This time around, it is rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) that must face TransWorld's florid, torrid flames. A mob of petty tyrant transpals in petticoats gangs up to stifle academic freedom and tries to destroy the career of a highly regarded scientist, Dr. Lisa Littman of Brown University.
Given the irreversible nature of all current transgender intervention - drastic surgeries to remove healthy organs (breasts, uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes in women; testicles in men); not to mention other serious surgeries to create a pseudo-penis or pseudo vagina); lifelong regimens of drugs that carry significant risk of cardiovascular events; and never mind that there has never been even one comparative study of cognitive-behavioral therapy or other highly applicable therapies to alleviate gender dysphoria without all the surgical & hormonal rigamarole - one might suppose that transgender activists would support Dr. Littman's research.
One would be wrong. Instead, they are doing their best to suppress it. Wouldn't it be better to weed out young people who didn't quite realize what they were getting into when they ruminated themselves into the trans industry's grotesque corridors?
It is an especially dangerous time for girls and young women who get the notion in their heads that they're "trans." Activist physician Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy of Children's Hospital Los Angeles has referred at least two 13 year old girls for radical mastectomies of their healthy breasts, and many other girls aged 14, 15, 16. Olson-Kennedy actually promotes the idea that such girls should have this massive surgery as quickly as possible after their self-diagnoses, even before taking testosterone.
But this extreme risk of iatrogenic harm does not dismay today's dress-up boys, not at all. Despite "trans" industry research having chased its tail and gone nowhere for decades, it is crucial to their egos that the world believe it's "settled science," people are "born trans." Any intimation to the contrary triggers trans-tantrums.
Nearly 15 years ago, a different group of men who shared a common interest in intense mimicry of "feminine" stereotypes flipped their wigs and exploded in narcissistic rage when Dr. J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University published "The Man Who Would Be Queen." This book describes autogynephilia, an "erotic target location error" and an important motivating force in most male transgenderism. Autogynephilia is a paraphilia in which men fixate on fantasies of themselves "as women," dressing themselves up in "feminine" habiliments and conducting predictable ancillary activities. It is a key characteristic of male transvestism. A large proportion of men who insist they are actually "women" were ordinary transvestites before they lost their grip on the frayed ends of sanity, and "transitioned."
Naturally, the men who were outraged that Bailey had let the cat out of the bag in a book written for lay audiences considered it right to send psychotic, obscene letters to his young children and try to get him fired from his job. They did not succeed in the latter goal, but they certainly brought plenty of distress and discomfort to his family.
All these years later, the anti-autogynephilia propaganda of these activists has become a kind of translore, bedtime stories for the latest lads in lingerie. And they do not rage only against Bailey - no indeed. Equally shrill, even more hateful ranting is reserved for Dr. Ray Blanchard, who first conceptualized and described the varied dimensions of autogynephilia in his work with hundreds of patients at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto during the 1980s and 1990s. And of course, for the high transcrime of suggesting that a sensible process of becoming more comfortable in one's own body was preferable to an immediate transing of small children, menacing masqueraders actually did pressure CAMH bureaucrats to fire Dr. Ken Zucker, even after the transprop was shown to be false. The lies they routinely propagate about all these men, as "received ideas" among transgenderists, are wildly untrue, and in many instances are libelous.
And now these frocked fools are pulling out the stops in attacking Dr. Littman, trying their hardest to humiliate her, destroy her credibility, destroy her career. They felt so threatened by the findings of this one little study that they mobilized their online mobs to disparage it and shove it down the memory hole. In reality, however, they brought this paper much more attention than it might otherwise have had, and likely helped raise the awareness of many.