The Cognitive Dissonance Must Be Crippling

PFOX must be collapsing under the cognitive dissonance of their positions.

On one hand, they want us all to think that being GLBT is "just a choice", and that those who are GLBT can "choose" not to be just as easily. In fact, they go to great lengths on their blog posting every gay sexuality denial piece they can find on their blog.

Then they post something whining about discrimination against ex-gays. The first thought that crosses my mind is 'what discrimination?'. Theoretically, if one was an 'ex-gay' (or ex-lesbian, I suppose), wouldn't you then be straight? ... and as such, not subject to a lot of the censure that society imposes on GLBT people?

So, just what is this 'discrimination'? Well, a little more digging turns up that PFOX is all upset that GLBT organizations won't have anything to do with them. Ah - I see - so the fact that the very people that PFOX wants to undermine and invalidate won't play nice with PFOX's agenda is somehow 'discriminating' against ex-gays.

But, if you are yourself an ex-gay, why would you want anything to do with the GLBT world in the first place? Weren't you trying to escape that "lifestyle"? Wouldn't you want to align your efforts with the straight population? As a supposedly straight person, don't you already enjoy all of the privileges that are denied to GLBT people in so much of the world?

Or, perhaps more likely, the whole ex-gay thing is nothing more than a front for anti-gay lobbying that is trying to co-opt the GLBT position so as to seem more legitimate.

Irony 101: The PFOX Edition

At first glance, PFOX almost looks like they are an advocacy group seeking to help ex-Gays and to end whatever discrimination they face.

Certainly, when one finds articles like Court Rules Sexual Orientation Laws Include Former Homosexuals, it is easy to assume that as a group PFOX is honestly working on behalf of the common interests of their membership.

Then we find them republishing FRC's Exhortation to fight against ENDA. Now, this casts their mission somewhat into question, doesn't it? On one hand, they are willing to go to court to get a ruling that says that anti-discrimination laws which cover gays must also be read to cover ex-gays. On the other hand, they object actively to a piece of Federal legislation which would similarly protect their membership from being treated unfairly in the workplace.

I think it tells a great deal about their intellectual honesty ... and what their real agenda is.

PFOX - Your Source for Lies and Distortion

This time, PFOX has opened its yap about the bogeyman of having taxpayer-funded gender surgery available in the United States:

if the proposed federal health insurance will cover sex-change surgeries, hormone treatment, etc. for Gender Identity Disorder as opposed to therapy.

This is one of those typical lies that we see from the "pray away the gay" crowd. The key phrase is "as opposed to". This leaves it open to the reader to understand that Gender Surgery would somehow be available apart from appropriate psychological counselling.

If PFOX was even marginally honest with their readers, they would have acknowledged that the WPATH Standards of Care are entirely based on access to surgery only with a psychologist or psychiatrist's recommendation.

In fact, section X of the SOC is quite unambiguous about the triad of treatments required for "profound GID":

In persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment surgery, along with hormone therapy and real-life experience, is a treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically indicated and medically necessary.

As an aside, Gender Reassignment Surgery is probably the only medical procedure in the world that requires the patient to prove to not one, but two professionals besides the surgeon that they are in fact in complete control of their faculties.

But, then again, it's not like I haven't caught PFOX with their proverbial pants down before, either.

p.s. PFOX links to a very heart-breaking story of an "Ex-Transgender". I don't want to dismiss his narrative as invalid, for it is not. However, he is exactly the kind of patient that the SOC is designed to weed out before they get to surgery. The long term literature is clear - those few who need GRS benefit from it.

Why PFOX is Clueless

Apparently, according to PFOX, a picture of RuPaul wearing a suit implies that he's gone straight, or at the very least, given up drag.

Those of us with a more grounded understanding of reality know that neither is true. RuPaul's online biography is pretty clear - he's a gay man that happens to do drag.

Let me be abundantly clear here - drag itself is performance art. It tells us nothing about the performer's personal gender identity or sexual identity. Above all, it should not be confused with the broad range of identities that are called transgender. A drag performer may be transgender to some degree or another, but it is not a given; and not all transgender people engage in drag.

The fact that RuPaul continues to host a couple of shows on television - presumably in drag - is a good clue that drag is still very much a part of his life.

The unfortunate part of PFOX's apparent assumptions is that they are incorrectly associating drag with someone's gender and/or sexual identity. No doubt, they then infer that because someone is a "former drag queen", that they have "accepted their god-given body" (or whatever rubric is in fashion among the ex-gay industry when it comes to talking about gender variant people). They will, inevitably extrapolate this same logic to the transgender community as a whole, and in doing so will get it horribly wrong - quite possibly at the risk of causing some unfortunate souls some serious harm in the process.

PFOX, along with the rest of the "ex-Gay" industry would like us to all believe that we can "overcome" and "be heterosexual" (sadly missing the point entirely where transsexuals are concerned). They see someone in a suit that they only ever saw in performance costume, and they assume that he's "gone straight". It's a sad statement about how little they truly understand about those that they claim to be trying to help.

PFOX Gets It Wrong Again

The ignorance of operations like PFOX is amazing to me, but the depth of their ignorance when it comes to gender identity issues is astonishing to me.

Consider the following gem that popped up on their press releases page in August:

PFOX note: Obviously the child was afflicted with gender identity disorder (GID) and should have received GID counseling instead of being encouraged to dress as something he was not. Encouraging GID behavior creates unsafe schools for our youth.

(An aside - I happen to think the parents in this case are dead wrong in trying to sue the school for not enforcing dress code - the problem, and the responsibility, lies with the juvenile delinquent that was able to bring a loaded firearm to school - period.)

But, let's get back to PFOX's astonishing ignorance. PFOX argues that Larry King should have received GID counseling instead of being encouraged to dress as something he was not.

So, just what is "GID Counselling"? Well, for starters, let's wander over to World Professional Association For Transgender Health (Formerly known as HBIGDA), and take a close look at what they have to say about counselling transgender identified youth in The Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders V6:

V. Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents

Phenomenology. Gender identity disorders in children and adolescents are different from those seen in adults, in that a rapid and dramatic developmental process (physical, psychological and sexual) is involved. Gender identity disorders in children and adolescents are complex conditions. The young person may experience his or her phenotype sex as inconsistent with his or her own sense of gender identity. Intense distress is often experienced, particularly in adolescence, and there are frequently associated emotional and behavioral difficulties. There is greater fluidity and variability in outcomes, especially in pre-pubertal children. Only a few gender variant youths become transsexual, although many eventually develop a homosexual orientation.

Okay, so clearly WPATH's standards recognize that there are significant differences between cases involving youth, and when an adult presents with gender identity concerns.

So, what do they recommend in terms of therapeutic intervention? Is it the hard line denial that PFOX seems to suggest is the case? Or is PFOX simply blowing smoke and hoping nobody catches them out?

Psychological and Social Interventions.

The task of the child-specialist mental health professional is to provide assessment and treatment that broadly conforms to the following guidelines:
1. The professional should recognize and accept the gender identity problem. Acceptance and removal of secrecy can bring considerable relief.
2. The assessment should explore the nature and characteristics of the child’s or adolescent’s gender identity. A complete psychodiagnostic and psychiatric assessment should be performed. A complete assessment should include a family evaluation, because other emotional and behavioral problems are very common, and unresolved issues in the child’s environment are often present.
3. Therapy should focus on ameliorating any comorbid problems in the child’s life, and on reducing distress the child experiences from his or her gender identity problem and other difficulties. The child and family should be supported in making difficult decisions regarding the extent to which to allow the child to assume a gender role consistent with his or her gender identity. This includes issues of whether to inform others of the child’s situation, and how others in the child’s life should respond; for example, whether the child should attend school using a name and clothing opposite to his or her sex of assignment. They should also be supported in tolerating uncertainty and anxiety in relation to the child’s gender expression and how best to manage it. Professional network meetings can be very useful in finding appropriate solutions to these problems.

In short, PFOX is grossly misrepresenting the situation. If, in fact, Lawrence King's parents had taken him to a knowledgeable therapist, they could well have found that they would be making plans for him to transition at school. The therapy process would likely encourage him to find a presentation and expression that worked for him. Especially once any concurrent and significant issues had been dealt with constructively.

Gender identity related therapy is not about denial of someone's identity, but rather it is about helping them find a path in the world that is less stressful for them ... and that includes self acceptance.

PFOX - The Burning Stupid Edition

Via the religious wingnut crowd over at Lifesite, we learn of the latest gem of "wisdom" to fall out of PFOX. According to PFOX, this risk of suicide is higher in younger gay-identified people - therefore, having support groups for GLBT people in high schools is a bad idea:

Therefore, in order to reduce suicide risks, schools should not encourage teens to self-identify as “gay” during adolescence before they have matured. Sexual attractions are fluid and do not take on permanence until early adulthood.

I think I take more than a little bit of an exception to the claims in there. First of all, we shouldn't confuse attraction with the patterns of expression. We know well that teens experiment with their identity quite heavily. I'm cautious about saying that sexual attractions are "fluid" per se, when there is a great deal of narrative evidence that suggests that in fact such attributes are not fluid, but rather very broad for many people.

Similarly, I take exception to the idea that schools should not be affirming of their GLBT students. Consider the generally hostile messages that GLBT youth (or adults!) face on a daily basis, and then ask yourself what kind of despair someone who can't find a supportive voice to talk with is going to experience. It takes many youth years to overcome their internalization of these negative messages, only to face making dramatic and life altering decisions later in life when the potential disruption is even greater.

Lifesite spins it a bit harder, and quotes Griggs as saying the following:

Griggs also notes that schools with Gay Straight Alliance clubs are notorious for suppressing ex-gay organizations or individuals supporting tolerance for the ex-gay community. "GSA clubs and their teacher sponsors make schools unsafe for anyone who has rejected the 'gay' label in their lives or who believes in ex-gay equal rights. Our efforts to reach all students are typically met with hostility and violence. Time after time, we have faced hostile gay students and teachers ripping up our ex-gay materials or demanding that we be banned from distributing our materials on campuses."

The problem I have with the 'ex-gay' ministry thing where GLBT youth are concerned is the fact that ex-gay programs are predicated on conditional approval. Their approval is granted only so long as the person continues to act straight, and if someone changes course, they are shunned by the rest of that community. Considering how emotionally vulnerable GLBT youth often are, this is arguably predatory at the very least.

... and just to wrap this all up with a nice little bow, Truth Wins Out has the researcher who was an author of the paper that PFOX cites take them out to the woodshed for a beating:

Dr. Remafedi’s study was the one cited by PFOX to back their unfounded conclusions. Today, Dr. Reamafedi released the following comments to Truth Wins Out:

“My work has been cited by PFOX in response to a Washington Post article on gay-straight alliances (GSA),” wrote Dr. Remafedi. “PFOX misuses one of my studies on suicide attempts in gay youth to argue that people should not identify their sexual orientation at young ages. Our findings do not support the contention that young people choose their identity or the timing of events in identity formation. Nor is there any evidence that the availability of GSAs influences those developmental processes.”

PFOX - Je T'Accuse

I've always been a little suspicious of PFOX, an ex-gay support organization. Part of me has suspected for a long time that this is nothing more than the anti-GBLT lobby trying to make itself look "compassionate".

This news release confirms my suspicions, and proves just how unpleasant these people can be.

“Homosexuals and their transgender activist allies hope to use this hearing as a way of forcing the imposition of gender confusion upon all Americans,” said Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) Executive Director Regina Griggs today. “Instead of treating transsexualism and cross-dressing behaviors as Gender Identity Disorders (GID) as defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Democrats seem determined to make these behaviors into federally-protected minorities.”

“Why should Congress force Americans to provide workplace accommodations for people who are confused about whether they’re male or female? How can Congress force us to make believe that a man is really a woman or a woman is really a man?”

“If Democrats were truly concerned about these gender confused individuals, they’d push for expanded mental health services for GID. A person can’t change his or her sex – and many of these individuals think they’re a woman one day and a man the next day. Why is Congress catering to such insanity?”

This snippet shows us the extent of PFOX's ignorance and hostility towards transsexuals. Allow me to take a few moments to make my point, by dissecting the arguments they are putting forward one at a time.

Instead of treating transsexualism and cross-dressing behaviors as Gender Identity Disorders (GID) as defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

For those unfamiliar with the DSM-IV, it is essentially a lexicon used by mental health professionals to describe their client's symptoms and narrative to other professionals. The DSM-IV describes Gender Identity Disorder in fairly broad terms, with a bit of a narrative rooted in "classic" patterns for GID. It most clearly DOES NOT describe treatment.

The second point is that although each individual is unique, in the most severe of cases, the only real treatment available is ultimately gender transition. There will be some who only transition part-way, and a certain number who attempt transition and back away for a variety of reasons.

Why should Congress force Americans to provide workplace accommodations for people who are confused about whether they’re male or female?

By the time someone who is considering transition is talking to their workplace about their intentions, any sense of "confusion" should be long dispelled. By that point, they are taking concrete steps to make their lives congruent with their identity. (A dual-role existence is extremely hard to maintain)

There is a second insinuation here that I find particularly noxious - and that is the absolutist notion that someone who is transsexual is "confused" because their identity is at odds with their body. The insinuation is that the person is delusional in some capacity. Yet, there is no psychiatric evidence that the individual is in fact delusional. Transsexuals are typically quite coherently aware of their status - both physical and mental. To infer that someone who is in the midst of gender transition is somehow "confused" is deeply insulting to someone who has already looked dysphoria in the face and chosen to act constructively against it.

A person can’t change his or her sex – and many of these individuals think they’re a woman one day and a man the next day. Why is Congress catering to such insanity?

While in early stages of grappling with whatever coping mechanisms someone has created in order to survive their inner gender conflict that there may be periods of ambiguous behaviour and fluctuating identity, that is understandable in light of the often dramatic differences between the social roles that men and women face, not to mention the often severe social penalties for those who violate the "expected" role. Gender transition is a high stress process, and not one undertaken lightly.

The next ugly wart in this paragraph is the classic "biology is destiny" argument. This overlooks a key part of the transgender narrative - namely that their feelings of "not rightness" predate the age when most people become gender aware, and significantly predate any awareness of sexual identity. While it is impossible to change someone's chromosomal sex, there is no guarantee that a male body gets a 'male brain' associated with it - as most MTF transsexuals will attest.

While I am all in favour of making better treatment available to all transgender people, that will be for naught if the legal and social frameworks continue to discriminate against transgender people. Even more unfortunate is the fact that PFOX chooses to attempt to declare invalid the stories of those who have transitioned, and some five decades of background science that has shown gender transition to be a successful treatment in its own right - even in light the challenges that transsexuals face post transition. (and that's ignoring the kinds of obstacles that PFOX would create.)