「トランスして命を救われた」と言う子供のトランス活動家の声を聴くことがおおくなった。アメリカ各地の州で未成年の性転換手術を違法にするところが増えている。この間トランスジェンダーによる乱射事件が起きたテネシー州でも最近子供の性転換手術が禁止されたばかりだった。こうした動きに対抗してトランスジェンダー活動家たちは、未成年の活動家を表に出して、思春期ブロッカーや異性ホルモン投与が子供たちの命を救っていると宣伝し始めた。しかし、性違和を持つ未成年者が性転換をしないと自殺する子供が増えるという説には全く根拠がないだけでなく、性別適合手術（ＳＲＳ）を受けた10年後ぐらいに自殺をする人も多い。実際SRSを受けた人の自殺率及び自殺願望率は一般人のそれよりずっと高いという調査結果もある。だからホルモン治療やＳＲＳが性同一性障害（GID）の治療として適切であるという医学的根拠はまるでないのである。これに関する多々の調査結果は拙ブログの過去エントリーでも紹介しているのでご参照のこと。
性同一性障害の治療は手術よりもカウンセリングが望ましい – Scarecrow in the Strawberry Field (biglizards.net)
子供の性転換治療をいち早く始めたスエーデンでは、すでに未成年の性転換治療を禁止している。以前に見たスエーデンのドキュメンタリー「トランス列車」（ユーチューブ動画、日本語字幕あり）子供のうちに性転換をしないと18歳までに子供が自殺してしまうというのは全く根拠のない出鱈目であったと言っていた。
最近よく聞くようになった脱トランスの体験談でも、ジェンダークリニックに精神カウンセリングを受けに行った未成年が早々に思春期ブロッカーやホルモン治療を推進され、女の子には早く乳房を取ってしまわないと自殺してしまうなどと本人や親が脅かされることもしばしばで、自分には自殺願望など全くなかったのに手術をせかされたという少女たちの話も何件か聞いたことがある。
最近早期にホルモン治療や性器除去手術を受けた未成年の子供たちが、州議会の公聴会で「性転換治療によって命を救われた」などと証言する映像をよくみかけるようになったが、そんなこと、この子たちにわかるはずがない。早い子では2歳児から親やカウンセラーや幼稚園の先生などから自分はトランスジェンダーであり極端な治療をしなければ死んでしまうと言われ続けたら、年端も行かない子供たちがそれを信じ切ってしまったとしても不思議ではない。よくGIDを小児性癌などと比べて、子供が癌だと解っているのに手術させない親などいるかと聞く人があるが、癌は身体の病気であり放っておいたら100%死亡するのに対し、GIDは精神の病気であり放っておいても９０％完治するのである。まるで比較にならない。
今朝ツイッターにも5歳の時に母親からトランスを強制されたジャズ・ジェニング（20歳）が、自分はトランスしたことを後悔していないと演説していたが、トランスジェンダーとしてしか生きたことのない彼にその生き方が間違っていたかどうかなどどうしてわかるというのか？彼が出演しているリアリティーショーでもジャズは凡そ幸せな20歳の大学生には見えない。
私は彼がまだ10歳くらいの時のビデオを見たことがあるが、ジャズは当時からなんらかの精神安定剤を常飲していた。健康な子供が抗うつ剤を飲むなどありえないだろう。そしてSRSを受けた今でも、彼は激しいムードスイングに悩まされているのだ。彼の精神病の原因が何かは分からないが、明らかにSRSはこの問題を解決することには全く役に立っていない。
上記のリンクでも書いた通り、性違和だと診断される子供の大半が別の精神疾患を併合していることが多い。自殺願望はそちらの病気のせいである可能性も高い。女の子が乳房を取りたいなどと思うのは、よく精神疾患を持つ子供がする自傷行為の延長かもしれない。だとしたら、不可逆的な極端で危険な治療を始める前に、先ずそちらの精神治療から始めるというのが筋のはずだ。ともかくそうした治療を成人するまで続け、大人になっても性違和が消えない個人に関してだけ、性転換治療を始めるべきだろう。それにしたって私は性転換治療などと言う物自体が非科学的であると信じてはいるが。
以前にも話た通り、私も思春期の頃は非常な悩みを抱えていて、心配した親が神経内科に通わせたほどである。かなりの自殺願望もあったし、自分の体が嫌いで拒食症になったりもした。あの頃今のようなトランスカルトが精神科を乗っ取っていたら、私も間違いなくトランスジェンダーにされていただろう。しかし私の命を救ったのは抗うつ剤でもトランスカルトでもない。神様だ。いや、神への信仰だというべきだろうか。
私は信心深い人間ではない。特にこれといった宗教に所属しているわけでもない。今でも特にどの教会にも通っていない。ただ当時の私は非常な読書家で特にドイツとかフランスの文学を良く読んでいた。またよくお芝居も観ていた。そんな中であるお芝居で誰かが歌った歌の歌詞に「神様は越えられない試練を与えない」というものがあった。
その時なぜかその言葉が心に突き刺さった。さらにお芝居をみていて、お芝居の中の登場人物には無駄はないことに気付いた。誰にもその役割はある。たとえそれが悪役でもちょい役でも。もしこの世の中が神様の作った台本通りに回っているのだとしたら、その中の登場人物である私の存在にもなにかしらの意味があるはず。私の存在は間違いではないのだ！
とまあそんな具合に自分なりに悟りをひらいた。私の命を救ったのはその悟りだ。
最近発表されたアメリカの世論調査では定期的に教会に通っているという人の数がすでに４０％くらいになっているという話を聞いた。アメリカはもともと非常に宗教的な国だったのだが、最近の世俗主義は子供たちの心のよりどころを奪っているのではないだろうか。
「神を信じなくなると何も信じなくなるのではない。何でも信じてしまうのだ。」とは誰かが言っていたがまさにその通りだ。子供たちに必要なのは、性違和のある子どもの命を救うのは手術や薬ではない。あなた達がその身体で生まれて来たことは間違いではない。神様は間違いなどおかさない。と誰かが子供たちに諭して揚げることが必要なのだ。
苺畑カカシ11 months ago
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/iceland-outlaws-conversion-therapy-in-landslide-vote/ar-AA1csHR5?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fcf3eaf2a24a40a8a027d9e7d5003901&ei=15
Iceland outlaws conversion therapy in landslide vote
Story by LGBTQNation • Yesterday 2:00 PM
The Icelandic parliament has unanimously passed a comprehensive conversion therapy ban, prohibiting the practice on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
On Friday, lawmakers approved the legislation with 53 yes votes and three abstentions. Now anyone who forces a child to undergo conversion therapy can go to prison for up to five years, and anyone who tries to force an adult to go faces up to three years. In addition, those who actually administer conversion therapy could go to prison for up to two years.
His legal peers praised his “keen intellect” and “demonstrated commitment to the promise of equal access to justice for all.”
Icelandic journalist and nonbinary activist Ugla Stefanía Kristjönudóttir Jónsdóttir tweeted that the bill passed “despite attempts from known anti-trans hates groups under English influence to oppose it, and wrongfully claiming they managed to ‘kill the bill.’ Their arguments were dismissed as anti-scientific and anti-trans rhetoric.”
Conversion therapy is based on the idea that LGBTQ+ identity is a problem to be fixed, which can lead to long-term damage to victims’ self-esteem. A 2013 survey showed that 84 percent of former patients of conversion therapy said it inflicted lasting shame and emotional harm, and another study found that LGBTQ+ people who were forced into conversion therapy had an attempted suicide rate five times above normal.
The United States has a long way to go before all Americans are protected from this brutal practice. According to the Movement Advancement Project, 20 states have no laws banning the practice, and five only have partial bans. Twenty-one states and D.C. do have laws on the books banning conversion therapy for minors.
Iceland is considered one of the world’s most LGBTQ+-friendly countries, scoring 92 out of 100 on the Equaldex Equality Index. Same-sex marriage is legal, as is the ability to change one’s legal gender without surgery. Nonbinary genders are recognized, LGBTQ+ adoption is legal, and there are anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination laws in place.
A 2013 poll of 119 countries also ranked Iceland number 1 for perceived acceptance of gay people, with 82% of respondents saying they believed the country is a “good place” for gays and lesbians. The country also ranks number one of 79 countries for citizens believing homosexuality is justifiable, as well as number one of 74 for positive opinions on same-sex couples as parents.
Edit苺畑カカシ10 months ago
https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/sex-reassignment-doesnt-work-here-the-evidence
Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence.
Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D.
@RyanTAnd
Former Visiting Fellow, DeVos Center
Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty, and political philosophy.
Sex “reassignment” doesn’t work. It’s impossible to “reassign” someone’s sex physically, and attempting to do so doesn’t produce good outcomes psychosocially.
As I demonstrate in my book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” the medical evidence suggests that sex reassignment does not adequately address the psychosocial difficulties faced by people who identify as transgender. Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively “trans-friendly,” transitioners still face poor outcomes.
Dr. Paul McHugh, the university distinguished service professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, explains:
Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’ In that lies their problematic future.
When ‘the tumult and shouting dies,’ it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over 30 years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.
McHugh points to the reality that because sex change is physically impossible, it frequently does not provide the long-term wholeness and happiness that people seek.
Indeed, the best scientific research supports McHugh’s caution and concern.
Here’s how The Guardian summarized the results of a review of “more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals” by Birmingham University’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility:
[The Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility], which conducts reviews of health care treatments for the [National Health Service], concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favor of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counseling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time.
“There is huge uncertainty over whether changing someone’s sex is a good or a bad thing,” said Chris Hyde, the director of the facility. Even if doctors are careful to perform these procedures only on “appropriate patients,” Hyde continued, “there’s still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatized—often to the point of committing suicide.”
Of particular concern are the people these studies “lost track of.” As The Guardian noted, “the results of many gender reassignment studies are unsound because researchers lost track of more than half of the participants.” Indeed, “Dr. Hyde said the high drop-out rate could reflect high levels of dissatisfaction or even suicide among post-operative transsexuals.”
Hyde concluded: “The bottom line is that although it’s clear that some people do well with gender reassignment surgery, the available research does little to reassure about how many patients do badly and, if so, how badly.”
The facility conducted its review back in 2004, so perhaps things have changed in the past decade?
Not so. In 2014, a new review of the scientific literature was done by Hayes, Inc., a research and consulting firm that evaluates the safety and health outcomes of medical technologies. Hayes found that the evidence on long-term results of sex reassignment was too sparse to support meaningful conclusions and gave these studies its lowest rating for quality:
Statistically significant improvements have not been consistently demonstrated by multiple studies for most outcomes. … Evidence regarding quality of life and function in male-to-female adults was very sparse. Evidence for less comprehensive measures of well-being in adult recipients of cross-sex hormone therapy was directly applicable to [gender dysphoric] patients but was sparse and/or conflicting. The study designs do not permit conclusions of causality and studies generally had weaknesses associated with study execution as well. There are potentially long-term safety risks associated with hormone therapy but none have been proven or conclusively ruled out.
The Obama administration came to similar conclusions. In 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services revisited the question of whether sex reassignment surgery would have to be covered by Medicare plans. Despite receiving a request that its coverage be mandated, it refused, on the ground that we lack evidence that it benefits patients.
Here’s how the June 2016 “Proposed Decision Memo for Gender Dysphoria and Gender Reassignment Surgery” put it:
Based on a thorough review of the clinical evidence available at this time, there is not enough evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria. There were conflicting (inconsistent) study results—of the best designed studies, some reported benefits while others reported harms. The quality and strength of evidence were low due to the mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, potential confounding, and small sample sizes. Many studies that reported positive outcomes were exploratory type studies (case-series and case-control) with no confirmatory follow-up.
The final August 2016 memo was even more blunt. It pointed out:
Overall, the quality and strength of evidence were low due to mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, subjective endpoints, potential confounding (a situation where the association between the intervention and outcome is influenced by another factor such as a co-intervention), small sample sizes, lack of validated assessment tools, and considerable lost to follow-up.
That “lost to follow-up,” remember, could be pointing to people who committed suicide.
And when it comes to the best studies, there is no evidence of “clinically significant changes” after sex reassignment:
The majority of studies were non-longitudinal, exploratory type studies (i.e., in a preliminary state of investigation or hypothesis generating), or did not include concurrent controls or testing prior to and after surgery. Several reported positive results but the potential issues noted above reduced strength and confidence. After careful assessment, we identified six studies that could provide useful information. Of these, the four best designed and conducted studies that assessed quality of life before and after surgery using validated (albeit non-specific) psychometric studies did not demonstrate clinically significant changes or differences in psychometric test results after [gender reassignment surgery].
In a discussion of the largest and most robust study—the study from Sweden that McHugh mentioned in the quote above—the Obama Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pointed out the 19-times-greater likelihood for death by suicide, and a host of other poor outcomes:
The study identified increased mortality and psychiatric hospitalization compared to the matched controls. The mortality was primarily due to completed suicides (19.1-fold greater than in control Swedes), but death due to neoplasm and cardiovascular disease was increased 2 to 2.5 times as well. We note, mortality from this patient population did not become apparent until after 10 years. The risk for psychiatric hospitalization was 2.8 times greater than in controls even after adjustment for prior psychiatric disease (18 percent). The risk for attempted suicide was greater in male-to-female patients regardless of the gender of the control. Further, we cannot exclude therapeutic interventions as a cause of the observed excess morbidity and mortality. The study, however, was not constructed to assess the impact of gender reassignment surgery per se.
These results are tragic. And they directly contradict the most popular media narratives, as well as many of the snapshot studies that do not track people over time. As the Obama Centers for Medicare and Medicaid pointed out, “mortality from this patient population did not become apparent until after 10 years.”
So when the media tout studies that only track outcomes for a few years, and claim that reassignment is a stunning success, there are good grounds for skepticism.
As I explain in my book, these outcomes should be enough to stop the headlong rush into sex reassignment procedures. They should prompt us to develop better therapies for helping people who struggle with their gender identity.
And none of this even begins to address the radical, entirely experimental therapies that are being directed at the bodies of children to transition them.
Sex Change Is Physically Impossible
We’ve seen some of the evidence that sex reassignment doesn’t produce good outcomes psychosocially. And as McHugh suggested above, part of the reason why is because sex change is impossible and “it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb.”
But what is the basis for the conclusion that sex change is impossible?
Contrary to the claims of activists, sex isn’t “assigned” at birth—and that’s why it can’t be “reassigned.” As I explain in “When Harry Became Sally,” sex is a bodily reality that can be recognized well before birth with ultrasound imaging. The sex of an organism is defined and identified by the way in which it (he or she) is organized for sexual reproduction.
This is just one manifestation of the fact that natural organization is “the defining feature of an organism,” as neuroscientist Maureen Condic and her philosopher brother Samuel Condic explain. In organisms, “the various parts … are organized to cooperatively interact for the welfare of the entity as a whole. Organisms can exist at various levels, from microscopic single cells to sperm whales weighing many tons, yet they are all characterized by the integrated function of parts for the sake of the whole.”
Male and female organisms have different parts that are functionally integrated for the sake of their whole, and for the sake of a larger whole—their sexual union and reproduction. So an organism’s sex—as male or female—is identified by its organization for sexually reproductive acts. Sex as a status—male or female—is a recognition of the organization of a body that can engage in sex as an act.
That organization isn’t just the best way to figure out which sex you are. It’s the only way to make sense of the concepts of male and female at all. What else could “maleness” or “femaleness” even refer to, if not your basic physical capacity for one of two functions in sexual reproduction?
The conceptual distinction between male and female based on reproductive organization provides the only coherent way to classify the two sexes. Apart from that, all we have are stereotypes.
Edit