And I don't anymore. When people know I detransitioned, they refer to it as a "journey". I would not consider it a journey. It was a mistake I made because I was a child' (Jasmine)."
   
   The article relies heavily on individual stories of detransitioners to argue against gender-affirming care as a whole. The primary reason why trans people will detransition is primarily due to parental pressure. It is interesting to note that over half of those who detransition will go on to later transition.1011
   
   So while detransition experiences that are due to recognizing that transitioning was not suitable for them are as valid as they are rare and deserve attention, they represent a very small minority of transgender individuals, less than a percent (<1%)12 but I have seen others state as generously as high as 3%. Conversely, it is accurate to state that, on average, gender affirming care has a 97% or greater success rate.

   
   Focusing solely on these negative narratives ignores the vast majority of transgender people who benefit from gender-affirming care and live happy, fulfilling lives 1314. Furthermore, we do not halt or stop a proven effective treatment for a condition because one person was misdiagnosed and received treatment that was ultimately harmful. We have, on average, more people who get surgery, radiation, or chemo due to a misdiagnoses of cancer (2.3%)15 than we have people who receive gender-affirming care that should not (<1%). We do not put a moratorium on cancer treatments, because we all recognize that 3% is considered “very small”, and the harm in stopping treatments vastly outweigh the benefits to providing them. We do not throw out the baby with the bath water. We learn from the overdiagnosed, we learn from the edge cases, so we can get that mis/overdiagnosed precentage close to 0%.
   
   Finally, just for fun and some additional context, more people regret getting their tattoo then they do gender-affirming care (25%)16. We do not stop people from getting tattoos - in fact, you can get one at 18 no questions asked. That’s right, permanent bodily mutilation modification without a parents’ consent!

5. Misrepresentation:

   Argument from the article: "The American College of Pediatricians recognized that the vast majority (88% for girls and 98% for boys) will desist from gender dysphoria IF their biological integrity is affirmed."

   The article misrepresents the research on desistance rates and makes an unsupported claim about the effectiveness of affirming biological sex. The 88% and 98% desistance rates cited are based on outdated and flawed studies that have been widely criticized for their methodological issues and lack of applicability to current understanding of gender dysphoria1718. More recent research suggests that persistence rates are much higher, particularly for adolescents who experience consistent, insistent, and persistent gender dysphoria1920. Furthermore, the claim that affirming biological sex will lead to desistance is not supported by scientific evidence, as affirming a child's gender identity has been shown to improve mental health outcomes and reduce the risk of suicide 2122.

6. Fearmongering and False Cause:
   Argument from the article: "Sage was a struggling teenager whose transition had been hidden from her parents by the school. Unknowingly to her parents, she was exploited online, ran away from home, was kidnapped and ended up being sex trafficked. [...] The severe debilitating abuse she experienced, not to mention the hell her parents went through, was shamelessly facilitated by gender theory fanatics wanting to use her as a political pawn to further their sickening ideology and who didn't give a shit about her wellbeing and her future."
   

   The article engages in fearmongering by presenting a tragic story of a transgender teenager's exploitation and abuse, and falsely attributing the cause of this abuse to "gender theory fanatics" and their "sickening ideology." This is a clear example of the false cause fallacy, as the article fails to provide any evidence that the teenager's gender identity or the affirmation of that identity was the direct cause of the exploitation and abuse they experienced. The article also fails to acknowledge the role that discrimination, stigma, and lack of support play in making transgender individuals more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation 2324. By sensationalizing this story, and others used throughout the article, and using it to demonize those who support transgender rights, the article attempts to spread fear and misinformation about trans folks, their allies and supporters, and the impact of affirming transgender identities and seeking gender affirming care.

7. Misrepresentation:

   Argument from the article: The article claims that the transgender movement is systematically attacking parental rights and destroying families.

   This claim is a misrepresentation of the goals and impact of the transgender rights movement. Supporting a child's gender identity is not an attack on parental rights, but rather an essential aspect of providing love, acceptance, and support. The article fails to acknowledge that many families with transgender children report that affirming their child's identity has brought them closer together and improved their overall well-being 2526.

   
   Furthermore, the article's portrayal of the transgender movement as a monolithic entity with a singular goal of destroying families is a gross oversimplification. The transgender community and its advocates are diverse, and their primary aim is to promote understanding, equality, and access to appropriate healthcare for transgender individuals. By misrepresenting the objectives of the transgender movement, the article attempts to create a false narrative that stokes fear and animosity towards transgender people and their supporters.

8. Fearmongering:

   Argument from the article: The article portrays gender-affirming care as a form of child abuse and suggests that it leads to the destruction of families and the deaths of children.

   This claim is a clear example of fearmongering, as it relies on emotionally charged language (it’s child abuse!) and unsupported assertions to create a sense of danger and urgency around gender-affirming care. In reality, gender-affirming care is supported by major medical organizations as the most effective way to improve the mental health and well-being of transgender youth

   
   The article's suggestion that gender-affirming care leads to the destruction of families and the deaths of children is not supported by scientific evidence. In fact, research has consistently shown that family support and acceptance are crucial factors in reducing the risk of suicide and other negative outcomes for transgender individuals 2728.
   
   By portraying gender-affirming care as a form of child abuse, the article not only spreads misinformation but also contributes to the stigmatization of transgender youth and their allies, supporters, and families. This fearmongering tactic is dangerous, as it may discourage parents from seeking appropriate support and care for their transgender children, putting their mental health and well-being at risk. Considering what pittparents.com and sites like them are all about, we should ask ourselves what their agenda is, and why they want to push this narrative so hard.

As we've seen throughout this analysis, the original article relies heavily on misrepresentation and emotional appeals, cherry-picked anecdotes, and misrepresentations of scientific research to paint a distorted picture of transgender experiences and the effects of gender-affirming care. By perpetuating harmful stereotypes and spreading misinformation, articles like these contribute to the stigmatization and marginalization of an already vulnerable population, making it more difficult for transgender individuals and their families to access the support and resources they need to thrive.

It is crucial that we approach these complex issues with empathy, compassion, and a commitment to understanding the lived experiences of transgender people. By relying on credible sources, expert opinions, and scientific evidence, we can foster a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the challenges faced by transgender individuals and the importance of providing them with the love, acceptance, and support they deserve.

As we conclude our journey through the fallacies and misrepresentations of "ABC of My Trans Adventure," let us remember that behind every sensationalized headline and every cherry-picked anecdote, there are real people whose lives are impacted by the words we write and the stories we tell. It is our responsibility to approach these topics with integrity, compassion, and a dedication to the truth, so that we may work towards creating a more inclusive and understanding society for all individuals, regardless of their gender identity.

In the face of articles like these, which seek to spread fear, misinformation, and division, let us stand together against those who seek to recruit vulnerable parents into an ideology that ultimate harms themselve, their child(ren), and breaks down the bonds of trust and love that hold the family together. By countering misinformation with facts, and hatred with empathy, I hope we can work towards building a world where every individual is valued, respected, and celebrated for who they are.