He is in North America. Not international. Which IS important.Let's talk for a minute about Zucker and the structure of your argument, again. First, when you say Zucker is a hack, you're falling into the exact same trap you fell into with Blanchard. Zucker may be controversial within the trans community, but he's a darling of the medical establishment and pretty prominent within the literature. Ad hominem is just a bad choice of argument. Concentrate instead on substance.
Also, his findings are apparently NEVER confirmed independently (by someone outside of his own institute), which IS valid criticism. I never attacked the man himself, calling it an ad hominem is just wrong.
I said that it is pure conditioning. I also said that it demonstrably doesn't work with regard to gender identity, a finding that is well demonstrated.So here's substance. What Zucker's "therapy" amounts to is classical conditioning. Classical conditioning generally works. The fact that it doesn't work particularly well with regard to sexuality is interesting and generally taken as a demonstration that sexuality is intrinsic. When you say that transsexuality is intrinsic, arguments such as Zucker's are directly an attack on that claim. Responding to them by saying that transsexuality is intrinsic and therefore unalterable by such therapies is putting the cart before the horse. This is a bad way to address Zucker's claim. What's needed instead is evidence on whether or not his methods work. You've claimed such
evidence is totally lacking.
It is not my burden to prove that his method works. It's his and that of his advocates.
Not only does his own work lack proof of long-term success, but his work is not confirmed by anyone and contradicted by many.
I skimmed them. For long-term observation and independent confirmation. I found nothing. Which is enough to make his claims phony.Instead, you should have actually read his papers. A good way to address Zucker's claim of clinical success is to point to the fact that his reported outcomes really don't authoritatively show anything regarding persistence of GID into adulthood. There have been several other studies reporting in particular on feminine-acting boys' adult outcomes. Zucker (in 1995) reported 80% success out of 40 cases that he followed up on. His summary of others' outcomes (also in 1995) - six follow-up reports from other authors on a total of 55 boys exhibiting GID showed 5 adult transsexuals - with 13 that "could not be rated" (or perhaps were not rated in those follow-up reports).
Other studies have not shown significantly higher persistence than Zucker. In fact, some have shown lower rates of childhood GID persisting to adult transsexualism. The evidence was sitting there right in front of you to address Zucker's claimed success rate - if you were willing to actually read what Zucker had written.
I ALSO mentioned that his "success rates" could be completely unrelated to his "therapy" and just a natural phenomenon AND brutal oppression.
Besides, you got it completely backwards again. It is not my job to show his theories valid. Lack of independent confirmation is a serious problem when your work contradicts all other empirical studies. His studies have been out for quite a while, a number of independent institutes which are similar in general organization to the Clarke institute have existed for more than a decade. Yet no one could confirm his findings.
If you do not have serious doubts about any study with such standings, you are doing it wrong.
Again, it is not my job to provide evidence for their argument. They never did - they just screamed the name "Zucker" without linking or quoting his studies or showing independent research with equivalent results. They can't, because Zuckers theory is at best about a partial, miniscule fraction of transsexuality (or rather, seemingly similar phenomena) and at worst phony fringe-science. It is not the universal explanation for Transsexuality like them and Zucker claim.