But have you seen how they react to living proof that maybe transition doesn’t work?

The Daily Mirror in the UK recently reported, in traditional tabloid fashion, on a desister, Debbie, who transitioned to male at forty-seven and now regrets it, saying that her childhood sexual abuse history (which resulted in an objectum sexuality), was overlooked in a push towards transition. A common thread in detransition stories that get media coverage is a belief that they were ‘pushed into transition’, such as this article on a male-to-female detransitioner in The Guardian

““I started to realise that I could have dealt with my own issues so much better without changing my body because that has brought so many more difficulties. Detransitioning isn’t as unusual as you might expect, but it is underground, for a number of reasons, and the trans community isn’t happy discussing this.” He now thinks he was rushed into transitioning by well-intentioned but ultimately misguided people.

[…]

“I told the psychologist I wanted to be female but nothing about the other issues involved, such as being bullied. I wasn’t aware that bullying had anything to do with my gender issues, but he didn’t ask any deeper questions. So, I was just like, ‘This is who I am and this who I want to be’, and they were like, ‘That’s great!’, and after just two sessions I was given hormones, which was actually not good practice. “I was young and there were very few young transitioners then, but it wasn’t that hard to become seen as a woman and I started to get a lot of positive attention. But I was put on really high doses of hormones, which were crazy. We don’t do stuff like this any more but I was on the equivalent of 17 birth control pills a day at one point so it felt like my brain wasn’t working right and it didn’t help my dysphoria. I had really big hands and a big jaw and so I still had the same problem of hating parts of my body.”

Mainstream coverage on destransition, such as a Katie Herzog piece in The Stranger is often derided as transphobic. Herzog herself wrote about the reception her piece on detransition received:

“… on the second day, the shit storm began, and since then I have been inundated by vitriol, hate mail, and threats — and not all of it, by the way, from strangers.”

Coverage of detransition is often harshly criticized even in mainstream liberal outlets such as Vox, which called coverage of detransitioning transphobic and accused it of harming trans children in an interview with Julia Serano. Other examples include flat out denial of the phenomenon or that detransitioners were ever truly trans, like in this Jezebel piece, which insists on it:

“The detransition narratives, while real and valid, will be familiar to anyone who’s read any of the bigger features on detransitioning published over the past few years like The Stranger’s “The Detransitioners” or The Outline’s “A Story About Discovery.” The interview subjects are female-assigned at birth. They thought they were men or non-binary but now see themselves as women. They often attribute their transition to one of five things: *overly accommodating medical practitioners who didn’t think twice about approving hormones or surgery *the unprocessed trauma of sexual assault *a lack of adherence to traditional gender roles and stereotypes *a deep, existential crisis over being a woman under patriarchy, often triggered at the onset of puberty *seeing a trans man on YouTube or on TV …or a combination of all of these things. Again, these stories warrant reporting — but, by their own admission, these women in The Atlantic piece are not trans. So why are they the focus of a story about adolescent transition? Why has The Atlantic decided to publish as its cover story a cis writer’s article about trans people who aren’t trans — during Pride month, no less?”

How are they not trans? Are they not true Scotsmen as well?

Or like in this piece by Riki Wilchins over denying interview requests about detransition in The Advocate:

“So don’t tell me about de-transitioning transsexuals. Not everyone who de-transitions was ever a transsexual. It’s damn hard thing to do. Write your piece without me, and leave the rest of us in peace.’

More interesting in Wilchins piece is the below:

And then there’s Ken Zucker, founder of the Toronto-based Center for Addiction and Mental Health, who has “treated” 500 pre-adolescent gender-variant children — essentially uncomplaining “patients” forcibly submitted by their parents to his care. This is “reparative therapy” for trans children by diagnosing them with an infant version of gender identity disorder. The center was closed and Zucker stopped from harming another defenseless trans child only in 2015, when an internal audit challenged his work. But he had been doing this since the 1970s. So again, four-five decades passed before his terrible work could be stopped.

And this is important. Kenneth Zucker, a leading research on childhood gender dysphoria, has faced a systemic campaign of defamation and harassment from the trans movement over the past few years. Indeed, in only 2008 was The Advocate willing to quote Zucker on the subject:

Some transgender minors delay puberty until adulthood; others begin cross-sex hormones soon after starting hormone blockers while minors. Though the treatment is reversible, prescribing minors hormone blockers is clearly an

incendiary issue. Psychologist Kenneth Zucker believes that forcing transsexualism is dangerous for children who simply don’t fit normative gender roles. Other practitioners advocate a different kind of intervention: forcing normative gender roles on gender-nonconforming children, e.g., making a little

girl, even if she identifies as a boy, wear dresses and play house.”

So in 2008, The Advocate was willing to quote notorious transphobe Kenneth Zucker, yet in 2017 is quite willing to publish defamatory pieces. What changed? Let me tell you about the way the trans movement has treated Kenneth Zucker, author of much research that disturbs their narrative, all in an attempt to paint him as a homophobe and discredit him.

The Defamation Of Someone Who Didn’t Agree

And where should we start on the topic of Kenneth Zucker, but with Brynn Tannehill’s ‘The End Of The Desistance Myth’? Tannehill, who in their byline is described as a board member of Trans United Fund, an AstroTurf political lobby group, writes in the article. about how anyone saying trans children desist is promoting ‘junk science’.

Now a demolishing of the study Tannehill references was done well in an article by The Cut by Jesse Singal. So why focus on this article? Because it defames and misrepresents Kenneth Zucker, and is the source of many things about him which are flatly untrue:

“For the past decade, the biggest promoter of the desistance myth was Dr. Kenneth Zucker at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto. He never missed an opportunity to speak to anti-LGBT organizations and news outlets, or to tout himself as the world’s top expert in transgender children. He denied practicing reparative therapy, despite a 2003 report in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry which called his techniques “something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals.”

The ‘2003 report’ that Tannehill links to, which I have quoted below, is a poorly-written article on Queerty, published in 2009. It discusses how Lynn Conway, a transgender woman and computer chip pioneer, was sent a letter by Zucker’s lawyer accusing her of libel:

“On Jan. 30th, she received a letter from Peter M. Jacobson, a lawyer for Dr. Kenneth Zucker, who is leading the revisions to the DSM-V, the standard text used by clinicians and psychologists to determine mental disorders. Zucker is accusing her of using libelous language in one of her web posts. The only problem? There’s nothing libelous on the site. Why is Dr. Kenneth Zucker trying to silence Lynn? And more importantly, why is he determined to make sure the psychiatric code book keeps saying that gender identity is a mental disease?” “[Zucker] was last year appointed to the DSM-V working group to help craft its sections on gender identity.” The head of the child and adolescent gender identity clinic at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, has made a career promising the parents of intersexed and transgender children that he can make them “normal”. His method, called reparative therapy, in which children are pushed into assigned gender roles and discouraged from behaving or dressing in a way that’s counter to their ‘assigned’ sex, was once standard practice, but in recent years, has been increasingly scrutinized. A 2003 report in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry called his techniques “something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals,” and author Phyllis Burke has questioned the idea that transgendered children should be treated as mentally ill, saying, “The diagnosis of GID in children, as supported by Zucker and [his colleague J. Michael Bailey] Bradley, is simply child abuse.”” “And yet Zucker is not some fringe lunatic. In fact, he was last year appointed to the DSM-V working group to help craft its sections on gender identity, where he intends to use his position to further the idea that trans children can be shoe-horned into gender identities. The APA, responding to criticisms by LGBT activists, point out that Zucker does not advocate reparative therapy for teens and adults, not for gays and lesbians at any age, but only for the trans community. He is Public Enemy Number One to trangenders, who maintain that Zucker’s views that trans people are mentally ill are not just based on bad science, but harmful. In January, Conway posted a link to a story on the website of the Organisation Intersex International (OII) which stated that the organization had been told by an individual that Zucker had sexually abused a child and that it had passed along that information to authorities. Days later, Conway received a letter from Zucker’s lawyer:”

This ‘2003 report’ in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’ isn’t sourced in the article. So, I went hunting for it. As you do.

The 2003 ‘report’ is actually a letter to the editor, written by Simon D. Pickstone-Taylor, MD, of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, at University of California San Francisco. This is the context of Tannehill’s ‘Zucker advocates for reparative therapy’ quote:

“A small section of the 10-year review deals with treatment. What Bradley and Zucker (1997) suggest for treatment is something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals. Parents are encouraged to discourage cross-gender behavior and stimulate same-sex identification (be this getting fathers to throw footballs at their effeminate sons, or mothers to arrange playdates with girls in frilly dresses for their tomboy daughters). At best, all these forms of therapy are done with the underlying paternalistic hope that these children need to be saved from hurt that will result from their displaying cross-gender behavior in a prejudiced society”

It’s also not mentioned that Pickstone-Taylor argues against Tannehill’s insistence that desistance is a ‘myth’. That might undermine Tannehill, which is why I suspect the letter, which unlike a lot of letters to the editor in academic journals, is freely available, was linked third hand through the article in Queerty.

“Six North American follow-up studies of 99 boys with GID being treated with traditional therapies showed 6% had a transsexual outcome (Zucker and Bradley, 1995). Not only do the traditional therapies do a poor job of treating comorbid psychopathology and not decrease the proportion of children becoming homosexual, but also they seem to do nothing to decrease, and in fact might encourage, a 6% transsexual outcome.”

I thought desistance was a myth? Why would Brynn Tannehill pick and choose their quotes, and not link to an actual copy of the report?

“That Rosenberg’s patients lost their wish to be the opposite sex also makes Smith and colleagues’ (2001) suggestion that sexual reassignment be done earlier (in adolescence) seem a disturbing and inappropriate treatment. These adolescents might lose their comorbid psychopathology and wish to be the opposite sex, if treated by the sort of therapy Rosenberg practices”

Perhaps that’s why Tannehill links to a poorly written Queerty article, instead of the easily accessible citation link on ScienceDirect? You know, that proposal not to castrate children? Well, it might also be because Zucker and Bradley wrote a reply to Pickstone-Taylor.

“Dr. Pickstone-Taylor expresses delight in the putatively “progressive” approaches of both Rosenberg and Menvielle and Tuerk to the treatment of children with gender identity disorder (GID). In contrast, he characterizes us and unnamed others who have published in this Journal, in an ad hominem manner as “homophobic” in our approach to children with GID. We were surprised that he did not accuse us of being “transphobic” as well. For clinicians and researchers in the field of psychosexual differentiation and its disorders, there is always one constant: things are never dull”

In fact, they respond most emphatically to the allegations of homophobia:

“Since the mid-1970s, we have conducted empirical research in the areas of assessment and diagnosis, associated psychopathology, and etiology (e.g., Cohen-Kettenis et al., in press; Zucker et al., 2002). In our 10-year review that Dr. Pickstone-Taylor critiques so harshly, we intentionally did not say much about treatment because systematic research on it is sorely lacking; however, we have summarized our interpretation of the extant literature in more detail elsewhere (e.g., Zucker, 2001) and we encourage the interested reader to consult these sources and then to read the original articles on which the reviews were based (see also Meyer-Bahlburg, 2002). In none of our publications have we ever endorsed prevention of homosexuality as a therapeutic goal in the treatment of children with GID, although we note that this might have been a goal of some therapists and also of some parents. We have simply pointed out that there is no empirical evidence at present that the extant treatment approaches are related to whether or not a child with GID later on differentiates a homosexual or heterosexual sexual orientation”

Zucker and Bradley then go on to outline their disagreement with Pickstone-Taylor:

“Our primary disagreement with the position that Dr. Pickstone-Taylor articulates, as well as that of Rosenberg and Menvielle and Tuerk, is that it is both conceptually and clinically simplistic. Dr. Pickstone-Taylor, for example, intimates that the sole cause of GID is “instinctual” and that the pervasive crossgender behavior of children with GID simply reflects their “true predilections or interests.” Along similar lines, Rosenberg makes reference to the GID child’s “essential nature.” In our view, this is nothing more than simple-minded biological reductionism. Curiously, Dr. Pickstone-Taylor fails to identify any empirical studies that support his instinctual hypothesis. We find this deeply ironic because some of our own research has attempted to identify possible biological correlates of GID (e.g., Zucker et al., 1997, 2001). Where we depart company from Dr. Pickstone-Taylor is that we conceptualize GID as multifactorial in its origin, which necessitates that one must go beyond biology in identifying additional factors that are part of the causal pathway. Apart from Dr. Pickstone-Taylor’s naive endorsement of biological essentialism, the reader hears little about other factors that might be useful in thinking about predisposing and perpetuating factors that might inform a clinical formulation and the development of a therapeutic plan: the role of temperament, parental reinforcement of cross-gender behavior during the sensitive period of gender identity formation, family dynamics, parental psychopathology, peer relationships, and the multiple meanings that might underlie the child’s fantasy of becoming a member of the opposite sex. All of this requires an appreciation of the complexity of development”

Zucker and Bradley even note that most children with childhood gender identity disorder grow up homosexual:

“At the present time, the empirical returns about natural history suggest the following: (1) The majority of children with GID desist in the desire to change sex as they move into adolescence and young adulthood, but a small minority persist (e.g., Cohen-Kettenis, 2001), and the factors that account for this variability remain poorly understood. (2) Among adolescents, GID appears to be more stable and, contra Pickstone-Taylor, hormonal and surgical sex-reassignment may well provide the best therapeutic approach to relieve suffering in carefully selected patients, better than any known psychological intervention. In this regard, then, the important empirical studies by Cohen-Kettenis and colleagues (e.g., Cohen-Kettenis and van Goozen, 1997; Smith et al., 2001, 2002) deserve close scrutiny. (3) The majority of children with GID develop a later homosexual sexual orientation and a minority develop a heterosexual sexual orientation, both without co-occurring gender dysphoria, but the factors that account for this variability remain poorly understood. (4) Finally, little has been published that documents the long-term psychological functioning of these children in general.”

I find it unsurprising that no one seems very willing to actually link to the 2003 report, given Zucker’s reply. Instead, Tannehill is quite happy to misrepresent him and the contents of the ‘2003 report’ he cites.

As for the source of this quote?

“Twenty years ago, though, Zucker was also pushing hard for reparative therapy of potentially gay children who were too effeminate, in order to prevent them from growing up to be gay. In 1990, Zucker wrote: “Two short term goals have been discussed in the literature: the reduction or elimination of social ostracism and conflict, and the alleviation of underlying or associated psychopathology. Longer term goals have focused on the prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality.”

Now, to me, this clearly looks to be completely out of context. Of course, instead of just saying that, and feeling smug about it, I went hunting for the context. It’s sourced from a 1990 academic article in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.

Here is the full context:

“In part, this issue will be conceptualized within the therapist’s own theoretical framework, but will also be a function of parental concerns and, to some extent, the concerns of the child. Two short term goals have been discussed in the literature: the reduction or elimination of social ostracism and conflict and the alleviation of underlying or associated psychopathology. Longer term goals have focused on the prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality. In the clinical literature, there has been little disagreement about the advisability of preventing gender dysphoria in adolescence or adulthood. Contemporary and secular-minded clinicians are, however, much more sensitive to the importance of helping people integrate a homosexual orientation into their sense of identity (3,4). Not surprisingly, however, the development of a heterosexual orientation is probably preferred by most parents of children with GIOe. It is important, therefore, that clinicians point out that, as of yet, there is no strong evidence either way as to the effectiveness of treatment on later sexual orientation. Both authors, as well as other experienced clinicians in the field, have preferred to emphasize the merit of reducing childhood gender identity conflict per se and to orient the parents to the short term goals of intervention.”

This is in the introduction: the paper is a literature review. That’s not ‘pushing hard for reparative therapy’. The paper itself is quite interesting, commenting on the fact that many patients that Zucker and Bradley had dealt with saw transsexualism as a cure for homosexuality:

“About 25 % of our adolescent sample presented with a request for sex reassignment or with severe gender identity confusion. As with some adult transsexuals, the wish for sex August, reassignment seems to serve as a way of “normalizing” unacceptable homosexual feelings. With supportive therapy, some of these individuals will accept themselves as homosexual and relinquish the cross-sex wish. Others will decide that no matter why they feel the way that they do (that is, no matter how much “insight” they may have), being able to “be” who they feel they are internally is the only way that they can live comfortably. Most adolescents who present with the request for sex reassignment have had a history of early cross-gender behaviour and the majority would have met DSM-III-R (1) criteria for GIDC. As noted earlier, these youngsters have rarely been seen for therapy in childhood and their parents have hardly ever attempted to limit their cross-gender behaviour. These youngsters often are psychosocially impaired and suicidal ideation and/or attempts are common (24). Supportive therapy can help reduce psychosocial impairment and help the patient develop a more realistic understanding of what hormonal and surgical sex reassignment can achieve. Referral to adult gender identity clinics is usually appropriate between the ages of 16 and 18.”

In fact, there is probably a reason Tannehill quoted Zucker and Bradley completed out of context and didn’t actually cite what Zucker wrote in 1990, because here is their ‘treatment recommendation’ for homosexuals:

“ About 25 % of the adolescent patients in our sample were referred because they experienced their sexual orientation as ego-alien or because significant others were distressed by it. As has been found in retrospective studies of adults, the majority of our adolescent homosexual sample has a significant clinical history of cross-gender behaviour (24). Some male adolescents who experience homosexual attractions have, however, had little earlier cross-gender behaviour except for avoidance of rough-and-tumble activities and involvement in competitive sports. Nevertheless, they feel somewhat estranged and different from their adolescent samesex peers. If involved in homosexual experiences, some of these youngsters become quite confused and distressed about their sexual orientation. Anxious and obsessive adolescents may be particularly prone to overinterpret the significance of these experiences. Assessment of this subgroup involves exploration of the extent of their earlier cross-gender history and their present and past erotic experiences in both fantasy and behaviour. As has been found with adults, it is highly unlikely that an adolescent who presents with a primary homosexual erotic orientation will show a substantive shift in a heterosexual direction, even if the individual is motivated to do so. Accordingly, therapy should be primarily supportive in helping the youngster develop a gay-positive identity and to help the family accept their adolescent’s sexual orientation. For adolescents who are uncomfortable with homoerotic feelings or who have had extensive bisexual experiences or fantasies, therapy can prove useful in helping the youngster understand the meaning of his or her feelings of attraction to same-sex individuals, some of which may be motivated more by the desire for closeness than for pure erotic purposes. For some adolescents, supportive therapy can help them explore their most comfortable sexual orientation. The approach described by Masters and Johnson (71) with homosexual adults may be used with adolescents wishing to explore the possibility of a heterosexual adaptation.”

That’s not exactly ‘pushing for reparative therapy’. It’s literally ‘reparative therapy doesn’t work, even with a motivated patient’. This misquote is repeated on both Zucker and Bradley’s Wikipedia pages, and in other media, such as this article in LGBTQNation.com.

It was also written in 1990: when conversion therapy was perfectly legal, lesbians and gays had no civil rights protections (and still do not have full civil rights protections), and during some of the darkest depths of the AIDS crisis — a very different, and much darker time for homosexuals, with little wide-spread societal acceptance.

Tannehill then goes on to quote Zucker again,

“ He felt that this was for the best, because, “a homosexual lifestyle in a basically unaccepting culture simply creates unnecessary social difficulties.””

But this isn’t in the 1990 literature review. It’s in a book Zucker wrote with Bradley in 1995. Or Tannehill says it is: a Guardian article on Zucker’s appearance in an article on transgender children says that he wrote that comment in 1990. It’s been repeated in more than a few outlets. So, I went back to the 1990 literature review, and that phrase wasn’t there. I decided to look at Zucker’s 1995 book that he wrote with Bradley, Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents.

In the book this is what is said on ‘treating’ the homosexual adolescent:

“Treatment should focus on development of a positive gay identity; support with respect to acculturating into the gay community; and help for parents, who may be quite distressed at the loss of their dreams for their children and the hazards they believe the adolescents will confront as gay or lesbian persons”

In fact, I hunted high and low for Tannehill’s quote in the book. It turns out his citation is wrong — it isn’t in the 1995 book. It was rather frustrating. I couldn’t even find a result in the book for ‘unaccepting’. This is using Google Books — which did display sections of the book outside the preview in ‘snippet view’. If this quote is real: it is almost certain taken completely out of context, as it isn’t in line with Zucker’s work. I still tried looking though — surely Tannehill wouldn’t make something up. I eventually found another copy of the quote in a book called Sissies and Tomboys, which cited another paper by Zucker written in 1990, a paper which was cited in the book Tannehill linked. That paper is entitled “Treatment of gender identity disorders in children.” It is also out of print and unavailable online. That only evidence of it is those citations. I do sincerely believe that sentence is taken completely out of context — if only because Tannehill has done that with Zucker’s work already in ‘The End Of The Desistance Myth’. If you’d like to prove me wrong and can provide me with a copy of the article, go ahead.

That Tannehill doesn’t link to a citation, but an Amazon link of the book doesn’t help. As it stands, the quote isn’t unreasonable — being homosexual in an unaccepting culture does create unnecessary social difficulties, but Tannehill fails to quote the section where Zucker believes ‘this is for the best’ — in fact the book they link says quite the opposite.

Tannehill goes on to celebrate Zucker being fired over the December 2015 report into his clinic. This report contained numerous inaccuracies, and Zucker has recently won a settlement against his former employer for defamation and wrongful dismissal, the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, due to the false allegations:

“The Toronto-based centre said the report wrongly stated that Zucker referred to a patient as “hairy little vermin,” among other errors. It noted the report was made public without Zucker’s review or comment. “CAMH apologizes without reservation to Dr. Zucker for the flaws in the process that led to errors in the report not being discovered and has entered into a settlement with Dr. Zucker that includes a financial payment to him,” the statement said.” According to the settlement documents, the centre will pay him $586,000 in damages, legal fees and interest. The review, which was completed in 2015, was sparked by criticism that the clinic was practising conversion therapy on transgender young people. The independent reviewers said in their report that they were unable to ascertain whether the clinic was in fact practising reparative therapy, but that the clinic focused on intensive assessment and treatment, while current practice favours watchful waiting, and educating and supporting parents to accept a child’s gender expression.

Tannehill then launches into actual defamation:

“But, the most outrageous piece of information coming out of CAMH was Dr. Zucker’s claims that gender dysphoria desisted in 80 percent of cases. However, when investigators reviewed the files of children admitted to CAHM, 42 percent of them never met the clinical criteria for juvenile gender dysphoria in the first place. In short, half of the kids Dr. Zucker claimed to “cure” were never transgender in the first place. He built his reputation convincing homophobic and transphobic parents that he could fix their kids. When someone actually got around to listening to the transgender community and pulled back the curtain, they found that the 80 percent desistance narrative was a fabrication of an attention seeking, creepy, reparative therapy promoting, snake-oil salesman.”

Having read quite a bit of Zucker’s work at this point (or at least his journal articles), I do believe this is a fundamental mischaracterization. Tannehill then outright lies: transgender children do show health effects, and I do think ‘sterility’ is a negative health outcome, no?

“Dr. Keo-Meier is supported by a wave of new research showing that affirming therapy does not result in the parade of horribles alleged by the concern trolls. Gender variant youth know who they are just as much as the general population. Transgender youth who are receive affirming care have better health outcomes. Transgender youth on puberty delaying medication showed no health effects, and mental health outcomes as good as their cisgender peers.”

Tannehill is full of shit, folks:

“The desistance myth was promoted by reparative therapists, concern trolls and charlatans, while being no better than a percentage pulled out of a hat to begin with. It’s time for the 80 percent desistance figure to be relegated to the same junk science bin as the utterly discredited link between vaccines and autism. And maybe people should start listening to the transgender community when we say something is going horribly, horribly wrong inside medical institutions with power over us“

After I finished debunking everything this article, I went and got myself a nice glass of wine, and then kept going. Because Tannehill’s ‘desistance myth’ article and the quote from Zucker was used repeatedly — in the aforementioned Guardian article, Tannehill’s book Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Trans (But Were Afraid To Ask) and in multiple other outlets.

Tannehill’s histrionic coverage of the issue includes warning about the ‘Fifth Column’ in trans healthcare. No, really. It again accuses Zucker, falsely, of supporting reparative therapy for homosexuals, when even in the earliest works of his he cautions against it and mischaracterizes him completely. Supposedly, Zucker is the ‘fifth column’ in transgender healthcare.

You may not agree with Zucker — I certainly don’t agree with him on everything. But this fundamental mischaracterization of his work is pervasive in trans activist media, and it often crosses a line into defamatory territory. It is utterly appalling. Tackle the man’s science on its own merits — don’t quote him out of context, misquote him, and then slander him. Because doing that shows me, and everyone else only one thing: that you can’t tackle his science on its own merits. Maybe that ‘desistance myth’ isn’t a myth, and you, Brynn Tannehill, are projecting — because transitioning ‘transgender children’ is conversion therapy on potentially homosexual young people.

CONVERSION THERAPY, RE-BRANDED.

The concept of homosexuality as due to an unfathomable force in nature, compelling one to fruitless acts for which nature is responsible and not man, is a creation of the homosexual mind. It IS a parataxis of defense which enables the homosexual to hang onto his homosexuality and feel perfectly satisfied with his condition, and thus be spared the painful effort involved in a complete transformation of his whole life. From the empirical scientific point of view, as we shall see. the major factors m the occurrence of homosexuality are psychic in their nature rather than organic From the philosophical and biological point of view any displacement of the sexual drive which renders impossible the attainments of the essential end of the sexual function must by its very nature be abnormal Homosexuality and its fruitless acts must therefore be a pathological condition, whether the underlying pathology is of a psychic or an organic character.

[…]

“In a large majority of the cases the tendencies to homosexuality as shown by attitude and behavior can be observed in early childhood. Much of this may be constitutional but there are many other determinants. For instance, the attitude of parents toward the sex of an expected child may be an indication of the influence which they will exert on that child. If a girl is wanted and a boy arrives the child may be treated as though he were a girl. The child senses the wishes of the parents even though nothing is His habitual conduct is likely to be that which elicits greatest praise or distinction. To the extent that his interests, attitude and behavior are out of harmony with his actual sex he is likely to meet with circumstances which will accentuate his deviation”

“MOORE, T. V. (1945). THE PATHOGENESIS AND TREATMENT OF HOMOSEXUAL DISORDERS: A DIGEST OF SOME PERTINENT EVIDENCE. Journal of Personality, 14(1), 47–83”

In seeing these individuals with severe homosexual problems, an active form of psychoanalytically-oriented psychotherapy was employed, and one of the main therapeutic goals was to help the patient overcome his fear of heterosexual relations and, through improved sex-love relations with members of the other sex, to minimize his homosexual interests and activities. The therapeutic goal was not that of inducing the patient to forego all homosexual interests because, as the writer has pointed out previously (5, 6), that would be unrealistic. The neurotic element in homosexuality is not the homosexual activity or desire itself, since man is biologically a bisexual or plurisexual animal who, to some degree, may be considered rare or abnormal if he has absolutely no homoerotic desires or participations during his entire lifetime. The abnormality in homosexuality consists of the exclusiveness, the fear, the fetishistic fixation, or the obsessive-compulsiveness which is so often its concomitant. The aim of psychotherapy, therefore, should be to remove these elements: to free the confirmed homosexual of his underlying fear of or antagonism toward heterosexual relations, and to enable him to have satisfying sex-love involvements with members of the other sex

— “The Effectiveness of Psychotherapy with Individuals Who Have Severe Homosexual Problems, Albert Ellis, New York, 1956, Journal Of Consulting Psychology,”

“There ‘has been a recent increase of interest in the possibility of treating several types of abnormal behaviour by procedures derived from the experimental psychology of learning(2, 12). Sexual aberrations represent one such type, and several re- ports, reviewed by Rachman( 10), have appeared of attempts to treat them by behavior therapy, as it is usually termed. In the case of homosexuality the method has been to induce an aversion to previously attractive males; usually a complementary attempt to increase the attraction to females is also made. Only one large series (67 cases in all) has been reported(4). He attempted to associate the vomiting induced by apomorphine with photographs of males; in addition his patients were given injections of testosterone propionate, and several hours later shown photographs of females.”

[…]

Classical conditioning is not the only procedure for inducing the response of avoiding previously attractive stimuli. A survey of the literature by Solomon and Brush( 11) showed that a technique known as anticipatory avoidance learning was the most satisfactory of the 8 techniques on which experimental evidence was available; particularly with respect to resistance to relapse. It is this last point which is, of course, of great importance clinically. In view of the evidence it was decided to design a technique which would enable the clinical application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexual patients. We intend to carry out a large scale trial based on at least 30 to 40 patients, the patients to be described and the results evaluated as objectively as possible. Should the results appear reasonably satisfactory, we shall utilise the knowledge gained in treating the initial series in carrying out a fully controlled trial. To date, one dozen homosexual patients have received treatment. We present below an outline of the technique, and clinical data on the first patient on whom it was tried, and for whom a 9- month follow-up is available.” “THE LEARNING SITUATION A photograph of a male, attractive to the patient, is presented to him and the patient is able to continue to look at this, or remove it as he wishes. If he has not removed it within 8 seconds he receives an electric shock at an intensity previously determined as very unpleasant for him, until he does remove the photograph. The moment he does so the shock ceases. Almost always the patient eventually learns to anticipate the coming shock by removing the photograph before the 8 seconds is up. Hence, he is rewarded for doing so by not being shocked. The male stimulus is a signal that something unpleasant is about to happen. Anxiety is evoked by this, and is reduced by removing the picture and hence avoiding the shock. It is hoped that the behaviour which reduced the anxiety will be ‘stamped in,’ and that a habit of not gazing at, or thinking about, male partners, both essential preludes of homosexual activity, will be set up. It is important to note that the patient is an active participant in the situation, and is not the passive recipient of stimuli, as in the classical conditioning situation.”

[…]

“The number of sessions required before a change of sexual interest either occurs or fails to occur, varies between patients, but averages about 20 sessions. Each session lasts about 20 minutes with about 30 stimulus presentations per session. As we learn more about the technique we expect the number of sessions required will fall.”

— “A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO THE TREATMENT OF HOMOSEXUALITY BY CONDITIONED AVERSION: PRELIMINARY REPORT M. P. FELDMAN, PH.D., M. J. MAcCULLOCH, M.B., American Journal of Psychiatry, 1964”

“Phase I The client was put into a relaxed state and instructed to recall and visualize a recent, very pleasurable sexual experience with another male and to narrate this encounter to the therapist. At various points in the narration, phials of dilute ammonium sulfide (odor of rotten eggs) and butyric acid (dirty athletic socks or underwear) and conventional “smelling salts” (aromatic ammonia) were held a few inches beneath the patient’s nose and he was instructed to sniff, at the same time continuing his visualizing and narration. The noxious substance was then removed after an average exposure of 12 sec, and the client was instructed to “think of nothing” or to visualize the therapist’s words of relaxation for 30–40 sec. He was then told to resume his narration, and the procedure was repeated.” “After this conditioning session, which lasted less than 15 min, and during which the noxious aromas were introduced a total of seven times, the patient reported that he was surprised to realize that for the five days immediately following he did not experience any urge to look for a male sexual partner. The first time he did look at a male with sexual interest (sixth day following treatment) he began to re-experience some of the choking sensations he had felt as a result of the ammonia vapours and subsequently he lost his incipient desire.” “After six sessions of marital counseling, the marriage had improved substantially but the patient’s homosexual behavior remained about the same. The olfactory aversion therapy procedure was then resumed. (The reason for the delaying its resumption was that the patient was not willing to give up his homosexual activities irrevocably until he was certain he would still have a wife to turn to.) A baseline record of all homosexually-oriented behavior was taken for a period of 2 weeks. In spite of the fact that the patient was trying diligently to “be good”, he reported 11 occasions during the first week on which he had caught himself looking at males with sexual interest, thinking about going out looking, or becoming excited about the thought of looking for a male partner. During the second baseline week there were 16 such occurrences, including two instances of actually finding a partner and engaging in homosexual activities” “The following week, the patient reported that on one occasion he had the car at his disposal and nothing to do while his wife was out of town. He had become quite excited about the prospect of being able to look for males, whereupon he inhaled from an ammonia capsule he had with him. The excitement dissipated immediately, and he drove directly home and had a very productive day of studying.”

— “OLFACTORY AVERSION THERAPY FOR HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR CHARLES E. COLSON* Illinois State University, J. Behav Ther & Exp. Psychlat. Vol 3, pp. 185–187. Pergamon Pless, 1972. Printed in Great Britain”

“The major causal theories of and treatment approaches to male and female homosexuality are critically reviewed. Neither biological, psychoanalytic, nor learning and social-learning theories are found to provide convincing evidence for the etiology of homosexuality. All of these accounts, however, are viewed as providing mixed empirical support for their predictions, with social-learning research presenting the most consistent evidence. It is argued that both social learning research findings and results from retrospective studies suggest that homosexuality may best be linked to the early qualitative learning and development of one’s gender identity and gender role. Both psychoanalytic therapy and behavior therapy are found to have minimal successes and many failures. Most therapeutic successes seem to be with bisexuals rather than with exclusive homosexuals. The combined use of psychotherapy and specific behavioral techniques is seen to offer some promise for heterosexual adaptation with certain kinds of patients. However, it is argued that better prospects for intervention in homosexuality lie in its prevention through the early identification and treatment of the potential homosexual child.”

[…]

“From the implications of both retrospective findings (e.go, Bieber et aL, 1962; Evans, 1969; Bene, 1965a,b) and social-learning experimental findings (Bandura and Waiters, 1963; Mischel, 1970), it would seem that the best intervention in homosexuality would be at level of the potentially homosexual child. As discussed earlier, disturbed parental relationships and parental-child relationships, together with inadequate or inappropriate patterns of social reinforcement, seem to contribute greatly to the childhood development of inappropriate or inferior sex-typed behaviors and attitudes and to later adult homosexuality” […] “Green and his colleagues (Green, 1969b; Green and Money, 1966; Stoller, 1969) have initiated some promising longitudinal studies in their psychological treatment of boys who manifest cross-gender identifications in their childhood years. These investigators have thus far found that the boys’ marked effeminate behaviors are like those which adult male transsexuals state they had as children. Interestingly, these effeminate behaviors include those identified by Zuger (1966) in his prehomosexual group of boys. Stoller (1969) has further argued that unique patterns of parental-child relationships and disturbed parental relationships appear to be specific for the development of transsexualism. As Green (1969b) and Stoller (1969) have both maintained, long-term follow-up studies are needed to determine exactly what childhood cross-gender behaviors are precursors of what adult behaviors and attitudes, e.g., transsexual, homosexual, or heterosexual. In addition, long-term studies which include both treatment and nontreatment control groups of boys would help to indicate if early treatment can lead to long-lasting changes in boys with marked effeminate behaviors and cross-gender identifications” “Clearly, more refined and representative longitudinal studies which identify childhood factors of homosexuality and trace the development of target children through adolescence and adulthood need to be conducted. This is a challenge that must be met before any definitive understanding of the homosexual’s development and possible treatment can be achieved.”

— Acosta, F. X. (1975). Etiology and treatment of homosexuality: A review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 4(1), 9–29

“ One reason for early treatment is that an eventual delay or arrest in emotional, social or intellectual development can be warded off more successfully when the ultimate cause of this arrest has been taken care of. Suffering from gender dysphoria without being able to present socially in the desired social role, and/or to stop the development of secondary sex characteristics usually leads to problems in these areas. Adolescents find it hard to live with a secret. Often have difficulties in connecting socially and romantically with peers while still in the undesired gender role, or the physical developments create an anxiety that limits their capacities to concentrate on other issues.””

— “Clinical management of gender identity disorder in adolescents: a protocol on psychological and paediatric endocrinology aspects”, European Journal of Endocrinology ,Henriette A Delemarre-van de Waal 1 and Peggy T Cohen-Kettenis 1