Spanish doctors have found a succulent market niche. Camilo Erasso/Long Visual Press/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
I have the strangest feeling that my body has been stolen from me. When I started my transition, I was not aware of any options besides medical treatment to modify my body. Years later, I still ask myself why no one told me that I could have left my body the way it was; why no one ever explained that sexuality in that body was possible. There was no violence involved, no threats were made.
But I feel that I was robbed of the possibility to experience my body any other way. I don’t believe this is a universal truth for all trans people. It’s simply something that I feel, something that pains me.
I am not oblivious to what many of you must be thinking: how could it be a robbery when trans people themselves choose to undergo operations? To compare the medical treatment of transgenderism to theft is certainly risky because it makes it seem as if trans people have been forced to accept these treatments when in reality we see the exact opposite: people fighting for the right to receive hormones and have surgery. It certainly doesn’t appear like anyone is forcing us to do anything.
This is true, but from my point of view it is also true that the conditions under which we make these decisions have been and continue to be very complex. Without refuting trans people’s agency and autonomy, I think it’s worth mentioning the role these medical professionals have played in this story. Starting in the late Eighties, the health professionals who worked with trans people touted the famous threefold treatment method (psychological or psychiatric evaluation, hormonal treatment, and surgery). They doled out diagnoses explaining to people that they had “an incurable illness, with chronic treatment options”, which consisted of hormonal therapy and surgery. And these treatments were not publicly funded until almost 25 years later. The results: trans people became a succulent market niche. (They tell us that we have the wrong body and then we pay them: it has to be admitted that this is a brilliant business model.)
Among the surgeons in Spain leading the field in so-called “gender reassignment surgery”, a few figures stand out in terms of how they’ve built their practice on the myth of the wrong body. These are professionals with dubious reputations: surgeons who have been working for decades and have treated thousands of trans people, and whose businesses are booming, despite their appalling reputations among the trans community. In my experience as an activist, I’ve heard terrible stories of extremely questionable results sold as infallible cures, claims from patients who wanted to report malpractice but had signed multiple documents that impeded them from later filing complaints, and tales of trans people being called by their original gender pronouns on the operating table.
And, as the icing on the cake, some of these doctors have become the public face of trans advocacy: there’s not a panel discussion, debate, TV news report, or documentary on being transgender that they’re not a part of. There they are in their offices, sitting in front of their computers with screensavers showing pictures of our bodies before and after we lie down on their table, saying that the problem with people who have gender identity disorder is that they were born in the wrong body.
How did these professionals manage to become such “experts”? Well, in some cases they formed part of the medical teams of Gender Identity Units — consultation teams which tell people that in order to be cured they have to have an operation but, unfortunately, the treatment wouldn’t be covered by the public health system. And then they tell them that there’s a place they might be able to go.
Guess which place? To these surgeons’ private clinics: they refer patients to themselves. And that’s how it went for many years.
Some of these medical professionals have taken other, even more slippery paths. They’ve learned how to monetise trans people’s need for sexual reassignment, mainly women, by creating an extensive catalogue of bodily modifications that go far beyond what could be considered any form of treatment.
To prove this, a colleague of mine went to one of these clinics explaining that she was a trans woman who wanted to have a vaginoplasty. She walked out with a €70,000 estimate for the procedure, after the doctor had added on multiple retouches for “feminisation” of her face and body. If you want to be a woman you will need a pinch of this, a splash of that, and a large dollop of that over there. It is easy to become trapped by the myth of the wrong body because it doesn’t specify when treatment will end. The reality is that treatment never ends: neither trans people nor anyone else can ever have a perfectly male or perfectly female body because that body does not exist.
The websites for these clinics show that the catalogue of treatments for trans women is significantly more extensive than for trans men. Does this have anything to do with the fact that we live in a sexist society that is constantly imposing impossible demands on women’s bodies? Of course. In this sense trans women are a much more interesting business prospect than cis women (women who are not trans) because to the former we’ve said that corporal modification is the chronic treatment for our incurable illness and to the latter we’ve said they are frivolous.
It is truly shocking that I was taught to hate some parts of my body while there are people who literally make a living from that hate, who get rich modifying our bodies and bathing in an aura of progressivism. And although, of course, there are some well-meaning professionals, the end result is the same.
This notion that trans people’s disconnect with their bodies is created by social pressures is a very unpopular argument within the trans community. In my opinion, trans people born on a desert island wouldn’t be trans: our gender expression would not be associated with any fixed gender identity and less still to a concrete social corporality. If we’d been born on desert islands we’d never dream of operating on ourselves.
Right now, it often seems that the end goal of trans movements in some parts of the world is the right to access hormonal treatments and surgical interventions in order to alter our bodies. But holding the right to bodily modification as the only solution to our suffering is problematic. Of course, trans people can, should, and must have this right, but centring all trans political aims on it distracts from a question which, from my point of view, is more relevant: what actually causes the suffering that trans people feel and how can that be addressed?
Our bodies are fine — the problem is how certain parts of us are interpreted in our society, the meanings and connotations assigned to them. And due to this, unfortunately, many people might feel the need to alter themselves.
It’s like we’re being assaulted by all these ideas and yet we exonerate the thieves, shouting: “No one has stolen my body, I abandoned it of my own free will because it was never mine!” But yes, it was yours. It was and is the only body you have.
Extracted from The Myth of the Wrong Body by Miquel Missé, published by Polity.
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.
SubscribeI think Peston, in particular, sees journalism as a vehicle whereby he demonstrates to the masses that he is a clever man. His reports always seem to be structured so that he can explain some frightfully complex idea that only he and a few others understand, or offer some analysis that only he has thought of. It’s journalism as ego boost, and this time (not for the first time), his ego was writing cheques his knowledge couldn’t cash.
I have seen no evidence to suggest that Peston is ‘clever’.
Absolutely agree with Douglas, and with Claire Fox who wrote an excellent article in similar vein for Spectator yesterday. BBC, ITV, Sky, C4 have all gone down the Gotcha route, along with all the national newspapers. Yet they seem completely out of tune with the zeitgeist – the general public seems to be pretty appreciative of all that Government and NHS are doing to deal with this extraordinary crisis.
The daily No 10 press conferences would be so much better if the journalists weren’t there, and the time saved was given to Sir Patrick Vallance, Dr Jenny Harries etc for more explanation of the data.
When the UK was deeply in the mire during the Great Financial Crisis, I don’t recall that the Douglas et. al. demanding that the Press Pack stop hammering Gordon Brown every minute of the day….
Isn’t the current state of affairs a result of the shift from the old “news and entertainment” media model to nonstop “infotainment”?
A factual “news” report on Covid-19 for example would include updates on the medical situation and government policy response from the appropriate authorities.
What’s that take? 30 min?
So that leaves 23 1/2 hrs of air time to fill, not to mention the internet.
This is electronic vaudeville.
We have to put on a show and we need fresh acts.
So you’re a plate spinner eh?
Sorry, we got a million plate spinners.
What’s that you say? You spin plates while you milk a goat with your feet?
Now that is new! You’re on right after the blind lady that juggles fleas.
This is really just a supply and demand problem.
Thanks for saying this Douglas because it certainly needs to be said. There was a time when I broadly respected the media – well, parts of it. But I gave up on it all a long time ago and I now refuse to fund the MSM in any way whatsoever. No TV, no newspapers, barely any radio, no subscriptions. Even The Spectator (which I have read almost every week for 40 years) inflicts the wretched Peston on us, so no subscriptions renewal there for me. Needless to say, this crisis has brought out the worst in them all.
Yes, I’ll read sites like this, and I watch a lot of podcasts – from the left and the right – on YouTube. But no direct funding.
One of the many examples recently was that well known “medical expert” Kay Burley on Sky shrieking at the Chancellor about getting tested – even though he explained the Chief Medical Officer had advised it was not necessary. Even then she kept repeating he should get tested! I can’t even begin to comment on Peston!!
In my house we have just stopped watching or listening to the MSM. The BBC is so clearly lowering morale that it is a positive danger to the country,.The rest are not much better. The fault lies directly with the journalists. They should be ashamed of themselves.
A few days ago there was a segment on ITV , I think , about a care home manager desperately shopping for supplies in empty shelved supermarkets. My wife worked in many care homes and without exception all the food was delivered from wholesalers. The incident looked staged and designed to sensationalise the matter. That care home , if it had to do this , was inept. End of story. .
Our journalists are going to end up discredited.
Although I agree that mainstream media is just propaganda, on the point that care homes all get food delivered, that is not correct. I lived in a care home and the staff and residents went out shopping for food together. All care homes are different.
Like the rest of the sane, I have no TV. “Why does Lineker still get license fee millions to gossip over his kitchen table, maybe if hung out the washing as we do, then he’d get his Vitamin D”? being my line.
I therefore trust Murray to tell me how it is, bound to be true
These clowns in mediatown really think that they are ” key essential services”. And this useless Government indulge them. And we are silenced, quiescent
No longer journalists , mere hactivists who were given the Bernstein/ Woodward colouring book and think they’re rebellious. Jon Snow at Eton types. Despicable lying breed.
Douglas is a great writer, thinks for himself and is independent, gorgeous and wildly successful now. He tells truth to power. And , like the butterfly in the wasps nest, he’s reviled by all the right people . Keep going Mr Murray, were all with you.
“He tells truth to power.”
Really?
The MSM commentators are completely out of touch with their audience. Some of the questions and hypothesise put forward by journalists are merely to substantiate their own prejudices and not to further develop public understanding and empathy of the current situation. Harmful in the extreme.
This article exactly reflects what I, and literally everyone I speak to, feel.. and these journalists are pretty stupid if the believe that the General Public are in any way taken in by this type or “Gotcha” Culture.. and only undermining more and more their reputations.. it is coming to the point where actually politicians are starting to look more credible than those who are supposed to hold them to account
Sadly many people ARE taken in by hacks, politicians and anyone they see on TV who impresses them with articulate language.
And more than a few on the right seem to be seriously annoyed that the press pack that ripped into those on the left, is now questioning ‘their PM’…..
As others note at length below, Peston’s repetition of false dualities in all of his written articles, where he deems to present himself the balanced sage but comes across more the ill informed sixth former is tired now. He has been found out. He lost any connection with the inner circles of power when Boris got rid of the Cabinet leakers.
His reception at the Speccy these days brings universal howls of derision.
Unlike Douglas’ comments. Carry on Douglas.
The quality of TV journalism has plummeted, we are now not given the facts but given opinions.
These opinions are posted to create virality, and their success measured by how many likes and or what other organisations pick up on the reporter’s opinion.
Just look at the daily press conferences, the journalists are desperate to get THEIR question answered, so they can say ” The Prime Minister told me that XXX was going to happen”.
They feel so pleased with themselves if they “GOT” the government minister with their question, and they feel one up on their rival journalists if THEIR question got answered.
If you compare the Pandemic reporting with the Brexit reporting, the similarities are glaringly obvious, with the same suspects involved.
There was a point made by a writer of an article in the Speccie….that the journalists present at the briefings, ask similar questions a number of times so that their editors have more options when when it comes to the final broadcast.
Post Peterson it is impossible to take Cathy Newman seriously and, Douglas, no serious commentary should include the words ‘Piers Morgan’. Douglas Murray’s premis is spot on. Increasingly the press pack sound like desperados trying to be the cleverest in the class. There is not the slightest sign (yet) of a Bernstein Woodward moment but the reptiles scratch around the bottom of the cage trying to find it and breathe life into it. The role of the 4th estate has indeed been replaced by Gotcha journalism.
At last, someone has burst the arrogant bubble of the MSM.
I thoroughly agree with Mr Murray. Not only have the armchair ‘presenters’ of the news channels got so far up their own fundaments that they believe we actually listen to their ideological student politics but that the relevant Channels present their fellow travellers as pundits with an even less idea of the subject matter in hand,
I’ve run out of things to throw at the TV.
Wait, since when did we ever need his annoying geek face on TV anyway?
BBC’s reporting has been extremely lackluster. Every time I see that BBC news channel on, we just get droning, often theoretical or speculative-sounding analysis from “experts” who are desperate for their 5 seconds of “fame” and very little actual reporting about what’s going on either in our country or elsewhere. What happened to all their foreign correspondents? Haven’t seen a single one, just those saddos sitting at desks in the big red studio as usual…
The gotcha journalist culture… A product of the times. Readers wanting entertainment over real in-depth news. Newspapers asking for an article from writers for the price of a cup of coffee or using an auto-bot to generate articles…
Fewer journalists than ever have the time or resources to do their jobs the way they should. It’s now considered a luxury to have an adequate budget and several days to thoroughly pursue a story to its logical conclusion.
Hence the ever-dive into ridiculousness. Expect cheap dives and mud-throwing for laughs. Who wears the bikini is anyone’s guess. As long as it goes viral
nobodyinvestors won’t really mind the content anyway.So this is where the real Spectator has been hiding.
No….
We have some political guests and reporters in the UK, who are deliberately broadcasting and being invited on to news programmes to spout their idiotic views solely to create viral headlines on social media.
They need to be derided and given an appropriate all-encompassing term or collective noun that we can all use when talking about them.
I favour “Clickbait Clowns”
Journalists have been found wanting in what to ask apart from concerns raised by stakeholders. Some are just lazy in thier research and these lot would usually start with an open ended question and then then push for a ‘gotcha’ question moment right up to the end. It all becomes a verbal joust where the minister is put into the defensive but at the same time the Journalists have a façade of balancing the boundaries of being patriotic and scoring the ‘gotcha’. Prime example was the way Mat Hancock replied the tests questions yesterday. Not much wiser at the end but the minister stuck to his guns with an announcement.
“presenting a show whose viewers are generally treated to some second or third-rate figure like Emily Thornberry”
Pot. Kettle. Black.
“why deride the country’s two leading experts on the virus in the same way?”
Obviously these two men, over their hard working careers, have not demonstrated anything like the same lack of honesty, integrity or diligence as Johnson. So why express any criticism of their performance to date as a key part of the UK COCID-19 response?
For starters, how about because they were leading figures on a response team that caused critical delay for weeks while dithering over adequate action? A team that having Prof Whitty, a consultant physician and epidemiologist to hand, nevertheless initially gave excessive prominence to a “behavioural” group (a Cabinet Office ‘nudge’ squad) and mathematical modelers. Using Neil Ferguson’s flu model written 13 years ago. Still computing please wait…” seems to have been the case at that time.
On 3rd March, when Johnson bizarrely contradicted Intelligence assessments, and publicly congratulated China on the speed at which he said they’d publicly acknowledged the outbreak, he also foolishly boasted about shaking hands at a hospital, then handed over to Vallance for his opinion on that.
Vallance had an ideal opportunity to say “Sorry Prime Minister but you ought not to be shaking hands currently and I would stress that everyone must avoid that.” Instead he merely smile-grimaced diplomatically and said “Wash your hands”. A glimpse of how the roles of (SIr) Patrick Vallance and Prof Whitty are not entirely uninfluenced by political considerations.
Less than two weeks after that press briefing, the favoured Imperial College model confirmed what scientists globally had been saying since February. It predicted a quarter of a million UK deaths if the government’s herd immunity strategy of necessity continued.
Cue a belated, panicky strategy U-turn by Johnson, Hancock, the Cabinet Office’s Behavioural Insights Team, Whitty, Vallance, and all. A U-turn that would expose the stark lack of sufficient national preparedness and resources that had necessitated the “herd immunity” strategy in the first place… While properly prepared nations like S. Korea and Taiwan were proficiently suppressing the infection within their borders.
Government ministers have lied repeatedly about COVID-19 response matters and a whopper of a lie is their denying that “wash your hands – principally to slow the infection rate and unfortunately two thirds of the population will ultimately need to be infected for COVID-19 to abate in UK”, was their initial strategy. Unsurprisingly neither Prof Whitty nor Sir P Vallance are particularly keen to admit otherwise.
So, do you agree with Douglas Murray’s premis that the current press pack are more interested in personal grandstanding than doing the job of the 4th estate?
Yes and no Adrian. I certainly think that there is a notable lack of diligent consideration and prep around, for instance, what questions ought to be asked of those that the journalists interview and at press briefings and so on ” and how best to follow through.
There seems to have been a slide toward less vigour in calling out over-generalised or waffling answers; lazily or ‘over diplomatically’ just accepting lame statements and excuses, as well as plain falsehoods. Though how such performance could be construed as grandstanding I don’t know. Perhaps in their own minds?
It wasn’t that long ago that HMG threatened to bar journalists it didn’t like from lobby briefings….
https://pressgazette.co.uk/…
..I don’t recall Bullshitter Murray complaining much about that attempt by HMG to only have arselikan hacks present…..
On the current trajectories the UK and ( to an even greater extent) the USA, look likely to have far greater mortality rates than other advanced countries, this could well be because the government’s of both countries were slow to recognise the extent of the threat, and have not been very effective in mobilising resources to counter it.
In time it will become apparent to voters which countries were most successful in minimising the death rates, and reward or punish their leaders accordingly.
In the meantime journalist would be remiss if they didn’t do their best to hold ministers to account by asking questions about apparent failings such as the lack of respirators, testing kits etc as well as the earlier policy of going for “herd immunity” with its corollary of “letting the OAPs die”.
Except many of them are not interested in the (sometimes complex) answers surrounding those issues, so resort to trying to trip up the interviewee. Likewise the shift in strategy, which was based on the current advice as Douglas says, not a policy of ‘letting the oaps die’ (a lazy and ignorant statement in itself).
I get it, you have TDS but you’re wrong. The US death rate is far lower than most Western Europe countries, the biggest exception being Germany. Considering they have universal healthcare, it will certainly be food for thought. The US numbers will have to be taken with a grain of salt as states have financial incentives to mislabel deaths as Wuhan Virus.