I have recently been reflecting upon the “Trans Phenomenon” and why it is perceived and treated differently from other mental disorders.   The recent incidence of this disorder is well beyond any numbers seen in previous eras.

The Trans Phenomenon is technically referred to as gender identity disorder (GID) and is “treated” through a combination of hormones.  Females who perceive themselves as male are treated with testosterone in order to acquire male characteristics; males who perceive themselves as females are given estrogen and progesterone.  In addition, surgeries are often performed that may include mastectomies, hysterectomies, and ovarian removal in women and castration in males.  Also, plastic surgeries are performed to create genitalia that mimic that of the newly acquired gender.

This is very different from how other mental disorders are treated.  There exists body identity integrity disorder (BIID).  The BIID sufferer perceives that his healthy limbs are seriously diseased.  He seeks amputation of these limbs in which nothing is found wrong.

Another disorder, more commonly found, is anorexia nervosa.  Anorexia is most often found in females but is not exclusive to them.  Anorexics have a fear of weight gain and often starve themselves.  They often perceive themselves as fat when they are in reality severely thin.  Anorexics can get so emaciated that they have severe complications that result in organ failure and death.

Patients with BIID and anorexia are normally treated with psychotherapy in an attempt to cure the disorder.  This is very different from how we attempt to resolve GID — i.e., with hormone treatments and surgeries.  In fact, the decision to undergo these procedures can often be made by minors who are not yet in their teens (pre-puberty).  The treatments often have effects that cannot be reversed.  One can easily become permanently sterilized, even early in the treatment cycle.

It is fair to say that to treat patients who suffer from anorexia and BIID in the same manner as we treat GID patients would be unethical and immoral.  Think about it: would you expect any surgeon to amputate a limb from an individual based simply upon his sincere belief when the physician knows that there is nothing wrong with that limb?  Would you expect a physician to prescribe Ozempic or other weight loss drugs for an anorexic?  Would you expect a reputable surgeon to perform bariatric surgery on an anorexic?  To do these things would be considered morally reprehensible.  It would expose the performing physician to censure by medical licensing authorities and create a stream of malpractice litigation against him.

So why do we treat those who suffer from BIID and anorexia differently from those who suffer with GID?

I believe that the reason is that GID concerns sex.  It seems that our society has conditioned us to believe that anything that is sex-related must be accepted and condoned, regardless of whether or not it may be dangerous.  Questioning the appropriateness of anything sex-related is considered beyond reason.  Because GID is sex-focused, otherwise valid concerns of medical ethics are waived.  We saw this with the FDA approval of the abortion drug mifepristone, which was done without the usual FDA-required protracted clinical trials.  Similarly, note the attempts to get rid of the term “pedophile” and replace it with “minor-attracted person.”

One thing that we know for sure is that the Trans Phenomenon is a large money-maker for hospitals, physicians, and drug companies.  The synthetic men and women become lifelong consumers of necessity.  The medical procedures involved in transition are very expensive and also run a fair degree of health risk.  In order to maintain their new status, the synthetics must continually take drugs (hormones, etc.).  They usually require continued monitoring by physicians to ensure health stability.  The resulting revenues compromise the integrity of the medical establishment and the large pharmaceutical companies who are happy to support the trans treatments.

However, there is a dark cloud on the horizon: the de-transitioners, who seek to return to their sex.  Data on transitioning are coming out of Europe, especially Britain and Scandinavia, and they indicate in studies that the transitioning of minors (without thoroughly researching whether this treatment is appropriate for them) is rarely a good thing.  As a result, transitioning of minors has been severely restricted.

De-transitioning is likely to become a target-rich environment for medical malpractice attorneys whenever those who seek return to their original state bring actions against the medical professionals and institutions that allowed transition.  Carefully watching this are malpractice insurers; they have substantially raised premiums on these practitioners and institutions or else have excluded transitioning procedures from their coverage.  This will act to raise future costs of transition.

Econ 101 tells us that a rise in cost has a high correlation with a decrease in demand.  So transitions may transition to the status of a much less common occurrence, barring the potential effects of government subsidies and mandates for “treatment.”

Image via Pexels.