Serafina wrote:How is that demanding a negative proof?
We prove that things are not harmful all the time. It is done for every single medication, it is done for individual treatments for patients, and it is done in psychology as well.
Rarely done for GMOs. But I digress. :)
It is a simple matter of observing negative side effects, and we can even predict the types of side effects that are to be expected - since we have already observed the effects of an identical form of "therapy" on a very similar group (ex-gay therapy).
And then why is it that despite your fears, you are not capable of linking both in showing that Zucker's method fails as much as the other treatment that seems the same?
All you're doing thus far is saying that it likely causes harm. As I said, it started in the mid 70s. It's about time we see some problems creeping up. There would be many patients going in their fourties, and possibly even more going into their thirties. Where's the evidence?
The fact that you complain about it rather than just posting proof is by itself proof that you can not find any that Zucker or anyone else performed a long-term study for this.
It's not Kor's job to prove it's harmful.
It's Zucker's team to show that their method has shown good results, and they claim so. Their success rate is an open admission of their opposite failure rate.
If you want people to agree with you, you'll have to do better than repeat your opinion like a broken record (although we do see a pattern here).
@Oraghan:
So you assume it is likely to be harmful, and you require other people to prove it is not, without even actually first presenting that his method is dangerous?
I have done just that. You just chose to ignore it.
You have done precisely nothing. You have only made a comparison and you
think it's about the same. You're not exactly more of an expert than Zucker is, and you're certainly not providing proof that Zucker's method fails so dramatically and is harmful, despite your repeated claims.
Time you bring serious evidence or drop it.
But even if that was not the case, to advocate it we need independent verification of the studies results. I could not find any, and evidently Kor was neither.
If his results are not verified independently, they might just be made up.
Are you asking for the theory to be tested by another team? It seems that there's a strong growing resistance to avoid using Zucker's method.
It's going to be hard to counter-test his method if no one wants to try it to begin with.
Yes. Like the study I asked for. Not the one you *think* relates reliably.
I don't know about you, but shouldn't we get proof of adverse effects by now, since it seemingly started in the mid 70s?
How could we?
Zucker doesn't care about such effects, he is not looking. No independent research has been done, most likely because Zucker is known to be uncooperative with such studies (given that you would need the patients history and identity for such a study, you need the cooperation).
You need his signature now? Ask his patients. If you can't know their identity (and it's their right not to want to be found), make a global public call, ask for testimonies.
Start a blog that aims at giving the truth about the Zucker treatment. Talk about it, it will spread, and after several months, more likely one year, you'll start having replies. Perhaps faster, I may be a tad conservative about how fast things go on Internet.
The burden of proof is on the person arguing in favor. The burden of proof is on the person that is arguing that something is harmless.
In other words, it is on YOU.
Medicine is never 100% positive. Not to say that according to the long paper at the end of
this page (retarded format ahoy!), you get to see that treatment can end when the insurance runs out. Zucker's treatments last between 1 and 7 years. Time for me to be conjectural: what if a percentage of the failures were due to the parents being too poor in a way or another?
Note: I'm citing this article solely for the insurance bit. They make claims for which they don't provide evidence either. They also randomly mix observations about therapies for would-be-gay/lesbian people and therapies for would-be-trans people. Yet, the LGBT hardly is one big family. Just
one example.
They point out the opposition between trans and homos about GID - something we already discussed. It goes with its own level of irony.
Oh and there's Riki Wilchins, described thusly in the article: "born a man, s/he now identifies with no single gender".
I guess that makes her an ignorant, intolerant bigot the days when her mood swings towards the he's side.
More amusingly, by appealing to the Zachary Lipscomb case, they're concluded, perhaps unwittingly, that the society is so right that the solution is getting out of it.
Which happens to be the other solution I defend, and which we know one of its forms is the Hijra community.
It also even presents conflicting "facts" such as "brain-imaging studies show that the brains of gender-atypical people are larger and more complex than those of gender-rigid people."
You read that.
They also fall for the "oh but there are exceptions, so the definitions are more complicated and probably bogus as they are atm" argument (lack of penis,
XX male syndrome) which argues that standards are wrong because of rare cases which are abnormal. Yet the crucial point is that the definition hinges on what
should happen for everything to work right and properly, not on what could go wrong.
Since there is no proof, you are trying to complain about it and shift the burden. If there was any proof, then you would just show it. In fact, you do not even link or quote any studies from Zucker himself, you are just appealing to his authority.
I believe you should say that to Kor.
Edit:
Actually, i would like to further disprove that Zuckers "treatment" saves the children from distress and potential suicide.
First, let's look at the suicide causes. While Transwomen have a high suicide rate, this number is much lower for transmen - mostly because transitioning is much easier for them. The suicide rate in transwomen is also higher the older they started transitioning - starting later generally reduces the success of transitioning. They are also significantly higher in areas where transitioning is harder, such as most of the USA. There, you do not only have to deal with a large amount of bigotry, but it is also not covered by medical insurance. Since it costs tens of thousands of dollars, many people just can't afford to transition.
Conclusively, the main cause for suicide is unsuccessful transitioning. Preventing transitioning, hindering it or limiting it's success is hence detrimental.
Now, let's look at the results of Zuckers method. The most likely result is that it suppresses transsexuality instead of curing it. He has no long-term studies that show that it is actually cured, and we know that transsexuality can be suppressed for a long time - there is a strong social reinforcement for such suppression. In fact, many transsexual people suppressed their transsexuality for reasons that are very similar to Zuckers "treatment" - their actual gender was negatively reinforced during their childhood. Yet that does not prevent or cure transsexuality in their cases, it merely prevents them from expressing their actual gender. We can observe that the childhood and later life of such people are often very troubled, since their suppressed emotions cause negative psychological effects.
So, what does Zuckers treatment do? It prevents children from living according to their gender. If it does not actually "cure" it, then they will express their gender later in life. But the later transitioning starts, the harder it is - and as i have showed above, that increases suffering and suicide rates.
Conclusively, since Zucker has no proof to the contrary, it is likely that his treatment ultimately increases the suffering of transsexual people.
So you mean that on the 500 patients he treated, the 80% he claims to be successes are actually people living a dreadful life in a way or another?
And how come so few, if literally none thus far, have come out to say how their life turned to shit since those years at the clinic.
I mean, come on, these people know the Internet. With everything we find on Internet, from bullshit about aliens to reptilians and so on, don't you think the utter lack of people complaining about the Zucker treatment they underwent isn't already a clue or something a bit more conclusive than the groups shouting it's bad, it's harmful?
Not to say that Zucker works on blocking urges to transsexualism. He doesn't consider homosexuality as a failure (
1).
Said article's best criticism of Zucker's method amounts to nothing more than hearsay:
She is pessimistic about Dr Zucker’s work. "The children I’ve seen who have been through the program typically say how they got help with their so-called problem," she says. "But they look uncomfortable and defeated, and they tend to avoid talking about their sexuality."
Edit 2:
I would also like to address the damage he actually does.
First, the number 80-90% is dubious. We do not know how Zucker choses his patients (i did not find his diagnostic methods).
He observes the severe cases of GID.
We therefore do not know whether all of his patients are actually transsexual.
A good chunk of the 80% he "saves" could very be not transsexual at all. That's like testing a drug to treat a specific disease and include 50% people in my study who do not have that disease - and then claim because 50% did not have the disease after taking the drug, it is very successful.
In order to have any meaning to his 80%-claim, we need to know
-his diagnostic method
-whether the children he "treats" would later display transsexuality if NOT treated
We know neither. Therefore, we can not take this figure at face value even for short-term effects.
From every article I've read thus far, including those painting him in a bad way as much as possible (
2) by dismissing the relevance of children's innocence and complete different view about societal pressures, he's shown to treat the patients who would surely turn TS if given the opportunity.
The examples given here and there are about parents being tolerant until their kid really pushes the behaviour far and it spooks them. The exact same kind of behaviour as presented by Jona(h), who went from he to she at a very early age.
That said, not being obtuse, I agree that a clarification would be needed.
Second, even if we take his 80% claim at face value - then he still harms 20% of his patients. As i explained above, his treatment does two things
-it eliminates the free expression of one self and furthers suppression of emotions
-it is specifically aimed at suppressing transsexuality. Even if it "heals" the 80%, the 20% are not suppressed.
-That suppression will make their transition harder.
Therefore, even if his 80% claim is absolutely true, he still harms 20% of his patients severely. One out of five is a BIG failure rate. Even if his claim was true, that's not something i would recklessly advocate.
1. the expression of an ill conceived brain. Remember what we said about that?
2. nothing's perfect. Also, see the relevance of budget limits due to insurances, as pointed above, which can stop treatments earlier.
3. which in the case of the 80%, is a very positive point.
That said, I agree that I would not advocate for it blindly without further material to look at. The problem is that the ostracism is not helping him getting very vocal about what's going on.
But we have to consider the whole picture
-we have no independent proof that his method has any long-term success
-we know that it enforces harmful behavior in children, regardless of the success
-we can not even be sure about his short-term 80% success
-Every child that is not "cured" will take severe damage.
Totally, it is very likely that a good portion of his patients aren't actually transsexual. These children will go out there with stereotypical, extreme and inflexible behavior and suppressed emotions. That's the best case scenario. Children who are actually transsexual will go out there with all of the above AND suppressed transsexuality. That does not only cause damage on it's own, but a later transition will also be much harder.
1. See above.
2.
In children? What do you mean?
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed.
Edit 3:
(Hint: That's where Zucker works)
A 1984 article in the Toronto Star indicated that between 1969 and 1984, 90% of all people seeking transsexual health services were turned away at The Clarke. The Clarke averaged about 5 acceptances a year, totalling about 100 people. In other words, they denied access to over 900 people during that time. [
2]Thats a HUGE number.
Effectively, that bases a huge amount of their Research (15 years) on only 10% of the potential test population.
Of course, that might have changed, but such practices make them look very dubious.
Could you please be more specific about the portion we should look at? The only bit mentions a ratio identical to the one you speak of seems to say something else entirely.
What I found is that:
The vast majority of men and women who had surgical sex changes in Toronto say they prefer their new gender.
Most support themselves in society without welfare or unemployment insurance.
Dr. Mary Steiner, head of the Gender Disorder Clinic and the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, said recently the favorable results probably reflect the strict evaluation given those who seek such surgery. Only 1 in 10 men who request it are approved.
And it means that the vast majority of post-op people who are happy about it is because they've been filtered before the operation from the people, with only 10% of greenlights.
Which actually means that a total leeway, a laissez-faire about the way a person feels about his or her gender, could lead to a theoretically rate of displeasure as a high as 90%.