Puberty blockade and surgery in adolescent boys does exactly what it’s meant to. It makes them look (sort of) like girls. It doesn’t make them into sexually competent and romantically fulfilled women because it was never meant to. Expecting it to do that would be like taking cancer chemotherapy with the expectation that it would prevent heart attacks or boost athletic performance. That’s simply not what it’s *for*.
All gender care is for is affirmation, a faith-based ritual akin to pinky-swearing or blood-bonding. We will never know about satisfactory relationships because very few of these patients will ever have a sexual relationship at all, for want of people who find their altered selves sexually attractive.
Clear and calm and brilliant, per usual. So little evidence to justify so much harm of basic human need and function to boys and young men. While you never make your tireless work about you, it still is good to know a bit more about the costs you personally paid for making this "choice" that, as you point out, should never have been offered to you in the first place. Thank you.
Corinna this is brilliant and so important. Regarding puberty blockers’ effect on the cycle of sexual arousal, desire, fulfillment—remember that all happens in the brain, the organ, the development of which is first and foremost being truncated with blockers. My hypothesis is, as you wrote, that the neural wiring that connects the brain to the sex organs is not fully established or damaged when puberty is blocked. but i’m not a neurodevelopmental specialist—maybe one ought to have been consulted by Kettenis, deVries, Spack and the other Frankenstein heirs before plunging ahead with these unethical mass experiments?
It is so important to call out the developmental/life experience/relational wreckage wrought by this “treatment” that in fact causes disease states with scant evidence of countervailing benefit.
Not only was it wrong to offer this to anyone, because it decreases physical health (with concomitant psychological harm) in exchange for kind of, sort of looking like female genitalia, which is not a reasonable quid quo pro and, therefore, violates the "First Do No Harm" oath, but the lie that this is "life-saving care" is medical fraud.
Further, to highlight another important point that you have made elsewhere, we need to stop saying that it's okay for males to enter female spaces if they cut off their testicles and split open their penises. We need to draw a hard line. If not, we are pushing some males toward these harmful surgeries in order for them to feel like they fit in as women. We need to instead make it clear that males do not belong in female spaces, no matter what they do to their bodies, AND that ALL males are welcome in male spaces, no matter how effeminate they are and no matter what they have done to their bodies. This is crucial messaging. This applies to sports as well. All males are welcome to play sports on male teams. No males should feel excluded from sports, but no males should participate in female sports.
I collect the narratives and data on experiences from trans widows, women who divorced/left husbands who suddenly identified as female, often, together with the therapist, insisting this woman should have realized she's a lesbian. We have a great deal of information on the corruption in the gender "speciality" in mental health. We confirm that many of our ex husbands had a terrible relationship with a distant or violent father. We confirm that pornography addiction played a major role in his thought process. We confirm that therapists encourage the emerging narcissism, while ignoring the typical trauma/abuse history from these men's childhood.
We are called upon to assist husband in his effort to "pass" as female, lending our make up and accessories. When we voice anything about the past, how he's not approaching it, not finding a way to analyze early experiences in order to begin recovery, we are shut down. Then if we bring up anything about it after the divorce, when the children are grown, we are ostracized for "defaming" his family. Of the 69 women whose lives I have data on, 3 of the husbands detransitioned. One of those men hung himself when this trans widow said she could not restart the marriage, now to be blamed for his death. I've watched your thinking evolve, Cori, and applaud the strength, courage and stamina you've developed. Here's a bit from my story:
"We confirm that many of our ex husbands had a terrible relationship with a distant or violent father. We confirm that pornography addiction played a major role in his thought process. We confirm that therapists encourage the emerging narcissism, while ignoring the typical trauma/abuse history from these men's childhood."
It's a maladaptive coping mechanism. Instead of dealing with the underlying issue(s) along with the harmful effects of porn, this was given as a valid option albeit a faulty option.
This must have been hard to write, but far harder to live through. Thanks for bearing witness and sounding the alarm when so many want to silence and shut down those who warn of the harms.
What exactly are men talking about when they say they are having "orgasms" with their fake vaginas? Is anyone measuring these events, as many previous sex researchers have done, or is this all self report? Apparently, some boys who go through transition surgeries never had orgasms previously. How would this cohort know what an orgasm is, postoperatively?
I have tried to keep up with the data, but this study is new to me. Thank you for bringing it to light and explaining it so clearly. Everyone needs to know this.
I did wind up finding this article, and I’d be curious to hear your thoughts. Some of the charts made my head spin in confusion, while others seem to actually show Better outcomes for mtf who blocked at the early tanner stages who went on the have vaginoplasty, but I could be missing something in all the jargon.
Thanks for this link—note that incredibly positive outcomes of this study, at odds with concerns that Cori and even Marci Bowers speak to about puberty blocking leading to later sexual dysfunction in adulthood, is retrospective and only 1.5 years post genital surgery and 86% of subjects (32/37) were Tanner stage 3 or beyond (the majority were at stage 3) at introduction of puberty suppression. Could this biased sample have skewed results in a favorable direction for sexual function after medical transition following blockers? I don’t know, but it doesn’t square with other data that exist on complications after genital surgeries in those who transition as adults, and the testimony of detransitioners like Ritchie Herron, which ought to warrant more careful investigation to understand the discrepancy. Also 95% of sample (35/37) were attracted to birth assigned gender, aka same sex attracted (so one wonders about that just as a side note re: Cori’s recent question on ID podcast of what exactly they were treating) plus the authors include two noted proponents of pediatric gender medicine who are highly motivated to show positive longer term outcomes. Clearly this unsettled issue warrants more careful study and full transparency in informed consent with parents and their kids, but I can imagine they are being shown this more favorable data and imagine they will be just fine, rather than being told we can’t be certain you won’t be one of the unlucky ones.
Yes, tiny sample and all the things you said. But it does seem like at least some T2 blocked youth are reporting orgasms post vaginoplasty, right? Hard to parse everything out for me bc of the way they display data and which data they choose to, but I think that part does seem to be happening for some.
Sorry I misstated that the majority were Stage 3, it was in fact majority Stage 5 (46%)
To your question, there would not be enough statistical power in this small sample to make the relevant comparison of early vs later intervention unless you had equal numbers in each group. And they present their findings as if they do, but I’m not sure it’s set up to answer questions based on concerns that have come from clinical observation. Stage 2 is what Bowers has referenced as critical point in development where blockers introduced this early (or earlier) have led to zero orgasmic capacity in adulthood. Given how highly skewed the selection bias is towards stages 3 4 and 5 it might obscure worse outcomes for those who undergo PB at Stage 2.
It’s not clear why they decided to designate early intervention by combining stages 2 and 3–if this makes clinical sense it may be based on the type of surgery they undergo (using instestinal lining vs penile skin) but what if there are other reasons to think of Tanner 2 being less optimal than the others to retain capacity for desire and orgasm? Or maybe they knew that if they isolated stage 2 from the others they wouldn’t have enough subjects in each group for statistical comparison.
Puberty blockade and surgery in adolescent boys does exactly what it’s meant to. It makes them look (sort of) like girls. It doesn’t make them into sexually competent and romantically fulfilled women because it was never meant to. Expecting it to do that would be like taking cancer chemotherapy with the expectation that it would prevent heart attacks or boost athletic performance. That’s simply not what it’s *for*.
All gender care is for is affirmation, a faith-based ritual akin to pinky-swearing or blood-bonding. We will never know about satisfactory relationships because very few of these patients will ever have a sexual relationship at all, for want of people who find their altered selves sexually attractive.
Clear and calm and brilliant, per usual. So little evidence to justify so much harm of basic human need and function to boys and young men. While you never make your tireless work about you, it still is good to know a bit more about the costs you personally paid for making this "choice" that, as you point out, should never have been offered to you in the first place. Thank you.
Corinna this is brilliant and so important. Regarding puberty blockers’ effect on the cycle of sexual arousal, desire, fulfillment—remember that all happens in the brain, the organ, the development of which is first and foremost being truncated with blockers. My hypothesis is, as you wrote, that the neural wiring that connects the brain to the sex organs is not fully established or damaged when puberty is blocked. but i’m not a neurodevelopmental specialist—maybe one ought to have been consulted by Kettenis, deVries, Spack and the other Frankenstein heirs before plunging ahead with these unethical mass experiments?
It is so important to call out the developmental/life experience/relational wreckage wrought by this “treatment” that in fact causes disease states with scant evidence of countervailing benefit.
Not only was it wrong to offer this to anyone, because it decreases physical health (with concomitant psychological harm) in exchange for kind of, sort of looking like female genitalia, which is not a reasonable quid quo pro and, therefore, violates the "First Do No Harm" oath, but the lie that this is "life-saving care" is medical fraud.
Further, to highlight another important point that you have made elsewhere, we need to stop saying that it's okay for males to enter female spaces if they cut off their testicles and split open their penises. We need to draw a hard line. If not, we are pushing some males toward these harmful surgeries in order for them to feel like they fit in as women. We need to instead make it clear that males do not belong in female spaces, no matter what they do to their bodies, AND that ALL males are welcome in male spaces, no matter how effeminate they are and no matter what they have done to their bodies. This is crucial messaging. This applies to sports as well. All males are welcome to play sports on male teams. No males should feel excluded from sports, but no males should participate in female sports.
Thank you for this analysis! I am so sorry that you went through this.
There is some more about the technical/medical risks of surgery at the rogd boys' page: https://www.rogdboys.org/effects-of-surgery
Thank you for this sensitive, intelligent, and knowledgeable piece.
I collect the narratives and data on experiences from trans widows, women who divorced/left husbands who suddenly identified as female, often, together with the therapist, insisting this woman should have realized she's a lesbian. We have a great deal of information on the corruption in the gender "speciality" in mental health. We confirm that many of our ex husbands had a terrible relationship with a distant or violent father. We confirm that pornography addiction played a major role in his thought process. We confirm that therapists encourage the emerging narcissism, while ignoring the typical trauma/abuse history from these men's childhood.
We are called upon to assist husband in his effort to "pass" as female, lending our make up and accessories. When we voice anything about the past, how he's not approaching it, not finding a way to analyze early experiences in order to begin recovery, we are shut down. Then if we bring up anything about it after the divorce, when the children are grown, we are ostracized for "defaming" his family. Of the 69 women whose lives I have data on, 3 of the husbands detransitioned. One of those men hung himself when this trans widow said she could not restart the marriage, now to be blamed for his death. I've watched your thinking evolve, Cori, and applaud the strength, courage and stamina you've developed. Here's a bit from my story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c99jaMY8rXQ&list=PLOFlPPQm71IhHtjMK1hw9guMJLql-yOkJ&index=5
"We confirm that many of our ex husbands had a terrible relationship with a distant or violent father. We confirm that pornography addiction played a major role in his thought process. We confirm that therapists encourage the emerging narcissism, while ignoring the typical trauma/abuse history from these men's childhood."
It's a maladaptive coping mechanism. Instead of dealing with the underlying issue(s) along with the harmful effects of porn, this was given as a valid option albeit a faulty option.
Yes, and not only valid but "brave and stunning!"
This must have been hard to write, but far harder to live through. Thanks for bearing witness and sounding the alarm when so many want to silence and shut down those who warn of the harms.
Important piece, Cori. Thank you so much for writing this!
This article deserves a wider audience. Might it be submitted elsewhere?
Thank you, Cori, for writing and sharing this important, essential piece - and for all your work speaking out.
What exactly are men talking about when they say they are having "orgasms" with their fake vaginas? Is anyone measuring these events, as many previous sex researchers have done, or is this all self report? Apparently, some boys who go through transition surgeries never had orgasms previously. How would this cohort know what an orgasm is, postoperatively?
I have tried to keep up with the data, but this study is new to me. Thank you for bringing it to light and explaining it so clearly. Everyone needs to know this.
Beautiful and important piece as always.
I did wind up finding this article, and I’d be curious to hear your thoughts. Some of the charts made my head spin in confusion, while others seem to actually show Better outcomes for mtf who blocked at the early tanner stages who went on the have vaginoplasty, but I could be missing something in all the jargon.
https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article/22/1/196/7877399
Thanks for this link—note that incredibly positive outcomes of this study, at odds with concerns that Cori and even Marci Bowers speak to about puberty blocking leading to later sexual dysfunction in adulthood, is retrospective and only 1.5 years post genital surgery and 86% of subjects (32/37) were Tanner stage 3 or beyond (the majority were at stage 3) at introduction of puberty suppression. Could this biased sample have skewed results in a favorable direction for sexual function after medical transition following blockers? I don’t know, but it doesn’t square with other data that exist on complications after genital surgeries in those who transition as adults, and the testimony of detransitioners like Ritchie Herron, which ought to warrant more careful investigation to understand the discrepancy. Also 95% of sample (35/37) were attracted to birth assigned gender, aka same sex attracted (so one wonders about that just as a side note re: Cori’s recent question on ID podcast of what exactly they were treating) plus the authors include two noted proponents of pediatric gender medicine who are highly motivated to show positive longer term outcomes. Clearly this unsettled issue warrants more careful study and full transparency in informed consent with parents and their kids, but I can imagine they are being shown this more favorable data and imagine they will be just fine, rather than being told we can’t be certain you won’t be one of the unlucky ones.
Yes, tiny sample and all the things you said. But it does seem like at least some T2 blocked youth are reporting orgasms post vaginoplasty, right? Hard to parse everything out for me bc of the way they display data and which data they choose to, but I think that part does seem to be happening for some.
Sorry I misstated that the majority were Stage 3, it was in fact majority Stage 5 (46%)
To your question, there would not be enough statistical power in this small sample to make the relevant comparison of early vs later intervention unless you had equal numbers in each group. And they present their findings as if they do, but I’m not sure it’s set up to answer questions based on concerns that have come from clinical observation. Stage 2 is what Bowers has referenced as critical point in development where blockers introduced this early (or earlier) have led to zero orgasmic capacity in adulthood. Given how highly skewed the selection bias is towards stages 3 4 and 5 it might obscure worse outcomes for those who undergo PB at Stage 2.
It’s not clear why they decided to designate early intervention by combining stages 2 and 3–if this makes clinical sense it may be based on the type of surgery they undergo (using instestinal lining vs penile skin) but what if there are other reasons to think of Tanner 2 being less optimal than the others to retain capacity for desire and orgasm? Or maybe they knew that if they isolated stage 2 from the others they wouldn’t have enough subjects in each group for statistical comparison.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights and experience.