liturgyontheweekend

[liturgyontheweekend]

When Harry Became Sally: Chapter 6

In this chapter Anderson turns to childhood dysphoria/GID and discusses desistance, mostly using Dr. Zucker's work as a source. This is a long one!

p117–120

Anderson begins the chapter talking about a Washington Post series on a transgender boy with the middle name of Tyler. You can read the latest in the series here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/transgender-at-10-tyler-discovers-hate-in-his-midst/2017/03/02/e77bcfac-fea7-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html

He sets up his argument in the chapter, claiming that there is little support for the current approach to treating transgender children, and bringing up the 80–95% statistic he’s used earlier in the book to argue that most gender nonconforming children desist at some point. He uses Jesse Singal to further his argument, positioning him as a transgender-friendly liberal author. Finally, he notes that nearly everyone who is eventually put on puberty blockers continues to identify as transgender, claiming that transition reinforces what Anderson believes to be a false identity.

As I’ve mentioned previously, the “debate” about desistance which Anderson claims to want would be much more believable if Anderson were a supporter of LGB rights and affirming of non-hetero orientations.

Singal has been roundly criticized by transgender people, but even he has issued a long mea culpa to the work that Anderson cites: https://medium.com/@jesse.singal/everyone-myself-included-has-been-misreading-the-single-biggest-study-on-childhood-gender-8b6b3d82dcf3

Turns out that the 80% statistic (which is not 95% anywhere but for some reason Anderson keeps pushing the number up) is based on gender nonconformity; the strength of dysphoria is variable among Zucker’s sample size, as I mentioned earlier. Anderson falls for the same misreading that Singal does, and begins to refer to all those kids as gender dysphoric in this chapter. Very few kids who are brought to a gender clinic claim to be something other than their natal gender when interviewed; all of those kids are included in Zucker's 80%.

Singal is emphatic about several points as he follows up and apologizes for getting the research wrong:

some kids desist

others don't

kids should never be shamed

conversion therapy doesn't work

transition relieves serious dysphoria”

(https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/979044991174631429)

Again, many kids who have gender nonconformity or more mild dysphoria grow into LGB adults, and I am in agreement that good childhood treatment will be cautious while being supportive of all kids. Even by Zucker’s study, which Anderson is fond of citing, 20% of those kids truly are transgender and need treatment as most of them transition.

Summary: Anderson is trying to play it both ways, citing studies that confirm a substantial number of transgender children and a substantial number of nonconforming and LGB children, and then pulling the rug out and claiming that both are actually invalid.

p120–122

Anderson reviews the typical progressive treatment plan for gender dysphoric transgender children: social transition (completely reversible), puberty blockers (reversible with possible side effects), hormones (not very reversible), and surgery (not reversible). He goes on to describe the beliefs underlying this treatment.

Anderson is correct that there’s no absolute way for a doctor to be 100% sure that a child will persist. Nothing in medicine operates with absolute certainty. Doctors do believe they can know this to a high degree of certainty, however, and Anderson doesn’t provide any evidence to the contrary (since Zucker’s study doesn’t deal only with children with severe dysphoria).

He’s not correct, however, that going through puberty as the wrong gender is just something that children can deal with through good counseling. If someone is transgender, being forced to go through puberty as the opposite gender is a traumatic experience, and one that’s easily avoidable through the use of puberty blockers. And the lifelong ramifications of being transgender after undergoing the wrong puberty are significant.

Anderson shares his belief that undergoing puberty at the “wrong” time (i.e. later in one's teens) could have repercussions which we aren’t aware of, despite the medical evidence indicating its safety. He doesn’t cite any research for this claim.

He wraps up this section of the chapter by suggesting that the changes of puberty of one’s natal sex, even with strong dysphoria, might be the “very things that help an adolescent come to identify with his or her biological sex.” This statement is not only wrong, but incredibly dangerous. The suicides of teenage transgender kids are too numerous to fathom, and it’s patently clear that undergoing puberty doesn’t solve dysphoria.

As for the suggestion that blocking puberty locks in a transgender identity, let’s refer again to Zucker. If most kids who express gender nonconformity grow into gay, lesbian, or bisexual identities, it stands to reason that the ones who don’t, the ones who continue to express strong dysphoria, are the ones who end up on puberty blockers and subsequent treatments. I’d certainly expect fewer or none of those to desist. This better explains the Dutch study Anderson cites than some conjecture about how puberty blockers make kids transgender and we should just “let” them go through the wrong puberty.

p123–126

In this section Anderson continues his use of desistance statistics (say that 10x fast), using them to argue that most kids grow out of what he’s calling gender dysphoria (remember, the Zucker study was about gender nonconforming kids). Here’s McHugh again, not in a study or published literature, but in an amicus brief submitted for the HB2 case. He also pulls in Singal again, who has disclaimed his earlier claims and recognized his misinterpretation of the data he and Anderson both used.

Also, here’s the periodic reminder that even if Anderson’s interpretation of Zucker were right, there are still 20% of kids he’s not addressing in this book on transgender people: actual transgender people. Maybe that’s in a later chapter…

One comment about the situation of a kid realizing they actually aren’t transgender and wanting to go back, and the hypothetical difficulty of telling a parent who has become a champion that they were wrong: a kid who was willing to risk everything to tell their parent they were transgender initially probably has the ability to admit they were wrong; going back is a much easier proposition than going forward as transgender. I think Anderson’s hypothetical here is weak.

Anderson takes what he’s just said and sums it up by stating that there’s “no reliable way of knowing whether a particular child is” among the supposed 20% of truly transgender kids, and returns to the self-fulfilling prophecy argument he was making earlier in the chapter. We’ve already looked into the neuroplasticity argument in a previous chapter, and the science seems clear that the identity is the horse and the transition is the cart, rather than the other way around. There is no evidence that social transition causes someone to become transgender; this is all conjecture.

Anderson is suddenly very concerned about the difficulties a transitioning child will face in their life, and believes those difficulties could be avoided with some good therapy which would cause the child to embrace their natal sex. I’ll come back to another theme I’ve been mentioning the entire book: where are the transgender people represented here? If he’s concerned about difficulties in life, where are the interviews with transgender kids who have gone through the wrong puberty? What about those who have followed the recommended treatment talking about said difficulties? He’s just making things up here.

Instead of those stories, which should be critical to the discussion Anderson is having here, he refers to detransitioners again. Detransitioners' stories are not unimportant, but they’re a small minority and weaponizing their stories to marginalize the stories of the majority of transgender folks is irresponsible scholarship on Anderson’s part.

I don’t believe any doctor wants a non-transgender child to transition. As we learn more, we’ll continue to get better at identifying and working with all gender nonconforming kids, including transgender kids, and helping all of them to flourish, including transitioning if that is the right path. And hopefully we'll continue to build a society where gender nonconforming kids are accepted as they are.

p126–129

Anderson discusses the safety of puberty blockers. I don’t have a lot to say here; I’m not a doctor, and I don’t doubt that there are side effects of any medication. However, given the use of these medications for blocking precocious puberty, there’s at least some track record on their risks and efficacy.

On the topic of what’s “natural,” puberty has happened at many ages throughout human history. One could say that precocious puberty is “natural” for that child, yet nobody has any qualms about delaying it for primarily social reasons.

He quotes Mayer and McHugh again, arguing that the supposed safety of puberty blockers is “unclear.” It’s true that there’s not a ton of evidence either way; that seems like it’d be a call for further study, though, which is not what Anderson is proposing. I'm guessing if science were to definitively proclaim their safety, he wouldn't suddenly become a fan. Anderson is also concerned about the lack of FDA approval for this use of the medications, which is curious since I rarely hear those on the right giving much credence to the FDA.

Most of the rest of this section is more conjecture and speculation trying to cast doubt on safety without really having any evidence for those claims. For example, Anderson ends the section with a relatively long “thought experiment” about two sets of twins, one of each pair of whom undergoes puberty blockers and apparently never receives hormones or transitions. In that case, I suppose, they will look different as adults; this isn’t a realistic scenario, however, nor does it reflect badly on gender dysphoria treatment in any way I can see.

Anderson claims that children undergoing puberty blockers “feel different than their peers” and that could be avoided by avoiding treatment. However, without treatment, children who are transgender also “feel different than their peers,” since they don’t identify with the gender they’re going through puberty as, and are isolated from their peers of that gender as well. They’re also experiencing higher rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicide, which all seems relevant to Anderson’s discussion of what’s best for the children. As always, he glosses over these very real problems.

p129–132

Here’s the self-fulfilling prophecy discussion, as Anderson believes the research shows that treatment sets someone up on a course of becoming transgender, rather than being transgender setting someone up on the course of treatment.

His first argument seems to be that teenagers aren’t capable of knowing themselves well enough to assist in making decisions about their treatment and gender identity. This is a specious argument. Yes, a teenager’s brain is still developing. But teenagers are more than capable of knowing who they’re attracted to and of identifying their gender. If you look back at yourself as a teen, you might have bristled if someone insisted you were gay or another gender. If Anderson asked an 8 year old, or a 14 year old, their gender, and they responded with something that matches their birth certificate, he wouldn’t think to question that or say they couldn’t actually know. But if they respond differently, then Anderson would suggest they can’t possibly have the cognitive ability to understand their own gender. He can’t have it both ways!

Anderson spends a bit of time talking about how much we still don’t understand, and claims that as we learn more, we’ll better be able to help kids who have gender dysphoria. This is a fascinating statement given his track record so far of ignoring transgender voices and claiming to have enough knowledge to know that nobody is really transgender. I’ll leave it at that.

There’s a suicide mention at the end of this section, with Anderson claiming that data doesn’t support higher suicide rates for children unsupported in their transgender identity. He doesn’t cite this claim, and it’s again dangerous and ignorant, showing again how little Anderson really cares about transgender children.

p132–142

In this extended section, Anderson begins to discuss what his vision of appropriate therapy would look like for gender nonconforming and gender dysphoric children. There’s a lot here.

First, by way of introduction, he cites McHugh arguing that transition doesn’t help transgender people. Refer to basically all of the extant research for why this is wrong; I won’t repeat myself. Anderson’s only solution is for therapy to help a child reconcile their “subjective gender identity with their objective biological sex.” It’s unclear to me why one’s gender identity is subjective; as I’ve pointed out in the past, research shows biological origins for gender identity, and those who are transgender certainly don’t see their identities as subjective. For that matter, I don’t think you and I see our gender identity as subjective either!

When he cites Zucker here, he’s forced to use GID (gender identity disorder) instead of gender dysphoria since he's quoting. That’s what the DSM referred to at that time, and it’s also different than gender dysphoria, which is why the DSM changed. But Anderson persists in conflating the two in discussing Zucker’s research for most of this chapter, because it helps him make the case that most children desist.

After minimizing biological origins as “predisposing but not determining,” Anderson sets up his therapy discussion by reviewing many possible reasons he believes a child could be gender nonconforming.

BIOLOGICAL PREDISPOSING FACTORS

Anderson claims that Zucker doesn’t believe that someone can be trapped in the wrong body. He doesn’t cite this claim, and we’ve already seen Zucker supporting transition for those who truly are transgender. Anderson’s main contention in this section is that biological predisposition is equivalent to tomboy girls and sensitive boys. We’ve already seen this is false, based on twin and brain studies. And it’s clear that sensitive boys and tomboy girls aren’t always transgender. This is Anderson playing with his own stereotypes.

I was a boy who didn’t fit stereotypical gender roles, for example. Most of my friends were girls; I hated roughhousing and sports and enjoyed playing house; I didn’t fit in with my same-gender peers. However, I would not have claimed to be a girl, and fortunately had an environment that accepted me for the non-stereotypical boy I was. Had I been brought to Zucker’s gender clinic, I would have showed some signs of nonconformity, and I would have “desisted” from that eventually. If I had been raised in a less supportive environment, I could have probably fantasized about being a girl more than I did, since I wouldn’t have seen a place for me as a boy. But I would not have actually identified as a girl, and again would have desisted eventually.

There’s nothing wrong with therapy and families helping nonconforming children to see that there are many ways to be male (one of which is being gay or bisexual, as many nonconforming kids end up being).

But Anderson is trying to make me the only model of his biological argument. The problem with that is I’m not transgender, though I was gender nonconforming and ended up as a bisexual cisgender man. Anderson is again missing his opportunity to suss out the difference between me and someone who truly was a transgender child. We’re more than halfway through the book, and he still hasn’t spoken to any.

SOCIAL COGNITION

Continuing the discussion, Anderson focuses on social behavior that is nonconforming, highlighting those who were brought to Zucker’s clinic showing what Anderson calls “quite pronounced” gender dysphoria. However, those he mentions are quoted as saying they “wanted to be” the other gender, which seems actually quite mild on the dysphoria scale. None of the quotes he cites have any children saying they “are” the other gender, yet Anderson claims they would have all been put on social transition and hormones in clinics other than Zucker’s. This is just obviously false; doctors who deal with gender dysphoric kids don’t get someone on a transition path for saying “if [I] was a girl, [my] parents would be nicer to [me],” or “the teacher only yells at the boys.” It’s frankly absurd to claim otherwise.

He closes this section by saying that “thankfully, these children were instead helped to develop a better understanding of what it means, and doesn’t mean, to be a boy or a girl, and thus to be more comfortable with who they are.” Anderson knows that this means an LGB identity for most of these kids; again, I know I’m repeating myself, but McHugh, Mayer, and Anderson are not supportive of LGB identities and at least Mayer and McHugh believe they’re invalid as well. He can’t claim to want to support these kids as all their amazing nonconforming selves, and at the same time insist on heteronormativity (or celibacy) for all adults.

CO-OCCURRING PSYCHOPATHOLOGIES

Anderson cites Zucker in linking autism and gender dysphoria. I don’t know enough to comment on this medically, but the example he cites is a child with autism who insisted on being a girl and subsequently a computer, growing out of his dysphoria. His parents supported his social transition, which he then desisted from by age 12. I’m not sure how this example helps Anderson’s case here; it suggests he’s wrong that social transition is nearly irreversible, and notes a supportive parent and a well-adapted child who overcame bullying and childhood trauma. I don’t see any problem with this scenario.

FAMILY DYNAMICS

Anderson cites childhood family trauma as a contributing factor to gender dysphoria. Like Walt Heyer in Chapter 3, these kids are likely not transgender. Obviously, good medical care would include determining whether there were factors like this in someone’s life in attempting to ascertain the right treatment path. If someone has PTSD due to her mother being murdered (an example Anderson cites), that should be dealt with before talking about transition. I don’t think most doctors would argue with that or rush into transition for those patients.

But what about the 20% of nonconforming children who are really transgender, rather than lesbian, gay, bisexual, or something else? Anderson’s done a solid job here eliminating those who aren’t trans, but he doesn’t have any viable path forward for those who truly are.

AN EFFECTIVE THERAPY PLAN

This section is mostly based on Zucker’s writing, and the therapy he discusses is no exception. Now, there are some horror stories of Zucker’s treatment, and having read those, I’m being cautious here. Some of the treatment he proposes seems like generally good medical care, attempting to determine what factors are contributing to the child’s nonconformity or dysphoria and addressing those. However, he goes further into reparative therapy territory, which strikes me as very dangerous (and unnecessary, since just in the last section Anderson cited supportive parents of a child with autism who desisted). And the following story is just incredibly sad; if this is a true representation of Zucker's behavior, he deserved to be fired. (http://transadvocate.com/part-v-interview-with-zuckers-patient-the-rise-and-fall-of-discosexology-dr-zucker-camh-conversion-therapy_n_19727.htm)

p142–144

As is his habit, Anderson closes out the chapter by addressing his base. He supports conversion therapy programs for transgender kids (despite the ample evidence they don’t work), says “Orwellian,” and mentions that it’s the “liberal” states that are pushing laws to ban conversion therapy. He seems to disagree with McHugh about sexual orientation being fixed, as he refers to anti-gay conversion therapy as “abhorrent” (but banning it is "liberal").

Anderson seems to be of the very new view that gay people can’t become un-gay but they must remain single and celibate. Honestly, I wasn’t expecting him to be so strong in that position given how McHugh has been winning his footnotes the whole book, and would love to hear him explain how McHugh could get that so wrong and yet get transgender issues so right.

Anderson closes by saying that we need doctors who will “help [children] mature in harmony with their bodies.” How would he reconcile this with his previous acknowledgement that some people are intrinsically gay or lesbian? Non-heterosexual orientations aren’t “organized for reproduction,” as he argued earlier in the book. Why shouldn’t gay conversion therapy be A-OK, helping people to live in harmony with their bodies which he believes are obviously designed for heterosexual marriage and procreation? He’s placing himself in a very new belief system, despite criticizing that line of thinking for much of the book. The view that gay people can’t change their orientation and have to remain celibate is an evangelical invention which has only really taken hold over the past decade. How very postmodern of Anderson!

And Zucker himself, at least eventually, supported transition for folks he finally believed were actually transgender, while it seems obvious Anderson doesn’t believe anyone is actually transgender.

It would be nice if he featured some of those transgender folks (who are actually very real) in this book, to get their input on the situation.

[liturgyontheweekend]

When Harry Became Sally: Chapter 5

In this chapter, Anderson discusses gender dysphoria and gender confirmation surgery.

p93–94

Anderson introduces the chapter by associating being transgender with negative outcomes such as suicide and mental health problems. And he brushes off transition as something that does not mitigate these problems, by citing McHugh and noting the stories of detransitioners.

Detransitioners, we’ve already found, are 0.4% of the 27,000 people in the 2015 transgender survey I cited in Chapter 3. So he’s using half a percent of people to argue that outcomes for transitioning are negative, which seems pretty shady to me. Where are his interviews or stories of the many transgender people who have transitioned and do not regret it?

His reference to cultures more accepting of transgender people is amusing; I don’t think there’s any culture in the world today that is affirming of transgender people across the board; they face discrimination everywhere, and just because it’s not as bad in Sweden doesn’t mean it’s good.

The burden is on him to show that transitioning doesn’t benefit transgender people. He needs to do some more research, because there’s ample evidence it does. Citing McHugh to say otherwise isn’t going to fly; McHugh’s anti-transgender positions are well-known and his work is not peer-reviewed.

The close of this section is amazing. It’s a classic example of begging the question, saying that since all the (not true) things he just said about transitioning are true, we need more effective therapies that don’t involve transitioning.

p94–97

Anderson talks clinical guidelines and how the DSM has shifted. I’m not particularly interested in this nor am I an expert; I don’t fundamentally trust his accounting of why the DSM has changed, and I don’t think he’s in a unique position of expertise to weigh in. His overall goal here is to ensure his reader believes transgender people to be mentally ill. And he’s citing McHugh and testimony from HB2 again to make these points.

As to the comparison with anorexia, it’s completely absurd. There’s no parallel. Anorexic people who believe themselves to be overweight and continue to starve themselves will not thrive. Anorexic people will either overcome anorexia or they will get sicker and possibly die. On the other hand, most transgender people who transition live successful, thriving lives. All you have to do is look at the results.

His path forward, after glossing over a lot of things to arrive at the conclusion that transition doesn’t help transgender people, is that psychologists just need to help transgender people to be happy in their bodies. I’ll wait for the evidence that works; I certainly haven’t seen it in this book or anywhere else.

And don’t tell me McHugh says so.

p97–99

Anderson discusses the particulars of gender confirmation surgery. This was not new information to me, and he states it factually.

p99–101

This section deals with the physical outcomes of transitioning.

Anderson spends a lot of time arguing a proposition nobody actually disagrees with, which is that gender confirmation surgery doesn’t change one’s underlying chromosomal makeup.

He returns to the underlying biological organization arguments he was making in the last chapter. Basically, that no matter what organs might be formed, they are imitations of the real thing and since they aren’t supported by the underlying chromosomes, they aren’t real. By that argument, the vaginas of the XY-without-SRY-gene individuals he was talking about in the previous chapter aren’t real vaginas, since they’re not part of the XY’s sexed body’s organization for reproduction. This is all just obfuscation and vaguely pseudo-intellectual rambling, and Christopher Tollefsen must be a lot of fun at parties. Again, nobody actually makes this argument, so Anderson’s knocking down straw men here. Everyone agrees that chromosomal sex doesn’t fundamentally change when one transitions. Because it’s not possible. But the “subjective satisfaction it may bring” (p101) is significant, and that’s what people are seeking when they transition.

p101–103

This section deals with the psychological outcomes of transitioning, which unlike the previous section is actually relevant.

Anderson starts by saying the outcomes aren’t great, and he cites McHugh for this. I think you know by now that I’m fairly certain Anderson's aware of all the other evidence to the contrary, but he’s sticking with McHugh since it supports his position.

But unlike the physical outcome section where he knocks down a straw man argument, he actually has to do some work here, since transgender people do argue that the psychological benefits of transitioning are great, while they don’t actually argue that chromosomal sex can be altered through transition.

He cites a few studies:

First, Anderson mentions Arif. Arif set out to look at existing research, and criticized it on a couple of fronts: a high drop-out rate, and the lack of double-blind studies. (Anderson also doesn’t cite Arif directly, but a Guardian article which is written about the Arif study.)

It’s not really possible to do double-blind studies on surgical transition. There’s no way you can have subjects who don’t know if they’ve had the treatment, obviously, and you can’t just deny treatment to half of the group given the high risk of suicide and other long-term effects. So it’s not possible to do the kind of double-blind research that Arif was looking for.

In addition, the drop-out rate has been addressed in studies post-2004; I don’t know why Anderson is reaching 14 years back when there’s a lot more recent research he could be looking at with lower drop-out rates.

Next, Anderson looks at Hayes. Hayes is a company which provides research mainly for the insurance industry. So it’s a curious choice, but it gave him another kinda-inconclusive quote. It’s not academically published research, and I can’t read it without a login to their site, so I don’t know what it actually says. However, Anderson cites it as being about sex reassignment when it’s explicitly about hormone therapy. So there’s that.

The next study Anderson cites is from the University of Bern, looking at quality of life 15 years after sex reassignment surgery. So these surgeries would be prior to the mid-1990s, based on the date of the publication. This is getting close to the earlier cohort in Dhejne’s study we’ve discussed earlier. At any rate, it compares this cohort against the general population, not against non-transitioned folks with gender dysphoria, so it doesn’t prove that transition has negative effects, since life could have been worse if the subjects had not transitioned. The study was also of 55 people, all but 3 of whom were MtF. We’ve discussed earlier that MtF transgender people have a harder time passing, especially if they transitioned as adults and longer ago (the same is not true for FtM folks). They still were, especially 20 years ago, the brunt of much discrimination, and surgeries were not as sophisticated as they are today. The study would be more interesting with a more comprehensive sample size.

Finally, his finale is Dhejne’s Swedish study again. I feel like I’m repeating myself, but I guess that’s because Anderson’s repeating himself. He’s still grossly misusing this study, trying to make it say things it does not say. His statement that the study shows poor outcomes cites McHugh; the author of the study adamantly does not agree. Anderson’s again failing to mention the pre-1989 cohort and the fact that the post-1989 cohort’s statistics are in line with the general population. Anderson can’t stop lying about this study, and then he has the nerve to write “[i]t is important to be clear about what the Dhejne study says and what it does not say.” And Dhejne supports transition surgery, having observed the benefits.

I found the Bern study cited above in a review of 34 studies that address quality of life, which on balance clearly show improvement following transition. Anderson pulls out one study that does not clearly show improvement, and even that one is not convincing since it compares against controls in the general population. (http://transascity.org/quality-of-life-in-treated-transsexuals/)

Anderson is cherry-picking in hopes of supporting his position.

p103–105

Anderson moves to a discussion of the causes of transgender identity. In a bit of circular reasoning, he cites Nagel’s “[w]hat is it like to be a bat?” question, claiming that transgender people can’t really experience what it is like to be the gender they claim to be. But what if they actually can, because they are?

He also briefly touches on gender stereotypes, which is interesting given his anti-gay stances and gender essentialism views as expressed in earlier chapters.

p105–108

Here Anderson moves into addressing the fundamental claim of transgender people that their physical bodies don’t match their gender. (He uses “trapped” language.)

I won’t really comment on his foray into Gnosticism, since I addressed it earlier.

His fundamental point seems to be that the body is everything, and the genitals and chromosomes determine what you are (as long as they agree — I’m still not sure what he thinks of someone whose chromosomes and genitals at birth aren’t in alignment). However, if the body is everything, we do have to seriously look at the studies of the brain while also admitting that we don’t know everything and need to keep learning.

The way Anderson brushes off Sapolsky is a great example of his intellectual dishonesty. Sapolsky is a neuroendocrinologist and professor at Stanford. He’s got 119 peer-reviewed journal articles listed in his CV. He’s not a lightweight. And yet Anderson picks one statement of Sapolsky’s to cite, and minimizes it by noting that it was “published in a newspaper op-ed.” As if that’s the only writing the professor does. And Sapolsky isn’t even a primary source here; he’s giving lectures and writing about other folks’ academic work in this particular case. Oh, also, McHugh says Sapolsky’s statements are outside the scientific mainstream, whatever that means coming from McHugh, who is himself VERY outside the scientific mainstream. It’s like Anderson is using Sapolsky as a source because he can tear him down more easily than the primary sources Sapolsky cites.

I’m sure Sapolsky’s a good professor, but there are lots of primary researchers to look to if you want to dig in on biological origins. A few I found quickly:

https://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0037/ea0037EP208.htm https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13293-015-0022-1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X15000033 http://journals.aace.com/doi/abs/10.4158/EP14351.RA

After brushing over Sapolsky for writing something in a newspaper, Anderson claims that studies that purport to show brain differences in transgender individuals are poorly done, because McHugh says so. He called the study he cited back on p103 “rigorous,” with its 55 participants, all but 3 of whom were MtF, but other studies he disagrees with apparently aren’t rigorous. Anderson says the studies that disagree with his conclusions have small, nonrandom, and nonrepresentative sample sizes. This despite their sample sizes being similar or larger and more representative (equal numbers of MtF and FtM, for example).

He also suggests that studies he disagrees with don’t control for things that would distinguish causality with correlation. But that’s false. For example, the study that looked at BSTc (first in the list a couple paragraphs up) explicitly controlled for many factors, analyzing the hypothalamuses of individuals who never transitioned and those who did and did not have hormone treatment, along with those who were and were not presenting as their claimed gender. They found that gender identity was correlated with the size of the BSTc, regardless of any of these other factors, despite Anderson’s claims to the contrary. This rules out the neuroplasticity argument Anderson is fond of making.

I’m not sure what he means with the individual/group distinction, so I’m not going to comment. I’ll try to make sense of it at some point.

Anderson ends this section by talking about twin studies, saying that *only* 20% of transgender twins had a transgender twin. That actually seems pretty high to me, given how small a percentage transgender people are in the general population. So I’m not sure that proves his point. All it says is that it’s complicated and there’s not a single gene involved. 20% is like 40 times what you’d expect otherwise, so there certainly seems to be something there.

Worth reading the abstract of Milton Diamond’s twin study (which Anderson references) for yourself: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html. It shows a significant correspondence for identical twins and almost no correspondence for fraternal twins, along with correspondence for identical twins separated at birth. All of this strongly suggests genetics play a large role.

Anderson’s statement that there would be 100% correspondence if being transgender were genetic shows a very elementary understanding of genetics. For example: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/. It’s obvious that there’s some biological component, which even Anderson grudgingly agrees with; he just suggests it’s not really relevant since it’s not 100% correlation. Somehow Anderson manages to acknowledge some biological connection while at the same time denying that anyone is truly transgender.

p108–112

Discussing psychosocial causes of gender identity, Anderson subscribes to (some of) the Ray Blanchard school of thought. This view is that MtF adults transition either because of homosexuality or what he calls autogynephilia. Those influenced by this view include Anne Lawrence, Kenneth Zucker, J. Michael Bailey, and Kiira Triea. Triea was an intersex individual who was *cough* assigned male at birth despite being XX. As Anderson has noted, intersex folks aren’t representative of most transgender people.

Blanchard’s, and his proteges’, work, represents a minority position, and Anderson could easily have pulled in some other research had he wanted to fairly represent the current state of scholarship. There are many transgender people who don’t see themselves in either of Blanchard’s categories. Here’s a bit about Blanchard’s work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology. Reminder that Blanchard still supports transition for transgender individuals; his theories address his view of the causes.

p112–116

I don’t have a lot to comment on with the end of the chapter. I don’t think Anderson or I really know how academic panels are selected and consensus statements are formulated, and obviously anyone who’s not a part of those deliberations has their own story.

What I will say is in response to Anderson’s citing of the Hippocratic tradition. It’s clear Anderson believes nobody should ever transition (despite citing many sources who do, including Blanchard and Zucker). Therefore, Anderson believes psychology should be able to help anyone with gender dysphoria to be comfortable with the body they were born with.

The problem with that is simply that it empirically doesn’t work: Anderson can wish for his ideal world, but wishing doesn’t make it so. What Anderson wants has been the default position in (western) society until recently, and we wouldn’t be seeing the mass movements we’re seeing if it were effective.

Let’s consider how new serious research on this topic is, and our gut awareness of just how much we don’t understand. Let’s look at the strong biological correlation, which even if we don’t know exactly how, can’t be written off as irrelevant. Let’s look at the stories of those who have transitioned successfully, not just those who have detransitioned.

Let’s even assume, for a moment, that there could be a biological set of causes for being transgender, and that a person can be more than their chromosomes and parts, and can know themselves as a gender apart from their physical body. That somehow a person can develop the physical and genetic characteristics of one sex, and yet truly BE another. If this were to be the case, what should our response be? It has to be one that helps them to flourish.

The last few pages of the chapter are a paean to helping people flourish and doing what’s in the patient’s best interest. However, if that’s truly Anderson’s concern, he has to look at all the evidence (not just Mayer and McHugh) and he has to actually speak to transitioned transgender people and consider their stories. In short, he has to do what he’s unable to do given his position and reputation. He can’t let himself go where the evidence leads, so he decides what flourishing is for himself and rules out transition as a viable option for transgender individuals despite that evidence.

[liturgyontheweekend]

When Harry Became Sally: Chapter 4

This chapter is where Anderson asks what makes someone a man or a woman.

p77–79

Anderson starts by saying we need to look at the science around sex, saying it’s obvious to anyone “when all goes well.” He starts with embryology, stating that chromosomal sex is determined at fertilization. I don’t think anyone would argue with that.

Anderson then sets up a line of thought I’m still having a hard time understanding. He notes that XX “normally develops into a female” and XY “normally develops into a male,” after stating his view that chromosomal sex is sex. He then goes into various situations which can disrupt normal development, most of which I was familiar with, and some of which involve the SRY gene.

So, in the end, he seems to be saying that XY/XX is not the only determinant of male/female for him. Which is fine, but not necessarily consistent with, say, North Carolina’s HB2 which referred to “chromosomal sex.”

p79–81

In this section, Anderson claims that organization for reproduction is what makes male/female. Specifically, having the “ability to engage in sex as an act.” So maybe it’s not chromosomes for him after all? If it’s the ability to engage in sex acts, that seems to rule out a lot of people from having any sex at all, however, since there are those unable to engage in sex acts at least in the traditional sense I assume Anderson’s thinking of.

But if he’s OK with this sex act capability distinction being general and not specific, then we’d have to be back to chromosomes again, I think. Is he trying to say that XY means male because those who have XY are normally capable of donating genetic material, so that even those who can’t donate genetic material for some reason can still be classified as male if they have an XY chromosome? And maybe also an active SRY gene?

Look, it’s either genitals, or chromosomes, or chromosomes plus SRY, or something else. Someone with XY and no functioning SRY gene will look female at birth, and get an F on a birth certificate. What sex does Anderson believe that person is? Chromosomes say male. Body looks female. Gender identity will likely be female. Can’t actually donate genetic material, but has a Y chromosome. Why isn’t Anderson willing to say what he actually thinks, since he obviously believes it can't be up the individual to decide?

DETOUR

I’m going to detour now into a brief discussion of his sources for this section. First, he quotes Mayer/McHugh in their “recent review of the scientific literature.” He also mentions it was published in the New Atlantis, which is not a scientific journal. It’s a conservative Catholic publication. Their work is not peer reviewed. If you’re looking at the science, as stated at the front of the chapter, you probably don’t want to rely too much on a partisan publication that isn’t peer reviewed, and Anderson cites this publication a lot. In fact, 33 out of 87 footnotes in this chapter are from Mayer, McHugh, or both together.

Then he claims to quote Deanna Adkins, in her testimony on HB2. Here’s the problem: that quote isn’t in her testimony, at least not the testimony of hers that Anderson sources earlier in the book. He didn’t cite this specific quote, so I can’t verify it. And then he quotes Mayer’s rebuttal, and cites the following document: http://files.eqcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/149-State-Ds_Berger_Moore-Oppn-to-PI.pdf. But Mayer’s alleged quote is not in this document at all.

This is sloppy, careless researching. I can’t find either the Adkins quote or the Mayer rebuttal. If those quotes exist, he should have cited them properly. I can't look at context if the quote isn't in the cited source.

END DETOUR

p81–88

Anderson again begins with chromosomes as the basis for sex. He says we know now that the “presence of a Y chromosome determines maleness and its absence determines femaleness.” That’s pretty definitive. But then he discusses the SRY gene and how it operates, which makes it less definitive.

I still don’t know whether he thinks male is XY, or XY plus a functioning SRY gene, or something else.

Following this, Anderson discusses primary and secondary sexual differentiation and how on average men and women have differences. Nobody really debates this, so I’m glossing over most of it. He also briefly discusses brain differences. Again, nobody debates this.

There’s a bit of a dogwhistle to complementation gender roles on p84, along with a statement that discrimination is bad. And some discussion of boys and girls gravitating to different toys, though I’m not sure then what he’d say about a trans girl gravitating to girl things despite having a Y chromosome. Would that make her a girl?

Finally, he talks about sex differences and health, noting that scientific studies attempt to include both men and women because they, on average, have differences when it comes to disease, medication, etc. Again, nobody argues seriously that on average there aren’t differences between men and women. So I’m not entirely sure what he’s trying to prove here. I’m going to move on.

Though before I move on, I'll note that Anderson states "there's no denying the role of biology" when referring to sex. But there are boatloads of biological differences documented in transgender people, which if he were being fair, he'd present to his readers.

p88–91

Now Anderson moves to disorders of sexual development, as he calls them. He starts off with a whopper, saying that they affect 1 in 5000 births, going on to note many of the things he categorizes as DSDs.

Klinefelter Syndrome (1 in 1000), Tuner (1 in 2700), and non-XY, non-Turner, non-Klinefelter (1 in 1166), according to my research. Actual ambiguous external genitalia is roughly 1 in 5000, but obviously the total for all DSDs is much higher than that number which he cites as all-encompassing. I guess misrepresentation makes it seem like these are less common than they really are, but being off by about an order of magnitude is pretty bad.

Anderson describes some of the permutations that occur, including XY without a functioning SRY gene. He says that causes individuals to “develop as females” despite having XY chromosomes.

So, which restroom would Anderson have that person use? Is it chromosomes or SRY or genitals or something else? If it's chromosomal sex, you have an female-identified, female-bodied person who has to use the men's room because of having a XY chromosomes.

After discussing the inverse of the SRY variation for an XX person, to which I’d respond in the same way, he discusses the possibility of an XX individual with virilization of the genitals. Due to that, those individuals may be assigned male at birth, but otherwise develop as women. They will likely identify as women, but could have a “M” on a birth certificate. Same question: where can they pee?

There’s a brief discussion of ova-testicular DSD, and then he closes out this section by restating his false statistic of 1 in 5000 affected and how they can be dealt with as babies and young children. He suggests that doctors divine the “predominant underlying sex” (which isn’t going even be on the table if the external genitals appear normal) and do hormones and surgery, presumably to bring the body in line with that underlying sex. (Phrasing of that last line intentional).

Anderson is writing all of this chapter based on (selected) current knowledge, while admitting that we didn’t know what we know now just 50 years ago. All the while he’s unwilling to admit that there’s ANYTHING we don’t understand now, since he’s completely sure that nobody can have a gender identity that’s incongruent with their physical body or chromosomes, despite what they keep telling us. All that after he's just cited a bunch of natural processes causing the body to develop separately from the chromosomes of many individuals. And while ignoring copious research that shows biological differences in transgender individuals.

p91–92

This last section is written to Anderson’s base. It’s the part of the show where he reminds his readers that transgender people are trying to destroy the order of the universe. And I guess postmodernism because that’s bad or something. There’s not really much substance here. He ends with a plea to return to language that is stigmatizing, while simultaneously saying that he doesn’t want to stigmatize people. He says that anyone with any DSD at all is not “healthy” because their reproductive system doesn’t work normally. It seems that “unhealthy” designation would have to apply to anyone who’s infertile/sterile also. I’ll refer back to his lofty statements about dignity in the beginning of the book; I don’t think he’s succeeding at that here.

[liturgyontheweekend]

When Harry Became Sally: Chapter 3

This chapter highlights the stories of a selection of detransitioners.

p49–52: INTRO

Anderson introduces the chapter, saying that voices of detransitioners deserve to be heard, and he’s going to present several of their stories. I don’t disagree that these stories should be heard, and I do think it’s sad that some trans activists have sought to silence these stories. I don’t think the media has helped, by trying to pit the two marginalized groups against each other, and I hope that the trans community can come to terms with these stories in a more inclusive way and that non-trans folks like Anderson can see these stories not in opposition to folks that are actually trans.

After reading the chapter, I’m definitely noticing that he’s only highlighting one type of detransition story, which works against his claim that he wants to showcase marginalized voices. He chooses six people, all of whom transitioned and then detransitioned because the transition didn’t feel right and didn’t address their underlying problems. He doesn’t share any stories of people who detransitioned due to social or family pressures, who may or may not still identify as transgender, and he doesn’t share any stories of people who detransitioned and then retransitioned.

And the elephant in the room is that he doesn’t share any stories of people who view their transition as successful and are living well-adjusted lives as transgender individuals. I can’t imagine his readers wouldn’t benefit from hearing those stories as well.

I’ll write very little about each of these.

p52–56: CARI

Experienced dissociative disorder. Transitioned due to gender stereotypes. She’s a lesbian.

I think it’s very clear reading this story that the medical profession fails people at times. She received poor care, and was rushed into transition.

p56–58: MAX

Transitioned due to gender stereotypes. She’s a lesbian.

Anderson did not reach out to her, and her comments when she found out her story was used included: “I’m not OK with it…I was not informed.”

She transitioned because she didn’t understand how she could live as a lesbian woman due to societal structures around her. And Anderson mentions that she’s careful to not discount stories of those who have transitioned and found it to be the answer for them.

p59���62: CRASH

Transitioned due to gender stereotypes and underlying trauma. She’s a lesbian.

Anderson did not reach out to her, and her comments when she found out her story was used included: “enraged to see my story distorted and used…would never have agreed to be included in such a book.”

She transitioned, she says, because she was harassed for being a lesbian and because her mom died by suicide. I feel like this story also highlights the need for better mental health care and perhaps a more cautious, measured approach to transition.

p62–66: TWT

Transitioned due to trauma. Experienced dissociative disorder.

Anderson did not reach out to him, and his comments when he found out his story was used included: “unaware my story was used to promote a political agenda…this happens a lot and it is not my intention.”

Another one which implicates bad doctors. No argument from me that we should have more good doctors and more comprehensive, high-quality health care.

While transitioned, he experienced much anti-trans discrimination.

p67–68: CAREY CALLAHAN

Transitioned due to trauma. Experienced dissociative disorder. Based on my reading elsewhere, I think she’s a lesbian.

Anderson did not reach out to her, and her comments when she found out her story was used included: “upset to be used as a rhetorical device by someone who does not respect me…enough to contact me.”

She questions young transition ages, since she got it wrong in her thirties. Anderson doesn’t share much of her story, but she appears to have been dissociative and hated her body. Her writings now are focused on hearing stories of detransitioners and responding to trans activists who try to shut them down.

p69–72: WALT HEYER

Transitioned due to significant childhood abuse. Experienced dissociative disorder.

Walt appeared on Christopher Cantwell’s podcast recently. Cantwell is a white supremacist who was part of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and said “we’ll f****** kill these people if we have to.”

I have very little to say to anyone who’s running in these circles. He should have had psychotherapy. He also shouldn't suggest that what was right for him is right for everyone.

p72–76: WRAPUP

The chapter title is “Detransitioners Tell Their Stories” but this is really Anderson telling their stories. He didn’t ask at least four of the six people if he could use their stories, and therefore they weren’t allowed to weigh in on whether his was a fair account. This is, at minimum, irresponsible journalism.

The only point he’s really made is that transitioning isn’t the solution to every problem. He admits that in the first sentence of this section, and then goes on to make an absolute claim, saying “trying to align the body with a transgender identity does not resolve the deep issues…” He needed to add “for these six people,” since there are myriad stories of people for whom it has resolved their deep issues.

On page 73, he again misrepresents the Swedish study which doesn’t say what he wants it to say. This time, it’s tough to say it’s not just a blatant lie. The study found that for those who transitioned post-1989, their rates of mortality, suicide, and crime are in line with the general population. I already talked about this in the Introduction email.

If we know that transgender people overall have a higher suicide rate than the general population, and there’s a Swedish study that Anderson seems to like which says that those who transitioned post-1989 have a rate in line with the general population, the only reasonable conclusion is that transitioning was helpful to these people, not harmful. Why does he keep saying the opposite?

He ends the chapter by quoting most of an open letter from Crash, who detransitioned and is lesbian, to Julia Serano, a transgender activist who she believes has misrepresented and been unfair to detransitioners. This is a heartfelt letter, and I did go read it in its entirety.

At the end of her letter, she openly acknowledges trans people, and also that she is not. She notes of those who eventually detransition: “so many of them are lesbian [and it’s] common for them to question whether they are really female.”

Anderson could start by working for an world in which folks like Crash feel validated and accepted for who they are, with full recognition and human rights, which would keep many lesbians like Crash from wondering whether they are really female and whether transitioning is the solution to their problems.

POSTSCRIPT

Finally, I took a look at the 2015 Transgender Survey, to find out more about detransitioning. 8% of over 27,000 respondents had detransitioned at some point in their lives, but 62% of those were currently living in a gender other than that assigned at birth. So we're in the 3–4% range for permanent detransitioning, since many detransition temporarily for some other societal reason. Only 5% of those who detransitioned did it because it wasn't right for them. 36% detransitioned because of pressure from a parent, 26% because of pressure from other family members, 18% due to pressure from a partner, 31% because of harassment, and 29% because of having trouble getting a job. (Respondents could cite multiple reasons, so the totals are greater than 100%). So a total of 0.4% of respondents to the survey detransitioned because transition wasn't right for them.

https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

The small number of folks (less than half a percent) who actually detransition because they made a mistake DOES NOT invalidate or lessen the importance of their stories. They should be heard, and transgender folks need to engage with them. We should also do more to ensure that we create a safe world for gender-nonconforming and LGB people such that fewer people like Crash transition for the wrong reasons.

Folks like Anderson also shouldn't appropriate detransitioners' stories to attempt to build a case that nobody should ever transition; clearly there are lots of stories he's not telling from the remaining 99.6%.

FOLLOW-UP

I received a response which I then responded to; I can’t print the response but I’ll print my follow-up:

My overall point was that his selection of people to profile is limited. These weren't transgender people; they were people with psychological issues who tried to solve them in a misguided way and for a time believed themselves to be transgender. You can't select a non-representative sample of people (non-transgender people who transitioned), note their psychological problems, and then post-rationalize your conclusions onto another group of people (actual transgender people). Your comment about whether or not those issues "exist within the larger community" is exactly my point -- Anderson doesn't know because he doesn't bother to ask. Probably because he knows what that would do to his argument. Obviously, then, we disagree about his political purposes. Minor point, also, but nobody ever claims that transitioning will alter chromosomal makeup, so I think we all agree there. Anderson, to this point in the book, has not spoken with a single transgender person! I'll eat my hat if he does anywhere in the book; my guess is he'll continue his current trajectory. If he were truly trying to engage the subject rather than pushing a preconceived position, he'd spend some time with folks in the community he's writing about.

I also don't see any evidence based on what you sent over that R.B. is transgender. Unless you've got data to the contrary, you're pushing the same strawman argument that Anderson is. She may fall into that 80% percent of Zucker's research, people who show some nonconformity in childhood but aren't transgender, and end up settling into a straight or LGB+ identity. People who are straight/gay living lives as straight/gay people do not invalidate people who are transgender, and my issue here is that Anderson doesn't interview or profile any of the large number of actual transgender people who do not regret their transitions.

I know some of them, and can assure you they are nothing like the detransitioners that Anderson highlights.

SUMMARY OF MY POINT: Profiling non-transgender people to make claims about transgender people is a strawman. Detransitioners' stories are important for their own sake, not for the sake of an argument that doesn't make sense and that they don't want to be a part of.

[liturgyontheweekend]

When Harry Became Sally: Chapter 2

In this chapter, Anderson claims he will let the “transgender activists” speak for themselves.

Following up on last week, I discovered that Anderson’s citation of Medicare not covering reassignment surgery was inaccurate. He cites an early draft, which did not become the final rule, so it’s false to say that “the Medicare plans…weren’t required to cover sex reassignment procedures” as he does. Small point, but highlights that having tons of citations does not a well-researched book make.

p27

Moving on to Chapter 3, in which he claims he will let transgender “activists” speak for themselves. The word choice itself is problematic: he is implying that there’s a militant minority group which dominates discourse and other transgender people and activists are a silent majority that basically agree with him that transgender people kinda-sorta-maybe don’t exist and definitely shouldn’t transition. I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.

The first thing in this chapter I want to respond to is something I noticed throughout, starting on the first page, which is his cavalier attitude toward transgender lives. Given that his stated reason for writing the book was how heartbroken he claims to be at the stories of folks who detransition, I’d expect to see a thread of compassion and empathy woven throughout the book. I actually see the opposite.

He begins by arguing that “trans lives are not a debate,” taking a protester’s words and bending them to fit his claim that nobody, least of all him, is endangering trans lives. In reality, trans folks and allies are fighting hard precisely because lives are at stake! Appropriating a protester’s words in this flippant way doesn’t sit well with me. More on this as we move through the chapter.

p28

He spills a lot of ink talking about the supposed fickleness of transgender activists, making it sound like they change their minds constantly. What he’s really discovering is that yes, the movement has evolved over time. This is not a surprise to anyone; both scientific research, social progress, and individual stories have led to knowledge growing over time.

The understanding of a lot of things changes over time, actually. Autism is a good example of something which is understood much differently now than it was even a couple decades ago. What was once thought of in absolutes is now understood as existing on a spectrum. What was once thought of as mental illness is being understood more as a divergence from typical neurological functioning. People who were singled out as supposed causes of social ills are now understood to be often victims of violence and misunderstanding. It’s totally OK for science, medicine, and personal experience to lead to new understandings over time. We don’t criticize autism researchers for changing their minds all the time and being disingenuously fickle, however.

p28–29

Anderson makes three claims: activists’ beliefs and demands are always changing; they are closed off to contrary evidence; and they coerce others to their position.

His statement of that first claim contains another example of his cavalier attitude to trans lives: “yesterday’s requirements…are tomorrow’s suicide-inducing oppression.” It’s clear he believes the suicide risks highlighted by trans activists to be either made-up or just no big deal. Either way, it’s a reckless sentence.

I will hold his second claim up against his own use of contrary evidence. So far he hasn’t interviewed any transgender people or activists; he’s been cherry-picking and misusing studies and court testimony and his main expert source is Dr. McHugh, who already agrees with him.

I’m not sure yet where he’s going with the claim around coercion; I’ll address it if/when I can figure it out. He might just mean that transgender folks are pushing for societal change.

p29–33: ONTOLOGY

Anderson is all over the place here in trying to claim that transgender identity is invalid. He alludes to gnosticism, a supposed conflict between gender as a binary and as a spectrum, and the tension between immutability and malleability of gender. Rather than diving in to all of these, I want to say that these are indeed not easy issues to understand, and if one wanted to further one’s understanding of them, it seems like a great idea to speak to transgender people, transgender activists, and medical professionals. All of them could shed some light on Anderson's questions. Yet Anderson does none of this. Instead, he pokes through courtroom testimony, teaching aids, and publications and pretends he’s trying to understand things he’s clearly taken no time to try to understand. I mean, the questions he’s asking are interesting, but they aren’t nearly as earth-shattering as he’d like to think they are. They’ve been asked and addressed by others.

He quotes Dr. Deanna Adkins’ testimony on HB2. I read the twelve pages of her written testimony, and much of it is about chromosomal variations. When chromosomes and external organs don’t align, she testifies that the individual’s gender identity is the most important factor. She goes further and extends this argument to transgender individuals, but the quotes Anderson is using are largely around her area of expertise in various intersex conditions. Do you really think someone with 5-alpha reductase, whose chromosomes are male and who goes through male puberty, yet is born without male genitals, should be forced to live as a woman despite identifying as a man, based soley on external genitals at birth leading to an F on a birth certificate?

Basically, this section is missing a serious effort by Anderson to understand the questions he’s asking, and primary sources who would be able to shed light on those questions.

p34–37: MEDICINE

I find it amusing that Anderson dings Dr. Adkins for not citing a source for her claim that standard treatment protocols for transgender people “have been very successful”. First, I have a ton of notes in the margins of this very book where Anderson himself doesn’t cite sources. Second, it’s a written testimony, not an academic paper or book. She was being asked as an expert to comment on intersex and transgender conditions. There are literally thousands of people writing about this, not in court documents, and citing sources. Adkins’ lack of sources in a non-academic, non-footnoted written testimony, is not an indictment of literally anything. Anderson's trying to subtly discredit her with absolutely no basis for doing so.

Anderson believes that three-year-olds can learn the difference between boys and girls, and at the same time can’t possibly be trusted to weigh in on how they feel vis-a-vis those learnings. That honestly doesn’t make sense to me. I knew I was a boy when I learned what boys were. Then he goes on to suggest that adults can’t really learn anything from kids, which seems dismissive. I hope we can all learn from our kids; they’re naturally curious, empathetic, fearless, and unashamed in how they approach life. We trust toddlers to know when they’re hungry, when they have to go to the bathroom, and when they’re sad. As kids get older, they grow more independent and able to speak to their reality. I can’t fathom why we wouldn’t be able to listen to a kid who is defiantly insistent they are a different gender throughout childhood.

Anderson has another cursory mention of suicide, which he still doesn’t seem very concerned about, and then goes on to suggest that most gender-nonconforming kids don’t persist into a transgender identity. As I probably mentioned in the last chapter, so what? Nonconformity doesn’t mean transgender. He’s conflating kids who express some variation with kids who identify as transgender, to make it seem like most kids who indicate they’re transgender grow out of it. Since he doesn’t cite his statistic that 80-95% outgrow it, I can’t look it up for further reading. However, I think he’s referring to an 80% stat published by our friend Dr. Zucker, and I don’t know how Anderson turned it into a range up to 95%. Regarding that Zucker study: “Perhaps the clearest evidence that most children in these samples were never transgender to begin with is that, when they were directly asked “are you a boy or a girl” as part of a battery of intake questions, an overwhelming percentage (more than 90 percent) of children in these clinics provided the answer that aligned with their natal sex.” It’s completely irresponsible to cite Zucker’s 80%, turn it into possibly 95%, and then fail to acknowledge that number refers to all gender nonconformity, with only a tiny minority of those kids claiming to be another gender.

p37–42: POLICY

Anderson is very upset about society being pushed to accommodate transgender people. He starts off by citing a California law that he claims could put people in jail for misgendering someone. He fails to mention that this is in the context of a elderly residential care nondiscrimination bill. There’s no way there would be jail time for misgendering; misgendering is one of many sections to a larger law. A fine could be levied after only purposeful and repeated violations of sections of the law, and that’s $1000. The misdemeanor’s jail time would be only in a case where it was determined there was a risk of serious harm or death (the bill refers to the health and safety code of CA, which sets that bar). You can agree or disagree with nondiscrimination ordinances for nursing care facilities all you want; misrepresentation to try to make a point isn’t responsible.

He goes on to talk about how schools deal with transgender people. Eventually, he addresses his interpretation of privacy, which I think I already wrote about last week so I’ll keep this short. Essentially, he interprets privacy as not having to be in a space with someone you’re uncomfortable with. I disagree. Some people are uncomfortable with people of another race, disabled people, or gay people. That discomfort is on them — the marginalized group doesn’t have to accommodate the majority’s preferences. There’s no constitutional precedent for that.

Anderson writes as though sports associations have no idea how to address the “obvious concerns” with transgender people; in truth they’re not obvious. The WNBA has openly said they have no issues with trans women, and the NCAA and International Olympic Committee have already developed policies which allow people to compete in accordance with their gender identity. Due to hormones, there’s no evidence of any competitive advantage or disadvantage. So this is not actually a problem at all. (Here’s an NIH study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27699698). And there just aren’t people who change their gender identity only on Tuesdays — that’s a straw man, and Anderson knows it’s a straw man.

He refers to bathrooms again, saying basically that it’s not that transgender people are forced to use the wrong bathroom, it’s just that they’re not allowed to use the right one. That’s a bizarre statement, but I guess he’s saying they just have to hold it till they get home, or use a single-occupancy facility if there is one available.

He ends with making light of the fact that transgender people are othered by having to use separate-but-equal facilities, quoting two folks who I happen to agree with. Wrapping up the section, he dramatically states that “no such evidence exists” that there are harmful consequences of this othering. His citation for this definitive statement? Dr. McHugh’s co-author in a court testimony! Well, if McHugh’s co-author says there’s no evidence for this claim that he’s just quoted two experts making, there must not be! This is a ridiculous, dishonest move. Here’s just one piece of evidence, an NIH study, with just a minute of googling: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685206/. There are more.

p42–45: PARENTAL AUTHORITY

Not much to say here. Anderson thinks that schools should out children to their parents even if they know it’s an unsafe situation, and I disagree with him. He ends the section with another casual reference to suicide.

p45–48: CONTRADICTIONS

Anderson starts by saying “[i]f the claims presented in this chapter strike you as confusing, you’re not alone.” He has presented the claims in exactly the way he wanted to, trying to make them sound confusing and contradictory, and then he pats the reader on the head for nodding along with him and saying they’re confused.

He brings up gnosticism, even though it really doesn’t support his argument: gnostics wanted to intentionally separate the mind and the material body in order to reach some sort of deeper understanding. To gnostics, the body was evil. Transgender people are trying to bring mind and body together so they can live fulfilling embodied existences. It’s really not anything like gnosticism. He refers to the same ideas he did in the Ontology section, asking existential questions that he thinks transgender activists need to answer. Why not interview a few of them, ask them these questions, and document what they say? As I said before, there are many sources that could weigh in on these questions, and he doesn’t even pay lip service to finding them.

Brief mention of religion; he acknowledges that religion is determined by beliefs. Does he then not think that religious beliefs are deserving of protection? Obviously not.

Some of the statements/questions he raises aren’t actually contradictory, even though he wants them to be. Just as he suggests it’s a contradiction that gender can be fluid and immutable, I could criticize him for suggesting on one hand that stereotypes are damaging (implying kids should be allowed to color outside the lines of gender without being transgender) and that stereotypes are also essential (nobody can actually be transgender or nonbinary). The truth is that the answer to these kinds of questions can be both/and, not either/or. He��s asking difficult questions in a simplistic way, assuming that is enough to make his point, and not bothering to ask anyone who actually is transgender so he can understand better. Because understanding better is not his goal.

A complex, difficult subject deserves more sincerity and effort than he’s giving.

FOLLOW-UP

In response to a rebuttal on one point, a suggestion that I address my points to Anderson instead, and the statement that I was attacking the book instead of reading it with an open mind:

Well, my goal wasn't originally to counter it point by point. I didn't know what the book was going to be. As it turns out, his approach so far is riddled with inaccuracies and shows a disturbing lack of compassion and understanding. So I'm finding lots of things to respond to. This ranges from simple rudeness, like refusing to use peoples' pronouns correctly, to wildly irresponsible, like blatantly misrepresenting studies and cherry-picking evidence. I keep looking up primary sources because I keep finding that they don't say what he's saying they say! I'll reconsider my positions if I encounter an argument that resonates, or otherwise find Anderson presenting a reason for me to call into question beliefs I've arrived at over a twenty year period of soul-searching, research, study, and relationships with other LGBT+ people. Remember, there was a time in my life I agreed with Anderson.

I have been thinking about social transition, if you want to know something I'm wondering about and reevaluating. It's possible we need to find a middle ground there, and it's possible some kids have ended up socially transitioning too early. Zucker seems to have been railroaded a bit, and he may have some good points. I'll add that acknowledgement of that is useful only if one accepts the premise that SOME kids truly do need to transition at some point, and it's about making sure we have it right and minimizing mistakes. Anderson doesn't, obviously, believe that at all.

There absolutely would be no point in me writing to Anderson. His livelihood depends on his stated viewpoints, and this book is a post-rationalization of those viewpoints. You are right that I'm going to finish the book; it's interesting for me to dive in to how folks like Anderson are positioning themselves today. The one response you made was to one of my weaker points :), so I hope you considered other things I wrote as well. I was trying to say that childhood is a gradual journey of growth and development. An 18-year-old knows more about herself than a 13-year-old knows more about herself than a 3-year-old. And so on. A switch doesn't flip on when we hit an arbitrary adult age. So no, a 3-year-old doesn't have a full understanding of gender and sexuality, but since very few three-year-olds *insist* that they are a gender other than their birth certificate says, I think listening is warranted. (And I take issue with you suggesting that those kids are "defiant".)

Children's understanding will grow and change, and some might grow out of it and some won't. For those who won't grow out of it, Anderson has no answers. Nothing. He's using one segment of the population (gender non-conforming cis kids) to pretend another (trans kids) doesn't exist, and straight-up lying about it by claiming Zucker's research says something it doesn't say. He offers nothing for those who truly are transgender, rather than those who have some nonconformity and ultimately grow up to be LGB or straight cisgender people.

[liturgyontheweekend]

When Harry Became Sally: Chapter 1

Anderson's first chapter looks at our present moment in transgender history in terms of culture, law, and medicine.

p9–12: CULTURE

p9

He misgenders Caitlyn Jenner. I’m sure he’ll do this throughout the book, as he’s trying to play to readers who already agree with him. Doing this certainly does not “respect the dignity” of transgender people, one of his stated goals.

Anderson seems to be trying to imply a wedge between LGB and T, stating that “many gay and lesbian Americans” don’t want unity with transgender people. There are certainly discriminatory people everywhere, including the LGBT community, and I’ve joined in criticism of some gay white male dominated organizations like HRC. However, that statement is not overall true of the community, and I’m not surprised he does not cite it.

p10

Anderson traces some other recent events, continues his misgendering pettiness, and makes a martyr of Kevin Williamson, who was called out for writing a fairly nasty editorial about Laverne Cox. “Dissent is not tolerated” is a bit of a loaded way to say that sometimes businesses make business decisions to stay on the side of the line that helps them make the most money. Readers have every right to complain about a newspaper column, nor are conservative Christians are strangers to the boycott, if my memory of Focus on the Family shows serves me correctly.

For some reason he puts “cisgender” in quotes: the word’s been around for 30 years and is part of English now, so no need for scare quotes.

p11–12

Jenner’s show lasting for only two seasons is not something that invalidates her gender identity. It probably was just a crappy show.

Again with the misgendering. The way to my heart is not by being a jerk, so he’s doing poorly right now. Same with words like “indoctrinate.” Obviously he’s preaching to his choir, and I’m surprised this is a book you sent my way given his obvious ax to grind.

The National Geographic issue he refers to was explicitly about trans and non-binary people; I don’t understand why he thinks it’s a problem that it didn’t feature a “girl who is comfortable being female.” That wasn’t the point of the issue.

p12–13: LAW

It’s very telling that in his attacks on things like Title IX interpretation, he focuses on “women and girls” and not “men and boys.” He does this repeatedly. It’s attempting to create fear that vulnerable girls are at risk from big, bad, transgender people, which is demonstrably not the case.

You and I have been sharing restrooms with transgender people our whole lives, and usually just not known it. It’s only in recent years that it’s become something that is legislated for and against.

Transgender people are at incredibly high risk of assault, especially in restrooms, which is why it’s so important to ensure their safety in being able to use the restroom corresponding to their gender identity. Allowing this to happen does not “violate the privacy, safety, and equality of women and girls.” That’s just a completely baseless statement. More than baseless, it’s dangerous, as the statistics aren’t even close here.

Here’s a paper which includes a mention that 70% of transgender survey respondents report being denied access, harassed, or physically assaulted in restrooms due to their gender identity.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Herman-Gendered-Restrooms-and-Minority-Stress-June-2013.pdf

Nearly half of US states and hundreds of cities have laws banning discrimination in public accommodations due to gender identity, some for many years, and there just aren’t reports of any “girls or women” being attacked in restrooms.

Cultivating fear works, I suppose, but it’s not “sober and honest” or right.

I’m with him in his criticism of Medicare; it certainly should not have decided to forego coverage of surgical procedures.

p14–15

Minor point, but he misuses the word “allegedly” for the Obama lawsuit against North Carolina. That term is used in criminal cases due to the presumption of innocence, but is not applicable in civil cases. Again, it plays to his base, but he seriously needs an editor.

HB2 in North Carolina was not “common sense”. He tries to set it up as a reasonable compromise, which I don't believe is accurate. It invalidated local ordinances (yay for local government, everyone!), in addition to requiring transgender people to have surgery before using the right restroom. Many transgender people either can’t afford full surgery or don’t want to undergo it; their ability to use the restroom shouldn’t be contingent upon surgery and subsequent birth certificate changes. It’s nobody’s business what someone’s genitals look like.

Providing “special arrangements” for trans people to use other restrooms is more separate-but-equal stuff that we supposedly figured out was inadequate in the 1960s. And it’s not a “safe place” to insist that trans people use different facilities; many trans people are not out as trans, and having to use separate facilities can out them and put them in more danger.

Anderson has basically found a constitutional right to not share restrooms with transgender people; originalist judges might have to search hard to substantiate that claim. You can’t single out a group for unequal treatment due to someone else’s discomfort. We had that conversation about racially integrated swimming pools back when you were kids. I’m sure some straight people might feel uncomfortable with gay people in their locker room. I felt uncomfortable in locker rooms all my childhood because I always hated my body. Doesn’t matter; the law’s clear you don’t get to legislate based on discomfort.

Anderson does go on to address race-based separation, claiming it’s different than gender because “skin color is irrelevant to which locker room or bathroom we use”. That’s obviously not true; white people mostly stopped using public swimming pools when they were forced to be integrated, so someone thought skin color was relevant. Here's a bit about swimming pools:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90213675

Anderson again criticizes private businesses for making business decisions. Look, I am not going to sit around saying that every company that spoke out against North Carolina is altruistic and justice-focused. Companies can be cynical and support what makes them money. But that’s just the other side of the Christian conservative boycott machine I grew up with. Yes, companies do many things that are questionable, including having factories in countries with bad human rights records. That’s just the other side of the coin that sees the US and Saudi Arabia being best friends despite them having one of the worst human rights records in the world. I’m happy to criticize all that hypocrisy, and continue to do so.

p16–19: MEDICINE

I’m not sure the story of John Money helps his cause. The doctor forced a kid to grow up as a gender the kid knew he wasn’t, and it led to suicide. Money was obviously very wrong about gender being arbitrary! The kid knew he was a boy, regardless of what everyone told him and what his body looked like. In a similar way, transgender people know who they really are, and it is often tragic when they are not able to live into that. That doesn't really fit with Anderson's desire for everyone to live as cisgender and straight, though. He's trying to have it both ways, arguing that gender is both fixed and malleable depending on what serves his purpose at the time.

So Anderson moves to Dr. McHugh, and goes on to depend quite a bit on him in this chapter. Obviously I think his case would be stronger were he to have more current research and a wider variety of sources.

Patients that McHugh and Meyer were following up with were having surgery maybe half a century ago (though I can’t find a citation for the survey referred to, it seems to be in the 1970s). It’s likely few of those were able to pass in society, given the primitiveness of surgery then along with the lateness in life they received it. They would obviously be read as trans, and in a world that was much less accepting than today’s world. It’s not surprising many of them had negative outcomes! I hope he’ll spend as much time on current research, and take into account the results people see today rather than relying on results from the 1970s. Also, blaming transgender people for the fact that people are horrible to them and thus they have negative social results is backward and victim-blaming.

A few quotes… Anderson chooses to quote McHugh calling transgender people “mad”, which doesn’t really square with his stated goal of respecting dignity. And he quotes McHugh also referring to the “lifelong problems of transitioning” which I don’t think he supports with any citations and I think is unsupported by evidence. Anderson implies with another McHugh quote that a doctor could lose a license by looking into the psychological history of a transgender individual. He doesn’t cite anything supporting that this has ever happened. He also refers to McHugh’s approach as “evidence-based”; the problem here is that McHugh’s evidence is cherry-picked and not very current, and there’s a lot of other evidence Anderson is ignoring.

The accusation of political pressure as the cause of Johns Hopkins reversing their stance and beginning to perform surgeries again is unsubstantiated. We don’t have all the data on why Johns Hopkins made the shift; Anderson quotes the lede from a ThinkProgress article as his only support for the statement. I certainly would think the hospital has also looked at evidence rather than reversing a 40-year position based solely on “one of them agitators.”

“Lavishly funded,” “agitated,” “postmodern:” He’s using words that will play to his base. This is what you do in an editorial, not a book trying to make a serious argument.

He seems upset that HRC is involved in lobbying companies to enact trans-friendly policies, as if there’s something nefarious going on. People care about issues, they try to encourage companies where it hits them, which is money, and companies make changes. Again, sounds an awful lot like Dobson telling us to “call Disney/Target/etc and tell them you won’t be shopping…”

p20

Anderson refers to costs for transgender treatment as “exorbitant” without a citation. Costs are basically hormones and surgery. Hormones are somewhere in the $100 a month range, which is at par for many other medications people take. Surgery is somewhat expensive, but one-time and in the range of an appendectomy, not something like cancer treatment. The medical industry isn’t particularly worried about the cost:

https://www.managedhealthcareconnect.com/article/transgender-patients-calculating-actual-cost

This article also points out that failure to provide proper treatment leads to more expensive costs in the end, as depression and substance abuse have effects on health that are more expensive than hormones. And again, we routinely treat much more expensive things like cancer.

Just generally, I think this particular section highlights one of my issues with Anderson, that I’m guessing I’ll be coming back to more than once. It’s how he uses an argument/position/paper he disagrees with to support his own argument, when fairly engaging that argument/position/paper would actually work against his argument. For example, he suggests that costs for transgender care should be considered in light of “many Americans hav[ing] unmet needs for essential health care.” I’m doubtful, given his other positions, that he’s actually in favor of universal health care. So using the lack of universal health care as an argument against transgender treatment is pretty rich. I’m not sure what to call this, but it’s a theme I’m noticing as I read.

p20–21

Here he goes into the paper published by McHugh and Mayer, and how its publication led to a reduction in Johns Hopkins’ equality score from HRC. He claims this paper is a non-biased literature review, and that HRC dinged Johns Hopkins for it unjustly.

I haven’t read much of the 143-page paper, but its summary makes it clear what the authors believe and what they’ve set out to show in writing their paper. The document was published in a non-peer-reviewed journal in 2016, and it’s easy to see why.

Here’s an extensive peer-reviewed study that McHugh’s paper chose to ignore, as a contrast:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1529100616637616

I found that there are at least six studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the 2000s on the role of genes in sexual orientation, and McHugh/Mayer only reference one in their paper, coincidentally the one that found the lowest estimate of genetic influence. That smacks of cherry-picking, and it’s consistent with this being in a journal that’s not peer reviewed and is published by a conservative Catholic organization. It seems entirely reasonable that HRC would take issue with Johns Hopkins tacit endorsement of this document.

Besides, a private organization giving a rating to another private organization based on the views expressed by both organizations doesn’t seem like something to get very worked up about. What is Anderson’s point here?

In the end, McHugh/Mayer believe that orientation and gender identity have no biological basis (and by inference are malleable). They ignore lots of research to the contrary, with both humans and animals. And they don’t acknowledge that nobody has ever been able to prove the changeability of orientation and identity under controlled, peer-reviewed conditions. You know this anyway, as you told me you’ve come to understand that orientation doesn’t really change; you choose to believe gay folks are called to live celibate lives, for example.

Their paper would never make it through peer review. And the quote Anderson presents on p21 is disingenuous; I’ve skimmed enough of the paper to know that it’s not presenting both sides of the argument and goes much further than saying “we don’t know and we should study it more.”

p21–25

Anderson closes his chapter with the story of Dr. Zucker. I’m basically in agreement that Zucker’s firing should not have happened. This is another example, however, of what I was saying above about Anderson trying to have it both ways: supporting a person whose conclusions he completely disagrees with. Zucker believes transgender people are real. He believes that they should transition beginning around puberty. He supports them having eventual confirmation surgery as adults. But he opposes social transition at a young age in an effort to ensure the child is really transgender. Anderson, who appears to actually believe in reparative therapy, writes about how upset he is at Zucker being fired and accused of supporting reparative therapy! In the end, a disagreement about how to handle potentially transgender children of younger ages should have been allowed to play out in this clinic, and it wasn’t. But Anderson doesn’t buy any of this transgender stuff at all, so it's bizarre for him to co-opt Zucker’s story to support his own agenda.

One parent who expressed support for Zucker was happy that her child had grown into a well-adjusted, gay teenager. That’s great, but again doesn’t support Anderson’s view that LGBT identity is invalid.

I’d obviously have an easier time with Anderson if his response to Zucker was to agree with him and defend intervention later in childhood, the use of puberty blockers, and future medical transition for those teenagers who he believed were actually transgender. But we all know Anderson won’t do that.

Advocating for balance with the story of Zucker only works if we accept that SOME kids are trans, and we want to be careful figuring out so that we don’t send cisgender kids down a path that will be more painful for them than exploring their nonconformity and potentially ending up as LGBQ instead of T. Anderson’s second block quote supporting Zucker on page 24 is in fact from an article that is actually saying basically that.

Which is more of that same theme I have been highlighting of how Anderson is making his arguments.

[liturgyontheweekend]

When Harry Became Sally: Introduction

p1

Anderson doesn’t cite his statement that “most Americans had never heard of transgender identity.” I don't think it's accurate to say nobody had heard of transgender people prior to the past year, or that it become an issue within a year’s time.

Transgender women led the way in the Stonewall riots of 1969. There was a trans journal published for two decades starting in the late 1950s. There were riots scattered around beyond Stonewall which survive in oral history because they didn’t get a lot of press.

Christine Jorgensen transitioned in the early 1950s, and that was all over the news. Spiro Agnew referred to her derisively in the national press.

The 1990s saw an increased prominence in the national discourse. There was a movement to begin protecting transgender individuals in the workplace, leading to not quite half of states having protections today.

Brandon Teena, a trans man, was murdered in Nebraska in 1993, and a movie was made about the murder in 1999. Transgender Day of Remembrance was also begun in 1999.

Basically, there’s 60 years of a national movement thus far, and still no national laws protecting trans people. Women’s suffrage was about a 70 year political journey, for perspective. Things take time, but it’s just not right to say the trans rights movement came out of nowhere.

p2

Anderson says “[t]hese shouldn’t be difficult questions,” and bases that on one researcher, Paul McHugh’s, conclusions in the 1970s. McHugh is the main source he cites so far, even though there are boatloads of medical professionals who have researched, published, and thought about transgender issues. Obviously these are actually difficult questions, since many medical professionals disagree with the author and McHugh, by the author’s own admission (and lack of other sources).

Anderson claims that resurgence in medical intervention for trans individuals is because of “the pressure of ideology” but does not cite this statement. I think it’s more than that, but I’ll wait for the chapter he addresses this.

He then makes two significant claims: first, that most kids grow out of “discordant gender identity”, a term he doesn’t define; second, that suicide rates are high for those who have transition surgery.

Looking at the first one, he uses a term he doesn't define rather than addressing children diagnosed with gender dysphoria officially, which is curious. I’ve had a hard time pinning down much research here. Studies are small, and mostly are around kids who do not ever transition. Most kids who have some gender variant behavior don't ever want to nor do they transition. If that's what he means by "discordant gender identity", his conclusion that they grow out of it is self-fulfilling. Those kids do mostly grow out of it into becoming gay or lesbian, according to the research. Given that Anderson also views homosexual identities as imaginary, it’s a strange point for him to make!

Moving to the second claim, Anderson really misrepresents the Swedish study he cites in note 6. I'll go into some depth here since it's important to dig in when authors aren't honest about the sources they use. I located and read the study summary, along with interviews by one of the authors expressing her frustration at the way her study is twisted to say things it doesn't say.

The study authors agree with the research and note that “sex reassignment of transsexual persons improves quality of life and gender dysphoria”. Suicide attempt statistics they note are in comparison with the general population, not against non-transitioned transgender people, so Anderson's attempt to make it sound like transitioning increases suicide rate a pretty disingenuous claim.

The study divided its sample size into two cohorts; those who transitioned prior to 1989 and those after. The statistically significant suicide attempt rate increase they find applies only to the cohort who transitioned prior to 1989. One of the authors notes in an interview: "...one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts and crime disappear."

The world for trans folks was quite different then, and the study’s authors cite the world becoming more accepting of trans people as a probable cause for the mortality rate not being adversely affected for the post-1989 transition cohort. They acknowledge that further time passing could result in mortality rates increasing against the general population for the later cohort, but their research doesn't show it.

Basically, the study does not support how Anderson is trying to use it. The authors go out of their way to note that they’re only comparing against general population, and that their research isn’t commenting on the efficacy of sex reassignment surgery (and can’t, given their methodology). In fact, they cite eight studies indicating that surgery is an effective treatment. They conclude only that given surgery doesn’t solve all problems, they believe improved care for post-surgery groups is necessary.

Bullying as a child, for example, as effects on mental health, and while transitioning may help, it stands to reason the population is still at some risk. Also, transitioned people have varying levels of "passing", especially for those who transitioned at an older age and/or further in the past when methods were less well-developed. Being seen as a trans person in society can lead to discrimination, which would affect mental health. We need to be aware of this and not think that transitioning medically will solve every problem. This is an entirely reasonable conclusion by the study's authors.

As to general transition regret, I know Anderson has a whole chapter on it, so I’ll wait to comment much. There are numerous studies I’ve found placing the transition regret numbers around 1-2% and as high as 4%, but generally, people who transition today do not come to regret their decision and have mortality rates in line with the general population. That’s far better than general LGBT and pre-transition trans suicide/mortality rates, which we know are alarmingly high.

pp3—7

Anderson makes some other pre-claims for each chapter, but I’ll wait till he addresses them in the rest of the book to comment since he’s just summarizing here. Also, this is quite long already. He does hold himself up to a standard of “sober and honest”, and notes that we need to “respect the dignity of people who identify as transgender”.

I’ll hold him to both of those as I read!

[liturgyontheweekend]

When Harry Became Sally: A Series

I’ve been asked to read When Harry Became Sally by someone concerned about my support of and identification with the LGBTQIA community. I decided I’d write my thoughts down, chapter by chapter, as I read through the book.

A few caveats are in order. First, I am not an expert, and I am not transgender. Second, these are quickly written responses. This is not an academic paper, and I have not done much editing. It’s email correspondence, and should be read with that in mind. Third, I’m learning, and there may be statements I’ve made or ways I’ve phrased things that show that I still have a lot to learn. I’m a bisexual man with quite a bit of privilege, and I’m sure I have blind spots wile writing this. Please call me out where my understanding is inadequate so I can be better.

Table of Contents:

Introduction

Chapter 1 (Our Transgender Moment)

Chapter 2 (What the Activists Say)

Chapter 3 (Detransitioners Tell Their Stories)

Chapter 4 (What Makes Us a Man or a Woman)

Chapter 5 (Transgender Identity and Sex “Reassignment” [sic])

Chapter 6 (Childhood Dysphoria and Desistance)

[liturgyontheweekend]

The Final Sunday (February 3, 2013)

This was our final Sunday together as a church community. The music was a mix of throwback and new, as we celebrated our life together and hoped for God’s guidance in the future. It is hard to know how to create this kind of a service. I replaced the confession liturgy with one of thanksgiving, and one of our members beautifully read an amazing poem by Suzannah Paul. We (the musicians) left the front during the end of the last song, and joined the rest of the congregation as we sang a capella.

Here are songs and excerpts from spoken words.

Blessed Be Your Name

Blessed be your name, on the road marked with suffering. Though there’s pain in the offering, blessed be your name.

Blessed be the name of the Lord…

Here Are My Hands

Here are my eyes, they burn with memories. Here are my eyes, they’re teared and tired. Here are my feet, they’re slow, they’re slow, but Here are my feet, they’re stumbling to you now.

And God, I know there is still so much I just don’t know. But God, I believe your kingdom will still be built in me. So here is my heart, here is my soul; Take me in part, take me in whole.

We gather today for the last time as a church, but we are still the body of Christ. And God is building his kingdom in us and through us. We give thanks together now for the life we’ve had together. Please respond to each line with “Thanks be to God.”

Liturgy of Thanksgiving

For a vision of bringing hope and renovation to our city. For pastoral leadership of PS, JK, CW, ES, AP, and PH. For the Leadership Teams that have guided, nurtured, and led us through both growth and challenges. For the volunteers who have generously led space, kids, cafe, justice, and other ministries, arriving early, staying late, and dedicating themselves to our mission. For the spaces we have been blessed to meet in. For our parent denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church. For the healing that this place of sanctuary has brought to so many. For the sacramental life we have lived together through meals, song, confession, baptism, and communion. For the laughter, and joy that we have shared as a family. For the new life represented in so many babies and young children in our midst. For prayers both given and received, and the growth we have experienced here. For what we will carry with us into new places and new relationships in the body of Christ.

This song is a blast from the past; we used to sing it as a prayer for what we would be. Today we sing it again, still as the body of Christ, in prayer for our future. We still ask God to make each of us individually, and as part of wherever we end up, a sanctuary of grace and peace for our world.

Sanctuary

In a dry and barren land, you’ve called us to be A people who stand apart, a sanctuary…

Make us a sanctuary, where grace would overflow… Grant us true community where we’ll find A house of safety where there’s nothing to hide, Make us a sanctuary where we can be made whole.

All The Way My Savior Leads Me

All the way my Savior leads me Who have I to ask beside? How could I doubt his tender mercy, Who through life has been my guide? All the way my Savior leads me, Cheers each winding path I tread, Gives me grace for every trial, Feeds me with the living bread.

You carry me close to your heart. And surely, your goodness and mercy Will follow me.

Jesus, thank you for the life we have had together. As we leave this place, continue to lead us and guide us, as we remain salt and light in the world, carrying your message of hope, restoration, and love. Amen.

Before we close, Deanna is going to read a poem by a Twitter friend of mine, Suzannah Paul. It’s a beautiful challenge to us to hold fast to what is good and to lean on God’s faithfulness as we part ways.

Test Everything

We do not belong to the night nor shall we fear it Quench not this Spirit-fire, test it all: book and sermon feeling, message, proclamation Hold it up to the light of truth that maketh all things new

Be not afraid to wrestle, push Live the questions The will of God may not be plain (or same) for you and me

Creation groans, and Spirit births freedom; paths unique as hearts who hear His voice

The One who calls is faithful and he’ll do it: equip us to be joyful always, prayerful, to lift hearts brimful with thanks This is God’s good and pleasing, perfect will

In light of his great mercy, friends, we offer our own bodies on the altar of our lives, the worship of each breath sanctified

Let us be not conformed to any but Christ His truth has set us free like birds to flight Transformed, may thinking spark renewal, our minds first

We who are many are one Gifted and graced, we belong to one another in love sincere. Repentance springs from kindness most of all

Rejecting evil, we cling fast to all that’s good Honoring each other, we press on to practice hospitality, to bless and not to curse We are not overcome by evil but overcome evil with good

Children of the Light, love the day and Dayspring and each one as ourselves: beloved, transforming, and renewed

like the dawn of something better

Suzannah Paul

We close with a benediction in song. We’ll pass around a basket one last time for an offering; as you know, there are considerable legal costs involved with closing, and we ask you to continue to be generous in giving. Let’s join together in song; we sing these words to each other.

The Benediction

My friends, may you grow in grace And in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior.

To God be the glory, now and forever, Now and forever, Amen.

[liturgyontheweekend]

The Day We Voted to Close the Church (January 27, 2012)

This was a hard Sunday.

We voted after the service to close the church. Obviously I knew the vote was coming, and that it would likely be a vote to close. I wanted to talk and sing about grace and God’s guidance, and to write liturgy that gave people permission to express a wide range of feelings and emotions, including even anger. Here are the notes, song excerpts, and readings from the service.

The music and liturgy today encourage us to trust that our lives are in the hands of grace.

Song: Mighty to Save

Everyone needs compassion, love that’s never failing.

Song: Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)

And like a flood, his mercy rains; unending love, amazing grace.

Grace. Whether we always see it or not, grace is all around us. And grace is what we need to face an uncertain future. And even as we have fears and doubts about what comes next, grace is there.

We come to a time of confession. The confession we’re going to speak talks about our emotions in light of the potential closure of this church. I’ve said this before, but confession isn’t just saying we’re sorry. It is more about the present than the past. It’s laying bare what is; speaking, or bringing to mind, the truth about our lives. That doesn’t mean it isn’t scary sometimes, but it also makes it powerful. Things that grip us lose their power when they are brought to light.

So today we confess. These words we say together might be close to how many of us are feeling, based on conversations I’ve had with many of you recently; I think these words have representation in this room. On the other hand, some of you might not have felt some of these emotions at all, and that’s OK too. So there will also be a time of silence for you to reflect, to bring to mind, to confess.

And through it all, God promises that grace will be there.

Confession

God of grace,

When change is upon us, and old systems run their course, we confess we are conflicted.

Some of us are relieved, thankful that the work, having lost its joy, is finally over.

Some of us are angry, hurt by the actions, and by the inaction, of the community.

Some of us are saddened, that a future envisioned, and labored for, will not come to pass.

Some of us are disillusioned, unsure if the church, having become distant, can be home for us again.

We bring these emotions of relief, anger, sadness, and disillusionment.

We fall on your grace, and ask you to meet us here with rest, peace, joy, and hope.

Amen.

Assurance of Pardon

These words of assurance from the book of Romans tells us that grace always has the last word. Grace always wins.

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more!

Song: From the Depths

From the depths I cry, in the darkest night of my soul, for I know your light will still break through.

I will trust in your unfailing love, and rejoice my Savior has come.

Song: Be the Centre

Jesus, be our vision, be our path, be our guide, Jesus.

Jesus, grace incarnate, take away our fear, so that we can be real and human and honest before you, trusting that grace will always be one step ahead of us. Amen.

Solo: All The Way My Savior Leads Me

God’s grace has led us, and will continue to lead us, always a step ahead of our humanness, our frailty, our brokenness. As we close this time in song, let's offer ourselves and all that we have to the grace that promises renewal and restoration of all things.

Song: Everything Is New

My eyes have seen the glory of the coming Lord, it looks like God’s own feet walking along these floors.

My God, you move, and everything is new. The world is changed, never the same. The light has come, bearing your name. The dawn that’s breaking in the east shines upon the least of these, and soon, everything is new!

[liturgyontheweekend]

Transfiguration (January 20, 2013)

(We celebrated Transfiguration Sunday early this year. Today the leadership announced their recommendation that the church vote to close its doors. This was a difficult Sunday in many ways. The text and message of Transfiguration spoke to this part of our journey. Here are spoken notes, song excerpts, and congregational readings.)

Come Thou Fount

Here I raise to thee an altar, hither by thine help I'm come. And I hope, by thy good pleasure, safely to arrive at home.

God of Wonders

Early in the morning I will celebrate the light. When I stumble in the darkness, I will call your name by night.

Today is not Transfiguration Sunday, but we’re celebrating it early. The story, found in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, tells us that some of the disciples were with Jesus on a mountain, and they saw something amazing. We don’t know what they saw, exactly, but the text says Jesus was transfigured. Changed. Radiant. They saw him, somehow, in all his glory, along with Moses and Elijah.

I’ve talked before about what Celtic spirituality calls “thin places”; the Celts believed heaven and earth were three feet apart, but in places the distance was even less, and God could be glimpsed in these thin places. The Transfiguration is certainly one of these experiences for the disciples. And immediately, according to Mark and Luke’s telling of the story, they wanted to set up shop. To put up little buildings. To stay.

Now there’s a lot in this passage, and it’s going to be preached on later, but the angle I want to pull out for us right now is this idea of the disciples wanting to freeze a moment in time. It’s a natural reaction. But instead, there’s a voice from heaven saying “This is my Son. Listen to him.” This moment was a gift, but it wasn’t something to be idolized. It was helpful and necessary for their journey and their understanding of Jesus, and it changed them in some way. But it wasn’t repeated. It never happened again. Jesus didn’t allow the disciples to get stuck on this experience. They didn’t stay.

And that challenge is for us today also. Listen, change, and keep moving. Let’s read together words of confession and then spend a few moments in silence.

Confession

God,

In our best moments, we look for you: for glimpses of glory, for sparks of divinity, for the light of heaven.

Once in awhile, we are fortunate enough to find you, or rather, you bless us with the gift of heaven and earth coming together.

And yet we can so easily forget to keep going, forget that these times are markers on a journey, rather than arrivals. Forgive us.

Give us the perspective of pilgrimage, so that we can listen, and change, and keep going.

Help us hold loosely the temporary, the ephemeral, the earthly, and hold tightly to the whole journey of faith to which you call us.

Amen.

Assurance of Pardon

Hear the call of Transfiguration. Listen, change, and keep going, transforming the world through the love and mercy of God.

Hear these words as words of assurance, words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, spoken the night before he was assassinated.

“We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life…But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. And I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

Enchanted

This world is enchanted, Lean closely to see it. This world is enchanted, Dare to breathe it in. Oh God, Give us new eyes to see. Give us new skin to feel. Give us new lungs to breathe the wonder underneath. The faith of a mustard seed, A holy naivete, To swim in this mystery, we need to be free, Free to breathe it in. Born and born again.

God of Beauty

What kind of god is this, Who gives away more than he keeps? What kind of deity insists On drowning us in a sea of grace?

(The last song followed the recommendation to close. It needed to be uplifting, but also prayerful and reflective.)

We believe God is calling us to new places, new journeys. Calling us to move forward, strengthened and changed by the experiences we have had together. Let’s ask for God’s spirit to guide us.

Spirit Fall

Lord, be all that we can see, We ask for you to come; we are on our knees. Save us by your grace, lead us home. Spirit fall, hear the voices of your children call out to you. We bow down; heal the broken heart, Have mercy on us now. All glory, honor, power is yours, Amen.

[liturgyontheweekend]

Self-knowledge is dismissed as psychology, love as "feminine softness," critical thinking as disloyalty, while law, ritual, and priestcraft has become a compulsive substitute for actual divine encounter or honest relationship.

Richard Rohr, from Falling Upward

[liturgyontheweekend]

A Final Epiphany? (January 6, 2013)

Our lead pastor’s last week with us was last Sunday. This Sunday, Epiphany, we are a congregation uncertain of the future, questioning whether we should exist, and if so, what we should be. This is the first week in a long time that I’ve felt free and fully present in worship, for many reasons. I think all the parts of the service came together beautifully as we explored our own need for epiphany. Here is the song list, with some lyrics excerpted, and the liturgy and comments I wrote for the service.

Everlasting God

Strength will rise as we wait upon the Lord.

Marvelous Light

Death has lost its sting.

This year, Epiphany Sunday falls on the actual day of Epiphany, January 6. Christmas is actually a twelve-day feast, and yesterday was the 12th day. Is it “twelve drummers drumming”? We’ve got that song to remind us that there are twelve days of Christmas. And the Empire State Building remembered; it was still red and green last night. So we’re here, on Epiphany, the day after Christmas. Epiphany is about several things; the Western church associates it mainly with the visit of the Magi, or wise men, and it’s also associated with the Baptism of Jesus and even the wedding at Cana.

But the overall focus of Epiphany is the revelation of God to all people; the light appearing to all. So it’s an end of one thing, but it’s also a beginning. And I think that’s the meaning for me, and for us as a church, right now. An end and a beginning. Epiphany signals the end of the revelation of God being just for a select group of people, the Israelites. God blows the doors open, with even the Magi, who were pagan astrologers, being changed by the revelation. And for us here, it signals the end of many things about our church life, and the beginning of something we do not yet know. Today we’re talking about what it means to be church, and what we believe our part in the church body is. Let’s join in confession, recognizing that we have failed in some ways to be the church, and that we need God to enlighten us today as we move forward into an unknown future.

Confession

God of light,

In the choosing of Mary, a birth in a humble stable, a visit from unclean shepherds, and especially the gifts of the Magi, you demolished expectations of what your coming into the world would look like.

Today, we confess that we have expectations too: of church, of what it is, and what it is not, of our place in it, and of who else should participate in it.

We offer up our expectations and, in repentance, ask you to test them and bring light and renewal to them.

As we move into the future, one that is unknown and uncertain, bring your life, your peace, and your hope.

In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Assurance of Pardon

This might be about the end of the world, or it might be what God is saying to us today.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and God will dwell with them. They will be God’s people, and God will be with them and be their God. ‘God will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” The one who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!”

from Revelation 21

Everything Is New

My eyes have seen the glory of the coming Lord. It looks like streets restored after the vicious war... My eyes have seen the glory of the coming Lord. It looks like God’s own feet walking along these floors... My God, you move, and everything is new; the world is changed, never the same; the light has come bearing your name. The dawn that’s breaking in the east shines upon the least of these, and soon, everything is new.

Take My Life and Let It Be Consecrated

Take my life and let it be consecrated, Lord, to thee. Take my moments and my days: Let them flow in ceaseless praise.

God, take our lives. Take our expectations of life, of church, of you, and change them where they need to change. We want to bring your light, your kingdom, your renewal, into the world. Amen.

Church, as we join in beginning whatever it is God has for us, let’s declare together one of the historic confessions of faith, the Apostles’ Creed. Remember that the word “catholic” in the creed refers to the small-c meaning of the word; universal, not only Roman Catholic. The church has affirmed these core beliefs for centuries, and we join this historic stream in affirming them today.

Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

Amen.

Our closing song affirms our mission as the hands, feet, voice, and heart of God in the world.

Open Skies

Open skies and let your rain fall down on to this thirsty land; Holy Spirit, bathe us in your river, Let it rain... I will follow you, let me be your feet, bringing your good news. I will follow you, let me be your hands, touching broken hearts. I will follow you, let me be your voice, shouting out freedom. I will follow you, let me have your heart, healing to this world.

[liturgyontheweekend]

But our own "is that which we acquire without any rule" for love of it

from "We Will Endeavor", Dante Études, Book One, by Robert Duncan

[liturgyontheweekend]

Zacchaeus and Grace (October 14, 2012)

Our music and liturgy today is focused on the grace of God and the change that grace makes possible in us.

Your Grace Is Enough

Kindness

Today’s sermon was about the story of Zacchaeus. I love this story; it’s one of many examples in the Bible where grace comes first, where grace is the agent of change in the story. It’s really the only way it works; nobody responds very well to coercion, to force, to pressure. And if they do, it’s not joyful and voluntary, it’s grudgingly. Sitcom characters try to force people to fall in love with them, and though it can make for funny TV, it gets pretty creepy in real life. Instead, we respond to love, to someone wanting the true us, not a person selfishly wanting an idealized image of us, or wanting themselves WITH us. So it’s silly to expect repentance to work any differently; true change in our lives is only possible because of being moved by some way that we experience the love of God. So, knowing this, God doesn’t choose to be gracious because we say the right things, or make the right overtures, and God doesn’t withhold God’s love until we change our lives. We’ve been saying for awhile now that God doesn’t just love us, God likes us, God rejoices in us. In the story of Zacchaeus, Zacchaeus responds to Jesus’ grace, and this grace results in repentance and a changed life. In fact, in many changed lives. In the continued coming of the kingdom of God. Let’s confess together, and then continue for a few minutes in silent confession.

Confession

God,

We confess that we have things completely backward. Since we operate in human systems of punishment and reward, we ascribe that behavior to you, believing that if we say the right things, and take the right actions, you will love us and forgive us.

Help us to understand that we are powerless to change your mind about us, because you have already loved us and already forgiven us.

Help us to rest in your love and in your forgiveness so that we are free to repent, to change our minds, to live in the kingdom of God that is breaking into our lives and breaking forth in the world.

In Jesus’ name, Amen

Assurance of Pardon

The words of assurance this morning are brief; the Apostle Paul, in Romans, was convinced that God’s grace came first, and that God’s grace frees us to live changed lives in God’s new kingdom. Hear these words from the 5th chapter of Romans:

For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of God’s Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

Romans 5:10

Came to My Rescue

Everything is New

God, thank you that you gave grace before we knew we needed grace. That you loved us before we loved you. That you are reconciling all things to yourself. Continue to teach us today through the words we will hear and the love you are pouring out. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus

The Benediction

[liturgyontheweekend]

World Communion Sunday (October 7, 2012)

The music and liturgy today is focused on unity in Christ, in celebration of World Communion Sunday.

O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing

One of the things we’re talking about today is how the winds of both blessing and adversity blow on us all. We share a common human story of joy and pain. There’s a recent XKCD comic that says “I expected the world to be sad, and it was. I expected the world to be beautiful, and it was.” We share this common story. Today is World Communion Sunday, celebrated by churches around the world. Some churches call it the Eucharist, some call it Communion, some call it the Lord’s Supper. But whatever the name, this meal has been the great equalizer throughout church history, as so many other things have changed and diverged. It reminds us that in addition to sharing a common story of joy and pain, we share a common hope in this Table. Our confession this morning reminds us of our shared human story. Let’s confess together, recommitting to unity, in preparation for our time around the Table later today, as we celebrate Communion with the church around the world.

Confession

God,

We confess together our shared humanity: a story of separation, of heartbreak, of sin; and also a story of unity, of hope, of renewal.

Forgive us for the times when we live in the worst parts of this story.

Thank you for the Table, which honestly tells us both sides of the story: the bitterness of crucifixion— the height of injustice, and the hope of redemption— the height of grace.

May the bread which we together eat, and the cup which we together drink, be a participation in our shared story of sin, grace, and renewal.

Amen.

Assurance of Pardon

Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

(from 1 Corinthians 12)

Sing to Jesus

There’s a Table

God, we thank you for the Table, that reminds us of our common, shared, human story, and your grace which extends to all. Help us live in the story of that grace. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Let’s respond to what we’ve heard today, giving thanks to God that no matter our circumstances, God’s love and grace are poured out on us, and we can choose to worship in the midst of whatever story we find ourselves in. (It’s only grace that makes that possible.)

Blessed Be Your Name

[liturgyontheweekend]

I'm Back! September 16, 2012

All Creatures of Our God and King (Traditional)

God of Beauty (Solomon's Porch)

We’re here, from all sorts of places in life, all kinds of weeks, all kinds of mental states. And God’s here, offering overwhelming grace and love. We just sung about the beauty of creation, telling us of God’s goodness. We don’t often expect the lovely, the gracious, in life. But sometimes we get caught off-guard by something lovely, and it pricks us. Like seeing a flower growing out of cracks in a city sidewalk. Or when we’re really expecting a tough time, like the DMV, or Time Warner customer service, and we get immediate understanding and kindness instead. It’s disarming, right? I think it’s like that with God, too. We’ve been trained to think that God’s watching our every move, waiting to jump on us and punish us. But God’s not like that. Today I want us to experience a bit of the disarming that happens when we get a glimpse of what God’s really like, just like when the person at the DMV says “Sure, no problem, sir!” Maybe, just maybe, next time I’ll walk into the DMV a little less combative, and a little more like Jesus.

We come to a time of corporate confession. We need love. To give it, and to experience it. But we live in a way that makes that difficult. We take the defensive posture, the self-protective posture. We live in a way that makes it difficult to receive love from others, and consequently, from God. We need to repent; that is, to think differently. To choose to live in a way that opens us up to seeing the lovely, the gracious, the beautiful all around us. In other people. In the world. And to choose to live in a way that opens us up to seeing God’s grace and love being poured out on us. Let’s read together and then spend a few minutes in silent confession.

Confession

God,

We confess that we often expect the worst from life, and sometimes with good reason.

We are hardened by the relentless dehumanization we see all around us, and we miss out on the beauty and wonder of the world.

And God, we also shut ourselves off from receiving your love.

Forgive us for our callous hearts, for our defensive posture, for our sharp tongues.

Cause our hard hearts to soften; Lower our crossed arms; Put new words in our mouths.

Flood us with mercy; Drown us in grace; Overwhelm us with love.

Amen.

Assurance of Pardon

The words of assurance today are words of exhortation as well. Jesus is talking to his disciples, assuring them of his love and asking them to love people. He is causing them to change their minds, by calling them friends, rather than servants. Only in thinking differently about themselves are they able to understand Jesus’ love and offer that love to others:

“My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business.

Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit— fruit that will last— and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. This is my command: Love each other. (from John 16)

Enchanted (Niequist)

Make Your Home in Me (Vineyard)

God, you continually tell us of your love, through creation, through scripture, through each other. And we want to receive it. Help us to get that glimpse, today, and allow ourselves to be disarmed by it. Bring us to a greater understanding of the depth of your compassion, grace, and mercy. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

We’ve tasted, we’ve seen, we’ve experienced God’s love. And God will give us the chance this week to give that love to those around us, if we just look for those opportunities. Let’s respond in song, affirming the love that God has shown to us.

How Can I Keep from Singing (Tomlin)