Other mental health issues are being ignored (Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Annie’s parents had spent so much time tending to her autistic brother that they hadn’t realised their daughter developed similar traits: a high IQ, a tendency to obsess, discomfort with her body.
Annie was diagnosed with epilepsy aged five. After puberty, she started to have “autistic meltdowns“. When the pandemic hit, she became obsessed with her weight and was eventually diagnosed with an atypical eating disorder.
Amid her mental health episodes, she discovered YouTube videos of girls identifying as trans boys. Whenever Annie was in crisis, she would assume a trans identity and then drop it once the emergency had passed.
But her crises worsened. She was hospitalised again and again. Both Annie’s parents and her private therapist explicitly told staff at each hospital not to affirm her transgender identity, which was so inconsistent that Annie didn’t meet the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria. “No one who spent time working with her outside of the hospital thought the real issue was that she had gender dysphoria,” her mother, Linda, said. But each hospital ignored their pleas.
After she had paid for Annie’s medical records from her seventh hospitalisation in 10 months, Linda discovered that Annie had not only been secretly affirmed and socially transitioned but encouraged to deceive her parents, who had been marked in the hospital records as unsupportive. This despite the fact that Annie had written on a worksheet that what she valued the most was her parents and that calls from them made her cry “tears of joy”.
The transition didn’t help. At the hospital, Annie got markedly worse, slamming her head into walls, scratching her arms until they bled, and hearing voices that told her to kill herself. She had to be physically restrained and injected with antipsychotics and Ativan.
But the staff, according to Linda, seemed concerned with little other than gender. As they prepared to transfer Annie to a residential mental health program, they asked her — without consulting her parents — if she wanted to stay in the boys’ or girls’ dorm.
***
Stories like Annie’s — of kids who are not getting mental health treatment because clinicians interpret their issues as being caused by gender dysphoria — are increasingly common in the United States. The problem is called “diagnostic overshadowing”, and it was one of the main reasons that the UK’s Tavistock gender clinic was shut down last month. As Dr Hillary Cass noted in her Interim Report, “[M]any of the children and young people presenting have complex needs… but once they are identified as having gender-related distress, other important healthcare issues that would normally be managed by local services can sometimes be subsumed by the label of gender dysphoria.”
Several parents I spoke to for this article told me their children were initially hospitalised for suicidal ideation, anorexia, and other mental health conditions. Once admitted, however, the children were diagnosed as suffering from gender dysphoria and encouraged to transition, often against their parents’ wishes. Their other mental health issues were then largely ignored.
Until recently, such mental health issues would have made therapists hesitant to facilitate transition for a young patient. The original Dutch protocol for treating adolescents with gender dysphoria, for instance, was based on research on patients with no serious comorbid psychiatric disorders. Although Dutch clinicians recommended the use of puberty blockers for certain patients, the children were not socially transitioned, which can increase the persistence of gender dysphoria.
But in recent years, concurrent with an exponential increase in gender dysphoria cases among teenage girls, the Dutch protocol has been overtaken by the gender-affirmative model. In this approach, “providers recognise, validate, and support the identity stated or expressed by the individuals served”, per the American Psychiatry Association. This means that clinicians are encouraged to facilitate social transition based on their patients’ self-diagnoses. In stark contrast to the kids from the original Dutch studies, however, the adolescents now presenting with “gender dysphoria” tend to have complicated mental health profiles.
In effect, the mental health profession has performed a U-turn. Whereas it was once understood that complex comorbidities such as depression, anxiety, or eating disorders might be the source of adolescent gender dysphoria, today, American doctors increasingly see it……. as the cause of all other comorbidities. Treat the dysphoria, the thinking goes, and the other conditions melt away.
***
A woman I’ll call Daria had entered her 17-year-old son into a psychiatric hospital treatment program for anorexia. Forty-eight hours later, while he was still on a feeding tube, a counsellor called to ask about her son’s gender issues. He’d never had any, Daria responded.
A week later, still barely eating, he was transferred to a residential programme. A counsellor there called Daria to say her son was actually her daughter and should start on oestrogen. Daria was sceptical, but the clinicians told her: “We have to address the gender or the anorexia just may never go away.”
Thus began a two-year battle to help her son with his most pressing problem — restricted eating — while resisting attempts by clinicians to redefine his problems as dysphoria. Family therapy sessions centered around pushing Daria and her husband to facilitate their son’s social and medical transition. “It became a lot more trying to convince us that our kid was transgender rather than working with us on how to support him in eating,” she said. Counsellors helped him pick stereotypically feminine clothing and settle on a stereotypically feminine name, but the eating struggles remained.
Daria, a scientific researcher, asked for evidence that cross-sex hormones would alleviate anorexia, but was given none. She asked about side effects. A therapist told her: “You need to stop focusing on the evidence and start focusing on your daughter.” Once her son turned 18, his residential programme helped him access hormones at a nearby Planned Parenthood. They didn’t help either.
“He had suicide attempts before he started hormones. He had a suicide attempt after he started hormones. And, you know, he restricted before he had hormones. He kept restricting after he had hormones,” Daria said.
Daria learned on her own that many people with disordered eating have an internal voice that demands they restrict. Eventually her son told her that his was a female voice, one that bullied him and demanded he make himself look like her.
When you work with somebody with anorexia, said Stella O’Malley, a psychotherapist in Ireland who works with gender-distressed children, “you talk about softening this voice and integrating this voice into the personality and figuring out where it’s coming from”. Therapists don’t affirm anorexics’ inner voice or desire for a specific body because anorexia nervosa has the highest mortality rate of any mental disorder; they try to help them make peace with the body they have. But with gender-dysphoric patients, that same clinical approach is considered “conversion therapy”.
The backbone of treating anorexia is having the family deeply involved, setting strong boundaries, and focusing on the behaviour. Once that is under control, the remaining problems can be addressed. With anorexia, body dissatisfaction is often the last thing to resolve, so what may appear to be gender dysphoria could be a lingering symptom of anorexia.
The diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia are similar, too, but the treatment for the former includes affirmation and medical interventions, while the treatment for the latter is therapy. “Pretty much everything that they did once gender was introduced… was totally against the evidence that we know work for eating disorders,” Daria said. Lisa Marchiano, a Jungian psychotherapist, referred to this phenomenon as “gender exceptionalism” — the idea that “gender dysphoria gets treated different than any other mental health issue”.
But many believe affirmation is most likely to resolve dysphoria. “If it is all interconnected, then treating the gender dysphoria will likely also improve some of the other things that are happening,” says Sabra Katz-Wise, assistant professor in the division of adolescent and young adult medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and a proponent of the affirmative model.
What should she do if it turns out that gender dysphoria isn’t the source of the problem? “I think it’s pretty rare that gender dysphoria is a symptom of something else other than being transgender or gender diverse,” Katz-Wise said. Yet in a study of 237 detransitioners — those who medically transitioned and regretted it — 70% reported “having realised that their gender dysphoria was related to other issues”.
Eventually, Daria found a private psychiatrist, who urged the staff at her son’s residential mental health facility not to engage with anything gender related. Only then, Daria reported, did her son start to eat.
***
At 12, Sofia’s daughter Constance, who had always been typically feminine, began suffering from anxiety, depression, and perfectionism, which she relieved through cutting. After a breakup with a woman she’d met online, Constance was hospitalised for suicidal ideation. She identified as bisexual, and then as non-binary, and continued with self-harm. She began smoking pot daily.
As her mental health worsened, Constance went to a 35-day stay in a psychiatric hospital in the northeast. “We didn’t feel like it had anything to do with the gender identity because she wasn’t really talking about that stuff,” Sofia said. “Even her therapist at home didn’t think that that was the issue.” Yet once the gender issues came up, “it just felt like every session became about that”.
From there, Constance was sent to an intensive outpatient program, where, within a week, she was using male pronouns. Sofia only found out when the therapist accidentally sent an email using he/him. Constance posted online that she wanted money for hormones, complaining that her parents wouldn’t pay. The doctors, Sofia said, “didn’t ask us anything about, well, what was their childhood like or do you know if there was any trauma or anything like that? It was just: Accept it. This is who he is now.”
But some clinicians interpret this research as licence to punish parents if they don’t affirm. At both the hospital and the outpatient programme, Sofia said, clinicians told her and her husband that if they didn’t affirm Constance, she would kill herself. “You bring your child there and then you become totally powerless,” Sofia said. “It always felt as though I was the last to know. And she had this group of adults supporting her and affirming her. So of course, we look like the bad guys because we never did [affirm her]. Our relationship was absolutely destroyed.”
Research does show that familial support is key to the mental health of LGBT kids. But that shouldn’t give clinicians licence to undermine parents if they want to assess rather than affirm. “I don’t think that driving a wedge between parents and children is going to help them,” said Caitlin Ryan, director of the Family Acceptance Project, which helps “ethnically, racially and religiously diverse families to support their LGBTQ children”. “I think working with parents and caregivers to increase support is one of the most important things we can do.”
The oppositional stance taken by Constance’s doctors, O’Malley says, is bad clinical practice. “It’s well-established in therapy circles that you try not to triangulate between parent therapist and child. It’s so destructive for the family unit, for the parent-child relationship, and for the actual the betterment of the child. And yet this triangulation is happening inevitably as soon as a clinic decides to not work with the family.”
Eventually, Sofia pulled Constance out of the programme and sent her back to her original therapist. There, she admitted that she had been sexually harassed and threatened in a chat room by a man who sent her nude photos. He told her if she didn’t send nude photos of herself, he would kill her family. “That’s when we really started to dive into why she was rejecting her femininity, why she was trying to take her power back,” Sofia said. Now in a residential facility, doing equine therapy and not focusing on gender, Sofia is finally doing well, her familial ties beginning to repair.
***
There are no easy answers for how to treat gender-distressed children. O’Malley advocates the “biospsychosocial model”, which is in essence a form of holistic care. It involves “looking at the body and the mind, looking at all the diagnoses, looking at how everything impacts — the cultural context, the family context, the internal biological context,” she says.
But she also knows that this cohort of kids with multiple and extensive multiple health issues needs a delicate yet exhaustive approach. “They are a very, very vulnerable cohort that need gentle and very cautious interventions,” she said. Clinicians shouldn’t leap to the conclusion that dysphoric kids are trans and need immediate social or medical transition to keep them alive.
Jack Drescher, clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and section editor of the DSM-5-TR chapter on gender dysphoria, has no problem with the idea of affirming a child’s stated gender identity. He said it’s not necessarily the therapist’s job to contradict a patient’s subjectivity, to tell them they’re wrong, but rather to explore their perspective. But even he strongly believes in comprehensive evaluation.
“There are kids who will benefit from treatment and there are kids who will not benefit from treatment. And until we come up with a better way to decide how to distinguish between those two groups, then we’re going to be having these kinds of arguments,” Drescher says. “This is the biggest problem, to talk about the complexity of the subject. There is so much we don’t know.”
For some families, at least, it seems clear that affirmation is not the right approach. Linda told me that she and her husband called 16 facilities, searching for one that would treat Annie’s multiple mental health problems rather than fixating on her gender. “Almost every programme we called said that their official policy was to affirm,” she told me. “One programme told us that they affirm everyone so they don’t get sued.”
Eventually, however, they were able to transfer their daughter to a residential mental health facility in a Western state that was willing to look at her dysphoria as a symptom of her other issues, not the other way around. Annie is stable now, and her condition is slowly improving. Her family connection is restored. She lives in the girls’ dorm, and no longer identifies as transgender.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeJust like Rotherham, one more example of so-called ‘progressives’ using institutional power to conceal the truth in favour of false narratives that align better with their ideology. The woke are a threat to public security because, like the terrorists, they rely on ideology to justify terrible acts that harm the innocent.
I think the problem is far worse than your reply suggest and 99% of the problem is on the left.
The people who worked tirelessly to overturn the conviction of the man convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock on the basis of the technicalities, are the same people who drove changes to the law that removed centuries old legal protections, and who turned a bind eye to some very dubious evidence gathering, to ensure the conviction of the killers of Stephen Lawrence, are the same people who relegated news of the racist kidnapping and murder of the white teenager Kriss Donald to news of the opening of a new sports centre in Gateshead and who were happy to see the investigation shut down even though it was seemingly quite clear that all those responsible had not been arrested or charged
Here is a link to an interesting article in the Guardian back in the day
https://unherd.com/2021/12/the-hypocrisy-of-americas-terror-debate/#comment-261339
It’s not that odd really, for the reasons explained in the piece.
Defining terrorism is like defining racism. To the left, whether something is racism or not depends on the race of the alleged racist. Racists who are black are never racists, everyone who’s white is a racist, and racially insulting white people is never racism. In no case does anything the racist might say or do make any difference to the judgment.
In the same way, to the left people are terrorists or not according to whether use of the label advances the left’s agenda or not. Brooks’ victims were all white, whom the left also hates, therefore he’s not a terrorist. Crumbley’s victims provide an argument for gun control, which attacks the right, therefore he was a terrorist.
It comes down to the left’s hierarchy approach to victimhood. Sympathy is apportioned according to what identity group you belong to, so if British police get involved in fights with rioting British miners they side with the miners. But if South African police kill rioting miners they have a problem because everyone involved is black, so they just say nothing.
Spot on.
“What is terrorism and who is a terrorist?”
With respect, the author has buried the lead, not unusual for an academic, so I will attempt to answer his question. There is a severe level of terrorism and terrorist activity in the US, and I for one, am deeply grateful to Merrick Garland and his completely apolitical Justice Department (Hunter Biden, anyone?) that is already looking into this grave threat.
That threat, of course, is the very real and present danger of parents speaking at school board meetings objecting to wokeness. These parents–I mean terrorists–have formed cells to initiative terrorist activities such as 1. speaking at meetings, 2. recall votes, 3. encouraging people to take these positions much more seriously. These terrorists must be stopped, and Merrick is on it.
“Nobody wants to be accused of Islamophobia or racism,”
Finally, I just can’t let this comment pass. I suppose that this is especially true for the security guard at the Manchester Arena who saw the bomber, realized that he was acting suspiciously for a variety of different reasons, but said nothing because…..”Nobody wants to be accused of Islamophobia or racism…..”
I am a little confused…are you being sarcastic?
YES!
Just by using the argument tool: ad absurdum. .
Oh James, with respect, you so often start by slagging off the writer and then suggesting you’ll provide true insight, and proceed to jump on your own wee angle, showing you have, in fact, ‘buried the lead’.
Cheers, mate. I’ll try to do better….
People should be punished and imprisoned for what they do not for what they think. Motives may be relevant if it is thought that deradicalisation can be effected during their incarceration but a trial should concentrate exclusively on what they did. The whole proliferation of charges of “terrorism” and the introduction of classes of “hate crime” is a mistake.
It is almost impossible to untangle the thought processes of murderers and determine to what extent they are motivated by ideology, mental illness or childhood or adult trauma. Nor is there any point when it comes to the question of guilt or innocent which is what a trial is concerned with. If prison psychiatrists can delve into this area to see if a repetition of the behaviour might be avoided that is all well and good but it should not figure in any trial except to determine whether the accused is mentally capable of distinguishing right from wrong.
Good point. It seems as though the victims themselves are of little or no interest.
And yes.
Yes.
Very well said! Motivation may be useful to know when deciding guilt, but should not be criminal in itself.
Agree 1000%. The whole category of “hate crimes” just lends itself to politicizing criminal behavior. One could argue that any premeditated act of violence is a “hate crime.” Motivation comes into play with establishing motive (duh), and perhaps in aggravating circumstances with regards to sentencing, but to me “hate crime” is way too much like “thought crime.”
Very interesting to read a sound post from an academic who isn’t pre-occupied by wokeness and virtue signalling. I do hope it doesn’t adversely affect his career.
Whilst I admit that I now try to avoid the mainstream media, I was interested to read a very recent account from the Campaign Against Antisemitism about one Ben Raymond (of whom I’ve never heard but was apparently a 32 year old co-founder of the nutter’s group National Action).
In the C.A.S.’s account he was sent down for ten years, but apparently actually eight for belonging to a proscribed organisation and two years (concurrently) for having some notes of home made detonators and an account of Anders Brevik’s ideology. The account fails to reveal that he actually DID anything naughty. But 8 years in the nick is quite a term, nowadays, even for an antisemitic nutter.
Compare and contrast with “Professor” Susan Michie, Communist Party Stalwart (“Stalin’s Nannie”), appointed by Boris as SAGE’s leading light in promoting the use of terror to control the plebs and promote our Beloved Leader’s wise choices of dealing with Covid and the Climate. Michie is lionised and much interviewed by the BBC. This other sad twerp is put in pokey for 8 years and seemingly ignored by the media.
I have zero sympathy for Raymond or Michie.
But it is self evident who is the greater threat to society.
For goodness sake, Michie is one of 90 or so scientists that are on the SAGE advisory group as at the 16th Sept 2021. Apart rom the BBC I hardly think she is a dominating factor in discussion unless she can persuade the other 89 to her left wing thinking
How many N azis are on it? There should surely be one balancing N azi for every Communist?
“What is terrorism and who is a terrorist? A lot of ink has been wasted in trying to answer this, but it’s really not that complicated.”
Well, I think the best answer is the MSM are the terrorists as they take the world’s actions and make it terror or non-terror, as often as not irrespective of anything solid, excepting where it fits in their agenda.
Like Central Banks ‘Create Money’ by conjuring up debt on one side, and cash on the other side, of their balance sheets- to give out money to their masters and minions (Rich and Poor) from one side -, and giving out the debt for the ones they do not like (Workers and Middle Class), to pay for on the other….. The bank ‘Created the Debt and Dollars by some strokes of the keyboard, and so zeros and ones streaming off on the internet, turning into pain or pleasure, depending on who they wish what on…..
This is the MSM, Tech/Social Media, ones and zeros off their algorithms and keyboards to benefit the ones they like, and punish the ones they do not. And like the Central Banks casting either Debt, or Dollars on the ones they want to have it – the MSM does the same, but with Guilt and Innocence, good or bad..
Correct.
There is a supply chain problem for the media as far as ‘far right’ terrorism goes: there is simply much more demand than there is supply.
Consequently the MSM have to make it up by ascribing the label to events that clearly do not belong in that category and by wildly exaggerating any examples they find of genuine right wing extremism.
The reverse is true when it comes to left wing terrorism: there is way too much Antifa, BLM and general anti-white violence for the MSM’s liking, so they ignore it or mis-label it (“mostly peaceful protests”).
Trump was right. The media (or large parts of them anyway) are the enemy of the people.
So don’t bother stopping terrorists who kill people? Just end MSM and incarcerate all journalists as terrorists?
This problem is much like what is presented by hate crime laws. We criminalize thoughts, which always presents ambiguity and the potential for misunderstanding and manipulation, as opposed to actions, which are for more clear-cut. We criminalize terrorism or hate with no clear consensus on what either really means, then act all surprised and troubled when governments apply those laws in ways we disagree with.
Well, what did we expect?
This is all so stupid it makes my brain hurt. Murder is murder whether driving a vehicle into a parade of shooting up a school. Treat murder as the heinous crime it should be an you don’t need an excuse to pile on extra charges.
Terror and hate – emotional terms, not particularly well defined. The words have been revised to become weapons to enhance a basic crime. One might imagine every crime involves those aspects of the action.
There isn’t a terrorist under every bed and these two crimes prove it. The high school shooter is an adolescent misfit taking out his weirdness on others, abetted by the worlds worst parents. Darrell Brooks is just one of thousands or even millions of parolees and bail releasees who rob, kill, and rape Americans everyday. Shoehorning these people in the same category as the 9/11attackers and BLM activists is ridiculous. Crumbley is too weird and Brooks too stupid to be associated with terrorists.
We always need to wait until the situation is examined further when the perpetrator is black and the victims are white. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions just because the attacker espoused hatred and promoted violence against white people. We are told to be circumspect until the evidence is examined and the experts chime in. And then suddenly a month will pass and no one will be talking about the black man who anyone with rudimentary powers of deduction understands was targeting innocent white people because they were white. And its college educated white people who will call anyone who points this out a racist. What a weird time to be on earth.
Neither are terrorists, murderous criminals yes. The boy didn’t want to bring down America, nor did the truck driver. They might have liked to. If they’d attacked the military, police or politicians then maybe and only then if a terror group had planned the occasions and sent people out to commit the atrocities would be my definition.
The journalists who report the news in such a way as to further a political agenda that purposefully misrepresents ethnic groups (for good or bad) are also engaging in a form of terrorism.
What differentiates a terrorist, is that a terrorist uses terror as a means to an end. A terrorist is someone who seeks to instill terror and then to use the resultant panic as a means of societal change. If one accepts this definition, then one might consider as terrorists those who seek to instill terror over a viral outbreak and to use the resulting panic as a means of societal change.
In the social media age, if the perpetrator of an atrocity’s intention is to inspire copycat attacks, then could that be considered a terrorist act? Depending on the basic facts? Over the last twenty years, there has among some terrorist groupings seemingly been almost a Top Of The Pops rivalry as to who can produce the greatest ‘spectacular’. Each terrorist must be ever hopeful that he has done enough to keep the show going, as it were. (A banality of evil).
Also, there might be a germ of truth that when a news organisation uses the word “atrocity”, that the violent incident that it relays news on is probably seen as a terrorist event.
Interesting that you have used the phrase, ‘A banality of evil’, referring back to your other post about Sheer and Arendt. I was going to do the same and you beat me to it.
I see the same above as I do in the cases of Japan and Germany in WW2.
In Japan, a group of senior people saw that Japan was cut off from raw materials and used schools, newspapers and all propaganda available to them to convince the people that Japan had to react by taking over the world. But the people were basically illiterate compared to Europeans. They followed because there was no alternative to them – either kill or be killed was the message.
In Germany, the population was one of the most cultured and educated in the world. The politicians here showed that Germany could be greater and greater and rule the world except for the internal enemy, the Jews. Cursing and blaming the Jews was already inherent in society and this reaction was banal. Gradually, it changed to murder but still was described as banal.
So, the white guy talked big with his mates, revered Hitler but probably wouldn’t have even known where Germany was – do people in the USA know about the world? – and might have been incited to violence. Not terrorism.
The black guy had grown up in a black community, hating white people for their relative successes in life, surrounded by examples of the domination of white people (in his mind, at least) and definitely part of a sub-culture. Quite possibly a terrorist. But difficult to say without looking in detail at the actual case.
I can understand one reason why the media would not agree with me. To label something as ‘terrorist’ is to make it sexy and to attract people to it as a meaning of life.
I very largely agree with you, other than your assertion that the Japanese people “were basically illiterate compared to Europeans”.
That would be very difficult to demonstrate.
It’s not striking at all. We know exactly why Brooks has been handled with kid gloves by the corporate press.