This essay is the perfect answer to the asinine argument "Well, yeah some people make a bad decision for themselves and regret transitioning. So what? Life is full of regret. Regret is a natural part of life". This isn't a bad haircut or an ugly tattoo.
Thank you for telling people what is really happening. Parents are exhausted by losing their kids, being discarded for advocating for their natural bodies, and being called transphobes for trying to prevent gender modifying surgeries. Parents need backup. We appreciate it.
Regret is not limited to minors..it is a butchery mutilation whatevervthe age is. The man had other psychiatric concomitant difficulties whichbhad to be addressed first.. anyway, He is a good man, nice person, smart guy.. wish him the best🌷
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can
"consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
Your opinions may be apt but not quite pertinent here, as this has nothing to do with children. Ritchie was in his early 30s when he had it done. The FtM wannabes who started and then turned back, were typically in late adolescence and early adulthood.
You are exactly right, which is why legislation banning these "interventions" in minors alone will not solve the problem. Such legislation only slightly postpones the harm.
While I support such legislation as necessary to stop an out-of-control medical field from abusing children, we must also do more. We must inform the world of why these are not medically necessary procedures, and why it is in fact better to be able to live in your healthy body if at all possible - and I believe it is possible for everyone.
While someone can choose to have these extreme body modifications if, as adults, they choose to do so, these "interventions" must not be misrepresented as medical treatments, as medically necessary, as reversible, or as anything other than dangerous body modifications with a laundry list of known and unknown effects and side effects. Health insurance, public or private, should not be used for such interventions, ever.
(Also, wasn't Ritchie in his mid to late 20's when this stuff happened? And he was in a vulnerable mental state, and was lied to, and was told this was all medically necessary, and was not given all the warnings of the various problems that were highly likely to happen. That is my point. We are misrepresenting these body modifications in a criminal fashion, both to minors and to young, vulnerable adults - and in some cases older adults, like Scott Newgent.)
I think Ritchie said he was in therapy and treatment for 6 years, age 24-30, before surgery. He makes it out that he was told his therapy consultations would have to end if he didn't complete the work soon. Whether or not they literally told him that, it's how he understood it. (I'm always amazed at the bureaucratic naivety and lack of due diligence in these NHS stories.) Scott Newgent at 42 had a gilt-edged health insurance policy that covered everything under the sun. It was like offering someone an Aladdin's cave of wish fulfillment. Scott yielded to temptation. (Why not, you're already paying top dollar in premiums, let's get your money's worth! That Obamacare ACA boondoggle has had so many unforeseen consequences.) He was likewise disserved by therapists and clinicians. I see a parallel in Scott's tale to 12-step stories. One starts down a road and can't stop, and in the end all you can do is tell your story.
Totally agree. The trans scam has been a horror show for all victims. Thank you, Joe Burgo for this poignant tale of the men and boys who have experienced such a devastating body mutilation.
It depends on which population of transitioners we’re talking about. First, let’s distinguish the boys from the girls. FtMs are women, Richie is a man, a gay man. But even there, sometimes their experiences overlap, especially if they're gay and lesbian. That population tends to feel more gender dysphoria as young children, which typically resolves in puberty when they realize they are gay and lesbian. Young children who experience gender dysphoria may also be reacting to sexual abuse, leading to a desire to escape their vulnerable bodies. Also, girls who transition in late adolescence and early adulthood are often dealing with societal pressures to conform to sexist norms as well as sexual abuse trauma. As gays and lesbians, their trajectories may overlap, but as males and females, their motivations for transitioning may not align.
Unfortunately for Ritchie, homophobia was a big factor in his upbringing, causing him a deep sense of shame and a desire to escape his male body and his attraction to men. It started when he was young, but he had years of therapy trying to resolve his many psychological problems before he was convinced — encouraged, even —. that he should have bottom surgery. In many respects, he was a victim not only of homophobic prejudice but of the zealous involvement of gender therapists looking for their latest “success story.”
The MALE population who transition as grownups tend to be heterosexual, not gay. Bruce Jenner comes to mind…he fathered six children with three different women before transitioning in mid-life. The term autogynephilia is often used to characterize these men, for whom imagining themselves as women and dressing in women’s clothing is an erotic activity. This is a different population from Ritchie, and obviously, from girls.
However, within the past few years, given how deeply embedded trans ideology has become in the schools and public policy, young children, both male and female, are susceptible to adopting a trans identity because the pseudo-scientific notion of Gender Identity is being drummed into their heads before they can recite the alphabet.
Where gender dysphoria once spontaneously occurred mostly in gay kids and sometimes autistic kids too, now it’s a manufactured diagnosis imposed on them by modern Pied Pipers: activist teachers, social media, and the trans movement’s takeover of the medical profession and progressive politics. All bets are off.
"Manufactured diagnosis," yes I can believe that. It seems that most of those FtMs and MtFs you describe are really just wannabes. In both clinical treatment and the mainstream media there is pervasive lack of seriousness about the subject. It doesn't seem to be understood that TSism or GD is a rare condition, a lot rarer than some intersex conditions, with which it tends to overlap. It gets confused with homosexuality, which always baffles me, the same way some people's eagerness to stigmatize little kids as "gay" baffles me. The invented mental illness of "autogynephilia" confuses the issue even further, since that's just a rebranding of both transvestism and what was known as secondary transsexualism. Whether or not it is applicable to Jenner is a moot point, but he first started treatments in his 30s. Today's sloppy jargon would say he "detransitioned," though like most of the people under discussion he never actually changed sex in the first place.
This article tackles the type of misconceptions that well-meaning useful idiots maintain in order to feel good about their pro-trans position. The less they know, the more self-righteous they can feel.
Thank you for telling the truth, not in spite of, but because of how painful it is.
Please keep amplifying their voices. Ritchie (thank you Ritchie as always!) also recently spoke of the lack of social support for detransitioned men, compared to many of the detransitioned women whom he described as being welcomed back into the sisterhood (not all feel this, perhaps, but he noted a sharp difference for the men, who are instead vilified by many women and/or criticized by many men). We can do better, all of us, as a society, and one on one, to support them as they get stronger and build themselves good paths to go forward in life.
I gathered the author's opinions were mostly based on Ritchie's reports. Some obvious errors and dubious ideas in there, perhaps, but you need a full range of voices from all sides. What Ritchie says about lack of social support for people like him may be explained by this author's own illogic in comparing so-called 'detransitioned females'—who actually only had cosmetic breast reduction, and took testosterone for a while—with someone like Ritchie who had a full sex change. Really, we should be comparing like with like. We'd probably see many parallels with Ritchie's situation if we made proper comparisons.
A mastectomy is not a cosmetic breast reduction. It's horribly disfiguring, so not cosmetic at all. Not only are the breasts taken off, but so are all the chest muscles. And those women who also have a phalloplasty are also mutilated even more, as well. Some go so far as to remove all female organs, putting them into instant menopause. Taking testosterone for more than 3 months causes enormous, irreversible adverse body changes in women. Male voices, instead of female, male pattern baldness, huge amounts of hair, beards. Let's not minimize what this cult does to boys and girls, men and women. It's equally horrendous for both sexes and needs to be stopped.
Anecdotal evidence scarcely merits being called "evidence," however appealing the stories may be to one's point of view. Fact is, such surgeries are done--two minor girls sued Arizona not long ago demanding taxpayer-paid "gender affirming" mastectomies, and nobody was arguing the case was moot because they were minors and such surgeries were not done.
There is that, but in the context of gender identity ideology, "evidence" is usually referring to the scientific literature underlying one's position, and in that context, anecdotes are the weakest form of evidence and can never establish causation nor be generalized in respect to a population.
There are so many lies in gender ideology that anyone can corroborate whatever they prefer to believe
Anyone could find hundreds of thousands of references, mostly circular, saying that hormones and surgery lead to satisfaction and happiness. Or that science is firm on sex and gender being continua, not binary. Or that not honoring pronoun demands is harmful.
Or that anything short of slavish support leads to suicide. Sign here.
That's false. Olson-Kennedy, a leading GAC physician, has an article which states quite clearly that breast removal was done for multiple children < 18. And that was 2017.
There weren't any children. There were exactly two cases on that graph between 13 and 14. Obviously past puberty...or there wouldn't have been breasts! Vast majority were 17 or older. Bulk of the patients on the graph were 18-21.
I had a friend who was one of the top female plastic surgeons in Manhattan, and she did breast reductions and reconstructions. She knew the difference between breast reduction and mastectomy. What you describe is what we used to call a Radical Halsted mastectomy, and that does not happen anymore, not even in the case of breast cancer.
How you imagined that someone having a breast reduction was ipso facto having a radical mastectomy is anybody's guess. The breasts are not "taken off," rather some underlying tissue, mostly fat, is excised. In some cases the nipples, aureoles and breast stalk are repositioned.
google "top surgery" and see how top medical centers, such as Mayo clinic and John Hopkins describe it. They literally say "mastectomy". You can also look at some images of post "top surgery". Doesn't look like just a reduction to me. On the other hand, women with breast cancer actually would prefer to keep their breasts . They are trying to get rid of cancer, not their breasts, so it makes sense that the surgeon doesn't fully remove them.
My usual search engine is Duckduckgo, I don't "google." ;-)
I am perfectly aware that "mastectomy" is erroneously used in cases where the breast is not actually removed. It's a common solecism, like referring to 19- and 20-year-olds as "children." The communications boffins at Mayo and Johns Hopkins (note spelling) should know better. We call an excision of tumor in the breast a "lumpectomy"; perhaps a more suitable word should be found for a cosmetic procedure which is not connected with cancer.
I know there are grotesque and atypical photos floating around on the interwebz, where the entire breast is removed, including nipple, aureole, etc. (but not the underlying muscle: again, you have this confused with the Halsted procedure), sometimes with violently red zigzag scars. These are body mods done to the patient's specifications and should not be considered normal cosmetic surgery or even part of sex reassignment.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that if these patients had been on GnRHa "puberty blockers" they would not have grown breasts large enough to need reduction (or "removal"). But the people who get into a tiswas about breast reduction tend to be anti-GnRHa as well. Just another of those many damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't paradoxes.
I've seen any number of photos of topless women who've had this treatment done. Even when the scars have faded there is a rather ugly crumpled appearance to the base of the breast/pec major. In some this fades but in most it is obvious. I appreciate your attention to accuracy but the basic fact is that healthy body parts are being removed from those who suffer from disease of the mind. Given the history of psychosurgery I am not filled with joy at the idea of these surgeries continuing.
I was under the impression that he was describing the emotional and physical challenges of multiple clients in his practice but that Richie’s personal medical detail’s are the only ones appropriate to share because they were made public by Richie.
Unless the author specializes in that area, he's unlikely to have "multiple clients in his practice" who are TS. It's a very small field.
In regard to mtf SRS, the author simply repeats Ritchie's (note spelling) description. I have issues of Clinics of Plastic Surgery on my bookshelf, and other relevant surgical references, and in none of them is there mention of the prostate being repositioned during SRS, as Ritchie once claimed, and as this author repeats. The prostate does shrink and become largely resorbed through endocrinological treatments, but there's no reason to think it gets moved around, or that this is a cause of sexual dysfunction.
Joe Burgo is one of the leading specialists in this area. He is sought out and is very likely to have multiple clients in his practice who are TS.
You are putting yourself forward as someone who is very knowledgeable about this field surgically but you are undermining your credibility by clearly not knowing enough to realize who Joe Burgo is.
I am judging him solely on this one column. He is evidently an "exclusively online" psychotherapist who has written about shame and narcissism. He may be very good in his own area of expertise. He's not claiming to be an expert in transsexualism, however, or urogenital surgery or cosmetic surgery. Psychotherapists often give opinions outside their field in a non-professional context.
Dr. Burgo is a psychotherapist who focuses his practice on males with gender issues. Ritchie is not his only source of information on this topic. It is in fact his area of specialization.
In the words of Vito Corleone, "It doesn't make any difference to me what a man does for a living." I hope he gives helpful advice and comfort. But as with most of the Genspect people, he seems to have come to this "area of specialization" only recently, so isn't working with a corpus of experience and knowledge stretching back 40 or 50 years. And like many gay commenters, he strives to dovetail eroticism, and the struggles of male homosexual youth, with whatever it is that transsexuals go through. This would seem to be a mismatch of interests. But perhaps there's a new subculture of wannabes where Joe Burgo's knowledge is relevant and useful.
You have statistics on this and are willing to defend them? ;-)
Myself, I don't know what's falling out of the sky, except these syndromes are rare and most people with opinions have had no real experience with them.
The main reason, aside from disgust, that I put “trans” in sneer quotes is because it deliberately combines transsexuals, who are extremely rare, one in 65,000 or so, with transgenders, who, given the current fad and indoctrination, are a thousand times as numerous.
The two have nothing to do with each other, and less to do with the third, transvestism.
Transsexual (two Ss) is a legitimate diagnostic category under DSM4. It has rigorous criteria and most seeking medical transition were denied it. It has typical onset between ages 4 and 6 and is lifelong. 70% male.
Transgender is an invention under DSM5 and is based on the frivolous criterion of self-reports, mostly from teenage girls showing one or more mental illnesses and acquired through social contagion. It tends to be temporary.
Dr. Burgo, thank you for this important column. Any patient having any surgical operation must provide informed consent in which they acknowledge an understanding of the potential benefits and risks of the surgery. I cannot believe that truly informed consent was obtain for men having a Neo-vagina created. There was a recent study published from Mayo Clinic Arizona reporting higher attempted suicide rates after this neo-vagina surgery. This comes as no surprise to me, but is, nonetheless, very disturbing and IMO tragic.
Maybe instead of the "live son or dead daughter" BS, the clinicians could counsel the future eunuchs what lies ahead, that their postoperative lives won't be unrelieved joy and wild sex but empty and unsatisfying.
Might also tell them that nobody will want to date them.
And that after a decade or so they will have an elevated desire to suicide.
Yes, that issue of "who will partner with them?" needs more discussion. When they are enmeshed in the Alphabet Soup community, there may be partners. Not after some years, or maybe not even right away. It takes a sense of commitment to make a couple that lasts - children unite a couple, or a shared vision of joint work. But once mutilated, who will want these persons?
A very needed article on another room in the haunted house of trans.
Question: Why is the wound called a neo-vagina and not a pseudo-vagina, which seems more accurate? Actually wound-hole is the most appropriate, but rather grotesque.
I use pseudo-vagina as well. 'Neo' suggests a living tissue with particular characteristics or purpose e.g. neoplasm but a surgically-constructed vagina without a womb or capable of sexual intercourse is just a hole, an invagination without an actual vagina.
I can't get my head around it. How mentally unwell are all these people to want to do this to themselves? And how evil are the doctors who do this to them? It's heartbreaking.
Great points made in this post about ignoring outcomes for mtf surgeries. Truly horrifying outcomes. I actually have never read any positive accounts of mtf surgeries like vaginoplasty and perhaps never will. Isn't this what they're grooming the young, confused boys for though? First you do this, then you do this, then ... Interestingly I understand that there's no real reason for women to start taking hormones or puberty blockers as children because they can start taking testosterone at any point and lower their voice and grow a beard. True that they can't change their lowered voices back, but they can cosmetically detransition. I read here and there about them having trouble with orgasms, though, because the testosterone interferes with the tissue and can cause pain and dysfunction. It's so curious that Do No Harm seems to have no bearing here. Just today I read that the courts in Florida reversed the ban on transgender treatment of children. The courts are so politicized that the judicial branch has become the legislative branch and, in some cases, the executive branch. Here in Washington State where the left has a trifecta at the Capitol, it seems hopeless to ban any of this. They need a powerpoint perhaps to understand what exactly they've accomplished. How is this all constitutional? Yikes.
The social engineers have convinced people that you can actually be born in the wrong body. The trans movement is the delivery system for implementation transhumanism and the eventual dissolution of biological sex. These people are the unfortunate collateral damage of the medical industrial complex who destroy innocent lives as they rake in a fortune with these hideous surgeries.
I understand this post is about a compassionate therapist's attempt to assuage the feelings of loss and regret for a terrible decision, but it's also important to see the bigger picture. Jennifer Bilek has done a great service in exposing this dystopian scheme better than anyone.
Chronic discomforts, shortened lifespan, and social isolation. Can't imagine how that would reduce suicide risk, as the script has claimed.
Medically trained people should understand at least the physical consequences of attempts to transition. I intuitively did, and perceive it as risk clearly greater than benefit.
Why do any of the others go along with doing this to kids?
These kind of pieces cannot be understated. EVERY male who is considering this insanely stupid dick-removal operation must read this.
My understanding is that most men who consider this have never had actual normal sex with the penis in the vagina. Many have never masturbated. They are completely sexually naive. Many are disgusted by their penis. They are not normal, and have deep-seated psychological problems. I sometimes wonder if "bush therapy", where they are put into a situation with a willing woman (prostitute possibly) and introduced into sex. I remember my first sexual encounter, now 53 years ago. Nothing prepared me for the sheer physical sensation. For males contemplating removal of the dick, why not make them have sex before removing the dick?
That would be great if it worked, but to all accounts people do not have sex changes for erotic reasons, and sexual thoughts are not a big part of their lives. I don't know how you'd get someone disgusted and embarrassed by what he perceives a deformity, to find joy in sex with a prostitute.
There we have the old epistemological issue. What are we actually looking at here, a normal factory-issue item, or something else? People caught betwixt-and-between may be taught to act "normal" to keep the peace and not scare the horses and bluenoses. I grant you that many of us believe they *should* be forced to do that...because our own comfort and complacency are paramount.
I disagree, there are plenty of celibate and chaste men and women who lead entirely normal high-functioning lives with no need for sexual intercourse with another human being or desire for masturbation. Yet these persons still have sexual desires that are normal, they simply regulate their behaviour to engage sexually when they believe it is morally appropriate (for some celibate persons that is never).
Most transgender persons do have normal and healthy sexual desires, the challenge is not with their sexual desire, the challenge is with their perception of their own body.
Somehow forcing these men into situations where sex is thrust upon them (and also sacrificing women to this cause) I don’t think will help this situation as the discomfort with the body will remain despite the sexual gratification.
Biology is full of negative conditions which are misinterpreted as some other positive condition. There are both positive and negative regulatory systems in our bodies.
The negative condition of hating a penis is not the same as the positive condition of wanting to be female. It is in and of itself a psychological problem.
Consider body dysmorphia. People feeling a leg is foreign and must be removed is not the same as wanting some other leg. It just happens that due to the sex binary absence of a penis seems needing to be female. It isn’t.
That’s why the vast majority of trans are AGP. A small fraction dislike their penis enough to remove it, and it doesn’t even require being trans to feel that way, a surprise I didn’t expect.
This is a very interesting article. As a woman I had really only appreciated the harm these surgeries have for women. It seems to be that women would be the most vulnerable group in this category, and maybe they still are. But this article offers a different perspective.
Whether or not the male is heterosexual or homosexual I think is largely immaterial. Both will experience a profound loss of their sexual function and their ability to become and fulfil their arousal.
As an a conservative Christian, I think it’s a bit dismissive (and incorrect) to assume we somehow lack the ability to empathise with the homosexual male community. We may believe homosexual acts are sinful and we may only consider specific kinds of sexual acts (that are PIV in presentation) to be normative, however this does not mean we do not care for the homosexual male humans at all. I think that’s a bit callous to conclude.
We push back (often aggressively) against this kind of surgical intervention because it fundamentally ruins the person and destroys their true nature and function as a human being. And because we believe the human person is created by God with their complete dignity as they are created that to change their physical body in ways that cause harm to be a serious grave sin.
No one deserves to have their genitalia mutilated, even by their own consent. No surgeon should be undertaking this surgery thinking it improves the physical health of the human being seeking it, even if there is an inkling it could improve their psychological health.
Psychological problems should remain to be treated with psychological methods and not cast away as “conversion therapy”.
But unfortunately because of the bias against conservative Christians, the baby does get thrown out with the bathwater and vulnerable people get cast away by atheists all to eager to dispense with natural law.
I remember reading Richie Herron’s twitter thread when he first wrote it. It was absolutely heartbreaking. I cannot believe people support this barbaric nonsense.
This essay is the perfect answer to the asinine argument "Well, yeah some people make a bad decision for themselves and regret transitioning. So what? Life is full of regret. Regret is a natural part of life". This isn't a bad haircut or an ugly tattoo.
“Tattoo in haste, repent at leisure.”
I came up with this decades ago. Now it needs a variant.
Do a web search on “extreme body modification" and look at the images. Don’t do so just after eating.
If you NEVER WANT TO HAVE SEX EVER AGAIN:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3a-qe7_MiMmXragtn4MUg7cAogsVd3m1Kpw&s
Thank you for telling people what is really happening. Parents are exhausted by losing their kids, being discarded for advocating for their natural bodies, and being called transphobes for trying to prevent gender modifying surgeries. Parents need backup. We appreciate it.
RIchie Herron, the man featured in the article was 31 when he had the surgery. I doubt his parents were involved.
Regret is not limited to minors..it is a butchery mutilation whatevervthe age is. The man had other psychiatric concomitant difficulties whichbhad to be addressed first.. anyway, He is a good man, nice person, smart guy.. wish him the best🌷
He did say that he was profoundly mentally unwell at the time, however
You would be surprised. Many parents are involved or pushed away from this age group.
Whoa. Color me surprised.
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can
"consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
Succinct and exact reply. I’ve been saying this for decades when I get into the discussion. You’re less wordy !
Your opinions may be apt but not quite pertinent here, as this has nothing to do with children. Ritchie was in his early 30s when he had it done. The FtM wannabes who started and then turned back, were typically in late adolescence and early adulthood.
You are exactly right, which is why legislation banning these "interventions" in minors alone will not solve the problem. Such legislation only slightly postpones the harm.
While I support such legislation as necessary to stop an out-of-control medical field from abusing children, we must also do more. We must inform the world of why these are not medically necessary procedures, and why it is in fact better to be able to live in your healthy body if at all possible - and I believe it is possible for everyone.
While someone can choose to have these extreme body modifications if, as adults, they choose to do so, these "interventions" must not be misrepresented as medical treatments, as medically necessary, as reversible, or as anything other than dangerous body modifications with a laundry list of known and unknown effects and side effects. Health insurance, public or private, should not be used for such interventions, ever.
(Also, wasn't Ritchie in his mid to late 20's when this stuff happened? And he was in a vulnerable mental state, and was lied to, and was told this was all medically necessary, and was not given all the warnings of the various problems that were highly likely to happen. That is my point. We are misrepresenting these body modifications in a criminal fashion, both to minors and to young, vulnerable adults - and in some cases older adults, like Scott Newgent.)
I think Ritchie said he was in therapy and treatment for 6 years, age 24-30, before surgery. He makes it out that he was told his therapy consultations would have to end if he didn't complete the work soon. Whether or not they literally told him that, it's how he understood it. (I'm always amazed at the bureaucratic naivety and lack of due diligence in these NHS stories.) Scott Newgent at 42 had a gilt-edged health insurance policy that covered everything under the sun. It was like offering someone an Aladdin's cave of wish fulfillment. Scott yielded to temptation. (Why not, you're already paying top dollar in premiums, let's get your money's worth! That Obamacare ACA boondoggle has had so many unforeseen consequences.) He was likewise disserved by therapists and clinicians. I see a parallel in Scott's tale to 12-step stories. One starts down a road and can't stop, and in the end all you can do is tell your story.
Totally agree. The trans scam has been a horror show for all victims. Thank you, Joe Burgo for this poignant tale of the men and boys who have experienced such a devastating body mutilation.
Seconded. The only legal treatment for this largely elective malady should be psychiatric reconciliation with biological sex.
At any age.
Administration of hormones should cost one’s medical license; surgeries should earn long prison sentences.
It depends on which population of transitioners we’re talking about. First, let’s distinguish the boys from the girls. FtMs are women, Richie is a man, a gay man. But even there, sometimes their experiences overlap, especially if they're gay and lesbian. That population tends to feel more gender dysphoria as young children, which typically resolves in puberty when they realize they are gay and lesbian. Young children who experience gender dysphoria may also be reacting to sexual abuse, leading to a desire to escape their vulnerable bodies. Also, girls who transition in late adolescence and early adulthood are often dealing with societal pressures to conform to sexist norms as well as sexual abuse trauma. As gays and lesbians, their trajectories may overlap, but as males and females, their motivations for transitioning may not align.
Unfortunately for Ritchie, homophobia was a big factor in his upbringing, causing him a deep sense of shame and a desire to escape his male body and his attraction to men. It started when he was young, but he had years of therapy trying to resolve his many psychological problems before he was convinced — encouraged, even —. that he should have bottom surgery. In many respects, he was a victim not only of homophobic prejudice but of the zealous involvement of gender therapists looking for their latest “success story.”
The MALE population who transition as grownups tend to be heterosexual, not gay. Bruce Jenner comes to mind…he fathered six children with three different women before transitioning in mid-life. The term autogynephilia is often used to characterize these men, for whom imagining themselves as women and dressing in women’s clothing is an erotic activity. This is a different population from Ritchie, and obviously, from girls.
However, within the past few years, given how deeply embedded trans ideology has become in the schools and public policy, young children, both male and female, are susceptible to adopting a trans identity because the pseudo-scientific notion of Gender Identity is being drummed into their heads before they can recite the alphabet.
Where gender dysphoria once spontaneously occurred mostly in gay kids and sometimes autistic kids too, now it’s a manufactured diagnosis imposed on them by modern Pied Pipers: activist teachers, social media, and the trans movement’s takeover of the medical profession and progressive politics. All bets are off.
"Manufactured diagnosis," yes I can believe that. It seems that most of those FtMs and MtFs you describe are really just wannabes. In both clinical treatment and the mainstream media there is pervasive lack of seriousness about the subject. It doesn't seem to be understood that TSism or GD is a rare condition, a lot rarer than some intersex conditions, with which it tends to overlap. It gets confused with homosexuality, which always baffles me, the same way some people's eagerness to stigmatize little kids as "gay" baffles me. The invented mental illness of "autogynephilia" confuses the issue even further, since that's just a rebranding of both transvestism and what was known as secondary transsexualism. Whether or not it is applicable to Jenner is a moot point, but he first started treatments in his 30s. Today's sloppy jargon would say he "detransitioned," though like most of the people under discussion he never actually changed sex in the first place.
FTM can occasionally be facially successful but it is sexually ludicrous. A phalloplasty is nightmarishly grotesque.
"Facially successful"? How do you mean?
As to "phalloplasty," where have you seen this?
This article tackles the type of misconceptions that well-meaning useful idiots maintain in order to feel good about their pro-trans position. The less they know, the more self-righteous they can feel.
Thank you for telling the truth, not in spite of, but because of how painful it is.
Thank you for this.
Please keep amplifying their voices. Ritchie (thank you Ritchie as always!) also recently spoke of the lack of social support for detransitioned men, compared to many of the detransitioned women whom he described as being welcomed back into the sisterhood (not all feel this, perhaps, but he noted a sharp difference for the men, who are instead vilified by many women and/or criticized by many men). We can do better, all of us, as a society, and one on one, to support them as they get stronger and build themselves good paths to go forward in life.
I gathered the author's opinions were mostly based on Ritchie's reports. Some obvious errors and dubious ideas in there, perhaps, but you need a full range of voices from all sides. What Ritchie says about lack of social support for people like him may be explained by this author's own illogic in comparing so-called 'detransitioned females'—who actually only had cosmetic breast reduction, and took testosterone for a while—with someone like Ritchie who had a full sex change. Really, we should be comparing like with like. We'd probably see many parallels with Ritchie's situation if we made proper comparisons.
A mastectomy is not a cosmetic breast reduction. It's horribly disfiguring, so not cosmetic at all. Not only are the breasts taken off, but so are all the chest muscles. And those women who also have a phalloplasty are also mutilated even more, as well. Some go so far as to remove all female organs, putting them into instant menopause. Taking testosterone for more than 3 months causes enormous, irreversible adverse body changes in women. Male voices, instead of female, male pattern baldness, huge amounts of hair, beards. Let's not minimize what this cult does to boys and girls, men and women. It's equally horrendous for both sexes and needs to be stopped.
Yet I have heard from hundreds of people, including many with medical training, that gender surgery has never been done to minors.
Anecdotal evidence scarcely merits being called "evidence," however appealing the stories may be to one's point of view. Fact is, such surgeries are done--two minor girls sued Arizona not long ago demanding taxpayer-paid "gender affirming" mastectomies, and nobody was arguing the case was moot because they were minors and such surgeries were not done.
Depending on the proposition anecdotal evidence can be strong evidence.
A single instance of something happening negates all claims that it never does.
In ten seconds in a search engine you can find major hospitals advertising pediatric gender surgery.
There is that, but in the context of gender identity ideology, "evidence" is usually referring to the scientific literature underlying one's position, and in that context, anecdotes are the weakest form of evidence and can never establish causation nor be generalized in respect to a population.
And those people are familiar with every instance of gender surgery?
There are so many lies in gender ideology that anyone can corroborate whatever they prefer to believe
Anyone could find hundreds of thousands of references, mostly circular, saying that hormones and surgery lead to satisfaction and happiness. Or that science is firm on sex and gender being continua, not binary. Or that not honoring pronoun demands is harmful.
Or that anything short of slavish support leads to suicide. Sign here.
And of course, all these are lies.
Not done to children, you mean. A child is a pre-pubescent. A minor is someone under 21.
That's false. Olson-Kennedy, a leading GAC physician, has an article which states quite clearly that breast removal was done for multiple children < 18. And that was 2017.
There weren't any children. There were exactly two cases on that graph between 13 and 14. Obviously past puberty...or there wouldn't have been breasts! Vast majority were 17 or older. Bulk of the patients on the graph were 18-21.
I had a friend who was one of the top female plastic surgeons in Manhattan, and she did breast reductions and reconstructions. She knew the difference between breast reduction and mastectomy. What you describe is what we used to call a Radical Halsted mastectomy, and that does not happen anymore, not even in the case of breast cancer.
How you imagined that someone having a breast reduction was ipso facto having a radical mastectomy is anybody's guess. The breasts are not "taken off," rather some underlying tissue, mostly fat, is excised. In some cases the nipples, aureoles and breast stalk are repositioned.
google "top surgery" and see how top medical centers, such as Mayo clinic and John Hopkins describe it. They literally say "mastectomy". You can also look at some images of post "top surgery". Doesn't look like just a reduction to me. On the other hand, women with breast cancer actually would prefer to keep their breasts . They are trying to get rid of cancer, not their breasts, so it makes sense that the surgeon doesn't fully remove them.
My usual search engine is Duckduckgo, I don't "google." ;-)
I am perfectly aware that "mastectomy" is erroneously used in cases where the breast is not actually removed. It's a common solecism, like referring to 19- and 20-year-olds as "children." The communications boffins at Mayo and Johns Hopkins (note spelling) should know better. We call an excision of tumor in the breast a "lumpectomy"; perhaps a more suitable word should be found for a cosmetic procedure which is not connected with cancer.
I know there are grotesque and atypical photos floating around on the interwebz, where the entire breast is removed, including nipple, aureole, etc. (but not the underlying muscle: again, you have this confused with the Halsted procedure), sometimes with violently red zigzag scars. These are body mods done to the patient's specifications and should not be considered normal cosmetic surgery or even part of sex reassignment.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that if these patients had been on GnRHa "puberty blockers" they would not have grown breasts large enough to need reduction (or "removal"). But the people who get into a tiswas about breast reduction tend to be anti-GnRHa as well. Just another of those many damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't paradoxes.
I've seen any number of photos of topless women who've had this treatment done. Even when the scars have faded there is a rather ugly crumpled appearance to the base of the breast/pec major. In some this fades but in most it is obvious. I appreciate your attention to accuracy but the basic fact is that healthy body parts are being removed from those who suffer from disease of the mind. Given the history of psychosurgery I am not filled with joy at the idea of these surgeries continuing.
I was under the impression that he was describing the emotional and physical challenges of multiple clients in his practice but that Richie’s personal medical detail’s are the only ones appropriate to share because they were made public by Richie.
Unless the author specializes in that area, he's unlikely to have "multiple clients in his practice" who are TS. It's a very small field.
In regard to mtf SRS, the author simply repeats Ritchie's (note spelling) description. I have issues of Clinics of Plastic Surgery on my bookshelf, and other relevant surgical references, and in none of them is there mention of the prostate being repositioned during SRS, as Ritchie once claimed, and as this author repeats. The prostate does shrink and become largely resorbed through endocrinological treatments, but there's no reason to think it gets moved around, or that this is a cause of sexual dysfunction.
Joe Burgo is one of the leading specialists in this area. He is sought out and is very likely to have multiple clients in his practice who are TS.
You are putting yourself forward as someone who is very knowledgeable about this field surgically but you are undermining your credibility by clearly not knowing enough to realize who Joe Burgo is.
I am judging him solely on this one column. He is evidently an "exclusively online" psychotherapist who has written about shame and narcissism. He may be very good in his own area of expertise. He's not claiming to be an expert in transsexualism, however, or urogenital surgery or cosmetic surgery. Psychotherapists often give opinions outside their field in a non-professional context.
Ritchie was misinformed perhaps - another failure.
If we accept that pressure on the prostate can give successful orgasm then its shrinking would limit this, surely?
Dr. Burgo is a psychotherapist who focuses his practice on males with gender issues. Ritchie is not his only source of information on this topic. It is in fact his area of specialization.
In the words of Vito Corleone, "It doesn't make any difference to me what a man does for a living." I hope he gives helpful advice and comfort. But as with most of the Genspect people, he seems to have come to this "area of specialization" only recently, so isn't working with a corpus of experience and knowledge stretching back 40 or 50 years. And like many gay commenters, he strives to dovetail eroticism, and the struggles of male homosexual youth, with whatever it is that transsexuals go through. This would seem to be a mismatch of interests. But perhaps there's a new subculture of wannabes where Joe Burgo's knowledge is relevant and useful.
I take it as given that the “trans”-supportive are lying. This may not be the case 100% of the time, but it’s a statistically defensible presumption.
You have statistics on this and are willing to defend them? ;-)
Myself, I don't know what's falling out of the sky, except these syndromes are rare and most people with opinions have had no real experience with them.
The main reason, aside from disgust, that I put “trans” in sneer quotes is because it deliberately combines transsexuals, who are extremely rare, one in 65,000 or so, with transgenders, who, given the current fad and indoctrination, are a thousand times as numerous.
The two have nothing to do with each other, and less to do with the third, transvestism.
There is no such thing as “transexual” and there is no such thing as “transgender.”
These terms don’t mean anything real.
A mentally ill man who “feels like” he’s a woman is suffering from a mental illness or perversion. It’s usually autogynephilia—that exists.
Stop using bullshit terms that mean nothing and act like they mean something.
1 in 65,000? Based on what? What is the test for a “true tranny”? Give a list of criteria.
You can’t. It doesn’t exist.
Transsexual (two Ss) is a legitimate diagnostic category under DSM4. It has rigorous criteria and most seeking medical transition were denied it. It has typical onset between ages 4 and 6 and is lifelong. 70% male.
Transgender is an invention under DSM5 and is based on the frivolous criterion of self-reports, mostly from teenage girls showing one or more mental illnesses and acquired through social contagion. It tends to be temporary.
It’s important to distinguish the two.
Do your own goddamn research.
Dr. Burgo, thank you for this important column. Any patient having any surgical operation must provide informed consent in which they acknowledge an understanding of the potential benefits and risks of the surgery. I cannot believe that truly informed consent was obtain for men having a Neo-vagina created. There was a recent study published from Mayo Clinic Arizona reporting higher attempted suicide rates after this neo-vagina surgery. This comes as no surprise to me, but is, nonetheless, very disturbing and IMO tragic.
Maybe instead of the "live son or dead daughter" BS, the clinicians could counsel the future eunuchs what lies ahead, that their postoperative lives won't be unrelieved joy and wild sex but empty and unsatisfying.
Might also tell them that nobody will want to date them.
And that after a decade or so they will have an elevated desire to suicide.
Yes, that issue of "who will partner with them?" needs more discussion. When they are enmeshed in the Alphabet Soup community, there may be partners. Not after some years, or maybe not even right away. It takes a sense of commitment to make a couple that lasts - children unite a couple, or a shared vision of joint work. But once mutilated, who will want these persons?
A very needed article on another room in the haunted house of trans.
Question: Why is the wound called a neo-vagina and not a pseudo-vagina, which seems more accurate? Actually wound-hole is the most appropriate, but rather grotesque.
Like the operation.
I use pseudo-vagina as well. 'Neo' suggests a living tissue with particular characteristics or purpose e.g. neoplasm but a surgically-constructed vagina without a womb or capable of sexual intercourse is just a hole, an invagination without an actual vagina.
I can't get my head around it. How mentally unwell are all these people to want to do this to themselves? And how evil are the doctors who do this to them? It's heartbreaking.
Great points made in this post about ignoring outcomes for mtf surgeries. Truly horrifying outcomes. I actually have never read any positive accounts of mtf surgeries like vaginoplasty and perhaps never will. Isn't this what they're grooming the young, confused boys for though? First you do this, then you do this, then ... Interestingly I understand that there's no real reason for women to start taking hormones or puberty blockers as children because they can start taking testosterone at any point and lower their voice and grow a beard. True that they can't change their lowered voices back, but they can cosmetically detransition. I read here and there about them having trouble with orgasms, though, because the testosterone interferes with the tissue and can cause pain and dysfunction. It's so curious that Do No Harm seems to have no bearing here. Just today I read that the courts in Florida reversed the ban on transgender treatment of children. The courts are so politicized that the judicial branch has become the legislative branch and, in some cases, the executive branch. Here in Washington State where the left has a trifecta at the Capitol, it seems hopeless to ban any of this. They need a powerpoint perhaps to understand what exactly they've accomplished. How is this all constitutional? Yikes.
The social engineers have convinced people that you can actually be born in the wrong body. The trans movement is the delivery system for implementation transhumanism and the eventual dissolution of biological sex. These people are the unfortunate collateral damage of the medical industrial complex who destroy innocent lives as they rake in a fortune with these hideous surgeries.
I understand this post is about a compassionate therapist's attempt to assuage the feelings of loss and regret for a terrible decision, but it's also important to see the bigger picture. Jennifer Bilek has done a great service in exposing this dystopian scheme better than anyone.
https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k?si=tXKJTaTJjTorWLlb
Chronic discomforts, shortened lifespan, and social isolation. Can't imagine how that would reduce suicide risk, as the script has claimed.
Medically trained people should understand at least the physical consequences of attempts to transition. I intuitively did, and perceive it as risk clearly greater than benefit.
Why do any of the others go along with doing this to kids?
Follow the money.
These kind of pieces cannot be understated. EVERY male who is considering this insanely stupid dick-removal operation must read this.
My understanding is that most men who consider this have never had actual normal sex with the penis in the vagina. Many have never masturbated. They are completely sexually naive. Many are disgusted by their penis. They are not normal, and have deep-seated psychological problems. I sometimes wonder if "bush therapy", where they are put into a situation with a willing woman (prostitute possibly) and introduced into sex. I remember my first sexual encounter, now 53 years ago. Nothing prepared me for the sheer physical sensation. For males contemplating removal of the dick, why not make them have sex before removing the dick?
Most of these men discover they are gay. They would not enjoy being forced into sex with a woman.
That would be great if it worked, but to all accounts people do not have sex changes for erotic reasons, and sexual thoughts are not a big part of their lives. I don't know how you'd get someone disgusted and embarrassed by what he perceives a deformity, to find joy in sex with a prostitute.
I'm not talking about "sex changes for erotic reasons". I am talking about a basic introduction into normal functioning.
There we have the old epistemological issue. What are we actually looking at here, a normal factory-issue item, or something else? People caught betwixt-and-between may be taught to act "normal" to keep the peace and not scare the horses and bluenoses. I grant you that many of us believe they *should* be forced to do that...because our own comfort and complacency are paramount.
We’re supposed to believe that people who want healthy body parts removed aren’t sick.
They’re just trying to be “who they really are.”
I disagree, there are plenty of celibate and chaste men and women who lead entirely normal high-functioning lives with no need for sexual intercourse with another human being or desire for masturbation. Yet these persons still have sexual desires that are normal, they simply regulate their behaviour to engage sexually when they believe it is morally appropriate (for some celibate persons that is never).
Most transgender persons do have normal and healthy sexual desires, the challenge is not with their sexual desire, the challenge is with their perception of their own body.
Somehow forcing these men into situations where sex is thrust upon them (and also sacrificing women to this cause) I don’t think will help this situation as the discomfort with the body will remain despite the sexual gratification.
Right on the spot, and terribly misunderstood.
Biology is full of negative conditions which are misinterpreted as some other positive condition. There are both positive and negative regulatory systems in our bodies.
The negative condition of hating a penis is not the same as the positive condition of wanting to be female. It is in and of itself a psychological problem.
Consider body dysmorphia. People feeling a leg is foreign and must be removed is not the same as wanting some other leg. It just happens that due to the sex binary absence of a penis seems needing to be female. It isn’t.
That’s why the vast majority of trans are AGP. A small fraction dislike their penis enough to remove it, and it doesn’t even require being trans to feel that way, a surprise I didn’t expect.
This is a very interesting article. As a woman I had really only appreciated the harm these surgeries have for women. It seems to be that women would be the most vulnerable group in this category, and maybe they still are. But this article offers a different perspective.
Whether or not the male is heterosexual or homosexual I think is largely immaterial. Both will experience a profound loss of their sexual function and their ability to become and fulfil their arousal.
As an a conservative Christian, I think it’s a bit dismissive (and incorrect) to assume we somehow lack the ability to empathise with the homosexual male community. We may believe homosexual acts are sinful and we may only consider specific kinds of sexual acts (that are PIV in presentation) to be normative, however this does not mean we do not care for the homosexual male humans at all. I think that’s a bit callous to conclude.
We push back (often aggressively) against this kind of surgical intervention because it fundamentally ruins the person and destroys their true nature and function as a human being. And because we believe the human person is created by God with their complete dignity as they are created that to change their physical body in ways that cause harm to be a serious grave sin.
No one deserves to have their genitalia mutilated, even by their own consent. No surgeon should be undertaking this surgery thinking it improves the physical health of the human being seeking it, even if there is an inkling it could improve their psychological health.
Psychological problems should remain to be treated with psychological methods and not cast away as “conversion therapy”.
But unfortunately because of the bias against conservative Christians, the baby does get thrown out with the bathwater and vulnerable people get cast away by atheists all to eager to dispense with natural law.
I remember reading Richie Herron’s twitter thread when he first wrote it. It was absolutely heartbreaking. I cannot believe people support this barbaric nonsense.
Thank you for taking the time to share this profoundly thought-provoking essay. Sincerely, Frederick