Hearth Moon Rising on Nostr: Two other things that are relevant in the psychotherapist "silence" on "affirmation": ...
Two other things that are relevant in the psychotherapist "silence" on "affirmation":
1) The Affirmation Model came from a group of people who had worked with many gender dysphoric individuals, including children, and claimed expertise in the area. Up until around 2010, it wasn't something any therapist saw very often in adults, much less children. In children, it wasn't even considered an important issue to be flagged or recognized. The only recognition the therapist usually had was that the child might be gay, and then the therapist explored acceptance with the parents. When gender dysphoria did come up as a concern, co-occurring disorders were addressed and the dysphoria usually resolved. (But for how long? These children were never followed.) So therapists were reluctant to weigh in on, much less treat, an evolving specialty they had no experience in. It is in the Social Work Code of Ethics, in fact, that we do not practice in areas in which we are unfamiliar. Gender dysphoria was always presented by experts who had the solution. The only way for a social worker to gather expertise was to participate in the "affirmation" treatment at gender clinics, and of course if we had doubts from the start, we weren't going to do that. Myself, even though I recognized this intervention as crazy-town from the start, I've never known how to respond to the gender therapists' refrain of "I know and you don't. How many dysphoric people have you treated? Stay in your lane!"
2) The "conversion therapy" laws were pushed by gender therapists and social work advocacy organizations to protect social workers facilitating child castration. They've always known there would be some regret and some lawsuits, and these laws are for doctors and therapists, not children, even dysphoric children. How can you be sued for following the law? Conversion therapy intervensions for gays were addressed through the licensing boards and professional associations, and for 20 years they have been very effectively banned. The only people in the US who are praciticing "conversion therapy" (and there aren't many) are Christians in the context of religious counseling. They aren't touched by conversion therapy laws, at least in the US.
The situation James found himself in came on the heels of some intrinsic flaws in the system of treating mental illness - or any illness. How do you respond to people effectively creating an illness for which they have the cure? You either join the team or you avoid the issue. No wonder there has been so much resistance to any research in the area of social contagion or regret. And if you wanted to do research into how well castration helps dysphoria, you would have to participate to some degree. Most therapists, like most people, have their doubts about "affirmation," but they squelch them and look away, because there's not a lot for an individual to do, and the professional advocacy groups are committed to protecting the castration facilitators. It seems like the only way to bring the practice down was always going to be for people like Dr. Zucker or James, who participated in the treatment, to denounce it from the inside. I think the pushback against the heretics is the first, necessary, sign that the specialty is coming undone.
1) The Affirmation Model came from a group of people who had worked with many gender dysphoric individuals, including children, and claimed expertise in the area. Up until around 2010, it wasn't something any therapist saw very often in adults, much less children. In children, it wasn't even considered an important issue to be flagged or recognized. The only recognition the therapist usually had was that the child might be gay, and then the therapist explored acceptance with the parents. When gender dysphoria did come up as a concern, co-occurring disorders were addressed and the dysphoria usually resolved. (But for how long? These children were never followed.) So therapists were reluctant to weigh in on, much less treat, an evolving specialty they had no experience in. It is in the Social Work Code of Ethics, in fact, that we do not practice in areas in which we are unfamiliar. Gender dysphoria was always presented by experts who had the solution. The only way for a social worker to gather expertise was to participate in the "affirmation" treatment at gender clinics, and of course if we had doubts from the start, we weren't going to do that. Myself, even though I recognized this intervention as crazy-town from the start, I've never known how to respond to the gender therapists' refrain of "I know and you don't. How many dysphoric people have you treated? Stay in your lane!"
2) The "conversion therapy" laws were pushed by gender therapists and social work advocacy organizations to protect social workers facilitating child castration. They've always known there would be some regret and some lawsuits, and these laws are for doctors and therapists, not children, even dysphoric children. How can you be sued for following the law? Conversion therapy intervensions for gays were addressed through the licensing boards and professional associations, and for 20 years they have been very effectively banned. The only people in the US who are praciticing "conversion therapy" (and there aren't many) are Christians in the context of religious counseling. They aren't touched by conversion therapy laws, at least in the US.
The situation James found himself in came on the heels of some intrinsic flaws in the system of treating mental illness - or any illness. How do you respond to people effectively creating an illness for which they have the cure? You either join the team or you avoid the issue. No wonder there has been so much resistance to any research in the area of social contagion or regret. And if you wanted to do research into how well castration helps dysphoria, you would have to participate to some degree. Most therapists, like most people, have their doubts about "affirmation," but they squelch them and look away, because there's not a lot for an individual to do, and the professional advocacy groups are committed to protecting the castration facilitators. It seems like the only way to bring the practice down was always going to be for people like Dr. Zucker or James, who participated in the treatment, to denounce it from the inside. I think the pushback against the heretics is the first, necessary, sign that the specialty is coming undone.