CDZ 7 things I am learning about transgendered people

[saveliberty]

Paul McHugh is not speaking for the institution, but his personal views. He is part of ACP and is also virulently anti-gay. Research your source.

If Johns Hopkins is not doing that type of surgery anymore, it seems he is stating the institutional view.

Johns Hopkins stopped doing these surgeries in 1979. But, McHugh retired from Johns Hopkins and is not speaking for the institution in his recent articles. While Johns Hopkins doesn't perform sexual reassignment surgeries, doctors at Johns Hopkins SBCU (Sexual Behavior Clinical Unit) do consultations with transgender people, prescribe hormone therapy, and refer them out to other doctors for surgeries. So, it isn't true that Johns Hopkins doctors oppose these surgeries. It's just political, as many things are.

Here is some history on the subject: Hopkins Hospital: a history of sex reassignment

In 1979, SBCU Chair Jon Meyer conducted a study comparing 29 patients who had the surgery and 21 who didn’t, and concluded that those who had the surgery were not more adjusted to society than those who did not have the surgery. Meyer told The New York Times in 1979: “My personal feeling is that surgery is not proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and it’s clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that don’t go away following surgery.”

After Meyer’s study was published, Paul McHugh, the Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Hopkins Hospital who never supported the University offering the surgeries according to Schmidt, shut the program down.

Meyer’s study came after a study conducted by Money, which concluded that all but one out of 24 patients were sure that they had made the right decision, 12 had improved their occupational status and 10 had married for the first time. Beyer believes that officials at Hopkins just wanted an excuse to end the program, so they cited Meyer’s study.

“The people at Hopkins who are naturally very conservative anyway … decided that they were embarrassed by this program and wanted to shut it down,” she said.

A 1979 New York Times article also states that not everyone was convinced by Meyer’s study and that other doctors claimed that it was “seriously flawed in its methods and statistics and draws unwarranted conclusions.”

However, McHugh says that it shouldn’t be surprising that Hopkins discontinued the surgeries, and that he still supports this decision today. He points to Meyer’s study as well as a 2011 Swedish study that states that the risk of suicide was higher for people who had the surgery versus the general population.

McHugh says that more research has to be conducted before a surgery with such a high risk should be performed, especially because he does not think the surgery is necessary.

“It’s remarkable when a biological male or female requests the ablation of their sexual reproductive organs when they are normal,” he said. “These are perfectly normal tissue. This is not pathology.”

Beyer, however, cites a study from 1992 that shows that 98.5 percent of patients who underwent male-to-female surgery and 99 percent of patients who underwent female-to-male surgery had no regrets.

“It was clear to me at the time that [McHugh] was conflating sexual orientation and the actual physical act with gender identity,” Beyer said.

...Though the surgeries at Hopkins ended in 1979, the University continued to study sexual and gender behavior. Today, the SBCU provides consultations for members of the transgender community interested in sex reassignment surgery, provides patients with hormones and refers patients to specialists for surgery.

The Hopkins Student Health and Wellness Center is also working toward providing transgender students necessary services as a plan benefit under the University’s insurance plan once the student health insurance plan switches carriers on Aug. 15.

“We are hopefully working towards getting hormones and other surgical options covered by the student health insurance,” Demere Woolway, director of LGBTQ Life at Hopkins, said. “We’ve done a number of trainings for the folks over in the Health Center both on the counseling side and on the medical side. So we’ve done some great work with them and I think they are in a good place to be welcoming and supportive of folks.”

McHugh is a politically polarized and polarizing figure. I think think that you should read more than his views to get a more objective view of the subject, if that is your goal.

...and I think you vastly under rate the fact a leading sex reassignment hospital no longer does the surgery.

I see no new enlightening comments at this point in the thread, so no point in continuing.

 

[OldLady]

You know, when it gets right down to it, shouldn't people concern themselves a little more with what people do to each other than with matters that don't really affect them? I don't understand all this hullabaloo over people's sexuality in a world where ISIS is rampaging across the Middle East, North Korea is a living hell hole, and places in Africa have children used in death squads. People's priorities are pretty fucked up, if you ask me.

When I encounter a person, my concern has to do with how they treat me. If I know them, my concern has to do with what they support or don't support. Do they support killing innocent people? Do they defend those who do? Do they allow themselves to get so swept up in their rigid politics that they lend themselves to agendas that are inimical to civilized values?

Worrying endlessly about people who are transgendered and who harm no one as a result of such makes about as much sense as getting all worked up over somebody getting a tattoo or dying their hair purple. If it does't affect you and if it isn't intrinsically harmful to others, why spend so much time obsessing about it?

 

[Asclepias]

It was a poor metaphor, can we move forward?

Actually, it was a simile, but don't tell anyone. Better to move on.

Actually it was a metaphor. To be a simile it would need to employ a figure of speech like "cold as ice"

 

[saveliberty]

It was a poor metaphor, can we move forward?

Actually, it was a simile, but don't tell anyone. Better to move on.

The post author used the term metaphor, so I accept that. Since it was in the abstract, they are actually correct.

 

[OldLady]

yeah saveliberty/ Seems like forcing someone to be something they're not is a conservative belief

It seems you want to ignore the obvious physical evidence of what they are. This discussion is finding viable ways of matching mind to body. I have suggested a way, many here simply dismiss it without offering an alternative.

You want to change the mind to match the body, yes? Transgender people who match the body to the mind are using another viable alternative.

 

[OldLady]

It was a poor metaphor, can we move forward?

Actually, it was a simile, but don't tell anyone. Better to move on.

Actually it was a metaphor. To be a simile it would need to employ a figure of speech like "cold as ice"

I thought a simile was a comparison using "Like" or "As." See the 'as?' It's okay. I was having technical difficulties for awhile and couldn't post back. Let's move on.

 

[pillars]

Paul McHugh is not speaking for the institution, but his personal views. He is part of ACP and is also virulently anti-gay. Research your source.

If Johns Hopkins is not doing that type of surgery anymore, it seems he is stating the institutional view.

Johns Hopkins stopped doing these surgeries in 1979. But, McHugh retired from Johns Hopkins and is not speaking for the institution in his recent articles. While Johns Hopkins doesn't perform sexual reassignment surgeries, doctors at Johns Hopkins SBCU (Sexual Behavior Clinical Unit) do consultations with transgender people, prescribe hormone therapy, and refer them out to other doctors for surgeries. So, it isn't true that Johns Hopkins doctors oppose these surgeries. It's just political, as many things are.

Here is some history on the subject: Hopkins Hospital: a history of sex reassignment

In 1979, SBCU Chair Jon Meyer conducted a study comparing 29 patients who had the surgery and 21 who didn’t, and concluded that those who had the surgery were not more adjusted to society than those who did not have the surgery. Meyer told The New York Times in 1979: “My personal feeling is that surgery is not proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and it’s clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that don’t go away following surgery.”

After Meyer’s study was published, Paul McHugh, the Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Hopkins Hospital who never supported the University offering the surgeries according to Schmidt, shut the program down.

Meyer’s study came after a study conducted by Money, which concluded that all but one out of 24 patients were sure that they had made the right decision, 12 had improved their occupational status and 10 had married for the first time. Beyer believes that officials at Hopkins just wanted an excuse to end the program, so they cited Meyer’s study.

“The people at Hopkins who are naturally very conservative anyway … decided that they were embarrassed by this program and wanted to shut it down,” she said.

A 1979 New York Times article also states that not everyone was convinced by Meyer’s study and that other doctors claimed that it was “seriously flawed in its methods and statistics and draws unwarranted conclusions.”

However, McHugh says that it shouldn’t be surprising that Hopkins discontinued the surgeries, and that he still supports this decision today. He points to Meyer’s study as well as a 2011 Swedish study that states that the risk of suicide was higher for people who had the surgery versus the general population.

McHugh says that more research has to be conducted before a surgery with such a high risk should be performed, especially because he does not think the surgery is necessary.

“It’s remarkable when a biological male or female requests the ablation of their sexual reproductive organs when they are normal,” he said. “These are perfectly normal tissue. This is not pathology.”

Beyer, however, cites a study from 1992 that shows that 98.5 percent of patients who underwent male-to-female surgery and 99 percent of patients who underwent female-to-male surgery had no regrets.

“It was clear to me at the time that [McHugh] was conflating sexual orientation and the actual physical act with gender identity,” Beyer said.

...Though the surgeries at Hopkins ended in 1979, the University continued to study sexual and gender behavior. Today, the SBCU provides consultations for members of the transgender community interested in sex reassignment surgery, provides patients with hormones and refers patients to specialists for surgery.

The Hopkins Student Health and Wellness Center is also working toward providing transgender students necessary services as a plan benefit under the University’s insurance plan once the student health insurance plan switches carriers on Aug. 15.

“We are hopefully working towards getting hormones and other surgical options covered by the student health insurance,” Demere Woolway, director of LGBTQ Life at Hopkins, said. “We’ve done a number of trainings for the folks over in the Health Center both on the counseling side and on the medical side. So we’ve done some great work with them and I think they are in a good place to be welcoming and supportive of folks.”

McHugh is a politically polarized and polarizing figure. I think think that you should read more than his views to get a more objective view of the subject, if that is your goal.

...and I think you vastly under rate the fact a leading sex reassignment hospital no longer does the surgery.

I see no new enlightening comments at this point in the thread, so no point in continuing.

It hasn't been a leading hospital since 1979. That was 37 years ago, which is practically an eternity in terms of medical advancements.

Here is some modern research on the subject:

Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment | Articles | Pediatrics

In recent years, puberty suppression by means of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs has become accepted in clinical management of adolescents who have gender dysphoria (GD). The current study is the first longer-term longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS: A total of 55 young transgender adults (22 transwomen and 33 transmen) who had received puberty suppression during adolescence were assessed 3 times: before the start of puberty suppression (mean age, 13.6 years), when cross-sex hormones were introduced (mean age, 16.7 years), and at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age, 20.7 years). Psychological functioning (GD, body image, global functioning, depression, anxiety, emotional and behavioral problems) and objective (social and educational/professional functioning) and subjective (quality of life, satisfaction with life and happiness) well-being were investigated.

RESULTS: After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.

CONCLUSIONS: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides gender dysphoric youth who seek gender reassignment from early puberty on, the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults.

Here is a nice overview of that study: Puberty Suppression for Transgender Adolescents Works

Here is another current study on best practices for treating gender dysphoria, from the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity: Ethical Issues Raised by the Treatment of Gender-Variant Prepubescent Children - Drescher - 2014 - Hastings Center Report - Wiley Online Library

Your opinions are drawn from someone who hasn't treated transgender patients since 1979.

A lot has happened in the last 37 years.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why give mental health treatment to someone who isn't mentally ill?

As pointed out, it IS a menatal issue.

I have no idea why this is such a hard thing to swallow. I can only think that it is due to the recent political bs that surrounds the issue itself.

Gender dysphoria is essentially believing that your gender is not what it actually is. The underlying cause of this is irrelevant to the fact that it is a mental problem - a mental state of mind that is not matching physical reality. This can be treated through either making the physical reality match the mental state of mind or making the metal state of mind match the reality (and obviously somewhere in between). There are very clear and obvious problems with the former. If the latter offers something better than it should be explored. There is evidence that this is the case (and one such study has already been cited). That does not necessarily mean that the physical 'cure' should be ignored but the idea that we need to ignore the possible psychiatric treatments is equally absurd as well as outright rejecting that this is a disorder.

Oddly enough, take away the sexuality part of this and the controversy of mental disorder and treatment evaporate instantly as well as the idea of physically matching the person suffering with the desired outcome as the primary method of tratment:
Body integrity identity disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are much less likely to support the amputation of a leg or voluntary blindness for these people than we are to subject someone to lifelong treatments to continually force the body to take a form that it is not.

 

[Pop23]

yeah saveliberty/ Seems like forcing someone to be something they're not is a conservative belief

It seems you want to ignore the obvious physical evidence of what they are. This discussion is finding viable ways of matching mind to body. I have suggested a way, many here simply dismiss it without offering an alternative.

You want to change the mind to match the body, yes? Transgender people who match the body to the mind are using another viable alternative.

Yet they only do it in a cosmetic, superficial way. They in no way can feel the opposite sex without the organs of that sex.

Sad but true.

 

[FA_Q2]

Paul McHugh is not speaking for the institution, but his personal views. He is part of ACP and is also virulently anti-gay. Research your source.

If Johns Hopkins is not doing that type of surgery anymore, it seems he is stating the institutional view.

Johns Hopkins stopped doing these surgeries in 1979. But, McHugh retired from Johns Hopkins and is not speaking for the institution in his recent articles. While Johns Hopkins doesn't perform sexual reassignment surgeries, doctors at Johns Hopkins SBCU (Sexual Behavior Clinical Unit) do consultations with transgender people, prescribe hormone therapy, and refer them out to other doctors for surgeries. So, it isn't true that Johns Hopkins doctors oppose these surgeries. It's just political, as many things are.

Here is some history on the subject: Hopkins Hospital: a history of sex reassignment

In 1979, SBCU Chair Jon Meyer conducted a study comparing 29 patients who had the surgery and 21 who didn’t, and concluded that those who had the surgery were not more adjusted to society than those who did not have the surgery. Meyer told The New York Times in 1979: “My personal feeling is that surgery is not proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and it’s clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that don’t go away following surgery.”

After Meyer’s study was published, Paul McHugh, the Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Hopkins Hospital who never supported the University offering the surgeries according to Schmidt, shut the program down.

Meyer’s study came after a study conducted by Money, which concluded that all but one out of 24 patients were sure that they had made the right decision, 12 had improved their occupational status and 10 had married for the first time. Beyer believes that officials at Hopkins just wanted an excuse to end the program, so they cited Meyer’s study.

“The people at Hopkins who are naturally very conservative anyway … decided that they were embarrassed by this program and wanted to shut it down,” she said.

A 1979 New York Times article also states that not everyone was convinced by Meyer’s study and that other doctors claimed that it was “seriously flawed in its methods and statistics and draws unwarranted conclusions.”

However, McHugh says that it shouldn’t be surprising that Hopkins discontinued the surgeries, and that he still supports this decision today. He points to Meyer’s study as well as a 2011 Swedish study that states that the risk of suicide was higher for people who had the surgery versus the general population.

McHugh says that more research has to be conducted before a surgery with such a high risk should be performed, especially because he does not think the surgery is necessary.

“It’s remarkable when a biological male or female requests the ablation of their sexual reproductive organs when they are normal,” he said. “These are perfectly normal tissue. This is not pathology.”

Beyer, however, cites a study from 1992 that shows that 98.5 percent of patients who underwent male-to-female surgery and 99 percent of patients who underwent female-to-male surgery had no regrets.

“It was clear to me at the time that [McHugh] was conflating sexual orientation and the actual physical act with gender identity,” Beyer said.

...Though the surgeries at Hopkins ended in 1979, the University continued to study sexual and gender behavior. Today, the SBCU provides consultations for members of the transgender community interested in sex reassignment surgery, provides patients with hormones and refers patients to specialists for surgery.

The Hopkins Student Health and Wellness Center is also working toward providing transgender students necessary services as a plan benefit under the University’s insurance plan once the student health insurance plan switches carriers on Aug. 15.

“We are hopefully working towards getting hormones and other surgical options covered by the student health insurance,” Demere Woolway, director of LGBTQ Life at Hopkins, said. “We’ve done a number of trainings for the folks over in the Health Center both on the counseling side and on the medical side. So we’ve done some great work with them and I think they are in a good place to be welcoming and supportive of folks.”

McHugh is a politically polarized and polarizing figure. I think think that you should read more than his views to get a more objective view of the subject, if that is your goal.

...and I think you vastly under rate the fact a leading sex reassignment hospital no longer does the surgery.

I see no new enlightening comments at this point in the thread, so no point in continuing.

It hasn't been a leading hospital since 1979. That was 37 years ago, which is practically an eternity in terms of medical advancements.

Here is some modern research on the subject:

Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment | Articles | Pediatrics

In recent years, puberty suppression by means of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs has become accepted in clinical management of adolescents who have gender dysphoria (GD). The current study is the first longer-term longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS: A total of 55 young transgender adults (22 transwomen and 33 transmen) who had received puberty suppression during adolescence were assessed 3 times: before the start of puberty suppression (mean age, 13.6 years), when cross-sex hormones were introduced (mean age, 16.7 years), and at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age, 20.7 years). Psychological functioning (GD, body image, global functioning, depression, anxiety, emotional and behavioral problems) and objective (social and educational/professional functioning) and subjective (quality of life, satisfaction with life and happiness) well-being were investigated.

RESULTS: After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.

CONCLUSIONS: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides gender dysphoric youth who seek gender reassignment from early puberty on, the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults.

Here is a nice overview of that study: Puberty Suppression for Transgender Adolescents Works

Here is another current study on best practices for treating gender dysphoria, from the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity: Ethical Issues Raised by the Treatment of Gender-Variant Prepubescent Children - Drescher - 2014 - Hastings Center Report - Wiley Online Library

Your opinions are drawn from someone who hasn't treated transgender patients since 1979.

A lot has happened in the last 37 years.

A lot has and there is more research out there.
What is lacking is LONG TERM research. You do not examine the effects of cancer treatments on a year or two year time scale. That is just pointless. You do so on a time scale of 30 years. There needs to be a far grater understanding of what this means 5, 10, 15 and 30 years after the surgery before definitive answers can be formulated. Such research is in its early stages.

 

[OldLady]

Why give mental health treatment to someone who isn't mentally ill?

As pointed out, it IS a menatal issue.

I have no idea why this is such a hard thing to swallow. I can only think that it is due to the recent political bs that surrounds the issue itself.

Gender dysphoria is essentially believing that your gender is not what it actually is. The underlying cause of this is irrelevant to the fact that it is a mental problem - a mental state of mind that is not matching physical reality. This can be treated through either making the physical reality match the mental state of mind or making the metal state of mind match the reality (and obviously somewhere in between). There are very clear and obvious problems with the former. If the latter offers something better than it should be explored. There is evidence that this is the case (and one such study has already been cited). That does not necessarily mean that the physical 'cure' should be ignored but the idea that we need to ignore the possible psychiatric treatments is equally absurd as well as outright rejecting that this is a disorder.

Oddly enough, take away the sexuality part of this and the controversy of mental disorder and treatment evaporate instantly as well as the idea of physically matching the person suffering with the desired outcome as the primary method of tratment:
Body integrity identity disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are much less likely to support the amputation of a leg or voluntary blindness for these people than we are to subject someone to lifelong treatments to continually force the body to take a form that it is not.

I'm not a transgender, so I can only go by what they say about their experiences and by what the research to date shows. The jury is still out and everyone is entitled to their opinion on what's best. I'm not a shrink nor a doctor, so I'm not going to give an "expert" opinion on what's right or not. I'm not opposed to mental health counseling for transgender individuals--they must need it with all the rejection and shame they encounter on a daily basis. I'm going to trust what transgender individuals say, which is they always "knew" they were in the wrong body. They lead lives like the rest of us, otherwise, and develop relationships as they are able. The only thing I'm opposed to is mental health therapy for the purpose of curing a mental illness when it does not seem to be a mental illness in the way we normally think of same. If it is a biological misfire of some kind, let the transgender person decide how to tackle it. But I'm pretty sure I already said that earlier, so now I've argued myself into a total circle and I have said my piece.

 

[pillars]

Paul McHugh is not speaking for the institution, but his personal views. He is part of ACP and is also virulently anti-gay. Research your source.

If Johns Hopkins is not doing that type of surgery anymore, it seems he is stating the institutional view.

Johns Hopkins stopped doing these surgeries in 1979. But, McHugh retired from Johns Hopkins and is not speaking for the institution in his recent articles. While Johns Hopkins doesn't perform sexual reassignment surgeries, doctors at Johns Hopkins SBCU (Sexual Behavior Clinical Unit) do consultations with transgender people, prescribe hormone therapy, and refer them out to other doctors for surgeries. So, it isn't true that Johns Hopkins doctors oppose these surgeries. It's just political, as many things are.

Here is some history on the subject: Hopkins Hospital: a history of sex reassignment

In 1979, SBCU Chair Jon Meyer conducted a study comparing 29 patients who had the surgery and 21 who didn’t, and concluded that those who had the surgery were not more adjusted to society than those who did not have the surgery. Meyer told The New York Times in 1979: “My personal feeling is that surgery is not proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and it’s clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that don’t go away following surgery.”

After Meyer’s study was published, Paul McHugh, the Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Hopkins Hospital who never supported the University offering the surgeries according to Schmidt, shut the program down.

Meyer’s study came after a study conducted by Money, which concluded that all but one out of 24 patients were sure that they had made the right decision, 12 had improved their occupational status and 10 had married for the first time. Beyer believes that officials at Hopkins just wanted an excuse to end the program, so they cited Meyer’s study.

“The people at Hopkins who are naturally very conservative anyway … decided that they were embarrassed by this program and wanted to shut it down,” she said.

A 1979 New York Times article also states that not everyone was convinced by Meyer’s study and that other doctors claimed that it was “seriously flawed in its methods and statistics and draws unwarranted conclusions.”

However, McHugh says that it shouldn’t be surprising that Hopkins discontinued the surgeries, and that he still supports this decision today. He points to Meyer’s study as well as a 2011 Swedish study that states that the risk of suicide was higher for people who had the surgery versus the general population.

McHugh says that more research has to be conducted before a surgery with such a high risk should be performed, especially because he does not think the surgery is necessary.

“It’s remarkable when a biological male or female requests the ablation of their sexual reproductive organs when they are normal,” he said. “These are perfectly normal tissue. This is not pathology.”

Beyer, however, cites a study from 1992 that shows that 98.5 percent of patients who underwent male-to-female surgery and 99 percent of patients who underwent female-to-male surgery had no regrets.

“It was clear to me at the time that [McHugh] was conflating sexual orientation and the actual physical act with gender identity,” Beyer said.

...Though the surgeries at Hopkins ended in 1979, the University continued to study sexual and gender behavior. Today, the SBCU provides consultations for members of the transgender community interested in sex reassignment surgery, provides patients with hormones and refers patients to specialists for surgery.

The Hopkins Student Health and Wellness Center is also working toward providing transgender students necessary services as a plan benefit under the University’s insurance plan once the student health insurance plan switches carriers on Aug. 15.

“We are hopefully working towards getting hormones and other surgical options covered by the student health insurance,” Demere Woolway, director of LGBTQ Life at Hopkins, said. “We’ve done a number of trainings for the folks over in the Health Center both on the counseling side and on the medical side. So we’ve done some great work with them and I think they are in a good place to be welcoming and supportive of folks.”

McHugh is a politically polarized and polarizing figure. I think think that you should read more than his views to get a more objective view of the subject, if that is your goal.

...and I think you vastly under rate the fact a leading sex reassignment hospital no longer does the surgery.

I see no new enlightening comments at this point in the thread, so no point in continuing.

It hasn't been a leading hospital since 1979. That was 37 years ago, which is practically an eternity in terms of medical advancements.

Here is some modern research on the subject:

Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment | Articles | Pediatrics

In recent years, puberty suppression by means of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs has become accepted in clinical management of adolescents who have gender dysphoria (GD). The current study is the first longer-term longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS: A total of 55 young transgender adults (22 transwomen and 33 transmen) who had received puberty suppression during adolescence were assessed 3 times: before the start of puberty suppression (mean age, 13.6 years), when cross-sex hormones were introduced (mean age, 16.7 years), and at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age, 20.7 years). Psychological functioning (GD, body image, global functioning, depression, anxiety, emotional and behavioral problems) and objective (social and educational/professional functioning) and subjective (quality of life, satisfaction with life and happiness) well-being were investigated.

RESULTS: After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.

CONCLUSIONS: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides gender dysphoric youth who seek gender reassignment from early puberty on, the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults.

Here is a nice overview of that study: Puberty Suppression for Transgender Adolescents Works

Here is another current study on best practices for treating gender dysphoria, from the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity: Ethical Issues Raised by the Treatment of Gender-Variant Prepubescent Children - Drescher - 2014 - Hastings Center Report - Wiley Online Library

Your opinions are drawn from someone who hasn't treated transgender patients since 1979.

A lot has happened in the last 37 years.

A lot has and there is more research out there.
What is lacking is LONG TERM research. You do not examine the effects of cancer treatments on a year or two year time scale. That is just pointless. You do so on a time scale of 30 years. There needs to be a far grater understanding of what this means 5, 10, 15 and 30 years after the surgery before definitive answers can be formulated. Such research is in its early stages.

Actually, this has been studied since the 1960s (so close to 60 years). They have years of data to draw on. If you'd reviewed my links, you'd realize this.

And, the average length of time of study for a cancer treatment is 12 years, not 30, and that's considered to be a longterm evaluation in medical circles.

 

[pillars]

It was a poor metaphor, can we move forward?

Actually, it was a simile, but don't tell anyone. Better to move on.

Actually it was a metaphor. To be a simile it would need to employ a figure of speech like "cold as ice"

A simile includes descriptors "like" or "as."

 

[FA_Q2]

If Johns Hopkins is not doing that type of surgery anymore, it seems he is stating the institutional view.

Johns Hopkins stopped doing these surgeries in 1979. But, McHugh retired from Johns Hopkins and is not speaking for the institution in his recent articles. While Johns Hopkins doesn't perform sexual reassignment surgeries, doctors at Johns Hopkins SBCU (Sexual Behavior Clinical Unit) do consultations with transgender people, prescribe hormone therapy, and refer them out to other doctors for surgeries. So, it isn't true that Johns Hopkins doctors oppose these surgeries. It's just political, as many things are.

Here is some history on the subject: Hopkins Hospital: a history of sex reassignment

In 1979, SBCU Chair Jon Meyer conducted a study comparing 29 patients who had the surgery and 21 who didn’t, and concluded that those who had the surgery were not more adjusted to society than those who did not have the surgery. Meyer told The New York Times in 1979: “My personal feeling is that surgery is not proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and it’s clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that don’t go away following surgery.”

After Meyer’s study was published, Paul McHugh, the Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Hopkins Hospital who never supported the University offering the surgeries according to Schmidt, shut the program down.

Meyer’s study came after a study conducted by Money, which concluded that all but one out of 24 patients were sure that they had made the right decision, 12 had improved their occupational status and 10 had married for the first time. Beyer believes that officials at Hopkins just wanted an excuse to end the program, so they cited Meyer’s study.

“The people at Hopkins who are naturally very conservative anyway … decided that they were embarrassed by this program and wanted to shut it down,” she said.

A 1979 New York Times article also states that not everyone was convinced by Meyer’s study and that other doctors claimed that it was “seriously flawed in its methods and statistics and draws unwarranted conclusions.”

However, McHugh says that it shouldn’t be surprising that Hopkins discontinued the surgeries, and that he still supports this decision today. He points to Meyer’s study as well as a 2011 Swedish study that states that the risk of suicide was higher for people who had the surgery versus the general population.

McHugh says that more research has to be conducted before a surgery with such a high risk should be performed, especially because he does not think the surgery is necessary.

“It’s remarkable when a biological male or female requests the ablation of their sexual reproductive organs when they are normal,” he said. “These are perfectly normal tissue. This is not pathology.”

Beyer, however, cites a study from 1992 that shows that 98.5 percent of patients who underwent male-to-female surgery and 99 percent of patients who underwent female-to-male surgery had no regrets.

“It was clear to me at the time that [McHugh] was conflating sexual orientation and the actual physical act with gender identity,” Beyer said.

...Though the surgeries at Hopkins ended in 1979, the University continued to study sexual and gender behavior. Today, the SBCU provides consultations for members of the transgender community interested in sex reassignment surgery, provides patients with hormones and refers patients to specialists for surgery.

The Hopkins Student Health and Wellness Center is also working toward providing transgender students necessary services as a plan benefit under the University’s insurance plan once the student health insurance plan switches carriers on Aug. 15.

“We are hopefully working towards getting hormones and other surgical options covered by the student health insurance,” Demere Woolway, director of LGBTQ Life at Hopkins, said. “We’ve done a number of trainings for the folks over in the Health Center both on the counseling side and on the medical side. So we’ve done some great work with them and I think they are in a good place to be welcoming and supportive of folks.”

McHugh is a politically polarized and polarizing figure. I think think that you should read more than his views to get a more objective view of the subject, if that is your goal.

...and I think you vastly under rate the fact a leading sex reassignment hospital no longer does the surgery.

I see no new enlightening comments at this point in the thread, so no point in continuing.

It hasn't been a leading hospital since 1979. That was 37 years ago, which is practically an eternity in terms of medical advancements.

Here is some modern research on the subject:

Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment | Articles | Pediatrics

In recent years, puberty suppression by means of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs has become accepted in clinical management of adolescents who have gender dysphoria (GD). The current study is the first longer-term longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS: A total of 55 young transgender adults (22 transwomen and 33 transmen) who had received puberty suppression during adolescence were assessed 3 times: before the start of puberty suppression (mean age, 13.6 years), when cross-sex hormones were introduced (mean age, 16.7 years), and at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age, 20.7 years). Psychological functioning (GD, body image, global functioning, depression, anxiety, emotional and behavioral problems) and objective (social and educational/professional functioning) and subjective (quality of life, satisfaction with life and happiness) well-being were investigated.

RESULTS: After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.

CONCLUSIONS: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides gender dysphoric youth who seek gender reassignment from early puberty on, the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults.

Here is a nice overview of that study: Puberty Suppression for Transgender Adolescents Works

Here is another current study on best practices for treating gender dysphoria, from the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity: Ethical Issues Raised by the Treatment of Gender-Variant Prepubescent Children - Drescher - 2014 - Hastings Center Report - Wiley Online Library

Your opinions are drawn from someone who hasn't treated transgender patients since 1979.

A lot has happened in the last 37 years.

A lot has and there is more research out there.
What is lacking is LONG TERM research. You do not examine the effects of cancer treatments on a year or two year time scale. That is just pointless. You do so on a time scale of 30 years. There needs to be a far grater understanding of what this means 5, 10, 15 and 30 years after the surgery before definitive answers can be formulated. Such research is in its early stages.

Actually, this has been studied since the 1960s (so close to 60 years). They have years of data to draw on. If you'd reviewed my links, you'd realize this.

And, the average length of time of study for a cancer treatment is 12 years, not 30, and that's considered to be a longterm evaluation in medical circles.

Just because it has been around since the 60's does not mean that they have comprehensively studied the effects of gender reassignment surgery along those timelines.

 

[pillars]

Johns Hopkins stopped doing these surgeries in 1979. But, McHugh retired from Johns Hopkins and is not speaking for the institution in his recent articles. While Johns Hopkins doesn't perform sexual reassignment surgeries, doctors at Johns Hopkins SBCU (Sexual Behavior Clinical Unit) do consultations with transgender people, prescribe hormone therapy, and refer them out to other doctors for surgeries. So, it isn't true that Johns Hopkins doctors oppose these surgeries. It's just political, as many things are.

Here is some history on the subject: Hopkins Hospital: a history of sex reassignment

McHugh is a politically polarized and polarizing figure. I think think that you should read more than his views to get a more objective view of the subject, if that is your goal.

...and I think you vastly under rate the fact a leading sex reassignment hospital no longer does the surgery.

I see no new enlightening comments at this point in the thread, so no point in continuing.

It hasn't been a leading hospital since 1979. That was 37 years ago, which is practically an eternity in terms of medical advancements.

Here is some modern research on the subject:

Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment | Articles | Pediatrics

In recent years, puberty suppression by means of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs has become accepted in clinical management of adolescents who have gender dysphoria (GD). The current study is the first longer-term longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS: A total of 55 young transgender adults (22 transwomen and 33 transmen) who had received puberty suppression during adolescence were assessed 3 times: before the start of puberty suppression (mean age, 13.6 years), when cross-sex hormones were introduced (mean age, 16.7 years), and at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age, 20.7 years). Psychological functioning (GD, body image, global functioning, depression, anxiety, emotional and behavioral problems) and objective (social and educational/professional functioning) and subjective (quality of life, satisfaction with life and happiness) well-being were investigated.

RESULTS: After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.

CONCLUSIONS: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides gender dysphoric youth who seek gender reassignment from early puberty on, the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults.

Here is a nice overview of that study: Puberty Suppression for Transgender Adolescents Works

Here is another current study on best practices for treating gender dysphoria, from the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity: Ethical Issues Raised by the Treatment of Gender-Variant Prepubescent Children - Drescher - 2014 - Hastings Center Report - Wiley Online Library

Your opinions are drawn from someone who hasn't treated transgender patients since 1979.

A lot has happened in the last 37 years.

A lot has and there is more research out there.
What is lacking is LONG TERM research. You do not examine the effects of cancer treatments on a year or two year time scale. That is just pointless. You do so on a time scale of 30 years. There needs to be a far grater understanding of what this means 5, 10, 15 and 30 years after the surgery before definitive answers can be formulated. Such research is in its early stages.

Actually, this has been studied since the 1960s (so close to 60 years). They have years of data to draw on. If you'd reviewed my links, you'd realize this.

And, the average length of time of study for a cancer treatment is 12 years, not 30, and that's considered to be a longterm evaluation in medical circles.

Just because it has been around since the 60's does not mean that they have comprehensively studied the effects of gender reassignment surgery along those timelines.

Who set the timeline of 30 years? Did you get that from some legitimate scientific source?

 

[Asclepias]

It was a poor metaphor, can we move forward?

Actually, it was a simile, but don't tell anyone. Better to move on.

Actually it was a metaphor. To be a simile it would need to employ a figure of speech like "cold as ice"

A simile includes descriptors "like" or "as."

Looks like we are both right. A simile is a subset of metaphors. Can saying "someone with six fingers" be considered a figure of speech?

What is the Difference Between Metaphor and Simile?

 

[FA_Q2]

...and I think you vastly under rate the fact a leading sex reassignment hospital no longer does the surgery.

I see no new enlightening comments at this point in the thread, so no point in continuing.

It hasn't been a leading hospital since 1979. That was 37 years ago, which is practically an eternity in terms of medical advancements.

Here is some modern research on the subject:

Young Adult Psychological Outcome After Puberty Suppression and Gender Reassignment | Articles | Pediatrics

In recent years, puberty suppression by means of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs has become accepted in clinical management of adolescents who have gender dysphoria (GD). The current study is the first longer-term longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS: A total of 55 young transgender adults (22 transwomen and 33 transmen) who had received puberty suppression during adolescence were assessed 3 times: before the start of puberty suppression (mean age, 13.6 years), when cross-sex hormones were introduced (mean age, 16.7 years), and at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age, 20.7 years). Psychological functioning (GD, body image, global functioning, depression, anxiety, emotional and behavioral problems) and objective (social and educational/professional functioning) and subjective (quality of life, satisfaction with life and happiness) well-being were investigated.

RESULTS: After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.

CONCLUSIONS: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides gender dysphoric youth who seek gender reassignment from early puberty on, the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults.

Here is a nice overview of that study: Puberty Suppression for Transgender Adolescents Works

Here is another current study on best practices for treating gender dysphoria, from the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity: Ethical Issues Raised by the Treatment of Gender-Variant Prepubescent Children - Drescher - 2014 - Hastings Center Report - Wiley Online Library

Your opinions are drawn from someone who hasn't treated transgender patients since 1979.

A lot has happened in the last 37 years.

A lot has and there is more research out there.
What is lacking is LONG TERM research. You do not examine the effects of cancer treatments on a year or two year time scale. That is just pointless. You do so on a time scale of 30 years. There needs to be a far grater understanding of what this means 5, 10, 15 and 30 years after the surgery before definitive answers can be formulated. Such research is in its early stages.

Actually, this has been studied since the 1960s (so close to 60 years). They have years of data to draw on. If you'd reviewed my links, you'd realize this.

And, the average length of time of study for a cancer treatment is 12 years, not 30, and that's considered to be a longterm evaluation in medical circles.

Just because it has been around since the 60's does not mean that they have comprehensively studied the effects of gender reassignment surgery along those timelines.

Who set the timeline of 30 years? Did you get that from some legitimate scientific source?

It is the timeline that I have found for cancer research as I am intimately familiar with that particular set of information as I have dealt with it. When researching QOL outcomes of particular treatment possibilities that is the longest and most comprehensive information that you can access.

 

[Asclepias]

It was a poor metaphor, can we move forward?

Actually, it was a simile, but don't tell anyone. Better to move on.

Actually it was a metaphor. To be a simile it would need to employ a figure of speech like "cold as ice"

I thought a simile was a comparison using "Like" or "As." See the 'as?' It's okay. I was having technical difficulties for awhile and couldn't post back. Let's move on.

You were correct.

 

[pillars]

It is the timeline that I have found for cancer research as I am intimately familiar with that particular set of information as I have dealt with it. When researching QOL outcomes of particular treatment possibilities that is the longest and most comprehensive information that you can access.

Citation needed.

 

[Arianrhod]

Seven things I’m learning about transgender persons

The article is too long to copy and paste all, but it is well worth a read.

What have you learned about transgender people as the result of increased focus on this issue? Do you know any transgender people in real life? Why do you think they are so misunderstood?

Nothing I didn't know before.

No, I don't know any.

They are not misunderstood. The only misunderstanding is caused by the propensity of the Left to accept mental illness as the norm.

So the physiological situations discussed in Items #2 and #3 of the article are, in your view, not physiological at all, but a "mental illness."

Can you explain how this supposed "mental illness" can affect a neonate's chromosomes? This should be fascinating.