The Echo Chamber: How affirm-only clinicians emotionally blackmail parents, influence US government policy & hinder debate about gender medicine

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

UPDATE: Here is 4thWaveNow founder Denise Caignon’s speech at the Genspect: Bigger Picture conference in Denver, Colorado November 4, 2023.

Please click the link below to view a PDF of the slide presentation Denise presented during her speech at Genspect’s The Bigger Picture conference in Denver, Colorado, November 4, 2023.

Denise only had time to present a subset of the slides you’ll see in the PDF, so even if you attended the conference, there is more content here than you saw there.

Please note that the slides are rich with clickable links to public content, including videos, Twitter threads, and more. Simply hover over text and/or images to view.

Genspect 4thWaveNow slide presentation November 2023. Click to view PDF

 

4thWaveNow and Transgender Trend meet in Denver

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

The first weekend of November 2023, 4thWaveNow and Transgender Trend founders Denise and Stephanie met in person for the first time at the Genspect:The Bigger Picture conference.

Though they’ve been in touch since 2015, Stephanie and Denise had a lot more to say when they finally got to spend time together in the mile-high city. They talked politics, gender and–best of all–cemented their relationship as friends and colleagues as they hiked the Rockies and talked nonstop.

Since a video is worth way more than 1000 words, we’ll let you see what they had to say in this interview recorded when they were together at the Denver conference.

Federal government embraces affirmative care: 4thWaveNow founder discusses in first public appearance

Featured

Posted on by
4

Seven years on, 4thWaveNow founder Denise (also known as Marie) made her first public appearance in a conversation with YouTuber/podcaster Benjamin Boyce on April 9, 2022. The lively interview is available on YouTube (full video) as well as Spotify.

The central theme of the “calmversation” was the US federal government’s embrace of “affirmative” care for gender dysphoric minors–whether their parents are onboard or not.

Denise and Benjamin also talked at length about the organizations currently engaged in promoting gender-identity instruction in US schools, a practice that has been in place for many years. In addition, they touched on some rather controversial topics, including the choice of some “affirming” parents to purchase fake penises (“packers”) and tucking underwear for their small children.

The day after her chat with Boyce, Denise added some more detail and clarifications about the topics they discussed. You can find them in this Twitter thread, also compiled here.

TMI: Genderqueer 11-year-olds can’t handle too much info about sterilizing treatments–but do get on with those treatments

Posted on by
23

On April 7, 2021, the UC San Francisco Child and Adolescent Gender Center offered a Zoom “training” entitled “Fertility Issues for Transgender and Nonbinary Youth.” Advertised widely on Facebook, the session was led by well-known gender therapist Diane Ehrensaft and a colleague, and was attended by over 100 people via Zoom. A recording of the session was provided to 4thWaveNow by an attendee. This article will draw on a few excerpts from the session, available for viewing here and here.

There’s a lot to unpack in the nearly two-hour long session, and we hope to address it more fully in future writings. For now, this piece will focus on one key theme explored in the session:

Future reproduction is pretty much foreclosed as a possibility for children who have been puberty-blocked and who subsequently continue on (as nearly all do) to cross sex hormones, but the “benefits outweigh risks” to move the child from, as Ehrensaft puts it, “gender dysphoria to gender euphoria.”

The fertility-wrecking aspect of the blockers>cross-sex hormones regimen isn’t new ground for those of us who’ve been closely following the accelerating trajectory of pediatric transition in the last few years. Indeed, gender clinicians themselves have known and talked about it for years. The issue is that biological reproduction depends on full maturation of gametes (sperm and ova), and gamete maturation depends upon a person completing their natal puberty.

But what may be new to our readers is that Ehrensaft–a developmental psychologist by training– herself recognizes a concern that child-transition skeptics have repeatedly pointed out: tweens and young teens undergoing these treatments are not developmentally mature enough to comprehend the full magnitude of irreversible sterilization. (Interestingly, she also discussed this three years ago at the 2018 WPATH conference in Buenos Aires.)

Although Ehrensaft (as you might guess) continues to recommend these treatments, in her Zoom presentation, she explains in detail that clinicians, parents, and other adults involved in the child’s care shouldn’t overburden a child with “TMI” –too much information—too many details– about the momentous decision to undergo interventions that result in permanent chemical sterilization.

Now is as good a time as any to dispense (again) with a typical reaction expressed when anyone talks about fertility and trans kids. Many trans activists routinely pooh-pooh the idea that people should be concerned about the loss of future fertility in medically-transitioned children. “You just think women should be baby machines! Not everyone wants to have babies!” Again we state (as we have previously): The issue is not whether a child should ever want “genetically related” (to use Ehrensaft’s term)  offspring when they reach adulthood. It is that it is a human right to make the decision to reproduce–or not–when one has reached adulthood.  Stated more plainly: Sterilizing children is a human rights violation. Until quite recently, these statements would not have been considered remotely controversial—but here we are.

Before delving further into yesterday’s Zoom session, let’s briefly review some of Ehrensaft’s previous remarks on the sterilization of trans kids.

Regular readers and followers of the 4thWaveNow Twitter account will be aware of Ehrensaft’s now-infamous presentation at a 2016 conference in Santa Cruz, CA, perhaps best known for the segment on barrettes and onesies. Less well known perhaps is her opinion, expressed in the same venue, that parents who might want to protect their children’s foundational human right to decide (yea or nay) about reproduction as adults (as opposed to middle school-age) are wrongly interfering with their children’s “dreams” and only balk because of a selfish desire for “genetically related” grandchildren.

“We have to work with parents on—these aren’t your dreams, we have to focus on your child’s dreams, and what they want.”

It appears Ehrensaft has not changed her views much on this in the last 5 years. In the April 7th 2021 Zoom session, Ehrensaft again appeared to relegate any worries or ethical concerns about sterilizing an 11- or 12-year-old child to nothing more than a self-centered parental desire for grandchildren.  Note that in the slide reproduced here, the 11-year-old “assigned female at birth” identifies as “genderqueer.”

Back in 2016, Ehrensaft waxed enthusiastic that many of the puberty-blocked trans kids she has worked with are mature beyond their years, capable of choosing adoption over biological offspring, just as a thoughtful adult might do after careful deliberation. (Interestingly, Ehrensaft seems to have moderated her opinion on this somewhat. In last week’s session, she cautioned clinicians that such pronouncements could possibly be “almost a reflexive response” from some young clients who just want to obtain blockers or hormones, an “overblown altruism”.)

But Ehrensaft’s key point back in 2016 was that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are directly analogous to fertility-robbing chemotherapy treatments for children with terminal cancer, since both are “life saving” and urgently required interventions. The message is powerful (whether accurate or not) and more than enough to chasten any loving parent: Denying your middle schooler blockers and hormones is tantamount to letting a child with terminal cancer die for lack of treatment.

We have, of course, heard the life-saving claim many times before: that dysphoric tweens require these treatments for survival, despite risks to not only their future fertility, but also potentially to their sexual function. There is no historical evidence for this claim (in fact, child and youth suicide rates have increased since the advent of pediatric medical transition).(A thorough examination of the flaws in the “suicide or transition” orthodoxy would require another 3000-word article, but for those interested, see here, here, and here for some more reading on the subject.)

Now let’s take a closer look at Ehrensaft’s April 7th Zoom presentation.

You may have heard that puberty blockers are supposed to “buy time” for the dysphoric child to decide whether to proceed further with medical intervention. Indeed, that was the original intent when puberty blockers were first prescribed to gender dysphoric children in the Netherlands.  But there’s a reason why the original Amsterdam clinician-researchers were (and still are) cautious about recommending social transition for younger children: Their goal was to prevent those children who might outgrow their gender dysphoria from embarking on lifelong, unnecessary medicalization; to avoid concretizing what is for some a transient gender confusion. The Dutch engaged in lengthy evaluation and recommended blockers for a carefully assessed cohort of their young patients. Even then, the blockers were meant to buy time.

But Ehrensaft and other “affirmative” clinicians have turned the more cautious “watchful waiting” approach on its head in the last decade or so. No longer is a child encouraged to leave the question open as to whether they will become lifelong medical patients; now they are “affirmed,” often as young as toddlerhood; and at the first sign of puberty, in Ehrensaft’s words, they urgently desire blockers to

 “ward off an unwanted puberty that they’ve been thinking and worrying about for years…These kids who have socially transitioned many years prior, they don’t NEED more time to explore their gender. They’ve known from an early age what their authentic gender was…they’ve been living their affirmed gender for many years by the time they reach puberty.”

For these children, blockers (and the cross-sex hormones which nearly inevitably follow provide “continuity of care in gender affirmation and discontinuity in potential capacity to ever create progeny with their own genetic material.”

So common is social transition (in the US at least), Ehrensaft reported on April 7th, that US researchers have found upwards of 90% of kids requesting pubertal blockade have already socially transitioned. The full ramifications of this increase in social transition (encouraged by affirmative therapists like Ehrensaft) have never been explored in a controlled study. It’s interesting that affirmative clinicians readily follow the Dutch protocol for the use of puberty blockers, while utterly dismissing their cautions about early social transitions.

So if children “affirmed” (and therefore socially transitioned) since early childhood are now justifiably candidates for blockers and then cross hormones, what is the responsibility of clinicians and parents in consenting to these interventions, given that (in her words) “blocking puberty takes away options for fertility for most?”

Ehrensaft acknowledges that a child at Tanner stage 2 (that is, the earliest sign of puberty— “as early as 8 or 9 years old”) is not emotionally or psychologically equipped to understand sex or reproduction, beyond much more than a simple, concrete description of sperm + egg. What’s more, she says, asking a child to consider the mechanics of sex and reproduction at this age may actually be psychologically harmful!

“Fertility considerations about blockers followed by hormones brings on the storm before the lull is over”… So we now have a child who could be as young as 8, 9 who has to think about sex, babies, and future roles rather than games and game playing, which is where we situate development at this period…it’s a developmental stretch and it can create emotional stress.”

She calls this “the disruption”– the “developmental disarray” which could result from informing a child still interested in games and make-believe (and though she doesn’t say it, at an age when some may still believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny):

“So we’re needing to acquire the child’s assent for medical interventions and that requires asking a child prematurely to take on sex and drugs but no rock and roll.”

So what to do if you don’t want to stress out the child with TMI when they are at the “just the facts” stage of development — when you “may get a lot of squirminess about sex or around sex”?  Do you talk about how the jaunty boy sperm meets the cute girl ovum (like the slide picture shows) but stay silent on the icky stuff about sex? After all, they’re not ready (and may even be disgusted by) the “rock and roll” older adolescents become intensely interested in with full-on puberty and sexual maturation.

Pretty much, says Ehrensaft. Instead of “giving them more information than they need or can handle,”adults should limit themselves to simplistic explanations about reproduction but not sex.

The question arises: If a child as young as 8 or 9 years old “can’t handle” information about sex, how can they handle deciding whether they are OK with losing the right to reproduce (or not) as an adult, when given “just the facts”?

Ehrensaft buttresses her points by highlighting the developmental framework popularized by the late Erik Erikson (one of the 20th century’s most respected developmental psychologists), which rests on the notion that successful and healthy maturation and adult identity consolidation occurs in stages. She notes that children being asked to decide about their future fertility are “two or three” stages behind the age when they would be better equipped to comprehend the gravity of that choice.

It’s not surprising she would be familiar with the giants in that field; though best known as a gender therapist, Ehrensaft, as mentioned previously, is a PhD developmental psychologist. (It’s much less widely known that in the 1990s, she also had some involvement, as a psychotherapist, in the widely-discredited “satanic ritual abuse” preschool controversy.)

But very unlike Erikson, Ehrensaft’s analyses & recommendations always stem from an untestable confirmation bias: that “gender identity” is a native, fundamental property of the human brain, present from birth (as she said in that 2016 talk, babies “probably know their gender as early as the beginning of the second year of life…they probably know even earlier but they’re really pre-pre verbal”).  In contrast, Erikson’s work made no mention of innate gender. Rather, he emphasized identity development as a long process, involving an essential “crisis” that is often not resolved until one’s 20s. In fact, Erikson posited that a person might not attain healthy adult psychological integration if they did not experience an identity crisis. Another question arises:  Could gender dysphoria, for at least some children and adolescents, be something that needs to be struggled with for successful resolution and maturation, instead of ameliorated (short-circuited?) as Ehrensaft and other affirmative clinicians now do via social transition and hormone blockers?

After warning her audience not to burden tweens with TMI, she rather abruptly notes that

“Those of us who provide this care have been accused of sterilizing children. And what I would say is, we are not sterilizing everybody—[quickly revises] anybody.”

Yet this is precisely what Ehrensaft has told her audience affirming clinicians are doing, just with different words (e.g., “they won’t be able to have a genetically related child”): These treatments WILL permanently take the choice to reproduce away from a child who has been puberty-blocked and then moves to cross-sex hormones. A dictionary definition for that is sterilization.

Not missing a beat, she continues:

“I would encourage us to hold this in mind: That when people—when adults—confront medical infertility it is a very very difficult road and there are certainly and people may go through some really hard times but there’s not a high suicidality rate for infertile people facing medical infertility. But we do know there are alarmingly high rates of self harm and suicidality and suicidal thoughts among both adults and youth who experience extreme gender dysphoria. And I will say that one of the things I’ve read recently while reading a research study it struck me one youth talking about fertility preservation. I have to decide between saving myself and holding the option of someday having a child…to me it’s a choice between that potential child and my life.”

What research study? Who conducted it? And why would children believe (or be encouraged to believe) they must make a “Sophie’s Choice” between their own lives and that of potential future offspring?

“But as we communicate the fertility information to youth, hold in mind, not many people become suicidal about medical infertility, but many do about gender dysphoria.”

Where are the references for this statement? Where are the studies comparing the “not many” infertile adults who never become suicidal, with adults who were sterilized at the dawn of puberty? Where is the NIH-funded research looking at how chemically sterilized trans kids subsequently feel at 20, 35, 40 and later (much later for males) about having their reproductive choices foreclosed when they were 10 or 12 years old?

To her credit, Ehrensaft does acknowledge there are real ethical issues to ponder here. She even poses the same question many pediatric transition skeptics regularly do:

 “Is a child really able to foresee into the future and foreshorten fertility … And how can a child two or three stages behind Erikson’s stage 7 anticipate what they will feel two or three stages later?”

She provides no answer to her own question; in fact, she simply poses more questions, and says it’s “for us to start [emphasis added] finding out. And we are.”

How can this not be seen as an admission that the entire “affirmative” pediatric-transition enterprise is, in fact, an experiment–with unknown future consequences?

Ehrensaft wraps up this part of the Zoom session with an anecdote she says she heard from another gender clinician, Scott Leibowitz, MD:

“I want to mention one intervention I learned from Scott Leibowitz. Which is, in making these decisions with youth about fertility and their future fertility, once they’ve made the decision, he invites them to write a letter to themselves at age 30, and write their present-age self to their 30-year-old self explaining to them what process they went through to make the decision they did that may have implications for future fertility at age 30 or 25.:

What does Ehrensaft (and Leibowitz, assuming she has represented his views accurately) think this letter-writing exercise will accomplish “after [the child has already] made the decision” that they will never reproduce? Is this meant to serve as an apology of sorts to the regretful adult? That 30-year-old future self, with a 30-year-old brain and all its more nuanced and experience-tempered understanding of the world, its fully developed frontal lobes, will see this letter by his or her child-self and feel — what? Does any 30-year-old look upon the writings or thoughts of their 12-year-old self and see wisdom? They will likely “forgive” their 12-year-old self, but …

Ehrensaft presents this anecdote as if it’s some kind of a solution to the question she posed: How can a child at an early stage of emotional, psychological, and intellectual development make a decision several years before they are equipped to fully comprehend it?

To sum up the 4thWaveNow reaction to the main message imparted in this Zoom “training”: Ehrensaft’s use of (accurate) developmental psychology to justify the impossibility of obtaining informed consent from minors, with only the emotional blackmail of suicidality as a rationale, is nothing short of mind-blowing.

But maybe this is all much ado about nothing. After all, as Ehrensaft’s colleague Jen Hastings, MD told her Zoom audience, maybe none of this will matter in a future when reproductive tech and genetic engineering liberate us from our biological constraints:

“Gametes may soon be irrelevant.”

The complete April 7, 2021 Zoom training can be viewed (in two parts) here and here.

 

Dutch puberty-blocker pioneer:  Stop “blindly adopting our research”

Posted on by
36

by Grace Williams

On February 27, Algemeen Dagblad, the second-most widely read newspaper in the Netherlands, published an astonishing article. Written by Berendien Teteleptal, the author reports that “more research on sex changes in young people under the age of 18 is urgently needed. Doctors who provide transgender care in Nijmegen and Amsterdam say they know too little about the target group and the long-term effects.” (See here for an English translation of the article.)

What makes this article surprising is that it was a Dutch team of researcher-clinicians (one of whom is extensively quoted in the piece) who pioneered the use of puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria; this practice is now widespread in the western world.

VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam

After reading this article, I went back through some of the posts on 4thWaveNow that have mentioned Dutch research. One of the posts dates back to November 2015, not long after Denise, the founder of 4thWaveNow, started blogging, entitled “Skeptical ethicist: ‘A medical doctor is not a candy seller’.”

In the post, Denise describes an article published in June 2015 in the Journal of Adolescent Health. Published by a group of  Dutch gender dysphoria researchers, the authors report on a qualitative survey of 17 gender clinics in 10 Western countries. The survey revealed that quite a few professionals on these teams (pediatric endocrinologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and ethicists) have reservations about early medical treatment. “The article concludes in a way that makes me feel a whisper of hope for the future.”

Several professionals mentioned that participation in the study made them think more explicitly about the various themes, and it encouraged them to discuss the issues in their teams. In the Dutch teams, we therefore introduced moral deliberation sessions to talk about these ethical topics. The first reactions of the professionals were positive; the sessions made them rethink aspects of the protocol.

That the top Dutch researcher-clinicians are now openly discussing their concerns in the mainstream media shows the prescience of Denise’s whisper of hope from almost six years ago. Does their concern stem from these “moral deliberation sessions” they started after the 2015 empirical ethical study? Could another factor be the  recent ruling in the Keira Bell case by the British High Court, limiting the use of puberty blockers in gender-dysphoric children?

Quoted in the aforementioned article by Tetelaptal, Thomas Steensma, one of the lead researcher-clinicians at the Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria in Amsterdam, asks some critical questions that U.S. “affirmative” clinicians largely ignore. Teteleptal writes:

Because what is behind the large increase of children who have suddenly registered for transgender care since 2013? And what is the quality of life for this group long after the sex change? There is no answer to those questions. And that must happen, think Steensma and colleagues from Nijmegen.

“We don’t know whether studies we have done in the past can still be applied to this time. Many more children are registering, and also a different type,” says Steensma. “Suddenly there are many more girls applying who feel like a boy. While the ratio was the same in 2013, now three times as many children who were born as girls register, compared to children who were born as boys.”

Steensma also raises questions about the effect of early medical intervention on future fertility:

It is still unclear whether these administered hormones affect the fertility of boys and girls. “We just don’t know,” says Steensma. “Little research has been done so far on treatment with puberty blockers and hormones in young people. That is why it is also seen as experimental. We are one of the few countries in the world that conducts ongoing research about this. In the United Kingdom, for example, only now, for the first time in all these years, a study of a small group of transgender people has been published. This makes it so difficult, almost all research comes from ourselves.”

Not only does he lament the lack of research, Steensma expresses frustration that some practitioners are applying Dutch research without adequate assessment of their patients:

We conduct structural research in the Netherlands. But the rest of the world is blindly adopting our research. While every doctor or psychologist who engages in transgender health care should feel the obligation to do a proper assessment before and after intervention.

The Dutch have always exercised more caution

The Dutch have always been more careful in their use of interventions like puberty blockers, taking care to conduct thorough assessments before proceeding. Many Dutch clinicians have practiced what has been characterized as “watchful waiting,” in contrast to the affirmation approach promoted by the most prominent gender clinicians in the United States.

It’s worth noting that it’s not just medical transition for which the Dutch have urged a slow and deliberative approach. As reported in this 2016 4thWaveNow post, the Dutch have also advised caution when it comes to social transitioning of young children. In a 2011 journal article, Steensma et al. write:

As for the clinical management in children before the age of 10, we suggest a cautious attitude towards the moment of transitioning. Given our findings that some girls, who were almost (but not entirely) living as boys in the childhood years, experienced great trouble when they wanted to return to the female gender role, we believe that parents and caregivers should fully realize the unpredictability of their child’s psychosexual outcome. They may help the child to handle their gender variance in a supportive way, but without taking social steps long before puberty, which are hard to reverse.

A 2013 study conducted by Steensma et al. found that social transition was one of the factors associated with the persistence of gender dysphoria. “Childhood social transitions were important predictors of persistence, especially among natal boys,” the authors write.

No medical consensus

Recently, at about the same time the article discussing Steensma’s concerns were reported in Algemeen Dagblad, transgender woman Rachel Levine appeared before a US Senate committee in a hearing to confirm Levine as President Biden’s assistant secretary of health. During the hearing, Senator Rand Paul asked Levine this question: “Do you believe that minors are capable of making such a life-changing decision as changing one’s sex?”

To which Levine responded: “Transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field with robust research and standards of care that have been developed, and if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as the assistant secretary of health, I will look forward to working with you and your office and coming to your office and discussing the particulars of the standards of care for transgender medicine.”

Never mind that Levine failed to provide a public, direct answer to the senator’s question; note how differently Levine describes transgender medicine from how Steensma characterizes it. Levine refers to “robust research” and “standards of care.” Meanwhile, Steensma, who conducted the very research on which many US “affirmative” clinicians are basing their treatment protocols, tells a reporter: “Little research has been done so far on treatment with puberty blockers and hormones in young people. That is why it is also seen as experimental.”

If you had heard only Levine’s testimony on this matter, you might be excused for concluding that there is widespread medical consensus for the use of medical interventions in gender dysphoric minors, but you would be wrong. As Dutch researchers noted in the 2015 journal article mentioned above, “in actual practice, no consensus exists whether to use these early medical interventions.” This was true in 2015, and it remains true in 2021.

It would, of course, be going too far to suggest that Steensma no longer believes that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones should ever be used in the treatment of adolescent gender dysphoria. Clearly he believes it’s appropriate in certain cases. In fact that’s the hallmark of the Dutch approach: individual assessment, tailored to each unique case. According to  this article published by the same author on February 28 in de Gelderlander, another Dutch publication,

Steensma does not endorse the judgment of the British court. According to him, there are children who can oversee the consequences. “But that’s an individual process. You can’t compare individuals with one another. We are not saying that hormone treatments are good for everyone. We would also never say that they are not good for anyone. We make the assessment per person.”

Again, though: In contrast to the “Wild West” of pediatric transgender medical care in the United States, where minors can get puberty blockers, hormones, and sometimes even surgery with very little assessment, the Dutch approach has traditionally been considerably more cautious and nuanced. In the de Gelderlander piece Teteleptal writes, “Steensma is perturbed by the method of some clinics and practitioners in America, for example, where puberty blockers seem to be the solution to everything.” ( English translation here.)

 

Steensma is not alone amongst Dutch clinicians. Annelou L.C. de Vries   a psychiatrist with the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Amsterdam University Medical Centers, who, like her colleagues, has published widely on pediatric gender issues for many years. In a commentary published in the October 2020 issue of Pediatrics, de Vries writes:

According to the original Dutch protocol, one of the criteria to start puberty suppression was “a presence of gender dysphoria from early childhood on.” Prospective follow-up studies evaluating these Dutch transgender adolescents showed improved psychological functioning. However, authors of case histories and a parent-report study warrant that gender identity development is diverse, and a new developmental pathway is proposed involving youth with post puberty adolescent-onset transgender histories. These youth did not yet participate in the early evaluation studies. This raises the question whether the positive outcomes of early medical interventions also apply to adolescents who more recently present in overwhelming large numbers for transgender care, including those that come at an older age, possibly without a childhood history of GI [gender incongruence]. It also asks for caution because some case histories illustrate the complexities that may be associated with later-presenting transgender adolescents and describe that some eventually detransition.

Given their stated concerns, we can hope Steensma, de Vries and their colleagues, as well as researchers in other countries, will design studies to explore why there’s been such a dramatic increase in the number of gender-dysphoric adolescents with no history of childhood gender dysphoria, as well as why some of these young people later detransition. Lisa Littman’s 2018 paper based on parental reports is a good first step, but much more research is needed. Social contagion, along with other potential factors such as internalized homophobia, sexual trauma, autism and other neuro-atypical conditions, deserve careful and ongoing investigation by gender-dysphoria researchers.

A birthday campaign for JK Rowling: Balanced media coverage of gender identity issues

Posted on by
12

Did you know that JK Rowling’s and Harry Potter’s birthdays are coming up soon?

Many of us have felt heartened and grateful for JK Rowling’s recent contributions to the discussion around gender ideology. Rowling shares a birthday with her beloved literary progeny – July 31. Harry Potter fans will recall that the boy wizard receives his first Hogwarts’ acceptance letter a week before his 11th birthday. When his Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon refuse to let him see the letter, more and more “letters from no one” begin to arrive, finally inundating his aunt and uncle.

The Hogwarts’ motto is Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus (Never Tickle a Sleeping Dragon), but sometimes sleeping dragons do indeed need to be tickled. We thought we would show our support for Joanne on her birthday by sending “letters from no one” to The Guardian, the BBC, and The New York Times. All we are asking for is constructive dialogue in the mainstream media. Please download the letter, print it three times, and send it to the New York Times, the BBC, and the Guardian in time for it to arrive around July 31. Alternatively, you may copy the text (printed below) and paste it into an email. Or better yet, do both! You may feel free to sign it and give a brief description of yourself, or you may simply send without signing.

Once you’ve printed your letter, please take a picture of it and post the photo on social media using the hashtags #ItsNotHateToWantDebate and #HappyBirthdayJKR. Tag in the journalists and the outlets. And please help spread the word!

Let’s send as many letters to each of these media outlets as Hogwarts sent to Harry at Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia’s house.

Looking forward to seeing you at Hogwarts!

For a downloadable PDF of the letter, click here.

To copy and paste the letter into an email, see the text of the letter below.

 

To the BBC, The Guardian and The New York Times:

We are writing to request that you widen your scope when reporting on gender diversity. A progressive society is characterised by a respect for thoughtful discussion and we hope that journalistic outlets of your stature could explore multiple perspectives on these important questions rather than stifling debate by covering only one side.

In her recent personal essay, J.K. Rowling outlined her concerns that extremist ideology was negatively impacting vulnerable groups. She highlighted several pressing aspects of this issue that have received scant coverage in the liberal media. The international reaction to Rowling’s essay demonstrated both the lack of public awareness about these issues and the urgent need for honest and respectful dialogue.

In Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, Harry begins to receive numerous copies of his Hogwarts’ acceptance letter a week before his birthday on July 31 – which is also Rowling’s birthday. These letters marked a new beginning for the fictional boy wizard. We hope these letters that you are receiving will signal to you that there are many from across the political spectrum who wish to have a good-faith discussion about gender ideology and its impact on women, children, adolescents, and also on lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.

It is our hope that together we can help to usher in a new beginning where we can have important conversations that until now have been substantially ignored by the liberal mainstream media. Given our mutual desire to support gender non-conforming individuals, we believe that it is vitally important for leading media to cover these crucial and under-reported stories.

  • The extraordinary growth in the number of adolescents with gender dysphoria
  • The link between increasingly rigid gendered expectations and gender dysphoria in childhood
  • The social pressures on lesbian, gay and bisexual youth to conform to sex role stereotypes and/or change their bodies
  • The complex issues facing the growing number of detransitioners
  • The potential impact the enshrinement of gender identity has upon sex-based rights, single-sex spaces, and sports for women and girls

 After receiving his letters, Harry travelled to Hogwarts on September 1. We would like to follow up with you in early September to see how we might bring more nuance and depth to the current coverage about gender issues.

Hope to see you at Hogwarts!

#ItsNotHateToWantDebate                #HappyBirthdayJKR

The Guardian
The Guardian
Kings Place
90 York Way
London, N1 9GU,
United Kingdom.

guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Twitter
@guardian

The New York Times
620 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10018
USA

letters@nytimes.com

Twitter
@NYTimes

BBC
BBC Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London, W1A 1AA
United Kingdom

haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk

Twitter
@BBCNews

Celeb trans kids: Will the Gender Fairy bring dreams—or genital surgery nightmares?

Posted on by
11

Fourth in our series featuring Dr. Curtis Crane, phalloplasty surgeon. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is here.

4thWaveNow contributor Worriedmom has practiced civil litigation for many years in federal and state courts.

by Worriedmom

These days, the world (or at least the media) certainly does not seem in short supply of telegenic, winsome, and appealing “transgender children.” One recent example is Jacob LeMay, pictured here, who as a nine-year old prompted Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren to commit to seeking Jacob’s input and guidance on her choice for Secretary of Education.

This wasn’t Jacob’s first time in the spotlight, either. As a transgender five-year-old, Jacob’s story was featured on NBC Nightly News and the Today Show. Because at the age of four, sensitive to what they interpreted as gender distress on his part, Jacob’s parents offered “a number of choices,” one of which was whether to start life anew as a boy.

Jacob’s parents have been generous with their transgender parenting expertise, sharing insights with Harvard’s Graduate School of Education,  Good Morning America, New Hampshire Public Radio, “Here and Now” on Boston’s WBUR, and MSNBC, among others. Jacob’s mother, Mimi, has already written her memoir chronicling the family’s journey.

Some might find the idea of a memoir just a bit premature given that Jacob’s transgender journey is, at this point, only five years in duration, but honestly, you’d have to be a real meanie to object. Jacob is an undeniably cute kid, the entire family is good-looking, relatable, and well-educated, and they certainly seem to care a great deal about Jacob, as well as Jacob’s future well-being.

And while one might envision a series of memoirs, detailing Jacob’s life of fulfillment, it’s also entirely possible that this will be the first and only installment.

Even in the few short years since the “transgender child” became the media’s go-to story, several stars have skyrocketed to prominence, only to disappear. Remember Coy Mathis’ brave fight to use the little girls’ room at age six? No word on Coy’s doings since Coy was featured in a 2016 documentary film, “Growing Up Coy.” Similarly, Willa Naylor, the transgender eight year old and author whose sympathetic story motivated the entire country of Malta to change its laws, has been radio silent since 2016.

Lila Perry, the Missouri high school student whose quest to use the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms triggered a student walk-out, similarly has not been heard from since 2015.  Where do they all go?

It may be that Jacob’s transgender story will, at some point, go dark. We may never know whether Jacob, who like the others has been frequently lauded as “brave” and “inspirational,” will have the happy ending that early childhood transition, we are told, is guaranteed to produce.

Stories are important, but unfinished stories can be deceptive. Before we can confidently predict that Jacob, and peers will live “happily ever after,” we should take a look at another story.

This story received no media attention. There are no soft-focus interviews, picture books, or product tie-ins.

This is the story of M.

The only reason we know about M’s story at all is because M was one of at least nine former patients of Dr. Curtis Crane, late of San Francisco and currently of Austin, Texas, who filed medical malpractice or other personal injury cases against Dr. Crane. M’s case (CGC-17-560690) was, like the others, filed in the civil division of the San Francisco Superior Court under the pseudonym “John Doe.” (Note: Although M was repeatedly “doxxed” in the court records by the attorneys on all sides, we retain his privacy here, as we have no interest in shaming or causing further sadness to M [we use M’s preferred pronouns for the same reason].)

The court file reveals M’s journey to manhood, which, in his own words, entailed “many surgeries.” M’s transition journey is detailed below and all of the information is taken directly from the court file:

  • According to his attestation, M’s efforts to become a man began in late 2003 with a “social transition.” According to medical records, M was born in 1977, which made him 26 years old at the commencement of the transformation process.
  • In 2004, about six months after his social transition, M began treatment with male hormones.
  • In 2005, M received a bilateral mastectomy.
  • In 2006 M received a total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (which meant that M’s uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes and ovaries were all surgically removed).
  • In 2009, M received a metoidioplasty, an operation that uses tissue from the clitoris, which has typically been enlarged from testosterone use, to form a “neo-penis.” This operation was performed by the famous Dr. Miroslav Djordjević of Serbia, which was in the process of becoming an international hub of transgender surgery.

Alas, M’s gender journey was far from over.

  • In 2011, M underwent his first phalloplasty or surgical construction of a penis, with Dr. Toby Meltzer. This operation was not planned to, and did not, include construction of a functioning urethra. (We note that Dr. Meltzer has also been widely panned by at least some of his SRS patients.) The tissue to form the neophallus in the 2011 surgery was apparently taken from M’s back, and left behind a “dog ear.” During the 2011 surgery with Dr. Meltzer, M also received a vaginectomy (surgical removal of the vagina) and a scrotoplasty (construction of an artificial scrotum).

After all of this, M continued to suffer from gender dysphoria. In 2014, M came under the care of Dr. Curtis Crane. The surgical consent form indicates that M was to receive:

The plan for this surgery was to remove the “old” phallus from 2011, and to re-construct a new one, this time with tissue from M’s left forearm (M underwent electrolysis and laser hair removal on the forearm area for six months prior to the surgery to prepare the skin for transplant). The new penis would have a functioning urethra. The lawsuit against Dr. Crane arose because, while M alleged that he repeatedly told Dr. Crane and his staff that he did not need a vaginectomy and a scrotoplasty, those having already been performed by Dr. Meltzer in 2011, M stated that Dr. Crane over-rode his instructions and both cut into the area where M’s vagina had previously been, and damaged and dis-placed M’s scrotum (as discussed more fully below).

The legal papers contain another interesting and tantalizing suggestion that is never developed in the record. Specifically, M alleges that when M complained to Dr. Crane that vaginectomy and scrotoplasty were listed on M’s informed consent document, when those operations were not supposed to be performed, Dr. Crane reassured M that they were listed on the document either as a typo or for billing purposes [emphasis added]. A curious fact, if true.

According to court records, M’s lawsuit against Dr. Crane was dismissed on March 15, 2019. As is customary, there is no indication whether Dr. Crane, or his insurer, paid any damages to M.

Following the 2015 phalloplasty and other procedures with Dr. Crane, incredibly, M required at least three additional surgeries. In April 2016, M underwent a “phallus shortening” procedure, which involved “telescoping entire phallus into suprapubic area.” In November 2017 M went to Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles and received a urethroplasty in a two-stage procedure, to close the neourethra which was placed by Dr. Crane. Then, in March 2018, Dr. Garcia and another surgeon again performed surgery on M, this time to “re-place” the existing penis (which was also displaced), and to re-orient M’s scrotum. In his lawsuit against Dr. Crane, M alleged that during the 2015 surgery, Dr. Crane had “displaced” his scrotum by three centimeters, leaving it immediately adjacent to his anus. Moreover, M claimed, Dr. Crane had moved M’s testicles from their customary “side by side” position and re-placed them one in front of the other.

In March 2019 (following the three post-Crane surgeries), M stated that he still had an abscess in his pelvis where his vagina had been. Moreover,

At this point, words cannot really begin to describe M’s ordeal.

M was forced to take off work from September 2015 through February 2016 (5 months), then returned to work in March of 2016, but had to stop working again in November 2017. It’s unknown whether he ever returned to full-time work (in a court filing dated March 2019, M stated that he had been out of work for “the majority” of the past three years). The filing also stated that, because of the surgeries he had undergone, M had to assume a new job for which he was paid 50% less, and was then living “paycheck to paycheck.”

M alleged that his out of pocket expenses for the September 2015 surgery with Dr. Crane were approximately $6,500, while his out of pocket expenses for the November 2017 surgery with Dr. Garcia were approximately $4,000, and he expected to spend about $4,000 more for the “last” surgery in the spring of 2018.

M’s out of pocket expenses pale in comparison to the price tag for the surgery performed by Dr. Crane, however, which was approved by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care in the amount of $126,508.  Given that fact, the total financial cost of M’s gender journey is no doubt somewhere north of a million; the personal cost is, of course, incalculable. And yet M’s gender dysphoria endures.

So returning to the celebrity trans kids at the beginning of this article: What do you suppose young Jacob, and Jacob’s transgender peers, are hearing about their likely futures? Do you think that, being young children after all, they expect that one day the Gender Fairy will pay a visit? Or do they believe that, as Diane Ehrensaft claims, “God got it wrong,” and someday they will return to the womb and re-emerge as their correct gender? After all, nobody is better at magical thinking than young children, and raising a girl as a boy, or vice-versa, is implicitly, if not explicitly, affirming the child in the belief that one day her wish will come true.

M’s phalloplasty story isn’t suitable bed-time fare, at least not for Jacob. But for Jacob’s parents, and their many peers, perhaps it should be. After all, the Gender Fairy could someday deliver a real-life nightmare.

Benji/gnc_centric: On being kicked off Twitter and Medium

Posted on by
4

by Benji, gnc_centric

 Benji/gnc_centric—in the words of her now-suspended Twitter profile—is a “socially detransitioned dysphoric female,” a “homoSEXUal not homoGENDERal” lesbian.  Benji, a Canadian activist, writer, and YouTuber, writes here about how she was recently suspended from Twitter and subsequently Medium for (she believes) referring to the biological sex of a certain UK trans woman. Benji joins many other women whose voices have been censored by Silicon Valley tech companies. (4thWaveNow is also currently under a Twitter lockdown for similar reasons.)

Despite being silenced on some platforms, Benji is still very much active on the Internet. See the bottom of this article for ways to contact her and to see her work.

 4thWaveNow is pleased to host the below article, originally published in a slightly different form on Benji’s now-suspended Medium account.

Benji wrote another piece for 4thWaveNow earlier this year, about her less-than-supportive experiences in a Toronto trans-teen support group.

We will continue to offer 4thWaveNow as a platform for others who find themselves in a similar situation; please let us know if you would like to be published here.

 My Twitter Suspension

On the morning of December 11th, I was tweeting away as usual when at 11:40am, I tried to reply to a tweet and this is what I saw:

I went to check my account and saw this:

I had just recently reached 4000 followers so I was very upset. I checked the hashtags where I posted most, #TransTheGayAway #DiscussingDysphoria #Detrans and #QueerRapeCulture and all my tweets have been erased from Twitter.

I was confused, so I checked my email to see what offence I had committed and found this:

I can only assume that this happened because I referred to a trans woman, Katy Montgomerie, as a male. If she wasn’t a male, she wouldn’t have dysphoria and wouldn’t have anywhere to transition from; the whole concept of “Male to Female”. I struggle to see how this tweet is “hateful”.

Context

On December 7th, 4th Wave Now tweeted a thread about an affirmation-only parent support group on Facebook, specifically about a thread in that group that had developed on the topic of families with multiple trans children.

Katy Montgomerie replied in the thread, claiming that families with multiple trans kids are statistically likely and nothing to be concerned about. Katy then went on to say that the parents who run 4th Wave Now are anti trans; desperate not to have trans kids. The reality is, that the daughter of one of the founders of 4th Wave Now is a 22 year old, detransitioned lesbian.

The tweet that is missing from this thread is here:

This tweet is not visible because it violates Twitter’s rules, as “hateful conduct” for a similar reason to mine; referring to a Katy, a trans woman, as a “natal male”. 4thWaveNow explains their current situation here and here.

Here’s where I responded to Katy, after being tagged into the thread by 4thWaveNow, the missing tweet is the one I was suspended for because it was ruled “hateful.”

The missing tweet is at the top of this article but I’ll put the text here so you don’t have to scroll up. I tweeted:

“This is nonsense. Where are you getting this? A 4000% increase in females transitioning in the UK isn’t just because ~acceptance~. You presume to know the female motivators for transition when you are in fact male. What do you base this on?”

Here’s one source for the 4,400% increase in female minors in the UK being referred for transition that I was referencing

On Twitter, Katy says she has detrans friends and wants to help detrans people, but I’ve only ever seen her dismissing detransition as so rare that it’s not relevant enough to merit a change in the way transition is prescribed. She says she is a friend to detrans people but attacks one of the few websites –4thWaveNow– that will amplify our writing about our experiences. She says she supports detrans people but calls any resource we use “anti-trans”. Obviously, she has her own ideology to propagate and this is her method. I would advise detransitioned people to steer clear of her on Twitter and Medium.

Appeals

As soon as I understood that I had been suspended, I appealed to Twitter. Predictably, they said they were looking into it but (initially) did not respond beyond that. I don’t have much faith in Twitter or their review process, so on December 15th, I filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. I know a few women who’ve had their Twitter accounts suspended and were able to reverse this using the BBB, so I was cautiously optimistic.

This was my appeal to them:

I have been using twitter for many years, mostly for lesbian activism. A few days ago, my account @gnc_centric was indefinitely suspended for “hateful conduct” which is shocking because the tweet that is cited is not at all hateful. I believe that this is the result of targeted reporting by homophobes who do not like what I have to say. I appealed to Twitter but they have not explained why my tweet was hateful or why it rises to the level of an indefinite suspension. I am appealing to you because for me, Twitter is a powerful networking tool and I need it to stay in contact with journalists and other professionals, as part of my activism.

They immediately replied, saying that they were looking into it. On the morning of December 23rd, I awoke to find this response in my email.

It’s true I’ve been put in Twitter jail a few times. If I recall correctly, I’ve had my account locked twice, for 12h and had it locked once, for 7 days (thanks @AidanCTweets 😉). As you can imagine, I did not wish violence on anyone or say anything cruel or tweet with malicious intent. I would love to be able to go through how I “violated Twitter rules” each time, but I can’t access my old tweets now and I didn’t keep track of it as it happened.

This was my reply to this result:

I am rejecting this response because: if you were to review the history of all the times I’ve violated the twitter rules, you would see that the tweets in question were all just as innocuous as this one. I have never tweeted anything violent or hateful but because of mass reporting, I’ve had my account locked several times. I thought the BBB would see I’m not using the Twitter service in hateful or violent way and see the reality of the situation; those who oppose me will find ways to disrupt my use of Twitter, regardless of the reality that I’m not hateful or violent. Twitter is woefully unable to screen reported tweets and as a result this has happened to me repeatedly.

This was the response I received on December 24th:

I can’t believe the irony of this response. I would really, really, REALLY like to know, who experienced “targeted abuse” by me. Not to be too narcissistic, but am I not the one in this situation who is unable to “feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs” on Twitter? I’ve had multiple short suspensions for expressing my beliefs, is that not “abusive behaviour” on the part of those who see me as a threat? “This includes behaviour that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence someone else’s voice”. I can’t believe they sent ME this message, when I’m the one who has been continuously harassed and now, silenced on Twitter.

What makes me so angry is that extremist ideologues know this is how Twitter works, and they are meticulous in their reporting. Their goal is to get the most vocal women who question gender ideology off of the platform and they know exactly how to do it.

Medium Suspension

On December 25th (Merry Christmas!) I checked in to see what people on Twitter were saying about GNC Centric… and they were saying my Medium account (where this article was originally posted on December 23rd) had been suspended. I suspect that this happened because I mentioned Katy Montgomerie– and the fact that they were male–in my Medium piece.

I searched for my Medium on incognito and found this:

So I checked my email and found this:

Since Medium has very similar policies to Twitter, I will not bother attempting to appeal this suspension. When I was first suspended from Twitter, I planned to post much more on Medium; what I used to post as Twitter threads I would now format as short articles.

Since this is obviously now impossible, I’ve made alternate plans. For the time being, I will be guest posting on other sites like here on 4thWaveNow and Graham Linehan’s blog. I’m now in the process of building my own website (finally!) where I can’t be censored and I’m very much looking forward to that! I’m also going to start posting YouTube videos more regularly now.

In 4thWaveNow’s first article about their concurrent Twitter suspension, they have two quotes from Orwell’s 1984. They seem relevant as ever, so I’ll add them here as well.

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” — George Orwell, 1984

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” — George Orwell, 1984

 

Contact

Now that I’m no longer on Twitter (though I’m keeping an eye on what’s going on there 🤨) I’m spending more time on other social media. The most direct way of contacting me now is through email.

 

📲Social Media 💁🏻‍♂️
Email ► GncCentric@gmail.com
Tumblr ►https://gnc-centric.tumblr.com
Reddit ► https://www.reddit.com/user/GNC-centric
Spinster ► https://spinster.xyz/@GncCentric
YouTube ► https://www.youtube.com/c/gnc-centric

 

Update: Twitter remains obstinate in defamatory lockout after Better Business Bureau complaint

Posted on by
11

Last week, we wrote about Twitter’s lockdown of our account for use of the scientific term “natal male.”

We filed a complaint with the Northern California Better Business Bureau. That complaint was today rejected, with Twitter [in its boilerplate response] doubling down on its defamatory claim that we engaged in “hateful conduct,” specifically: threatening, directly attacking, and promoting violence.

If we continue in this “abusive behavior,” so sayeth our Twitter Overlord-bot, we are risking our account.

Once again, below is the tweet Twitter claims to be “abusive behavior,” worthy of the potential forfeiture of over 13,000 followers (including many prominent journalists, politicians, and others who wield political and public opinion influence) and five years of substantive information shared with the public.

Were we surprised by Twitter’s automated response? Of course not; it’s par for the course in the current zeitgeist, where totalitarian-minded scolds running the most influential social media platform in the world believe it is their solemn duty to serve as Reeducation Nannies for the teeming masses.

In the two weeks since our lockout, other thought criminals have also been Twitter-jailed or perma-banned for their “abusive behavior” (otherwise known as telling truths certain trans-activist tattletales don’t want you to know). Fellow inmates include reasonable trans people like MarsBruh, a trans man who goes out of his way in his interview series to feature diverse viewpoints, and detransitioned lesbian activist and Youtuber gnc_centric, who as of this writing has also filed a BBB complaint--to no avail–to reverse her permanent suspension from Twitter.

There have been many more before us, and there will undoubtedly be more to come who’ll be ejected from the 21st century public square and condemned to Big Tech thought-crime prisons.

Nevertheless, despite our cynicism, we believe it’s important to keep telling our truth, and that now includes rejecting Twitter’s libelous edict:

Since our previous post on the matter, our Twitter lockout has been written up in a very good article by Libby Emmons in the Canadian Post Millennial, and the journalist Jesse Singal confirmed via Twitter that “simply describing what being trans is could lead to you losing your account.”

And as everyone not living in a cave now knows, just a few days ago beloved author of the Harry Potter series, JK Rowling, has come under international fire (including ridiculous propaganda pieces in major US outlets such as NBC, CNN, and the onetime paper-of-record) for tweeting her views about biological sex in regard to the recent UK court case against Maya Forstater.

The 4th_WaveNow Twitter account is fairly well known, but is puny by Twitter standards. Banning JK Rowling (and others with 1M or more followers) from the public square for her past or future thought crimes might be a bridge too far–but for how long?

Maybe Rowling and other celebrities with adequate financial wherewithal and intestinal fortitude should put their heads together and try pushing that biological (aka “natal”) sex envelope a wee bit further on Twitter.

Just a thought. You know, just to see what might happen…

4thWaveNow lockout: Twitter employee admits “mistake” to journalist, yet account remains disabled

Posted on by
29

On December 11, 2019, the 4thWaveNow Twitter account was disabled. That morning, we received an email from Twitter, claiming we had engaged in “hateful conduct” with this tweet:

Presumably, the “hateful conduct” was our use of the term “natal male” in the tweet’s concluding clause. In its Rules and Policies document, Twitter says a tweet that engages in “hateful conduct” will “promote violence against, directly attack or threaten” someone on the basis of their identity.

Did this tweet engage in hateful conduct?

Let’s let the founder’s daughter speak for herself, shall we? She belongs to a population of young lesbians who once believed they were trans—a population Katy neither advocates for (yes, we do) nor understands from personal experience, being a natal male.

The now-unavailable tweet also included a link to an article by the daughter of 4thWaveNow founder—a 22-year-old lesbian and cofounder of the Pique Resilience Project—wherein she describes her former trans-identification and subsequent desistance.

We appealed the false claim that the term “natal male” is “hateful” (more on that terminology shortly). Our appeal was immediately denied, and two subsequent appeals have been thus far ignored. Our only option appears to be deleting the tweet to end our total account lockout. Right now, this is what Twitter users see where the tweet originally appeared.

But the plot quickly thickened. On the day our account was frozen, the journalist Jesse Singal wrote an email to the Twitter press office, inquiring whether mention of biological [in this case, “natal”] sex was now against the Twitter rules. Singal expressed concern that such suspensions might affect his own work.

Singal received an email response from Twitter employee “Liz” which he posted on his Twitter feed. Liz couldn’t have been more unequivocal in her mea culpa on Twitter’s behalf:

“This was our mistake and shouldn’t have been actioned….We work quickly to make [it] right.”

Case closed? Evidently not.

It has now been 6 days since the lockout, with no responses to our appeals, no unfreezing of the account, no emails from Twitter…nuttin’. Since “working quickly” is highly unlikely to mean almost a week (especially given the use of past tense in Liz’s email), we can only surmise that the Twitter representative–clearly someone with significant authority–either lied to prominent journalist Jesse Singal (to what end, exactly?), or something else happened behind the scenes that caused “the team” to ignore Liz’s very clear admission of fault on Twitter’s behalf.

Our only option continues to be deleting the tweet (and taking an undeserved “strike” against our account–something we’ve not had in five years of tweets), but given Twitter’s self-admitted “mistake that should never have been actioned”—why should we delete it?

Since it’s unlikely Twitter suspended the 4thWaveNow Twitter account for anything other than referring to birth sex, let’s look a little closer at the term “natal male” and whether (and how) it should be interpreted as “hateful conduct.” This is of particular interest, since the very next morning after our account was frozen, another report against us turned up in our email—this time for using the term “natal boys.” But this time, Twitter rightly concluded the tweet broke no rules.

Putting aside the obvious inconsistency in Twitter’s “hateful conduct” policy, “natal male” is not, in fact, “misgendering,” a Twitter policy we are well aware of:

How does using the term “natal” in reference to birth sex “dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes”? The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), version 5 (DSM-5) uses the term at least six times in its latest rendition—including in its definition of “transgender:”

The DSM-5 defines “gender assignment” thusly:

And it’s not just the DSM-5: Natal [sex or gender] is a term used by many trans-supportive sources, websites, and scientific studies. It’s a standard term often used as a synonym for “assigned sex at birth” or AMAB/AFAB.

 

Be that as it may, whoever(s) reported our tweet clearly thought the term “natal male” was offensive. Fair enough: They could have (instead of tattling to the Twitter Thought Police) engaged an argument here, and there are at least two we’ve seen routinely before: (a) a trans woman has always been female, and/or (b) just because someone was “assigned” male at birth doesn’t mean they don’t understand the experience of lesbians born female [leading us back to (a)].

Mature adults who approach matters in good faith engage in discussion, usually hoping their conversation partner can, at the very least, see their point of view (if not agree with it). But that’s not what people who tattle to Big Tech censors do. Instead—like the authoritarians they are—they try to shut down those who don’t conform 100% to their point of view.

Mass reporting, gaming the Twitter terms of service, playing “gotcha” on Twitter—what, exactly, do the trans-activist scolds think they have achieved? When, in fact, has the suppression of dialogue resulted in changing anyone’s mind?

If “natal male” is a term of offense, can it be long before the term “transgender” itself is verboten? Because “trans” or “transgender” explicitly refers to transitioning from one state to another state. Why allow the term at all, since it points to the inconvenient truth that a person was at one time something different?

Perhaps that is the end game: Make any and all terminology that would differentiate a trans person from a “cis” person unsayable (oddly, “cis” is not on the Twitter Thought Police list of bannable Crime-Words, given that many of us take offense at it), and you’ve achieved at least one Orwellian goal:

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”—George Orwell, 1984

The key point here is of greater import than one Twitter account (of many) being muzzled by this absurd but ominous censorship. The real issue is the chilling of everyone‘s discourse, the right to be exposed to many varied opinions on (like it or not) the social media platform most used by those with power to influence policy and public opinion.

To stay afloat on the platform, we are forced to write and converse with each other in coded, sanitized language; to paraphrase and obfuscate meanings. Orwell’s Big Brother couldn’t have thought of a better medium to control the masses.

When you silence someone by misusing the (already censorious) policies of one of the most powerful social-media companies in the world, you’ve tainted thought itself.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” — George Orwell, 1984

Is it any wonder so many people now question the motives and tactics behind (what many of us originally thought was) the Next Civil Rights movement–a movement we started off supporting?

Stay tuned for updates.