Transgender studies and medical science


It seems purely ideological and enforces itself on the medical community via compelled speech, the threat of fines, or loss of license. The studies in WPATH have no control groups, small sample sizes, selection bias, and limited follow up according to one expert.

The WPATH guidelines states that gender is assigned at birth and does not acknowledge the objectivity of gender or sex while also claiming that physicians who approve the procedure must assume all ethical and legal responsibility for the patient from start to finish.

One recent study shows an average 41% suicide attempt rate for trans people. The suicide rate increases if they have had SRS counseling, increases more of they’ve considered hormones or surgery, and more if they have actually
Received hormones or surgery.

The life time suicide attempt rate is 37% even if you can’t tell they are transgender.

The overall suicide rate is 20 times more then the average poplupation. Higher then the suicide rate of incarcerated Jews in the Nazi death camps. I believe the surgical and hormonal transformation causes trans people to self isolate and avoid most of the people that formerly knew and loved them.

One STD prevention Lecturer on YouTube states that 40% are HIV + and 25%-75% work as prostitutes in the west while in Asia over 80% work as prostitutes.

There are attacks from a few people within the trans community against researchers that publish research that does not support the feminin essence theory of transgenderism. Take for example the response to Michael Bailey who wrote “The man that would be Queen.” A well researched commentary on the backlash was written by an expert.

Patients with gender dysphoria need compassion, but they also need to be presented with research that demonstrates the dangerousness of this lifestyle choice. I do not think that would stop many from going forward, but I likewise do not see how this cosmetic alteration could possibly be deemed a right? Why should the tax payer pay the tens of thousands of dollars for transitioning of incarcerated criminals claiming to be of the wrong gender? Many of these criminals have committed violent crimes.

The cost to families is also significant.

In my opinion any doctor who approves this procedure can be sued successfully by surviving family members due to the overwhelming evidence that SRS contributes to suicidality. The idea that subjective feelings trumps objective reality goes against every principle of psychiatry.

I totally support the idea that people have free will to pursue a definition of happiness that fits their world view, but to force others to embrace it or approve it when it is not founded in science or good medicine, and may even contribute to bad outcomes, shows a lack of intellectual honesty.

If someone wishes to go forward and surgically alter themselves cosmetically they should assume all financial, ethical, and legal ramifications for this elective alteration.



Could you please cite the studies?


I haven’t read anything which indicates that the further along in the transition process someone goes, the more likely they are to commit suicide. Can you please provide a link to this study you’ve referred to?

Is there such a thing as “objective reality” when it comes to psychiatry? Compared to most other branches of medicine, psychiatry is one of the least scientific.

Very few if any of the diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM ) is based on scientific evidence. There’s no blood test or brain scan in most cases that they can do to tell if someone has one of the disorders in the DSM. Instead, each disorder is mostly defined by a collection of symptoms while the underlying cause is in most cases not very well understood since our understanding of how the brain works is still in its infancy. The only way that a psychiatrist or psychologist can tell if someone has one of these disorders in the DSM is to conduct a clinical interview of the patient, and a lot of the time that a patient has with a psychologist or psychiatrist involves the patient talking about their subjective feelings and the various things they do that cause them distress. The whole field seems a little nebulous to me.

So, I’m not sure that psychiatry or psychology has much to do with anything called “objective reality”.


The first YouTube video posted with the original post is the first citing.

“Standards of Care for the Heath of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People,” by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Displays ideology that gender is fluid and not objective reality. Denotes no exclusion criteria for the procedure.

Long-Term Follow-Up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden. Perhaps the only study with longitudinal data. Considered the best long term study with the best sampling data as it considers all Swedish people over 30 years.

What Many Transgender Activists Don’t want you to know: and why you should know it anyway. Article in Perspectives in biology and medicine - February 2007. A good paper to read to get a summary of the best research up to date on the topic: Ray Blanchards findings.

Psychiatry’s ethical involvement in gender affirming care by Roberto D’Angelo. Helps you to understand the quandary of idiology vs clinical reality.

The Controversy Surrounding the man who would be queen: a case history of the politics of science, identity, and sex in the internet age by Alice D Dreger. Helps you to understand the toxicity of the transgender ideologues and activists and how proponents of transgenderism go out of their way with lies and deception to destroy anyone who speaks anything that is not flattering to transgenderism.

Suicide in inmates in Nazis and Soviet concentration camps: historical overview and critique by Francisco Lopez-Munoz. Reports suicide amongst the death camps to be 10-30x higher then general population depending on time frame.

Suicide attempts among transgender and gender non-conforming adults. Findings of the national transgender discrimination survey. Ann P Haas and Philip L Rodgers. American foundation of suicide prevention published this review that breaks down the suicide attempt rates.

I could not locate the YouTube lecture stating that 40% of trans people are HIV+ and the rates of prostitution in the community.


Well said about Psychiatry but it is not the full picture. Psychiatrists are trained to perform mental status exams and mini mental status exams that view objective findings of affect, thought process, thought content, executive functioning, memory, cognition, and findings denoting neurological problems.

But what is was specifically thinking about objective findings was for example a patient stating something which is objectively false. A prima facie case. For example a remarkably thin anorexic patient stating she is fat and who obviously is not. For you to agree with her and treat her as if she was obese would contribute to her death. Another example is a patient who believes they are Jesus Christ. One would not go along with the delusion but perhaps treat it with therapy and depending on the cause of the delusion antipsychotics. Another would be a patient who believes hey were meant to be disabled and wants to be blind. You would likely not want to pour acid in her eyes to make her blind. Or a patient who gets sexual stimulatiom from thinking of themselves as an amputee. One would not ethically contribute to the amputation of their legs. In all cases objective reality is being suppressed or denied by the individual. It is the duty of all physicians to do no harm, as part of their Hypocratic oath, and contributing to mortality and morbidity of the patient is immoral and unethical by all standards in common practice.

In like manner, by assisting autogynophilic, or psychologically or psychiatrically frail individuals, to pursue a lifestyle that isolates them and puts their physical health at risk, with the only benefit being the subjective report that they feel closer to their perceived gender is unethical and immortal in my opinion. I do not
Believe that science or medicine has proved that individuals are born into the wrong bodies.


You will understand that a list of sources from a youtube video might be less convincing?

For instance, I have a hard time tying the experience of those in concentration camps to people living with GID in the modern world.


GID is no longer in the DSM. It has been replaced by gender dysphoria.

YouTube clips of lectures by experts is more convincing then a single article as it is the synthesis of accumulated knowledge by that expert.

Mentioning the comparative suicide rates of Jews in internment camps to those with GID disorder, as you put it, is to call into question the narrative that the suicide rates for Transgender patients is due to transphobia, bigotry, and violence against trans people.


Or maybe the people who formerly knew and loved them have shunned them because they’re transgender. Many gay men and lesbians are also estranged from their families because their families won’t accept them for who they are.

Being transgender is not a lifestyle choice any more than being gay or lesbian is a lifestyle choice. Presenting people with research about the dangers of prostitution or unsafe sex seems perfectly acceptable, but just because someone is transgender and has perhaps even gone through sexual reassignment surgery does not mean that they will automatically become a prostitute or engage in unsafe sex. There’s noting inherently dangerous about being transgender.

In most circumstances, families don’t get to make medical or other kinds of decisions for their adult members.


Actually a recent review article on Gender
And Sexuality by Dr Mcugh and Lawrence reviews over 500 studies about sexuality and gender. In essence it is essentially a choice. You are not born that way.

According to psychologists who have treated these cases the families suffer from these choices. Yes family rejection is likely a phenomenon that happens.


Regarding your last sentence, it’s untrue. I have seen other patients exhibit a wide range of behaviors that were not in alignment with reality. Some were clearly delusional. And evidence has been found that shows a genetic abnormality can lead to schizophrenia. Other things have been discovered for other mental health issues.


The fact that possible genetic links have been found to certain disorders doesn’t mean that this information is solid enough to use in making a diagnosis. There is no genetic test yet as far as I know for schizophrenia. The same is true for ADHD. Certain genes seem to be implicated, but that information has never been used to make a diagnosis that I’ve ever heard of. It certainly wasn’t used when I was diagnosed with ADHD.


A diagnosis is made by observing and asking questions. To expand on what I wrote, I have personally observed other patients in various states. It can be observed and that, along with asking the patient questions, correlates with previous observation. That means, unless a large number of symptoms are present, a credible diagnosis can be made, followed by a treatment plan.


You were talking about homosexuality and transgenderism which are not genetically linked.

Bipolar affective disorder has the highest rate of genetic heritability followed by schizophrenia.

Not all conditions are genetically linked.

I don’t understand what you are referring to about objective reality and delusional thinking. It seams self evident to me. My examples are real world examples. I’m guessing we have a miss communcatio


On a side note it amazes me how many psychiatrists formulate strong opinions about the trans issue without ever reading a single research article. Even Harvard trained psychiatrists. People’s strong desire to be accepting and accommodating is greater then their intellectual vigor and honesty.


How do you know this?


Dr. McHugh’s views are outside the mainstream and his research is not that good. Here is what the geneticist, Dean Hammer has to say about the study you are referring to (until his retirement, Hammer was the Chief of Gene Structure and Regulation Section at the U.S. National Cancer Institute):

The article claims to be “a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of research — from the biological, psychological, and social sciences — related to sexual orientation and gender identity.” It claims to show sexual orienation is chosen and not fixed, and that gay people are not “born gay.” In truth, it is a selective and outdated collection of references and arguments aimed at confusing rather than clarifying our understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Mayer and McHugh begin by baldly stating that sexual orientation is an “ambiguous” concept compared to other psychological traits, and that there are “currently no agreed-upon definitions for purposes of empirical research.”

This is pure balderdash. The scientists who actually work in this area widely accept the American Psychological Association’s definition of sexual orientation as “an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes,” and we have reliable, empirically validated ways to study it. Sexual orientation may be complex — every human characteristic is — but it is certainly far less complicated and ambiguous than many of the facets of personality that psychologists spend their time attempting to measure and study; e.g., “warmth,” “self-esteem,” and “imagination.”

The authors’ review of the role of genes in sexual orientation, the area of my own research, is revealing of their methodology. Of the six studies using proper probability sampling methods that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature in the past 16 years, they include only one — and it just so happens to be the one with the lowest estimate of genetic influence of the entire set.

They then discuss, at great length, an obscure study of 7th- to 12th-graders, published in a sociology journal, that doesn’t even measure sexual orientation, instead relying on a single question about “romantic attraction.” It’s an odd choice of articles to review given Mayer and McHugh’s emphasis on proper trait measurement; perhaps they were driven by the fact that it failed to find any heritability, thus supporting their claim that nobody is “born gay.” A very different conclusion was reached by a careful meta-analysis of all the available twin data, recently published in a large review that Mayer and McHugh fail to even mention.


For thirty years the SRS clinic at John Hopkins pioneered transgender medicine. Was Dr. Mcughs scientific stance wrong then? Was he close minded then? Was his methodology wrong or biased then? Or was it only after seeing SRS fail at improving the lives of trans patients and when he shut that clinic down? Dr. Mcugh is a highly respected Dr. and research author with decades of experience. Also direct experience working with the transgendered. Kinsey and Money, pioneers of trans and queer medicine are not. Both allegedly were pedophiles. Money was fired from John’s Hopkins for a good reason.

Have you read the paper on Gender and Sexuality or are you just able to quote people making claims about the paper? It is superbly written. The scientific bias and slander is remarkable. I highly reccomend that people read it.

It is well established that sexuality is a choice. Even transgender idiologues admit this when they use the term gender fluid. Homosexual people who have same sex partners often choose to be heterosexual or bisexual later. Heck I even know a Psychiatrist who was married to a same sex partner who later married an opposite sex partner.

Sexuality is not fixed it is a choice. Or you could say fluid.


The real question is this:

Is the elective decision to cosmetically and hormonally alter ones appearance to approximate the opposite sex (or life form: this is happening) a civil right? A right that tax payers should pay for? Or is it a super right in which anyone who misspronouns them or refuses to authorize the transition process can be de licensed, fined, or imprisoned? What an effective way to remove conservatives from their positions
And stifle scientific dissent and research! The political assassination is already creeping up and starting.


If you value freedom of thought and speech you ought to take footnotes from Jordan Peterson.


I have read the study that you mentioned. But you haven’t responded to the points made by Dean Hammer about the fact that McHugh has cherry- picked the studies he cites, favoring those that support his conclusions while failing to even mention important studies that don’t.

And it is not well established that sexuality is a choice, and it is much more “fluid” in women than in men. And it has been demonstrated by Kinsey that sexuality tends to fall along a spectrum so that some people are exclusively homosexual or heterosexual and some are in between, being mostly homosexual in their attraction with some very weak heterosexual attraction or vice versa. And some people are truly bisexual, being equally attracted to both sexes.

So, it’s certainly possible for someone to be more attracted to men but decide to get married to a woman because it’s more socially acceptable and then later decide to become involved with a man instead. But this doesn’t mean that someone who is exclusively homosexual in his attraction can then choose to be heterosexual and have sexual relations with a woman. I’m a gay man who has only been sexually attracted to other men and have had zero attraction to women. I never had a choice in this and would be unable to have sexual relations with a woman. So, McHugh obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he says that sexuality is a choice.

Also, you should educate yourself about the terms that you use. The term “gender fluid” has to do with gender identity, not with sexuality. A person could say that their gender identity is more male one day and more female the next day. But that doesn’t mean that their sexual orientation ever changes. Bruce Jenner was reportedly attracted to women and now as Caitlyn Jenner, he is still sexually attracted to women from what I’ve heard.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit